7th September 2005, 9:34 PM
That's called sarcasm.
And, I prefer the freedom to actually make these decisions on my own.
How can anyone be TOO pragmatic?
And, no, I don't take you stating "the government can do everything on it's own, don't ask questions" at face value. If you can't provide me with some sort of method here, then that's that. You've had your say but you couldn't back it up.
However, you did mention WW2. You DO realize that actually doing what was needed took a LOT of effort don't you? Not enough people willingly signed up, so it was actually NEEDED to enstate a draft. It also took a lot of work by a lot of scientists and engineers to equip the military with what it needed to get the job done. There were many factors involved there, but it's important to realize the government was stressed, and a lot of people had to step forward to help out.
Basically, you propose the idea that a law will force people to do what is needed, but is that what you actually want? Donating as opposed to refusing to and waiting for the government to tax us for the needed funds does one thing for you. It prevents you from being forced. It would take time for the tax law to be passed, time that those in need can't afford. More than that, it would take time for that law to be repealed, time in which we would be paying more than what is needed. Now, it would likely end up paying off national debt, but the point is, why go through all that hassle when you can just donate? Why do you feel the need to get a middleman involved to TELL you when to help people? Why can't you just do it yourself?
Tell me exactly what is the flaw in my thinking.
And, I prefer the freedom to actually make these decisions on my own.
How can anyone be TOO pragmatic?
And, no, I don't take you stating "the government can do everything on it's own, don't ask questions" at face value. If you can't provide me with some sort of method here, then that's that. You've had your say but you couldn't back it up.
However, you did mention WW2. You DO realize that actually doing what was needed took a LOT of effort don't you? Not enough people willingly signed up, so it was actually NEEDED to enstate a draft. It also took a lot of work by a lot of scientists and engineers to equip the military with what it needed to get the job done. There were many factors involved there, but it's important to realize the government was stressed, and a lot of people had to step forward to help out.
Basically, you propose the idea that a law will force people to do what is needed, but is that what you actually want? Donating as opposed to refusing to and waiting for the government to tax us for the needed funds does one thing for you. It prevents you from being forced. It would take time for the tax law to be passed, time that those in need can't afford. More than that, it would take time for that law to be repealed, time in which we would be paying more than what is needed. Now, it would likely end up paying off national debt, but the point is, why go through all that hassle when you can just donate? Why do you feel the need to get a middleman involved to TELL you when to help people? Why can't you just do it yourself?
Tell me exactly what is the flaw in my thinking.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)