Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[Seth]

The key word is "sees". Profit doesn't lead to vision.

Neither does coercing money by threat of armed jackbooted thugs with machine guns.

This is hyperbole.

Not even a little. Look at what happened to the Montana Freemen and any number of other tax protesters who resisted government coercion of taxes. Inevitably, if you resist the taxman enough, they will most certainly send out the armored, jackbooted thugs with machine guns to kill you.

Profit leads where it leads. If there's no profit potential, there's no reason to force taxpayers to pay for the research.

There is NO justification for coercing other people's money from them to support someone who doesn't want to get a real job in a competitive free-market economy in their efforts to suck at the public teat while tinkering around in a government lab. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em, fire 'em all.

Well, there is, as it is called providing for the general welfare, providing for the common defense, security liberty for the people, and engaging in many other constitutional activities like regulating commerce among the several states. Running a government takes money.

Then let them prove to the people that what they are being asked to invest their labor and property in is worthwhile and allow them to choose whether or not to donate to the government.

This is where libertarianism - at least the extreme deontological and arnarchic kind that you're espousing here - diverge from both the ideas of the "Founders" (as you like to worshipfully refer to them as), and from reason and common sense.

Not at all. It's merely an expression of the idea that all authority flows from the people to the government, and that government should not be a coercive force that imposes mandates on people's labor, but rather it should be like the Chamber of Commerce, which persuades people of the rightness, necessity and justice of the request for money and accepts only what people are willing to give towards such requests.

That model controls the size, scope and power of government naturally, by forcing government to be responsive to the people if it expects to be funded in its aspirations and desires. It was well said by the Founders that legitimate government gets its moral authority from the consent of the governed. I can think of no better way to reflect the consent of the governed than to allow them to pick and choose what government services and programs they are willing to fund.

[Seth]

You do know what the average savings for someone even in the middle classes once you allow for debts give you a clue its signficantly less than zero!.

Ie your average person is permanately in debt so paying for medical care is a joke

And that means that I'm obligated to pay for their medical care how, exactly?

Price for living in a country and having rights.

And how do you morally justify my having to pay for your medical care? Have I accepted responsibility for your health? Am I in control of your activities? Should I be?

If you expect me to pay for your health care, then I demand to be in control of all of your activities so that I can mitigate my economic risks. I will not permit you to engage in dangerous behaviors that might increase my liability exposure, I will insist that you follow a specific health regimen in order to ensure your best possible health, again to mitigate my liability exposure. I will exercise control over your drinking, eating, sleeping, exercise, driving and other habits and activities because you grant me the moral and ethical right to do so when you demand that I pay for your health care. I will decide with whom you may associate, and when, to ensure you are not exposing me to unnecessary potential liability and that you are getting the amount of rest that I deem necessary to protect your health. I will determine whom you may marry and how many children you may have, if any, and I will dictate where you will live and where you will work so as to ensure that you are being productive and are reducing as much as possible my economic exposure for your health care.

That's MY price for being saddled with the responsibility for providing for YOUR health care.

How does that suit you?

If you don't like that degree of control over your life, then pay for your own fucking health care and leave me out of it, I've got my health care to worry about and don't have either the time or the desire to be concerned about yours.

[Coito ergo sum]

The key word is "sees". Profit doesn't lead to vision.

Neither does coercing money by threat of armed jackbooted thugs with machine guns.

This is hyperbole.

Not even a little. Look at what happened to the Montana Freemen and any number of other tax protesters who resisted government coercion of taxes. Inevitably, if you resist the taxman enough, they will most certainly send out the armored, jackbooted thugs with machine guns to kill you.

Not to kill you. They'll serve you with a summons and send a revenue officer or a marshal to pick you up, because you've broken the law. Suggesting they are jackbooted thugs would be to suggest that the State sending out cops to arrest anyone for any crime is "coercion" under armed jackbooted thugs.

Profit leads where it leads. If there's no profit potential, there's no reason to force taxpayers to pay for the research.

There is NO justification for coercing other people's money from them to support someone who doesn't want to get a real job in a competitive free-market economy in their efforts to suck at the public teat while tinkering around in a government lab. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em, fire 'em all.

Well, there is, as it is called providing for the general welfare, providing for the common defense, security liberty for the people, and engaging in many other constitutional activities like regulating commerce among the several states. Running a government takes money.

Then let them prove to the people that what they are being asked to invest their labor and property in is worthwhile and allow them to choose whether or not to donate to the government.[/quote]

That's what happens when the Congress exercises its power to lay and collect taxes, and spend money in furtherance of its enumerated powers. We elect representatives to make that decision.

If you want to do away with the Constitution, then that's one position to take. However, the Constitution certainly doesn't require that all taxes be voluntary donations on an individual basis. Tax policy is made by elected representatives who are accountable to the people via election and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

Your glorious, worshipful "Founders" didn't set up a system of voluntary taxes, where individuals just donated to the programs they felt were worthwhile. Jefferson never asked for a vote on who wanted to chip in to buy the Louisiana Purchase.

This is where libertarianism - at least the extreme deontological and arnarchic kind that you're espousing here - diverge from both the ideas of the "Founders" (as you like to worshipfully refer to them as), and from reason and common sense.

Not at all. It's merely an expression of the idea that all authority flows from the people to the government, and that government should not be a coercive force that imposes mandates on people's labor, but rather it should be like the Chamber of Commerce, which persuades people of the rightness, necessity and justice of the request for money and accepts only what people are willing to give towards such requests.

It's not "merely" an expression of the idea that authority flows from the people to the government. It's more than that. It's the idea that a person living in the United States can only be compelled to pay the taxes he or she voluntarily decides to give in exchange for government services he or she personally wants.

That model controls the size, scope and power of government naturally, by forcing government to be responsive to the people if it expects to be funded in its aspirations and desires. It was well said by the Founders that legitimate government gets its moral authority from the consent of the governed. I can think of no better way to reflect the consent of the governed than to allow them to pick and choose what government services and programs they are willing to fund.

You can't use a citation to "the Founders" (silly fucking term, and I wish it would fall out of use...) when advancing a notion that they not only didn't advance themselves, but would have, to a man, found to be ludicrous in the extreme.

You can't have individuals picking and choosing the government services they are willing to fund, because of the practical problems with doing that. People will act in self, rather than national, interest. And, the government wouldn't be able to function, because it could have no reasonable assurance of having funding for its programs. The people one day will vote on developing some new weapons system, and then the next day, the vicissitudes of politics and protest will have it canceled.

You're of the deontological ilk, so you're response would be - so what? That's what they want, then that's what they want. I'm more consequentialist about the matter. I'm not in favor of the vicissitudes of the mob.

I can think of a much better way than putting every government expenditure up to a public referendum. Having a representative system where regions elect representatives to negotiate and vote upon major issues and decide things. I can't think of many things more ludicrous than the system you're suggesting, where each person is called upon to review 1,000s of government expenditures, checking a box as to which ones the government has "persuaded" the people are good.

Heck, the last thing I'd fund is the government "persuasion" department. I'd be like - "government, if you want to persuade me that spending money on something is a good idea, then you have to do it on your dime."

And, what is the government going to do about national defense? We're going to call upon each individual taxpayer to decide which secret weapons systems are developed? We're thinking of putting together a new fighter plane called the "F-117A Stealth Fighter" -- care to chip in? "Oh, I don't know Mr. Government, let me see the plans first, so I know if it's a good idea." Oh, o.k, Mr. Taxpayer, here are the plans. Just don't tell anybody else about them....

[Seth]

Not to kill you.

Oh yes, most certainly to kill you if you resist them with enough force.

They'll serve you with a summons and send a revenue officer or a marshal to pick you up, because you've broken the law.

"The law" is not inherently just and is often anything but constitutional. But the point is that if you resist long enough and hard enough, the government will, and indeed must send out the thugs with machine guns to kill you because it cannot be seen to be weak in the collection of coerced taxes, because if the general public get the idea that they can be tax scofflaws and not pay, well, the jackboots and everybody else in government will soon be out of work. Which is exactly why people should refuse to pay taxes en mass, making it impossible for the government to arrest everyone.

Suggesting they are jackbooted thugs would be to suggest that the State sending out cops to arrest anyone for any crime is "coercion" under armed jackbooted thugs.

Depends on the nature of the crime. When government dictates that it's entitled to a share of my labor of its choosing, without my consent, in order to give it to others, then it's theft, regardless of what the law says.

Profit leads where it leads. If there's no profit potential, there's no reason to force taxpayers to pay for the research.

There is NO justification for coercing other people's money from them to support someone who doesn't want to get a real job in a competitive free-market economy in their efforts to suck at the public teat while tinkering around in a government lab. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em, fire 'em all.

Well, there is, as it is called providing for the general welfare, providing for the common defense, security liberty for the people, and engaging in many other constitutional activities like regulating commerce among the several states. Running a government takes money.

Then let them prove to the people that what they are being asked to invest their labor and property in is worthwhile and allow them to choose whether or not to donate to the government.[/quote]

That's what happens when the Congress exercises its power to lay and collect taxes, and spend money in furtherance of its enumerated powers. We elect representatives to make that decision.

Not good enough because our representatives cannot be trusted and are immediately corrupted. It's time to change all that.

If you want to do away with the Constitution, then that's one position to take.

Just amend it.

However, the Constitution certainly doesn't require that all taxes be voluntary donations on an individual basis.

It should.

Tax policy is made by elected representatives who are accountable to the people via election and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

And that's why we have the constitutional amendment process. We can begin with the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, and then amend the Commerce Clause to restrict the federal government to mediating interstate commerce disputes brought before it by the legislatures of the several states and nothing else.

Your glorious, worshipful "Founders" didn't set up a system of voluntary taxes, where individuals just donated to the programs they felt were worthwhile. Jefferson never asked for a vote on who wanted to chip in to buy the Louisiana Purchase.

Actually, the federal government sold off the lands of the Louisiana Purchase to pay for it. There was no income tax at the time. That was a Progressive plan from Woodrow Wilson's administration in 1913.

This is where libertarianism - at least the extreme deontological and arnarchic kind that you're espousing here - diverge from both the ideas of the "Founders" (as you like to worshipfully refer to them as), and from reason and common sense.

Not at all. It's merely an expression of the idea that all authority flows from the people to the government, and that government should not be a coercive force that imposes mandates on people's labor, but rather it should be like the Chamber of Commerce, which persuades people of the rightness, necessity and justice of the request for money and accepts only what people are willing to give towards such requests.

It's not "merely" an expression of the idea that authority flows from the people to the government. It's more than that. It's the idea that a person living in the United States can only be compelled to pay the taxes he or she voluntarily decides to give in exchange for government services he or she personally wants.

The core idea remains the same.

That model controls the size, scope and power of government naturally, by forcing government to be responsive to the people if it expects to be funded in its aspirations and desires. It was well said by the Founders that legitimate government gets its moral authority from the consent of the governed. I can think of no better way to reflect the consent of the governed than to allow them to pick and choose what government services and programs they are willing to fund.

You can't use a citation to "the Founders" (silly fucking term, and I wish it would fall out of use...) when advancing a notion that they not only didn't advance themselves, but would have, to a man, found to be ludicrous in the extreme.

Sure I can.

You can't have individuals picking and choosing the government services they are willing to fund, because of the practical problems with doing that.

You mean the practical problem of politicians being able to fund the pork that gets them reelected, don't you?

People will act in self, rather than national, interest.

So what? If that's what they want to do, that's their right. Others will act in the interests of society as a whole. It all works out in the end.

And, the government wouldn't be able to function, because it could have no reasonable assurance of having funding for its programs.

He who governs least, governs best. If the people don't like the way a program is going, then the government should stop doing it, and defunding it is the best way there is to make sure that happens.

The people one day will vote on developing some new weapons system, and then the next day, the vicissitudes of politics and protest will have it canceled.

Well then, I guess government should save up its nickles and dimes and pay for the program up front rather than deficit-spending the nation into bankruptcy with it's political pork programs. You need a new weapons system? Then figure out how much it will cost, ask the public to pay for it, save up the money in a bank account, and then when you've got all the money in the bank, sign the contract. Then pay out only on completion. Works for plenty of private businesses, no reason it can't work for the government.

You're of the deontological ilk, so you're response would be - so what? That's what they want, then that's what they want. I'm more consequentialist about the matter. I'm not in favor of the vicissitudes of the mob.

I'm in favor of government not having the keys to the treasury, or the printing press that makes money.

I can think of a much better way than putting every government expenditure up to a public referendum. Having a representative system where regions elect representatives to negotiate and vote upon major issues and decide things.

We've been trying that. It doesn't work. That's why we are so deep in debt that our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will still be laboring to pay off our current debt, never mind what they may accrue using such an asinine system.

I can't think of many things more ludicrous than the system you're suggesting, where each person is called upon to review 1,000s of government expenditures, checking a box as to which ones the government has "persuaded" the people are good.

I'll settle for a hundred or less category check-offs on the income tax form (the voluntary one) that allows people to earmark their taxes for particular projects (by write-in) or general categories like the military, (army, navy, air force as sub-categories) health care (my own, other people's) or environmental issues (global warming, air pollution, endangered species).

Heck, the last thing I'd fund is the government "persuasion" department. I'd be like - "government, if you want to persuade me that spending money on something is a good idea, then you have to do it on your dime."

And, what is the government going to do about national defense? We're going to call upon each individual taxpayer to decide which secret weapons systems are developed? We're thinking of putting together a new fighter plane called the "F-117A Stealth Fighter" -- care to chip in? "Oh, I don't know Mr. Government, let me see the plans first, so I know if it's a good idea." Oh, o.k, Mr. Taxpayer, here are the plans. Just don't tell anybody else about them....

Just have a category called "Black-ops and Classified Military Hardware."

[MrJonno]

You do know what the average savings for someone even in the middle classes once you allow for debts give you a clue its signficantly less than zero!.

Ie your average person is permanately in debt so paying for medical care is a joke

And that means that I'm obligated to pay for their medical care how, exactly?

Price for living in a country and having rights.

And how do you morally justify my having to pay for your medical care? Have I accepted responsibility for your health? Am I in control of your activities? Should I be?

If you expect me to pay for your health care, then I demand to be in control of all of your activities so that I can mitigate my economic risks. I will not permit you to engage in dangerous behaviors that might increase my liability exposure, I will insist that you follow a specific health regimen in order to ensure your best possible health, again to mitigate my liability exposure. I will exercise control over your drinking, eating, sleeping, exercise, driving and other habits and activities because you grant me the moral and ethical right to do so when you demand that I pay for your health care. I will decide with whom you may associate, and when, to ensure you are not exposing me to unnecessary potential liability and that you are getting the amount of rest that I deem necessary to protect your health. I will determine whom you may marry and how many children you may have, if any, and I will dictate where you will live and where you will work so as to ensure that you are being productive and are reducing as much as possible my economic exposure for your health care.

That's MY price for being saddled with the responsibility for providing for YOUR health care.

How does that suit you?

If you don't like that degree of control over your life, then pay for your own fucking health care and leave me out of it, I've got my health care to worry about and don't have either the time or the desire to be concerned about yours.

Which actually is what happens, dangerous activities are either banned, heavily regulated or taxed to pay for the damage they cause. You can't really ban tobacco and alcohol as its not enforceable but what you can do is heavily tax them to pay for the damage they cause. There absolutely should be higher taxes on unhealthy foods as while people may still eat them they will at least be contributing more taxes to pay towards medical costs.

As for children there isnt really any over population issue in the West but the use of the tax system to encourage people to have or not have kids is definitely sensible. If overcrowding did become a issue which it at the moment it simply isnt restrictions on breeding would be more than justified.

Many if not most health issues are genetic anyway but luckily we have moved beyond nature and we can do far better

[Seth]

You do know what the average savings for someone even in the middle classes once you allow for debts give you a clue its signficantly less than zero!.

Ie your average person is permanately in debt so paying for medical care is a joke

And that means that I'm obligated to pay for their medical care how, exactly?

Price for living in a country and having rights.

And how do you morally justify my having to pay for your medical care? Have I accepted responsibility for your health? Am I in control of your activities? Should I be?

If you expect me to pay for your health care, then I demand to be in control of all of your activities so that I can mitigate my economic risks. I will not permit you to engage in dangerous behaviors that might increase my liability exposure, I will insist that you follow a specific health regimen in order to ensure your best possible health, again to mitigate my liability exposure. I will exercise control over your drinking, eating, sleeping, exercise, driving and other habits and activities because you grant me the moral and ethical right to do so when you demand that I pay for your health care. I will decide with whom you may associate, and when, to ensure you are not exposing me to unnecessary potential liability and that you are getting the amount of rest that I deem necessary to protect your health. I will determine whom you may marry and how many children you may have, if any, and I will dictate where you will live and where you will work so as to ensure that you are being productive and are reducing as much as possible my economic exposure for your health care.

That's MY price for being saddled with the responsibility for providing for YOUR health care.

How does that suit you?

If you don't like that degree of control over your life, then pay for your own fucking health care and leave me out of it, I've got my health care to worry about and don't have either the time or the desire to be concerned about yours.

Which actually is what happens, dangerous activities are either banned, heavily regulated or taxed to pay for the damage they cause. You can't really ban tobacco and alcohol as its not enforceable but what you can do is heavily tax them to pay for the damage they cause. There absolutely should be higher taxes on unhealthy foods as while people may still eat them they will at least be contributing more taxes to pay towards medical costs.

As for children there isnt really any over population issue in the West but the use of the tax system to encourage people to have or not have kids is definitely sensible. If overcrowding did become a issue which it at the moment it simply isnt restrictions on breeding would be more than justified.

Many if not most health issues are genetic anyway but luckily we have moved beyond nature and we can do far better

Fuck that. I'm not willing to live under such a system of slavery to the collective. I'll do what I like, when I like, and so long as I don't hurt anyone else in the process, I'll be responsible for my own health and paying for my own health care, if I need or want it. I categorically refuse to pay for yours, ever, under any circumstances, and the jackboots will have to come and kill me before I'll do so.

[MrJonno]

Anyone who says I would rather die than do or don't something really is either a lier or just plain insane. Me I will take any compromise whatsoever to stay alive as do 99.99% of human race

[Coito ergo sum]

Not to kill you.

Oh yes, most certainly to kill you if you resist them with enough force.

That's a big if. They're not killing you for paying taxes, they would be killing you in self-defense.

They'll serve you with a summons and send a revenue officer or a marshal to pick you up, because you've broken the law.

"The law" is not inherently just and is often anything but constitutional. But the point is that if you resist long enough and hard enough, the government will, and indeed must send out the thugs with machine guns to kill you because it cannot be seen to be weak in the collection of coerced taxes, because if the general public get the idea that they can be tax scofflaws and not pay, well, the jackboots and everybody else in government will soon be out of work. Which is exactly why people should refuse to pay taxes en mass, making it impossible for the government to arrest everyone.

That is your opinion, but if it is within the enumerated powers of the Congress, and they have enacted a law to lay and collect taxes to pay for a program within they're enumerated powers, then it is lawful. I think motorcycle helmet laws and laws that say you can't make a right on red at a traffic light are unjust. Oh, well.

Suggesting they are jackbooted thugs would be to suggest that the State sending out cops to arrest anyone for any crime is "coercion" under armed jackbooted thugs.

Depends on the nature of the crime. When government dictates that it's entitled to a share of my labor of its choosing, without my consent, in order to give it to others, then it's theft, regardless of what the law says.

No it doesn't. If I fail to pay a parking ticket, a warrant may be issued for my arrest, and if I resist hard enough when the cops come and try to arrest me, then they can use force. If I come at them with a weapon, they can kill me.

Profit leads where it leads. If there's no profit potential, there's no reason to force taxpayers to pay for the research.

There is NO justification for coercing other people's money from them to support someone who doesn't want to get a real job in a competitive free-market economy in their efforts to suck at the public teat while tinkering around in a government lab. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em, fire 'em all.

Well, there is, as it is called providing for the general welfare, providing for the common defense, security liberty for the people, and engaging in many other constitutional activities like regulating commerce among the several states. Running a government takes money.

Then let them prove to the people that what they are being asked to invest their labor and property in is worthwhile and allow them to choose whether or not to donate to the government.

That's what happens when the Congress exercises its power to lay and collect taxes, and spend money in furtherance of its enumerated powers. We elect representatives to make that decision.

Not good enough because our representatives cannot be trusted and are immediately corrupted. It's time to change all that.[/quote]

To what? A referendum on every government expenditure? How often? Every time they want to write a check?

[Seth]

Anyone who says I would rather die than do or don't something really is either a lier or just plain insane. Me I will take any compromise whatsoever to stay alive as do 99.99% of human race

Moral cowardice is easy, but it's still cowardice. Yours is the justification of the Sondercommando.

[Seth]

Not to kill you.

Oh yes, most certainly to kill you if you resist them with enough force.

That's a big if. They're not killing you for paying taxes, they would be killing you in self-defense.

No, they would be killing me because the government cannot afford to let tax scofflaws get away with it because it makes the government appear weak, which leads to more people refusing to pay taxes. They must terrorize and kill anyone who resists taxation (which is why the IRS is now auditing 1 in 10 "millionaires" while it only audits, on average, 1 in 100 middle-income taxpayers) in order to frighten people into paying taxes. It's always been that way.

They'll serve you with a summons and send a revenue officer or a marshal to pick you up, because you've broken the law.

"The law" is not inherently just and is often anything but constitutional. But the point is that if you resist long enough and hard enough, the government will, and indeed must send out the thugs with machine guns to kill you because it cannot be seen to be weak in the collection of coerced taxes, because if the general public get the idea that they can be tax scofflaws and not pay, well, the jackboots and everybody else in government will soon be out of work. Which is exactly why people should refuse to pay taxes en mass, making it impossible for the government to arrest everyone.

That is your opinion, but if it is within the enumerated powers of the Congress, and they have enacted a law to lay and collect taxes to pay for a program within they're enumerated powers, then it is lawful. I think motorcycle helmet laws and laws that say you can't make a right on red at a traffic light are unjust. Oh, well.

That's why the law must be changed.

Suggesting they are jackbooted thugs would be to suggest that the State sending out cops to arrest anyone for any crime is "coercion" under armed jackbooted thugs.

Depends on the nature of the crime. When government dictates that it's entitled to a share of my labor of its choosing, without my consent, in order to give it to others, then it's theft, regardless of what the law says.

No it doesn't. If I fail to pay a parking ticket, a warrant may be issued for my arrest, and if I resist hard enough when the cops come and try to arrest me, then they can use force. If I come at them with a weapon, they can kill me.

All over a parking ticket. They could just decide that no person's life is worth a parking ticket and walk away.

Profit leads where it leads. If there's no profit potential, there's no reason to force taxpayers to pay for the research.

There is NO justification for coercing other people's money from them to support someone who doesn't want to get a real job in a competitive free-market economy in their efforts to suck at the public teat while tinkering around in a government lab. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em, fire 'em all.

Well, there is, as it is called providing for the general welfare, providing for the common defense, security liberty for the people, and engaging in many other constitutional activities like regulating commerce among the several states. Running a government takes money.

Then let them prove to the people that what they are being asked to invest their labor and property in is worthwhile and allow them to choose whether or not to donate to the government.

That's what happens when the Congress exercises its power to lay and collect taxes, and spend money in furtherance of its enumerated powers. We elect representatives to make that decision.

Not good enough because our representatives cannot be trusted and are immediately corrupted. It's time to change all that.[/quote]

To what? A referendum on every government expenditure? How often? Every time they want to write a check?

Once a year, on the tax form that you may or may not choose to fill out and send in with a check that you get to decide the amount of and where it's going to be spent.

[Coito ergo sum]

The people one day will vote on developing some new weapons system, and then the next day, the vicissitudes of politics and protest will have it canceled.

Well then, I guess government should save up its nickles and dimes and pay for the program up front rather than deficit-spending the nation into bankruptcy with it's political pork programs. You need a new weapons system? Then figure out how much it will cost, ask the public to pay for it, save up the money in a bank account, and then when you've got all the money in the bank, sign the contract. Then pay out only on completion. Works for plenty of private businesses, no reason it can't work for the government.

Under your system, the government couldn't save up unless people gave money specifically authorizing particular savings.

Your system sounds retarded.

You're of the deontological ilk, so you're response would be - so what? That's what they want, then that's what they want. I'm more consequentialist about the matter. I'm not in favor of the vicissitudes of the mob.

I'm in favor of government not having the keys to the treasury, or the printing press that makes money.

We have a private monetary source now, called the Federal Reserve, which is a group of private banks with a board of directors. They generate the money, and we pay for the privilege of using it. I'd prefer it if the government did control the printing press. Right now, it doesn't.

I can think of a much better way than putting every government expenditure up to a public referendum. Having a representative system where regions elect representatives to negotiate and vote upon major issues and decide things.

We've been trying that. It doesn't work. That's why we are so deep in debt that our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will still be laboring to pay off our current debt, never mind what they may accrue using such an asinine system.

We're so deep in debt because our monetary policy was stolen away from the government by private banks - See Federal Reserve.

I can't think of many things more ludicrous than the system you're suggesting, where each person is called upon to review 1,000s of government expenditures, checking a box as to which ones the government has "persuaded" the people are good.

I'll settle for a hundred or less category check-offs on the income tax form (the voluntary one) that allows people to earmark their taxes for particular projects (by write-in) or general categories like the military, (army, navy, air force as sub-categories) health care (my own, other people's) or environmental issues (global warming, air pollution, endangered species).

That wouldn't be enough categories for what the government has to do. And, it would result in ludicrous results, like global warming being afforded hundreds of billions of dollars and defense being afforded a pittance, only to be reversed the next year. You can't run an organization that way.

I'd write in that the money should buy strippers and beer for me on Sunday.

Heck, the last thing I'd fund is the government "persuasion" department. I'd be like - "government, if you want to persuade me that spending money on something is a good idea, then you have to do it on your dime."

And, what is the government going to do about national defense? We're going to call upon each individual taxpayer to decide which secret weapons systems are developed? We're thinking of putting together a new fighter plane called the "F-117A Stealth Fighter" -- care to chip in? "Oh, I don't know Mr. Government, let me see the plans first, so I know if it's a good idea." Oh, o.k, Mr. Taxpayer, here are the plans. Just don't tell anybody else about them....

Just have a category called "Black-ops and Classified Military Hardware."

That would be stupid. You'd just ask individuals to make a decision as to the worth of a program that they have no idea what it even does.

[Seth]

The people one day will vote on developing some new weapons system, and then the next day, the vicissitudes of politics and protest will have it canceled.

Well then, I guess government should save up its nickles and dimes and pay for the program up front rather than deficit-spending the nation into bankruptcy with it's political pork programs. You need a new weapons system? Then figure out how much it will cost, ask the public to pay for it, save up the money in a bank account, and then when you've got all the money in the bank, sign the contract. Then pay out only on completion. Works for plenty of private businesses, no reason it can't work for the government.

Under your system, the government couldn't save up unless people gave money specifically authorizing particular savings.

Yup. "People, we'd like to build a new interstate highway from point A to point B. It'll cost X million dollars. Here's the account number for donations for that project. Please donate." Then they wait.

Your system sounds retarded.

Not nearly as retarded as giving the government a blank check, a money-printing press, and the keys to the treasury.

You're of the deontological ilk, so you're response would be - so what? That's what they want, then that's what they want. I'm more consequentialist about the matter. I'm not in favor of the vicissitudes of the mob.

I'm in favor of government not having the keys to the treasury, or the printing press that makes money.

We have a private monetary source now, called the Federal Reserve, which is a group of private banks with a board of directors. They generate the money, and we pay for the privilege of using it. I'd prefer it if the government did control the printing press. Right now, it doesn't.

That I agree with. But Congress still shouldn't have the keys to the vault without having to ask permission to use them.

I can think of a much better way than putting every government expenditure up to a public referendum. Having a representative system where regions elect representatives to negotiate and vote upon major issues and decide things.

We've been trying that. It doesn't work. That's why we are so deep in debt that our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will still be laboring to pay off our current debt, never mind what they may accrue using such an asinine system.

We're so deep in debt because our monetary policy was stolen away from the government by private banks - See Federal Reserve.

I don't think it's nearly that simple. The Federal Reserve isn't really a "private bank" because it's been given governmental powers to manipulate the money supply, which no private bank would have.

I can't think of many things more ludicrous than the system you're suggesting, where each person is called upon to review 1,000s of government expenditures, checking a box as to which ones the government has "persuaded" the people are good.

I'll settle for a hundred or less category check-offs on the income tax form (the voluntary one) that allows people to earmark their taxes for particular projects (by write-in) or general categories like the military, (army, navy, air force as sub-categories) health care (my own, other people's) or environmental issues (global warming, air pollution, endangered species).

That wouldn't be enough categories for what the government has to do. And, it would result in ludicrous results, like global warming being afforded hundreds of billions of dollars and defense being afforded a pittance, only to be reversed the next year. You can't run an organization that way.

Oh well, so, it doesn't run. That's fine with me too. The more gridlock there is in Washington, the better I like it. We'll just devolve all those responsibilities to the states, where they belonged in the first place.

I'd write in that the money should buy strippers and beer for me on Sunday.

Then strippers and beer should be on the government agenda if enough people agree with you. It's your money.

Heck, the last thing I'd fund is the government "persuasion" department. I'd be like - "government, if you want to persuade me that spending money on something is a good idea, then you have to do it on your dime."

And, what is the government going to do about national defense? We're going to call upon each individual taxpayer to decide which secret weapons systems are developed? We're thinking of putting together a new fighter plane called the "F-117A Stealth Fighter" -- care to chip in? "Oh, I don't know Mr. Government, let me see the plans first, so I know if it's a good idea." Oh, o.k, Mr. Taxpayer, here are the plans. Just don't tell anybody else about them....

Just have a category called "Black-ops and Classified Military Hardware."

That would be stupid. You'd just ask individuals to make a decision as to the worth of a program that they have no idea what it even does.

I guess they'll just have to trust Congress and the military. It's not exactly as if they don't have to do that right now anyway. At least this way they'd have some general control over how their money is being spent.

[Coito ergo sum]

No it doesn't. If I fail to pay a parking ticket, a warrant may be issued for my arrest, and if I resist hard enough when the cops come and try to arrest me, then they can use force. If I come at them with a weapon, they can kill me.

All over a parking ticket. They could just decide that no person's life is worth a parking ticket and walk away.

I'm about done talking to you about anything, because it is wearisome.

Your arguments are weird. On the thread about the Berkely protests and the pepper spray, you're all about the justified nature of the police actions. Why not just decide that it's not worth injuring people and walk away?

In the case of the warrant in my example, it's because a warrant is a lawful order for arrest and the job of the police is to arrest people in accordance with the law. If a person resists, then the police are to take appropriate action, and not just let the squeakiest wheels go.

If a person attacks police when the police are serving an arrest warrant for even a minor infraction, and the police have to defend themselves, then the cause of the injury or death to the perpetrator is the perpetrator's actions, not the small degree of offense.

It's like if a cop pulls someone over for having a faulty taillight, and the guy gets out and attacks the cops. If the cops kill the guy in self-defense, it doesn't make them "jackbooted thugs."

For some reason, when it comes to idiot OWS protesters, you think the police action is totally justified in their coercion. The cops order people off a walkway/street, and try to "coerce" them to leave, they won't leave, so you see no problem in them pepper spraying seated individuals. Congress passes a law requiring payment of a tax, and you think that enforcement of that Constitutional Law is Jackbooted Thug Coercion.

Do you even listen to yourself sometimes?

Or, is this more of your: "I'm just adopting random positions and seeing how arguments shake out" type of thing?

[Coito ergo sum]

[

I'd write in that the money should buy strippers and beer for me on Sunday.

Then strippers and beer should be on the government agenda if enough people agree with you. It's your money.

Why would anyone need to agree with me?

Why wouldn't my money just be spent on my strippers and beer?

What's "enough" people? And, if "enough" don't agree, do I get a refund? Will the government retain a processing fee?

[MrJonno]

Moral cowardice is easy, but it's still cowardice. Yours is the justification of the Sondercommando.

Didnt release they needed any justification?, those who took part who didnt really have much choice in the matter lived for longer , got better rations etc.

Most people will do anything to stay alive even for just a single day, its why most people in the death camps didnt commit suicide even when they knew they were going the gas chambers the next day.