In economic terms, the taxpayer is required by the State to take on a burden for others who WILL NOT support themselves.

So a better analogy would be asking us to honor military commanders who set up suicide missions for their men.

"it is not inconsistent because lowering taxes is not selfish, its the opposite of selfish, wanting taxes is selfish. Taxes are armed robbery supported by those who think they know how people should spend their money better then the people do."

my opinion is exactly the opposite not wanting to pay taxes its a selfish act, not wanting to help a country men get education/healthcare is a selfish act. and in the end you finish no spend more money than saving it. Paying taxes makes things cheaper with almost the some quality or even better.

"In economic terms, the taxpayer is required by the State to take on a burden for others who WILL NOT support themselves."

Next to will you have to add COULD, it should read "WILL NOT or COULD NOT support themselves". There are plenty of people who do not thrive because of various factors: a child from a poor family won't be brought up healthy and smart if there's no free healthcare or education.

I don't think it's such a bad analogy. You can't say that there was absolutely no way for the other soldiers in the humvee to survive, I'd say they COULD have saved themselves although it wasn't likely. Of course, they had to act very efficiently to do so. In this scenario, the soldier who sacrificed himself wins praise.

Now let's draw the link to economic life: in a conservative-run country a person from a poor family COULD survive, but it isn't likely and he has to act very efficiently to do so. Why doesn't the example set by the sacrificing soldier apply here?

"it is not inconsistent because lowering taxes is not selfish, its the opposite of selfish, wanting taxes is selfish. Taxes are armed robbery supported by those who think they know how people should spend their money better then the people do."

It depends on what those taxes are spent on. If the rich are heavily taxed and help support the poor, it's not selfish - how could giving your money away be selfish? Of course, if taxes are wasted on corruption or wars, then you are right.

"also isnt inconsistent because risking your life as a solider is voluntary while paying taxes isnt."

I'm not sure what you mean. Both paying higher taxes and the choice to sacrifice your life are voluntary decisions  of the citizens and of the soldier, respectively.

The trick is to realize that they are people, and not some representation of an ideal. They honor those who sacrifice themselves, because they need more people to sacrifice themselves. If soldiers didn't believe they were fighting for some noble cause, then politicians wouldn't be able use them to further their own agendas, like building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. But that's not just the neocons, that most politicians.

And opposing universal healthcare and affordable education has less to do with advocating anything, and more to do with the price tag associated with the change. Meaning they like to spend all that hot, sweet federal cash on business deals with companies that either support them or they own parts of. For example, a good portion of neocon politicians own significant stock in different oil companies and arms manufactures. Naturally a war would make their wallets pretty fat, but it leaves little funding for social needs.

But most politicians are in somebody's pocket, that's nothing new.

"I don't know about your country but in USA you can borrow money for education and often for healthcare"

in my country we do not borrow, we just pay taxes and have them, and the national insurace cover all of your healthcare needs not just the emergencies, USA is lack off preventing healthcare

"That "poor" family has a standard of living much better than a "poor" family anywhere in the world"

check http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

> Freelancer wrote:

> "it is not inconsistent because lowering taxes is not selfish, its the opposite of selfish, wanting taxes is selfish. Taxes are armed robbery supported by those who think they know how people should spend their money better then the people do."

my opinion is exactly the opposite not wanting to pay taxes its a selfish act, not wanting to help a country men get education/healthcare is a selfish act. and in the end you finish no spend more money than saving it. Paying taxes makes things cheaper with almost the some quality or even better.

you can help the country man get education/healthcare without paying taxes for it.

"I'm not sure what you mean. Both paying higher taxes and the choice to sacrifice your life are voluntary decisions  of the citizens and of the soldier, respectively."

paying higher taxes is a decision by the many to oppress the few, it is a selfish decision. the individual that pays taxes doesnt have a choice, he is being robbed.

then the rich individual is saying he knows how his neighbors should spend their money better then they do, and he's trying to gain control over their money by raising taxes.

if the rich want to spend their money to help certain programs, they need only to donate; the only reason to raise taxes is to force other people to pay taxes for what you support.

There's no contradiction between the two:

Selfishness in economics: Honestly, I wouldn't even say that conservative economic policy is necessarily selfish.  Why?  I'll justify it right now in a selfless manner:

People are inherently caring individuals.  Therefore, the individual can be entrusted with choosing what he or she will do with his or her own income.  By being empowered with freedom of choice, inherently good individuals will be more willing to donate their money to charities that will fill in the roles tax X would do, because they have more discretionary income without taxes than they would with taxes.

I could get into this more, but you get the idea...

@ Noir

Thats where the divide is.

Society is responsible to take care of its aged and affirmed.  I believe that.

If they cannont support themselves, then that is a given.  They cant support themselves.

>>Isn't it funny? they have only 3/4 of USA GDP per capita but they have a better HDI!<<

Suggests the HDI isn't very accurate.
And as I say, we don't lose 18,000 people to a heat wave.

>>Like americans military like to say "No one is left behind" but in your country millions of people are indid left behind with no money to pay for there medical bills or education for there kids. <<

We also have more generous bankruptcy laws so people who can't pay for everything can balance their debts out and still save a lot of equity.

In USA unlike say France, you don't have to compete for the privilege to attend a four-year college.  You just find one that will take you.  YOu can apply anywhere in the USA if you're willing to travel.  And there's billions to cover the cosets.  It just takes more ppaerwork that is usual.

>> It is selfish to kick someone from an hospital when they do not have a medical insurance.<<
If they're in danger when moved that's illegal here.