mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/03/2007 7:33 AM |
|
To the editor: I
want to address two points. First is the “free” lunches and breakfasts
offered this summer at Mt. Logan Middle School. Where does the money
come from for these programs? Please correct me if I am wrong but I
believe that the taxpayers are forced to pay for it. What is the
penalty if I refuse to pay for it? This is socialism pure and simple.
What right does my neighbor have to take my money and pay for somebody
else’s “free” lunch? That is called stealing. It is also stealing when
the government does it as they only get their authority from the
people. It is bad enough that I am forced to subsidize somebody’s rent
or pay for somebody’s groceries when they are perfectly capable of
paying for it themselves. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind
voluntarily helping somebody in need but that is by choice. My religion
teaches me to be self sufficient and that people have a right to own
and control their own property and the right to conscience. It teaches
that we should not try to get something for nothing. The
second issue is increasing tax rates. Why does North Logan need to
raise property tax? What about those of us who do not want government
controlling more of our life and property? Why do we need to increase
rates? Is the price of current services increasing faster than income
generated or is the city trying to provide more services? How much
taxpayer money is going to the Watkins Convention Center? We
need to be very careful of creeping socialism. Karl Marx identified it
as the path to Communism and Ezra Taft Benson said it was as dangerous
to our freedoms as Communism. Now notice I called the lunches “free” as
they only seem to be free. Accepting them and other government
subsidies will destroy your respect for the private property of others
as you are forcing other to surrender their property to support you. It
will destroy your ability and desire to work and provide for your own
families. I would enjoy further discussing this problem on my blog in the forums at www.loganutah.com. John Mulholland |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/03/2007 7:59 AM |
|
http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2007/05/03/letter/letter01.txt#blogcomments has many comments and accusations from people. I have been accused of riding the bus free, not working ( I have several jobs ), going to a state funded school (which I do defense related research for), and even as being a right wing nut job who is as bad as a terrorist from the middle east. I even just got accused of being a Pharisee, with no justification of course.
How did we get to this situation? People do not respect people's property anymore. They think that if they can gather a majority then they have a right to it.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/790.html is a great story about how welfare destroys people. |
|
|
|
|
Sound1
Posts:27
Junior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/04/2007 12:17 AM |
|
| John - you are doing a great job defending your position on that useless Herald Journal blog. I'm afraid you will never get through to most of them though because they are too busy bashing you and calling each other petty little names. The only reason the Herald Journal started that forum to begin with was because of this one. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/04/2007 5:40 AM |
|
| I know that I will not get through to most of them. Socialism is too ingrained in their minds. But there are the remnant. There are those who want to know and improve their lives. They want to live by truth and justice. But alas there are too many right now who don't. And there are those who are deceived. They want to do good but do not understand agency. They seek to force people to do things their way but their way comes from just a little bit of knowledge and a lack of understanding as to the effects of their actions. They hear about possibly hungry kids and instead of fixing the problem from the source by fixing the situation they try to force taxpayers to fund their solution which not only doesn't work but perpetuates laziness. And the sad part is that they feel justified and charitable in spending somebody else's money. It really saddens me and frustrates me that people do not see the problem with this and instead resort to petty name calling. I see this country in quite a mess and it is going to take a lot of work and time to get out of it. There is hope but it is quickly fading and we may just have to wait until the Christ returns. In the meantime I hope that we can find inner peace. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 1:13 PM |
|
| Before I begin a response, let me ask you: Do you support any form of taxation whatsoever? |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 4:29 PM |
|
| Yes. I believe in a limited government. I believe that proper government exists to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. I do not believe that government should provide a safety net though. In order to fulfill their proper role somebody has to pay the bill so a tax system in necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 7:21 PM |
|
| But isn't it the case that any form of taxation, because ultimately it needn't be voluntary, is a form of theft? |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 9:49 PM |
|
No, because there are proper roles of government. Single groups are not singled out to pay higher rates such as the 'rich' do today. On a side-note, most of the super-rich pay very little in taxes.
I have entered into a social contract which specifies what the proper roles of government are. The Constitution does provide for such things as a common defense but not for things such as education and feeding the populace. Therefore things are violation of the social contract and I consider theft. This is why democracies fail. They majority soon realize that they can rob the public treasury. That is why our country was set up as a republic with a Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:46
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 10:52 PM |
|
MJ, I agree that there are proper roles of government. However, I still don't think that you've made the link between theft and taxation. You are correct in stating that the social contract governs the people who agree to it (and even those who don't but happen to live among those that do). The embodiment of the social contract in the United States is the Constitution. Both the Constitution (the 16th Amendment) and the instrumentalities of the Constitution (the Supreme Court, Congress, and the President) have held that the income tax is Constitutional and thus incorporated into the social contract. While you may have legitimate policy concerns about how much tax is collected, how it is spent, etc., you have not made the link between the income tax and the breach of the social contract.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the majority soon realize that they can rob the public treasury". I know that you are referring to the majority voting for laws that increase taxes and then redistribute the acquired revenue among the population, but I fail to see how this is robbery of the public treasury. If it is part of the social contract, then is it not just? It seems to me that if you are unhappy with the social contract, you may feel free to change it using whatever means necessary (depending on your philosphical view this could range anywhere from voting to emigration), but as long as the majority accepts it - even in a republic - then it is valid. |
|
|
|
|
singlemom26
Posts:4
New User
Online Status:
|
| 05/06/2007 8:39 AM |
|
| I WOULD ASK EVERYONE VIEWING THIS BLOG TO PLEASE SEE THE ONE TITLE SIMPLE MINDED FOOLS |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 9:30 AM |
|
| Have you ever read The Law by Fredrick Bastiat? He makes the connection much better than I could. Ezra Taft Benson also makes the connection in his book The Proper Role of Government. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:46
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 10:06 AM |
|
I disagree that all government "handouts" lead to the results that you are stating. It seems to me that under the logic presented in both of your sources, ANY handout would lead to those results. Therefore, any charitable giving would destroy society. It seems to me that the government can design a program where the benefits of work can be coupled with the need to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. If a church or a private charity can do it, logically the government can as well.
Also, I don't see giving free school lunches as the kind of handout that will cause these problems. It seems to me that programs that are designed to improve the health of its recipients actually increase the likelihood that the recipient will become self-sufficient as oftentimes health problems are the cause of the need. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 10:33 AM |
|
To be clear the letter was not against school lunches but against summer lunches which are now being expanded to include breakfasts. My main point is that government has no authority to give handouts. It is a secondary point that government programs destroy. Theoretically the government could design a program which reenthrones work but they haven't. I personally know people who get rid of assets so they qualify for government 'assistance' and know of people who have rejected raises at work for the same reason. I do agree that handouts, more than temporary, lead to dependencies. That is why I like the example of the LDS church. They seek to get people back to work. And from my experience with school lunches they are far from healthy.
If the government came up with a system had a system which encouraged work then it would be greatly improved. I would still oppose its funding though. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/11/2007 8:50 PM |
|
You may have a point about the Federal Government not having the authority to give handouts (that authority is generally accepted now, but that's another story). All of your relevant arguments against the state giving out food are based on the constitutional limitations placed on the Federal Government, but those same arguments explicitly give all other powers to the states (and those powers can then be distributed elsewhere, such as to cities and counties).
This summer lunch program was probably paid for by the county or city. I don't know for sure, but I have not heard of the Federal Government getting involved in school lunches (except on an episode of the Simpsons, which was a chilling reminder of what investing in our children can do).
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/11/2007 9:24 PM |
|
| School lunches are partially funded by federal money and I also believe these summer lunch programs are. It makes it an interesting problem and causes the school districts to encourage welfare so they get more federal money. One of the straws that broke the camel's back in our decision to homeschool was a letter we received from the school encouraging us if at all possible to be part of reduced lunches. I haven't studied the Utah Constitution enough. I do know that it includes a provision for public schools, which was forced by the federal government to become a state. I at least want to remove the federal government from the process and then we will talk. And my big problem with this one is that it is expanding. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/11/2007 9:31 PM |
|
Like you have said elsewhere, these summer lunch programs aren't school lunch. I'm sure that you would have the same issues with school lunches that are unequally subsidized (e.g. free and reduced school lunches), and you probably have the same problems with equally subsidized school lunches.
Anyway, I haven't heard or read anything about non-school lunches being federally funded. While your general arguments against socialism still apply, there isn't any link yet to your constitutional, separation of powers arguments.
By the way, MJ gave me a link giving the connection between federal funding and school lunch. It can be found at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_5.htm. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/12/2007 6:05 AM |
|
| http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/ is the link to the summer program and federal funds are used. I am more opposed to this program for a couple of reasons. First, it is expanding. Secondly, it has nothing to do with school. The role of government is not to be a safety net. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/12/2007 8:48 AM |
|
| The second point (that it has nothing to do with school) is largely irrelevant. School lunch is only associated with school in so far as it occurs on school days on school grounds. I suppose it may be relevant since school lunch is offered because not all families can pack a portable lunch, afford the food available on site, or bring their children home to eat. Plus, children going hungry is more noticeable in public, including at school. The introduction of federal funds doesn't change the fact that these summer lunch programs must be sponsored (run) by local organizations, which may be either government (especially schools) or private (such as churches). |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/12/2007 10:22 AM |
|
I am saying that summer lunches have nothing to do with school and are expanding.
I don't mind if these programs are run by local charities but they are being run by the school. What I do mind is the tax payer dollar being used. I believe the summer lunch program is run by the schools. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/12/2007 10:44 PM |
|
Since the summer lunch program is run at the schools, I think that it is likely that it is run by the schools, which would a part of some local (at most state-level) government (I'm guessing city or county, depending on which schools you're talking about).
I think that the summer lunch program is a little hard to justify in Cache Valley. While many in the valley have very little in the way of taxable income, often due to college expenses and the service-heavy job market, most people aren't anywhere near the point where they can't feed their kids, and other programs, either government or privately run, can fill that need where it exists. I suspect that the summer lunch program is more of a social opportunity for parents and children while school is out, like story hour at the library.
The summer lunch program should be shut down. In its place, (weekly) picnic days could be established where families can gather at local parks to picnic together. Each family would bring its own food and sharing would be a matter of individual choice and not an official part of the program. The social aspects could be maintained without the cost for food or facilities. |
|
|
|
|