>>And finally, the amounts of my taxes that goes to those
>things I
>>actually use is dwarfed by that which I will either never see
>benefit
>>from (social security/medicare/medicaid/etc.) or which I
>don't
>>support (foreign >aid/wars on foreign soil/etc.
>
>I love how arrogant you are. You may not be in need of any of
>these services now, however, times change as do situations.
>What you don't need now you may be thanking God for existing
>later.

My point is that at 25, the chances any of those programs will still be in existence when I need them is very near zero. Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security will all be lucky to last a couple decades more. Let alone the 40+ years until I qualify. Will I get a refund?

>>How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair. That
>seems
>>to be how businesses get by.
>
>I'm going to say that those who are in need of these services
>you do not want to pay for are dependants in one capacity or
>another. Whether they're elderly, or disabled. Please refrain
>from making an anecdote about your cousin who scams social
>insurance for beer money.
>
>>http://www.mises.org/story/1121
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
>
>This is the case of a tribal society, with small communities.
>Human beings cease to be able to function as a community above
>certain population levels. This also presupposes that the
>society in question is one with uniform ethics, values,
>wealth, and religion.

Do you have a local community? Does your local community then have representatives who speak for you amongst reps from other communities? Crazy how thats the system they had going on and is almost exactly like how ours works.


>>National defense, sure. I would argue that police forces have
>been
>>oppressive and ineffective since the beginning of time and
>have
>>almost always been created for that purpose.
>
>This I agree with. However, violent crime takes a steep
>nosedive when a population is capable of defending themselves,
>themselves. For example, nations with mandatory conscription.
>Oh wait, you oppose conscription because it presupposes that
>the gov't owns your Life.

Ya know, I like the Swiss way where everyone serves, but I also think that no one should be forced to serve. It's an interesting conundrum, though I think this statement and the one preceding it (which I deleted) are at fundamentally at odds with each other.