|
|
| Re: Unipartisan Infrastructure Bill vote (1582045) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Unipartisan Infrastructure Bill vote |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Thu Aug 5 17:08:55 2021, in response to Re: Unipartisan Infrastructure Bill vote, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 5 12:36:36 2021. AIM -which part of the Constitution are you pointing to? I see it as being against forcibly taking money from one person for the benefit of another. Besides the constitution is subordinate to our fundamental belief in the freedom of each person. We are welcome to voluntarily band together in our efforts at life but we're not welcome to force ourselves on others in the pursuit of our schemes. Solving our needs remains a personal responsibility.-your second point doesn't quite connect because a road user voluntarily supporting a transit rider is not related to whether it is right to force other road users to do the same. A bigger view is that the answer to busy roads is that people wouldn't crowd together in the first place if they could see the real cost of the transportation needed. Spider -"benefit...investment". Not so because it omits the right of choice. IE at an extreme a voter group could forcibly take $100 from you, buy a gun, rob a bank and pay you back thousands. The test it fails is not just the morality; it also denies you choice, maybe you had other ideas of what to do with your money. The idea reminds me of tax subsidies to encourage business, the owner saves money, the employees make money, the suppliers make sales but many locals don't see a dime back for the tax money they were forced to put in. The mob is so blinded by their goal that they don't see that there is not 100% payback, that they are trampling over the remaining minority. Another mob falsehood is "benefit for the greater good". If you are in a room of 10 people and 9 think you should pay for their lunch it clearly benefits the majority but is hardly more than passive-aggressive mob rule. And watch their arguments degenerate to sounding like a mob. So these "popular" arguments need broader thought. There are catches in them because they start in the middle of the problem (someone "needs" transportation) rather than at the top (solving personal needs is a personal responsibility, joining with others to solve them is nice but it is only voluntary). Bill |
|
|
|