Dear rehctub,

I also pay taxes. We give too many subsidies to tax-exempt churches, rich private schools wanting subsidies, corporate interests wanting handouts and other freeloading leeches. If the government teat was cut off from those free loaders we might have enough for the poor, for international aid, education and health. If we still wouldn't have enough we could raise taxes.

In my opinion your boiling point is way too low. I have the impression that you resent any help given to the needy. In a previous post you referred to our over generous welfare. That tells me a lot about you.

I am very much in favour of sex education including education in use of contraceptives and encouragement in their use. However, there are also people who are already alive and who need help. If my taxes can help that's a good use for my taxes.

I live well in Australia. You probably also live well. I am grateful for what I have and am happy to share some of it. I doubt that you really have anything legitimate to complain about. I have seen many of your posts that are simply a variant on rehctub, the victim. Try to appreciate what you have.

Dear David,

<<We could also say, “Allow ordinary Australians to vote with our own purses how much military we need.”>>

Sounds really good to me: Rehctub can ear-mark his taxes for submarines and jets while you can ear-mark your taxes for health, education and foreign-aid and I would ear-mark my taxes for direct welfare to the needy. This way we all be happy and just imagine - people will then be very happy and proud to pay their tax and no longer attempt to minimise it!

One option is to let government continue to collect our taxes and continue to organise the army using Rehctub's money.

Another option is to have several independent public bodies managing different societal functions. Being practical, they could still share one tax-office.

My seeming anarchism is derived from the religious principle of Ahimsa=non-violence (made known in the West by Mahatma Gandhi). I consider that idea as if a group of people may violently impose themselves and their laws on others without their consent, as monstrous, totally evil. However, once consent is freely given, I have no objections to rules and government.

The function of security is essential and security forces (internal and external) are the only bodies which may legitimately force themselves on others - as required for protecting the community, as the last resort in self defence. It is not imperative that the same body that deals with security and therefore has such extraordinary powers, should be the same body that deals with welfare, health, education, etc.

Yuyutsu wrote: "The function of security is essential and security forces (internal and external) are the only bodies which may legitimately force themselves on others - as required for protecting the community, as the last resort in self defence. It is not imperative that the same body that deals with security and therefore has such extraordinary powers, should be the same body that deals with welfare, health, education, etc."

Dear Yuyutsu, What would be the selection process to fill the different bodies? One virtue of a democratic society is that the security apparatus is under civilian control. I fear the consequences if it would be an independent body. An independent security apparatus could more easily develop into an instrument of oppression.

Dear David,

Indeed, what stops the security apparatus from continuing to be under civilian control as they are now? Have I suggested otherwise?

We could and should still elect the body which controls the security forces, just as we do now. We would similarly also be electing the different bodies responsible for welfare, health, education, transportation, etc.

For most bodies, I think that those who contribute a higher percentage of their tax should have more say in the operation of those bodies, but perhaps security-forces should be an exception due to their sensitive and unusual powers.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It would more complicated to have elections for the different bodies. I think it better to have one controlling body and one person - one vote. No doubt we will disagree again.

Dear David,

Complicated - I agree.
Yet feasible, I believe.

Any universe where people have a greater say on how they want to live is more complicated than a universe where everything is dictated from above, including whom you marry and what you have for breakfast.

A sketch of the current electoral system is:

You can freely choose whether to marry person A and have C for breakfast;
or to marry person B and have D for breakfast.

But marrying person A and having D for breakfast is not an option.

I rather be able to decide separately on whom I marry and what I have for breakfast. Don't you?