California Considers Placing A Mileage Tax On Drivers

[LeafByNiggle]

But the whole point is that we do things because it’s right, not because we are forced to. Forcing your neighbor to help the needy is also not a value espoused by Jesus.

This really is a side issue. The justification for government comes not from the gospel admonition to help the needy, but from the recognized need for legitimate authority in a civil society. This concept is supported by Catholic Moral Teaching, and it cited in several places in the Catechism - a document I don’t remember you having cited, despite the numerous suggestions that you do so. The appeals to your vision of “freedom” are not guided by this morality. Try justifying your position through Catholic moral teaching, if you can.

 

[sallybutler]

What I have noticed is that when people go down the road of no or less government what they really mean is that they don’t want the government telling them what to do and they don’t want to pay for anything, but they want the government to protect them and tell other people what to do, and they want to use stuff that everyone else pays for.

 

[kew_65]

The government should just sell the Interstates and highways to let private corporations charge tolls and maintain the roads.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What I have noticed is that when people go down the road of no or less government what they really mean is that they don’t want the government telling them what to do and they don’t want to pay for anything, but they want the government to protect them and tell other people what to do, and they want to use stuff that everyone else pays for.

Just a word of advice: Pointing out someone’s motivation for their position often gives them an excuse to respond to that criticism and ignore the more direct challenge to their position. It is not that I don’t agree with you, but just watch how Lemel is going to come back and say how he (or she) just wants freedom for all and has the purest of intentions.

 

[sallybutler]

You are right. Thanks for their reminder.

 

[Lemuel]

Obligated by who? Who is going to enforce that obligation if I decide to be a jerk and tell you to get lost?

Obligated by morality and decency. There will always be ways to adjudicate differences. We have a system in place now. It might not be the best, but it’s what we’re stuck with until things change.

 

[Lemuel]

What I have noticed is that when people go down the road of no or less government what they really mean is that they don’t want the government telling them what to do and they don’t want to pay for anything, but they want the government to protect them and tell other people what to do, and they want to use stuff that everyone else pays for.

That’s at best, a bizarre interpretation of anything I have said.

 

[boclucky14]

The government should just sell the Interstates and highways to let private corporations charge tolls and maintain the roads.

Only acceptable if they don’t track you and they don’t have public police enforcement. And “private” police shouldn’t have jurisdiction. And the current taxes are entirely removed. And there’s a review system to ensure the corporation is actually maintaining the road to an at least equivalent level that the government could.

Oh, and that travel time is not slowed down at all by these new tolls.

 

[Lemuel]

Are you an actual anarchist? (Or even worse, one of those waterheads who tries to tell cops that they’re “sovereign citizens” when they’re pulled over) As I said before, if you really want to be gubmint-free, you could always put your money where your mouth is and renounce your US citizenship.

You obviously have not read anything I have said or you wouldn’t ask such a question. No, I’m not an anarchist. And your name calling doesn’t progress this discussion any.

Anarchy would not be a bad idea, but it’s not practical in the world we live in. It’s a utopian concept that I never see happening. I’m somewhat of a voluntaryist. In general, I believe that all contracts should be voluntary. But again, I live in the real world.

Government, by its very nature is violence. You simply cannot have a government without violence. Example. Most of us believe in a national defense, so we pay for it through taxation. But there are those in the country who are pacifists and don’t believe in violence as a form of defense. But we tax them and protect them against their will anyway. They are forced to pay (by force) for a service that is an offense to their morality. So, to most of us, it’s fine, but to them, it’s violence.

For that reason, and many others, you cannot separate government from violence. So the question is how much violence are you willing to inflict upon others? It’s something that I feel we are obligated to treat very carefully and with great caution. There are no perfect answers because there will always be evil in the world.

I would be comfortable in drawing the line by the Constitution for now. But if we actually lived by the Constitution, that would mean reducing our national government by probably 80 percent or more. The federal government would not be involved in things like undeclared wars, Social Security, Medicare, health care, federal welfare handouts and massive entitlement programs, education, interstate highways, national parks, wildlife reserves, wilderness areas, marriage laws, to name just a few.

We don’t need government to be the do-gooders. If I have excess of my needs, I will decide who to give it to and I will know that 100% of it goes to the person or people who need it. If I abrogate my duty to care for the needy to government, then a big chunk of it goes to the people who don’t need it and a small percentage of it goes to those who do. Government is not the friend of the needy. If you believe otherwise, then you are living in a fairy tale.

continued . . .

 

[Lemuel]

As far as government on a local level, I stand with what I have said. We don’t need the state to be our Mommy and our Daddy because we don’t have the maturity to fend for ourselves. Very little, if anything, that the government does is done efficiently or well. Government is mostly a cesspool of failed programs. I would prefer that we end the government monopoly and allow the people to solve their problems in most cases. Is there a need for limited government? Perhaps. But what we have is a government on steroids. The main function of government is to make laws that turn otherwise good and honest people into common criminals and to justify its existence through more and more oppressive laws.

I’ve asked this many times, but nobody ever answers it. Jesus taught us to care for the needy. And that is what Christians are morally obligated to do. Where did Jesus teach us to compel our neighbors to do the same? That is what you are doing when you pass your responsibility on to government. There is nothing nobel or righteous about that. And it’s lousy and irresponsible economic sense.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Ok, but what if I decide to be immoral and indecent? How are you going to enforce your rights under your ideal system where there is essentially no government?

I’m not trying to call you names, I’m genuinely wondering what your answer would be to this very common scenario.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Amen! Wise words from a great president,

 

[Lemuel]

I’m not trying to call you names, I’m genuinely wondering what your answer would be to this very common scenario.

I’ve answered your previous questions. It’s your turn to answer mine. Then I’ll answer you.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t think you can possibly understand how people on the right think. You’re too deep into believing liberal talking points and will seemingly do anything to support them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Government, by its very nature is violence. You simply cannot have a government without violence.

Does it bother you at all that this is a decidedly anti-Catholic point of view? If you really want to know what the Catholic view of the nature of government is, please consult the Catechism, especially paragraphs around 1898 and 2234.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, I owe you an apology then.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

I’ve answered your previous questions. It’s your turn to answer mine. Then I’ll answer you.

Sure. You were wondering where Jesus said it’s okay to compel your neighbors to practice charity?

A few thoughts. First, we have to infer a lot with Jesus, because He didn’t lay out specific answers on every possible scenario. Jesus never said it’s okay to ride a bicycle, either, but I doubt most people would say it’s therefore forbidden.

So, with that in mind, I can think of a few things. The obvious example is Jesus’ response to taxation. He acknowledged that paying taxes to an earthly sovereign was fine, provided you didn’t conflate that earthly power with God. He also instructed soldiers to be satisfied with their pay and not mistreat the public (i.e He didn’t tell them to leave the army because the army shouldn’t exist.)

There’s also no stream of Catholic thought through the centuries that I’m aware of that suggests the state should disestablish itself. There are certainly things the state can do that are illegitimate, but that doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING a state does is illegitimate.

I also think you need to separate the morality of a state action with the morality of a private person doing the same thing. Taxation is distinct from theft in the same way that an execution after a trial is distinct from vigilante murder. That’s just a basic principle of living in a society with other human beings. We accept that there are certain things that the group can do through formal processes that individuals cannot do.

Ok, your turn: what do you do in your scenario with virtually no government where stuff going on on my land is polluting and ruining yours, and I’m not responsive to your appeals to morality or neighborliness?

 

[Lemuel]

Okay, so your answer is that you don’t have an answer. And since Jesus did not speak on the subject, you interpret the lack of scripture to further your political views. Fair enough, I can do the same. Jesus didn’t say it because he didn’t believe it. I have my answer now according to your rules.

Ok, your turn: what do you do in your scenario with virtually no government where stuff going on on my land is polluting and ruining yours, and I’m not responsive to your appeals to morality or neighborliness?

I answered that above. (And how did you know that I have a fish pond?)

Time to go now. I have animals to feed and fences to build. I am one of those who doesn’t believe in Mommy government taking care of me.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Okay, so your answer is that you don’t have an answer. And since Jesus did not speak on the subject, you interpret the lack of scripture to further your political views. Fair enough, I can do the same. Jesus didn’t say it because he didn’t believe it. I have my answer now according to your rules.

Uh, what? I gave you an answer. Point out where you think my reasoning is flawed, by all means. But this response is just bizarre. Do you think that everything Jesus didn’t explicitly endorse is forbidden? Show me where Jesus told you to use the Internet. If you can’t, I assume you’ll be going to confession soon to confess having had this conversation.

Suggesting that I am interpreting scripture selectively to support my political views is kind of rich, considering in the next sentence you claim to know exactly what Jesus believed on a subject He didn’t speak to. Must be nice to so intimately know the mind of God. Where does Jesus come down on Coke vs. Pepsi, just out of curiosity?

I answered that above. (And how did you know that I have a fish pond?)

You actually didn’t. You said “well, you’re obligated by morality.” and I said, “Okay, say you’re dealing with an immoral person.” and then you appear to have hit a wall. Are you saying you’d just shrug and go, “Welp, guess my land is getting ruined, then.” Are you acknowledging that in your essentially no government world, there’s no real answer here other than vigilante justice?

Time to go now.

This sounds a bit like, “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

I am one of those who doesn’t believe in Mommy government taking care of me.

This seems really important to your sense of self so I’m just going to let you have it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Either way. A place in the country where there isn’t some government agency responsible for putting your housefire out? Considering affecting neighbors and neighboring lands?

My B.S. meter is starting to rise.

Most fire departments in the US are volunteer departments.

Most are not government agencies as such. Instead, they lie somewhere in the middle of being outright government agencies and being private corporations.

They do receive some government funding, especially grants for certain kinds of equipment or for major purchases like new vehicles or buildings.

But the reality is that most departments are indeed volunteer.
67% of departments are all-volunteer and 70% of individual firefighters are volunteer.

only 9% of departments are all-paid departments and 30% of firefighters are paid employees.

source NFPA report - U.S. fire department profile