OK, I’m going to whinge about this one because I plainly don’t understand it. Why in the hell do some political factions whine about the need for fiscal independence, then in the same breath gasp at the implementation of social freedoms?
This one has always stuck in my craw.
The thing about freedom, and the love of freedom, is that it seems to be entirely dependent on what the individual thinks is important.
The situation is more often than not this: Person ‘A’ believes in small government. They think that any interference by government is a bad thing, especially if it seems like government is interfering in something they find very important. Like their income for example. Taxation, apparently, is interfering in their ability to spend the money they deserve.
Whether they deserve that money is of course another question. There are plenty of people out there whose very high incomes I find, well, offensive.
So ignoring this, government should be prevented from interfering in our lives by lowering taxation as much as possible and freeing up money for us to spend as we see fit. If we want to help out the poor by giving them money we can, and if we want to use that money to employ people, like cleaners, then we can.
This is overstating the case of course, and I’m probably being a little too obtuse. Having lived poor I know for sure than money does make your life easier.
The question though is how much money do you really need to make your life more free? If you’ve got enough to put food on the table, pay all the bills without stress, put away a suitable amount for a comfortable retirement, and still get away for a holiday at least once a year then what in the hell are you bitching about?
Again, more often that not it’s a particular type of person that sees tax as them being robbed. Take away all the guff about how the money is being spent, for instance on things like cheap health care or decent education, and what you have is people who are basically just stingy.
And I use the word stingy for a very particular reason, because I’ve noticed that these same types of people, though decrying the lack of freedom in regard to the theft of their money by the state, are all too willing to restrict the freedom of other people.
I realise that I’m potentially drawing a long bow on this one, but why is it that people who want the state out of their money are all too willing to have the state restrict the freedoms of people like homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities?
It’s a weird kind of relativity, and more of a stereotype than a hard fact, but if you’re demanding more freedom in your own life, then you can’t go demanding the restriction of other peoples freedoms without setting yourself up for accusations of hypocrisy.
Sure, there’s the argument that financial and social policy are two entirely separate political spheres, but to me that’s simply being Janus-faced in your opinions.
A better way to put it is that the financial sphere doesn’t impinge on relative morality that the social does. But again, that’s being selective.
Quite frankly, I find conspicuous consumption obscene. Flashy wealth and big money is just gaudy, shallow and at times outright rude. If you only drive an $80,000 car in order to demonstrate your wealth, then I think you are in all likelihood just a wanker, plain and simple.
Thing is, to me consumption is a moral question. It is immoral to waste money on things you don’t need, or food you’ll just throw away, or toys you’ll break for fun.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not one to argue in favour of radical wealth redistribution. It’s good to have incentives for people to work harder, to try to better themselves, and to try to escape things like welfarism. But how much money do you really need before your spending becomes taking the piss?