anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
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 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.
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.
