(March 27, 2015 at 12:14 am)Aractus Wrote: No Cato, it's not "paternalism". Your philosophy is called laissez-faire, it's been discredited. When the poorest in society are made more wealthy, the wealthy do benefit.
So you think that seat belt laws should be repealed, because they place an undue burden of obedience upon the community?
You may as well say you don't believe in paying taxes next.
Impressive. You didn't just move the goal posts, you uprooted them and moved them to another pitch.
First though, mandating everyone vote because you/the state knows what's best for people is textbook paternalism. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact.
Accusing me of espousing a laissez-faire philosophy is misplaced, particularly since I was fairly specific in stating when the state had a compelling interest and obligation to limit liberties. Your use of laissez-faire, typically a term used as a descriptor of economic philosophy, and invoking taxation triggers a sharp shift in the conversation to a very specific function of state.
Taxation is a necessary reality for any society that pools resources to provide services, including the functioning of government enterprise. This goes for any form of government; Soviet style communism, liberal representative democracy, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, etc. Taxation in and of itself is not a liberty concern. Anybody claiming 'no taxation' for the sake of liberty is ignorant.
That said, taxation can become a liberty concern if it so onerous that it interferes with someone's ability to provide for themselves.
