Preserved Topic: Socialism & Tax Slavery (Page 1 of 1)

I am not an expert, and most of the time I post in this forum in a moderately informal manner, sometimes with sarcasm and my miserable attempts at humor which always seem to offend (see "militant lesbian" ). In this case, I am dropping that pretense, because I feel this topic is of a very high importance that people need to consider. Whether anyone is willing to listen or not remains to be seen, but I would like to think there are people lurking out there who may not be as inflexible as the regular posters who have staunchly opposed the things I say.

As I said, I am not an expert on the subject, and never pretended to be, but I have read quite a few books on the matter which I have found very valuable and more importantly an educational experience. Read Ludwig von Mises, specifically Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. He was the economist who turned me around.

And if he doesn?t enlighten you to the failures of Socialism, well...there is always history. Of course, the Socialist governments of the past which transformed eventually into communism and fascist dictatorships can all be blamed on the ?power-hungry? leaders, but are we that arrogant a species to truly believe that we have learned from history or can circumvent the obvious outcomes of past socialist governments? We haven?t learned a damn thing from our past mistakes; on the contrary, we keep repeating them. Are we willing to take that road, and that risk once again? I don?t think we should, because there are plenty of power hungry people still out there who will do and say anything to get the people on their side, only to turn on them the second they no longer need them.

When referring to past mistakes, I am talking about things like letting Hitler get to the point he did. That was a mistake was it not? Well, why should we have taken the chance of letting Saddam Hussein or terrorist organizations reach that same level? Setting the improvable and many times ridiculous conspiracy theories aside (Blood for Oil), there was a wrong in the world which we were willing to fix. And what do we get for that? Nothing but ridicule and hatred from self-righteous ignorants.

There is so much information on the faults of socialism I hardly know where to begin.

First, I think there is a large gap between the ideals of the American people and the ideals of the Europeans regarding politics, although in recent years this gap is shrinking, much to the delight of our European neighbors and our Democratic ?friends.? In any case, none of those differences go so deep as our opposing concepts of freedom.

For Europeans - not including the Brits, who are more like us than they sometimes find comfortable - "freedom" means freedom from things: from social and economic danger, from workplace insecurity and personal accountability, from too much competition in the marketplace or too much scrutiny of governing elites.

Socialism, a dogma born in Europe, has very deep roots. The group takes priority over the individual. The European social contract amounts to this: We will not let the talented rise too high, and we will not let the slothful fall too low. "Equality" doesn't mean equal opportunities, but equal limitations.

For Americans, freedom means (or meant at one time) the freedom to do: To make our own way, to struggle, achieve, to ascend (to climb social, educational or economic ladders), to move beyond our parents' lot in life and give our children better opportunities still.

We are products of the immigrant spirit and the pioneer mindset. Our ancestors (as well as today's new immigrants) dared to take a chance, instead of remaining in the "old country," with its degrading social and economic systems.

Europeans are content with "every man a servant," as long as the terms of service are not too severe and the position comes with job security. Hitler did not cement his hold on power with anti-Semitism (that was an add-on) but with works projects, with jobs for Germans, with a promise of economic security, however low the level.

The Bolsheviks never preached liberty. Their credo was the nanny state, a "fair share" for the workers and the promise that decisions would be made "for the good of all."

We lift up the individual; Europeans worship the collective. We dream. Europeans fear. Indeed, the only belief that has falsely pronounced dead more often than religion is the American dream. Professors write its obituary almost daily. The rest of us live it.

Life isn't fair, of course. But too much imposed "fairness" robs life of its vitality. We Americans have had the benefit of living in the one country where each of us, regardless of race or religion, have the chances to realize our potential. Reaching that potential is up to us. But our laws and our culture don't stand in our way, for the time being at least...

Strategically, Europe is in danger of becoming the greatest obstruction to affirmative change in the world. Europe clings to the worldwide status quo, no matter how horrible (see Iraq, Terrorism), simply because risk has been bred out of its culture. This leaves the United States (and Britain) with the choice of doing that which is necessary and just without Europe's support, or accepting the rules that made the 20th century history's bloodiest.

And so it comes to pass that, as America seeks to change the world for the better, Europeans are content to let dictators thrive and populations suffer, so long as Europe's slumber is not disturbed. Look at the recent reaction to the train bombing in Spain. Not only was the focus of blame shifted from the actual perpetrators of this horrendous crime and set down on the US, but has appeared to confirm the mentality of appeasement. ?If we ignore them they will leave us alone.? It just doesn?t happen that way in reality.

Europeans are correct when they insist that America has become a danger. We are, indeed, a tremendous threat to their self-satisfaction, to their dread of change, to their moral capriciousness and to their comatose, state-supported cultures.

Our ancestors chose a new kind of human freedom. Europeans have resisted it ever since.

When Lenin took power of Russia in 1918, his aspiration was to replace the market economy with government control of prices, wages and industry. Lenin said he would rather have the people of Russia starve than permit a private market in grain, and of course millions of them did starve for precisely that reason. The Soviet dream came to a disastrous end: famine, shortages, a lack of everything needed for life from food and freedom to employment and opportunity.

A welfare state is a slave state. The slaves are the productive citizens whose taxes are used to support the unproductive. The beneficiaries are simply the politicians who take the money from the productive people and use it to buy the votes of the unproductive. Take long enough and the productive will eventually become unproductive, why be anything else? This is the point I have been trying to get across all along. You cannot rob Peter (the productive) to pay Paul (the unproductive) and have a fruitful society.

The first step in persuading people to accept this form of slavery is to blur the distinction between charity and government programs. Charity is voluntary. Government programs are coercive.

If you wish, as an act of kindness, to pay for someone else's child care that is charity. When the government taxes you to pay for someone else's child care that is coercion. You are given no choice (except, of course, to pay your taxes or go to jail).

More people should ask themselves if it is fair that they should be penalized for working hard and providing for themselves and their families. Is it fair for a person who works hard to provide health insurance for their family to be forced to provide free health care for others whose only qualification is that they don't work so hard? Is it fair to a single mom working hard to pay for her child's day care to take part of her earnings to pay for the day care of other people's children? Is it fair for families who struggle and save to finance their children's education to be taxed to provide free education to others?

The answer is no. Anyone who claims otherwise is nothing but an advocate for slavery.

A welfare state is not fair or just. It is frankly robbing the productive to provide the money to buy the votes of the unproductive. That's why the original founders of this country did not consider that government had any role at all to play in charity. You can read the Constitution from beginning to end and you will not find one single word that authorizes Congress or the president to take money from the American people and give it to people the politicians wish to benefit, either domestic or foreign.

It may even surprise you to know that for most of the nation's history, the government did not do so. Social needs were left to the families and the churches. It was Franklin Roosevelt who first hazed the distinction between rights and economic benefits (see ?New Deal? programs). No one has a "right" to any economic benefit provided at another's expense.

Today when you hear politicians and journalists talk about filling or meeting "needs," you should immediately ask the question: whose needs and at whose expense shall these needs be met? Don't make the mistake of saying, "at the government's expense." The government has no money at all except that which it takes from its productive citizens in the form of taxes.

When these socialist mugs say the "government should," just automatically translate that in your mind as "the government will force me to" do whatever. The government does not pay for any of these public benefits. You do. And you are made the poorer because income you have earned with your labor is taken away from you and your family and spent by others on others.

Communism, Socialism, Marxism, call them what you will, but in the end they all lead to the same inhumane objectives. Slavery by taxation and control. You think communism is dead just because the USSR has dissolved, think again. Take a look at what your government is doing today.

Notice I am not singling out the Democrats, the truth is that the Republicans are nearly just as guilty as their opposing party. Bush is spending like there is no tomorrow. As I said in an earlier post, it is simply making a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I hope at least a handful of people might read this with an open mind.

On your challenge from the previous thread MW, why should I bother? In reality that is a less significant piece of the puzzle when discussing the dangers of socialism, and are hugely overshadowed by the points I convey above.

Ramasax

Ramasax:

Let me guess......Have you been reading Ann Rand again?

There will always be those in any society who are smarter, or more gifted or stronger. But one of the the basic ideas of civilization is that we all reap the benefits of sticking together, safety in numbers, a constant stable marketplace. And sticking together means that the strong help the weak, the bright guide the dim, it means that that we each give to society according to our ability.

If you are going to be a Chief, doesn't it make sense to keep the rest of the tribe as well feed as possible? So then you make Joe, who is a really good hunter give a large portion of his game to the less skilled in the tribe, so that all will remain strong and able to defend the village. And make Sally, who knows the power of each and every herb, distribute her medicine to those who need it, not just to those who can give her the most gold. That way the pox won't get out of control and wipe out the entire village.

And what do you do with Norm, the village idiot? Why, you keep him around to amuse everyone with his simplistic view of the world. After all, laughing people are happy people, and happy people tend to be more productive.

Now that you have instituted these policies , your village is strong, healthy and productive. This means you are now a very powerful Chief. I believe this is known as enlightened self interest, the basis of all sound policy.

norm: Your words describe my thoughts way better than I could have done it myself.

quote:

---

So then you make Joe...

---

and

quote:

---

And make Sally...

---

What if Joe and Sally have this little concept of freedom that they value? Maybe they don't want you, norm and poi and whoever runs the governement, making them behave according to your values. There should be nothing standing in the way of Joe and Sally voluntarily supporting the tribe and they just might do that out of enlightened self interest.

norm, you probably didn't expect to so clearly demonstrate the problems with socialistic thought with your reply but you have nailed it right on the head. It seeks to make people be good. Let's face it, we are talking about different concepts of "freedom" here.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Yep, that little word "make" is very problematic.

I prefer that we have a system in which we can barter for goods, and those who act unfairly in their bartering get bludgeoned with shovels untuil their dead bodies are unrecognizable.

=)

What about Johnny, who's a master fine jeweler - who works with precious stones? Or Gary, who's a fabulous engineer, at least when it comes to luxurious sports cars. Such skilled workers, but they don't benefit the well being of the collective, so I suppose they'll just have to work for the king, welcome back to 18th century France! All those lost lives for nothing...

If we allow a central government to erode individual freedoms, what we create is marginalization.
If we trade freedom for equality, we end up losing both.

The fundamental principle of a free society, is that everyone is free to do actions which they feel benefit the causes they believe in, not necessarily the causes that are best for everyone else. Freedom is unlimited to the point where your actions limit the freedom of another, and at this point is where we create laws. This can be the only point at which we create laws, and all created laws that do not protect the unlimited freedoms of the citizens must be repealed.

DL-44:

Ouch! Under your system people like me, who sometimes miscount when making change would lead a short and painful existence.


Bugimus:

Yes Bugs, governments make people do stuff. I'm pretty sure that is one of the main functions of any form of government. Of course a wise Chief will not treat people like prisoners, but will make it clear that if they don't agree to live by the rules they must find somewhere else to hangout. As a matter of fact I believe that is the way things are handled in Kindergarten, where we all learn the truly important things in life.

Now if you will excuse me, it's time for grahmcrackers, milk, and a nap........

My god Ramasax just how old are you? You sound very much like an inlaw who died a few years back at age 98 who for the last, at least, 50 years of his life lamented the passing of " the good old days. "

quote:

---

I hope at least a handful of people might read this with an open mind.

---

Yes I did and concluded that yours is pretty much closed and to quote Tom Waits "colder than a well-diggers ass."

We do agree however on a few points.. that Democrats and Republicans (left & right - your country & mine, Canada & other so-called democracies also) just can't seem to get it right. At least imo. We differ greatly however on so many other things it's hard to know where to start..but I'll begin with Health Care.

If someone has to spend - sell - loose everything and find themselves living in a car in order to pay for medical services there is something very very wrong with such a system. But wait you say... let them purchase medical insurance just like I do. And if they don't earn enough; you say... work harder..get a 2nd job, if necessary a 3rd. The '..if I did it' premise assumes far too much imo. That should I have more money than you I can get to the head of the line is nothing more than big time bullying. "My daddy;s richer than yours... nah-nah-nah-nahnah I go to the front of the line ...nah-nah-nah-nahnah"

Go to the head of the line all you like for all the 'material' things you think you must have. But the thought that the life and medical needs of the affluent is somehow more worthy of attention than those of lesser means is to me, at the very least, repulsive and clearly is bullying.
I'm not naive... the 'monied' have always found a way spend their way out...and will continue to do so long after we're dead and gone. Doesn't make it right. There has to be a better way.

Oh... and about that medical insurance you have... the reason your premiums are what they are (low or high) is the purchasing power of a 'collective' a 'co-operative'.... my god Rams you're involved in a communist plot..get out while you can man. ;p

quote:

---

Communism, Socialism, Marxism, call them what you will, but in the end they all lead to the same inhumane objectives. Slavery by taxation and control.

---

Do you by chance have a picture of Senator McCarthy in your wallet? =)

I've never really understood this apparent paranoia many Americans seem to have with those 3 'isms.' You should, imo, be far more concerned with another 'ism' because it sure seems to be knocking on your front door AND mine. But yours is louder. =) but only in some areas.

quote:

---

fas·cism n.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

---

dictionary.com

Not too far off wouldn't you say? And hey... it's moving that way up here too. Face it.. we both, every 4 years or so elect dictators. And if you weren't aware, our Prime Minister, and it's not a good thing... has waaaay more power than your President. On the other hand our PM has to face the opposition in the House of Commons and take on all comers. Your President doesn't have to talk to anyone if he doesn't want to.

quote:

---

You think communism is dead just because the USSR has dissolved, think again.
Take a look at what your government is doing today.

---

That Patriot Act you have, imo, is the greatest threat there is to the 'freedom' so cherished. And guess what...the Canadian equivalent (can't remember what we call it) is in many ways even more onerous. Regardless, both have the power to strip away every and any - rights, privlidges or liberties we enjoy in our respective Constitutions/Bill of Rights. Very regretably the public, in ignorance apparently.. has bought the 'marketing' that these 'acts' are for our own protection and security.

I'm fond of Ben Franklin when it comes to this.

quote:

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

---

Another appropriate Quote from Tom Waits "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
This is not a case of 'well ok NJ what would you do instead to counter these terrorists'... or '..well if you have nothing to hide what are you afraid of?' We should very much ' be afraid' of what these and similar 'acts' actually ALLOW - PERMIT- and GRANT because it won't be long before these 'acts' are used to putdown your garden variety 'civil disobedience' ..I'm not talking anarchists. That I will live to see this I have no doubt.

Anybody still here? <lol>

Ahh yes one more 'ism.' Capitalism. My wife and I whenever possible barter. Stained Glass for a wood floor...computer work for firewood... or soil. That sort of thing. Surplus 'cash' is a rare commodity in this house. =)

Ohhh.... nearly forgot to share with you my conspiracy theory on the so-called 'war on drugs' and why, by design it is not and will not - ever ever be won. It could be [won] by legalizing the stuff but you know what that would mean doncha...removing 'profits.' Well heaven forbid that a capitalistic society remove the profit from anything. So while billions of dollars are spent... and as long as the war is 'seen' to go on... all that really matters is that one, some, many capitalists somewhere are making a profit. Ergo: All drug dealers are republicans. =)

Good night!
NJ



[This message has been edited by NoJive (edited 03-30-2004).]

Ram - I found much of your post dizzying. Some good points were tossed in here and there, but most of those were over trodden by self righteous, half-informed, melodramatic rhetoric.

quote:

---

The answer is no. Anyone who claims otherwise is nothing but an advocate for slavery.

---

That has got to be one of the most melodramatic exagerated statements I've ever heard.

I have very often warned of the dangers in our society that might lead us into the typical historical socialist state.

What you have posted sounds like nothing but regurgitated rhetoric which has stuck in your head without the benefit of any real thought or analysis. I can't buy this as being your own thoughts.

Your little splashes of "history" paint with far too broad a brush to even be debatable.

I think you would benefit greatly from researching some of the points yo ubring up, as opposed to just spitting them out because you read the point in a book. Regurgitating someone else's paragraph summary of history doesn't amount to anything...

Ramasax
You broadly paint taxation, gov't programs, etc as slavery by taxation, socialism, etc.

How far do you take this thought? (I'm not trying to be a smartass, but trying to instegate good, maybe a bit heated, but productive debate.)

I would argue that it is in the national interest to have an educated populace. Some people (typically older people whose children have already left school...) would argue with me. They would say school taxes are a useless burden and should not be collected. Or, maybe, only those who have kids should have to pay for schools.

I would argue that it is in the national interest to have an interstate road system. It is a vital piece of both military and commercial policy. The building and maintenance of those roads costs money -- tax money. Some would say that only those who use roads should have to pay for them...maybe through tolls or petrol tax or some other way.

I would argue that it is in the national interest to have an initiative to explore -- now it happens to be space. Some would say, if humans wanted to go to the moon, somebody should make a competitive industry. NASA should not be funded with tax dollars.

At what point is taxation 'slavery' and at what point is it sacrifice for 'national interest'?

Very well stated.

That is, of course, the problem with anything - where do you draw the line?

At what point do we stop being a nation, and become a lawless society where only the individual matters, might becomes right, etc.

At what point does the freedom of one person infringe on the freedom of others?

I also have a hard time reconciling your different views, Ramasax. On the one hand, you want the freedom of the individual over the collective. On the other hand, you want to ban the freedom of homosexuals to wed, because it's not inline with your conformist view of what "marriage" should be.

Ok, I am a bit busy this week, and there is quite a bit to respond to. Just letting you all know this closed-minded regurgitater shall retort soon.

Ramasax

Semi-socialist here (I normally vote NDP in Canada). I don't mind paying taxes for services that benefit society - health care, welfare, and general social services. I would not want to live in a society that does not protect people. I don't feel like a tax slave at all. Sure, I selfishly wish I had that 'tax' money to spend on myself but in the interests of strong community and social care applied equally to all, I'm happy to give it up.

quote:

---

Life isn't fair, of course. But too much imposed "fairness" robs life of its vitality. We Americans have had the benefit of living in the one country where each of us, regardless of race or religion, have the chances to realize our potential. Reaching that potential is up to us. But our laws and our culture don't stand in our way, for the time being at least...

---

Only in America, eh? Give me a break...

I read the rest of your OP and I disagree with just about everything you said. Life shouldn't be all about "me, me, me" and that's what I get from your writing. To each his own



Amerasu

There's nothing "semi" socialist about the NDP. The problem isn't that you're willing to pay your money to help people. That's great and you should be commended for it. The problem is that you're willing to say other people should be forced to pay theirs, and that people should be treated differently based solely on how much they make. That's the complete opposite of a free society.

Healthcare for every Canadian would cost only a fraction of what our government spends on it, if they didn't pay middle-men to spend the tax money - If the citizens really wanted health care, what makes you think they wouldn't spend their own money on it, in non-government form, if they didn't have to pay taxes? If not through taxes, there wasn't enough people willing to spend their own money on national healthcare to support the program, then maybe the people of Canada really don't want this type of healthcare. How can you possibly say it's in the nations best interest? We're not a country that's supposed to be controlled by interest groups, rich or poor.

I'm not suggesting we eliminate taxes outright. But they can be reduced much further. As a society we should look to the people to be able to self-govern and to make important decisions for themselves, and look to the government to keep the people safe, informed, and free.

I'm voting for myself in the next Canadian election (and in the unlikely situation other people vote for me as well [which is extremely low as I likely wont be on the ballot], my vote in the house of commons would go to Jean-Serge Brisson and the Libertarian party). It's a sad testament to our Country when a party of the racists and the corrupt/greedy (Canadian Conservative's) is the least terrible of the major four political parties, and I don't want to be a part of it.

If there's one thing a gov't should provide its citizens' via taxes it should, imo, be health care at a 'reasonable' out of pocket expense to those same taxpayers. Next to 'education' I can't think of anything more critical to the well being of 'any' society. With the possible exception of free beer of course. =)

I said I'm a semi-socialist. I identify most with the NDP but will change my vote to Liberal (yuck) if the Conservatives (even worse) make enough gains to challenge the Liberals at the Federal level.

Yes, I certainly do advocate that we all pay a share (based on income) of society's costs through taxes, whether we want to or not. Not an individualists view I'm well aware and one that some people do not share.

Healthcare - I agree that cutting out some middlemen and overhauling the system would be a good thing. I don't claim Canadian healthcare is in an excellent state but I do believe that privatization of our system isn't the answer and will benefit the rich over the poor. I can't imagine how it could be any other way with privatization and think it's naive to believe otherwise. Maybe you don't believe otherwise and perhaps even think the rich are entitiled to better care if they can pay for it. Some people do. I just find this view to be a bit heartless myself. However, I don't know what current polls say about what Canadians want - a govt funded system, privatizion or a combination. If the majority support some sort of privatization then I believe we're obligated to look into it, yes. Although I definitely wouldn't agree with a healthcare system that benefits those who have more money or better insurance coverage.

In regard to more self-government ...well, sure. I think the Libertarian view is enlightened in some ways but I don't think we're there yet as a society.

I do actually understand why conservatives hold these views and I even agree with them to a certain extent (in theory). But when it comes to the crunch, I'm a bleeding heart who hates to see disadvantaged/poor people left behind.



Amerasu

quote:

---

I do actually understand why conservatives hold these views and I even agree with them to a certain extent (in theory). But when it comes to the crunch, I'm a bleeding heart who hates to see disadvantaged/poor people left behind.

---

First off, from my viewpoint, it is not all about me, me, me. I guess I was not precise enough in my post to clarify why I think the free way will benefit everyone. I'll try and do better next time, promise.

Anyways, while I can certainly feel you on the bleeding heart (beleive it or not, I am one of those people, I just have a vastly different idea of how to help them). Sometimes you have to use a little tactic called tough love. Handouts are not going to make the poor people any better off, but worse off and dependant. Sometimes people just need to bite the bullet and come to the realization that they are in full control of their lives and can make whatever they want of themselves if only they would try. A welfare state does not work. A country cannot tax itself into prosperity.

There are plenty of charities out there which would be willing to spend your money in a much more lucrative and economically wise fashion than political attention-getters. Government is inefficient with the money it collects because those who spend it are simply buying votes and could care less about the lot of us. And get this, with charities you can even decide and tell them where and to whom you wish that money to go. See the difference, one involves choice, one involves coercion. If more people were given the choice it is my belief that we would be pleasantly surprised at the outcome. Government is not willing to give us that chance, that freedom. Of course, all garbage to you I'm sure.

DL: Criticisms noted. About this gay marriage/close-minded thing. You are right, and after much thought and deliberation on the subject here is what I have to say.

Just because I don?t like the idea of gay marriage, I do realize that they are free people as well, and if they are allowed, I will tolerate it. Toleration mean being able to put up with something, not accept it. I don?t think the government should be involved in this in the first place, and have recently learned the evils of doing so.

So...my new stance on gay marriage, it?s none of my damn business. I don?t have to like it, but to live in a truly free society I must learn to tolerate it. Because for one to be free, we must all be free, even those we despise. Of course, this isn't a free society, but to live up to my own personal ideals, live and let live I suppose.

quote:

---

Mobrul: At what point is taxation 'slavery' and at what point is it sacrifice for 'national interest'?

---

Whose national interest? The government at times has a very twisted view of this "national interest" thing. To each his own of course. You like slavery then more power to ya. I simply think the people can do a lot more good with their money than the US government can. Once again, freedom/choice vs. coercion/non-choice. I am very surprised at how many people feel this way. Once again, to each his own. Maybe someday you socialists will have the utopia you dream of and all us freedom lovers will have ours. Let's hope we can coexist peacefully. I just hope we don't have to come bail you out every time a fascist dictator assumes control.

Ramasax



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 04-08-2004).]

I will agree wholeheartedly that there have been huge flaws with the welfare system.

I disagree wholeheartedly that the solution is to do away with any kind of welfare program.

I agree that many government agencies and officials do horrendous job of efficiently using the funds alotted to them/ their cause. I would again disagree that the solution is to cut the programs.

I will agree that portions of our governmental systems fall under the faint shadow of socialism. But the extreme to which you take the accusation is silly. Money seems to be your only interest when you speak of this.

The far more frightening things in society, things which will lead to the totalitarian form of socialism you refer to are the laws which limit our personal freedoms. Things like the patriot act, things like the extreme to which censorship is being taken at the moment.

To equate taxation with slavery belittles the horror of what slavery really is. To equate the use of tax dollars to fund welfare to a totalitarian socialist society is to belittle the horrors that have occured in such societies.

The fact of the matter is, we are - whether we like it or not - a collective. Each person benefits from this collective in one way or another. Each person must contribute to the collective in one way or another.

Is this the ideal? No. In the ideal we would have no national borders, no need for a government, or a military, or tax system.

But there is no longer a wide open countryside where a person can stake out a piece of land to be their own and not be bothered. The enitre planet is carved up, zoned, labeled, and appraised.

We are stuck in this country together, and must - on some level - act as a collective if we wish to preserve the freedom and privelege that we do have.

^ Amen. Well said DL.