On the Stackings....

[digitaldiscipline]

jay_lake turned up one of the numerous items discussing how people are shocked and appalled that people are "siding with" or "inspired by" Joe Stack. I think there's a distinction that is very obviously not being made, so...

I think Mr. Ohlemacher may be engaging in a whole bucket of strawmanism. I've read Stack's essay over a few times, and it's NOT that he believed the tax system didn't apply to him - it's that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that it didn't apply equally to big corporations and the very wealthy - they get off using loopholes that average citizens get reamed and penalized for having the gall to look up and attempt to employ (and *this* is where a lot of folks who agree with his stance, myself included, are making our agreement).

I may not like the way the government spends my money, or how much of it, but there are some services, typically those that won't ever be touched by the private sector (because there is almost certainly no way to make basic services a profitable endeavor), that I am okay with paying into.

If taxpayers got a list of options when we filed our taxes akin to the "do you want $3 of your taxes paid into the presidential election fund" or whatever that line item is, where we could say, "These monies cannot be / must be allocated to ______," think of how that would revolutionize the federal budget. Suddenly, the things that every single person thinks are important will get funded in proportion to the true national sentiment. Maybe not a direct proportion, but if it was done for, say, half of each person's taxes? Could be very, very interesting, and would certainly let the congresscritters know, unequivocally, what their constituents want.

Which means, naturally, that it'd never fucking happen.

Comments

[caias.livejournal.com]

What people want and what the nation needs are two separate things.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but there's that "government for the people, by the people, of the people" and "consent of the goverened" verbiage kicking around.

[critus.livejournal.com]

Aye, but there is also the fact that founding fathers wanted to make sure we weren't done in by the tyranny of the majority. That's why we're a representative republic and not a true democracy.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

At the time this country was founded, we were a nation of uninformed, semiliterate peasants.

Okay, that hasn't necessarily changed, but the uninformed part is by choice, not due to a lack of information being available.

[critus.livejournal.com]

I was about to say...

[ivy]

I've had that thought too... it would result in ads and campaigning by industry for people to vote for $foo with their taxes. And there'd be some years where barely anyone voted for unsexy things like highways, and seeing the results of that might be educational. I'm sure there would be lots of people voting for 100% military or some such. I worry that a lot of people would starve, as I bet social services would get really cut.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I think that certain things would/should have a budget floor - infrastructure, emergency services, and the like.

[critus.livejournal.com]

And there's your slippery slope that would eventually lead you back to where we are now. Once you start making exceptions for "essential funding" the list of items that would be deemed essential would continue to grow. What about the folks who don't vote or don't want to go through the effort of allocating their tax funds every year? Do we force them to? If not, can we really say that the only things being funded are things that "every single" constituent deems to be important?

I dunno. I don't disagree about things being pretty well broken, but when I look at the world economy I'm convinced that the only way it's ever going to be fixed is through a worldwide meltdown of civilization. Call me a pussy if you like, but I'd rather not see that happen.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Funds not specifically allocated by the taxpayer go into a general pool to do whatever. If the allocation is only a portion of someone's tax bill - say, 50% - the other 50% is free to be spent at the government's discretion. It doesn't *have* to be an all or nothing proposition, just something better than what we have now.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not too keen on the billions being spent on those wars, when there are a lot of pressing domestic needs, for example.

And, no, I'm not exactly keen on a dystopian meltdown, either. You live in a nicer neighborhood than I do, for one thing. I'd get fucked over a lot quicker than you would.

[kendra-manycats.livejournal.com]

Not a bad idea my friend. Now we need to bitch-slap the Supreme Court and get them to reverse that stupid decision and you need to get a radio show. ;)

[smjayman.livejournal.com]

Shit, who could disagree with some of Mr. Stack's assertions? Our politicos are certainly a pile of unctuous thugs, but that is not anything new and different. Hell, politicians have been thusly since the beginning of recorded history. The only thing I disagree with is his final conclusion, i.e. that the solution is flying into a building.

[anmorata.livejournal.com]

Well said. And that's a pretty brilliant idea, but you're right. It'd never happen. :)

[critus.livejournal.com]

Ditto.

[cheez-ball.livejournal.com]

My disagreement with the idolization if Stack is that he committed premeditated murder. He would never have needed to go to that particular IRS office because it didn't handle anything related to him; he just saw it while driving I-35 in Austin. He got into a Piper (which no one has said whether or not it belonged to him or if he rented it) and flew it into a building where 200 people he had never met were doing a job that had nothing to do with him. In the process he killed a Vietnam veteran who was well-loved and who had nothing to do with creating any of the government policies with which Stack had a problem.

After all that, nothing Stack ever wrote in any kind of manifesto matters to me. I'm alright with him choosing to kill himself; I'm not alright with his decision to murder others in the process. This end does not justify his means.