There’s no way you can compare how wonderful it was in 1800 or 1900 to today. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 47 years (in 1940 it was only 62), average education was 5 years of schooling. (And only 50% of kids had any schooling at all.)
Most of the improvement to life expectancy has come from technology invented by the private sector, quite seperate from anything achieved by government. Also keep in mind the 50 years you list would have consisted of time spent working with and for family members shaping eachothers morals values and seeing the fruits of your own labor. Contrast that with today where the average child is more influanced by others, may lack any resemblance to the parent because they spend most of thier time seperate and imparting very little morals on a daily basis. Where family is the people you eat dinner with or go to sleep with, but not who you live life with. Who had it better?
If this is what you really want, move out into the woods and become self-sufficient. If you don’t have any income, you won’t have any taxes.
This is inherently false as to build a home requires permits that require money and lots of time waiting for inspection, the permits require income to pay for. Once self self sufficient there is still property taxes etc. On top of this you are not legaly allowed to make all that you need. Want a firearm? Taxes must be paid to legaly build one. Want ammunition? Well you cannot buy reloading supplies without income and that would be taxed. Make ammunition from scratch? I believe making explosives requires multiple permits and the nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin you would have to produce to make smokeless powder would be illegal to produce without permits. To purchase those permits you would need to sell something or have some sort of income, thus taxed. The same can be said for many other tools. Producing most simple chemicals without permits would be illegal, yet they are required for the manufacter of most goods you would need to be self-sufficient.
Making modern tools? Requires permits for many that would thus require income that is taxed. Get sued, even falsely or have someone claim your property and have to defend it in court? Have someone make you a victim or have to defend yourself? Requires attorneys that require income to pay for, thus taxed. Your logic is flawed in assuming someone can decide to live outside of the permits and taxation involved in our system. You cannot ever be self-sufficient, it is designed that way.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for the list of other programs that the Federal Government would use to “fund itself without instituting a single new tax” that would replace the Income Tax if it were abolished. I guess it could be done by just raising existing taxes to make up the difference. Still “taxes” under another guise.
Actualy the solution is not to try to pay for all the current expenses and bureaucracies in thier current form without a hiccup. It would be to trim the fat. The government could get by on half its current budget, and the states would be no worse off as the untaxed money would still be in circulation, not just non existant as you paint it. Yes in some locations more 4x4 vehicles and ATVs would be needed, but is that that big of an inconvenience for all the freedoms gained? Would it have to be that way everywhere? No. Would we have to be in less constant warfare to stay within budget? Probably.
It could be managed, fat would have to be trimmed. The failure in your logic is that the current expenses would still be required with less taxes. Government makes due and spends a little bit more than the budget it has, period. If they have less budget, and strict tax restrictions, they will decide what is most important and still provide most critical services like self defense. Because citizens in states would have more money to spend, more sales taxes would be produced without raising taxes one bit. The state could easily pick up the slack with this increased revenue for critical services. The only real change would be the federal government wouldn't be able to dictate it's policies by forcing politicians to fall over backwards changing local policies to qualify for federal funding.
State and local governments take the easy way out and give up much of thier freedom to qualify for federal money. If there is no extra federal money to qualify for, and the citizens are creating more sales tax in the state then the easy way out is not an option. They have to actualy manage themselves and stay within budget, what a concept?!
If schools did not shape thier curriculum to federal standards to qualify for federal government, guess what? You would actualy control what your schools taught your children. If every single agency was not able to find ways to leech off federal funding and become dependent on that income then the policies and outcomes would be decided on a more local level. When the feds are not giving handouts then they cannot tell people what they must do and how they must use those handouts. Wow freedom to decide government on a local level, what a foriegn concept?
Things would only be difficult originaly as existing government was forced to adapt. Most would adapts, a couple would change nothing and bankrupt, being replaced by less corrupt more adaptable government. It would all balance out.
It's amazing how one's attitude changes as one gets older.
