That is because nobody in America feels threatened by any foreign entity, because Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean provide plenty of defense needed to protect a population of 300 million from any existential threat.
I agree with the libertarians on this issue, in that we should finally cut government spending by getting rid of the military.
Americans don't even care about terrorism, and feel it should be a civilian problem, not a military one.
Let private individuals defend the country, not the government.
Defense is not an intrinsic function of government. Switzerland relies on private citizens to defend it, for example. ("Here. Have a machine gun. Go at it. Good luck.")
On this issue, the libertarians are absolutely correct. Defense is an unnecessary waste of tax dollars, designed to take away personal freedom and give it to the benefit of military corporations.
We need to get rid of this wasteful section of government.
Everyone always says government should cut taxes and become smaller - a pretty boring, cliched, and uninteresting position. Why bother stating things that someone else already says?
You only live once. I say be different. I would like to see the one guy say RAISE taxes.
That's still a LOT more than the 0 people that die each year in America due to terrorism, and we spend $1 trillion per year on that, right?
We should be spending $1 trillion a year on public transportation.
The costs is obviously not an issue. The US economy can handle this.
The problem are the people that have habitually stuck with the belief that driving their own cars is necessary. Basically, a bunch of country bumpkins that think taxpayers should pay for a personal road to their own house and everywhere they wish to drive. These rural leeches live luxuriously off of taxpayer money. Some of them think roads are built for free.
We need to get these people to break their nasty habits.
They will succumb in due time.
Actually, a big cost saving is simply the labor saved in NOT having to drive. People that drive an hour to work each way waste a good fraction of their day. Just pissed it away their lives, when they could have slept or read a book or do homework on the train.
So you expect me to pay for your road to your own private house 40 miles away from your work, because you don't want to live in a smaller apartment near the city?
Is there anything else you like me to buy for you?
Indeed. It WILL cost trillions, like the highway system does.
What's your point?
Do you think a public transportation system that eliminates the personal automobile is.. more or less valuable than the $10 trillion we spend every decade on the military, for example?
15,000 people die in the US on the roads, because anyone can get a drivers license. Driving really should only be done by PROFESSIONALS - people that make it a career to drive.
Get rid of drivers licenses for non-commercial drivers. Expand the public transportation system by 100x - trains, buses, subways, everywhere, door-to-door, quiet, luxurious. Add transportation based city planning, etc..
Anything but cars. Sheesh, in some countries, driving is only done by the lower-class. It's a pointless waste of time for people that have nothing better to do.
I'd much rather have the taxpayer pay for my complete transportation instead of having them just pay for roads and have me pay for the rest.
We have a government. Come on, we can do it. Let's raise taxes and expand government. After all, that's what government is for - to do stuff for the public, not to make you do it yourself.
Also, you're still giving examples of the POOR being independent of government.
My statement of fact is: the richer you are, the more dependent you are on government.
Please provide me an example of a billionaire or millionaire that exists without government intervention.
LOL, you're only going to find criminal cases.
Can you imagine how poor Bill Gates would be without him being able to copyright his software? Or how poor Steve Jobs would be without him being able to patent his ideas, thus giving him a government-backed monopoly control on their intellectual property?
They would be nothing without government.
They would be reduced to whittling hammers from wood.
And just think what the carpenter could do if there was government around! He could actually buy a real hammer, instead of having to whittle one himself.
No, I don't rely on myself for anything. I rely on government to provide for my lifestyle. I rely on government to make sure my employer functions properly.
Did you know that government even defines MONEY?
Your life is defined by government.
The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government.
You even said yourself that only the poorest people do not need government!
Thanks for making my point!
Now, go thank government for making sure your employer exists, and for the lifestyle you live.
Go on! Thank government!
I know it's tough to think of yourself as dependent on government, but you can do it!
Slashdot Mirror
That is because nobody in America feels threatened by any foreign entity, because Canada, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean provide plenty of defense needed to protect a population of 300 million from any existential threat.
I agree with the libertarians on this issue, in that we should finally cut government spending by getting rid of the military.
Americans don't even care about terrorism, and feel it should be a civilian problem, not a military one.
Let private individuals defend the country, not the government.
Defense is not an intrinsic function of government. Switzerland relies on private citizens to defend it, for example. ("Here. Have a machine gun. Go at it. Good luck.")
On this issue, the libertarians are absolutely correct. Defense is an unnecessary waste of tax dollars, designed to take away personal freedom and give it to the benefit of military corporations.
We need to get rid of this wasteful section of government.
They are controlled by their corporate masters.
Freedom is limiting choice. It is not MORE choice.
Why cut government when you can expand it and make it a bigger socialist organization?
The vast majority of the public does not care about freedom. They just want services.
They don't know what they want.
They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.
Make up your mind already.
The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.
"Securing liberty" is not the purpose of government.
Liberty has nothing to do with government.
Government is a socialist public service, which is what the public always votes for.
The public does not care about "liberty".
The 1800's called. They want their farm efficiencies back.
Farmers are only 1% of the population.
They are the ideal candidates for commercial drivers licenses.
Everyone else gets their cars taken away by government, with their taxes raised to pay for public transportation.
Everyone always says government should cut taxes and become smaller - a pretty boring, cliched, and uninteresting position. Why bother stating things that someone else already says?
You only live once. I say be different. I would like to see the one guy say RAISE taxes.
You know, spice things up a bit.
=^)
Your used truck was subsidized by someone that bought it new.
Your private car usage is therefore MUCH more expensive than what you stated.
ALL taxpayers decide what other's need.
That is the function of a democracy: to tell others what to do.
Why would you need any of that?
Use the commercial services for exceptions. Pay extra for when you need that. It will be cheaper than your monthly car payment.
Problem solved.
I didn't know the road system was a recreational product?
Oh ok. You must be one of those people with the opinion that the military is necessary?
That's still a LOT more than the 0 people that die each year in America due to terrorism, and we spend $1 trillion per year on that, right?
We should be spending $1 trillion a year on public transportation.
The costs is obviously not an issue. The US economy can handle this.
The problem are the people that have habitually stuck with the belief that driving their own cars is necessary. Basically, a bunch of country bumpkins that think taxpayers should pay for a personal road to their own house and everywhere they wish to drive. These rural leeches live luxuriously off of taxpayer money. Some of them think roads are built for free.
We need to get these people to break their nasty habits.
They will succumb in due time.
Actually, a big cost saving is simply the labor saved in NOT having to drive. People that drive an hour to work each way waste a good fraction of their day. Just pissed it away their lives, when they could have slept or read a book or do homework on the train.
So you expect me to pay for your road to your own private house 40 miles away from your work, because you don't want to live in a smaller apartment near the city?
Is there anything else you like me to buy for you?
Indeed. It WILL cost trillions, like the highway system does.
What's your point?
Do you think a public transportation system that eliminates the personal automobile is.. more or less valuable than the $10 trillion we spend every decade on the military, for example?
15,000 people die in the US on the roads, because anyone can get a drivers license. Driving really should only be done by PROFESSIONALS - people that make it a career to drive.
Get rid of drivers licenses for non-commercial drivers. Expand the public transportation system by 100x - trains, buses, subways, everywhere, door-to-door, quiet, luxurious. Add transportation based city planning, etc..
Anything but cars. Sheesh, in some countries, driving is only done by the lower-class. It's a pointless waste of time for people that have nothing better to do.
I'd much rather have the taxpayer pay for my complete transportation instead of having them just pay for roads and have me pay for the rest.
We have a government. Come on, we can do it. Let's raise taxes and expand government. After all, that's what government is for - to do stuff for the public, not to make you do it yourself.
HUBBLE GOTCHU!!!
http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/hubble-gotchu-42610/1222742/
It is a proper news organization. We need to promote it more. No one has a problem with it.
The point is we want less freedom and more government control.
I don't want the freedom to choose various health plans. I want it to be given to me, for free.
"Choice" is a cost. It takes time, and time is money.
People are happiest under socialist control.
Also, you're still giving examples of the POOR being independent of government.
My statement of fact is: the richer you are, the more dependent you are on government.
Please provide me an example of a billionaire or millionaire that exists without government intervention.
LOL, you're only going to find criminal cases.
Can you imagine how poor Bill Gates would be without him being able to copyright his software? Or how poor Steve Jobs would be without him being able to patent his ideas, thus giving him a government-backed monopoly control on their intellectual property?
They would be nothing without government.
They would be reduced to whittling hammers from wood.
Oh, another thing you can thank government for is making sure you have roads to go to your employer!
Go on!
Thank government! You are dependent on it!
And just think what the carpenter could do if there was government around! He could actually buy a real hammer, instead of having to whittle one himself.
Learn to be thankful of government.
You are dependent on it.
You are nothing without government.
No, I don't rely on myself for anything. I rely on government to provide for my lifestyle. I rely on government to make sure my employer functions properly.
Did you know that government even defines MONEY?
Your life is defined by government.
The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government.
You even said yourself that only the poorest people do not need government!
Thanks for making my point!
Now, go thank government for making sure your employer exists, and for the lifestyle you live.
Go on! Thank government!
I know it's tough to think of yourself as dependent on government, but you can do it!
Give an example of where you think "competition" enabled scientific progress.
Who were they competing against?
Quit whining. That only indicates that you are losing this thread, and are getting mad about not being able to come up with a winning argument.
Explain why you feel income is "created".
You say people earn income quite well in the absence of government. How rich are they? How many of them are billionaires? Or millionaires?
This thread is about about rich vs. poor, and how government enables a person to be rich.
This is not about poor people deriving marginal income. This is about extreme wealth enabled by government.
Did you thank government for your salary today?
You fail to answer my question: Do you think you would be better off under a Somali style "limited government"?
Again, a rich person is FAR more dependent on government than a poor person.