@tspesh:
Your case is really annoying because you're too close to the problem.
I have listened to your story about your brother and it honestly sounds a lot like a story of my own heroin-addicted brother, who is a deadbeat that has lived on welfare half his life and fathered uncountable children across the south in trailer parks unknown...
When I was young I was very thankful that he took advantage of the welfare state we lived in so my family didn't have to pay for so many of his mistakes... (We still paid for quite a few, actually... The Bail alone; just wow.)
He and my other welfare-collecting brother had me actually looking forward to a time when I could collect it too. I felt entitled to it; and when I had a tough time after I dropped out of college I almost applied for it myself... It's scary how close I was to doing that.
So I know how it feels on both sides, and I see that your case is even worse because of your brother's need for independence and the consequences he will force on your family if he loses that.
It sucks, it's unfair, and you shouldn't have to be put in that position.
But please answer me this: What gives you the right to demand other people, strangers you have never even spoken to that don't want to part with their hard-earned cash, to pay for your brothers' independence?
Why THEM?
Regardless of whether or not you and your family can afford his housing or not, and regardless of how terrible the situation is; WHY THEM??
It may be the only option you have, but it does NOT make it moral.
Those people are being stolen from. Me included... I paid a lot in federal taxes last year so right now some of my hard-earned money is paying for section 8 housing occupied by your brother.
WHY ME?
I'll tell you exactly why... Because the government made it possible.
If I want to pay for only my own things in life, which afterall is the ultimate in fairness, the government would put me in jail to make sure they get their money somehow. It's not like I had a choice or anything... I was born within this system and raised to learn that no other systems really exist... Socialism is everywhere on this big marble and I'd have to become a CRIMINAL to try to avoid paying for your brothers' independence.
You don't see the immorality in this? How can you not? That's like not seeing the immorality in slavery!
No, its not. By CHOOSING to live in [insert your country here] you have VOLUNTARILY chosen to enter into the binding obligations associated with and enforced in that location (which it so happens are often democratically decided). Therefore, taxation is not immoral. You do not have to pay taxes provided you voluntarily choose to live somewhere where they are not collected. That somewhere will probably not have a very strong military to protect you or your assets, but it is your choice.
No one will FORCE YOU AGAINST YOUR WILL to stay in [insert your country here]. Upon leaving your country and renouncing your former citizenship, you will no longer be subjected to that country's taxation. For US citizens, the IRS has a form for this.
So get off the fucking bullshit about taxation being immoral.
C'mon conv3rsion, you can't really believe that, can you?
First of all, socialism is a disease that has run rampant on this globe... Excepting only extremely hellish countries like somalia, you simply cannot escape high taxes on planet earth. This is why libertarians are trying to build seasteads.
Secondly, taxation is extremely immoral for the fact that one person's choice is another person's suffrage. You may accept the system under which you live in but the system is forced upon us all and that in itself is immoral.
Immorality is not relative. It is an absolute, otherwise we could never agree on things like laws.
Immorality is applied to a whole situation; not just one party's view of it. Otherwise you can call murder moral because the murderer found it quite satisfying.
Taxation is at its' very core truly immoral because a person
MIGHT not want to be taxed. (And frankly IRL he
DOES not want to be taxed more often than not.) All it takes is one single person in a system that is forced upon all to do something that harms that one person from his perspective to be immoral. Just one. It means that the masses can steal from the single guy in the corner.
If there were a system where everyone in that space were required one punch in the nose every day from the person to your left, the whole system is officially immoral when just one person says 'hey, I don't like being punched in the nose.' -Regardless of how big the system is.
I know you all like to make things out to be simple black and white but that's not how the fucking world works.
Actually the world itself is quite simple... It's all the governments and conspiracies that are making it seem complicated.
Just a question, would the ideal society be a society in which the social order is determined strictly on the strength (mental/physical) of the individual.
A purely social Darwinian society, if you will.
"Social order" requires more than just Survival of the fittest. Social order is a human construct that requires cooperation and communication between everyone in the social system... Meanwhile a pure Darwinian system only took us up to the point in which humans started trading. Before trade we pretty much just hunted and killed each other like animals. We've been a mixed bag ever since, but that system doesn't really exist anymore nor would you want it to.
An Ideal system would be one where humans trade with each other freely and fairly, but there is no huge overlord imposing its' desires upon us all, farming us for our productivity, and keeping us from being free.
This can only be achieved in a truly free-market, AnCap society. The only way to not be Immoral.
