[MicroBalrog]

Am I liberal, conservative, libertarian? I no longer understand. Help me map myself on the political map. Note that political map surveys all give me different results:


1.I support public schooling, welfare, and controls on food quality. Nobody is to be allowed to sell poison as food.
2. I oppose gun control, except the NICS system (although I think there should be a way to monitor it to prevent it being used for registration), regulations on possession of WMD's, and possession of SAM systems within 20 miles of an airport (literally).
3.I oppose the drug war. Every adult person should be able to put whatever he wishes into his body.
4.I support the war on Iraq, but I don't believe in the WMD. I believe it would be rather could if Israel and America helped Russia with the Wahabis and maybe (yeah, right), if America and her allies sent some forces into the West Bank.
5.I'm pro-choice.
6.I dislike Republican politicians.

[Jim March]

Nobody else can label you.

Much of your positions are Libertarian-ish, 'cept for some of item 1. Where are you on school vouchers as an alternative to a state monopoly on education, and why?

Regulatory oversight of industry is, in my opinion, necessary. Food quality is only one aspect of that. In theory, it could be replaced with a private food-inspection service that people would subscribe to but that would be unwieldy.

You have enough Libertarian tendencies that people like Ashcroft give you the cold willies. I'm in the same boat, the "moral majority Republicans" range from idiotic to creepy.

[c_yeager]

we're on the same page on most of what you listed and ive given up on trying to classify myself. When stupid people ask me i tend to say "republican" or in some cases "libertarian" depending on who's asking. Around here that tends to shut people up and i cant really stand to be counted with the soccer moms and psuedo hippies/intellecuals that make up the liberal contingent around here. Just go without a label i have found it quite liberating.

[MicroBalrog]

Uhm... these don't exist in my country.

My government sponsors some private schools
- like this one http://tabeetha.htmlplanet.com , this allows peons like me to study for only $200 a month. But I do think there should be tight regulation of the entire private school thing, otherwise you get stuff like the religious school students here that are suing their school for not teaching them the basic stuff required to get into college. The school got its license, of course, due to pressure from the orthodox religious commuinity.

[Mark Tyson]

From what you've posted, you seem a liberal on most social issues and conservative on foriegn policy.

Your positions sound similar to mine. Liberal gun nuts, unite!

[faustulus]

But how do you come to your beliefs? I bet you tend to be a pragmatist, as there doesn't seem to be a central theme to your bliefs. Most Americans tend to be very pragmatic, which is why they seem to hold contridicary views often times. This method works best in "the real world." It does however raise sticky questions about morality and ideals, but most people just ignore them.
Being pragmatic is much easier than having principles. For instance: I believe people are inherintly good and that I must trust my fellow man to do what is right. Once he has done wrong and been convicted I believe then he can be subjected to justice. However, that trust is a two edged sword. See I don't like drinking and driving, but as long as no one is hurt (i.e. anothers rights have been intruded upon) I don't have the ability to stop him.
Find out what you believe, then find out why. Choose the way you can live with best and don't worry about others.

[MicroBalrog]

I do believe that most people are good, and should not be punished unless proved otherwise. Nevertheless, defense/punishment mechanisms and educational safeguards should exist to protect us from the minority of evil people - prisons, schools (to prevent people from being ignorant, jobless, criminals), and guns. I also believe society should help those in desperate need of help.

[Oleg Volk]

Food quality falls under general fraud discouragement...and conflicts a bit with your stance on drugs. No SAMs within 32km from airports is a temp measure -- either you'll have to re-write it once high-output lasers are common, or ban lasers as well, or just admit that anyone can kill anyone else if they plan ahead and discourage the practice by enforcing laws against murder (and no, it won't deter some nuts).

As for your label, I'd be guessing socialist conservative (i.e. you approach the problems from the perspective of public policy as opposed to individual response, but you also limit the areas subject to public response).

[Gary H]

I would label you a thinking liberal. That puts you in the minority. I suspect that many of those that frequent this board are individualists and would be difficult to peg politically. I'm offended by the Democratic party. I believe that that the downfall of this republic began when they figured out that you can take from 49% and pander to the 51% and with the help of the media..you can lie.. how about that 'Social Security lock box'? I'm offended by the religious right and by George Bush's unlimited spending, tarrifs, assault weapons renewal position, support for Ted Kennedy's education reform and his support of affirmative action..in other words discrimination. I believe that people should be born with equal rights to make something of themselves, or fail, but I don't believe in providing equal outcome. I also go to bed at night and thank God that Alfred Gore was not "Commander and Chief" on September 11, 2001.

[Dorrin79]

perhaps a "left libertarian"?

not my personal path, but a perfectly valid one.

keep in mind that, with regards to regulation of industry, simple tort law covers the vast majority of what is currently regulated by a bunch of faceless, unelected bureaucrats.

[mercedesrules]

As faustulus suggested, you are unprincipled. You haven't decided if a man has the right to coerce another and initiate aggression against him. I sleep better having adopted the general principle that it is immoral to initiate force against another.

For instance, welfare presumes that some people can aggress against others, confiscate their wealth, and use it for their own ends. Public schooling presumes that parents can confiscate the wealth of non-parents. Food quality laws presume that men can trespass into restaurants and decide which products they can serve.

I like to follow these two "laws": 1) Do all you have agreed to do, and 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property. - Richard J. Maybury

MR

[cordex]

I just have one question for you:
Who is responsible for a competant adult's well-being?

[rock jock]

I don't know of two people who have exactly the same political beliefs. That is why we compromise when it comes to voting. Otherwise, we would have about 50 different political parties in the U.S. Nothing would get done and much money would be squandered (I mean more than now).

[Jim March]

Calling him "unprincipled" is unnecessarily harsh.

First, he lives under a fairly weird form of Government, a Democratic Theocracy, possibly the only one in the world unless you count Japan (a serious stretch). So he has concerns regarding education that are driven by oddball circumstances not of his making.

He's also facing a level of terrorist problems that are beyond anything we can even comprehend. A slight lack of distrust of his fellow human bean is...well, not surprising. Let's see how you do in those circumstances :rolleyes:.

[TallPine]

Has it occured to you that #1 and #3 on your list are contradictory?

Who gets to define what is poison? Some possible candidates: sugar, cholesterol, chocolate, cafeinne ....

Just food for thought. ;)

[MicroBalrog]

I would correct Jim to say that Israel is more of a Socialist Democracy (Sarah Brady wet dream) + huge political pressures by the religious lobby.

I don't think that my stance on drugs conflicts on my stance on food. I mean, people should be allowed to poison themselves - as long as they know about it.

Oleg - would you let people carry a loaded RPG-7 onto a plane?

I would put my believes about coercion into this form: Usually, a man does not the right to coerce his fellow man, just as he has not the right to kill him. Sometimes he does have the right to kill him (in self-defense).

Now, you never have the right to coerce the fellow man, but sometimes, it's justified by the effectivity of such political measures and their harmlessness (if they prevent violence and disruption through simple collection of low taxes and their correct application).
.

[MicroBalrog]

Has it occured to you that #1 and #3 on your list are contradictory?

Who gets to define what is poison? Some possible candidates: sugar, cholesterol, chocolate, cafeinne ....

Just food for thought.

Uhm, if I mixed chalk in my flavour to make bread, wouldn't you be mighty p@@@d if your kid ate it and died? At least if you're eating poison, you should know about it.

And by the way, I think drugs and alcohol should only be sold to adults.

[cordex]

Oleg - would you let people carry a loaded RPG-7 onto a plane?
I'm not Oleg, but wouldn't that be up to the owner of the plane?

[MicroBalrog]

Well, given that an airplane is a semi-public space (like a movie theater), the government does get to regulate things a bit. And if there's one place where interstate commerce applies, it's on planes.

[cordex]

Well, given that an airplane is a semi-public space (like a movie theater), the government does get to regulate things a bit.
Movie theaters around here are privately or corporately owned.
Using that logic (that the gov't can/should regulate the carriage of weapons anywhere that could be considered a "semi-public space"), they can pretty much regulate anything that isn't an exclusive club, right?

[MicroBalrog]

Self-defense is a human right, while flying a passenger jet is a privilege.

You wouldn't oppose regulations on car safety, would you?

[TallPine]

Uhm, if I mixed chalk in my flavour to make bread, wouldn't you be mighty p@@@d if your kid ate it and died? At least if you're eating poison, you should know about it.

Doesn't sound like very good business practice to me. "Wander Bread has killed 33% fewer children than Brand X" :what:

Still doesn't keep it from ever happening, unless you have a govt agent inspecting every single batch of dough, every restaurant meal, every can of pop ....

How about govt mandated warning labels on cocaine? :D

Or bridges: "The Surgeon General has determined that jumping off of bridges may be hazardous to your health"

[MicroBalrog]

Well reduces the chances of it ever happening.
Look, all the food i eat has inspection labels on it, meaning it's safe to eat. They don't inspect every single piece of bread, but they do inspect closely enough to deter companies from pulling off that kind of thing.

[TallPine]

You wouldn't oppose regulations on car safety, would you?

Oh, please ... don't get me started on that one :D

[TallPine]

but they do inspect closely enough to deter companies from pulling off that kind of thing.

Sorry, but I think the tort lawyers keep them on their toes more than anything.

But you're welcome to your opinion - I am just presenting another side.

[cordex]

Self-defense is a human right, while flying a passenger jet is a privilege.
1. Do you no longer have the right to self-defense while on a passenger jet?
2. A priviledge granted by whom? The government, or the owner and operator of the aircraft?

I'm not saying that people should be issued RPG-7s as they walk onto aircraft, just that if anyone is going to forbid them, it should be the owners of the property in question (in this case, the airplane)
You wouldn't oppose regulations on car safety, would you?
Like what? Like all cars must have seat belts? That vehicles must be able to offer better than 70% survival rates for all occupants in a head on collision with a combined speed of 160mph? Like mandating that everyone must wear a seat belt? That every car must have a governor that limits it's top speed to 75? Like having a GPS tracking system on every vehicle? (for safety's sake, of course)

[Henry Bowman]

MicroB - give yourself some more time to decide or find out what you are.

A 20 year old who isn't liberal has no heart. A 40 year old who isn't a conservative has no brain.

[cordex]

A 20 year old who isn't liberal has no heart. A 40 year old who isn't a conservative has no brain.
*grabs at the gaping hole in his chest*
Oh dear ...

[HBK]

I don't recall ever being a liberal, even at twenty. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a liberal...much)
Seriously, you have to just take your time and develop your beliefs.

[Henry Bowman]

Just a saying I heard . . .

I was a liberal at age 12, fully conservative by 18.

[mercedesrules]

(Jim March)Calling him "unprincipled" is unnecessarily harsh.
Sorry, MB if I offended you.

First, he lives under a fairly weird form of Government, a Democratic Theocracy, possibly the only one in the world unless you count Japan (a serious stretch). So he has concerns regarding education that are driven by oddball circumstances not of his making.
He should move out of that dangerous, wierd, oddball country as soon as possible.

He's also facing a level of terrorist problems that are beyond anything we can even comprehend. A slight lack of distrust of his fellow human bean is...well, not surprising. Let's see how you do in those circumstances .

I'm not sure if you meant "lack of distrust" or "distrust", but if I were in his shoes I would move immediately. There will never be anything that resembles peace there. I'm no hero, but I think my personal philisophy would at least help me sort out who is in the right and who is in the wrong - just like it does here in Texas. I had hoped to persuade him that his views are inconsistant. That leads to unhappiness and confusion.

MR

[mercedesrules]

(MicroBalrog) Now, you never have the right to coerce the fellow man, but sometimes, it's justified by the effectivity of such political measures and their harmlessness (if they prevent violence and disruption through simple collection of low taxes and their correct application).

I find public education and welfare neither effective nor harmless. If you are walking down the street and I and 99 others stroll up and say, "We voted and decided that you have to give us 30% of the money in your wallet to feed the poor", isn't that the same as your "simple collection of low taxes and their correct application"?

MR

[MicroBalrog]

Well, welfare works in many countries, so does public education.

Please explain how you intend to realistically maintain a government without taxes?

[HBK]

Welfare teaches people that they can survive while doing nothing for work. It makes them dependent instead of self-sufficient. Public education could work, if the liberals didn't try to revise history and dumb down the curriculum so that everyone succeeds. Everyone is not going to succeed. Normal schools should resemble a bell curve. Some geniuses, a little more more above average, mostly average, a few more less than average, and a few idiots. Liberals try to make everyone in the top ten % and it is just not going to happen. The public education curriculum is not the same as it was 40 years ago. It is far easier now and it is hurting our society. There are many social programs that could be nixed to save on taxes. For example, in the US, the IRS and ATF are two useless organizations.

[MicroBalrog]

.

I'm not sure if you meant "lack of distrust" or "distrust", but if I were in his shoes I would move immediately. There will never be anything that resembles peace there. I'm no hero, but I think my personal philisophy would at least help me sort out who is in the right and who is in the wrong - just like it does here in Texas. I had hoped to persuade him that his views are inconsistant. That leads to unhappiness and confusion

Yeah, well, there's no philosophy or moral system which would always apply, in 100% of cases.

He should move out of that dangerous, wierd, oddball country as soon as possible.
Yeah, well, no normal country would let me in. :barf:

[HBK]

The US would. You could live in Texas. You could have lots of guns here.:D

For now, anyways.:scrutiny:

[MicroBalrog]

Well HBK, in 6 years, when I do my Army and BA (Jerusalem University), I have the intention to continue for higher studies and future citizenship in the US.

[mercedesrules]

(MB)Please explain how you intend to realistically maintain a government without taxes?
I don't; I'm a market anarchist.

MR

[faustulus]

Look, all the food i eat has inspection labels on it, meaning it's safe to eat. They don't inspect every single piece of bread, but they do inspect closely enough to deter companies from pulling off that kind of thing.
Wouldn't the market, take care of this? I mean when the tylonal scare happened, the bottom dropped out of sales, the company scrambled to fix the problem and the government was never seriously involved.
All I want from the government is to keep the Canadians from invading. I don't need their schools, social programs or morality. I only ask that they are arbitrators in disputes. I will support the taxes to pay for this, however I will not support one group footing most of the bill especially considering that that is the very group least likely to use the services.
Well, welfare works in many countries, so does public education.
Fascism works in some countries too, I don't really think that is a valid arguement.

[Mark Tyson]

Markets did not solve the problem of tainted food and drugs. Look at the kind of flat out deception that happened in the US in the 19th and early 20th century. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.

Some government regulations exist because the market failed or a company acted irresponsibly. Some of the responses here seem to ignore the whole robber-baron era in the U.S. I consider this naive, and a good illustration of why I am not a libertarian/conservative.

The "market solution" to the plight of blacks in the US was seperate drinking fountains and restrooms. The "market solution" to discrimination is to boycott and protest discriminatory hiring/service practices. So what happens if all the major companies do it? Well then you can protest and boycott being unemployed, hungry and homeless as well.

Not everyone can afford the market price of basic services like education. Not everyone can send their kids to private school or spare the time for home schooling. That's why we have public education. Does anyone think we'd be a superpower today without public schools, flawed as they are? We all benefit rather directly from working with a literate population. The thing to do is not to scrap public ed. completely but to work to fix it.

Doing away with all welfare is a good idea for a society that is willing to just let the temporarily unemployed or the disabled rot in the street. Fortunately, most Americans feel obligated to take care of the unfortunate. I hear from libertarians and conservatives that private charities will pick up the slack. So what if they don't? Sorry, buddy, that's the market in action, should have saved more money. I don't buy it. That's a pretty cold society if you ask me.

YOU may not need welfare and public schools, but some people do.

Government provides basic services to those who can't afford the market price. The state solution isn't pretty, but it works. Additionally things like public libraries, public roads, the internet itself (originally a government project) all make our lives better. Since we all benefit, we all get the bill for it in the form of a tax.

You bring me a list of government abuses of power and I'll wager there's an equally lengthy list of irresponsible behavior by private industry. The solution is not to throw out either the market or the government, but to make both of them accountable.

[tiberius]

Microbalrog,

You seem to have pretty main stream ideas so labels are not that important.

Number 1 pretty much makes you a socialist though, and once socialist ideas are implemented, they only lead to more. See the current state of the US for evidence.:mad:

[NC Shooter]

Try this quiz:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Mark

[MicroBalrog]

I've tried several such programs, this one included, and they all map me differently.

[cordex]

MB,
Depending on the issue, you'll probably swing towards or away from different political labels, but if you have a base set of beliefs, you can always decide your position on a given issue based on those beliefs. Unfortunately, most people don't formulate a primary belief structure and can be swayed from issue to issue by the loudest, sexiest, most charming advocate. That, I think, is what mercedesrules was trying to say.

This is why I asked the as yet unanswered question: "Who is responsible for a competant adult's well-being?"

If you answer "the State", "Society", "Community", "the Party", "our gang" or what-have-you, you'll tend to support more socialist goals. You will be more open to banning items "for the public good" and overall less supportive of property rights and civil liberties.
In short, a tendancy towards socialism.

If you answer "the competant adult, (him/her)self", then you are going to be more likely to support property rights, civil liberties and general freedoms. You'll be more likely to advocate a "sink or swim" style economy over a "everybody kind of floats but few go anywhere" economy. And ... let's face it ... you recognize that people will fail and you don't believe it is the government's place to provide the safety net - the friends, family and charities that should be in that business.
In short, a tendancy towards individualism.

I hear from libertarians and conservatives that private charities wil pick up the slack. So what if they don't? Sorry, buddy, that's the market in action, should have saved more money. I don't buy it. That's a pretty cold society if you ask me.
Mark, if charities, churches and private citizens don't pick up the slack, then the individuals who make up society didn't care in the first place. In other words, if the people who are being forced to pay for welfare now don't pay for it in some form after the government run welfare system disappears, they're already cold and heartless ... right?
Either it works and the gov't system is replaced with local, private, needs based charity systems, or it fails because people didn't care in the first place.

Socialists distrust individuals.
You bring me a list of government abuses of power and I'll wager there's an equally lengthy list of irresponsible behavior by private industry. The solution is not to throw out either the market or the government, but to make both of them accountable.
How many millions of people has irresponsible behavior by private industry slaughtered?

[Mark Tyson]

Cordex,

People aren't necessarily heartless and Americans do give significant amounts to charity, but there are not enough philanthropists to cover all of the unfortunate. That's why we need (in my opinion) a government run safety net. I don't like the idea of taking people's money, but I think in a civilized society we should not abandon the poor to die. Even if you are right that the very fact that private charities are underfunded means that people are heartless, at least we can help some out a little.

As for the millions slaughtered by governments over the years, that's one reason why we have a 2nd amendment.

[cordex]

Even if you are right that the very fact that private charities are underfunded means that people are heartless, at least we can help some out a little.
You misunderstand.
What I was trying to say is that as I see it, private charities are currently underfunded because many who might be willing to give to more efficient, more needs-based, more worthy charitable organizations do not do so because of the presence of a bloated, gov't run welfare program that they are forced to pay into.
Knock down that inefficient program and don't take the money that would otherwise be taken to support it and I'd wager that private charities would benefit. Will they give out as much money? I doubt it, but the people who really need it will be more likely to get it and the people on welfare who really don't need it will probably have to give up one of the cars and maybe sell the TV.

[Byron Quick]

Markets did not solve the problem of tainted food and drugs. Look at the kind of flat out deception that happened in the US in the 19th and early 20th century. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.

This is the type of misconception that is often pointed to in an effort to give the government more power of our lives.

The only reason that the market did not solve these types of problems was that government failed to do its duty in its actual justified domestic arena: enforcement of the criminal law.

You sell me tainted food or tainted drugs? You attested that it was pure food and pure drugs? Sounds like fraud to me, at the least. Assault with intent to kill. Mayhem. Murder.

I assert that today's corporations would toe the mark if faced with this type of enforcement much faster than they obey this regulatory agency or that regulatory agency. The megacorporations consider fines to be the cost of doing business. Putting the CEO's butt against a brick wall and pulling the trigger would get the next CEO's undivided attention.

It was not the failure of capitalism in the nineteenth century that brought about regulation. The incestuous alliance of business and government in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is not capitalism.

If you are concerned about people dying without the support of governments then make a list with two columns. Label one column: People whose lives have been saved by governments. Label the other column: People who have been killed by governments. Total the two columns and compare the totals. Ask yourself this question: Would there be more people living without governments than have been saved by governments?

The conclusion is inescapable.

[themic]

even third parties can have moderates.

not every republican is pro gun, or pro life.

not every democrat is anti gun, or pro big government.

not every libertarian is an anarchist.

that's why they have "compassionate conservatives" and other such titles

because, alas, not everyone can be subjugated into 2 groups, or 3, or 5, or 10.

check out the libertarians and the constitutionalists. you might find that your underlying philosphies are more in line with theirs than with anyone else. then all you have to deal with is the image that they're all crazy anrchists. not so bad, republicans have to put up with being viewed as all jerry falwells and newt gingriches, and democrats as being tom daschles and nancy pelosis. ridiculous characters, all of them. such is the game of labelling.

[faustulus]

Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.
Been there read that, did the thesis. Much of it took the worst case scenerios (many of which were never confirmed).
I realize that much of what you argue is from an emotional and moral sense, for which I commend you. However, your moraliy is not absolute and not necessarily mine. When we make laws based on someone's morality we tend to get into trouble because it is a slippery slope. Soon you have laws that say you can't drink.
I know this is going to sound harsh but here goes: If you can't afford kids wear a condom. I don't want to pay for them and I shouldn't be expected to take care of someone else's children. If you can't pay for them, you had better do something about it. The idea that there is someone else to take care of things is dangerous.
If most Americans feel obliged to take care of them, they will.
Yes the state solution works but at the price of freedom and liberty -- any time someone takes my money on threat of force, I feel my liberty has been taken.

[saddenedcitizen]

OK - (yes - Nomex and Kevlar on so have at it)

Public schools have been and are a DISASTER - Consistantly rising costs
with NO increase in 'literacy'/knowledge etc.
The beast that will never be sated. Basically a union with only its
members and money that matter - children/education are at the bottom
of their list.
Welfare is no longer a 'helping hand' - 'the 'safety net' has become a
'hammock' - why work - money comes in the mail and if I can breed
some more - the check gets bigger - after all 'the government is paying
for it' - ARGGGG !!
Controls on food quality - by whom ?? If you sell poison, intentionally,
you should be fed the same poison (goes for 'drugs' as well)
NICS system is a GREAT registration tool (how do you plan to monitor
it and who would trust implicitly to do the monitoring regardless
of who is in the White House ??)
OK - no SAMs within 20 miles of an airport (I don't know anyone who
personnaly/privately owns a SAM installation but GEE another law
should take care of the issue - right ??!!)
Agreed - you should be able to put ANYTHING into your body you wish
HOWEVER - don't ask the taxpayers to support/feed/clothe/house
you because you can't hold a job - and when you're dying because
of YOUR decisions - die in the street, not in some $5K -$10K/day
'institution' paid for BY THE TAXPAYERS.
All of the 'WMD' (germ/nuclear/whatever) that Iraq was/is
supposed to have would fit in a VERY small area (enough anthrax
to kill the human population of this planet would fit in a good-sized
residential swimming pool) - try finding that/those in an area
the size of California.
Don't give a d**n if they did/do exist - freeing the people of
Iraq is justification enough for what is being done.
What kind of 'help' for the wahabis ?? Money ? Food ? Counseling (why
don't we all just get along ?) Ain't gonna work.
Pro-choice - euphemism for pro-abortion 'cause it sound's good.
A woman has a choice - Yep - your right - she (AND HE) made the choice
when they had sex - now they have a 'litttle problem' and want to
make another choice - Sorry, no 2nd chances (but we can sure
save the abused whales/plants/rabbits/snail darter !!!)
I DISLIKE ALL POLITICIANS because of what they are. Someone
who wants MY MONEY from MY WORK so that they can stay in
office and be loved by those to whom they give MY MONEY from
MY WORK.

[SkunkApe]

How refreshing!

Pay special attention to Faustulus and Mercedes Rules.

Get your principles and core beliefs first. The answers to individual issues will follow easily.

[mercedesrules]

(cordex) Unfortunately, most people don't formulate a primary belief structure and can be swayed from issue to issue by the loudest, sexiest, most charming advocate. That, I think, is what mercedesrules was trying to say.
Yep.
(SkunkApe)How refreshing!

Pay special attention to Faustulus and Mercedes Rules.

:) Aw, shucks, thanks.

MR

[Mark Tyson]

Just who is going to detect consumer fraud in the absence of the FDA or similar agency? I don't have the capability to run chemical tests on my food and medicine. If you ask me, once they implement the libertarian program for America, unscrupulous food and drug manufacturers will do whatever they can to increase their profit at the cost of clean, safe food/drugs. I would not be surprised to see a meat packing plant tossing in rotten meat and dead rats if they thought they could get away with it. Without a regulatory agency, I don't see how we will know who is honest and who is not. Caveat emptor indeed.

Sorry, but I and a lot of other Americans would rather surrender a little wealth to get some assurance that these kinds of things cannot happen.

Regarding welfare and social security: I see no reason to hope that once taxes are drastically reduced people will suddenly give enough to charity to protect the underprivilaged. This is doubly true becase in a libertarian or "market anarchist" America people will probably be spending much of their income to provide health care, retirement savings, etc. for themselves and their families.

I apologize because I know I am stepping on a lot of toes out there. I don't like taxes any more than the next man. I don't particularly like the government getting in my business. I'm not for "safety at any cost". But there are some things that individuals cannot do for themselves, and I think that's where the government ought to step in.

MT

[SkunkApe]

Mark Tyson offers a well-stated(and fairly reasonable) summary of the opposing point of view.

I'll try to counter his points:

If you ask me, once they implement the libertarian program for America, unscrupulous food and drug manufacturers will do whatever they can to increase their profit at the cost of clean, safe food/drugs. I would not be surprised to see a meat packing plant tossing in rotten meat and dead rats if they thought they could get away with it. Without a regulatory agency, I don't see how we will know who is honest and who is not. Caveat emptor indeed.

They're aren't too many Jennings buyers on this board, are there? Is that because of goverment regulation? Of course not; they make an inferior/unsafe protect, and intelligent men willing to do a little research of their own don't buy them.

On the other hand, I like having the OPTION to but Jennings pistols and eat dead rats if that's all my finances will permit. If you want to sell a dead rat, and I want to buy it, by what right does the government use force to stop the sale? Now if you sell me a dead rat and claim its filet mignon, then you've committed fraud. Enforcing contract law IS a legitimate function of goverment.

Regarding welfare and social security: I see no reason to hope that once taxes are drastically reduced people will suddenly give enough to charity to protect the underprivilaged

And so what if I don't? Why can you use force to take my money and give it to others? I'll give whatever portion of my wealth to whomever I want; its no concern of yours what I do with it. Give every last cent of your own away if you like, I won't interfere. But don't take my money for causes you deem to be worthy. Its the pinncale of arrogance to believe that you know better how to spend my money than I do.

I also happen to believe that there should be some penalties to being "underprivilaged". That way, folks will work harder to avoid being in that condition.

[HBK]

Well said, saddened citizen.

[cordex]

Sorry, but I and a lot of other Americans would rather surrender a little wealth to get some assurance that these kinds of things cannot happen.
So you're saying that product testing and certification is a service that you are willing to pay for?
If it's profitable, I'd wager that someone would offer it.

[faustulus]

I apologize because I know I am stepping on a lot of toes out there.
Don't apologize, you have an opinion, based on your views and beliefs. I can't believe anyone here would get upset over that, heck that is what I like about this place so much, everyone tries to see other sides.

I do think you sell society short. After all it is usually not the government that discovers something is amiss in business, but the private sector. As such people are given the information to make their choices. As you pointed out earlier Sinclair's The Jungle exposed many abuses in the packing industry, people should then be able to decide if they want to eat the meat, just as many decide they don't want to eat tuna where dolphins are endangered.

[DonQatU]

4.I support the war on Iraq, but I don't believe in the WMD. I believe it would be rather could if Israel and America helped Russia with the Wahabis and maybe (yeah, right), if America and her allies sent some forces into the West Bank.

Microbalog, are you serious?!!!!! :mad:

Don

[MicroBalrog]

Not really, I know this would never happen..:)

[DonQatU]

When asked if he was serious about sending US troops to the West Bank ..... Microbalrog replies......Not really, I know this would never happen..

I guess that was a "whoops", eh, micro? ;)

Don

[MicroBalrog]

However, if I was on patrol in Gaza (might happen even to non-combat arms guys) and the 101st Airborne sped out from around the corner, I'd be VERY happy.:evil:

[DonQatU]

micro, it's your country. The US has already put US lives on the line for Israel (Iraq). A little gratitude might be appropriate.

Don

[MicroBalrog]

DonQuatU: And I'm very thankful for that. A little sense of humour might be appropriate too.

[DonQatU]

micro, if we ever meet! I'll buy the drinks! You buy the meal! :D

Don

[MicroBalrog]

No, DonQuatU. You supply the guns. I pay for the ammo.:D

[Mark Tyson]

I think that we have isolated the source of disagreement here. Skunkape says that any tax for the purposes of welfare, social security, etc. is immoral. But I think it is immoral to allow the underprivileged to go without basic needs like health care and housing when a small, not terribly burdensome tax on those who are more fortunate will provide for them. Skunkape is saying that even if the market fails to provide needs to some, government has no right to step in to fill those needs by taking money, even a small amount, from those who are better off.

How many of you support this position?

I just believe that those who fare well owe something back to the society that provides the conditions in which they prosper. Don't we have any obligation to the community at large?

The libertarian self-government test divides rights into two sphere: social(or political) and economic. I happen to think that while both kinds of freedom are important the former is much more important than the latter, and that economic activities ought to be regulated a little more. I do not feel my freedom is infringed terribly when the government makes a company put labels on its food. I feel it is greatly infringed when the government starts opening my mail or telling me what kind of gun I can own.

[SkunkApe]

Aahhhh, Mark Tyson, so here is the source of our disagreement.

Given the choice between social tyranny and economic tyranny, I'll keep my money any day. 'Cause with money you can buy your way out of almost anything.

Truthfully, though, I'd rather have both economic and social freedom.

[Marko Kloos]

But I think it is immoral to allow the underprivileged to go without basic needs like health care and housing when a small, not terribly burdensome tax on those who are more fortunate will provide for them.

A basic rule of economics is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. This country offers plenty of opportunity for people to obtain health care and housing, and the possibility to end up without these things is a big incentive to be productive. If you subsidize failure and underachievement, you get more of it. For an object lesson, go into the inner city neighborhoods where entire blocks do nothing but collect dole checks.

A "small, not terribly burdensome tax" is immoral whenever it is mandatory (as taxes invariably are). You are saying that it is moral to take someone's hard earned money away by force of arms, just because you want to give it to someone else who you feel is more in need of it. What gives you, or anyone else, the right to do so, and how exactly is forced charity a moral thing?

Skunkape is saying that even if the market fails to provide needs to some, government has no right to step in to fill those needs by taking money, even a small amount, from those who are better off.

How many of you support this position?

I do. Once you establish that the government has the right to take a small or reasonable amount from someone to provide those needs to others, then you've established that their paycheck isn't really theirs...and that the government can decide how much money is "fair" and "reasonable".

I just believe that those who fare well owe something back to society that provides the conditions in which they prosper. Don't we have any obligation to the community at large?

Yes, we do. We have an obligation to not infringe on other people's rights. I don't owe anything back to society, because I never took anything from society. Every transaction I've ever engaged in with my fellow citizens has been on the basis of private contract.

I still have the right to give money to charity and help those I deem worthy of assistance, but I'll be damned if I ever accept that *forced* charity at the point of a gun is a good and moral thing.

I don't care how much my neighbor makes, and how much less I make...I don't have the frickin' right to any of his paycheck, and neither does anyone else but him. Maybe he made that money by putting in 100-hour weeks for ten years straight, running his own business? Run the whole bit about "owing back to society" by me again, and explain how you (or anyone else) is entitled to a single dime of my neighbor's income.

[MicroBalrog]

For an object lesson, go into the inner city neighborhoods where entire blocks do nothing but collect dole checks.

Oh, yeah, the Israeli Welfare State is such a failure... NOT.

[Marko Kloos]

Oh, yeah, the Israeli Welfare State is such a failure... NOT.

It doesn't matter how successful the Israeli welfare system is. If you cannot get your head around the concept that taking money from someone by force of arms is immoral, even when you have the best intentions with that money,, then we have a philosophical rift here that cannot be bridged in this discussion.

Is it moral if I rob you at the ATM, as long as I promise to give your money to an orphanage?

[MicroBalrog]

lendringser, you said that:

If you subsidize failure and underachievement, you get more of it

I just proved you wrong.

[MicroBalrog]

You are the one that started addressing the efficiency question, claiming welfare was inefficient.

[Marko Kloos]

I just proved you wrong.

How so? Have you experienced a system where welfare isn't mandatory? Do you know how much more or less people would be in poverty if the welfare system wasn't in place?

Government cannot get rid of poverty. Poverty is government's crowning achievement. In order to have your welfare system, and all the other hare-brained vote-getting and feel-good schemes cooked up by government, we have to endure taxation that makes a medieval serf look downright undertaxed. In the Middle Ages, ten percent was a pretty onerous tax rate. With income tax, sales tax, VAT, gasoline tax, property tax, vehicle tax, inheritance tax, and all the other taxes imposed on us by well-meaning governments, we probably pay 90% taxes with everything we buy.

How many people would be dependent on others if you could get everything at a 90% discount?

Welfare is a government-created solution to a government-created problem.

You are the one that started addressing the efficiency question, claiming welfare was inefficient.

I didn't claim that, although it is correct: welfare is inefficient like every other government program. But efficiency is beside the point. If I robbed you at the ATM, and took all the money to an orphanage, I would have a 100% efficient welfare system...but it would still be *immoral*, because it would be based on the use or threat of force.

[Mark Tyson]

Do you (Lendringser) consider all taxation theft, then?

[Marko Kloos]

Do you (Lendringser) consider all taxation theft, then?

No. I consider all taxation slavery. It's worse than theft...at least the mugger will only take the product of your labor, not your time as well. Taxation requires that you work for the government until July. If you do not command the fruit of your own labor, you're performing involuntary servitude.

How much do you think Americans would give to those "in need" on a voluntary basis, if every American could commandeer 100% of his or her paycheck?

The irony is that you can't even claim a good deed if you help someone else under threat of force, or if you help them with money that you stole from someone else. It's like a eunuch claiming chastity as a virtue.

[Mark Tyson]

Do you reject the idea of a social contract between the government and the governed?

[Marko Kloos]

Not on principle, but...

The only legitimate function of government is to safeguard the rights of individuals from infringement by others by force or fraud. The threat or use of force is only warranted as a response to someone else's initiation of force.

A contract also implies express consent, not this "implied consent" nonsense that suggests I agree to everything the government does just because I get to pull a lever every four years. It also implies that the government only exercises rights that I delegated to it...which means that I am free to exercise those same rights and functions by myself without asking the government for my rights back.

[Byron Quick]

Skunkape is saying that even if the market fails to provide needs to some, government has no right to step in to fill those needs by taking money, even a small amount, from those who are better off.How many of you support this position?

I do.

Oh, yeah, the Israeli Welfare State is such a failure... NOT.

Oh, please. Ask any economist just exactly where Israel would be economically without the financial support of the US.

I can show you families where no one has worked for four or five generations (generations get short when you're reproducing to qualify for a welfare check).


just believe that those who fare well owe something back to the society that provides the conditions in which they prosper.

The above quote illustrates the basis of our divergence. You think I owe something to "society." I see no such artificial construct. I might have obligations to specific individuals. Where you see a society, I see a multitude of individuals.

You can go with JFK's, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, what you can do for your country." or you can go with Milton Friedman's reply,"A free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country." I'll stick with the Nobel Laureate myself.

[Byron Quick]

No, I do not reject the principle of the social contract.

However, a contract is an agreement between two parties. If one of the parties renege on the contract, then that contract is void.

The government reneged on their part long, long ago. Like during the Whiskey Rebellion.

[DonQatU]

..... bit off that guy's ear! :D

Sorry........ that was MIKE Tyson! :uhoh:

Don

[Mark Tyson]

Byron Quick,

You said that you don't see a society, only a collection of individuals.

What about private bodies like businesses? Isn't that also an "artificial construct"?

[Byron Quick]

Yes.

Mark, perhaps a more accurate statement of my view would be to define society as a fictional artificial contstruct...one that has no actual basis in reality except, of course, to keep sociologists employed and as a convenient scapegoat for criminals and incompetents. A business on the other hand, is a real artificial construct.

[SkunkApe]

MicroBalrog,

I strongly reommend Ayn Rand's book; Atlas Shrugged. Its a philosophical presentation in the form of a novel.

I read a survey once where respondents selected it as the second-most influential book they'd ever read. The bible was number one.

Reading that book firmly cemented my principles.

[Mark Tyson]

Regarding taxation as slavery/theft:

Very few people live like Robinson Crusoe completely cut off from everyone. The "self-made" millionaire was able to make his money because he could take advantage of a whole social system, a vast structure consisting of physical infrastructure, legal institutions, formal and informal social networks. He has at his disposal skilled and educated workers(most educated on the public dime), a healthy labor pool, a civil society of mutual trust and cooperation, a strong work ethic, a culture of fair play in business matters, a court system and security from enemies foreign and domestic. These things were not created by any individual but are the aggregate creation of millions of fellow citizens, generation after generation. The existence of these favorable conditions allows the "self-made" businessman to profit.

Your financial success as an individual would not be possible without the general sense of fair play, communal loyalty and trust that we call civil society. Civil society is what makes your cherished free market and private property rights possible. It is what allows the ambitious entrepeneur to thrive.

Many on this board like to say "there is no such thing as a free lunch". Yet it seems that some expect to not pay anything for the maintenance of the very environment that made their prosperity and liberty possible.

[Zundfolge]

Someone early on said "Left Libertarian" ... I'd say that pretty much fits you based on your first post.

[Byron Quick]

Nope, he wants to force people to help others through the beneficent agency of the state. You can't be any kind of libertarian and a) agree with the intitiation of force and 2) believe that the government has any role to play in redistribution of wealth.

He might be a just a little statist but he's statist.

[faustulus]

But I think it is immoral to allow the underprivileged to go without basic needs like health care and housing when a small, not terribly burdensome tax on those who are more fortunate will provide for them.
So it is moral to steal for a greater good. If that is the case then is it also moral to kill for a greater good, and if that is the case is it not also moral curtail freedom and liberty for a greater good.
I know you will say that there are limits, but roads like this are like taxes themselves, they start small and grow. Besides why should only the rich be taxed? Why not tax everyone equally? The problem with morality is everyone's is different.
Why should I work if you will work for me?
Freedom is a binary.

Regarding social contracts: it seems to me that contracts wherein one party is forced to sign is null and void. shouldn't it be a choice? I don't mind taxes being used for public good as long as everyone benefits. giving a check for someone pushing out kids does not benefit me nor the family receivng the money.

[MicroBalrog]

I never actually said people shouldn't be all equally taxed.

You benefit directly from the fact other people are receiving welfare and public education.

[Mark Tyson]

You aren't forced to sign the social contract. You are not being forced to stay. You can vote with your feet and leave, renouncing your citizenship. Your remaining in this country implies that you agree to the contract, or at least tolerate it while you try to change it.

[Marko Kloos]

The "social contract" is the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the government of the United States is violating that social contract by acting outside of its scope, are you suggesting that our only recourse is to "tolerate it or get out"?

By your not leaving the country, are you consenting to every single thing the government does by "implied consent"?

Personally, I'll do what every good American does. I'll stay right where I am, and exercise my birthright and long-standing American tradition to Screw The Government Back wherever I can. If this situation doesn't improve, sooner or later enough people like me will get together and do to the current overstepping government what the Founding Fathers did to King George. No taxation without representation, and all that.

[Mark Tyson]

faustulus:

The taxation as stealing/slavery argument again.

I assert that nobody makes money all by themselves. Your profit is made possible by societal conditions that enable you to thrive. These conditions were created by the government and your fellow citizens, and hence you do owe a debt to your community. See my previous post(1 or 2 posts back) for my full argument.

[Sean Smith]

You benefit directly from the fact other people are receiving welfare and public education.

Spoken like somebody who hasn't been where there are dense concentrations of welfare recipients. :D

[MicroBalrog]

On the contrary: I have lived in exactly such an area for 4 years.

[Mark Tyson]

Sean Smith:

As an employer, you benefit from an educated work force. As an employee, you benefit from working with skilled, competent, literate people. You also benefit when your employees or co-workers are healthy, well-fed & able bodied. All of these things help the free market in the long run.

Enlightened self interest is another reason why libertarians ought to tone down their assault on government services like public schools and welfare.

[Byron Quick]

educated work force? The high school graduates I work with...can't write cursive, can't spell correctly, have only the vaguest notion of history or geography, etc. Where are you getting the benefits of this "educated" work force, Mark? Here, we have to educate them ourselves...at least most know basic addition, subtraction, and the alphabet.


Enlightened self interest is another reason why libertarians ought to tone down their assault on government services like public schools and welfare.


:rolleyes: Yep, we are so fortunate to be supporting families who have not had a single employed member in four generations. This uplifts us...it is in our self interest that this continue. It is in our interest that children graduate high school with no one even attempting to teach them to write in cursive...etc.

[MicroBalrog]

Byron Quick: Then improve the public school system, don't destroy it. Lots of countries have very good ones.

[Mark Tyson]

There will always be those who abuse the government safety net by freeloading, just as there will always be those who abuse their right to bear arms by committing a crime. It is wrong to characterize all welfare recipients as lazy parasites just as it is wrong to characterize all gunowners as violent criminals.

On the other hand, there are people who genuinely need help, and I don't think that we should turn our backs on them. I think most welfare recipients would prefer to work. You are using the example of the people who abuse the system to tar everyone who gets welfare benefits, just as the gun grabbers use the 1 in 100 million gun owner who goes on a rampage to tar the whole gun culture.

And what is with the constant trashing of public education? We can all chuckle at the occasional high school grad who can't find Canada or doesn't know who we fought in WW2, but for every one of those there's got to be a lot more who go on college, scholarships, technical schools, etc. If our educational system is so horrible then how have these masses of illiterate mouth-breathers maintained the most rigorous economy in the world for the past 1/2 century? Why do people from around the world come here or send their kids here for an education? I would wager that your company benefits just a little from people who went to publically funded universities, if not in your company than in those companies you interact with.

Now I am not saying that there are not problems, and reform is definitely needed. I think that the 1996 welfare reform was a good start, for example.

But libertarians don't want reform, they seem to want to throw out the whole system. This sounds like the radicals of other movements: The system isn't perfect, therefore EVERYTHING MUST GO. Trust us; you'll love it.

[Glock Glockler]

Ok, that's quite enough of that! Who is responsible for letting this thread go this long without calling me? Deprive me of my fun, will yeh...

So where should we start, hmmmm...ahhh, this seems like a blessed one...

Yet it seems that some expect to not pay anything for the maintenance of the very environment that made their prosperity and liberty possible.

You are correct on this one. If we are to take the angle that protecting property rights is the one legitimate function of the govt, which I subscribe to, that everyone in that particular society owes a share of the cost of doing that. That means courts, prisons, police, etc, and the support mechanisms for that should be paid for by the public. Like it or not, we all benefit when some SOB who violated the rights of another is punished, and it indirectly protects our rights as well. I think of this as a user fee, we pay for using the court system, and not so much as a tax in the traditional sense. You can fund this through a "head tax" (or head 'fee' if you insist): divide up the costs of your court system by the amount of adults in your community, and that's what they each pay. If someone cannot or refuses to pay, they do not vote.

You can vote with your feet and leave, renouncing your citizenship

Can I remain on my plot of land and seceed, forming Glocklerland, which I will rule with an Iron Glo...er...Fist? The South tried that and look what happened, so we really are not completely free to go our own way, if we were your arguement would hold a lot more water.

You benefit directly from the fact other people are receiving welfare and public education

I suppose I am: I'm getting robbed at gunpoint to subsidize slugs who don't want to work and try to vote themselves a bigger dole check every election, and I get scores semi-literate socialist thugs who are completely unprepared to make it on their own in the real world.

The public shcool system in the USA has been a complete disaster. If your up for some real fun, do a google search for "massachusetts + school + prussian" and see what you come up with. The system we have in place here was developed in Prussia after Napolean threw them a beating. They though the reason why they lost was because soldiers were thinking too independantly, so they set out to create a system that would produce mindless drones who would churn out widgets in a factory or be cannon fodder on a battlefield. It's a decayed system intended for an industrial era society, woefully insufficient for people in the information age. I could go on at length of the evils of govt education but I'd rather you do your own research and develop you own conclusions.


Enlightened self interest is another reason why libertarians ought to tone down their assault on government services like public schools and welfare

Govt education and welfare hold us back. Free market education is FAR superior to govt ducation and private charities did a FAR better job at handling social problems than the govt.

[Mark Tyson]

Glocker:

What happens if private charities don't cover everyone? What's plan B?

[Glock Glockler]

On the other hand, there are people who genuinely need help, and I don't think that we should turn our backs on them.

I agree, and that's why I help out people on my own and why I give to various charities. I think you'll find most Americans to be very generous people, and I think they'd be even more generous if they got to keep more of their money instead of sending it through a corrupt bureaucracy who's inherent interest is to keep people on welfare and dependant.

but for every one of those there's got to be a lot more who go on college, scholarships, technical schools, etc

It's called suceeding in spite of oneself, or one's system. Ever meet someone who is able to skate through life doing everything wrong, though they still manage to do very well? That doesn't mean what they're doing is good or smart.

If our educational system is so horrible then how have these masses of illiterate mouth-breathers maintained the most rigorous economy in the world for the past 1/2 century?

Ever study evolution? It's the same reason why a specie or organism can be successful in spite of some it's failures. We have, a sembalance of it anyway, a structure set up here that promotes commerce and innovation, and that combined with the people who run with it (the movers and the shakers) is what has carried us in spite of our flaws.

Why do people from around the world come here or send their kids here for an education?

What level of education? They don't send their kids here for basic education (grade school or even high school), they send their kids here for college level education, of which we have far more of a free market then most countries. A friend of mine of a teacher in a govt school who has a pair of twins who transferred into his school who have been put in 7th grade class (up from 4th) because they were so beyond that class level material. Care to guess what country they're from? Albania!

A practically 3rd world craphole that was under the Iron curtain not much more than a decade ago, yet they are able to completely surpass their counterparts here. Something is very, very wrong. Kids in public schools are not taught the important things necessary to survive, they're taught PC nonsense. How many high school kids know anything about the constitution, how the govt functions, what "rights" are, how to change a tire or change one's oil, how an economy works, what compound interest is, how businesses run, basic grammar and syntax, etc.

We are not trained to be independant and resourceful adults anymore, as was the case when my Dad went to school in the 1950s. Uncle Sugar wants us very dependant and very specialized.

[MicroBalrog]

friend of mine of a teacher in a govt school who has a pair of twins who transferred into his school who have been put in 7th grade class (up from 4th) because they were so beyond that class level material. Care to guess what country they're from? Albania!


And guess what? The Russian schools are still comparatively very good. Why? Because Russia has a proper public school system. So much for the idea public schools will always suck.

[Glock Glockler]

Mark,

I never said it was ideal or that everybody would be fine. It's an imperfect system and there will be some folks that fall through the cracks, but the system we have right now is one giant crack, with entire generations of kids being robbed of proper educations and of people learning the govt dependance is a lifestyle as opposed to to temporary measure while down on one's luck.

[cordex]

I assert that nobody makes money all by themselves. Your profit is made possible by societal conditions that enable you to thrive. These conditions were created by the government and your fellow citizens, and hence you do owe a debt to your community.
Wanna apply this on an international scale?
America's meddling in other nations both economically and through military force has (by and large) created the conditions necessary for many countries to be more successfull. Hows about we charge 'em for Pax Americana and do away with internal taxes, eh wot? After all, quite a few benefit from our weight (and money) being thrown around.

[Glock Glockler]

And guess what? The Russian schools are still comparatively very good. Why? Because Russia has a proper public school system. So much for the idea public schools will always suck.

You're not listening, man. I never said that all govt schools were terrible, only that free market education is far superior. Russian govt schools might be pretty good, but how much better would the schools be if the were run by a market as opposed to a govt? Then again, there might not be enough of a sound legal system in Russia to protect property rights, which would be a necessity for a free market.

Do me a favor, go to google and run that search. When you do that and read some of what you find, tell me your thoughts on the American/Prussian education system.

[dustind]

I think you are a left money wise, but libertarian as far as freedom goes, I would have to hear more to be sure.

My thoughts on what taxes are good vs bad.

Any tax that pays to keep our society is good. Things like the military, police, courts, are good because it benefits everyone. We may disagree with how much of any part we need, but we all benefit from not having criminals on the street, or a foreign army at our doorstep. If there was a system that could stop meteors from hitting the planet the tax would be good since we all benefit equally from not being blown up. There is not too much potential for corruption in this system, except by the departments that run them. Things like that will also not run away, or get out of control, they can not expand on themselves. No one will cry out for a court house on every corner, or for an army capable of invading mars on a moments notice. Things of that nature are controlled by what we need, and are willing to pay for. It is sort of like, why dont you have 1000 light bulbs on hand in case one burns out? Because you do not need 1000, and do not want to pay for them.

Socialism does not follow that idea. Things like welfare are bad because the money is stolen from one person and given to another. There is unlimited potential for corruption, and there is no check on how far it can go. Eventually 90% of the people could live off of the ten percent that can actually make it in that world. There is no end, socialism breeds socialism. You take one dollar from one guy, and give 30 cents to another, the inefficiency alone will kill the system. Systems as corrupt (how many people try to get money that they dont deserve??) as these need countless middle men(bureaucracy) to control it . These systems rarely pay for those that really need help, the vast majority goes to people and programs that do not need it. There will never be a shortage of people or groups that want tax money, never. The only thing that controls it is how much of our pay check we are willing to dish out. If we paid ten percent tax instead of fifty percent we could end poverty and afford to send our children to private schools. If people are not willing to donate the money to someone, they likely do not deserve it, the same goes for social programs.

An example of a failure is social security. I have heard from a few sources that given the same investment I could make six times as much when I retire if I went with the free market. That has been proven in countries around the world.

Another example is public schools, I am only twenty years old so I have a pretty fresh memory of it. I went to private school for the last one and a half years of high school. I think most of us agree that public schools in America, even Minnesota where I live, which is rated pretty highly for this country, are a complete joke. I could have easily gotten the same education by eight grade if I went to a private school my whole life. American schools have lots of solutions to under achievers, but none for anyone who can succeed against their low standards. Not counting how to read, write and basic math, I have learned more on my own than in public schools. I can not speak for the rest of the world but public schools can not compete with private schools in this country, I doubt anyone can find a single person who would disagree with me, they are not even close. I originally had to go to a private school for six weeks following an illness in eleventh grade, I decided to stay until I graduated which was four months early, by the way. If it started high school there, grade 10-12, I could have graduated a full year earlier, there was no comparison between the two, none.

[MicroBalrog]

On public schools:
Yes, American public schools but the fact that public schools have failed in America doesn't mean they're doomed to failure.

[Orthonym]

I don't think you realize how fortunate you are to have grown up in a culture/religion which honors literacy and learning. (Is it true what I've heard about little Jewish babies being given a drop of honey to lick off of a page in a book, so as to start them off right?) I know of some people (from the REPUBLICAN end of Tennessee) who spoke of their Daddy yelling at them for bringing (horrors!) BOOKS home from school! Daddy gave them a good whippin' and burned the books! Daddy was a good shot however.:rolleyes: Just goes to to show that prowess with firearms, while a good thing, is not everything.

[Marko Kloos]

MicroBalrog,

here's some easy homework for you.

Name one program, product, or service that is offered by both the private sector and the public sector, where the public offering is cheaper and qualitatively better than the private offering.

("Cheaper" would mean that a lower price is not a less expensive option if the low price is achieved by taxpayer subsidies.)

[MicroBalrog]

I don't know if that is true, as my family are utterly non-religious, and my father was in fact discouraged from "reading too much" as a child. Didn't stop him from getting a very good M.A. (Soviet Anti-Semitic bureaucrats stopped him from progressing further.

Note that public schools work in Russia.

[MicroBalrog]

MicroBalrog,

Name one program, product, or service that is offered by both the private sector and the public sector, where the public offering is cheaper and qualitatively better than the private offering.



Three letters: IMI.

[MicroBalrog]

Oh, and public education, while probably more expensive in total, is cheaper per paricipant, and is (in many countries) very good.

[Mark Tyson]

Lendringser, that is an impossible question. You can always say that the private sector alternative would be cheaper if only the government wouldn't tax us so much.

Oh, and what about all the people who can't afford private education by the way? Their "private sector alternative" is lousy jobs and a life of poverty.

[Marko Kloos]

I'm still waiting for the ethical argument that outlines why I have a right to take someone else's money by force if I can't afford to pay for college by myself.

"Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others - misfortune is not a mortgage on achievement - failure is not a mortgage on success - suffering is not a claim check, and its relief is not the goal of existence - man is not a sacrificial animal on anyone's altar nor for anyone's cause - life is not one huge hospital."

(Paraphrased Ayn Rand Quote.)

Oh, and what about all the people who can't afford private education by the way? Their "private sector alternative" is lousy jobs and a life of poverty.


Listen, if you are deeply concerned about people who cannot afford a decent education, nobody stops you from spending your own money and resources to help them out. You don't have any right to commandeer other people's paychecks for that purpose, no matter how noble your intentions are.

[MicroBalrog]

lendringser,

I did my homework.

[Byron Quick]

Three letters: IMI.

You're kidding right?

I own IMI products and they are good. They might be better than Israeli private arms products but friend, there are a large number of private firms that produce better firearms.

Even with the Uzi, the best models are NOT produced by IMI.

Do some research on the heat treat given Uzi receivers by Vector Arms.

Note that public schools work in Russia.

I have worked with Russian doctors and am totally underwhelmed. I've worked with nurse practitioners who are better educated and trained.

A functional test of the efficacy of education is what the educated do with that education. When you look at what the Russians have achieved sitting on the country with the richest natural resources in the world...once again, I'm underwhelmed with their educational system. Based on results.

Russian electronics? They have yet to produce an indigenous microchip.

Software development is advanced in some areas. Mainly in getting functioning programs that take up little memory. This is a function of being restricted to obsolescent equipment.

They import pharmaceuticals for a very good reason. They've never managed to produce effective medicines at home.

And the list goes on and on.

Their Academicians are impressive in training. But once again, results?

[MicroBalrog]

Do some research on the heat treat given Uzi receivers by Vector Arms

And how much do they cost?

cheaper was part of the assignment.

[Marko Kloos]

Name one program, product, or service that is offered by both the private sector and the public sector, where the public offering is cheaper and qualitatively better than the private offering.

[MicroBalrog]

T-80UD.

[MicroBalrog]

Besides, do Vector Arms mass-produce their Uzis?

[Byron Quick]

MicroBalrog,

The cost of the Vector Uzi is a function of the 1986 law banning new production for civilians and nothing else.

The cost of a BAR that is legal to own in the US is now around $20,000.

The cost of BAR kits is about $750 with a receiver that has been torched into three pieces. The importer has to pay to have the complete weapon ruined. That's added into the $750 price.

The BAR would cost about $700 instead of $20,000 if it wasn't for federal law.

The same law is affecting the price of the Uzi. It is certainly not a comparison between the wonderful efficiency of government and the slovenly waste of private firms.

They can't mass produce Uzis under current US law unless they can find a military or law enforcement purchaser.

[MicroBalrog]

Great, what is the price of a Vector Uzi for LEO's? Or do LEO's prefer IMI Uzis?

[Byron Quick]

LEO's prefer HKMP5's.

[MicroBalrog]

Some do, some don't:

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg17-e.htm


"UZI had been adopted by police and military of more than 90 countries, including Israel (now only in reserve)"

[Mark Tyson]

Government should not compete with the private sector but provide those services that do not yield a profit, services that cannot be sold, or services such as courts that it would be inappropriate for private sector to operate. Government should patch the holes in the market and police up externalities. That's what it does with public education.

Public school is a cheaper, lower quality program for those who can't or don't want to pay the market price for a private school. What kind of education will impoverished people be able to afford once the libertarians shut down all public school? Keep in mind these people will also be attempting to provide for their own health care and social security. I think you'll see kids skip out of school altogether to work at menial, possibly dangerous jobs. Or worse.

But this is all beside the point, as you said earlier. You believe that it's simply wrong to take any money from you to improve someone else's life. Correct?

[Marko Kloos]

But this is all beside the point, as you said earlier. You believe that it's simply wrong to take any money from you to improve someone else's life. Correct?

It's simply wrong to take any money from anyone to improve someone else's life. No amount of good intentions can justify the threat of force to get money out of someone.

You've still not answered my question: would it be good and moral of me to hold you up at the ATM and take your money, if I pledge to give it all to cancer kids and homeless people? The effectiveness of my welfare system would be 100%, my intentions would be noble beyond the shadow of a doubt, and the recipients would be immensely appreciative.

I am just trying to establish at which point coercive welfare at the point of a gun becomes good and moral. Is it the nobility of intentions? Is it the number of beneficiaries? Is it the effectiveness of a system? Is it which person gives the order at gunpoint? Is it the number of people who agree with the person holding the gun?

[Mark Tyson]

Are you comparing the government to a mugger?

[MicroBalrog]

We're going in circles...

[MicroBalrog]

would it be good and moral of me to hold you up at the ATM and take your money, if I pledge to give it all to cancer kids and homeless people

This is not a really good analogy, since you're being held up anyways - you're going to be paying for the police, army, and legislature's paychecks. So you already submitted to robbery. Now we're talking size.

[Mark Tyson]

The government is not a mugger. The government provides legitimate services to everyone, you included, for a price. The difference is in what is deemed legitimate.

[Marko Kloos]

Then what makes a mugger? Am I not a mugger if I agree to provide essential services to a homeless family with the proceeds of your mugging?

You just can't agree to the principle that the coercive use of force is wrong, and now you're trying to justify why the guy with the gun and the outstretched hands is not a mugger. He provides essential services! You have too much money anyway! You agreed to the mugging when you moved into the neighborhood!

At the end of the day, it still boils down to that man with the gun pointed at you, and the command "Give it up, or you will be shot." You're trying to find a motive that makes the guy look righteous and justified, but in the end you cannot overlook the fact that he gets what he wants by force, not reason.

As far as those "provided services" go: the government has long ago broadened its collection scope past the services agreed to in the Constitution. I typed up an analogy to your "services rendered" argument in another thread a few months ago, so forgive me if I just copy and paste from that:

I agree that you mow my lawn every week, in exchange for $20 per week, payable every year. You start doing the job, and we're both happy for a little while.

Then you take it upon yourself to prune the trees on my property. You also clean my pool, paint the outside of my house, and re-pave my driveway. The problem is that you're doing ahorrible job at it: the trees are cut way more than necessary, you don't remove the branches from the lawn, your "pool cleaning" consists of dumping a bottle of shampoo into the pool, and your paving job is merely a coat of paint that runs down the driveway at the first rain. You've only painted one side of the house, and it's a color I can't stand.

At the end of the year, you present me with a bill. Your original $20 per week have been increased to $120...you say it's more difficult to mow the lawn because of all the tree branches. You've charged me $400 for a pool cleaning, including $150 for a bottle of "pool cleaning agent". Your driveway "paving job" comes to $2000, and the house paint job is listed at $2000 as well. Instead of the originally agreed $1040 for a year of weekly mowing, I am looking at $10,640 for "property maintenance".

There's also a $1,040 item on the bill described as "Fairness Tariff". When I ask you what that is, you say that this money will pay your maintenance of your brother's lawn. (Your brother's lawnmower is broken, and he hasn't felt like fixing it). I protest this item, and you say that it's only fair if I pay my share to keep up the neighborhood.

I point out that I never agreed to let you do all those other things, and you break out the contract. At the end, you've unilaterally appended the following sentence: "All property maintenance shall be performed by the lawnmower operator; rates shall be determined by said operator after services are rendered. Scope of property maintenance shall also be determined by lawnmower operator."

When I protest and say that I never agreed to that clause, you point out that I gave my "implied consent" by signing the original contract, and that all the other services rendered are related to lawn care anyway. Besides, you say that I have the right to negotiate a new contract or shop for a different one every four years...the only problem is that you and your cousin Bill are the only lawnmower guys in town, since you beat up the other kids who try to break into the business. I've tried to buy my own lawnmower, but the city council (mostly comprised of your family members) has outlawed unlicensed private ownership of motor-powered mowers, for safety and noise pollution reasons. (They also determine who gets a license.)

I refuse to pay the bill, and you drag me into court, where the judges are all related to you. When I protest this extortion racket, the judge tells me, "You should have known how things work around here. The whole town knows how the lawnmowing business works in this neighborhood. You always had the option not to move here."

[MicroBalrog]

Did you read my post?

[Byron Quick]

I would not compare the actions of the government to those of a mugger. Comparing its actions to those of the Mafia would be more accurate.

A favorite racket of the Mafia is the protection racket. They demand money from businesses in their jurisdiction in exchange for "protection." Bad things happen to you if you don't pay them. And they don't protect you.
Sound familiar?

[Mark Tyson]

I doubt that you or any of the other libertarians on this board have lived their entire lives isolated on a desert island. If you have, then you are truly a self-made man. Everybody else however has benefited from public roads, a skilled and educated work force, and other publically funded programs. The internet itself on which so many companies are thriving was originally a government project. When you go out to make money you are taking advantage of an environment of fair play and hard work essential to the free market you cherish. This environment was not created by you or any other individual. It is the aggregate creation of generations who came before you and is maintained by your fellow citizens who every day conduct their business in an honest manner. People here are literate, have a strong work ethic, and are mostly honest. You can count on healthy, hard working employees and coworkers. Without these conditions of "civil society" the prosperity of the free market would be impossible. Look at countries without a civil society - Russia for example.

Hence, you owe something and they owe something. You and I and everyone else here who is not living Unabomber-style off the land in a remote wilderness shack benefited immensely from the environment that we found ourselves in. You prospered from it, therefore you owe something.

The government broadened the scope of activities because the nation has changed a little between today and the time of the founding, as the founding fathers knew it would. Things that were critical issues back then (such as the government quartering troops in private homes) are not major problems today. Things that are major problems today could not be conceived of back then. The framers understood this and left it up to succeeding generations to figure out the details and deal with problems while staying consistent with the general principles of freedom in the constitution.

Today we are a thriving, technologically advanced powerhouse. The idea that such a society can allow its citizens (those who are willing to work, anyway) to die from malnutrition and easily preventable diseases is repugnant to me.
The libertarian tells these people without batting an eye that we cannot justifiably tax a billionaire because that would mean the "initiation of force" and it would be immoral. This "I've got mine; you can go hang" attitude reminds me of those immigrants who arrive in America and want to shut the door behind them. This whole argument rings hollow to me.

I know you don't like the word "need" but I'm going to use it. The truth is that your basic needs (such as biological survival: food, water, clean air and shelter) and not-so-basic needs (such as access to education) have been satisfied. There are people out there who are struggling for all these things not because of laziness but through circumstance. It happens to all of us, and if it happens to you I hope that you accept whatever help the state can provide until you get back on your feet.

That the social contract changes does not invalidate it. Plenty of contracts change with no renegotiation. Utility services normally have contracts where at the most they have to notify you in advance when they change their rates. Insurance companies raise their rates, and you have no choice but to accept the rate changes or find another company. So it is with the U.S. You don't have to accept the new terms; you are not being forced to stay. You accept the social contract not only by staying, but by continuing to participate in the system. If you don't like the way things are then work to change things, but you can't just change everything to suit your philosophy. After all, you aren't the only one living here.

[Mark Tyson]

Government is like the Mafia? Oh come on! The government, like a landlord, own the land on which we live. You wouldn't question the rights of a landlord to make rules over how his property can be used, would you?

[Marko Kloos]

The government, like a landlord, own the land on which we live.

We obviously have too much of a philosophical rift here to come to any sort of meaningful conclusion in this discussion. You need to at least understand the basic concept of property rights in order to be able to discuss other rights.

[SkunkApe]

Buddy, if you think the goverment owns MY land, I'm done with this discussion.

[Byron Quick]

A landlord does not force people at gunpoint to pay him for protection which he then fails to provide. The government does do this. So does the Mafia.

[Mark Tyson]

You have to deny history to claim that the government doesn't own the land. The US government can demonstrate ownership of territory through its treaties, purchases like Louisiana & Alaska, transmission from the original colonies and some other states, voluntary incorporation like Texas, and military conquest.

Other forms of land ownership in the US are similar. Governance rights are similar to the rights that libertarians want landowners to have. For example: the insistence on a contractual obedience to regulations and acceptance of legal sanctions for violators.

It's like an apartment: You may own some property within it, but you don't own the whole thing.

Eminent domain: it's in the constitution.

[SkunkApe]

Eminent domain allows the goverment to take my property for public use if they fairly compensate me. It doesn't mean they own it now.

I'm done.

[Byron Quick]

I would suggest you go do some reading on this subject.

There is land in my family that has been there since it was received as a royal grant prior to either the US Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. Even if the federal government once owned land, once it transferred title under the Homestead Act or by other means, it meant just that: ownership was transferred.

Not only is your logic faulty but what you proclaim to be fact, isn't.


Eminent domain does not mean what you think it means. It means that the government can "legally" steal your land. It does not mean that the government owns your land.

[faustulus]

MB,
I never actually said people shouldn't be all equally taxed.

not terribly burdensome tax on those who are more fortunate will provide for them.


I am sorry I took that to mean that those more fortunate would pay for those less fortunate, I am sorry I missunderstood.

You benefit directly from the fact other people are receiving welfare and public education.
Two thoughts, one it is the opportunity for education the person has to decide if they want to learn. Two, if it is a poor education is it really a benefit. The old saying about a little knowlege being dangerous comes to mind.

You aren't forced to sign the social contract. You are not being forced to stay. You can vote with your feet and leave, renouncing your citizenship. Your remaining in this country implies that you agree to the contract, or at least tolerate it while you try to change it.
Ah so I am allowed to leave the land I own and paid for because I don't like what an external force is doing? Or does the land belong to the Government?

I assert that nobody makes money all by themselves. Your profit is made possible by societal conditions that enable you to thrive. These conditions were created by the government and your fellow citizens, and hence you do owe a debt to your community.
People made a choice to buy my product, made a choice to be employed in my factory made a choice to support my business. Where is my choice? Am I not paying society in the people I employ and the service/goods I offer?

As an employer, you benefit from an educated work force. As an employee, you benefit from working with skilled, competent, literate people. You also benefit when your employees or co-workers are healthy, well-fed & able bodied. All of these things help the free market in the long run.
If such is the case then the free market will provide for these things. I follows basic laws of econmoics. If such isn't the case why should we create them artificailly?

On the other hand, there are people who genuinely need help, and I don't think that we should turn our backs on them.
I agree, but I shouldn't be forced to help them either.

What happens if private charities don't cover everyone? What's plan B?
They die. Americans are a giving people, a caring people. I personally don't believe in this day and age they would let that happen. Would it happen to some, sure, it happens to some now.

Oh, and what about all the people who can't afford private education by the way?
Don't have kids. Look if you cannot support you and yours with either support of family or friends this is something you should have thought of before you started popping them out. We all make scarafices. If I sound harsh I am sorry, but this is a harsh world. What happens if a bird has three babies and only enough food in the area to support two?
Personally I want to help those I can, but I want to be the one determining who to help and what assistance is needed.

[MicroBalrog]

MB,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never actually said people shouldn't be all equally taxed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not terribly burdensome tax on those who are more fortunate will provide for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I am sorry I took that to mean that those more fortunate would pay for those less fortunate, I am sorry I missunderstood.


You did. The other quote is not from my message, but from Mark's.

[Glock Glockler]

Eminent domain allows the goverment to take my property for public use if they fairly compensate me. It doesn't mean they own it now.

Unfortunately, they are the de facto owners of all land in the country. The Constitution only provides for "just" compensation, but who determines what "just" is? And if you don't agree, who are you going to take your greivance to, a Federal Court?

The sad fact is that until we antagonize some MAJOR changes in the country we will continue to be serfs on our own land.

[cordex]

Tell me, Micro ... how should taxes be administered? What level of taxes are acceptable? Should those that make more money pay a higher percentage?

You have still never answered my question about who is responsible for a competant adult.

[MicroBalrog]

I personally think that everybody should pay the same percentage in taxes, and that "luxury taxes" should be abolished.

The "acceptable level" is really subject to debate.

[faustulus]

You did. The other quote is not from my message, but from Mark's
mea culpa, everything is flowing together. I propose we stop the debate, form our own government based on guns, fast cars, and tropical beaches and worry about schools later. :)

[MicroBalrog]

I think we should make me the Minister of Defense. I'll be responsible for procuring new toys for the THR-land military. :D

Or, better still, make me the Minister of Education. I'll put Full-Auto Rifle shooting in the high-school program.

[Tamara]

What happens if private charities don't cover everyone? What's plan B?

Heh.

Hate that. Pity. This is supposed to concern me why? :confused:

If you want to starve, do I have a right to stop you? If you don't want to starve, do I have the right to conscript the Guns of the State to feed you? More importantly, show me in Article One, Section Eight where Congress derives the power to feed you. Let's see here... post offices... hmmm... coin money... yadda, yadda... grant letters of marque and reprisal... so on and so forth... borrow money... et cetera, et cetera... regulate foreign and interstate commerce. Nope, not doodly squat in there about welfare or food or education or whatnot.



Any plan to rob Peter to pay Paul will find an enthusiastic ally in Paul. -H.L. Mencken

[MicroBalrog]

More importantly, show me in Article One, Section Eight where Congress derives the power to feed them. Let's see here... post offices... hmmm... coin money... yadda, yadda... grant letters of marque and reprisal... so on and so forth... borrow money... et cetera, et cetera... regulate foreign and interstate commerce. Nope, not doodly squat in there about welfare or education or whatnot.

Then maybe an amendment is in order.

It might interest you, that in my nation basic education is a civil right.

[El Tejon]

I keep tellin' ya--you just skipped over it. It's our old friend, Interstate Commerce.:D

[MicroBalrog]

Section 8--1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Includes public education as far as I can understand.

[cordex]

Includes public education as far as I can understand.
Sure, "general Welfare of the United States;" could well include just about anything you want, eh?

[Tamara]

It might interest you, that in my nation basic education is a civil right.

It does interest me, inasmuch as it keeps it on the list of Places I'd Refuse To Live Even If Forced At Gunpoint. ;)



"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights-the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery- hay and a barn for human cattle.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -The Liberty Manifesto, P.J. O'Rourke

[Byron Quick]

It might interest you, that in my nation basic education is a civil right.

What Tamara said.

MicroBalrog,

The only item of interest that I find in your statement is this: your nation's definition of civil rights is diametrically opposed to our definition. Comes of all the leftists, socialists, and communists who settled there.

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities."

Sounds familiar to you, doesn't it?:barf:

[MicroBalrog]

Sure, "general Welfare of the United States;" could well include just about anything you want, eh?

That's why the Founders probably put it there.

Besides, well, if the authority isn't there, it should be added.

[trooper]

I can't believe I overlooked this debate for days!!!

The comparison of taxation and an armed robbery at the ATM machine is fundamentally flawed. Why?

Because in the first instance one person takes another person's property by force. It's just that, two individuals.

However, if taxes are collected it's not like I'm saying "I'll steal your money and give it away for charity purposes." It's more like a thousand people (in any case the majority of the population) tell you, "We decided that we as members of our community collect x % of our income for community purposes, and we would like you to join us. If you don't, find yourself a place somewhere else."

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities."

... is basically not a good idea. My approach would look more like this:

To each according to his abilities, but a certain minimum standard of living for those who can't cope.

[cordex]

"We decided that we as members of our community collect x % of our income for community purposes, and we would like you to join us. If you don't, find yourself a place somewhere else."
So ... in effect:
"We've arbitrarily decided that because the land you pretend to own is within these artificial boundaries, x% of your income is ours to do with as we please. You will join us, or you will be driven off your land with anything up to and including lethal force. Geben Sie mir das Geld, bitte. Sofort."

[MicroBalrog]

"We've arbitrarily decided that because the land you pretend to own is within these artificial boundaries, x% of your income is ours to do with as we please. You will join us, or you will be driven off your land with anything up to and including lethal force. Geben Sie mir das Geld, bitte. Sofort."

AGAIN: This would only correct if you could avoid paying taxes entirely, but you can't. You're already paying taxes to maintain the police, military, and legislature. From here onwards, it's a question of price.

[Glock Glockler]

"general Welfare of the United States"

Congradulations, Micro! You have just proved why the Constitution is a exceedingly poorly written document, or an exceedingly brilliant one, depending on whether or noy you're a govt thug.

Even if we are go go with the strictly legal approach to this issue, the term "general walfare" meant to the founders 'something that benefitted the entire nation, and not one group at the expense of another'. National defense would be such a thing, and I'm sure you can understand how everyone would benefit from that. Also, National defense is not funded only by a select portion of the population, with govt schooling the beneficiaries are the students themselves while being funded by non-students. Sorry, no dice.

You also run into the problem of Article I, Section 8 which names the powers delegated to the Feds, no education there either. Then we have the 10th Amendment, which 'reserves powers to the states and to the people that are not granted to the people'.

You also want to keep in mind that the Constitution was never approved via popular vote. If a document is going to be put forth in the name of "We the People", perhaps the people ought to approve it?

Forgive me Micro, but you don't want to try to out-Constitution us here:), I'd be like me trying to prove you wrong in a debate about Hebrew translations.

Why don't we stick to the moral implications of govt education, like this quote:

The comparison of taxation and an armed robbery at the ATM machine is fundamentally flawed. Why?

Because in the first instance one person takes another person's property by force. It's just that, two individuals.

However, if taxes are collected it's not like I'm saying "I'll steal your money and give it away for charity purposes." It's more like a thousand people (in any case the majority of the population) tell you

This is brilliant! Two people ganging up to decide strip you of your property is wrong, but if it's a giant mob, then everything is kosher. Thanks for clearing that up.

So tell me trooper, you obviously don't think that my property is, in fact, mine. So it's obvious that you don't believe in property rights, are there any legitimate constraints on the power of the mob? If the mob wants to take all the Jews and stuff them into ovens, is that fine as well, they're a majority of the population after all? You probably don't have to look to far to find evidence of exactly that type of thing happening, are you really prepared to repeat it?

(Marxism)... is basically not a good idea.

Basically? You mean stripping one group of their property to give to another group can have anydegree of legitimacy? I never knew that theft was not theft, except when it's done by a lot of people. Seems like the type of thing Clinton would come up with, but that just depends on his definition of what "is" is.

My approach would look more like this:

To each according to his abilities, but a certain minimum standard of living for those who can't cope.

Hmmmm, minimum stardard is going to be defined by whom, by what criteria, and will it be enforced at gunpoint?

Well, my approach would look like this:

For those that cannot cope, find a way to cope. Improvise, adapt, and overcome. If they still cannot cope, ask for the charity and goodwill of your fellow man.

[MicroBalrog]

Even if we are go go with the strictly legal approach to this issue, the term "general walfare" meant to the founders 'something that benefitted the entire nation, and not one group at the expense of another'. National defense would be such a thing, and I'm sure you can understand how everyone would benefit from that. Also, National defense is not funded only by a select portion of the population, with govt schooling the beneficiaries are the students themselves while being funded by non-students. Sorry, no dice.

Unless you can prove (and I can), that a good public education system benefits society as a whole, and not only its students.

Also, read my previous post abut taxes. For some strange reason, you seem to be ignoring inconvenient parts of my article.

For the record: I have received several awards on the quality of my English, some granted by my British-standard school.:D

[Glock Glockler]

Unless you can prove (and I can), that a good public education system benefits society as a whole, and not only its students.

Sorry pal, but the burden of proof is on you, and then on the States to ratify an amendment giving Congress that power.

I admit to not reading every one of your posts on this thread, I've been skipping around a bit. I'll go over your stiff with a comb in a bit.

And why the comment about your English, I never said it was bad or sub-standard?

[MicroBalrog]

A good public education system aids society in the following way


a)Equipping people from bad background with skills they can use to enhance their position of society and leave the cycle of poverty.

b)A more educated people is freer people. "A book is a great power" (V. I. Lenin :D )


Thus, public education benefits everybody, including non-participants, and falls under "general welfare". QED.

[MicroBalrog]

And why the comment about your English, I never said it was bad or sub-standard?

You were implied I was unable to understand the Constitution.

[Marko Kloos]

Unless you can prove (and I can), that a good public education system benefits society as a whole, and not only its students.

From a philosophical standpoint, it makes absolutely no difference how much an action benefits "society", if the action involves coercion and the threat or use of force against a non-aggressor. For example:

Using your "net benefit to society" standard, we'd be justified to euthanize every person in this country who lives off taxpayer money and has no chance of ever contributing to "society". That would include the severely mentally retarded, many autistic and Downs Syndrome children living in state foster care, and everybody else who exists only because the state funds their elementary needs. The net benefit to "society" can be proven without a doubt: it would save a lot of money, and it would eliminate defective genetic material from the gene pool. I'm pretty sure the Nazis saw the removal of all Jews by force as having a "net benefit" to their society. Perceived or actual benefit to the mob is no justification for the initiation of violence against non-violent individuals...period, full stop, end of story.

One more thing about "society", and why I put the word in quotation marks:

A society is an abstract concept when it comes to rights. A group of people has no more or less rights than its individual members do. At no point does a group magically gain rights that none of the group's members would have as an individual. If one person does not have the right to force money out of you at the point of a gun, twenty million people don't have that right just because they're a vast majority. Nothing else matters...not the nobility of their intentions, not the potential benefit to the group, not the fact that some members of the group *need* that money out of your wallet. None of these factors excuse or condone the use of force to make you surrender your wallet, whether it's one mugger or a million.

Rights are not additive in a group. Two people do not have more rights than one person. Intelligence is not additive in a group. Two people are not smarter than one person. The only thing that's additive is strength. Two people are stronger than one person, and it is by that circumstance alone that people come up with all kinds of excuses to make use of that additive force to get what they feel is "best for the gang" from the individual.

If you agree that the most essential right (the right to property) can be negated by the majority if they feel that it's in the mob's best interests to take your stuff, then you've made all your rights subject to majority approval.

[trooper]

So it's obvious that you don't believe in property rights, are there any legitimate constraints on the power of the mob?

Hmmm, now it gets REALLY interesting. I've been waiting for someone to mention this problem.

If all political power stems from the people (allright, at least that's the way it SHOULD be :-), how can we make sure the people (or the majority/Mob/whatever you like to call it) doesn't abuse it?

The solution has been mentioned lots of times in this thread. A democratic society (I'm not talking about political parties here) in which the vital interests of minorities are respected will only work if it operates within certain constitutional boundaries that protect aforementioned minority rights.

Glockler... I'm not going up to somone and taking his money to give it to someone else. All I'm saying is that most people agree to give a certain percentage of their income for community purposes. As MicroBalrog pointed out, all members of said community benefit indirectly from that, therefore it's just fair that everybody gives his share. If someone doesn't even though he could then he shouldn't be allowed to enjoy those benefits which means he should go somewhere else.

If you live within the boundaries of the United States you are part of this community, whether the piece of land you dwell on belongs to you, your landlord or the gov.

Cordex, compliments on your German. I don't think we need to argue nationalities here, though.


Regards,

Trooper

[Marko Kloos]

All I'm saying is that most people agree to give a certain percentage of their income for community purposes.

They don't agree, they submit, because the method used to get that money is force instead of reason. Most people pay taxes because men with guns will come to their door and arrest or kill them if they don't pay taxes. There's no agree here, just bowing to institutionalized mob violence.

If your cause is worthy, why not pass the hat around the neighborhood and collect voluntary contributions? If enough people agree that an army and a fire station are a good thing, you will collect enough money for one. If nobody wants to give any money for a study of the Oregon Mudsucker, maybe the idea wasn't so hot. The fact that you command an armed mob gives you no right to force the money out of them anyway, just because you think the idea was splendid and would benefit the community.

It all boils down to the fact that the mechanism you use is brute force, not reason. Try and rationalize it any way you want, tell yourself that you're actually happy to pay over half of what you make to the state, tell people they always have a choice to go somewhere else, but at the end of the day you are not asking anyone to contribute, you are telling them...and you're willing to send men with guns to those who don't comply.

[trooper]

OK, maybe we ARE back at different nationalities, or at least different places. I judge the matter from over here and have the local circumstances in mind.

While nobody around here (including me) LIKES to pay taxes, all people I know agree that they are necessary. Issues of debate are the amount and the things they're being spent for.

Currently most of the population think we should spend less on politician salaries (now, who would have guessed that), subsidies for certain industry branches and overgrowing administrations, but rather on law enforcement, (public) education and research & development in certain areas.

If you rely on voluntary contributions you will always end up short simply because some people think, "Well, it might actually be worth contributing to, but my neighbour Joe probably won't donate... and I don't wanna be worse off than him, so I'll skip too."


Regards,

Trooper

[MicroBalrog]

Perceived or actual benefit to the mob is no justification for the initiation of violence against non-violent individuals...period, full stop, end of story.


That's why we have the Bill of Rights.

[Marko Kloos]

OK, maybe we ARE back at different nationalities, or at least different places. I judge the matter from over here and have the local circumstances in mind.

Never make assumptions, trooper. Ich bin aus Deutschland ausgewandert, also kenne ich die Verhaeltnisse auf beiden Seiten des Teiches aus eigener Erfahrung. ;)

I judge the matter from over here, but I am intimately familiar with both systems from personal experience. I can tell you that I much prefer unbridled capitalism over nanny state socialism, even if it's Socialism Lite in the form of Liberalism and Sozialdemokratie. I can also tell you that most Germans I know would prefer the conditions in the U.S., if given a chance to experience them. The only people who prefer the suffocating Statism of Germany and other European countries over the personal freedom and relatively low taxation here are those who live off tax money, those who want to be taken care of, and those who have an ideological stake in the propagation of Statism.

[MicroBalrog]

Did anybody bother to read my points?
Why do I have to repeat myself?

AGAIN: This would only correct if you could avoid paying taxes entirely, but you can't. You're already paying taxes to maintain the police, military, and legislature. From here onwards, it's a question of price.

[Byron Quick]

MicroBalrog,

You and I and eight others are marooned on a desert island. We each work to survive. After a while, me and the other nine guys notice that your doing better than us through working harder and smarter. We vote a progressive tax...the more each of us has the more we are taxed. Then four of us get tired of working to eat. An additional 2 believe that no one should be allowed to starve. The six of them vote to raise the taxes on the four who are productively working. (the additional two have gone into politics) So we now have four people working to feed ten. Since you are the most productive you are taxed the most...After a while the other three drop out also. Nine of us vote to raise your taxes and also vote that you must put in an eighty hour week instead of a forty hour week.

This little fable does not, of course, represent reasonable government. It represents armed robbery by democratic vote.

At what point, does numbers alone turn this type of activity into democratic governance instead of voting for armed robbery?

[MicroBalrog]

Byron Quick: Do you agree that some taxes (those paying for the military and police and prisons) are legitimate?

[trooper]

I can also tell you that most Germans I know would prefer the conditions in the U.S., if given a chance to experience them.

Read carefully... All I was saying is that most people on this side of the pond agree that taxes are a necessary evil. How much of the tax money is being spent for welfare purposes is an entirely different story.

However, I DO know that virtually everybody around here thinks that MUCH MORE state money ought to be spent for public education.

As for me, I attended a private school for which my parents paid, and I'm glad they did. Because I had a rather nice high-school time in an environment which particularly fitted me, not because I would have feared disadvantages if they had done otherwise.

I support everyone's right to open up a private school. But to me, education is also a basic right, not just a product to be bought and sold. It's exercise should not depend on how much your parents make.

Übrigens, woher kommst du und weswegen bist du ausgewandert, wenn ich mal fragen darf?


Regards,

Trooper

[Byron Quick]

No.

[Tamara]

This would only correct if you could avoid paying taxes entirely, but you can't. You're already paying taxes to maintain the police, military, and legislature. From here onwards, it's a question of price.

I'm sure not doing it voluntarily. :scrutiny:

...and as far as "majorities" go, pax had a brilliant line back at the old board: "Let's remember that a lynch mob is nothing but a majority with only one dissenting vote..." Society can't "want" anything, because there is no such thing as "society"; there is no "us", there's only me and you, and I'm not too sure about me.

Speaking of taxation, MicroBalrog, what do you think of the Sixteenth AMendment and the less-than-kosher ratification process it underwent?

[Marko Kloos]

Did anybody bother to read my points?
Why do I have to repeat myself?

MicroBalrog,

what we are debating her eis a question of absolutism versus incrementalism.

I, as a "rights absolutist", state that no cause can justify the use of force on others to secure its funding.

You, as a "rights relativist", state that the use of force to collect taxes is sometimes justified, if the cause is important enough.

The problem with your approach is that your approach is not only morally wrong (because it condones the use of force against non-violent parties), but it's also conducive to incrementalism...sooner or later, the people in charge will expand the definition of "important cause" to include anything *they* deem important. before you know it, you end up collecting trillions at gunpoint, only to waste them on vote-buying schemes, or to finance studies of the Oregon Mudsucker to justify why you need to create yet another tax-funded agency to protect them.

Once you move away from an absolute position, you may as well surrender all of your rights, because sooner or later you will find yourself in the minority on an issue you deem essential. Somebody else will then raise an eyebrow and say, "Why do you object? Didn't you agree that society can determine when we can take your stuff for the common good?"

[Tamara]

But to me, education is also a basic right, not just a product to be bought and sold. It's exercise should not depend on how much your parents make.

Do you think that little Bobby's right to be exposed to readin', ritin' and rithmatic overrides my right to do as I wish with the fruits of my labors? Is his learning to read so important that you will throw a childless couple in jail if they don't help pay for it?

[Byron Quick]

From here onwards, it's a question of price.

No, sir, from here onwards the question is not one of price but, rather, of submission to tyranny.

[Glock Glockler]

As MicroBalrog pointed out, all members of said community benefit indirectly from that, therefore it's just fair that everybody gives his share.

Just because someone benefits from something does not obligate them to pay for it. I could argue that society benefits from my carry concealed and training with my guns, so should everyone have to pay for my guns and ammo? What about that really charming and swell guy who brings a smile to everyone's face, should we all have to pay him for being so nice, as the entire mood fo society is elevated?

For the tax, or "fee" to be legitimate there needs to be 1) a consentual agreement over the specific service that's provided, which will likely be based upon use. I haven't and will not consent to paying for society's miseducation.

A good public education system aids society in the following way

a)Equipping people from bad background with skills they can use to enhance their position of society and leave the cycle of poverty.

b)A more educated people is freer people. "A book is a great power" (V. I. Lenin )

Thus, public education benefits everybody, including non-participants, and falls under "general welfare". QED.

Why can a market system with education not perform this function better? Seeing how the US education system has so woefully failed in regard to 1) preparing people for the real world and 2) helping them free their mind so that they may become imdependant and productive citizens, your arguement is sorely lacking.

That's why we have the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is and was intended to be a pathetic excuse for protection against a power hungry central govt. If it was so groovy, we eouldn't be under the yolk we are now, but I'm glad we have the BoR as opposed to nothing. Just because the BoR is there doesn't legitimize the otherwise exploitive actions of the Federal govt.

This would only correct if you could avoid paying taxes entirely, but you can't.

Only because my sacred right to secession is denied me. Your basis for your arguement rests upon aggression.

You're already paying taxes to maintain the police, military, and legislature. From here onwards, it's a question of price.

No, those things you mentioned I 1) consent to pay for, and 2) I use.

[trooper]

Do you think that little Bobby's right to be exposed to readin', ritin' and rithmatic overrides my right to do as I wish with the fruits of my labors?

Dunno about the US, but over here your pension is paid from the money that working people put into the social security system. Therefore it's in your interest to pay for li'l Bobby's education because someday he will be working for your living, just as you paid the pension for your father's generation. It's called the generation contract.


Trooper

[Tamara]

Therefore it's in your interest to pay for li'l Bobby's education because someday he will be working for your living, just as you paid the pension for your father's generation. It's called the generation contract.

I never signed any 'Generation Contract'. :confused:

You're assuming that I believe in the Ponzi scheme that is government-funded pensions anyway; Social Security is a scam, and can't die fast enough to make me happy.

The more important part of my question was the second one, though: Is little Bobby's education so important that you are willing to throw a childless couple in prison if they don't help pay for it?

[MicroBalrog]

The more important part of my question was the second one, though: Is little Bobby's education so important that you are willing to throw a childless couple in prison if they don't help pay for it?

Yes, now put your hans behind your head, and come out slowly and unarmed, because this here MP-5SD shoots Cyclones, not candy.:D

[MicroBalrog]

Why can a market system with education not perform this function better? Seeing how the US education system has so woefully failed in regard to 1) preparing people for the real world and 2) helping them free their mind so that they may become imdependant and productive citizens, your arguement is sorely lacking.

The American education system has failed. Many other education systems have not, thus your argument is sorely lacking.

And the reason we have public education system is because we want to provide education for everyone, not just for the rich.

No, those things you mentioned I 1) consent to pay for, and 2) I use.

So if you were a pacifist, you shouldn't be taxed to maintain the military?

[Glock Glockler]

Trooper,

I'm one of those individualistic American types, so I'm not into being dependant on one generation nor being depended upon by another. What if I can keep my money and plan for my retirement and everyone else does that same?

[MicroBalrog]

Glock Glockler: Because it doesn't work.

[Marko Kloos]

Glock Glockler: Because it doesn't work.

It works better than Social Security. I can get at least 2% by putting my savings into a measly savings account; under the Social Security ponzi scheme, I'll get less than I'll have put into the system by retirement age. How can you say that such a scheme works better than just letting people save for their own retirement?

And even if Social Security was wildly efficient: where do you derive the right to make participation mandatory, and collect funds for it by force of arms?

Out of curiosity, how old are you, anyway?

[trooper]

The more important part of my question was the second one, though: Is little Bobby's education so important that you are willing to throw a childless couple in prison if they don't help pay for it?

Yup. A state is not a grocery store where you can pick what you like and leave the rest.

If your countrymen vote for things you don't like you have three choices:

1.) You resort to political activism to change their minds

2.) You find a place that suits you better

3.) You decide that moving is so inconvenient for you that you rather accept what the majority wants

Germany has a very strict firearms law and they'e not getting any better. I love shooting and guns play an important role in my life. Therefore I try to convince people I know that less guns will not result in a lower crime rate etc. etc. etc.

When it comes to the point that I can't stand it anymore I will consider emigrating.

It's as simple as this.


Trooper

[Byron Quick]

Dunno about the US, but over here your pension is paid from the money that working people put into the social security system. Therefore it's in your interest to pay for li'l Bobby's education because someday he will be working for your living, just as you paid the pension for your father's generation. It's called the generation contract.

Over here in the US, it's money stolen from my paycheck by my employer. My employer has the voluntary choice of stealing my money to send to the government or going to prison. This money is not put into a Social Security account or pension fund. It is put into the General Fund of the Treasury and spent as soon as the government gets it...and not just on Social Security.

Ponzi schemes work well as long as you have an expanding membership base. When the enrollment of new members stagnates or declines then they fail.

Today, there are three US workers for every one person on Social Security. The baby boom generation is the majority of the workforce at the present time. In twenty years, most of the baby boom generation will have retired. And a birth rate decline in the generation behind them spells doom to this Ponzi scheme as there will be one person working for every three on Social Security.

Social Security taxes today are 7.15% of gross pay with a matching amount paid for by the employer. So to maintain the same level of benefits, in twenty years it will be necessary to raise the amount to 21.45% of each worker's gross income...with a matching amount from employers.

Wonder how many jobs will be cut by employers to avoid this tax burden?

Wonder how many jobs don't exist because of the present burden?

Ponzi organizations are illegal for individuals or corporations to organize...but legal for the government. Another point of congruity between government and organized crime.

[Byron Quick]

This is the moral position that the US system of Social Security places you in: A thief steals your car and disposes of it for his purposes. When you retire, he shows up with a car he stole from someone else and says it's your car now in return for the one he stole.

Tell me, is it moral to accept that car?

[MicroBalrog]

Out of curiosity, how old are you, anyway?

Age: 18
I.Q. : 135
Languages: English, Russian, Hebrew (all mother-tongue level), French.

How is any of this relevant?

[trooper]

I'm one of those individualistic American types, so I'm not into being dependant on one generation nor being depended upon by another. What if I can keep my money and plan for my retirement and everyone else does that same?

If one would want to opt out of this system it would be fine with me. Problem is, if your retirement plans go to rats**t for some reason or another, you might depend on government subsidies without having contributed to it.


Trooper

[MicroBalrog]

Today, there are three US workers for every one person on Social Security.

If Social Security doesn't work, reform it, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Glock Glockler]

The American education system has failed. Many other education systems have not, thus your argument is sorely lacking.

Wrong. Just because the Israeli or Russian system might produce decent quality students does not mean that they would not be far better off with market schools providing their education. You have also failed to prove how govt providing a good or service is superior to a free market. The superority of free markets at allocating resources is beyond dispute.

And the reason we have public education system is because we want to provide education for everyone, not just for the rich.

One of these days, come over here to America and walk around any given small town. One of the things you'll notice is that practically every town has at least one Chinese buffet. For not much more than $6 I can get an unlimited sized lunch or greater nutritional quality and diversity than was available to even big whigs in the USSR. It's also no surprise that we have a relatively free market in food production here in the US.

Now food, which is far more necessary for one's sustainment than education, is affordable and abundant in our free market. Education, which exists in a govt controlled near-monopoly, is dangerous and sub-standard. See a connection there? The private education schools in the US not only do the job at a fraction of the cost of govt schools, but they are of far higher quality. Now if a free market will work for food and cars, why not education?

So if you were a pacifist, you shouldn't be taxed to maintain the military?

Hate to break it to you, but a pacifist uses the military every bit as much as your hot-blooded, war-mongering, Nazi-worshipping Hawk who dreams of shooting surrendering soldiers in the back and napalming villages Old women and infants. As for consent, that function of the govt is legitimate and it's made clear to you via the Constitution. If someone doesn't like that, I think they should be free to emigrate or seceed on their plot of land.

[trooper]

Out of curiosity, how old are you, anyway?

23 yrs. old

police officer (not depending on any kind of generation contract either because there's a different retirement system for us)

I.Q.: I really don't want to guess :)

Languages: German, English, a bit of Russian

[Byron Quick]

Trooper,

What about when the data proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the government pension fund is headed for catastrophe right about the time you are slated to retire, the legislators voted themselves out of the plan decades ago, and will not let you do the same?

Still a wonderful alternative?

Still a reason for the mommy state?

[trooper]

What about when the data proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the government pension fund is headed for catastrophe right about the time you are slated to retire, the legislators voted themselves out of the plan decades ago, and will not let you do the same?

Hmmm... <thinkthinkthink> REVOLUTION!! :D :D :D :D :D

Look, I agree that the generation contract thing poses a lot of problems as soon as the number of old members rise.

(For the record, I do have my own private retirement plan :-)

I used it to point out that it is indeed in your interest that Bobby gets a certain level of education.

Another point could be that Bobby would less likely become a criminal if he is educated. Which is something that everybody of us benefits from, CCW or not.


Trooper

[Marko Kloos]

If Social Security doesn't work, reform it, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You cannot reform a pyramid scheme to make it work all of a sudden, because the very concept of it is fatally flawed.

[Glock Glockler]

Because it doesn't work.

I suggest you do some research on Chile and their tremendous success in privatizing the retirement system.

Yup. A state is not a grocery store where you can pick what you like and leave the rest.

Ok trooper, suppose the State passes that all Jews are to shot or gassed depending on what's more economical, and then stuffed into ovens, what would you do? Now remember, you're an agent of the state, they could not accomplish it without you.

What if Germany were to launch an aggressive war of lebensraum and go back to the old school German style instead of the PC imitation of the French they're currenlty trying to pull off, what do you do? remember, they might need you to do very important work, be part of the Neue Einsatzgruppen, what do you say?

Remember, you cannot just pick and choose what you want, would you comply?

[Glock Glockler]

If Social Security doesn't work, reform it, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I've looked through the bathwater, but guess what, there's no baby? All SS is, aside from a bunch of Nazis with really cool uniforms, is a collective and coercive redistribution plan. I want absolutely nothing to do with that.

Problem is, if your retirement plans go to rats**t for some reason or another, you might depend on government subsidies without having contributed to it.

I want nothing to do with any of your govt programs. All I want from the govt is to maintain a legal system to protect property rights. Don't plan for my retirement, that's my job, and if I fail you have my permission to let me starve to death.

[trooper]

If things ever came to the point that I could not justify the the very basic principles of the state I'm working for anymore I would resign and leave.

For your information, here's Article 1 of the German constitution:

"Human dignity is inviolable."

What kind of answer did you expect? Did you hope for me telling you that I would load my weapon and get to work, or what???

You can attack my arguments, tell my I'm dumb, or simply disagree with me if you choose so, BUT I'M SICK AND TIRED OF GETTING THAT NAZI THING PULLED ON ME!!

Sorry, but I had to vent.


Trooper

[Glock Glockler]

"Human dignity is inviolable."

That's easy, all I have to do is redefine what "human" is and I'm in business. It's pretty convenient when the state can be the final arbitrator of it's own laws.

If you really do support human dignity, how can you justify shooting peaceful folks who've committed no crime except not paying for the education of another?

And you've stated that you would refuse such an order, but is your refusal based opon a govt document (the German Constitution) or is it based upon some higher principle that exists independantly and outside of govt?

[trooper]

Because education itself has got something to do with human dignity. It's not just a preparation for some sort of job but a means of developing your personality.

And it's not one's own fault if one's parents are too stupid/lazy/poor to provide a good education.

And I don't remember saying that I would shoot those guys (as long as they don't shoot at the IRS guys).

Trooper

[trooper]

And you've stated that you would refuse such an order, but is your refusal based opon a govt document (the German Constitution) or is it based upon some higher principle that exists independantly and outside of govt?

Certainly the latter. However, I happen to agree with the basic principles of our constitution. I'm just not quite happy with the way it's interpreted sometimes :-)


Trooper

[Tamara]

And I don't remember saying that I would shoot those guys (as long as they don't shoot at the IRS guys).

You implied that you'd throw a childless couple in prison if they didn't help pay for the education of their neighbour's children. I would assume that in Germany one can get shot if one resists arrest or attempts to escape from prison, no? As you see, all laws and taxes, when you examine them at their root, are backed by naked force. From parking tickets and sales tax to murder laws and import tariffs, any and all laws are a simple statement that You Can Be Shot If You Don't Comply.

I'm all about imposing that sanction for murder and theft; I'm not so sure it should be extended to such crimes as doing 47 mph in a 35 mph zone or failing to pay for your neighbour's irresponsible breeding habits.

[trooper]

or failing to pay for your neighbour's irresponsible breeding habits.

Good one ;)

We might disagree with each other, but I've got to admire your witty writing...

I laughed out loud when I read this one.


Trooper

[Glock Glockler]

Because education itself has got something to do with human dignity. It's not just a preparation for some sort of job but a means of developing your personality.

You might want to properly define "human dignity" for the purposes of this discussion and even for your countrymen, because it seems rather vague and intangable. By your example I think one could argue that they have a right to liposuction or a sex change operation (or is Denmark taking the lead on that one?). Sorry, but I need something a little more concrete that that to base my laws upon.

And it's not one's own fault if one's parents are too stupid/lazy/poor to provide a good education.

No, but is it my fault? By forcing me to pay "restitution" for that person's situation you are making a de facto claim that I bear responsibility for that situation's creation. If I must pay to replace your slashed tires it would logically follow that I slashed them, yes?

If not, than you are forcing an innocent party to pay for a crime that they did not commit, which makes the party forcing payment no better than the one who committed the original crime. Each person is using force to infringe on the rights of those who have made no aggression on others. Am I to assume that you believe in collective punishment? If a murder is committed in a town and the murderer is not found, would you advocate dividing the punishment amongst all the townspeople?

And I don't remember saying that I would shoot those guys (as long as they don't shoot at the IRS guys).

Do you mean the Internal Revenue Service? Out of curiosity, what "service" do they provide the people? I assume you believe in coercive taxation, then? That the people should be forced to do what they would not voluntarily? Is your govt supposed to be one of, by, and for the people?

[cordex]

Cordex, compliments on your German. I don't think we need to argue nationalities here, though.
Thanks, but my German isn't nearly as good as your English. And we've got plenty of people saying the same thing in every other language under the sun.
"Human dignity is inviolable."
The obvious question is, of course: "What makes up 'human dignity'? What must a human have to be dignified?"
You state that education is an important part.
What about getting a hot shower every morning?
Nice clothes?
A nice German car?

Define what is required for a human's dignity and we can talk. Otherwise, there is no limit as to what I can take from everyone else just to satisfy my own sense of dignity.

[faustulus]

At what point does the needs of the many outweight the rights of the individual? If you could pay for the education of a thousand children by killing one man would you? Is it worse to steal or to kill? Most of these arguements seem to fall under one of two assumptions. One is private enterprise is inherently evil and incapable of providing services. The other assumes that the free market can provide the services and government is evil. Someone mentioned the robber barons earlier, is it any better if the government takes your land and gives you 'fair compensation' or a private entitiy?

[MicroBalrog]

One is private enterprise is inherently evil and incapable of providing services. The other assumes that the free market can provide the services and government is evil.


Wouldn't it be smart to assume that there are some services that only government is able to provide?

[Byron Quick]

Wouldn't it be smart to assume that there are some services that only government is able to provide?

No. But statists certainly want you to believe so.


At what point does the needs of the many outweight the rights of the individual?

At no point do the needs of every other human being who has ever lived or will ever live outweigh the rights of any individual.

[Glock Glockler]

Wouldn't it be smart to assume that there are some services that only government is able to provide?

I would argue that there are: national defense and the legal system. Mercs might be useful for a few things but when the chips are down you cannot count on someone to risk their life for something that will enhance their lives (moulah). To defend your country you want brainwashed fanatics who have their famalies and lives in the country they're defending.

As for a legal system, you can have a private firm work well but you do need a govt body to act as a final referee. We could have some type of dispute and the private judge could hold me at fault, but if I tell him to get bent, what will he do? Nothing. Unless you have the state to enforce that contract, or charge the aggressor with a crime and do it themselves, you will not have the protection of property rights.

[MicroBalrog]

Good too agree. Now, how will you pay for these services?

[Glock Glockler]

I've already told you. On a national scale, the Federal govt bills the states according to their population. If NY has 7% of the population, they pay 7% of the budget. How the state get's it is no business of the Feds, that way you have no direct taxation on the citizens, and the govt stays Federal and doesn't become national.

A head tax, issued by the states, would not be objectionable, and it could cover the cost of the legal system as well. Another way of reducing expenses is to make the prisoner pay for the cost of their imprisonment, though you'd have to seriously reduce the amount of laws out there to the point where the only illegal acts are infringement of the rights of another.

[Tamara]

I would argue that there are: national defense and the legal system. Mercs might be useful for a few things but when the chips are down you cannot count on someone to risk their life for something that will enhance their lives (moulah). To defend your country you want brainwashed fanatics who have their famalies and lives in the country they're defending.

Would this be why we spend money on salaries and educational & other bennies for our all-volunteer armed forces? Most young men join for adventure and cameraderie and benefits and training and steady employment and travel and the chance to be issued a machine gun. Rarely for something as nebulous as patriotism, excepting those rare occurences when the nation is under direct threat.

As for a legal system, you can have a private firm work well but you do need a govt body to act as a final referee. We could have some type of dispute and the private judge could hold me at fault, but if I tell him to get bent, what will he do? Nothing. Unless you have the state to enforce that contract, or charge the aggressor with a crime and do it themselves, you will not have the protection of property rights.

Only the insane would tell the judge to "get bent". First, you signed a contract binding you to the judge's decision before entering arbitration; you'd better be one heck of a self-sufficient individual if word were to get around that you couldn't be trusted to honor a contract. Second, why would you blow the judge's decision off if he didn't rule in your favor, when it is in your best interest to respect the system, as it may rule in your favor the next time? Third and last, just because a private judge isn't a government doesn't mean they can't enforce their decisions. You did read that arbitration contract you signed, right? Including the part about Pinkerton Fargo? ;)

[Snake Eyes]

Lets get this out of the way first, since some one asked MicroBalrog about it and seemed to think it was important....Me: 38, straight white male, married, product of unthinkingly Republican father and yellow dog Democrat mother, public education including drunking out of a state university, employed in the "real world" since age 15, current income (household) over 200k, no kids, 3 cats, bought first gun 4 years ago, currently own about 40. I have no idea what my IQ is but I've been told I'm smart. Or was that smart a**??

There are just too damn many points to argue and quote but here is one that no one successfully addressed that I feel the need to jump on:

From Lendringser:
Name one program, product, or service that is offered by both the private sector and the public sector, where the public offering is cheaper and qualitatively better than the private offering.

Water. Electricity. Roads. Sewer Systems. Prisons.

You may argue that the water were you live is NOT better than the bottled water available in the store, but it is safe to drink (except were polluted by unscrupulous private industry).

You may argue that your roads aren't good. You may say that prisons are too posh and too easy on prisoners and cost too much.

You're going to have a very hard time, in light of the recent trials, tribulations and scandals, arguing that private industry provided better, cheaper electricity than the government.

Have you ever used a privatized sewer system?? Pheeewwweeey!

(Note: the following rant does not refer to any "you" in general, just "you" as a collective.)

Taxation:
Yes you owe taxes to society. You drive on roads. You go to the post office. You use electricity. You watch television. You own firearms that owe their development to government contracts. You employ/are employed by people that are products of government education.

This is very harsh--Please take full offense: If you as a person truly sit and find absolutely no benefit in your life from "society"--however you define it--you are of absolutely no use to me or anyone else that makes up society. You need to completely remove yourself from the grid and go Kazinsky style to some piece of land that takes absolutely ZERO advantage of any subsidized service (road, power, water, television, radio, or printed material) and live your life taking no further advantage of any subsidized services.

Meaning: No Mil surplus ammo (why do you think it's so cheap?? I helped pay for it through taxes!) No IMPORTED anything--I helped pay for that to get into this country vis a vis US Customs. NO food from the grocery store because I helped pay for that in farm subsidies. No commercial meat because I pay for USDA inspections. NO wild deer because I helped pay to isolate deer with wasting diseases. NO fish because I pay for the US Department of the Interior to help maintain viable, pollution free streams that have been destroyed by private industry.

So, I know! Let's get RID of all these services! Let's replace them with PRIVATE companies!

Let's have NO farm subsidies. And NO family farms! And MORE EXPENSIVE food. Let's have ALL roads be TOLL roads! If people have kids they can't afford to send to private schools, why they'll just have to go to work! We'll solve that pesky illegal immigrant problem with child labor! The little buggers will work cheap! And long hours! And they won't be able to afford lawyers when they get their little fingers caught in the machinery! And we'll get rid of any bothersome government oversight because the Captains of Industry will keep our best interests as individuals at heart and make sure we have safe, clean places to work that provide fair wages!

Let's make sure that if you can't afford water or sewer service from the new ENRON, you go with a bucket to the river downstream of their processing plant! And dig a hole to defecate into in your back yard! And when you can't afford private healthcare, you just die in the street! The resulting mess will probably cause a recurrence of the Bubonic Plague, but who cares? Not me! I can afford private healthcare! I'll just go to the orphanage and find some more little buggers to make my widgets!

[/sarcasm]

For instance, welfare presumes that some people can aggress against others, confiscate their wealth, and use it for their own ends. Public schooling presumes that parents can confiscate the wealth of non-parents. Food quality laws presume that men can trespass into restaurants and decide which products they can serve.

Wrong.

Welfare assumes that some one is down and needs help getting back up and when they DO get back up they will contribute to society in a way that repays the debt they owe for the helping hand. Welfare is state run charity. If secular charity is OK, why is state run charity wrong? Why do I need to, say, get Catholic morals imposed on me to receive help? If charity is good, isn't it good no matter WHERE it comes from?

Public Schooling presumes that an educated populace is better than an uneducated populace, for the whole of the populace. Do you really want to argue this?

Food quality laws presume that the motive of a company selling goods or services is profit and the populace does not have the tools to analyze whether that company is making a profit at the expense of the health of the populace; and furthermore that a healthy populace is better than an unhealthy populace.

Which brings us to why a totally free market economy is untenable: Profit.
If you don't understand that profit drives people to do things that are unhealthy, unsafe and unjust then I am not going to convince you. Just remember that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That applies to heads of industry as well as heads of state.

The US government was set up with a series of checks and balances (according to my public grade school education) for good reason. Those same checks and balances are a good idea in other aspects of life too. And I don't mind paying for them.

[Glock Glockler]

Tamara,

While I would love it if someone invented some nifty tree that sprouted 18yr old Hitler Youth/Mujahadeen fanatics who dream about nothing else but killing enemy soldiers, I have to go with a substitute until the free market does it's thing. That substitute is harvesting willing participants from among the pupulation, and we should not delude ourselves into thinking that market forces are exempt in circumstances of the Armed forces.

I came very close to joining both the Army and the Marine corps but didn't because of all the nonsense interventionism that was going on under Clinton and previous Presidents. That was the biggest selling point (of not joining) but I'd be lying if I said that job/career benefits of it were not highly attractive. Opportunity cost is a very real thing, and no one in their right mind with the exception of my fictional Allah Hitlerjugend is going to give up years of their life to go through moderate hell in the Armed forces without compensation. I'm mean, the opportunity to meet people of a foreign and exotic culture, and then kill them, will only go so far.

And I'm not alone in that view. Almost all the former military people I know have left the military because of economic factors. If you want quality you have to pay for it.

This, however, does not invalidate the tremendous effect belief in one's country or tribe will have on one's willingness to shed their blood and the blood of others.

Take, for example, West Germans immediately after WWII, when many in the country though that West Germany didn't have any moral right have an armed force after the unpleasantries committed just prior. They were willing to allow themselves to be slaughtered because they believed themselves, as a nation, to be unrightous. If I have to go to war, I want soldiers who have an unshakable belief that God wants them to win, that believe completely in the rightousness of the reason they fight and their country, and have a solid-as-iron bond with their brothers-in-arms.

As far as private arbitration goes, I don't know who Pinkerton Fargo is, except that he sounds like he could decorate your house's interior like nobody's business. Also, it'd be a bad idea to make bets with him on Broadway trivia.

I know of plenty of circumstances where people believe they've gotten the raw end of some type of contract. "It's someone else's fault", and it might be the judge or the arbitration firm that violated it in some way. Give me enough time and I'll concoct a reason why they violated the agreement first, which absolves me of my responsibility to it. Even if the judge doesnt see it my way, what's he going to do, even if I did sign a contract, send Christopher Lowell to my apartment to show me what an uncultured barbarian I am, how my wardrobe is soooo last year, how I have zero artistic taste, and why the Feng Shui of my furniture of misaligned?

And what makes you think I'll even agree to go to one of these firms in the first place? I could just slash your tires and tell you to get bent, what are you going to do about it?:neener:

You're also assuming that people are 100% completely rational and don't suffer from the desire for instant gratification.

[cordex]

This debate is why one of my favorite books is Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

Snake eyes,
Water. Electricity. Roads. Sewer Systems. Prisons.
None of those fulfill Marko's criteria. All are made "cheap" through subsidies. In other words, someone still pays out the nose for them. Just because you don't notice it doesn't make them less expensive.
Yes you owe taxes to society. You drive on roads. You go to the post office. You use electricity. You watch television. You own firearms that owe their development to government contracts. You employ/are employed by people that are products of government education.
So if I do something - anything - that benefits you, I can reasonably charge you for the service and use force (deadly force, if you resist) to compell you to pay - regardless of whether or not you've agreed to pay for it?
Should private companies be eternally compensated for the use of private weapons designs as you seem to imply the government must be?
If as a worker I am educated in part or in whole by a private system, should my parents or myself receive extra compensation from my employer to help pay for my education ... after all, he's benefiting from being able to employ someone who attended a private institution.
Meaning: No Mil surplus ammo (why do you think it's so cheap?? I helped pay for it through taxes!)
Your taxes helped pay for Turkish, Portuguese and South African military ammuntion which was later sold to evil capitalist pigdogs?
No IMPORTED anything--I helped pay for that to get into this country vis a vis US Customs.
Oh! We shouldn't buy anything imported because taxes pay to make it more difficult to import stuff.
Hrm.
NO food from the grocery store because I helped pay for that in farm subsidies.
You sure you know how farm subsidies work?
No commercial meat because I pay for USDA inspections. NO wild deer because I helped pay to isolate deer with wasting diseases. NO fish because I pay for the US Department of the Interior to help maintain viable, pollution free streams that have been destroyed by private industry.
What I'm hearing is that anyone who doesn't believe that big, intrusive gov't, funded through taxes (collected at gunpoint) is the best or most efficient way to go needs to isolate themselves from anything that can be connected to the current system through some tortuous path. In other words, "Pay up or get out." Right?

[Snake Eyes]

Last things first:

What I'm hearing is that anyone who doesn't believe that big, intrusive gov't, funded through taxes (collected at gunpoint) is the best or most efficient way to go needs to isolate themselves from anything that can be connected to the current system through some tortuous path. In other words, "Pay up or get out." Right?

Absolutely Right. We choose to live here under this Democratic Republic government. As some one mentioned earlier you basically have 3 choices: change it, live with it or move. If you don't want the costs of the "grid", get off of it. Now. If you decide to change it, you must do it within the confines of our governmental system. If you choose to change it through armed revolt, well--good luck. My guess is that the majority of the populace will agree with having you hunted down like a rabid dog and castrated.

Regarding the terms "best" and "most efficient": Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Which country would you choose that is doing a better job? Oh, you like this country you just don't like the way it's run?!? Ok, get 51% of your participating peers together and change it. Anything less than 51% and you're forcing YOUR will on the rest of the people. How's that right? 49%=criminal. 51%=revolution.

None of those fulfill Marko's criteria. All are made "cheap" through subsidies. In other words, someone still pays out the nose for them. Just because you don't notice it doesn't make them less expensive.

What subsidy? I pay taxes to build and maintain roads. That is my only cost. Sometimes the tax is in the form of a toll, sometimes it's vehicle license, sometimes something else.

The government built Hoover Dam which, among other things, employed thousands of otherwise unemployed men. Which created commerce. Which created tax revenue. The goverment now charges me a not-for-profit fee to use the electricity they generate. Where is the subsidy?

Who is paying "out the nose" for water, sewer, roads and electricity? The only time I've paid "out the nose" for any of those is when I'm padding the pocket of some corporate president.

So if I do something - anything - that benefits you, I can reasonably charge you for the service and use force (deadly force, if you resist) to compell you to pay - regardless of whether or not you've agreed to pay for it?

No. YOU can't. YOU don't get to decide what's good for me. I, however have chosen to live in a place that recognizes the populace as a group of people who choose to pool resources for the greater benefit of all the populace. If you AND 51% of the people who choose to participate feel that something-anything-you are doing benefits me and I should be reasonably charged for it, then YES, you can charge me for it. That's the system we've got. Don't like it? See above.

Should private companies be eternally compensated for the use of private weapons designs as you seem to imply the government must be?

In some cases, yes. That's called royalties. Ask any author his opinion. In some cases no. However, since the government paid for the development of said weapon, therefore bearing the brunt of R&D costs, and you don't support the collection of taxes which paid said R&D costs, why should you have the benefit of the weapon? What makes YOU so special?

Oh, I see, you want to go buy cheap drugs in Canada and Mexico instead of paying full price in the US. You don't want to encourage any of that private development of goods, services and technology. How is that going to work??

If as a worker I am educated in part or in whole by a private system, should my parents or myself receive extra compensation from my employer to help pay for my education ... after all, he's benefiting from being able to employ someone who attended a private institution

According to the theory that public education is completely worthless, you will in fact be compensated at a higer level than your public school coworkers, since you are smarter and better educated and more prepared for the work force. You will be a higher quality "product" which will demand a higher price. Right? Don't Harvard graduates make more than people who drunk out of state universities? Won't you be in a much better position to take care of your elderly parents, thereby "repaying" them?? You ARE going to take care of your parents in their old age, aren't you? You're not going to leave it up to the government?

Your taxes helped pay for Turkish, Portuguese and South African military ammuntion which was later sold to evil capitalist pigdogs?
Oh! We shouldn't buy anything imported because taxes pay to make it more difficult to import stuff.

Correct. Imported surplus ammo came through customs. I want the US customs service checking stuff that comes into my country. I don't want container ships full of leaky chemical weapons being offloaded willy-nilly and sold to whack-jobs that have chosen to go off-grid. Ahem. You don't pay for them to check cargo, you don't get any cargo.

You sure you know how farm subsidies work?

No, I'm not sure I know. Here's what I think I know: Some farmers are paid cash NOT to grow stuff, thereby keeping the price artificially high, so that the farmers that DO grow said stuff can sell it for enough money to live. Then some farmers are paid a subsidy on what they produce (milk is a prime example) so that the price stays low enough that every one can afford it. Some farmers are "guaranteed" the sale of a portion of their crops to make it worth their while to grow it in large enough volume that the price reamins low in the US (wheat).

Then there are some BIG farmers like ADM that have DEEP pockets and close ties to people like Gearge HW Bush that get paid by the governement to develop completely useless products like ethanol (out of corn, if I'm not mistaken) that the government then mandates be used in gasoline as an additive to reduce pollution. I didn't like this idea and didn't want to support it, so I bought a diesel.

But, anyway you slice it, my tax dollars are at work in the farming community. So none for you!

Remember, just because I think I'm right doesn't mean you do.

[Glock Glockler]

In other words, "Pay up or get out." Right? (Cordex)

Absolutely Right. (Snake Eyes)

Why can't I just seceed on my plot of land and live in peace?

Oh, you like this country you just don't like the way it's run?!? Ok, get 51% of your participating peers together and change it. Anything less than 51% and you're forcing YOUR will on the rest of the people. How's that right? 49%=criminal. 51%=revolution.

All you've done is illustrated wy the "winner take all" system fails to be representative.

What subsidy? I pay taxes to build and maintain roads. That is my only cost. Sometimes the tax is in the form of a toll, sometimes it's vehicle license, sometimes something else.

That's not a necessarily a true subsidy, it depends on where the money coes from and where it goes. If the total amount of funds generated by the tolls is 150% of the cost of maintaining the roads, and the remaining 50% is used to pay for the costs of energy producton (gee, we really get a good deal on energy, good thing the govt runs it instead of some corporate capitalist pig), then people who pay the tolls are subsidizing evergy production.

In NH, we ave a law that all monies collected via tolls go into a fund that can only be usedfor building and maintaining the roads. That is a user fee rather than a tax. Big difference.

The government built Hoover Dam which, among other things, employed thousands of otherwise unemployed men. Which created commerce. Which created tax revenue. The goverment now charges me a not-for-profit fee to use the electricity they generate. Where is the subsidy?

Your arguement rests on an incorrect premise, that the govt "creates" these things (commerce and tax revenue). The govt has created nothing, they've simply transfered resources from point A to point B. You also don't seem to understand the concept of opportunty cost, which means that doing activity A means that there will be a cost associated by not doing activity B, C, and D. By your logic Soviet bureaucrats "created" work by having a hallway swept even when it didn't need it. Why don't we hae the govt invent work so that we may have full employment? Well, those salaries need to be paid and it comes from taxes and out of an otherwise more productive economy.

You also assert that the electricity generated by the Hoover dam is not for profit? What were the costs of building and maintaining that dam from it's beginning? Exactly how much revenue has it generated? If the govt sold it for $.01 more than it cost, then it is essentially a profit enterprise. If it sold it for less, it's actually detracting from the free markt force that would incentivise energy producers frm incresaing supply. The fact that you had govt complete the project is indicative that the costs of doing so were far higher than would have been by a private enterprise.

The only time I've paid "out the nose" for any of those is when I'm padding the pocket of some corporate president

Please tell me where goods and services have become more expensive over time, when the govt was not interfering in that business or industry?

I, however have chosen to live in a place that recognizes the populace as a group of people who choose to pool resources for the greater benefit of all the populace.

Oh, I get it! When everybody gangs up, then it's ok to strip people of their property because it's for the greater good. Out of curiosity, if 51% of the population deided that stuffing Jews into ovens was a good thing that benefits society, would you support it?

However, since the government paid for the development of said weapon, therefore bearing the brunt of R&D costs, and you don't support the collection of taxes which paid said R&D costs, why should you have the benefit of the weapon? What makes YOU so special?

Well, if I've already paid taxes, which I'm not given a choice to do, then I have paid for the R&D, and I therefore should not have to pay extra on it. If I've not paid taxes, then the govt is essentially operating as a de facto business, and it has no legitimate place competing against private companies.

Oh, I see, you want to go buy cheap drugs in Canada and Mexico instead of paying full price in the US. You don't want to encourage any of that private development of goods, services and technology. How is that going to work??

It's cheaper in Canada because the Canadian taxpayers subsidize them to a far greater extent than we do here. I think it's great if the Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for American healthcare, that means we have more money to spend elsewhere. If you really wanted to reduce the costs of meds, abolish the FDA and the DEA. That's what causes a very large portion of the expense of med.

You also don't seem to grasp the idea of specialization. If the Mexicans are just the bomb at producing Meds, why shouldthe Feds artifically prop up that industry when the Mexicans are better at it? Those resources that went to producing Meds here could be transfered to something else that's more productive.

According to the theory that public education is completely worthless, you will in fact be compensated at a higer level than your public school coworkers, since you are smarter and better educated and more prepared for the work force. You will be a higher quality "product" which will demand a higher price. Right? Don't Harvard graduates make more than people who drunk out of state universities?

Perhaps, but market forces figure it out themselves without a govt mandate telling them they must do so. Should you or society compensate me because I concealed carry from tme to time? I'm making ociety safer, and those that don't carry benefit from my doing so?

You ARE going to take care of your parents in their old age, aren't you? You're not going to leave it up to the government?

Deal. Give me the tax money that was marked for that program and I'll take care of it myself.

Correct. Imported surplus ammo came through customs. I want the US customs service checking stuff that comes into my country. I don't want container ships full of leaky chemical weapons being offloaded willy-nilly and sold to whack-jobs that have chosen to go off-grid. Ahem. You don't pay for them to check cargo, you don't get any cargo.

The cost of customs should be borne by the person buying that item, but what costs is there to my buying South African 5.56 (Hey Guys, the 300rd battle packs are the best deal going for that round. It's high quality and accurate. Gobble them up while you can.)? It's not like they have do put thousands of man hours into determining aspects of the ammo.

No, I'm not sure I know. Here's what I think I know: Some farmers are paid cash NOT to grow stuff, thereby keeping the price artificially high, so that the farmers that DO grow said stuff can sell it for enough money to live. Then some farmers are paid a subsidy on what they produce (milk is a prime example) so that the price stays low enough that every one can afford it. Some farmers are "guaranteed" the sale of a portion of their crops to make it worth their while to grow it in large enough volume that the price reamins low in the US (wheat).

Then there are some BIG farmers like ADM that have DEEP pockets and close ties to people like Gearge HW Bush that get paid by the governement to develop completely useless products like ethanol (out of corn, if I'm not mistaken) that the government then mandates be used in gasoline as an additive to reduce pollution. I didn't like this idea and didn't want to support it, so I bought a diesel.

You really ought to get good book on basic economics, ecause it's obvious you don't understand it (were you the product of a govt school?). There is a concept called equilibrium that occurs in due to market forces. If there are toomany farmers and they find that they cannot sustain themselves, they either drop the price and try to make up the profit in volume, or that farmer will quit farming and go on to something else, which will reduce the supply of farmers and make the others more scarce, and thus able to charge more. The sytem is self-correcting and needs no govt subsidies or interference to work.

Ethanol does have uses, but it's usefulness has been reduced to the govt interfering in that and other markets. Get them out of that game and we'l be better off.

[cordex]

Anything less than 51% and you're forcing YOUR will on the rest of the people. How's that right? 49%=criminal. 51%=revolution.
No. YOU can't. YOU don't get to decide what's good for me. I, however have chosen to live in a place that recognizes the populace as a group of people who choose to pool resources for the greater benefit of all the populace. If you AND 51% of the people who choose to participate feel that something-anything-you are doing benefits me and I should be reasonably charged for it, then YES, you can charge me for it. That's the system we've got. Don't like it? See above.
I'll never understand this viewpoint.
Something about the statist mind confuses me. The idea that if they aren't controlling me, I am forcing my will on them, but they are perfectly justified in forcing their will on me.

Might does not make right. Majority tyranny is not better than minority tyranny.
If you cannot recognize that, we cannot even speak on the same level.
In some cases, yes. That's called royalties. Ask any author his opinion. In some cases no.
A private person or corporation can only hold a trademark or patent for a limited time.
However, since the government paid for the development of said weapon, therefore bearing the brunt of R&D costs, and you don't support the collection of taxes which paid said R&D costs, why should you have the benefit of the weapon? What makes YOU so special?
The cost of the design of a weapon is made up in sales of the weapon. If the government allows someone else to produce a gun with a design that the gov't owns and I purchase said weapon, the royalties can be paid to the owner of the design by the manufacturer as stated in their agreement.
These are elementary principals of economics.
Just because the gov't owns or funded the development of an idea doesn't mean that someone who did not help pay for the development of that idea cannot purchase the fruits of that labor. It really is not that hard to understand.

MicroBalrog
Wouldn't it be smart to assume that there are some services that only government is able to provide?
What makes the government so different from another organization? How can it be impossible for a non-government organization to be able to offer services that a government organization can? How do those services differ so drastically?
If you examine the issue closely, you'll find that a government is nothing more than a gargantuan corporation with a monopoly.

[Snake Eyes]

Why can't I just seceed on my plot of land and live in peace?

You can. I've been abundantly clear. Please feel free to secede from society and live in peace. Just make absolutely sure you are completely and totally off of anything subsidized by, improved by or created by the society or its chosen form of government (what I refer to as "the grid").

All you've done is illustrated wy the "winner take all" system fails to be representative
Ok, how does it fail to be representative? It seems to me that it is representative of the majority. That's called democracy. I know from my government education that we actually have a republic, but it is a democratic republic. I think you're just sore because you want it your way and most of the people (that choose to participate) don't.

Which functional system of governing a country of this size has proven to work better? Can't answer that, can you? Because there is none.

The govt has created nothing, they've simply transfered resources from point A to point B. You also don't seem to understand the concept of opportunty cost, which means that doing activity A means that there will be a cost associated by not doing activity B, C, and D. By your logic Soviet bureaucrats "created" work by having a hallway swept even when it didn't need it. Why don't we hae the govt invent work so that we may have full employment? Well, those salaries need to be paid and it comes from taxes and out of an otherwise more productive economy.

In the case of Hoover Dam, the people that did "A" did it in lieu of being unemployed. There was no work. It was this big thing called "The Great Depression" which some people who write basic economy books think was brought about by unfettered capitalism. In other words, there was no "B, C and D". So, in fact the government did create jobs. Which gave people money to spend and income to pay tax on. Also, the government didn't actually EMPLOY those people, the let a contract out for bid and a conglomerate of companies built the project.

We don't have the government create work so we can have FULL employment because we're not socialists. Basic economy books also tell you that full employment is NOT a good thing. Nor is it necessary.

You also assert that the electricity generated by the Hoover dam is not for profit? What were the costs of building and maintaining that dam from it's beginning? Exactly how much revenue has it generated? If the govt sold it for $.01 more than it cost, then it is essentially a profit enterprise. If it sold it for less, it's actually detracting from the free markt force that would incentivise energy producers frm incresaing supply. The fact that you had govt complete the project is indicative that the costs of doing so were far higher than would have been by a private enterprise.

Psst!...The government STILL OWNS Hoover Dam! Energy rates are regulated and determined by supply and demand.

Look, this is very simple for you to resolve. The government publishes a budget, which is audited every year on an ongoing basis by the GAO. It's available to you for free. Why don't you stop supposing and go get the facts. Show us all in black, white and red ink where the US government is making a profit.

Please tell me where goods and services have become more expensive over time, when the govt was not interfering in that business or industry?

I did this. California, Oregon, Texas, Washington, Late '90s, Electricity. People voted to deregulate electricity and what resulted was the most infamous profiteering scandal in the last century. Which destroyed the privately held retirement funds of millions of people. Does "ENRON" mean nothing to you?

Oh, I get it! When everybody gangs up, then it's ok to strip people of their property because it's for the greater good. Out of curiosity, if 51% of the population deided that stuffing Jews into ovens was a good thing that benefits society, would you support it?

I don't really understand what "ad hominem" attacks are but I think this might be one. Where you make an asinine statement about putting Jews in ovens and say that's the same as taxes?

No. Everybody didn't gang up and strip you of anything. We the populace have agreed to fund a system of government and the services it provides. Think of it as similar to your "use tax". You choose to "use" society and we choose to charge you. And yes, it is a package deal. Here's why:

Say you don't read and you don't have any kids, so you don't feel like paying for libraries and public schools. The majority of the populace has decided that this world is a better place if people have a basic education and access to literature. The populace believes it when they're told that there is a direct correlation between lack of education and crime, or that having a better education leads to a more fulfilled and happy life. So they decide that EVERYONE is better off having schools and libraries, even if they don't have kids or read books. So the populace charges you to live in this better place created by having those things.

There is a little town in NW Washington called Lynden. In Lynden, if you don't keep your lawn mowed and your yard neat, the city sends a crew around and they do it for you. Then the City of Lynden levies a fine against your property. The fine however is not enough to cover the actual cost of the service. The citizens of Lynden know this and have voted to keep it this way. Now you would say: "Hey! I mow my lawn and keep my yard neat, why do I have to pay for that schmuck!". And the reason is that the majority of the citizens of Lynden have decided they like their WHOLE town to always look neat and manicured and they are willing to pay for it. Same principle as CC&Rs in housing developments.

It's cheaper in Canada because the Canadian taxpayers subsidize them to a far greater extent than we do here. I think it's great if the Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for American healthcare, that means we have more money to spend elsewhere. If you really wanted to reduce the costs of meds, abolish the FDA and the DEA. That's what causes a very large portion of the expense of med.

This is just flat out wrong. The drugs sold in Mexico and Canada are the same drugs, manufactured in the same place, by the same companies that are sold in the US of A. Canada nor Mexico massively subsidize drugs. Certainly not to the extent that Medicare does in the US. What causes the expense of drugs sold here is massive profiteering on the backs of the sick and the elderly. Why do you think drug companies stocks plummet when one of their star meds goes off patent???

Let me ask you about this: You have health insurance? HMO right? Ok, they tell your doctor what he can charge. They set the fees. Ever gotten a statement from your insurance company that shows they discounted the doctors fee to "reasonable and customary?

Ok. So put your money where your mouth is. Scan and post all the letters you wrote to your insurance company complaining about them telling your doctor what he can charge. I mean, you want a free market, right? Oh I know, you just pay your doctor the extra so he doesn't get shorted. Great--scan those checks and post them. No? I thought not.

The cost of customs should be borne by the person buying that item

Uh-huh. I see. Smugglers should pay the customs agents for catching the contraband they are trying to smuggle in. Oh, that fee should be tacked on to legitimate goods that are imported? Isn't that a tax?

Should you or society compensate me because I concealed carry from tme to time? I'm making ociety safer, and those that don't carry benefit from my doing so?

You're not making society safer. Your gun is for YOUR defense and the defense of your immediate family/loved ones/companions. Unless you swear an oath to defend ALL of society, society owes you nothing. If you DO swear an oath, we'll give you a badge or some BDUs and a salary. There. You're compensated.

You really ought to get good book on basic economics, ecause it's obvious you don't understand it (were you the product of a govt school?). There is a concept called equilibrium that occurs in due to market forces. If there are toomany farmers and they find that they cannot sustain themselves, they either drop the price and try to make up the profit in volume, or that farmer will quit farming and go on to something else, which will reduce the supply of farmers and make the others more scarce, and thus able to charge more. The sytem is self-correcting and needs no govt subsidies or interference to work.

Books are great. They're full of theories. Show me one that works. Where is this self correcting market society that exhibits this concept, concept, called equilibrium. Good economics books said the economy of the '90s was impossible. Books said you couldn't have 10 year up-cycle. They said you couldn't have employment below 6% (?? working from memory) without rampant inflation.

That's why any one who knows anything about the study of economics knows it's an art, not a science. There is no proven empirical data. No proofs. Nothing you can produce over and over again.

Hell, socialism looks good on paper.

[Snake Eyes]

Something about the statist mind confuses me. The idea that if they aren't controlling me, I am forcing my will on them, but they are perfectly justified in forcing their will on me.
Might does not make right. Majority tyranny is not better than minority tyranny.

Here is what you need to understand: We are not controlling you. We do not make you live here. You don't need any travel papers. You don't need anyones permission. We are not forcing our will on you. You learned the rules of this country in school, from your parents and--if your normal--from breaking a few and getting caught. Once you turned 18 you had the right to leave or participate. You CHOOSE to stay.

What it sounds like is you want to live here and don't want to play by the same rules MOST people do. Apply that to anything else in life and you'll see how silly it is....

I want to post naked pictures of myself on The High Road with lots of profanity and you're a tyrant if you don't let me!

I want to get 5 "outs" when it's my turn at bat and you are a tryrant for making me only get three!

I want to carry my concealed weapon in the courthouse and you are a tyrannical government sodomizer for making that illegal!

So, start your own board. Make up your own game. Participate in the political process to get the rules changed for concealed carry.

Or move.

All are your right. All are available to you free. All you have to do is DO IT. No tyranny.

The cost of the design of a weapon is made up in sales of the weapon. If the government allows someone else to produce a gun with a design that the gov't owns and I purchase said weapon, the royalties can be paid to the owner of the design by the manufacturer as stated in their agreement.

The government goes to Colt and says: "We want a new battle rifle. Here are the criteria". Colt goes off and invents a rifle, sells it to the government for $X which includes the cost of development amortized over the quantity Colt expects to sell to the government. The government buys those rifles with my tax dollars.

Now suppose the government never did that. Do you suppose you could go buy an AR-15? How much do you think it would cost? Do you suppose that the price today is lower because the costs of R&D are already amortized out?

This is not only basic economics, it's basic business.

What makes the government so different from another organization? How can it be impossible for a non-government organization to be able to offer services that a government organization can? How do those services differ so drastically?

PROFIT! It's PROFIT! Don't you understand? The government does NOT earn a PROFIT. Don't believe me? Check the budget defecit!

Since it's well known that you can't prove a negative, why don't you prove to me that the government DOES hold a monopoly and that they DO make a profit?

[cordex]

PROFIT! It's PROFIT! Don't you understand? The government does NOT earn a PROFIT. Don't believe me? Check the budget defecit!
*laugh*
So the government fails to make money which means that it can offer services that non-governmental agencies can not? Much like thousands of non-profit, non-government organizations around the world?
Surely you have a better argument than financial incompetance.
Since it's well known that you can't prove a negative
I don't believe you understand that saying. If you had a logical backing for your argument or supporting evidence, you could point out exactly why a non-government corporation cannot perform the same actions (perhaps better, perhaps worse) than the corporation that is currently in charge. You could show exactly how the services differ. Instead, you rely on a debating technique you don't sufficiently understand.
Allow me to slightly reword my questions so you can respond to them:
What makes the government so different from another organization? What services are non-government agencies unable to deliver, that a government related agency is capable of delivering? How do those services differ so drastically?
Better?
why don't you prove to me that the government DOES hold a monopoly and that they DO make a profit?
Monopoly as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

The government has exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply AND concerted action of a wide assortment of services. Need I offer examples?

PS, some people have tried to "leave the grid", but it doesn't work like that.
Didn't work in 1861, did it?
Doesn't work today, because even if I choose to "go off the grid" with nothing but my wits, you will still send your buddies with their guns to take my land for not paying taxes on it.

And, as you've been saying, if someone doesn't like it, they're forced to go somewhere else or live with it. That, my friend, is a monopoly.

I don't need to prove that they make a profit, because inability to keep in the black is not a defining factor of ... well ... anything. Except maybe failure.

[Snake Eyes]

Cordex,

I think I do understand what you are saying. I jumped several steps of the argument and may not have been clear. Or I may have misunderstood. Lord knows I make plenty of mistakes. So let me try and clarify my position and communicate my understanding of yours.
What makes the government so different from another organization? What services are non-government agencies unable to deliver, that a government related agency is capable of delivering? How do those services differ so drastically?
Ok, I said profit. What I meant by that is this: the government is not supposed to make a profit. It's not that they can't or couldn't, they're not supposed to. It's supposed to be a zero sum game.

Corporations ARE supposed to make a profit. That is their one and only true goal. As a by-product of that goal they may make a superior product (Wilson Combat 1911) that sells for a lot of money. Or they may make a lot of products available in bulk for less money through buying power or cooperatives (WalMart, Home Depot, Costco). Any number of things they may do may make your life better but that is not why they do it. They do it because they can make a profit.

So, when it comes to basic needs and services of the collective populace, there are some things that I would prefer be handled as not-for-profit enterprises. Private corporations can't do this--it's against their very nature.

You want an example. Probably the best one I can think of off the top of my head is the privatized prison fiasco. Privatized prisons in Texas have been shown to accept high-security prisoners at medium and low security facilities. Why? Because they get more money for housing high security prisoners and low or medium security facilities are cheaper to build and cheaper to run. The result? Several well publicized prison breaks that never would have happened in a high security prison.

I am not saying government prisons are perfect or that no one ever escapes. I am saying that there is a conflict of interest. My interest is the punishment and rehabilitation of people convicted of crimes. The interest of a private corporation is profit. A private corporation derives no profit from releasing a chaste and reformed man to re-enter society and contribute. They derive profit from warehousing the maximum number of bodies in the cheapest possible facility they can get away with.

I happen to believe that there are several services that the government provides that are compromised by a for-profit motive. Child Protective Services. VA Medical. Law Enforcement (including Customs and Immigration).

Another example is one I've given you three times: Electricity. Did you know that 2 years ago there were over 10 private electricity plants applying for permits to be built in Arizona? Not to sell power in Arizona, we buy ours at low rates from the government. The private companies wanted to use the government power grid to "ship" power into California. The companies chose Arizona because we have fewer governmental regulations than California. They wanted to build filthy coal-fired steam plants to sell electricity into Californias' newly deregulated market.

So these companies wanted to come pollute MY state and pay lower taxes but not to sell me electricity. Why don't they want to sell me electricity? Because even with the lax environmental standards and lower taxes, they can't compete with a not-for-profit business.

The government has exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply AND concerted action of a wide assortment of services. Need I offer examples?

Call me stupid (you won't be the first) but I think you DO need to site some examples. I honestly cannot think of anything the government has a monopoly on. I could hire a private army. Private companies build roads. I can't think of a single raw material I couldn't buy from some one other than the government. I can't think of a single commodity I couldn't grow myself or buy on the open market. Other than taxes and regulation, I can't think of a single thing the government controls exclusively. Help me out.

PS, some people have tried to "leave the grid", but it doesn't work like that.
Not true. You could form a church and be tax exempt. You could squat on land and not pay taxes. You could buy land and never pay the taxes. Probably won't work in downtown Philly, but you wouldn't be off the grid there either. Believe me, there are plenty of places here in Arizona where you could move in and probably never see another human being as long as you lived. Alaska too. Maybe some places still in Wyoming. Nevada. The Yukon. You could get adopted by, or marry into, an Indian tribe.

And, as you've been saying, if someone doesn't like it, they're forced to go somewhere else or live with it. That, my friend, is a monopoly.

No. That my friend, is a choice. A monopoly, according to Webster, is when you don't have a choice. If you choose to leave, you won't be subject to "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action" of anything by the US government. Or any of that other stuff.

But once again you fail to acknowledge your third option. You, Cordex (and others), make powerful and rational arguments that it is clear MANY people agree with. Get them together. Form a PAC. Meet with your legislators--they have to see you, you are their constituents. You may not get everything you want. Because we are a Republic and we elect officials that most closely represent our ideals and rely upon them to make compromises for the balance and good of all constituents. But you can make your views known. And if you can't get through to your legislator, you can elect a new one.

[faustulus]

No Mil surplus ammo (why do you think it's so cheap?
You live in South Africa?

No IMPORTED anything--I helped pay for that to get into this country vis a vis US Customs.
Funny I could have sworn there was importation before the customs department was set up. Strange.

NO food from the grocery store because I helped pay for that in farm subsidies.
You don't deal with farm subsidies much do you?

No commercial meat because I pay for USDA inspections.
No USDA = No meat. Got it.

NO wild deer because I helped pay to isolate deer with wasting diseases. Because nature sucks at population control and isolation.

NO fish because I pay for the US Department of the Interior to help maintain viable, pollution free streams that have been destroyed by private industry.
Industry bad, but government good. I think there is probably enough bad things done on both sides of that equation.

Let's have NO farm subsidies. And NO family farms! And MORE EXPENSIVE food. Let's have ALL roads be TOLL roads! If people have kids they can't afford to send to private schools, why they'll just have to go to work! We'll solve that pesky illegal immigrant problem with child labor! The little buggers will work cheap! And long hours! And they won't be able to afford lawyers when they get their little fingers caught in the machinery! And we'll get rid of any bothersome government oversight because the Captains of Industry will keep our best interests as individuals at heart and make sure we have safe, clean places to work that provide fair wages!
So you would fall under the 'private industry is evil' camp.
Lets take it a step further. We have food but only what the government says we should eat. If it is too fatty it will be taxed and if it has too much sugar it will be banned and if you break the law you will be fined. Lets have the government own and operate the roads and determining where we can go and where we can't. When we can leave our homes and travel. Let's have the government determine how much we can work and where and make sure we get four weeks of vacation a year whether we want them or not and our Big Brother will control the wealth. It will take the money we earn and use it to pay other people doing jobs machines can do. But it doesn't matter because the money is not really ours anyway, the government is only letting us hold it for a while. After all Big Brother is here for our protection because we are too stupid and to evil to take care of ourselves. Private industry is our enemy but the government only has our best interests at heart.
No thanks. I'll give up safety for freedom.

[Snake Eyes]

So you would fall under the 'private industry is evil' camp
No. Private industry has it's place. And provides a lot of value to society. I just don't think unbridled capitalism without oversight is the best thing for society.

(I'm now going to ignore a big chunk of what you said because there is no discernible relation to anything I said)

After all Big Brother is here for our protection because we are too stupid and to evil to take care of ourselves.

No. Wrong. I don't want to take care of it myself. I want some one else to inspect meat packing plants. I want some one else to oversee passenger airline safety. I want some one else to set minimum standards for roads, water quality, air quality and medical treatment. And I want that party to be unfettered by any profit motive. I want that party to be paid by ME and have my best interests at heart. That's what I want my taxes to go towards.

I have much better things to do with my time than ensure everything around me meets some minimum standard. I want to hire some one to do that just like I hire some one to launder my shirts, wash my car, mow my lawn, paint my house and mix my drinks. Hell, I pay some one to clean my guns!

If you're willing to take over the role fo federal and state governement, I'll give YOU 38% of my income. But do you really think you can fulfill all of their roles for that little amount of money?

Private industry is our enemy but the government only has our best interests at heart

This is not what I am trying to communicate. Both entities have their place. Both do some things well and both could do some things better. I like the value I get from the government. I think it's a good deal. I think it could do a better job of representing me, but who doesn't? There is zero possibility that everyone will agree all the time with what government does. That's the nature of the beast. As close as I can tell, ours is still better than any one elses and it has a built in mechanism for change.

I'll give up safety for freedom
Fortunately you don't get to make that choice for me, only for yourself. The Yukon beckons.

[MicroBalrog]

Because nature sucks at population control and isolation.

ACtually, it does, because we humans are realy good at destroying the larger predators.

[Byron Quick]

snake eyes,

You need to do some serious research in the area of subsidies and electricity rates.

Your statements contain so many false statements that it totally kills your line of debate.

Here's a couple: Subsidies on dairy products. It doesn't work anything like what you have posted.

Electricity rates by supply and demand? Most, if not all, states have public service commissions that set the rates.

California's so-called deregulation, set limits that barred any possibility of supply and demand taking effect.

I want that party to be paid by ME and have my best interests at heart.

And, of course, history proves time and time again that government is the entity that has your best interests at heart. Tammany Hall, Huey Long, Papa Doc, Hitler, Mussolini, too many corrupt state governors and legislators to list, Clinton, all the Democrats and every Republican (except Ron Paul),...All these folks and many others not listed have two things in common: government and your best interest. Hey, I've got a good deal on some bridges, guy.

[cordex]

So, when it comes to basic needs and services of the collective populace, there are some things that I would prefer be handled as not-for-profit enterprises. Private corporations can't do this--it's against their very nature.
Never heard of non-government, not-for-profit enterprises? They are quite common, actually.
Better have more reasons than just profit.

Your examples don't hold water because they use isolated failures (often caused as much by government meddling just as by evil capitalist pig-dog greed) to prove a rule. Would be like me pointing to Ruby Ridge, Waco and half a dozen similar situations and claiming that it was proof that the government could not handle law enforcement activities at all.
So these companies wanted to come pollute MY state and pay lower taxes but not to sell me electricity. Why don't they want to sell me electricity? Because even with the lax environmental standards and lower taxes, they can't compete with a not-for-profit business.
A not-for-profit business that receives subsidies through taxes. In other words, the product is cheaper at the meter, but at the cost of forcing others to pay by charging businesses (thereby increasing their cost of doing business and subsequently their prices) or individuals through taxes.
I honestly cannot think of anything the government has a monopoly on.
Try control.
Or first class mail.
Or law enforcement.
Or passage of laws that can be backed up with force.
What's more, the government can take control of whatever product or service it wants to (see nuclear fuel).
Not true. You could form a church and be tax exempt.
Not true. Case in point: Indianapolis Baptist Temple
You could squat on land and not pay taxes.
But be subject to expulsion through force by the true owner of the land (as would be their right) or the fed-gov.
You could buy land and never pay the taxes.
At which point, the gov't defaults on it and auctions it off. And the new owner can kick me off (with help from the local LEOs, mind you).
Believe me, there are plenty of places here in Arizona where you could move in and probably never see another human being as long as you lived. Alaska too. Maybe some places still in Wyoming. Nevada. The Yukon.
Possible, but I'd be depending on the government or rightful owners not to kick me off. Again, if I own land and continually don't pay taxes on it, the land ceases to be mine in the eyes of the government. Right?
No. That my friend, is a choice. A monopoly, according to Webster, is when you don't have a choice. If you choose to leave, you won't be subject to "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action" of anything by the US government. Or any of that other stuff.
So?
Very well. If I start a telecommunications company which services an area, and I use my financial strength to keep other companies out of this area (or it is simply not profitable for other companies to try to break in to the market), I would not have a monopoly, because people could just move out and find somewhere else?
If I own all gas stations in a 400 mile radius and charge obscene prices for gas, I don't have a monopoly because people can move or drive outside my circle of influence?
Gov't disagrees with you, but okay.

The third option is an option.

[faustulus]

I have much better things to do with my time than ensure everything around me meets some minimum standard. I want to hire some one to do that just like I hire some one to launder my shirts, wash my car, mow my lawn, paint my house and mix my drinks. Hell, I pay some one to clean my guns!

Just like you want the choice to have these things done for you I want the choice to do it myself. I am not totally against taxes or government, I just think both should be limited. For instance I would support a national sales tax, which at leasts gives me some control over what taxes I pay.

[MicroBalrog]

Now I'm even more confused.:what:

[faustulus]

I stay confused MB. :) How do you think I get by. :D