danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (12/05/84)
[] > A good analogy would be: the government is to society as the skeleton > is to the body. It provides security and order, and makes it easier for > social interactions to occur. ... At the very least, the government > provides security from foreign aggression, which could never be > provided in an anarchistic society. It we are to use biological analogy, I propose the following: The relationship of society to government is the same as the relationship of a healthy body to a CANCER. A cancer differs from a benign tumor in that it not only grows without limit, but most important of all, it has the ability to plug itself into the host's blood supply and feed its limitless growth . People cry out their perpetual tale of woe "Oh, its awful. The government is buying atomic bombs , giving to the undeserving and allowing the rich to prosper , etc. etc. " I'll tell you what is the most terrible thing the government can do with your tax money: HIRE A NEW TAX COLECTOR. Any government that is allowed to use force to collect taxes (and don't they all) AND is allowed to hire more tax collecters with that money, HAS created a socio-economic cancer. Historically the process ends with food riots, massive loss of life, and a new government. The process repeats itself endlessly. All this would be impossible, were it not for the fact, that the cycle normally takes longer than 1 human lifetime , to complete. This gives politicians time to convince the necessary plurality that the present moment is unique in time , and history need not be consulted. danw
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/08/84)
> It we are to use biological analogy, I propose the following: > > The relationship of society to government is the same as the > relationship of a healthy body to a CANCER. > > A cancer differs from a benign tumor in that it not only grows without > limit, but most important of all, it has the ability to plug itself > into the host's blood supply and feed its limitless growth . > > People cry out their perpetual tale of woe "Oh, its awful. The government > is buying atomic bombs , giving to the undeserving and allowing the rich to > prosper , etc. etc. " > > I'll tell you what is the most terrible thing the government can do with > your tax money: HIRE A NEW TAX COLECTOR. > Any government that is allowed to use force to collect taxes (and don't > they all) AND is allowed to hire more tax collecters with that money, > HAS created a socio-economic cancer. > > Historically the process ends with food riots, massive loss of > life, and a new government. The process repeats itself endlessly. It has been a long time since there has been a revolution in the US. Perhaps our form of government is much more benevolent than most... I wish I had never made the analogy -- it leads people to say things like "No, it's more like getting shot in the head and burned." As for your assertions that government always grows without limit and destroys society, we will see if Reagan is successful this year in proving you wrong (at least about growing like a cancer). Wayne
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (12/10/84)
> > A cancer differs from a benign tumor in that it not only grows without > > limit, but most important of all, it has the ability to plug itself > > into the host's blood supply and feed its limitless growth . > > > > Historically the process ends with food riots, massive loss of > > life, and a new government. The process repeats itself endlessly. > > It has been a long time since there has been a revolution in the US. Perhaps > our form of government is much more benevolent than most... I wish I had We managed to avert a revolution in the US for so long because the level of taxation was low for much of our history. But in the 20th century the trend was and is upward: % of GNP Federal All Govt. 1940 10.0 -not available- 1950 16.1 24.5 1960 18.5 29.8 1970 20.5 33.9 1976 18.9 36.7 1984 25.1 -not available- Decide what your personal tax revolt point is -- 50%, 60%, 90%, and figure out when those trends get there. Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/12/84)
> We managed to avert a revolution in the US for so long because the level > of taxation was low for much of our history. But in the 20th century > the trend was and is upward: > % of GNP > Federal All Govt. > 1940 10.0 -not available- > 1950 16.1 24.5 > 1960 18.5 29.8 > 1970 20.5 33.9 > 1976 18.9 36.7 > 1984 25.1 -not available- > > Decide what your personal tax revolt point is -- 50%, 60%, 90%, and > figure out when those trends get there. I guess that as always, people's foremost concern is their pocketbooks. I think it's too bad that the biggest threat to domestic stability now seems to be high taxation, but that's human nature. What you have to ask yourself is what the best way to reduce taxes is. Lately illegal means of avoiding taxation have become very popular, such as quoting the 5th amendment as justification for not filling out tax forms, mail- order ordinations that let people claim religous exemptions, and in a few cases violent resistance. I would think that in America people could find more reasonable ways to reduce taxation, like through political action. Many of the proposals that libertarians have brought up (short of disbanding the government entirely, of course) would certainly reduce taxes, and I hope that Reagan is able to push through his tax reform programs in the next few years. Violent rebellion, though, is not the answer. Wayne
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/13/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:45 pm Dec 10, 1984 */ > Any government that is allowed to use force to collect taxes (and don't > they all) AND is allowed to hire more tax collecters with that money, > HAS created a socio-economic cancer. > > Historically the process ends with food riots, massive loss of > life, and a new government. The process repeats itself endlessly. It has been a long time since there has been a revolution in the US. Wayne /* ---------- */ Yes, it's been a long time. But we've only had an income tax system for 70 years (give or take a few). That's the number you have to look at. <mike
kel@ea.UUCP (12/26/84)
I don't think it's 'too bad' that the most likely motivation for a revolt is taxation. What a person's pocketbook represents to him is survival. Those of us who are in this business usually make enough to lose recognition of the fact, but for most people, a tax increase means having to go without. For computer types, and for the rest of those who may be categorized as 'labor aristocracy', taxes are a nuisance. For the people who don't have what they need, tax is the difference between an empty cupboard and an empty belly. <ken
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/31/84)
>I don't think it's 'too bad' that the most likely motivation >for a revolt is taxation. What a person's pocketbook represents >to him is survival. Those of us who are in this business >usually make enough to lose recognition of the fact, but >for most people, a tax increase means having to go without. >For computer types, and for the rest of those who may be >categorized as 'labor aristocracy', taxes are a nuisance. >For the people who don't have what they need, tax is the >difference between an empty cupboard and an empty belly. > > <ken I quite agree. If taxes are too low, the poor will have both empty cupboards and empty bellies. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/09/85)
> > > I don't think it's 'too bad' that the most likely motivation > for a revolt is taxation. What a person's pocketbook represents > to him is survival. Those of us who are in this business > usually make enough to lose recognition of the fact, but > for most people, a tax increase means having to go without. > For computer types, and for the rest of those who may be > categorized as 'labor aristocracy', taxes are a nuisance. > For the people who don't have what they need, tax is the > difference between an empty cupboard and an empty belly. > > <ken I carry a wallet. -- and