What is it worth?

What are you willing to give up for security?

Of nation?

Of health?

Of finances?

National security is a restrictive thing. They listen to phonecalls without warrants; that hasn't changed. They use special machines to examine your naked body before you board a plane. They require incredible amounts in tax. They call certain behavior risky and place people who act in that manner on watch lists. There are, however, lengths that we do not allow, yet. In my opinion we give up a little too much for security, but it is an area provided for in the constitution.

Imagine National healthcare with the same "common sense" restrictions and rules. If your health is the business of the state, then they have every reason to regulate your diet and exercise; to order you to quit smoking; to govern what kind of car you drive, choosing the safer and environmentally friendly car; to examine you when they see fit. All of those things have a huge impact on health, and if your health is the business of government, so is your lifestyle. When someone is paying for the maintenance of your body you are--whether you like it or no--to some extent theirs.

Let's turn our eyes to the financial world. If you want the government to save your house from foreclosure, be prepared to be told what kind of house to buy. If you want the government to protect your nest egg, be prepared to take dictation on what you are to invest in. And if you want the government to provide you with a stipend, be prepared to follow their rules like a good employee. An employee who wants their pay does what they are told, you are not the boss anymore, government is.

My advice--hah, advice from a whelp--is to consider everything that you want carefully, and what you will owe when you get it. TANSTAAFL does not mean that someone else foots the whole tab; it just means that you are signing an indenture. The government pays your way through troubled times, but you belong to them. I say, from me, if you ask for something from government that goes beyond what the constitution calls for, do not ever whine to the rest of us about the government impinging on freedoms; that freedom is not yours anymore.

The master of the house sets the rules for those who want to eat at his table.

We could debate endlessly whether government is even effective in these areas, but the whole point of this post is...

Do not ask for anything unless you are willing to pay the price.

Comments

  1. The thing I struggle with is whether to take what they're giving when the rules are already set up. If they're taking our money from us to distribute in thus-and-such a way, and if the overall controls already exist, do we continue to say no to the handout? I will not go to them and ask for a new area of wealth-redistribution or even tax credits/deductions. But we did take the tax deduction/credit for Paul's college tuition. And we did take the child tax credit. And there are other things I'm considering taking that we're eligible for (not on the 1040 form). And I'm just not sure what to think about all this stuff.

    And can we even know what the price will be before we agree to pay the price? My guess is "no." It's happened too often that people say "yes, I'm willing to pay the price" but then the price changes after the deal is made. For example, the homeschool law in Alaska.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Susan, like you I struggle with what to take. And like you, we take the child tax credit and the credit for college tuition. (And the mortgage deduction, etc.) I don't believe that those should exist. I think we should have a flat tax without tax breaks for certain behaviors, but this is what we have. And we still pay plenty of taxes, so I'm not going to loose sleep over keeping some of our money. :)

    It's true,too, about the price changing. That seems to happen often.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Idea in Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is that men should--and will--help to elevate their fellow men. Even our self-interest looks to elevate our fellow men, according to original capitalist theory. It throws a monkey wrench into the system when you throw in prohibitive and crippling taxes. The idea was that the well off would help their fellow men, but that is sort of crushed by income taxes in the 30%+ range, and payroll tax, and property tax, and sales tax, and capital gains tax, and--if you dare to break a certain sum--an additional alternative minimum tax.

    Pardon my getting all Greek again, but Plato says that punitive taxes against the rich breed oligarchic and niggardly spirits.

    Instead of a healthy and cooperative society, we have a government that ties up huge amounts of money in unionized bureaucracy, drawing large amounts of taxes from the wealthy and the middle class. The forcible seizure of such amounts makes the comfortable feel like they are assailed by the poor. The rich and upper middle classes--now at enmity with those they perceive as usurpers--start to resent the support given to their fellow.

    In the end I agree with the Mother-Person; Government should not have laws favouring any one lifestyle. Government, however, has put itself into the place that was supposed to be filled by private persons and organizations, so we deal with what we have.

    For all I know the government could change and say that I had to change my major or pay back the tax credit; that would be their right.

    I'm just saying that every deal should be considered very carefully and the consequences must be excepted as they come.

    ...and yeah, the correspondence-homeschool people in Alaska were blind not to see that coming. I couldn't believe that people favoured that.

    One final note. NO! No tax credits and support for homeschoolers. The second you take that they have every right to tell you exactly how to homeschool.

    That was wandering....

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tired, not Sleepy.

To Every Hobo a Suit...or Not

Lamp Post