anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
No, compared to the 1970's we are oppressed in ways that have nothing to do with gender, race, or religious equality. We are becoming slaves to our masters. We work for free nearly 1/2 the year when you add it all up.
Privilege today exists for the pleasure of the government and it's staff. We are returning to a monarchy. However, the succession is based on money, not just ancestry.
I assume the above refers to taxes, but correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Theoretically, the United States taxpayers do not "work for free", since we get services in return for taxes paid. At the federal level, we get insurance against poverty in old age (Social Security and Medicare). We also get the protection of the most powerful military in recorded history, and a diplomatic corps. to advance our interests abroad. Old age safety net, military/veterans, and diplomatic services account for about 75% of the federal budget from what I can remember.
Other services taxpayers receive: a whole host of safety measures for food, medicine, transportation, energy, water, and more. We can buy food at a market and fill a prescription at a pharmacy with reasonable assurance that it will be safe. Most of us enjoy clean drinking water that is free of contaminants. In a complex civilization with countless actors doing all sorts of different things in an area spread out over thousands of miles in each direction, it is practically impossible for an individual to have knowledge of and defend against all the kinds of problems that can occur.
At the local level, taxes pay for police protection, fire protection, roads, schools, and other public resources.
There is simply no way to have a functioning modern society without these public goods and services.
The truly troubling aspect of it, is about 1/2 the country wants to have their rights taken from them. They want the government to control every single aspect of their lives. They see no problem with government staff having more rights than those they hold control over.
The problem is that different rights conflict with each other, and there needs to be some arbiter to resolve the conflicts.
The recent Supreme Court case involving a gay couple suing a baker who refused to bake them a wedding cake is an example of this. On one side, the gay couple assert their right to be free from discrimination in public commerce. On the other side, the baker asserts his right to be free from compelled speech that goes against sincere religious conviction.
Today, I will go into work, and fill out forms as part of my duties. Today will be like any other day this century. They will ask me what race am I and what gender am I. It's required by law, and determines whether or not I will be allowed to work. I will not be notified if I'm rejected due to gender or racial issues. The government deemed that side of the equation to be unnecessary.
My son just did his college apps last month. What college he is allowed to attend is not entirely based on his academic achievement, but also the color of his skin, just like it was for my daughters. ie - You can be anything you want in the USA as long as you are the correct race, gender, and religion.
That is not rumor, it's written in ink and enforced by armed government personnel. Just like we did to the Native Americans, but now it's 100 years later. The 'white man' is still evil, however, 'white man' now has nothing to do being white or a man. It is tied into who you collect your paycheck from.
This underscores the basic tension of American civilization: how to reconcile the ideal of allowing people to do whatever they want, with the ideal that people should be equals in society. Individuals and groups with more resources and more social capital could easily trample those of lesser means and position.
I don't believe there will ever be a good answer to any of this conflict.
The only logical solution I can see is to move oneself to a region of the country where government and social interference is lowest, if one does not like complicated rules and restrictions. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, did exactly this: moved to an isolated area of rural Montana to escape what he saw as the "oversocialization" from society at large. Of course, the fact that he decided to become a terrorist and murder people with mail bombs only brought civilization down upon him like a ton of bricks once his identity was disclosed.
If you're unhappy with high taxes, more government, and P.C., the only logical choice is to leave California, permanently. I have friends and relatives who moved to Texas and are much happier there. Or one could move to rural Montana and live the rugged, individual life that some are meant to live.