Quote:
You may have a legitimate concern, but I do not think yours is any more worthy than that of other peoples (who I think are insane). And I am unwilling to allow you to make this sort of judgement for yourself, because I do not want others to be able to do the same. Sure, you'll take your 3% or whatever and give it to charity, but John Smith down the road, who is always calling Radio Pacific to complain about the 'yellow peril' he's going to take his 30% (he didn't like public health or immigrant services) and spend it on slots at the pub, B&H Special Filters and tinned beef.
No. Bollocks. We can all pay a proper share, it can get spread around to benefit everyone, and if you don't like what the SAS does, you can do what everyone else does, write letters to you MP and call Leighton Smith (although he'll cut you off, you pinko liberal commie).
|
Well, since I pre-empted everyone in the first post and no one took the bait... what about Hitler? Would it have been an acceptable stance to refuse to contribute taxes to the Nazi government, choosing instead to contribute to the community by direct labour or giving money directly to those in the community in need, on account of disapproving of something like concentration camps?
I suppose the difference between the government killing people and the government letting Asians into the country (if one found that disagreeable) is one of degree, and not type, so at some point I would have to draw the line between those actions in which I could not in good conscience participate and those in which I could participate while working within the boundaries of the law to change.
Though perhaps there is a difference of type here. Would Johnny Cockmunch's complaints about the Yellow Peril be a moral objection?