Government: ‘You’re Obligated to Pay Taxes, We’re Not Obligated to Provide Services’
Mike McDaniel wrote an excellent piece explaining why the police aren’t obligated to protect you. Yes, it’s true, as he explains by citing the Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
When discussing Second Amendment rights and the civil right of self-defense, this is a vital point to hammer home over and over, because those who claim we should disarm and call the police will have no defense against reality. (Assuming they’re interested in reality, which isn’t always the case with ideologues.)
You may also find DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services very interesting. The Supreme Court extended longstanding precedent affirmed in Castle Rock v. Gonzales to include any government agency that exists on our tax dollars. In this case:
“Petitioner is a child who was subjected to a series of beatings by his father, with whom he lived. Respondents, a county department of social services and several of its social workers, received complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father, and took various steps to protect him; they did not, however, act to remove petitioner from his father’s custody. Petitioner’s father finally beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage, and was rendered profoundly retarded.”
As with Castle Rock, the lower courts ruled for the victim/plaintiff, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling in favor of the government agency/defendant. Fancy that, a government agency (Supreme Court) ruling in favor of a government agency!
Here’s reality again, for those who can handle it: We are required by law to pay taxes to support all these bureaucracies, but they are not obligated to provided the services we pay for.
Who are the winners and losers in this game?
That damned old Tea Party saying seems to fit here…”no taxation without representation.” I think we need a changing of the guard here in the U.S. Anyone that will not properly represent the people will just have to go to the unemployment office, as well as any Supreme Court Judge. Imagine, we pay for our taxes so that we may enjoy the right to be protected by our civil servants and the court deems that they do not! Every where I go in the county, city, or state building it says “to serve…or to serve and protect..”
‘Every where I go in the county, city, or state building it says “to serve…or to serve and protect..” ‘
Think 1984.
“Here’s reality again, for those who can handle it: We are required by law to pay taxes to support all these bureaucracies, but they are not obligated to provided the services we pay for.”
Sounds like my landlord’s view of my obligation to pay rent versus her obligation to provide heat and other services.
In a feudal society, her right to choose will trump yours every time. Bigger government = a step towards feudalism.
Not entirely fair towards feudalism. Ideally, the obligations in a feudal system flow up AND down.
Nice fantasy, but they don’t. Rights become privileges that are granted or withheld, depending on the mood of the nobility.
What if the Supreme Court had ruled otherwise?
Now all those state agencies, being under an obligation to protect children, would have to, in order to ensure they are not sued, immediately remove any children from their parents at the least hint or accusation of any threatening behavior.
Now, how many times have we seen articles complaining about the government exceeding its authority in an attempt to “protect” children?
I seem to recall a bit of an uproar over that guy burning himself to death at the courthouse because of trouble with his custody hearings. There everyone was quick to denounce the government for trampling his rights because there was an asserted threat to the children.
If you want government to have the absolute power to determine what is “best” for children under all circumstances, and not merely be able but actually required to under penalty of law to remove children from parental custody whenever a “threat” to the children is reported or determined, then go ahead and condemn this decision by the Supreme Court.
Just remember that it is your fault when the state shows up to seize your children because someone doesn’t like something you are doing in raising them.
Apply this attitude to your local grocery store or gas station. Every time you visit, you give them money. If they choose, they can give you product in return, or not, as they wish, and there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s a good system, as long as you own a grocery store or a gas station…other than that, not so much.
The difference, of course, is that going to the store (and which one) is voluntary. Taxes, of course, aren’t. I don’t believe that bureaucrats should be allowed to take such drastic action to prevent incidents like this; instead it would be good if they did their jobs, used their judgment, and removed children from those homes where they perceived there was danger. Just referring to a checklist and insisting that the parents will do a good job of raising their children isn’t enough.
Excellent rebuttal, pointing out the flaws in his logic.
You bring up one good point. Government either exceeds its authority, or bureaucrats ignore the duties which they promised to perform. The key thread woven throughout each example is that bureaucrats are never held accountable. Yet we are held so if we decide to not pay taxes for government functions we paid for that weren’t performed. Nice to tilt the playing field so that taxpayers are always wrong and bureaucrats are always right.
In Deshaney, evidence existed that the father was committing aggravated assault on the boy. Yet nobody acted to protect him. When clear criteria are ignored, malfeasance is reasonable. In this case, ignoring and not acting upon evidence made the bureaucrats accessories.
However, suing the government means the plaintiff gets paid by the taxpayers. A better solution is firing all involved, and giving them hard prison time where they have to work to pay restitution, room and board. This way, those committing malfeasance pay, not taxpayers.
New motto “to swerve and collect”.
Dennis-4, perhaps: “to collect and observe.” Or, shorter still: “to collect.”
Or “To collect and serve (ourselves).”
They do a great job of enriching themselves at our expense.
Isn’t protection of citizens one of the roles of the state? Would this ruling be extended to the military?