The analogy worked precisely as intended, from the looks of it.
It worked in that it proved you don't actually want to discuss what i said, but prefer to just pretend one of the examples MUST include coercion?
The difference (as I said above) is that you can influence and change which charities you support, whereas with government your influence is limited (to zero, practically speaking). As for it all being taken away by force (100% tax as you said) and then what you "need" determined by some bureaucrat, and hoping that's enough... I need to actually enumerate the problem with that versus determining yourself what you actually need?
Oh for... as i said for a million times, lets imagine taxes don't rely on coercion, and you can choose not to pay them (because, by some miracle, it's easy for the government to stop you from using any of the service those taxes pay for), and that the amount that you get to keep is actually determined by you (which is why it's the same as if you gave to charity) etc.
See, the thing is, you're just demonising "the government" as if it's some sort of thinking beast that consumes your resources, instead of being made up of other people, with all their weaknesses and biases... as are charities, which is why plenty of them have fallen prey to embezzling etc.
.....
Of course this is way off from what i said originally, which was that charities aren't an alternative to government programs, or paying taxes, and that's been proven time and time again. Because if they where we'd be living in your ideal society already.
.....
with government your influence is limited (to zero, practically speaking)
Look, if that was actually true, there would be no need for the insane amounts of propaganda all sides engage in.
The problem with the public is that "bread and circuses" still works too well. Maybe we should teach kids about it in 1st grade... but no one wants that...
My view on government is pretty clear: it should be there only for what is barely needed and not for "what can your government do for you today?" Keeping down government power means that it can't screw you over as badly, or at least it can screw over a lot fewer people badly. This is why Gas was sounding the alarm on overreach of Executive Orders literally years ago. For every exercise of power that you agree with think of how that power can be used in a similar way in a way you do not agree with. That's the danger that small-government folks point out, but is often ignored in favor of "something's wrong, the government has the money and must do something!" No matter how many times government intervention is a disaster, people will still see it as the "first option" for dealing with it.
Except that the government not doing something can also screw you over badly... like lets say not providing military protection, or law enforcement, or disaster relief (Katrina says Hi!), or keeping anti-trust laws on the books.
The problem is that "what's barely needed" is not an actual definition you can use to set up a barrier to the governments power, since no one can agree what the minimum is...
So your ideal government isn't any sort of actual working model, but a cute, feel good idea, like replacing "Obamacare with something much much better". Everyone wants that, but you're supposed to have a plan about it, or it's just words. And words are wind.
so @Li3n if you really think I'm ignoring you, please point out more specifically how.
Oh for... you know what, never mind.
The difference is one of psychology. In one case, you are paid your wages, and then you pay the government. Your work is the source of your livelihood, as well as he source of government funding. In the other, the government is paid your wages, and then the government pays you what's left. The government then becomes the source of your livelihood. Even if the numbers are functionally identical, the psychological difference cannot be ignored.
Yup, that's the point, it's all in your head.
I don't want people mis-construing what I wrote
Well, isn't that nice.[DOUBLEPOST=1490562250,1490561979][/DOUBLEPOST]
My understanding of the AHCA is that it's not the repeal that many were selling, but more of a "tweaking" of the existing stuff. Basically, there's a reason for everybody to vote against it as a broken promise, no matter what side of things you're on. Too "democrat" for conservatives, and too "republican" for liberals. Yes I deliberately used different labels on both sides of that.
That's because the ACA was the republican plan (proposed by the Heritage Foundation even, i think) with a few tweaks...
So they basically can't replace it because it was the furthest right plan that would get more ppl coverage, so they either have to go with a more "socialist" plan, or have a lot of people that voted for them lose their insurance. Funny how Obama was playing regular chess and the reps check mates themselves.