@The Ghostmaker:

"..."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?"

They have that responsiblity because they are part of the same society. It is fair and right that, as a society, we have some obligation to help look after each other.

@ Ebay: To save you time, Ghostmaker is basisally a Minarchist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy

(Or to translate, he is a horrible, selfish person who thinks that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants, and to hell with society)

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."

Yes I just read this part of the thread and I think I understand now. It's a shame really because those with this viewpoint often forget that the reason they have this possibility is because of the hard work and lives of those they feel no need to care about. If not for the poor's labor and blood in our numerous wars just what would these people have? That's easy to me. Nothing. They didn't fight the wars that made them rich. They don't fight to protect themselves and their fortunes. They depend on the poor to do this for them. If we ever stopped believing in government then they would all be dead and everything would fall. Sort of like Zimbabwe.

In Zimbabwe the problem is the government's actions...

"Or to translate, he is a horrible, selfish person who thinks that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants, and to hell with society"

To take an example of 'whatever I want' which you cannot dispute... hours of volunteer work for this site. So don't tell me that I don't believe in charity. I don't believe in violence, be it by the state or not by the state.

@TGM, "Self ownership" is of little consequence when there is an over-class that controls all the means of production and livelihood. I can own myself all I want... it won't mean anything if I don't have an education, health care, or a job. ...and being that we are in a society where such things as education, health care, and jobs are created communally and only available through channels, it is not truly in my individual power as an uneducated, poor, unemployed person to better myself without any assistance or cooperation by the powers that be. A government such as you envision may protect me from being violently murdered, for example, but I will die none the less if I don't get a decent start in life. A government such as you envision would allow us to let people starve in the streets, not be provided an education as a child, and die on the street if we don't have money for a doctor. Might as well tell a prisoner that they own themselves. Lot of good it will do them. What you forget, besides your humanity, is that your fellow man is the best resource there is. ...in your desire to protect what is yours, you also make yourself poorer by having a society that let's its most precious crop, people, rot in the fields, so to speak.

Imagine that you are in a row boat on the ocean. You would have it that all parties on the boat could decide on their own to continue being on the boat (taking the benefits of that) - yet not paddle, not bail water, not provide anything of value for their fellow passengers - even when it is fully in their capability... yet this government would protect such slackers from being tossed overboard. If you have a right to not help your fellow man, then we have a right to banish you from our society. Have fun in the wilderness with none of the benefits of civilization (clothing, shelter, a knife, flint and steel, etc.). (Aside: I understand that no one survives a long period of time by themselves in a ship wreck ["Cast Away"] type of situation... no one.) No man is an island.

As to you being a conservative... well I group libertarians and objectivists as types of conservatives. Among other things, you share the anti-tax sentiment, the anti-federal government sentiment, and the rugged individualist/American Dream/pull yourself up by your bootstraps idealism, as well as a belief that social programs are an evil. I realize that there are different kinds of conservative - and that it's a bit of a false dichotomy to say that everyone is either liberal or conservative... but you clearly share much with conservatives... and nothing with liberals.

@TGM, your volunteerism is noted and definitely appreciated. I tend to think that you would be one to follow through and volunteer to give 1% to government (even though this is a paltry amount - it is better than 0% and it shows some good faith)... but your idealism would not hold up with others... and you would have deadbeats everywhere taking advantage of the system... and government would collapse completely (or, as others have pointed out, would be subject to huge disruptions from month to month and year to year - which would make it nearly non-functional).

Sorry, this thread is racing along.
re Student Loans: I think that as long as they continue to be offered at a competitive and fair rate (currently my loan is in-line with inflation) then there isn't a problem. Statistically, UK graduates earn far more than those without degree's. Also, in this country you only pay off the debt on earnings over £15K. Drop back below, you stop paying.

Sorry I realise now that I should have made my current situation clearer.

@President Eden,
"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."

I mean that year in and year out the red states, with disproportionately small populations, control the senate far more than they have any right to. 20% of the American population lives in a rural community. Yet if you were to look at it from a standpoint of the Senate, they probably exert more than 50% of the power. (Coupled with the bizarre love affair us Americans have with farmers and the rural "heartland" despite the fact that most farming now is done in very nasty ways by huge corporations and what is most American now are cities and suburban areas...)

"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?"

Only interaction with government is paying taxes?? Really? With farm subsidies and rural electrification and rural stretches of interstate (that would not be economic to build otherwise) and with government loans... you say that rural farmers have no interaction with government?? They see a lot more of government than I do in my urban setting... if they get past their absurd and blind Tea Bag sensibility, that is.

"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?"

Huh? How would I afford it? I don't know what you're asking. As to choice of investments... yes, you have a point. There is both a regional bias where people care more about what they are getting... and a philosophical bias where the rural folk and urban folk simply have different values.

"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."

Agreed. Totally.

"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."

A fair enough point, I suppose. I just wonder... how would their tune change when the farm subsidies and such get cut. But of course, they (the rural politicians) are the primary reason that these subsidies exist. They complain about government expenditure on the one hand and they vote increases on the other.

"I mean that year in and year out the red states, with disproportionately small populations, control the senate far more than they have any right to. 20% of the American population lives in a rural community. Yet if you were to look at it from a standpoint of the Senate, they probably exert more than 50% of the power. (Coupled with the bizarre love affair us Americans have with farmers and the rural "heartland" despite the fact that most farming now is done in very nasty ways by huge corporations and what is most American now are cities and suburban areas...) "

The whole purpose of the Senate is to keep smaller states from being overrun politically by larger states. You appear to be very knowledgeable, so I won't insult your intelligence by infodumping about the Great Compromise. They have a "right" to having a strong voice in the Senate because that is the purpose of the Senate: to ensure that the smaller states have representation.

"Only interaction with government is paying taxes?? Really? With farm subsidies and rural electrification and rural stretches of interstate (that would not be economic to build otherwise) and with government loans... you say that rural farmers have no interaction with government?? They see a lot more of government than I do in my urban setting... if they get past their absurd and blind Tea Bag sensibility, that is. "

I knew a farmer would be a bad occupation to choose. Here, let me get to my point instead of making it with a weak example. Suppose there were a segment of the USA that wanted less taxes and less entitlement programs, and genuinely and honestly would cut the more conservative-biased projects: farm subsidies are the big example being raised, so that's a fine example to use here. Why should they pay heavy federal taxes for services they don't want? That is the problem raised by heavy taxation.

To elaborate. What I would propose is that the main benefits that people want from expanded government - from the left, perhaps government healthcare (full-blown, not Medicare/Medicaid), Social Security; from some of the right, those subsidies - those be offered at the state level (or even local level if feasible, though it seems like state would be more appropriate). This solves the problems you correctly identified: regional and philosophical bias. By putting it at state level, you eliminate both problems - the urban New Yorker paying for Kentuckian farm subsidies, and the rural Kentuckian paying for New Yorker healthcare - because the Kentuckian won't vote for healthcare and the New Yorker for farm subsidies. The federal level would be used for maintaining services that everyone uses, regardless of region or philosophy: such as a functioning military, a national justice system, interstate thoroughfares, currency printing, etc. (Or, if not everyone, the services that every state's majority would agree to having.)

"Huh? How would I afford it? I don't know what you're asking. As to choice of investments... yes, you have a point. There is both a regional bias where people care more about what they are getting... and a philosophical bias where the rural folk and urban folk simply have different values."

Ack, poorly worded. (Especially since you didn't actually reference any specific investments; that was my projection.) What I'm asking is: whatever investments in blue states that conservatives don't want to pay for, as you claim - well, what are they, firstly, and secondly, how would they be paid for?

I should elaborate on 4 a bit. Charities do have expenditures to cover, yes, and as a result the ratio of amount of money donated to amount of money used toward their cause is in some cases rather unsatisfactory. I'm willing to wager, though, that charities are more efficient than government for these types of services. I don't have empirical data, though I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the data were it presented would back my assertion. We can also look at it logically: a national government with the capacity to turn the solar system into a nuclear wasteland is not concerned with deficits. They can afford to be inefficient because they never have to turn a profit; they have infinite resources. With charities, they have to be concerned with going under. They have to rely on inconsistent income and make enough money to cover overhead costs; thus, it should be expected that they would be more concerned about ensuring that they spend the money efficiently.

"A fair enough point, I suppose. I just wonder... how would their tune change when the farm subsidies and such get cut. But of course, they (the rural politicians) are the primary reason that these subsidies exist. They complain about government expenditure on the one hand and they vote increases on the other. "

Another point of agreement. Stupid conservatives-pretending-to-be-libertarians. I bet the actual libertarian platform they're trying to emulate would scare them. Legal pot, gay marriage, more reduction of government than they're imagining... heh heh. It *would* be entertaining.

@dextermorgan: @TGM, "Self ownership" is of little consequence when there is an over-class that controls all the means of production and livelihood. I can own myself all I want... it won't mean anything if I don't have an education, health care, or a job. ...and being that we are in a society where such things as education, health care, and jobs are created communally and only available through channels, it is not truly in my individual power as an uneducated, poor, unemployed person to better myself without any assistance or cooperation by the powers that be. A government such as you envision may protect me from being violently murdered, for example, but I will die none the less if I don't get a decent start in life. A government such as you envision would allow us to let people starve in the streets, not be provided an education as a child, and die on the street if we don't have money for a doctor. Might as well tell a prisoner that they own themselves. Lot of good it will do them. What you forget, besides your humanity, is that your fellow man is the best resource there is. ...in your desire to protect what is yours, you also make yourself poorer by having a society that let's its most precious crop, people, rot in the fields, so to speak."

Dextermorgan +100