NationStates Jolt Archive

I Admit over the past few years I've become rather right wing, fascist some, quite wrongly, call me. But now after much thought, or at least rearanging my prejudices, I have formed an ideology. So now you can look at my mind, and pick holes in it and watch me cry....... So first step in explaining why I have chosen this "evil" option in politics.

:D Atheism

I Believe that either God does not exist, things happen because they do, no perpose no reason, things just are or god is amoral so either way your on you own so...

:D Hedonism

Since we're living in a pointless universe we might as well have a pleasant time of it. The only way a society can be successful is making its citizens happy, society only exists to make individuel humans happier. Now to do this we need a system for dispributing the things society produces, a way that produce most satifaction, happyness....

:D Capitalism

You see I would also theorise that as humans are pack animals, who live in hierachies a system of distribution should reflect this. In a market economy, although unstable I will admit, it means that, more money is given to the intellgient and hard working, thus encouraging them high reaches of power in society and also that difficult and unpleasant jobs will be filled with the promise of higher pay.. Add a dash of social mobilty via education to allow the children of the impovished to improve their position and bingo, arguably the best system. Plus becuase everything is demanded in a marketplace there is little or no misallocation of resources. Everything that is demanded will in theory be supllied. Plus competion between suppliers forces progress, yea capitalism. Capitalism also encourages consumer soverignity an example of individuel...


:D Liberty and Deomocracy

Liberty really is neat. Freedom of expression, of speech, of religion, of asscoiation allow new ideas to be circulated and old ideas to be challeged. In effect. it also allows that all humans in society, so long as they are not mad or criminals, are free to make a contirbution to have a say e.g democracy. But not only for leglislative and executive government they should have say also in the law. Through the common law and citizen juries precidents can be set so that the law is in the hands of every citizen, everyman is his own constable. Laws of cause are there for a reason to defend the citizen. As volitaire said, you should have "liberty that does not interfer with the liberty of others". But there is one other point to consider for a free and democratic capitalist society....

:D Morality

IT would be so simple if the market economy consisted of producers and consumers however your decison e.g. to buy crack often effects a third person often a negative externality.To defend the individuel from the market system, and this makes me conservative, I belief that society should have a system of morality, in order to curb these externalites, and these beliefs should be law. Morality, what tosh! you don't even believe in god. Yes I admit that morality is not a real thing like say gravity or area 51 but it is useful to pretend that it is, just like its useful to use an astrological globe to find constellations even though it is not an accurate depication of the sky at night. These black and white moralities can be usd to curb externalites and further human happiness.

Thank you and good night...

:D Capitalism

You see I would also theorise that as humans are pack animals, who live in hierachies a system of distribution should reflect this. In a market economy, although unstable I will admit, it means that, more money is given to the intellgient and hard working, thus encouraging them high reaches of power in society and also that difficult and unpleasant jobs will be filled with the promise of higher pay.. Add a dash of social mobilty via education to allow the children of the impovished to improve their position and bingo, arguably the best system. Plus becuase everything is demanded in a marketplace there is little or no misallocation of resources. Everything that is demanded will in theory be supllied. Plus competion between suppliers forces progress, yea capitalism. Capitalism also encourages consumer soverignity an example of individuel...

Sadly experience shows us that Capitalism will inevitably funnel wealth upwards, thus forming a growing lower-class. I would also take issue with your claim that the best people will come to power in a Capitalist country, to rise in a company or a political party you have to be ruthless and cutthroat, a business owner who tried to pay their workers a better wage would be outcompeted by those who pay a pitiful wage, the same applies to politicians.

I'll go along with most of the rest though.

I Admit over the past few years I've become rather right wing, fascist some, quite wrongly, call me. But now after much thought, or at least rearanging my prejudices, I have formed an ideology. So now you can look at my mind, and pick holes in it and watch me cry....... So first step in explaining why I have chosen this "evil" option in politics.

:D Atheism

I Believe that either God does not exist, things happen because they do, no perpose no reason, things just are or god is amoral so either way your on you own so...

:D Hedonism

Since we're living in a pointless universe we might as well have a pleasant time of it. The only way a society can be successful is making its citizens happy, society only exists to make individuel humans happier. Now to do this we need a system for dispributing the things society produces, a way that produce most satifaction, happyness....

:D Capitalism

You see I would also theorise that as humans are pack animals, who live in hierachies a system of distribution should reflect this. In a market economy, although unstable I will admit, it means that, more money is given to the intellgient and hard working, thus encouraging them high reaches of power in society and also that difficult and unpleasant jobs will be filled with the promise of higher pay.. Add a dash of social mobilty via education to allow the children of the impovished to improve their position and bingo, arguably the best system. Plus becuase everything is demanded in a marketplace there is little or no misallocation of resources. Everything that is demanded will in theory be supllied. Plus competion between suppliers forces progress, yea capitalism. Capitalism also encourages consumer soverignity an example of individuel...


:D Liberty and Deomocracy

Liberty really is neat. Freedom of expression, of speech, of religion, of asscoiation allow new ideas to be circulated and old ideas to be challeged. In effect. it also allows that all humans in society, so long as they are not mad or criminals, are free to make a contirbution to have a say e.g democracy. But not only for leglislative and executive government they should have say also in the law. Through the common law and citizen juries precidents can be set so that the law is in the hands of every citizen, everyman is his own constable. Laws of cause are there for a reason to defend the citizen. As volitaire said, you should have "liberty that does not interfer with the liberty of others". But there is one other point to consider for a free and democratic capitalist society....

:D Morality

IT would be so simple if the market economy consisted of producers and consumers however your decison e.g. to buy crack often effects a third person often a negative externality.To defend the individuel from the market system, and this makes me conservative, I belief that society should have a system of morality, in order to curb these externalites, and these beliefs should be law. Morality, what tosh! you don't even believe in god. Yes I admit that morality is not a real thing like say gravity or area 51 but it is useful to pretend that it is, just like its useful to use an astrological globe to find constellations even though it is not an accurate depication of the sky at night. These black and white moralities can be usd to curb externalites and further human happiness.

Thank you and good night...

Can I have a third option in your poll? How about B'stard is a steaming drunk victim of Thatcherite education policies? :D

Sorry, doesn't fly. I agree with most of his position and I've never even been to Britain.

Can I have a third option in your poll? How about B'stard is a steaming drunk victim of Thatcherite education policies? :D

:p

Actually, except for the Atheism part, it's a pretty good ideology. Good work.

Except for Atheism...

your ideology sucks. Ew.

I'd vote for you.

I think your ideology has been pretty well thought out. I especially liked and agreed with the "humans are herd animals" part.

*snip* (OP)
I don't agree with your ideology, but nicely explained!

You capitalist arguments rely on arcane economic theory and you have no ideas about foreign policy, it seems.

I don't agree with your ideology, but nicely explained!

You capitalist arguments rely on arcane economic theory and you have no ideas about foreign policy, it seems.

arcane moi?

I'm still unsure on foreign policy, if the government only has responsiblilty to its own citizens or whether it has reponsibilty to the human race, in which case if I'm so sure of my principles I should encourage other to follow them.

Actually, except for the Atheism part, it's a pretty good ideology. Good work.

I suppose if you believe in God then morality stands up without the need for Hedonism...

arcane moi?

I'm still unsure on foreign policy, if the government only has responsiblilty to its own citizens or whether it has reponsibilty to the human race, in which case if I'm so sure of my principles I should encourage other to follow them.

Based on your ideaology of self-intrest, I'd guess your stance on foreign relations would be a responsibility for oneself :/.

Being a socialist, I don't like the ideaology. Nothing personal.

Based on your ideaology of self-intrest, I'd guess your stance on foreign relations would be a responsibility for oneself :/.

Being a socialist, I don't like the ideaology. Nothing personal.
Indeed, I imagine that Alan endorses isolationism, using the military for self-defence only. Strange that many "socialists" also share this point of view.

Indeed, I imagine that Alan endorses isolationism, using the military for self-defence only. Strange that many "socialists" also share this point of view.

Yeah, but mostly because many of the other countries out there are capitalist. For socialists like me, capatalism is like a big scary virus we need to get the hell away from, so we tend to isolate ourselves. That's what I beleive anyway :/.

Of course, it doesn't help that capitalists always tout words like "globalization" and a "world economy".

This is one of the most ideologys that make sense to me......maybe you should check out Libertarianism......

:D Atheism

I Believe that either God does not exist, things happen because they do, no perpose no reason, things just are or god is amoral so either way your on you own so...

I would have agreed with you before, but now I just don't make any assumptions like this.

:D Hedonism

Since we're living in a pointless universe we might as well have a pleasant time of it. The only way a society can be successful is making its citizens happy, society only exists to make individuel humans happier. Now to do this we need a system for dispributing the things society produces, a way that produce most satifaction, happyness....

I agree and disagree. Society doesn't exist to provide any function to humans, it only exists due to human interaction. This means that society doesn't have a purpose and isn't obligated to make people happy. Only individuals have a purpose, and only the individual can be obligated to their own happiness.

:D Capitalism

You see I would also theorise that as humans are pack animals, who live in hierachies a system of distribution should reflect this. In a market economy, although unstable I will admit, it means that, more money is given to the intellgient and hard working, thus encouraging them high reaches of power in society and also that difficult and unpleasant jobs will be filled with the promise of higher pay.. Add a dash of social mobilty via education to allow the children of the impovished to improve their position and bingo, arguably the best system. Plus becuase everything is demanded in a marketplace there is little or no misallocation of resources. Everything that is demanded will in theory be supllied. Plus competion between suppliers forces progress, yea capitalism. Capitalism also encourages consumer soverignity an example of individuel...

Capitalism should not be argued for on grounds of human nature and economic efficiency, it should be argued for on the grounds of economic freedom and personal liberty, although it appears you are getting to that.

:D Liberty and Deomocracy

Liberty really is neat. Freedom of expression, of speech, of religion, of asscoiation allow new ideas to be circulated and old ideas to be challeged. In effect. it also allows that all humans in society, so long as they are not mad or criminals, are free to make a contirbution to have a say e.g democracy. But not only for leglislative and executive government they should have say also in the law. Through the common law and citizen juries precidents can be set so that the law is in the hands of every citizen, everyman is his own constable. Laws of cause are there for a reason to defend the citizen. As volitaire said, you should have "liberty that does not interfer with the liberty of others". But there is one other point to consider for a free and democratic capitalist society....

Democracy does not provide liberty. It only allows you to rule your neighbor and vice versa.

:D Morality

IT would be so simple if the market economy consisted of producers and consumers however your decison e.g. to buy crack often effects a third person often a negative externality.To defend the individuel from the market system, and this makes me conservative, I belief that society should have a system of morality, in order to curb these externalites, and these beliefs should be law. Morality, what tosh! you don't even believe in god. Yes I admit that morality is not a real thing like say gravity or area 51 but it is useful to pretend that it is, just like its useful to use an astrological globe to find constellations even though it is not an accurate depication of the sky at night. These black and white moralities can be usd to curb externalites and further human happiness.

Morality should be removed as fully as possible from the law making process.

Capitalism should not be argued for on grounds of human nature and economic efficiency, it should be argued for on the grounds of economic freedom and personal liberty, although it appears you are getting to that.
Capitalism is only the best system because it works whereas the others don't on a large scale. Saying that only capitalism allows liberty exhibits such incredible tunnel vision. Laissez-faire Capitalism is only freedom within the context of capitalism. A freer market provides more liberty within a mixed economy, but once you get rid of the idea of private property, which socialists believe to be unjustified, capitalism is not liberty; rather, socialism is liberty.

The point is, neither system's "freedom" is objectively more valid than the others. Thus the only justification left for Capitalism is the pragmatic one.

In addition, the idea of morality is inseparable from government. All governments, even libertarian ones, impose some morality or other. After all, Capitalism is the most moral economic system, right?

Yeah, but mostly because many of the other countries out there are capitalist. For socialists like me, capitalism is like a big scary virus we need to get the hell away from, so we tend to isolate ourselves. That's what I beleive anyway.
A socialist country cannot survive as an island in a sea of capitalist nations. Isolationism is simply not an option. See Trotskyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism)

Trotsky's politics differed greatly from those of Stalin or Mao, most importantly in declaring the need for an international "permanent revolution". Numerous groups around the world continue to describe themselves as Trotskyist and see themselves as standing in this tradition, although they have diverse interpretations of the conclusions to be drawn from this.

The "Morality" section contradicts both the "Liberty" and the "Hedonism" sections.

The "Morality" section contradicts both the "Liberty" and the "Hedonism" sections.

Hedonism says that everything that causes happiness is right but liberty although a great provider of happiness, can get carried away, am I free to murder you?, so "amendments" can be made to my society that cause greater happiness by creating laws e.g. the murder of fellow citizens is a punishible offence. However I would argue that it is in power of any citizen to change these amendments via democracy and the common law thus preserving at least some liberty. Liberty, however important is still subordinate to Hedonism in my view, I view it as the sole purpose of soicety.

Hedonism says that everything that causes happiness is right but liberty although a great provider of happiness, can get carried away, am I free to murder you?, so "amendments" can be made to my society that cause greater happiness by creating laws e.g. the murder of fellow citizens is a punishible offence. However I would argue that it is in power of any citizen to change these amendments via democracy and the common law thus preserving at least some liberty. Liberty, however important is still subordinate to Hedonism in my view, I view it as the sole purpose of soicety.
I was not suggesting that hedonism and liberty contradict each other, I was suggesting that they are contradicted by the morality section.
Murder isn't illegal because it's morally wrong, it's illegal because if it weren't, all the politicians would be killed.

I don't agree with your ideology, but nicely explained!

You capitalist arguments rely on arcane economic theory and you have no ideas about foreign policy, it seems.

Of course, the alternatives to capitalism are so much better :rolleyes:

Capitalism is beastly and horrible, but it works. Just like selective education.

I am truly astounded we can countenance any political system beyond capitalism, since the extreme alternatives, to either political spectrum, are unfeasible, whilst the lesser forms of communism are merely mediocrity incarnate, negating any possibility of human endeavour and progression.

I am truly astounded we can countenance any political system beyond capitalism, since the extreme alternatives, to either political spectrum, are unfeasible, whilst the lesser forms of communism are merely mediocrity incarnate, negating any possibility of human endeavour and progression.Holy commas, Batman!

Oh, and by the way, I disagree.

Holy commas, Batman!

Oh, and by the way, I disagree.

Goody for you.

weeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:sniper: bang bang

Of course, the alternatives to capitalism are so much better :rolleyes:

Capitalism is beastly and horrible, but it works. Just like selective education.

It works? Pardon me, I must have been halucinating the extreme poverty in the world.:rolleyes:

Holy commas, Batman!

Oh, and by the way, I disagree.

Seconded.

It works? Pardon me, I must have been halucinating the extreme poverty in the world.:rolleyes:

Are you seriously suggesting that there was/is no poverty in the USSR, Vietnam, China, North Korea and Cuba?

Are you seriously suggesting that there was/is no poverty in the USSR, Vietnam, China, North Korea and Cuba?

Did I mention any other form of government? Not as yet, no. I was simply challenging his assertion that Capitalism actually works.

Capitalism is only the best system because it works whereas the others don't on a large scale. Saying that only capitalism allows liberty exhibits such incredible tunnel vision. Laissez-faire Capitalism is only freedom within the context of capitalism. A freer market provides more liberty within a mixed economy, but once you get rid of the idea of private property, which socialists believe to be unjustified, capitalism is not liberty; rather, socialism is liberty.

The point is, neither system's "freedom" is objectively more valid than the others. Thus the only justification left for Capitalism is the pragmatic one.

The right to property is liberty, only by owning the product of one's own labor can a person be autonomous.

Socialists don't effectively address the morality of property rights (outside the occasional "how can people own land?"), instead attacking the practicality of capitalism, and that is where the practicality arguments start.

In addition, the idea of morality is inseparable from government. All governments, even libertarian ones, impose some morality or other. After all, Capitalism is the most moral economic system, right?

There is a massive difference between the morality imposed by socialism and the morality "imposed" by capitalism.

Lets take a look at social policy. Let us say that there are two divided camps on free speech, one saying that we should restrict free speech to speech that is beneficial to society, and one saying that we should restrict any infringement to free speech. Of course, both are making moral statements here, but which one is the morally just and fair statement?

Did I mention any other form of government? Not as yet, no. I was simply challenging his assertion that Capitalism actually works.

Communism "works" but is less efficient then capitalism. Without the incentive of profit there is no need for the entrpeneur or innovator to take risks or for people to work and maximise their talents. No individuels efforts can be seen in a large society to directly help themselves or their family. Everyone is resigned to a life of state enforced slavery with no oppertunity for self improvement.

Except for the Morality part, I'd vote for you.

The right to property is liberty, only by owning the product of one's own labor can a person be autonomous. I think the idea of the product of one's labor can be either a tangible thing or an intangible thing. For instance, the right to benefit from the work of society might be a product of labor just as easily as money could. Or, for instance, the right to use a piece of land, or the right to use a piece of land and restrict others from doing so might be a product of one's labor.
So the point of what I'm saying is that socialism doesn't take away the product of a person's labor, it simply changes the reward that a person receives for their labor.

I think the idea of the product of one's labor can be either a tangible thing or an intangible thing. For instance, the right to benefit from the work of society might be a product of labor just as easily as money could. Or, for instance, the right to use a piece of land, or the right to use a piece of land and restrict others from doing so might be a product of one's labor.
So the point of what I'm saying is that socialism doesn't take away the product of a person's labor, it simply changes the reward that a person receives for their labor.

The problem with socialism I can see is that the reward they recieve bears no relation to the labour that an individuel contributes or the rarity of their skill.

The problem with socialism I can see is that the reward they recieve bears no relation to the labour that an individuel contributes or the rarity of their skill.

Hmmmm. Do you think that capitalism rightly rewards effort? For example, non regulated capitalism (say industrial revolution Britian) would pay the mineowner thousands of pounds a year whilst paying the miner a few shillings. Care to venture who worked harder?
The more capitalism is (rightly) regulated, the less "competitive" it becomes with countries that don't regulate. Thus the guy who works hardest (i.e. the miner working in the unregulated economy) gets the shitty end of the stick.

The trouble is that capitalism rewards entrepreneurs (no problem with that), but continues to reward that entrepeneur's family long after they have disappeared-thus smacking the "fair pay for a fair day's wirk" argument right on it's backside.......

Hmmmm. Do you think that capitalism rightly rewards effort? For example, non regulated capitalism (say industrial revolution Britian) would pay the mineowner thousands of pounds a year whilst paying the miner a few shillings. Care to venture who worked harder?
The more capitalism is (rightly) regulated, the less "competitive" it becomes with countries that don't regulate. Thus the guy who works hardest (i.e. the miner working in the unregulated economy) gets the shitty end of the stick.

The trouble is that capitalism rewards entrepreneurs (no problem with that), but continues to reward that entrepeneur's family long after they have disappeared-thus smacking the "fair pay for a fair day's wirk" argument right on it's backside.......

Well anyone can become a miner, there is a huge supply of potential miners, only a few could run a mine. Surley it is the liberty of the owner to leave his belongings to who he wishes just as it is the liberty of the miner to leave his belongings to his. With proper education, the soon of the miner could improve his postision. I would consider education for all an amendement to capitalism. I would not extend that loss of liberty, in the form of tax however to removing a person possesions at the moment of death. It raises to many problems.

Communism "works" but is less efficient then capitalism. Without the incentive of profit there is no need for the entrpeneur or innovator to take risks or for people to work and maximise their talents. No individuels efforts can be seen in a large society to directly help themselves or their family. Everyone is resigned to a life of state enforced slavery with no oppertunity for self improvement.

Eh?

Capitalism: work for employer = FREEDOM!!!

Communism: work for government = SLAVERY!!!

How does that work? You have no more choice as to whether to work in capitalism than you do in communism (although I'm a socialist, not a communist), in capitalism if you don't work you don't get given food and you die, in communism if you don't work you don't get any food and you die, the only difference is the employer.

Incidently, it's actually better for those who refuse to work to live in a free market country than in a socialist country as most capitalist countries have welfare, in a socialist country their would always be the opportunity to work so unless you were actually unable to work you wouldn't be supported at all.

...in capitalism if you don't work you don't get given food and you die, in communism if you don't work you don't get any food and you die, the only difference is the employer.

Right, but in a capitalist society you COULD be working and still not have enough money to buy food and then die. What about children growing up in Appalachia that can't afford college tuition, let alone shoes for school? Tell me they're not going to end up as miners earning barely enough (if enough) for food.

Right, but in a capitalist society you COULD be working and still not have enough money to buy food and then die. What about children growing up in Appalachia that can't afford college tuition, let alone shoes for school? Tell me they're not going to end up as miners earning barely enough (if enough) for food.

Friend, I'm on your side. I was holding that up simply to counter his claim that Communism is slavery.

It's always nice to meet a fellow leftie, welcome to the forum.:)

Eh?
Incidently, it's actually better for those who refuse to work to live in a free market country than in a socialist country as most capitalist countries have welfare, in a socialist country their would always be the opportunity to work so unless you were actually unable to work you wouldn't be supported at all.

It depends what you mean by jobs though. In socialist Poland, plum-picking used to require 3 people per tree: one to stand on a ladder and do the picking, one to put them in a bucket, and one standing in the middle to pass them along.

This was in the 1980s.

Right, but in a capitalist society you COULD be working and still not have enough money to buy food and then die. What about children growing up in Appalachia that can't afford college tuition, let alone shoes for school? Tell me they're not going to end up as miners earning barely enough (if enough) for food.

In Communism, there were similar problems, especially amongst those in the hinterlands of the USSR. At the same time, the people who did have money had lower living standards than their counterparts in capitalist societies due to the almost endless shortages of even basic apparel like shoes.

I suppose if you believe in God then morality stands up without the need for Hedonism...
I suppose if you believe in God then say goodbye to hedonism

So the point of what I'm saying is that socialism doesn't take away the product of a person's labor, it simply changes the reward that a person receives for their labor.

Two problems:

Society provides a diminished returns on some labor, exaggerated returns on other.

The autonomy is destroyed by a dependence on government for resource distribution.

Two problems:

Society provides a diminished returns on some labor, exaggerated returns on other.Well, to use an argument that capitalists use - labor relations are between two people, the employer and the employee. If you take this argument and apply the employer to the socialist society/country, you essentially have the same scenario. If people agree to work for the same amount, who am I to say it's wrong?
As far as the diminished and exaggerated returns go, the returns aren't diminished or exaggerated if the people in question agree to receive the wage that they are receiving.

The autonomy is destroyed by a dependence on government for resource distribution.I thought we were talking about liberty, which is similar but not quite the same thing. I'd say there are two types of liberties, liberty to do something and liberty from something (not sure if this is the same as positive and negative liberty). So, while a person's liberty to distribute resources is infringed, it is made up for by a person having liberty from other people having concentrations of resources.

I think the idea of the product of one's labor can be either a tangible thing or an intangible thing. For instance, the right to benefit from the work of society might be a product of labor just as easily as money could. Or, for instance, the right to use a piece of land, or the right to use a piece of land and restrict others from doing so might be a product of one's labor.
So the point of what I'm saying is that socialism doesn't take away the product of a person's labor, it simply changes the reward that a person receives for their labor.

The problem with that argument is that in that case, the individual doesn't own anything, and what rewards he gets weren't actually obtained by him or given freely in exchange for value by another individual. "Society" and "the government" give him the land, which they probably took from someone else who works harder and requires less, (valuable traits that socialism/communism punishes) making everything he is allowed to have neither his own property nor something he has actually earned in and of himself, or been freely given by someone else who equally benefitted - he's just another dependent who's existing through gifts, stolen property, and surrender before the collectivized will of the masses.

Since when do the masses, do "society" and the "government" have some copyright on existence, or have the right to give me what I can and should earn myself? Is it the goal of communism to populate the world with unfree, justiceless, unearning dependent moochers off of others via "society"? All that leads to is an endless downwards spiral as people are basically trading in entropy in a vast anti-productive negative-sum game; competing for resources that are constantly diminishing because of the methods and nature of the competition.

The problem with that argument is that in that case, the individual doesn't own anything, and what rewards he gets weren't actually obtained by him or given freely in exchange for value by another individual. Why does something have to be given freely in exchange from another individual, couldn't a group of individuals give something freely in exchange?

"Society" and "the government" give him the land, which they probably took from someone else who works harder and requires less, (valuable traits that socialism/communism punishes) making everything he is allowed to have neither his own property nor something he has actually earned in and of himself, or been freely given by someone else who equally benefitted - he's just another dependent who's existing through gifts, stolen property, and surrender before the collectivized will of the masses. All land at some point was stolen, I have yet to hear a capitalist argument justify this. Land ownership seems to have been something thrown into capitalism for convenience and not consistency.

Since when do the masses, do "society" and the "government" have some copyright on existence, or have the right to give me what I can and should earn myself? If you don't wish to live in society, you're free to leave. But I'd assume that living in society is in your best interests, and naturally you should have to pay to have the means by which you reach your best interests protected.