Do conservatives have the right to be rugged individualists, or should they be forced to contribute for the?

Question

good of the collective? Honestly, it seems so odd that this is an issue in the USA...how much to let individual citizens keep of what they earn. Our citizens have access to education, there's every job under the sun here, the government does not dictate any specific direction. Just about anyone should be able to make a great life here, and not rely on the government to force people to contribute to their well-being.

Thanks in advance for answering THE QUESTION ;)

Answer 1

"Rugged individualists" do contribute to the "collective"(damn trekkies). They are the incarnation of the spirit of competition and the drive to do better than the next guy. This spirit is contagious and benefits society by constantly improving technology, economy, and basic all around quality of life. Some people do get trampled on in the process but then its for the good of the "collective" as you put it.


Cheers,

A.C.

Answer 2

You live in a society. That SOCIETY it what makes those things possible. It costs money (called taxes) to pay for that society.

I don't how many time I've tried to explain this concept to conservatives.

Picture Bill Gates coming up with his operating system living as "rugged individual" on an island (forget for a moment he actually bought the OS from someone else and modified it). Who exactly would he sell his OS to? There is no economy on the island. There are no computer manufacturers, no applications developers, no communications infrastructure. There is NO DEMAND for an OS on a deserted island.

Society creates wealth, not individuals.

All middle-class Americans could keep more of their money if we didn't have a conservative nanny state.

Answer 3

Everyone has a right to their own property (that includes money, land, or any other possession one has). I'm sick and tired of the socialist push to contribute for the collective good! This is a capitalist nation that is more about individual liberties and prosperity, not socialism with a focus on group prosperity.

Another thing that is irritating, and parroted over and over again. Is the liberals that always bring up roads, military, police and fire protection paid for by tax payers. Yes... we do have a small amount of socialism thrown in the mix, but in very limited amounts. That is the main purpose of government. To protect it's citizens from foreign and domestic threats, to provide infrastructure, and to enforce the laws. We don't need nor want wealth redistribution.

Answer 4

It's a false question because the conservatives are always looking for tax breaks and government handouts for their favorite companies. Yes, in general the wealthiest have gained the most from what society has to offer, and they have a greater share of income that isn't devoted to acquiring the most basic "needs" in life, so they have the ability to give back a little more. To pretend that they earned their money in some kind of bubble without using the roads, infrastructure of systems set up and paid for by everyone in society is narcissistic claptrap.

Because of the low rate of capital gains taxes, the low percentage of the wealthiests' income derived from wages, and the phasing out of SSI and Medicare taxes before $100K, the richest of the so-called "rugged individualists" pay less taxes as a proportion of their income than the folks below them on the income ladder.

Warren Buffet pointed out that his % of taxes are lower than the secretaries in his companies, and offered a $1M bet to any CEO who could show otherwise for their companies. He hasn't had to pay out.

Answer 5

Of course conservatives or anyone else has the right to rugged individualism. This is a part of our freedoms in this country but you are expected to pay taxes for and in whatever amount your elected representatives decide is for the good and welfare of the country. Freedom isn't free and if you think it should be, then vote and elect people that think as you do. If you can find any. Now don't tell me I haven't answered your question, I"ve simply substituted Country in place of Collective.

Answer 6

even nonetheless I accept as true with your discontent over the Fox information Zombies, be careful what you desire for. those pink states produce many of the components the blue states devour. because of the fact the device is desperate as much as reward the provider sector greater effective than the instruction manual exertions sector it creates the phantasm that the blue states are helping the pink states whilst in actuality it somewhat is any incorrect way around.

Answer 7

To Answer you question;

Yes, we have the right to be rugged individualists.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Sam Adams

Answer 8

If they want to be rugged individuals then they should stay off of the roads that my taxes paid for. They shouldn't get police of fire protection that my taxes pay for. They talk about everybody is on their own and has to take care of themselves but they don't fully understand what type of society that would be like.

Answer 9

yes they do have that right,but consider Teddy Roosevelts words. Keep in mind he was a pretty rugged individual,the difference is he had a heart.

"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in."

Answer 10

Why does the government hate robbers? Becuase they hate competition. I think a flat tax is fair becuase we all rely on things like military, roads and schools. But I don't want to pay my hard erned money to support my lazy neighbor who is perfectly healthy but on a welfare check. Cut spending and Cut taxes and watch the economy take off!