• PeleSpirit@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Every country defines what their citizens rights are. Some countries decide that their citizens have no rights and some, like the US, have tons of rights in theory, but not always in reality.

    You have to have taxes if you’re going to have a relatively free society, because then there will be no travel, no getting out of the cycle of being poor and no one in jail (although, granted, there should be a lot less in jail but some deserve to be there). Rich people already don’t want to pay taxes, do you think they would buy roads for anyone? The infrastructure that the US now has, good and bad, is because of taxes. No one will take care of the needy and poor if you take away all of the government programs. Public schools, public libraries, public parks, all go away.

    So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?

    You don’t limit oversight, you have things in place to check on the overseers. The r’s vs. the d’s was supposed to keep that all in check. The r’s fight for lower taxes and the d’s fight for taking care of the vulnerable and then it all pleasantly meets in the middle. In the US, we’ve been here before, we have to claw our way out of it. Limiting oversight of personal citizens, yes, do that. Limiting oversight of our government, fuck no. But keep the government, just fix it and watch it.