(The next question is, why do you?)

I sometimes feel that the main problem is not in the Socialism/Capitalism, but in the way democracy is practiced in these times.

What we have is professional politicians and dynasties of politicians. These are the people that usually have little of the problems that trouble us regular people (and these problems usually can be expressed in terms of money problems) - and as such, they are not very interested in solving such problems, or even improving the standard of the people, because they are not anymore part of the people - they are now "elite" that governs the people.

I would like to have a government of (more) ordinary people, people that when their term is up, will return to what they were doing before being in the government (that being payed job or whatever).

Does that make any sense? Sorry, but English is not my native language, so I had difficulty expressing my thoughts in above mail.

@TheGostMaker

I remember reading some articles about student loans being a problem in a way that they turn students into debt slaves. I didn't find that article, but I found several related...

http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=20252

Excerpt:
"What's the fundamental flaw? The student loan system is set up to enrich lenders and their stockholders, not to serve students. And taxpayers are footing the bill."

@TGM:
I have bought lottery tickets in the past. I don't see how that could fund government, but I will say it is something I have never heard. As for tipping, it is a social convention, and to reward good service that you have received on a personal level. Government is too large for that type of thing. So, we go to war in Iraq, and anyone against the war just boycotts the government, which goes broke? Most of these ideas are just ways to get out of paying the so-called excessive taxes.

So, why not move? If you want no government but police, then go to a place that is like that. Not sure where that is, that I would want to live, but you could probably find one place.

@KoBorg - as a student in the UK myself I must admit I think student fees are totally fair, and that if you choose to do a degree it's your own choice - you deserve to pay for it.

@Tantris - I believe Ghost is in favour of shrinking the government, hense the comment

@figle:
I understand that, it just isn't someplace I would want to live. There is a sang from someone on the right in America...
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Add to that the "Starve the beast" mentality.

What a lot of people really want is to go back to a time when the rich get richer, and live in crystal towers, while the rest of the country festers. It isn't a place I want to live.

"@KoBorg - as a student in the UK myself I must admit I think student fees are totally fair, and that if you choose to do a degree it's your own choice - you deserve to pay for it."

I disagree for a number of reasons.

Where I live, public education is free of charge up to the grade title and Doctorate (but not a masters degree, "specialization course" or other post-grad studies that are not what you'd call PhDs). It has been so since approximately 1945/7.

This has had the effect, comparing us to other countries in the region, to allow for an easier path to social scaling, and a much larger middle class.

This is, in my opinion, a great comparative advantage to these other countries, for many reasons:

1 - A larger inner market for consumer goods, stimulating industry

2 - A larger base of educated and skilled workers, wich allows us to be relatively competitive -again, comparing to other countries in the region- in certain areas (Naval enterprises, civil nuclear engineering, and more recently, software).

3 - Basically, we are all a bit more equal, because we all (or at least many, because zero fees doesn't mean zero cost) can have access to higher education.

And student loans... I'll just say I don't think they are a solution that is viable to the lower income bracket.

"Do you pay tips at restaurants?
...(The next question is, why do you?)"

If the service was really poor, I don't tip. But, yes, the vast majority of times I tip - often generously... and on average 20%. I'll tell you why. That is how a waiter gets paid... I enter into a non-verbal agreement when I go to sit down in a restaurant... if I don't want to tip, I take the food to go. By sitting down I am asking them to wait on me. I find it interesting that of the people I know the very worst tippers are conservative. This tends to support my thought that the reason conservatives, in general, are anti-tax is primarily because they personally wish to pay less... not because they want to volunteer to pay the same amount or more. Yet, when something like the Gulf oil spill happens, the anti-federal government, anti-government interference, small government politicians of the affected areas come open handed to the federal government saying how they will get what they can from them... and how it's the government's responsibility to do X or Y. Of course people on the left also have ideas of what government should be doing for them... however they understand and accept that if they make more, they pay more. A conservative never ever wants to pay more than they get out of the system. Yet... when the need arises, they are not at all shy about getting more out of the system then they put in. Farm subsidies? Sure. Rural electrification? Of course. Roads in their states?, Military bases? Sure. Job training for the urban poor? Never. The free loaders. Urban renewal? Let it die.

Here are some reasons this happens: 1) liberals in the blue states are willing to pay for reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) projects in red states, 2) conservatives in red states are not sympathetic to urban issues - and particularly not ones associated with the urban poor, 3) conservatives see it as a zero-sum game... they see investment in blue areas as meaning less for them, 4) liberals don't see it as a zero-sum game... they realize that improvements to the economy and education in other parts of the country benefit them as well, 5) red states disproportionately control the Senate.

Here's a neat little graphic showing federal spending by state per tax dollar:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2994934040_ca5b05d221.jpg

"I love being taxed, it's my investment in civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
I share that sentiment. It is interesting to me that Justice Holmes was a conservative. ...but then the meaning of the word has changed, hasn't it?

I love how so many people in here equate "I don't want government stealing more of my money" to "I want to live in ivory towers and drop buckets of piss on the starving hobos at the base." If you like paying a lot of money to help stabilize conditions for the urban poor, you don't need an entity that arrogantly proclaims itself the sole legitimate user of violence and imprisonment to steal that money from you on threat of its monopolistic earnings to force you to pay money toward programs that can help. (Oftentimes that money is inefficiently used... purposefully or otherwise. Not so in charities.) Donate to private charities and stop forcing less charitable people to give up their earned money.

And dexter, I don't know where you're getting your information about red states, but Democrats have nearly a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so 5 is false. As for the rest. 1 - so? Liberals are more generous with a collective pool of money. 2 - again, so? Maybe they don't live in the cities? Is it unreasonable that, say, a rural farmer in Kentucky whose only interaction with government is paying taxes doesn't want to increase government? For someone claiming a lot of knowledge regarding conservative thought, I would expect a bit more consideration to perspective. 3 - False. Conservatives are willing to invest in blue areas. Just not what you'd like them to invest. Military, roads, justice system, these are all worthy investments, no? And besides, how would you afford all of these investment you reference? 4 - Not necessarily. The Bridge to Nowhere didn't help anyone. Federal investments in state improvement are prone to fraudulence, and that's what is most frustrating.

And where does it follow that it's a problem that conservatives don't want to pay more? Or a contradiction to say that they'll use the system in place? I don't share your view of loving being taxed; how does that make me wrong? I don't understand the Gulf oil spill example in this particular context, but I'll address the overarching point. Let's say there's a government program where you get $1000 a week for absolutely nothing. If a conservative politician votes for removing it, does everything in his power to remove it, and actively campaigns for its removal, it is not contradictory for him to use it while it lasts. If you've done everything in your power to stop something and it's not stopped yet, there's no problem with using the service - just don't stop trying.

@PresEden:
Red states do generally control the senate, because there are usually more of them. If you count them by Presidential elections, then there are less this time, because Obama won in places that are traditionally red. If you add up California, Illinois, and New York, that is a fair number of electoral votes, and yet usually the electoral votes are fairly close. The senate is generally pretty conservative, in general. Red States doesn't always equal Republicans.

The middle is just a mess of sentences, I can't even pull it apart very well.

As for the last, how about if you tried to do everything in your power to defeat the stimulus package, and then show up claiming credit for everything it did?

One thing I find hilarious is that there are groups, like the tea baggers, that want to reduce the deficit and reduce spending, but when asked about programs, they don't want to remove any of them.

There has been this attack on everything government since Reagan, that has been full throated and unapologetic. For some reason, the other side never stood up in defense of government. They let the Overton Window get pushed so far to the right, it is insane. I think no one thought it would actually catch on, but it did.

"I love how so many people in here equate "I don't want government stealing more of my money""

The point is that conservatives commonly view taxation as stealing in the first place. I see it as forcing people to do their fair share. Nothing wrong with forcing people to pull their own weight, is there? We can debate whether 20% or 40% taxation is best... that is not the point. The point is that TGM and other conservatives rebel against the very idea of taxation... and I think that is reprehensible.

As far as charities being a good place to put your money... that is debatable. The March of Dimes, for example, famously only spends one dime for every dollar on the actual research they are nominally about. The rest goes to advertising, fund raising and administration. I have heard similar things about some other charities. One advantage to government is that it doesn't advertise, fund raise or market. That is an inherent cost savings.

I have more to respond to - but it'll have to wait until after work.

@ Tantris
“So, we go to war in Iraq, and anyone against the war just boycotts the government, which goes broke? Most of these ideas are just ways to get out of paying the so-called excessive taxes.”
Wouldn’t it be a good thing to make the government more responsible for decisions such as that?
“What a lot of people really want is to go back to a time when the rich get richer, and live in crystal towers, while the rest of the country festers. It isn't a place I want to live.”
You are just empirically wrong there.
@everyone
RE student loans, in a free market, they would have to be satisfactory and accommodating, otherwise people wouldn’t take them. Banks want your business, so they aren’t going to be vindictive.
@dester morgan
“ I'll tell you why. That is how a waiter gets paid.”

And I suggest that the way the government gets paid should be by voluntary payments.

“TGM and other conservatives”
I am not a conservative.
--------------------------------------------------
For my part, it beggars belief that anyone could say that taxation is a good idea. Necessary evil perhaps, but that is all that I can fathom.

“I see it as forcing people to do their fair share. Nothing wrong with forcing people to pull their own weight, is there?”
Your fair share is to look after one person, surely. And that person might as well be yourself- if everyone did that, there’d be no problem

@Ghost - some people (the physically and mentally handicapped as well as orphans and I dare say widows in many instances) can't pull the fair share of looking after themselves. Are you saying we should let them die and decrease the surplus population, to quote a famous fictional character who started off not believing in his responsibility for his fellow man?

@Tantris:

For your first paragraph, I point again to the near-filibuster-proof Senate majority. I was referencing the current situation (as I assumed - perhaps falsely, and my apologies if so - that Dexter was referencing). Whether they are traditionally red or not is immaterial to what I was saying.

The middle was in response to Dexter's observations (by number). They weren't addressed to you (though feel free to respond should you like).

And on the stimulus package: Where did I ever try to do that? I never liked the stimulus package. (For the record, you're talking to an extreme libertarian; I identified as conservative because the discussion was on taxation, one of the few areas I agree with conservatives.) I don't understand the point.

OK. So the Tea Party is a joke of a movement. Finally, we agree on something. (Though doubtless for different reasons.)

And what is defensible about government that needs defending? I mean, honestly, if we're talking about attacking government, and it needs defending, there surely must be something to defend, right?

@Dexter: If you don't mind, I'll wait until you respond to the rest of my stuff so we don't split up our posts. Sound good?

@Druagnar, a fair share for each person would not involve helping those people. That does not imply that I would not help them, but rather that I would not try to force other people to help them.

"@everyone
RE student loans, in a free market, they would have to be satisfactory and accommodating, otherwise people wouldn’t take them. Banks want your business, so they aren’t going to be vindictive."

But wouldn't some people be in a better position to take them than others?

And wouldn't there be other places for banks to invest their money than on student loans? - Be it less risky or for a higher interest rate?

A valid price ought to be found, but given the immense value of education, it would be easy to make it work

Just to stir the pot:
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_soviet-archives.html

@Ghost - So you don't believe that every individual in a society (and the society itself) has a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. OK, Ebeneezer. Who, then, will help those people? If you make it optional, the burden will fall on a very few people to help those who need help and that is an unsustainable burden such that poverty would lead to starvation and disease, putting all of society at risk from the beggars on the streets with typhoid/AIDs/name the latest scary disease.

"So you don't believe that every individual in a society (and the society itself) has a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. "

No, I don't. Why should they have that responsibility?

However, I don't think it would happen that people would just be left to die. If you didn't have to give up half of what you earn, on average, I should expect even a small donation to be sufficient. In addition, I expect that the massive economic growth that would result from removing the tax burden would mean that before very long keeping the poor in comfort would cost a tiny fraction of the wages people had. I would be among the people supporting the poor.

But suppose it did happen, then, yes. they would die. I would think it very sad, but ultimately, not a question of a moral failure of those who did not help them. There is no reason to posit an obligation to people who are nothing to do with you, and whose strife is in no way to do with you.

It is worth pointing out that before we were wealthy, helping those who couldn't help themselves was out of the question. It has only been in recent times that we have become concerned, and in future times, the concerns we presently have will be allayed, and no doubt new ones about how the poor only lives on average to 100, and the rich to 120, will take their place.

I'm surprised that no one has responded to hellalt's post. Instead of arguing about idealogical points of view you should be discussing facts. What are the numbers involved here? What companies are involved here? What connections between government officials and business agents are involved here? I think he brought up some good points and that should be where people begin investigating. Arguing ideals is exactly what allows these sort of crisis to happen. It's the same in Greece as in the US and around the world. We argue about things that don't matter while the world continues to spin to the rhythm of power manipulation.

Ebay, without an ideology, somewhere to get to, discussing pragmatic concerns is hardly relevant.

Once you have an agreement about ideology, you can talk about how to get there, which is what day-to-day politics does.

I agree that it's what politics does. I just think that's the problem. People basing where they are going based on these predetermined notions instead of going where the road takes you. If you don't have a destination already in mind and only follow the best roads then you will get where you need to be. That should be the point. It's what you obtain and not how you get there. Always base decisions and judgement on the facts and not on what you'd like them to be. It's like a good police investigation. If you think you already know the ending and base your investigation on that premise then you'll probably get the wrong man. Search only for the truth and it might set you free. In todays world the right path to the truth is usually littered with money and to the best of my knowledge no ideology holds a monopoly in that regard.

How can one know what the best roads are without having a destination. "If you do not know to which port you are sailing, no wind is favourable." The distinction, say, between my position and that of a left liberal is that I don't want the same kind of world, and argue that their goals are wrong. In light of that, there's no real point criticising the means of getting there.

In the police investigation, the goal is known already: to find out who the criminal is. They aren't comparable

The goal of government is to find out what policies work for the good of the people so I think they are the comparable. They are both trying to make society better. Politics benefits no one except the parties involved (usually on the premise of who contributes to whom) as they work for themselves and their ideologies and not the people they represent. Thus we find the world's current state of affairs.

Right, you've just stated an ideology there, and I don't agree with you.

Government's role is to prevent infringement of the property rights of its citizens.

Government is to prevent infringement of the property rights of it's citizens? Really? Interesting concept. So basically if a citizen owns no property then it has no rights nor government representation? We definitely have differing points of view on the world we'd like to live in you and I. Perhaps you would have been happier a few hundred years ago. Assuming that you were born to a property owning Lord that is and not one of the other undesirable, more numerous but necessary class of Serfs.

Ebay, self ownership would mean that the government would protect everyone. I define property very broadly indeed in that statement.