oh, and @95, I think I own some Unilever shares, so some of the money comes back to the US in the form of dividends. And if you have a Total Stock Market or European Stock exposure in your 401(k) or 403(b), to you as well.

The problem with your thinking @86, is that, if you give EVERYONE that same "freedom" to contribute ONLY to those things that benefit their own self-interest, a lot of important, necessary things won't get funded at all - ever.

Just for one example: you may only want to pay for the roads that lead directly to where you live, work, shop, and play. But, even if you can get enough of your neighbors to also agree to that general expenditure, THEY are going to have significant differences of opinion, because you don't all work in the same location, shop at the same stores, or engage in the same recreational activities.

This notion that "the needs of the individual trumps all other considerations" is an anachronistic carry-over from an 18th & early 19th Century pioneer mentality, when there was enough unclaimed, wide-open space (mostly stolen from natives, but that's a whole other bucket of worms) that anyone with some gumption and a little bit of scratch could lay claim to their own parcel of land and do with it what they please.

I hate to be the one to break the news to you but, guess what? This is the freaking 21st Century. Americans don't have the luxury any more of being able to hitch a team of oxen to a Conestoga wagon and head off to some pristine, undeveloped corner of the continent to try their luck at self-sufficiency, unmolested by other human beings and their insidious social contracts.

Today, over two thirds of the U.S. population, more than 200 million people, live in the top 100 metropolitan areas. The rest live in smaller cities, towns, and developed rural areas, all of which require some sort of social interaction with their fellow citizens in order to obtain the goods and services they require to carry out the basic activities of daily life.

I doubt there are more than a few thousand people in the U.S. currently who can legitimately lay claim to being 100% self-sufficient; even the much-lauded Amish can't do EVERYTHING for themselves. For one thing, it's too damned much work. So, we engage in these things called "societies", which enable large groups of individuals to pool resources, share skills, and exchange needed goods and services they can't provide for themselves in order to achieve both maximum efficiency, and at relatively minimal effort on everyone's part.

The federal government is simply another level of this social compact: it provides economies of scale that allow an entire nation to equip a sizable national armed force, build an interstate infrastructure and transportation system (e.g. highways, power distribution, railways, dams, bridges and the like) manage and direct development (or conversely prevent development) over large swathes of territory held in trust for the nation, set and enforce universal standards for health, safety, education, employment and industry for the benefit of all, and ensures the rights of every citizen are recognized and protected from those that would deny these same rights to others, or who would exploit them for their own benefit.

And guess what? All that takes money, a contribution from each citizen to ensure these necessary activities are performed as efficiently, and as fairly as can be for a nation encompassing some 3,537,441 square miles, with a current population of some 306,000,000 people.

Now granted, not everyone contributes the same amount to help achieve these ends, but except for the extremes at both the top and bottom, where there is a tendency for individuals to receive far greater benefit in proportion to what they put in, most of us get a pretty decent return on our investment. Ask any tax-payer and they'll have their own particular pet-peeves; things for which they pay, but for which they morally, or fiscally do not approve. But, the idea that every single solitary individual should have some sort of "veto stamp" over these expenditures is simply ludicrous; just the administrative inefficiency alone of having to parse out every tiny personal preference in terms of what money goes where would bring the federal government to a complete stand-still.

And so, for the sake of efficiency, and because we recognize that only a relative handful of us have the time, knowledge, and inclination to go through the arduous task of deciding these things, we have a Constitutional Representative Democracy in place, so that we can appoint a handful of individuals to represent the greater number of citizens, and empower them to do this on our behalf. Sometimes we don't like the choices they make, but that same Constitutional system allows us to periodically change who will represent us in carrying out that process, and each of us has the freedom to cast a vote based on which person we think will better represent our interests, or even, if we so choose, to place our own selves in the running to BE that person. It's not a perfect system, but, to paraphrase Churchill, "it's better than the rest."

And NOBODY is telling you to STFU and "take it", that's the WHOLE POINT of our system. If you don't like the way things are done, you have the freedom, the right to try to change it via the democratic process. But by that same token, you also have the obligation, the responsibility to accept that, when a majority of your fellow citizens decide to go in a direction with which you do not personally approve, they get to call the shots for awhile. You can still complain, you can still work to change the person who you feel best represents your interests, but you DON'T have the right to simply opt-out whenever things don't go exactly to your liking.

Well, technically you DO have that option, but that also requires completely abrogating the social contract by which all of us have agreed to abide, which basically means moving somewhere conditions are more conducive to your desire to be completely self-sufficient; I'm sure there are still a few unclaimed tracts in the Alaskan interior that would fit the bill nicely, but other than that - ?

In any case, the choice is still yours: agree to the terms of the social contract we call "American citizenship", or move to the boonies, and try to make it completely on your own.

Technically, though, if you're a Canadian paying US taxes, you are not a zero-sum game - your SS earnings can be used with your CPP/OAS earnings when you retire, and you can vote in Canadian federal elections (and the last province you resided in) - just check with the local Canadian consulate in Seattle.

The governor of Texas is ranting about seceding from the United States.

Speaking to an energetic and angry tea party crowd in Austin Wednesday evening, the Lone Star State governor suggested secession may happen in the future should the federal government not change its fiscal polices.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

I seem to recall from my history books that some states tried that, once upon a time, long, long ago. How did that work out?

I also seem to recall from not too long ago that Republicans were rather free in slinging accusations of treason at Democrats (Ann Coulter wrote a book about it, and Jonah Goldberg tried to imply it), yet here is a governor actively inciting mobs with the idea of secession, which is a rather blatantly anti-patriotic act. Funny how their attitudes change.

Oh, and for comic relief: Chuck Norris offers to run for president of the independent nation of Texas. I agree that they should leave the union, just for the hilarious spectacle. I think the secession of the 'former' Confederate States of America is a jolly idea, as the present day south is is essentially nothing more than an ungrateful welfare sinkhole. Really, they receive far more from the feds than they contribute, then they have the teabags to complain about their 'problem'. The rest of the nation would be better off without their fundamentalist lazy asses.

Were there really 1,000 people there at Westlake Park? I walked by at 6:15PM and although it looked packed on Pike, when I walked on 4th it looked like at least half of Westlake Park was empty.

What you're describing @97 has a name, it's called "feudalism", and it worked sort of okay for a while, when small social groups lived in relative isolation from one another.

But, short of a world-wide catastrophe of Apocalyptic proportions, I can't really envision anyone (even self-professed Randian Objectivist "individualists") wanting to go back to a medieval socio-political system predicated on a pre-industrial agrarian subsistence culture, even if that is the logical extension of what you suggest. For one thing, most of the folks turning out for these protests would find themselves in a much WORSE situation than what they experience now. In fact, if things were to magically revert back tomorrow to the sort of social constructs you describe, and all of these people suddenly found themselves stuck in the same little enclave, MOST of them would be dead within a month, if that, because they simply don't have the necessary range of skills to be able to survive at even the most minimal level under those conditions.

@Bryan: So let me get this straight, you want local/state goverment to oversee international and national corporations? So each locality can have their own laws and systems? Do you not see what a nightmare that would for every company to deal with. Companies will just go over to the EU to conduct business then deal with little war-lords or fiefdoms here in America.

Yeesh. you do belong in Africa.

@102

Very well put.

But, the idea that every single solitary individual should have some sort of "veto stamp" over these expenditures is simply ludicrous; just the administrative inefficiency alone of having to parse out every tiny personal preference in terms of what money goes where would bring the federal government to a complete stand-still.

But this is exactly the point of the modern day, Grover Norquist - drown-the-government-in-a-bathtub conservative philosophy. They want to bring governance to a complete and total standstill, and they aren't shy about admitting it. It is part of the real "wealth redistribution" scheme. The right exercises a circular logic; Government is bad, so we should defund it. After they 'restructure' a government function, making it even less effective, they scream some more about the alleged inefficiencies of government and demand that fewer funds be spent. The catch is that the money is still being spent, but now it is going to a select few in so-called 'privatization' schemes, which are infinitely more inefficient than the supposedly 'evil' government programs they replace. The billions of dollars shuffled to Blackwater, Bechtel, et.al. in Iraq are prime examples of this. Support functions formerly conducted efficiently and inexpensively by the US military, such as laundry, cafeterias, equipment transfer, etc. are handed off to 'private contractors', who charge exorbitant fees for to provide the same services in a far less efficient manner, creating massive fraud and endangering the lives of US soldiers in the process. This is the actual goal of the alleged 'free market' crowd. The blatant and outright theft of the nation's wealth by a small handful of corporate vandals.

@106/102
In replay to Bryan:

"but I CAN'T see how breaking down the nation into states.. then eventually into counties... then eventually into cities...then eventually into property and ignoring what's left in the gaps can be helpful to society. Gaps do not just disappear. They form militias, guerilla armies, and erect guillotines."

Just to clarify, I wholeheartedly agree with your post on #102/and 106

Correction:

post 97 was directed @89.
not @87

sorry. arguing with myself is embarrassing.

Weird - I have no idea why et.al. in my comment @109 is embedded as a link, as I did not add any HTML to that post. nor in this one, but again it appears as a link in the preview, and I assume it will when I publish this comment. Any tech gurus out there?

@ Bryan: Good luck avoiding cholera when we defund public health, and keeping clear of lead, melamine and god knows what-all shit corporations put in kids' toys and baby food before we had the FDA. Enjoy breathing that mercury-laced coal smoke. And too bad about that corrupt bank that went belly up, erasing all your savings. And your house that burned down, killing your kids, because of faulty wiring, since we no longer have building inspectors. Oh, and your neighbors' kids, too, since we no longer have zoning.

Yes, if only we lived FREE in a dream world without regulation or taxation.

@112. Software is stupid. It thinks et-dot-al must be a domain in Albania (for which "al" is the TLD).

But you're wrong too; the correct phrase is "et alia" (no dot), and is correctly abbreviated "et al.", not "et.al".

Bryan doesn't believe there IS a public realm. Pointless to try and argue with someone like that.

@114 Eureka! I knew there was an explanation.

I must share the Rude Pundit's summation of the yesterdays silliness:

"How goddamned simple-minded this whole tea party thing was. How divorced from reality. What a waste of time, of energy, of paper and ink. All it succeeded in doing was propping up some egos, giving understandably frustrated people a place to misdirect their anger, and allowing there to be an hour of TV that featured Ted Nugent, Penn Jillette, and Janine Turner, like Hell's Tonight Show."

Georgia Senate threatens to secede - please, let their people go! Please?

http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/georg…

COMTE, 2009, and rightiswrong,

Fabulous reading. Bryan, thanks for your contributions as well.

Precisely, @109, as this old Doonesbury Cartoon aptly illustrates.

Awesome how Bryan has disappeared.
And I now have a crush on Comte. Would that everyone were so smart and explain-y.

Well, sometimes I'm accused (and not always incorrectly, I fear) of being a little TOO explain-y...

Comte: If you're not teaching economics, you should be. You just condensed a year's worth of classes into a few concise paragraphs. Mad props.

As for everyone else in the comments: Thank you! I've enjoyed reading this debate.

they wrote a song about the Teabaggers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-5g78Nr…

Thanks @122. Maybe I missed my calling...

@52 I pretty much love you.

uh, http://work-ethic.tumblr.com

COMTE,

You really are in rare form today. Econ, Philosophy, and Poli Sci 101 (and 201, for that matter) concisely and accurately delivered with a succinct vengeance.

All them fancy "nuances" are probably gonna be lost on most of the teabag types, though...

Everybody is entitled to a good day once in a while, it's just a matter of probability.
(Might as well throw statistic in, while I'm still on a roll.)

@84 You seriously typed in the idea that private property would cure the tragedy of the commons?

Far be it from me to go there, but would it be inciting violence to suggest that Tim Eyman's head looks a whole lot like a ripe, ripe pinata in that shot?

For those who'd like to know, Socialism isn't incompatible with, nor does it forbid capitalism.

It strives to provide a framework that promotes a number of state-subsidized social benefits and safety nets for all citizens, without forcing them to pay for such safeties out of their own pockets:

- health care
- unemployment
- retirement

Those are some of the basics. In a World of "Employer vs Employee", a socialist government tends to enact many laws that significantly increase and protect the benefits and rights of the Employee.

Having grown-up in France for a good chunk of my life, i've seen both the good and bad:

It was great that my family didn't have to pay for health care out of pocket. My Mom had Cancer 2 years ago, and beat it without getting broke. My Dad's had significant and rare heart conditions for most of his adult life which he's been able to keep under control without getting the family broke either.

On the other hand, they're both entrepreneurs and have experienced first-hand the overhead and burden placed on small, medium and large companies to subsidize the cost of all those social benefits, and pro-employees lost enabling them to rob their employers blind, work 4 months + 1 day, then live off of unemployment for a few months at 75% of their pay . Because in the end, politicians don't want the majority of their voting-base to be forced to shell out a single penny, or be held accountable for actually trying to work, that doesn't get or keep them into office.

I think there's a balance to be attained, we need to get creative, open-minded, and downright revolutionary about careful eligibility, and be ready to accept that yes, there may be some of us who are not eligible (or eligible for less) for state coverage because we just do too damned well in life.

I think that most of us who can pay for our own healthcare, should.
I think that the few of us who get catastrophic medical conditions should have some sort of government subsidized coverage.
I believe that people who are trying to raise a family on less than 20 grand a year shouldn't have to worry about medical coverage, or some other basic necessities.

The problem is, i doubt the society will get behind that, and much less politicians, because in the end, people are fundamentally retarded.

-chris

you can laugh all you want now, we only brought tea bags this time, just wait till the 2nd ammendment wheels into action, if you dont like this country the way it was founded then get the hell out girls.

So middle aged white dudes are the only ones who can protest...because they're the only ones who pay taxes? Last time i checked a big chunk of my paycheck went to taxes. God i wish i would have know about this so i could have gone and protested against the protesters! If it happens again will you all come with me to protest them, the teabaggers?

Just had to say, your protest didn't change anything. this is the 1st I've heard of on this blog, by accident, i was really looking up to see if there were any protest to legalize marijuana going soon.
There is May 2nd everyone!