Oh, I’m sorry… did I say “for-profit”? I meant government-run pool that was visited by two separate city inspectors while the dead body was in the pool.
[Marie] Joseph’s body was finally found Tuesday night when some kids broke into the pool area.
State regulations say the water at public pools has to be checked for [clarity] and bacteria every hour, but the water at the Fall River pool was so cloudy, no one saw the body.
Next time you visit Disney World, drop a candy wrapper (it doesn’t have to be anything as large as an entire person) and see how long it takes before someone picks it up. I’ll bet it’s considerably less than two days.
“Let us consider a stark example: Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed whenever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation — so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: “While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads, achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social, psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore, it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads.” The natural-rights libertarian, overwhelmingly concerned as he is for the justice of the act, will react in horror and staunchly and unequivocally oppose the executions as totally unjustified murder and aggression upon nonaggressive persons. The consequence of stopping the murders — depriving the bulk of society of great psychic pleasure — would not influence such a libertarian, the “absolutist” libertarian, in the slightest. Dedicated to justice and to logical consistency, the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being “doctrinaire,” to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines.”—Murray Rothbard
“The biggest difference between mainstream liberals and [mainstream] conservatives is that Democrats love big government at home, and Republicans love big government abroad. And yet both parties consistently give us plenty of both.”—
A company that squeezes maximum possible profits from its workers does not refuse to promote women simply because of their sex. Such refusals would leave money on the table by keeping many employees in lower-rank positions even though those employees would add more to the company’s bottom line by being promoted to higher-rank positions. Conversely, a company that indulges its taste for bigotry is not a company intent on squeezing as much profit as possible from its employees.
The exact same video is featured three times in two days. Certainly it is deserving of promotion… once, like anything else deserving promotion. Truth is, redundant posts aren’t a new thing. Even if the libertarian editors didn’t regularly get insinuations and even outright accusations of impropriety, the editors in general must be better curators of content with regards to something as easily avoidable as duplicate posts.
“I am an anarchist because I believe there’s no natural right to rule … because I believe the state lacks legitimacy … because I believe the state is unnecessary … because the state tips the scales in favor of privileged elites and against ordinary people … because the state tends to be destructive. It engages in war and plunder, and seems persistently to be involved in ratcheting up the level of violence and injustice across borders — which are, of course, themselves state creations … because the state restricts personal freedom — as a way of maintaining order, benefiting the privileged, preserving its own power, or subsidizing some people’s moralizing preferences … and because I believe a stateless society would provide opportunities for people to explore diverse ways of living fulfilled, flourishing lives and to put the results of their exploration on display.”—Gary Chartier
The government grows bigger every day and every year, no matter how you measure it. There are more laws, more police, and more prisoners than ever. The empire and presidential power have been on the rise for decades. Spending has increased at all levels. New bureaucracies, edicts, social programs, and prohibitions crop up continually. Almost no regulations are ever repealed – yes, back in the late 1990s, Clinton signed a partial deregulation of certain bank practices (opposed by Ron Paul, as it was phony to begin with), which had nothing to do with the financial meltdown and yet is blamed for every economic problem that unfolded in the last decade. Yes, back in the early 1980s, Reagan cut marginal tax rates while increasing other taxes and positioning himself to double the federal government, and, according to the left-liberals, we’ve been in a laissez-faire tailspin ever since. But anyone who really thinks libertarianism has been dominant in this country clearly has very little understanding of what libertarianism is – or is utterly detached from reality. …
The fact is, most left-liberals do hate and fear libertarianism more than they oppose modern conservatism. It makes sense. For one thing, the conservatives and liberals seemingly agree on 90% of the issues, certainly when compared to the views of principled libertarians. They all favor having a strong military. We tend to want to abolish standing armies. They all think the police need more power – to crack down on guns, if you’re a liberal, and to crack down on drugs, if you’re a conservative. We libertarians think police have way too much power and flirt with the idea of doing away with them altogether. The conservatives and liberals all want to keep Medicare, Social Security, and public schools intact, if tweaked around the edges. We see these programs for what they are: the parasitic class’s authoritarian and regressive programs to control the youth and foment intergenerational conflict.
Second of all, conservatism is a much better foil for liberals to attack than libertarianism is. They can deal with the friendly rivalry between red-state fascism and blue-state socialism. With the central state as their common ground, the two camps enjoy hurling insults at each other, playing culture war games, vying over power, doing what they can to expand government knowing that even should they lose control, it will eventually come back to them. This might explain why when leftists condemn conservatism for its hypocritical claims to libertarianism, they seldom follow up by saying true libertarianism would in fact be preferable. To the contrary, the argument is usually that since the conservatives are collectivists after all, they should warm up to the liberal flavor of collectivism espoused by Democrats. The left correctly says the right does not embrace genuine free enterprise, but socialism for the rich, and that the right is not really for small government, not when it comes to imposing its values. But then does the left conclude that libertarianism is not so bad, after all? Not usually. For in the end, the more anti-government the right is, the more a menace it is to the left’s project of social democracy and humanitarian militarism.
[And] Barack Obama is really what has made the left-liberal illusion fold under the weight of its own absurdity. Here we had the perfect paragon of left-liberal social democracy. He beat the centrist Hillary Clinton then won the national election. He had a Democratic Congress for two years. He had loads of political capital by virtue of following a completely failed and unpopular Republican administration. The world welcomed him. The center cheered him. And what did he do?
He shoveled money toward corporate America, banks and car manufacturers. He championed the bailouts of the same Wall Street firms his very partisans blamed for the financial collapse. He picked the CEO of General Electric to oversee the unemployment problem. He appointed corporate state regulars for every major role in financial central planning. After guaranteeing a new era of transparency, he conducted all his regulatory business behind a shroud of unprecedented secrecy. He planned his health care scheme, the crown jewel of his domestic agenda, in league with the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
He continued the war in Iraq, even extending Bush’s schedule with a goal of staying longer than the last administration planned. He tripled the U.S. presence in Afghanistan then took over two years to announce the eventual drawdown to bring it back to only double the Bush presence. He widened the war in Pakistan, launching drone attacks at a dizzying pace. He started a war on false pretenses with Libya, shifting the goal posts and doing it all without Congressional approval. He bombed Yemen and lied about it.
He enthusiastically signed on to warrantless wiretapping, renditioning, the Patriot Act, prison abuse, detention without trial, violations of habeas corpus, and disgustingly invasive airport security measures. He deported immigrants more than Bush did. He increased funding for the drug war in Mexico. He invoked the Espionage Act more than all previous presidents combined, tortured a whistleblower, and claimed the right to unilaterally kill any U.S. citizen on Earth without even a nod from Congress or a shrug from the courts.
The left-liberals who stand by this war criminal and Wall Street shill have made their choice: better to have the militarism and police state, so long as it means a little more influence over domestic politics, even if that too is compromised by corporate interference, than it is to embrace a radical antiwar agenda that might complicate their domestic aspirations.
Just out of curiosity, who dug up your post from January in order to feature it in the Politics tag today?
With the infinitive clause “in order to," you not only presume both were related but the "digging up" was for the explicit purposes of featuring it in the tag.
In fact, Ireblogged the post last night. Apparently it has gained quite a life since I last logged in. It has been liked and reblogged over 50 times and was even - as you kindly note - featured in the directory (by some other editor). It fits the criteria after all, being serious, political, and relevant - particularly since (as I just now noticed) featured a few posts prior was a video of Obama urging Congress to raise the debt limit. Serendipitous, indeed (as my post was quoting Senator Obama explaining the irresponsibility of raising the debt limit).
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”—Barack Obama (March 16, 2006)
Let’s be clear here. It’s not the case that the management of this company has an unusually high devotion to the well-being of humanity. The management is following the pricing signals and making entrepreneurial judgments all in the service of the consuming public. It is a great competitor, relentlessly reinventing itself in an effort to win the affections of the eating-out public.
The managers here might be the greatest humanitarians in history or they might be the greediest and most selfish people on earth. It really doesn’t matter. The market is the driving force and the profitability signals are the test of whether the company is or is not doing the right thing. This is the very heartbeat of the capitalistic process — the one spotted and dissected centuries ago by economists in France, Spain, Italy, and England.
These old liberals saw that the capitalistic process is the answer to the great social and moral problems raised by thinkers of all ages precisely because it pours every manner of human motivation into the grand project of satisfying the needs and wants of all society’s members. If economic science had one main point to contribute to the world of ideas, this was it.
A most impressive feature of capitalism that is highlighted in the McDonald’s case is how its institutions so beautifully adapt themselves to change. The drift is always upward: new and improved. And this drift is like a wind that never stops blowing unless it is stopped by the organized force of the state.
haikus have to be about nature its not about the syllable count or format thats just a poem with a rigid structure not a haiku
Although this is nowhere near my wheelhouse, I believe that’s a misconception. While they traditionally have seasonal themes, they are not necessarily definitionally so. It has to do with a specific list of words that are customarily used, most of which (but not all) have to do with the (five?) seasons. What’s primarily characteristic is their metric pattern.
Still, poetic license is best employed on poetry, no? I’m an an-cap - I’m liable to break rules on occasion.
And most importantly: don’t piss in my zen garden, man… I’m starting a series here!
“When our current government-managed economy experiences problems, there is huge pressure on government to “do something.” It is a difficult-to-accept truth, however, that the best action is no action —i.e., to allow the market to self-correct. But politicians pursue the easy and popular course of intervention, instead of the correct course of being hands off — as there used to be in the 1800s (and even in 1921) when recessions were thus fleeting. In the face of any current crisis, they feel compelled to implement new “policies,” which necessarily become the seeds of the next crisis about which they will soon have to once again “do something.” It is understandably difficult to accept the notion that nothing should be done when millions are suffering during economic downturns. But the quickest road to recovery is not to interfere with the corrective processes markets undertake. Better yet, we should abolish the policies that cause financial crises and recessions.”—Kel Kelly
The steps to encouraging capital investment and creating new jobs in America are simple, though not easy:
First and foremost, we must create a sound U.S. currency backed by gold or some other commodity respected by the market. No nation in history with a rapidly depreciating currency has attracted private capital. Unless and until we prohibit the Treasury and Federal Reserve from essentially creating money and credit from thin air, we cannot restore the U.S. economy.
Second, we must create a favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business. This cannot be stressed enough. When businesses don’t know what’s coming next from the EPA, when Obamacare spikes their healthcare costs, or when the Dodd-Frank bill adds almost unknowable regulatory compliance burdens, businesses simply will not expand and hire. It is time to start shrinking the federal register.
Third, we must stop spending trillions of dollars overseas on foreign wars. There is no point in debating a foreign policy we cannot afford. It no longer matters what neoconservatives want. Our interventionist foreign policy is financed on credit, and our credit limit has been reached. Our economy would be infinitely better off if those trillions of dollars had never been removed from the private economy or added to our debt.
Finally, we must completely revamp the U.S. tax system and move to a territorial model that does not tax foreign source income. U.S. corporations are sitting on more than a trillion dollars in foreign earnings that cannot be repatriated to the U.S. because of taxes. We need to stop taxing unpatriated funds to bring those earnings home. Better yet, we need to abolish the income tax altogether.
The U.S. economy is in deep trouble. Congress needs to act immediately to restore the rule of law and create an environment that rewards, rather than punishes, the critical components of any healthy economy: capital accumulation and investment.
For those who do not immediately “see the light” [that all government action is violent action], you can pick any government action and walk them through that reasoning process through dialectic:
You: Suppose that I do not wish to participate in Medicare and withhold only that percentage of my payroll taxes that would otherwise go to fund it. In return, I agree not to make use of any of the Medicare benefits. What will happen to me?
Him/Her: You will be charged with income tax evasion.
You: What if I don’t answer the charge?
Him/Her: You will be arrested.
You: What if I do not agree to submit to the arrest?
Him/Her: You will be physically forced to submit.
You: And if I resist further?
Him/Her: (reluctantly) You will be killed.
You: So, you now agree that we are forced to participate in Medicare under the threat of violence, correct?
Him/Her: (Even more reluctantly) Yes.
You: Is there any government tax, law, or regulation that we are not similarly forced to participate in under the threat of violence? Are not even all of these answers the same regarding the least significant government regulation, like a parking ticket?
Recall the final scenes in the 1999 movie, The Matrix. After Neo’s “resurrection,” he stands up to once again face the agents that had apparently killed him a moment before. However, when we see the matrix through Neo’s eyes, as he sees it now, the whole world is made up of lines of green code. Neo had been told early in the movie that the matrix is a computer-generated illusion. He heard it, but did not know it. He is now seeing that world as it really is for the first time. His mind has reasoned through and understood all of the implications of what Morpheus has told him. Once he truly understands, he is invincible.
This is a wonderful metaphor for the libertarian “conversion.” Once one has had the epiphany that all government action is violent action, there are only three choices. 1) You come to the same conclusions that Ron Paul does on [nearly] every issue, 2) You… conclude that it is morally justifiable to initiate violence against other people, or 3) You abandon logic and stop acknowledging reality.
So, should the TSA change policy once again? Almost certainly. Will it ever arrive at balanced policies that aren’t punctuated by outrages like this? Almost certainly not.
You see, the TSA does not seek policies that anyone would call sensible or balanced. Rather, it follows political cues, subject to the bureaucratic prime directive…: maximize discretionary budget. …
The prime directive also helps explain why TSA has expanded its programs following each of the attempts on aviation since 9/11, even though each of them has failed. For a security agency, security threats are good for business. TSA will never seek balance, but will always promote threat as it offers the only solution: more TSA.
[G]overnment intervention, not market failure, is responsible for today’s out-of-control healthcare costs. … If we returned purchasing power to patients — in effect, restored consumer sovereignty — healthcare spending would decline dramatically.
“Our true object [in creating this new government] is to give full efficacy to one principle… to render force as little necessary as possible.”—
Richard Henry Lee, aka The Federal Farmer.
If the founders knew what kind of abject failure their new government would turn out to be, I’m sure many of them (probably not Hamilton) would not have pushed for anything beyond the Articles of Confederation. Some of them perhaps may have even said that was too much.
Twenty years ago after U.S. forces had driven the Iraqi military out of Kuwait and back into Iraq, President George H.W. Bush as Commander in Chief ordered the U.S. military to cease-fire on February 28, 1991. Years later in his 1998 memoir “A World Transformed”, Bush admitted that the reason he chose to order the cease-fire was because he understood that advancing further into Iraq, a country that had not attacked the U.S., and overthrowing its government could easily be seen as an illegal war of aggression and thus warrant a call from the American people for his removal from office by the constitutional remedy of impeachment. It was the fear of a call for impeachment by the American people that in effect stopped the President from continuing the war.
Since the Presidency of the Democrat Bill Clinton during the 1990’s, which immediately followed the Presidency of the Republican George H.W. Bush, the American people have allowed a practice of the President acting as “unitary executive” unaccountable to the rule of law in ordering the U.S. military into unprovoked, illegal wars of aggression and occupations. During the Presidency of the Republican George W. Bush, attempts were made to even re-define the office of the Presidency as a “unitary executive” with literally dictatorial powers beyond the rule of law. Now, because the American people have still not spoken up, the current Presidency of the Democrat Barack Obama has allowed the President of the United States to order young Americans to war without even consulting the American people’s representatives in Congress or having to concoct a lie about the U.S. facing a “justifiable” threat to its national security.
President Obama’s ordering of the March 19th, 2011 attack on Libya, without even consulting Congress, let alone getting a Declaration of War or other type of Congressional approval for the attack, has led to a good amount of discussion as to how the President could very well be impeached for having unilaterally ordered such an attack. People from both ends of the political spectrum, to include members of Congress, have been quite clear in publicly stating that the President’s attack on Libya is not only an impeachable offense, as per Democrat Representative and 2008 Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, but it also makes him accountable for war crimes, as per Republican Representative and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul from Texas. Notable legal experts and scholars from both the left and the right, to include former Democrat U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, former Republican Deputy U.S. Attorney General Bruce Fein, and Professor of Law Francis Boyle, have publicly offered their services to assist in carrying out impeachment proceedings against President Obama over his unconstitutional and otherwise illegal war on Libya to any member of Congress willing to step forward and introduce Articles of Impeachment.
Let us not forget that it was the former Constitutional Law Professor and U.S. Senator Barack H. Obama who said himself during a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
The sovereign nation of Libya posed no such threat whatsoever to the United States, and Obama’s ordering of more than 120 Cruise Missiles fired into Libya in just the first day of his own March 19th “Shock and Awe” is nothing less than another outright illegal U.S. war of aggression similar to the illegal U.S. war of aggression on Iraq launched 8 years to the day prior, minus the land invasion which is the next step in the process if the American people don’t draw the line and call for a stop to it now.
What a lonely, divided world it would be if acceptance and tolerance are inefficacious concepts, and unity can only be attained through unconditional fellowship and absolute alignment of values and beliefs.
STFUConservatives is a joke. That’s all there is to it.
No, LA Liberty is a fucking moron. Reading comprehension is very important, kids.
Thank you for pointing out the importance of reading comprehension. Acknowledging your shortcomings is the first step in your betterment, and I hope you can follow.
Your support is not illegitimate. Telling us that you are neither is irrelevant, and that’s the damn point. Saying, “I’m pro-choice, but I’d never get an abortion” is making the issue seem like a lesser option, one only taken by moral cripples. It is not helpful to the cause to keep the issue looking like a bad thing. Just say “I’m pro-choice”.
So you restate the original argument. As such, I’ll restate my reply: being or publicly acknowledging a position of support (being “pro-choice,” being for pro-marijuana-legalization, being pro-whatever) does not preclude the validity of one’s personal values. I understand that, as a socialist, you are inclined to tell people what to do, but if she wanted to frame her support in that way, it doesn’t otherwise undermine her support.
If I support your right to, say, abstain from eating meat, can I not also believe bacon is delicious? And in believing so, can I not say so? And must I never allow those beliefs to intermingle? They are not, after all, contradictory. I support your right to choose to avoid any food you wish. I will never interfere in your peaceful consumption of pretty much anything. That I would choose to eat meat does not erode my support of your choice.
Stated another way, if one is pro-choice in that she would not interfere with another’s access to abortion, but her choice is to not have an abortion - what difference does it make? She explicitly supports that there be a choice. There is no so-called slut-shaming, as Joe claimed. In fact, her comment was even broader - she didn’t explicitly say she would not get an abortion either. But again, reading comprehension is failing too many.
I’m glad LA Liberty decided to conveniently link only to the beginning of this long, drawn-out argument that went on between Joe and some readers, before any discourse and clarification could be made. Good job.
I simply used the link that was shared with me, which, at the time, also happened to be the very most recent post in the conversation. Still, feel free to assign ulterior motives, since Joe’s assigning of ulterior motives is the impetus of this entire conversation.
The drug war is a violent campaign against black men and by extension the black family, among many others (not all of them black, by the way); it has been so since it started. Furthermore, almost every prohibition of substances consumed in the United States of America has had as its raison d’être the subjugation of one group (generally some “minority” group – whatever group happens to partake of that substance) to the benefit of one other specific group of statist, power-mad megalomaniacs. (One might be tempted to suggest that this megalomaniacal group is primarily composed of white males, but the current occupant of the White House seems to be dancing to the same music and from all appearances, he likes it. And, he’s not alone. So there’s that.) …
What a lonely, divided world it would be if acceptance and tolerance are inefficacious concepts, and unity can only be attained through unconditional fellowship and absolute alignment of values and beliefs.
How many people see natural disasters like the tornadoes in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and Joplin, Missouri and say “we should be working to impede the recovery and make life harder for storm victims?” Probably no one. How many people see prices rise after natural disasters like the tornadoes in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Joplin Missouri and say “we should prosecute ‘price gougers!’”? Probably a lot. And yet prosecuting price gougers makes life harder for storm victims.
Why do prices rise so radically after storms? There’s a three-word answer:supply and demand. After massive storms, demand for tree removal services rises. Demand for building supplies rises. Demand for electric generators rises. Demand for basic groceries rises.
At the same time, supply of these goods and services might be falling. First, some of them might simply be destroyed. If a tornado knocks out a shopping center, a handful of grocery stores, all the hardware stores, lumber yards, and a handful of construction companies, we simply have less stuff to go around.
Second, the people who might provide the goods and services essential for disaster relief might have problems of their own. If it’s a contractor from the affected community, then he might be dealing with the destruction of his own property. People from outside the affected area have their own crises to deal with. I forget where I first read this, but someone has wisely pointed out that in post-disaster situations rising prices perform vital economic triage by showing which uses of resources are now high-value and which uses of resources are now low-value.
A disaster means a big shock both to what people want and to the resources available to fulfill those wants. Freely-moving prices make sure resources are allocated to their highest-valued uses, and rising prices send people a very important signal: resources have gotten scarcer and need to be conserved. If houses are destroyed by a tornado, rising lumber prices tell someone in an unaffected area to think twice about building a new deck because the lumber is probably more valuable rebuilding houses. Rising gas prices tell people to think twice about burning scarce gas for a Sunday drive in the country. And so on.
“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”—Michael Rivero (via bulletinmypocket)
You are ruining libertarianism for me. Please stop with this utopian ideal and return to the world we inhabit. Taxes are a part of our social contract, so work with the paradigm of reforming them rather than pretending they are violations of rights.
And if your alleged flirtations with libertarianism are so fragile as to be ruined by simple logic and reason, I’m afraid your cause may already be lost (especially in context of some of your other posts and reblogs). I’ve offered steps to “work within the system” before, but it’s perhaps more important to understand the philosophy of liberty to better grasp its practical purpose and visualize its ideological goal. Libertarianism, through the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression, is both consequential in its understanding what is efficient and best for most individuals and deontological in advocating what is morally right. A Libertarian is no utopian.
But if cheese, tomatoes, and dough ruin pizza for you, it’s doubtful pizza ever stood a chance.
If you could choose to send your taxes to a different entity, would you?
Is there even a single dollar that you would re-route to a different purpose?
A charity or non-profit that specifically supports something important to you: Red Cross, World Wildlife Fund, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Environmental Defense Fund, Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Doctors Without Borders, Autism Speaks, LIVESTRONG, Pan American Relief, (RED), Westside Food Bank, Project HOPE, Children’s Hunger Fund, Americans for the Arts, AmeriCares, Houston Food Bank, National Merit Scholarship Corp, Goodwill, American Kidney Fund, Cambio Para Cuba, United Way, Children’s Miracle Network, San Francisco Opera Association, Toys for Tots, Planned Parenthood, Project H.O.M.E., American Museum of Natural History, Salvation Army, Boys & Girls Club, Big Brothers and Sisters, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, American Heart Association, Mayo Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, Alzheimer’s Association, March of Dimes, Special Olympics, etc.
A religious or philosophical organization.
Your local library or volunteer fire department.
A local nature preserve or park.
A free clinic in your area.
A homeless person you regularly pass on the street.
A sick friend.
An elder relative.
Is there any person or group that not only is more deserving but more accountable and efficient with your money than a bunch of bureaucrats and their cronies? If you had a choice, would you not alter how your tax dollars are spent so as to put them toward what you believe would be their best use?
Considering that most people would likely answer “yes, of course I can think of someone or some group more deserving of my money,” taxes - wealth taken by threat of violence from otherwise peaceful individuals - cannot be morally justified. Even if you think that some of your money is best served funding the state, can you not acknowledge that every individual has different priorities and valuations that would come up with a different acceptable payment?
Taxes are theft. If an organization cannot function with only volunteer funding or [elective] user fees, said organization has definitionally proved unfit to exist - even if this organization calls itself government.