11 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
11 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
1. Laffer Curve. High taxes incentivise high gov't spending. That, and Fiat. Get us back on the Gold Standard, stop spending so much, and the tax rate can fall to a place that is hopefully somewhat justifiable. Though I think we should be less concerned on how to spend other people's money and more concerned about just how willing we are to put up with being enslaved to the State.
|
||
2. The premise is certainly faulty; it implies that at least 50% of State funding is lost to fraud and waste. 50% is a level of corruption that would be far too obvious to be swept under the rug. I'd say the utopian and counterproductive nonsense that is funded is the real place to cut waste. That being said, what's wrong with having a protocol and enforcers in place, that tell us just how inefficiently the State spends your money? So long as it's eliminating any significant waste and fraud, it seems well worth the funding at least to keep up the facade that the State cares where they toss their percieved infinite money bag.
|
||
3. There are too many variables to consider here and I won't go over them. Important to consider is that the amount of potential homicides prevented by the deterrent of a firearm is completely incalculable. But there are several variables that are; for example, Suicides make up more than half of that gun-related death rate, per capita. People who seek lethal means of self-harm (disproportionately men), will choose the most lethal means available to them. So the means don't matter, they'll likely achieve their ends regardless of means. Besides, comparing per-capita *deaths via gun* is not a useful metric. Let's compare two microcosms in the U.S.. Vermont and Mississippi both have \~50-55% gun ownership. If more guns make everyone *less* safe, then the conclusion would be that they both have a high gun homicide rate. The exact opposite is true. Vermont's culture and the consequences thereof (along every level of analysis) seem to have resulted in extremely low homicides, let alone gun homicides, which are \~0.6–0.8 per 100k. By contrast, Mississippi's state of existence has resulted in \~18 per 100k gun homicides. Considering that politics and socioeconomics are downstream of culture, the only rational conclusion is that the culture of Mississippi is not conducive towards a stable society, let alone responsible gun ownership. Though to be fair, the state is better off than most less-developed nations in the world. Overall, there seems to be no correlation between safety and gun ownership in either the positive or negative direction, which stands to reason. The remaining question is: when you are surrounded by those with lethal means, what right does the state have in punishing you for matching such lethality to protect yourself? And, more importantly, how is it morally justifiable for the State to have a monopoly on lethal force?
|
||
4. Again, many factors. Relevant to life expectancy in America is obesity, among other cultural choices and their subsequent consequences, which are tough to correct for. But If you want an accurate example of what universal health care gets you in a mixed economy, look to the NHS in the UK, and Canada's system. The wait times are abysmal, and their pharmaceutical markets produce hardly any of the most essential drugs required by their populace. It's no wonder Canada has been pushing voluntary euthanasia; it's literally more cost-effective than the tax burden it requires to keep a chronically ill or suffering patient alive. This is the reality of healthcare: there are three facets. Universality, Affordability, and Quality. Your political system can only pick two. You can choose Universality, and also Quality, but the tax burden is going to lead to inevitable austerity, and you lose the other two. The balance is tentative, and the only way to keep it is to ditch Universality. What America did was choose Affordability and Quality, and then tried to sneak in Universality. The further that facet is forced, the more the other two wane and wither. The driving force behind this push, and the main factor keeping health costs high, is the utopian sentiment that the moral burden of one's life is the responsibility of the collective, which, in effect, makes one's life, and the triumphs therein, not their own, but that of the collective. What are the consequences? The federal gov't incentivises the States, insurance companies, and hospitals, to weave local networks that monopolize the entire health market. Competition is what drives innovation, which decreases prices. There is no competition in this mixed economy. So the utopians will blame the businessman, pushing the State to bully him into cutting some sort of deal that increases his foothold. Which, in a free market, he would have absolutely no right to. In a free market, if your endeavor fails, it ceases to exist. In a mixed economy, if your endeavor fails, all you have to do is fail less than everybody else, then cut a couple sweetheart deals, nab a couple earmarks, and you can gain a state-incentivised, and often state-funded, monopoly.
|
||
5. Yes, the establishment clause clearly doesn't state that the nation is Christian, *legally speaking,* and yes, the moral foundations and system of law in America transcend the Judeo-Christian ethic. But that doesn't mean that a Judeo-Christian ethic wasn't required in order to forge her. The Protestant influence was so heavy that Jefferson, arguably the most Deist of the founding fathers, held overtly Christian meetings in the Capitol and the White House. They were non-denominational, but they were going off of the most common systems of worship that were present, which were largely Protestant, albeit a little tangled and confused. The letter of the law is objectively defined, but the spirit of the law is inherently Protestant. I say this with very little personal bias; I'm an agnostic Mormon (thx Peterson).
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Uh, I sure hope not? I suspect that's not what you wish, nor what you meant. Direct democracy is mob rule, which has neither check nor balance in considering the rights of the individual. A direct democracy can vote to enslave or execute you at will, with impunity. A democracy with checks and balances has limited ability to do the same.
|
||
|
||
I also take issue with the premise that there's anything 'amazing' about social safety nets and welfare programs. If you read Sowell, I suspect you would be disabused of these notions. Don't be so sure he *doesn't* disapprove of precisely the 'left' you have surmised as praiseworthy. |