- Messages
- 1,011
- Reputation
- 1,370
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- zBucks
- 9,261
- Sex
- Male
- Race
- Black
- Origin
- USA
I watched a video about what's going on in Chicago regarding the migrant crisis. A black lady made the argument that this shouldn't be happening due to the fact that black citizens pay taxes and this isn't what they pay their taxes for.
Here are my thoughts on that:
'We can't use the argument of the fact that we are taxpayers thus we have a absolute say on where tax money goes.
To an extent that is true, but tax money always goes towards things that we may not necessarily agree with. For example, tax money may go to a war, subsidies for big corporations, bank and auto company bailouts, and other such things. These are all unpopular and most citizens would not want their money going towards these things. However, the government will make the decision (albeit due to corruption) to spend money on those things.
This also kills any argument asking for reparations, because by this logic racist citizens can say that they don't want their tax money going towards reparations. We as citizens don't get an absolute deciding factor as to where tax money goes.
The argument that we actually should be making is what the Democrat party and Brandon Johnson are doing is a break of the social contract.
Here is a brief definition and history of what social contract is for those who are unaware.
"an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects."
The government has an obligation to take care of its citizens and keep them safe. They have broken that contract and instead use money that they could be spending on citizens to spend on people who aren't even citizens of the country. They are leaving citizens, homeless and destitute. They are taking away things that citizens need to live a good life such as parks, money for schools, and other things that would improve the situation of citizens.
Furthermore, they are bringing in an immigrant class which presents a substantial danger to the citizens.
This is all a break of the social contract. By virtue of the social contract following the law, working and doing the right thing, paying taxes, means that the government has to do its part.
I think it can be safely argued that the government and both Chicago and New York are not doing their part and have broken the contract with their citizens.
Just a thought!'
Here are my thoughts on that:
'We can't use the argument of the fact that we are taxpayers thus we have a absolute say on where tax money goes.
To an extent that is true, but tax money always goes towards things that we may not necessarily agree with. For example, tax money may go to a war, subsidies for big corporations, bank and auto company bailouts, and other such things. These are all unpopular and most citizens would not want their money going towards these things. However, the government will make the decision (albeit due to corruption) to spend money on those things.
This also kills any argument asking for reparations, because by this logic racist citizens can say that they don't want their tax money going towards reparations. We as citizens don't get an absolute deciding factor as to where tax money goes.
The argument that we actually should be making is what the Democrat party and Brandon Johnson are doing is a break of the social contract.
Here is a brief definition and history of what social contract is for those who are unaware.
"an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects."
The government has an obligation to take care of its citizens and keep them safe. They have broken that contract and instead use money that they could be spending on citizens to spend on people who aren't even citizens of the country. They are leaving citizens, homeless and destitute. They are taking away things that citizens need to live a good life such as parks, money for schools, and other things that would improve the situation of citizens.
Furthermore, they are bringing in an immigrant class which presents a substantial danger to the citizens.
This is all a break of the social contract. By virtue of the social contract following the law, working and doing the right thing, paying taxes, means that the government has to do its part.
I think it can be safely argued that the government and both Chicago and New York are not doing their part and have broken the contract with their citizens.
Just a thought!'
