Why should the government "help" people with Aspergers?

Post Reply New Topic

governments make the laws. they say its legal, make law saying it legal, so its legal, so they do have legal right to take that money. so by your own definition it can't be stealing. don't like it, go live in africa.

Here's a nice, simple lentil recipe.

1. Cook the lentils in plain water until tender--do not add salt. it will make the lentils tough.
2. after they are cooked, add chicken powder (bouillon to taste), a dollop of bacon fat, and a generous sprinkling of Italian seasoning.
3. simmer for an additional 10-15 minutes.
4. serve over rice.

the only remotely expensive ingredient is Italian seasoning, but it doesn't take much, and it's well worth it. Italian seasoning greatly improves just about anything.

It will make the taste of lentils go from ass to amazing and it even makes frozen pizza taste like... something.

The same it true for bacon fat. NEVER throw bacon fat out.

I think a rough guide is, the SSDI payment is close to what you would clear after taxes. So, I'd say you'd need to make 4K+ for a number of years to get $2500/month.

To be fully vested you need 40 "quarters of coverage." That's ten years of work/paying into the OASDI system.

None of the things you mentioned is impossible in a libertarian or anarcho capitalistic society.

If people want roads, they can pay for them with the money that would have gone to taxes instead.

If you want to go to school, you can pay for it with your tax money.

If you want police/fire protection, you can buy it from a private company, with the tax money that a bunch of middle-men beurocrats would have taken instead.

I do not have an obligation to move, people have an obligation to stop stealing from me. What I do on my own property is my business, not anyone elses, and likewise, what goes on outside my property, is none of my business.

The government is based on unjust exercise of power. They will put a figurative (and in some cases literal) gun to your head and tell you to comply, even when it comes to stuff that happens on your own property. I will never recognize a government that imposes unjust laws on anyone as a legitimate power.

Study the history of privatized infrastructure.


If you really think that's the case, then I URGE you to refuse to pay your taxes.

Really.

I think you deserve to reap the rewards of such a principled and heroic act.

it was appointed by the people, so how is it unjust. have they expanded those powers yes but that abuse has nothing to do with taxes.
one person alone can't go out and pay for a whole highway or school it takes everyone, but people like you would just pave your driveway and sit at your house with a rifle yelling at others to go away. its all about being selfish, all about you you you you you. and f**k everyone else. that is until you need help then you're be crawling back to us.
you don't have to live here, but most the world has taxes, its something that most the world's population agrees and goes with. why probably because its the best system of getting things done.

technically the government owns all the land in the us. they let you buy it from them but its still theres. you don't become the republic of denpa jin. you're house and land is still part of the united states.

Typically what happens here is that a public monopoly is replaced by a private monopoly. Which ends up costing more since the whatever now needs to make a profit. There's also the variation where a private (for profit) contractor is directly paid taxpayers' money.

I certainly didn't appoint anyone to rule on my behalf, that's for sure. Also, what pays for the abuse of power? Taxes does.
One person can. I'd wager a couple of Norwegian celebrities/entrepreneurs would be willing to shell out some dosh for a few schools, and probably a few roads too. I know that Olav Thon, a guy who has a buttload of money that he earned by running a huge hotel chain here, would be willing to build a few roads and maybe a couple of schools. From what I've heard of him, he is the kind of guy who takes out a salary even though he could have just done all kinds of completely legal stuff to make him not have to pay a salary tax. You also miss the point, that if people are not willing to go together and pool the money needed to build a road voluntarily, they clearly do not want that road bad enough.

I would most likely not need to yell at people to stay away from my house, as people know that if they break into my house I will shoot them. That's the good thing about everyone having guns, people know not to f**k with others. An armed society is a polite society.

I have a healthy self-interest. I do not think it's OK for people to come and take away what is rightfully mine. If not accepting thievery makes one selfish, then OK, I'm selfish. I would still like to point out, that a voluntaryist society would not be one void of philanthropy and humanist endeavors. People tend to find comfort in doing nice things, especially when it gives good PR. Maybe it is todays society that is void of good things, when people need the government to force them to do good?

Here is where? Also, I was born here. The injustices here were forced upon me. I didn't know most of the people of the world liked taxes, do you have any sources on that? It'd make for an interesting read. Even if most of the world thinks taxes are good, does that make taxes right? Democracy isn't always a bad thing.

When people bring up democracy as a reason something is good, I usually refer them to the point of royalty in Norway. We can all agree that having royalty is a bit backwards, and having them does cost the taxpayers money that we could have used for schools or whatnot (there are arguments for royalty actually being economically beneficial to Norway in some ways, but that's another argument for another time, and I'm guessing you're not very familiar with royalty in Norway in the first place?). The thing is, whenever you say that it is indeed backwards, and wrong that we still have titles that are passed down in families officially in Norway, people refer you to how (supposedly) around 70% to 80% of the population are in favor of keeping our royalty. People are saying, "most people want it, so we must have it". When I ask them, what if 70% to 80% were in favor of giving all power to the king, they usually start backpedaling and saying "but that's different!". It's exactly the same thing, except it's not something they are in favor of, so they will say democracy is not a valid reason for it. Now, ask yourself, what if 70% to 80% of the US (I'm guessing you're American) population demands that all mentally ill people be internalized and sterilized, would you be OK with that? Democracy is a very flawed concept.

If we're going by "what gets things done", I'd suggest we appoint a (hopefully) benevolent dictator to rule on our behalf! Who needs those pesky judicial and legislative branches anyways, right? Absolute power definitely gets things done, because there are no one with power left to disagree!

You own the land you have rightfully bought from someone, it's just that the government likes to come in and tell you what you can and cannot do there. I don't live in the US, and I'm no expert on laws regarding property rights in the US either. Are you?

It would not be named "the republic of denpa jin" (not just because it's denpajin and not denpa jin), it would be named "Glorious Constitutional Republic of Muh Freedoms". No country or king speaks for me, I am an individual and I demand I be treated as such.

It was said earlier that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Emphasis on civilized. You sound like a very good Republican... I have mine, now lock the door and stop others from climbing the ladder...

Can you explain to me how expropriating someones rightfully owned land is civilized? How is killing children with dronestrikes in far-away countries civilized? Police brutality? Mass surveillance? Incarcerating people for doing drugs? How is any of this civilized?


When you say "Republican", are you referring to the Republican party in the USA? I am pretty far away from those. If you want something American you can associate with me, I'm more of a libertarian guy (you remember Ron Paul?). Here in Norway, I would support DLF or Liberalistene, both of which are very, veeery liberal parties.

What do you mean by lock the door and stop others from climbing the ladder? If someone can offer a superior service/product compared to me, they would in the free market win over me (provided they know how to market their product, and don't do something stupid like anger a lot of their customer base with political opinion or whatever).

I think I already explained to you how a free society would work out? People will collaborate to get what they want, and if they don't collaborate/work to get it, they clearly do not want it bad enough.

You are advocating for a 2nd or 3rd world country. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, said he wouldn't have made it without being in a 1'st world country. In your world, would one who didn't pay toward the road be able to use it? How does that work? Also, without all that infrastructure you wouldn't have built, how would you have been successful in the first place. Much of your ability to succeed depends on using infrastructure you didn't pay for. So, how is it wrong to contribute towards building and maintaining that infrastructure?