Each to his own ability? Can you define that again?

The healthcare debate around the United states is yet another chance for the ideologies to clash, and it happens every year, at every moment where its a matter of politics. What really got my attention is this belief from fellow conservative and libertarian ATSers, from some of my neighbours, from some upon discussions at the sunday lunch I get invited to every once in a while. "Each according to his own will".

I think that if the argument was to be that we as individuals should work to the best of our abilities to be independent, most of us would agree. I do believe that we should use our abilities to the limits to help us get through life, not what "conveniences" we feel we are entitled to. However, I also believe that for modern society to function, there needs to be civil cooperation, or else society collapses. Is that not common sense? Can anybody to the right of the ideological spectrum tell me here of one civilization in human history that survived without cooperation? Without a some collective system?

The arguments against the healthcare system stem from the main core value of conservatives and libertarians, each to his or her own ability. The arguement that is, "we dont need the government to take care of the citizens, I dont want my taxes going to somebody elses healthcare" Well heres my reply, "on what grounds? Can you define that because that accusation can be applied to so many things beyond the public plan itself"

Its rather amusing to watch the arguments against liberal ideals coming from those across the ideological lines. Heres some points I would like to put out there:

"I dont want my taxes going into paying for somebody elses healthcare"
If its so easy for to refuse where your taxes go then I dont want to pay to put out somebody elses fire, I dont want to pay for somebody elses personal security so I dont want to pay for the police, I just use my gun, I dont want to pay for your roads and I dont care if that effects me personally. Neither do I want to pay for the military, who cares about the military? Why should I be forced to pay for the military if your not forced to pay for the healthcare of those in need? Where does this line draw? Im sorry do those on the right dictate whats acceptable socialism and whats not? If people are forced to shut up and put up with their taxes going into an oversized military along with other collective systems why on earth should a government option be an acception?

"Socialized care doesnt work"
And Im sure medicare is the dead acception right? Im pritty darn sure paying the healthcare of your politicians is the acception? What are we pushing the lines just that little bit? The vast majority of these rightwing mobs tend to be above their 50s, I mean for petes sakes half of them are probably on a socialized healthcare system already and yet they are refusing that to those outside their age bracket? Are you serious?

"Socialism doesnt work"
Define socialism? Please! Because from what I understand, socialism is any form of collectivism from the definition of conservatives.

I mean seriously do you make the decisions as to whats "acceptable socialism" and whats not? What gives you the right to dictate whats acceptable and whats not? The argument that a collective system doesnt work is similar to the argument that "water doesnt taste as good Coke there for it should be banned", yet we continue to depend on it regardless. Whats my point here? No conservative here has the credibility to say to me a government healthcare option is bad "because its collectivism", because at the end of the day you depend on some collective system to benefit your personal needs. If you have the right to get my money stripped from me to go into your oversized military, I have every right to demand the same of you into the public healthcare option. Or maybe we should drop civilization as a whole here?

I look forward to the replies.

SG

Our Military is destroying us just as it did the Soviet Union.
Corporations control who gets elected.
Someone will control health care be it CEO's or Elected Politicians.
Health insurance drives the price of Health Care UP for no value added to the medicine and care.
We need to build Nuke plants. They will save the environment and are a cheap replacement for carbon based energy. We have had the technology to free us of most of the Oil we use for decades.
Without the collectivism that pays for police the rich and elite would be mobbed and probably killed by those who are suffering the worst.

The wealthiest in the Nation need to be forced to give some of the wealth they stole back to take care of the health of other Americans.

The folks working for minimum wage are often working harder and longer than those making 6000.00 a hour. NO ONE has done any amount of hard work to justify such a huge gap in pay as that. It needs to be stopped.


[edit on 9-8-2009 by Xeven]

Good points. In a democracy, we agree to abide by the decisions of the majority - or of the officials elected by the majority.

I doubt that anyone in this country is 100% OK with everything that goes on in it, or with every program their tax dollars pay for. If you love the police, you may not be happy seeing your money spent on public defenders. If you're for spending more on education, you're probably unhappy with all the billions we spend on the military. There's always going to be something you're not happy about.

But that's part of the deal. We collectively pay for the things we want, and agree to pay for some things we don't want, because overall that's more efficient than each of us trying to pay for services.

reply to post by chiron613


Exactly. So what it boils down to is electing people that will do the right thing and vote honestly. The way to do that is term limits. We simply cannot trust humans to do the right thing over the long term. We are all fallible and nearly all become corrupted when their primary goal becomes reelection. We need to make a law to prevent reelection because that is the core failure of our democracy.

Even if we can trust 50% of the politicians to not become corrupt and self serving that leaves the other 50% doing the wrong things. Why would we want as nation built on that? Truth is we don't. If there is any cause worth fighting it has to start with limiting the amount of time humans wield power of the people.

I've been thinking of placing this scenario somewhere, and if this is the wrong place, then please forgive, for it only addresses a fraction of the issues raised here. I am asking the question to people who oppose health care reform based on money. People who oppose Medicaid, as well.

Picture a young woman who is about 30 years old. She is a crack ho. No other way to put it. She has one daughter, age 6, and they live in public housing, get food stamps, and are completely dependent on society. Yes, this is the one we all complaint about. She contributes nothing to society.
Her daughter, Cindy, has started in first grade. She has now realized that her mother is not like other mothers. Her home is not like other homes. She's embarrested. She knows something is wrong with her mother, so she has started taking care of things. She is teaching herself to become the mother. Did Cindy remember to take money from her mother's purse before she left home, so she can have something for them to eat before her mother passes out? Has she found what she will wear to school tomorrow, and made sure it's pressed?

Cindy's mother does pass out, but not before Cindy manages to get her to eat a few bites of macaroni. But then, her mother awakes during the wee hours. She needs crack. She will do anything to get it. She needs to go to the dealers. She can't leave Cindy alone again, or the social workers will come back and this time they will take her. If she loses Cindy, she loses her income. So she takes sleeping Cindy and puts her in the front seat beside her. Unbuckled. Then..there is a horrible car crash. The crack ho, still half asleep and half under the influence, has hit a pole.

Cindy is thrown through the windshield. When the paramedics arrive, they find the mother almost dead, still buckled in. Cindy is on the hood of the car. She is alive. She has multiple severe cuts. They can see that one eye is...not where it is supposed to be.

Now my question to you. What should the paramedics do? Do you want them to leave her on the hood of the car?

If they take her to the emergency room, do you want the doctor's there to sew her up? Or leave her alone because she has no coverage?

What do you want them to do?

reply to post by Southern Guardian




We already have government health care. Medicaid, Medicare and many other gorvernment programs that are designed to help the poor.

Each to his own ability? Can you define that again?

IMO what is lacking is the ability to be charitable.

"I dont want my taxes going into paying for somebody elses healthcare"

I prefer to find a charity that focuses on the issues I percieve to be worthy of my hard earned dollar.

Their are also thousands of charities that provide millions of dollars in health care funding for the poor.

"Socialized care doesnt work"

Socialized care has never deomonstrated the ability to maintain health care coverage and stay within in its budget.

"Socialism doesnt work"

Socialism is such a broad term, I am not interested in disscussing its merits. It would be entertaining watching you try tho...

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting


Now my question to you. What should the paramedics do? Do you want them to leave her on the hood of the car?

If they take her to the emergency room, do you want the doctor's there to sew her up? Or leave her alone because she has no coverage?

What do you want them to do?

They are already required BY LAW to provide lifesaving or stabilizing care regardless of someone's ability to pay.

Your argument is moot.

The entire quotation is actually from Karl Marx, on the objectives of socialism:

From each according to his ability
To each according to his need

In other words, each member of society should contributes to the society that which he or she can do best. This is what is expected of every citizen.

"To each according to his need." In other words, if a person is a contributing member of society that person is entitled to have his or her basic needs--food, clothing, shelter, medical care--provided for.

If conservatives have changed it to "To each according to his will" that gives it an entirely different meaning.

That saying has more to do with an Ayn-Rand-type individualism which believes that if a person's will is strong enough he or she can do anything they desire and provide for all their needs. It also believes that if a person lacks such will they deserve to suffer.

Any experience of life tells most of us that no matter how strong a person's will or spirit might be, they often need the help of a fellow human being or outside entity to overcome hardships that are insurmountable alone. For example, help in the case of a serious illness or injury, or the encouragement to go on with one's education, or a temporary loan if someone's business has just failed, or assistance and support when one is trying to overcome an addiction, or support for academic or athletic competitions or etc. Some people get that kind of assistance at an early age -- for example, having proper nourishment, health care when it is needed, encouragement and possibly tutoring in one's school work, or even braces for one's teeth ( a person's appearance has much to do with later success). All of these things give a child an early head start in life--advantages that other children do not have.

When these same privileged children reach a healthy adulthood and are given a good college education they often imagine that everything they have achieved in life is a product of their own remarkable gifts and the strength of their own will. But age and the inevitable disappointments and hardships that everyone faces in one form or another usually teach them that "no man is an island."

"To each according to his will" is the philosophy of a very young person who has not yet encountered any of life's hardships.

BTW it's interesting that Hitler and the Nazi party celebrated what they called "the triumph of the will." (That is an example of "reductio ad Hitlerum" but it seems appropriate here).


[edit on 21-8-2009 by Sestias]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The question you put forth is foolish and immature.

Socialism is defined as:

so⋅cial⋅ism  /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Communism is defined as:

com⋅mu⋅nism  /ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
Use communism in a Sentence
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Socialism is Communism's baby brother.

Of course there needs to be some limited underpinning of any society. I think everyone realizes that there are some common functions that the social fabric needs to have in place to maintain a civil order. Making certain that a 400lb gent get his heart disease treated on the public dime or for some woman to get a state funded abortion are not among them.

The issue with the current policy agenda that has conservatives and libertarians concerned is that much of what is occuring or being proposed is not constitutional, erodes our nations founding principals of a federalist republic and is yet another step down the road to a socialist society. By definition, all things collective are socialist. As described above and in accordance with our constitution, those things were purposefully meant to be extremely limited.

Soclalism does not work because in order to create a socialist society, individuals need to be forced to act in accordance with the state's rule and policy. What happens in that environment, and why socialism is the baby brother of communism is that in reality, those able will begin to contribute less, because they personally receive a decreasing result of their labor. When that happens, the state must force those individuals to contribute at the level of their ability and that, my friend, is communism. The utiopian world where we should all be totally happy to do what we can do for the public good is folly and immature. Go hold hands with your socialist buddys and have a marathon session of singing Imagine.

The reason that collective healthcare won't work (despite the simple fact that it has not worked in a fiscal sense anywhere in the world) is because is because it is the competition in the system that provides downward pressure on costs. You site Medicaid? That "gift" of Lyndon Johnsons was initially funded as a $300M program. The program now exceeds $4bn and is broke. That is only 40 years.

I'm sorry that you don't like a capitalist society. You can zip down to Cuba for some nice weather, good food, music and a healthy dose of socialism (along with, of course, socialized medicine). I'm sure they would love to have you.

Get of your moral high-horse. The simple fact of the matter is that in a capitalist society, money = freedom and the more of my money the government takes, the less freedom an I have. In our constitutional republic, the role of the federal is narrow and purposefull defined to protect our freedom, not consume it.

Oh, and by the way, what the current administration is doing by taking over banks, insurance companys, auto firms also has a name and that is Fascism which is state control of private industry.

Not too worry. Obama just announced that the 10 year deficit projection has been raised from $7.6bn to $10bn. I think that all but destroys any chance what so ever of a public option for health care (or Cap & Trade for that matter) of getting passed.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



If I read this correctly, you are basically saying, "We're mostly a socialist society so give me a good reason as to why you don't give up and let us have our way."


My answer?

No.

And I don't owe you or anybody else an explanation.
I don't owe you a damned thing.
Is that clear enough?

reply to post by hotrodturbo7


Spot on. It is also the liberal, moral relativists and collectivists who, when they find someone like that, they put them in treatment, put their kid in a foster home and then after a stint in the drunk tank, give the child back to that loser of the parent.

We have a fine social net in this country. Do elements of it need to be strengthed, absolutely. That strength should come from charities, not the government. With a private charity, I can select where to give my money and can choose to send it to organizations that have a moral underpinning that I personally agree with. I'm not about to fund Planned Parenthood, which is essentially subsidizing abortion. I do, however, currently strongly support the local rescue mission.

I will comment later, but what a great post, SG! You have really brought into the light what has been a confusion of mine, and it looks like it's touched a few nerves. I wish I could give you and a few others here more than one star.

I would like to hear the phrase and definition from someone who uses it, though. I suspect it's the Any Rand idea that Seatias gave. And it needs to be exposed for the "illogic" that it is.

reply to post by chiron613

But that's part of the deal. We collectively pay for the things we want, and agree to pay for some things we don't want, because overall that's more efficient than each of us trying to pay for services.

First I do believe in capitalism as in SMALL business. As far as I am concerned we need to USE our anti trust laws lavishly!

Whether you are talking Ayn Rand, libertarian or whatever, I think all of us agree to at least some sort of "safety net" HOWEVER the mess we have now seems to take that "safety net" and turn it into something evil AND that is the basis for my complaint.

Welfare that has turned into a new job description of "state paid unwed mother" a system designed to not allow people to get off the public dole and to add to the population.

Churches and others threaten with arrest for feeding or sheltering the homeless. The mentally ill "released" from homes to become street people thanks to the equal rights movement.

Doctors fearing the loss of all their assets because of a clerical typo. Did you know it is illegal for a doctor to treat a patient for free and Florida now has "bounty hunters" looking for errors in medicare/medicaid so doctors can be brought up on charges?

Trumped up charges used as an excuse to push through "child care " reform making it harder for the working poor to afford child care

Tax law and insurance changes that make it impossible for the poorly educated to have a house cleaning/repair business or for an individual to be a "consultant" without working through an agency that takes a large chunk of his wages.

There are many more abuses but instead of them being analyzed and fixed the bureaucracy just gets bigger, more corrupt and more expensive. Meanwhile Congress continues on its merry way saddling us with more red tape and bumbling bureaucrats.

Start with fixing the USDA, toss out Monsanto ADM Cargill etc bring charges against the head of the USDA for conspiring to commit murder and then talk to me about MORE red tape

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Do you realize that the vast majority of the "angry mob" that you are talking about DO want health care for all, just not hc run by the government who can't even handle a simple cash for clunkers thing? Don't fight with people who want the same END RESULT as you do but disagree with how we get there. That's not helping anyone and is counter productive.

If I give $100 to a homeless person I don't get a tax deduction which is FINE because 100% of that money goes to the intended recipient. If I give $100 to a charity, it is tax deductible (though Obama wants to change that) but only $80 of that $100 goes to the intended recipient. If I give $100 to the government, by the time they pay themselves and pay for all the beuracratic red tape, how much of that original $100 actually makes it to the intended recipient? Probably somewhere between $10 - $25 - and that's a generous estimate. At the VERY least, consider government run health care a BAD BUSINESS INVESTMENT!

I believe in helping others - so much so that I'm always INVESTING my money and time into helping others. I donate to a wide variety of charities that I am passionate about but the VAST majority of my "donations" are made directly to a person in need. That is money that I will never see again and it's not tax deductible but I don't care. I'm not doing it to get something in return other than the satisfaction of knowing that I made someone's day a little easier and a bit less stressful. I'm doing my part in giving back and helping others. THAT is the conservative mind set. Conservatives believe that we, as individuals, should take it upon ourselves to help others. Generosity toward others and working together to help and look out for one another disappeared when everyone started with the "me, me, me" mentality and the silly sense of entitlement mind-set and that's very, very sad but our government has only made it worse.

The more of a role government has in "assisting" or "providing services" to others the LESS people take it upon themselves to help their neighbor. Our government cannot manage money - they have proven that time and time again so why in the WORLD would you want to put your HEALTH of all things, into their hands when they waste money faster than you can say "zippity-doo-da"?

I have NO problem finding a way to provide all LEGAL citizens health care but the government needs to keep their incapable and incompetent hands out of it. Pretty ironic that our elected officials don't pay into social security - they have their own fund they pay into and collect from - and look how that's working out. Great for them, horribly for those who pay into social security! Post offices are so poorly managed they are considering reducing the amount of days that they deliver mail ... and it's always been illegal to compete with the post office in sending first class mail so they have the monopoly but STILL can't pull it off! Are you aware of that??? To top it all off, these ding-dongs that are pushing the bill the hardest have already voted to exempt themselves from the bill so they won't have to deal with any of the consequences or messes! The mere fact that congress will not put THEIR health where their votes are is one hell of a big, gigantic red flag stabbing you right in the eyeball! And if Obama REALLY believed in this bill, as an act of good faith, HE should agree to put HIS health into the hands of this bill. I don't see THAT happening.

I'm so sick of people whining that those opposed to the bill don't care about others. That's such a weak and utterly disgusting argument and frankly, people should be embarrassed and ashamed to use it. If you can't grasp the fact that we all want the same end goal but just disagree on how to get there AND you can't understand why it's just BAD BUSINESS to have the government run ANYTHING with OUR money, I would just have to say, best of luck to you and have fun living in your delusional world.

Jemison

Originally posted by Jemison
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Do you realize that the vast majority of the "angry mob" that you are talking about DO want health care for all

Oh they do? Wonderful. Maybe they can start coming up with solutions instead of covering their eyes and pretending everythings dandy with the current corporate whorehouse we call healthcare in this country. Maybe they can start discussing their solutions instead of the same outdated anti-commie fest we got during the 70s'. Maybe they can come up with solutions.

The most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. Yes we manage to find ourselves 37th in healthcare, below costa rica. That 40 million of our people are without healthcare. That its somehow an acception that the politicians get healthcare funded by the government. That some how many of those over 55s among that mob of yours on medicare are an acception right? You can seriously sit here and tell me theres no need for such reform, right?

What are you going to tell those folks with pre-existing conditions their alternatives? What about those folks, bottom of the work and income foodchain who are the foundation to holding the middle and high class up? You know the ones that cannot afford healthcare, what you ganna tell them? Goodbless america, heres a flag and an AR 15.

I hear a pack wolves at these town halls, its too bad thats all I hear.

I believe in helping others

No. No you dont. That angry mob doesnt. Its the month of the angry pack of wolves and thats it. No logic intended but God bless america right?

so much so that I'm always INVESTING my money and time into helping others.

This is the funniest thing from you fellas. You dont want to invest your money into this right?

Yet we should shut up and continue pay your overgrown military right?
Yet we should shut up and put up with paying the healthcare of your politicians?
Yet we should shut up and continue pay for your roads, your seniors, your police, your teachers, your fireman? Sure you can argue that we need these, but then again what gives you the right to dictate what we need and what we dont? After all your investing your money? So we should choose how to invest ours right? Hows about you take your anti-health care movement to more town halls and advocate a system of "choice of charity" on everything. Because if you are going to deny those folks in need your taxes, I dont think I should be paying for your teachers, your overgrown military, your highways.

SG

Originally posted by badgerprints

I don't owe you a damned thing.
Is that clear enough?

Yes you do.

You owe me plenty.

Do you drive a car? Like to drive that car on roads? I pay for those roads with my tax dollars.

Were you educated? Chances are I payed for it.

Like having the protection of a police force? Have you ever had to call the police? Do you feel you will ever need to? Again, I pay for it.

Do you like knowing that you can call the fire department should your property light aflame? Does it help you sleep at night? Once again, you're taking that security straight from my pocket.

And you owe me all of that back, by paying your taxes (according to how much you make, which could very likely be less than what I make, so you could "owe" me even more).

This is what we call living in a 'society', and it is what has allowed Human Beings to advance from hunter-gatherers into a civilization.


Go move out into the middle of the woods, or on some remote island somewhere. Hunt your own food, capture your own water. Build your own fires. Live without electricity, sewers, and social interaction.

Then, and only then, can you truly say you don't owe me anything.

Until then, keep sucking up society's benefits and acting like you aren't a part of it. In reality, you are. And you owe us plenty.

Originally posted by badgerprints
If I read this correctly, you are basically saying, "We're mostly a socialist society so give me a good reason as to why you don't give up and let us have our way."

Apparently you didn't read it correctly. The glaring point of SG's post (to me anyway) is that we live in a society where we all contribute some money to take care of the whole. That's not socialism. That's the USA. It's the way our society wotks.

We pay for the military to take care of us. Some people are all for that. Some are not, but we pay anyway.

As SG said: Why should I be forced to pay for the military if your not forced to pay for the healthcare of those in need?

And you don't have an answer, so you take your ball and go home in a snit.

My answer?

No.

And I don't owe you or anybody else an explanation.
I don't owe you a damned thing.

No, you don't. But it's clear that there isn't a good answer to this question. Except for the obvious, that is...

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


If she is living in public housing, and is receiving food stamps, then she is also receiving government health care "medicaid". So, they will be properly cared for. In addition, when they leave the hospital...they will not receive a bill in the mail for the balance that their insurance did not pay.

Also, any time someone is in an accident such as the one you described, the LAST thing paramedics and ER doctors are thinking about is "do these people have insurance."

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Sorry SG, if you don't like having to pay for the military, you need to move to a different country.

You see, Our Constitution provides for both a military & for the Legislative branch of government to procure the funds to maintain it

Article I, Section 8 - The Legislative Branch - "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy"

So every 2 years, funding issues must be raised and decided, but the MUST be done, as it is prescribed in our Constitution.

If you want health care funding to be prescribed for in our constitution, then PLEASE, by all means, contact your reps & ask them to turn the HC issue to a Constitutional Amendment, which HAS to go to the POPULAR VOTE to be ratified.

Then we can see clearly exactly how many are for and against the issue.

Remember, every gallon of gas you buy has a federal excise tax, help starve the beast by not using gasoline.

Fight to stop the income tax, that will cut off YOUR direct funding of the military, but they will find another avenue to fund it, as it is mandated in the Constitution.

PS, you began your OP with people saying "each according to his WILL" yet changed it to "each according to his ABILITY" later.

You do realize that there is a difference between what people will willingly give to help others and what they are able to give, right?

If you don't want to pay for roads & police & fire, then stop buying things in your state, since the majority of those things are paid for by STATE'S sales taxes.

You have every right to leave the country, go off grid, grow your own food, etc. so as to not finance anything you object to. Use your rights if it bothers you so badly.

reply to post by drwizardphd


Here is the problem with your argument, which is tired, old, liberal fodder.

Over 50% of the people in this country pay NO income tax.

Well over half of those folks get an Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a pure hand-out as they pay no taxes.

Oh, they do pay Payroll Taxes. Well over 80% of the folks who pay no income tax, but pay payroll taxes take far more out of the social programs meant to be funded out of those taxes then they ever put in. That is juxtaposed against the folks who pay both Income and Payroll taxes, who extract far LESS from those social programs than they put in. We'll leave aside at the moment the fact that programs, such as social security and Medicaid are broke.

When you think about the evolution of our tax system, you need to think about how it is evolved and if it were to continue, how the country would be organized. Right now, who's army is it? Is it everyones, even those folks who don't pay a dime for it? Who's National Parks are they? Folks who, in many cases have not paid a dime for the establishment or maintenance of? We can goon and on. When you continue down this path and more and more people pay nothing for the society in which they live, you wind up with a banana republic. At a small enough group at the top, the level of corruption will dwarf what we see today. In my opinion, it is not even corruption. By being born in this country, being productive and contribute to the society does not mean that you have to be the parents of millions of people who take and do not give.

Get off of your emotional soap box. Is it really reasonable that Bill Gates pays over $300M in taxes? Of course not. That is obscene.

We need to have everyone pay taxes. Even people on public assistance, which should be treated as taxable income. They should also be required to work to receive their handout. That might help create a society where civics is actually a part of living in this society, rather than a society which is increasingly becoming where larger and larger portions of it simply want to vote into office politicians who will take from one and give to another.

As far as the Ayn Rand analogy goes, she was right. When you continue to rest the responsibility of funding society on an increasingly smaller number of citizens, they only need to say "no more". I'm not going to do it anymore. I'm moving off grid (to Monaco) or someother place. They are already starting to do that and that trend will continue. There are a lot of folks who are quite comfortable with what they have and are simply not working any longer, or at least will stay out of the game until this foolishness is over. I personally know 6 people who paid a ton of taxes. They are young and could have been significant contributors, especially in the form of income taxes for 20+ years. They have retired. They don't plan to work again. They have no income and one has actually been able to structure his finances to get an EITC, despite the fact that he is wealthy - good for him. The thing in common they have is that they have all simply said, enough.

Enough.