Things I have to post - libertarianism derail

[MrJonno]

The point of a constitution is to disburse power. It's power that is the problem. And, a decent allocation of power to different levels of government, and different branches within each government, and between the government and the individual, is necessary to prevent gigantic abuses of power. Nothing can prevent abuse of power conceptually, but disbursing it across a broad spectrum means that the abuses tend to be smaller, crimes tend to identified, and vying/opposing parties have some incentive to keep each other in line. As power is funneled and centralized more and more, that declines.

I think thats the purpose of the US constitution I don't think its the purpose of most of countries. I do not fear a powerful government but do fear an incompetent weak one. As long as there are a minimum level of restrictions to prevent goverments stopping elections then we get the government we deserve. Governments on the whole should be free to screw up the country as much as they want and if the people don't like it they sack them at the next election.

Fear of tyrannical goverments is something that doesnt exist outside the US even in countries that have actually had one. You hardly see Poles, Germans or Russians stocking pile personal firearms (or asking for the right to) so they can overthrow a potential dictatorship and they sure known a lot about nasty goverments

[Coito ergo sum]

The point of a constitution is to disburse power. It's power that is the problem. And, a decent allocation of power to different levels of government, and different branches within each government, and between the government and the individual, is necessary to prevent gigantic abuses of power. Nothing can prevent abuse of power conceptually, but disbursing it across a broad spectrum means that the abuses tend to be smaller, crimes tend to identified, and vying/opposing parties have some incentive to keep each other in line. As power is funneled and centralized more and more, that declines.

I think thats the purpose of the US constitution I don't think its the purpose of most of countries. I do not fear a powerful government but do fear an incompetent weak one. As long as there are a minimum level of restrictions to prevent goverments stopping elections then we get the government we deserve. Governments on the whole should be free to screw up the country as much as they want and if the people don't like it they sack them at the next election.

Well, I have noticed that Europeans are much more comfortable with the exercise of power by their own governments than the exercise of power by the American government. Examples include the Arizona immigration law which allowed police officers to inquire after whether one is legally allowed in the country, if and only if they were investigating a non-immigration crime and had other reasonable suspicion that the person was not lawfully in the country. In most, if not all, of Europe, they don't need to be investigating some other crime and they don't need any suspicion - a police officer just has the power to verify a person's status.

The idea of there being areas where the government may not tread is a concept that is generally accepted worldwide, and it's embodied in the UN declaration on human rights. Just because a horrible violation of human rights is approved by a government doesn't make it less of a crime.

Fear of tyrannical goverments is something that doesnt exist outside the US even in countries that have actually had one. You hardly see Poles, Germans or Russians stocking pile personal firearms (or asking for the right to) so they can overthrow a potential dictatorship and they sure known a lot about nasty goverments

This is untrue. Forgetfulness in Europe is not representative of the rest of the world.

And, the people "stockpiling" anything in the US or grousing about warring against potential dictatorships are not common in the US, very uncommon as a matter of fact. We saw a Norwegian doing some stockpiling last year. My guess is there may be a slightly higher percentage in the US, but not much.

And, the "fear" is not that one day all of a sudden there will be tanks rolling down quiet suburban neighborhoods. In the US, that has never happened, although it's happened all over Europe. What we're generally talking about when we talk of tyranny is government overreaching. Government reaching into the bedroom, or the womb, or the brain of human beings. And, the idea is to guard against offenses to human dignity.

Most countries in the world have constitutions that protect most of the same liberties that the US constitution does. It's not peculiar to the US. I don't see it as a virtue that others are more pliable and accept unfair treatment easier. If that's what you're advocating, well, I'll take a system that protects individual liberty any day of the week over that.

[amok]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

It was just a mental exercise. All of it was completely arbitrary.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

It was just a mental exercise. All of it was completely arbitrary.

Yeah - I just carried the mental exercise to a logical conclusion, to illustrate my disagreement with Seth's suggestion that each individual allocate where he or she wants his or her tax money to go to. If you don't allocate enough money to the ambulance service, then no ambulance will come. And, what is "enough" will be unknown until after the fact, since the government could not know what size/kind of ambulance service, if any, could be provided until the taxes are collected so that we can see how much money we have to work with.

[Seth]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

It was just a mental exercise. All of it was completely arbitrary.

Yeah - I just carried the mental exercise to a logical conclusion, to illustrate my disagreement with Seth's suggestion that each individual allocate where he or she wants his or her tax money to go to. If you don't allocate enough money to the ambulance service, then no ambulance will come. And, what is "enough" will be unknown until after the fact, since the government could not know what size/kind of ambulance service, if any, could be provided until the taxes are collected so that we can see how much money we have to work with.

Well, government does have the capacity to communicate with the taxpayers, does it not? If ambulance services are insufficiently funded, then it is up to the bureaucrats to reach out to the public for more funding. That's why such things are best left to local authorities, not the central government.

As Hayek points out in "The Road to Serfdom," central planning never works precisely because of what you have identified. No planner can ever know everything about what the public needs, and therefore will always misallocate resources according to his own prejudices and opinions, and the public will not have what it needs or wants.

Therefore, it would better for the free market to determine what ambulance resources are needed in any particular community, because the free market responds very quickly and efficiently to demand. And if it's a very small community with insufficient demand to entice an entrepreneur to provide commercial service, then the members of the community can themselves put together a volunteer ambulance company to serve the community's needs and agree to voluntarily support it.

Oh, wait, that's actually how most rural communities in the US do it.

Imagine that.

[Seth]

All this assumes that you as an individual gets to decide how the country is run or even how ever aspect of your life is. Once you choose to live in a society you simple lose that right. The is no me or I in 'the people'. Democracy isnt just getting to elect the goverment its accepting you might not get a government you agree with but they still have the right to pass laws you don't like as they have been given legitimacy by the the people.

True enough, but you don't lose the right, it's just that in any community there are many interests to be served and many rights in conflict, and there needs to be a system for adjudicating those conflicts to keep peace and order in society. Your typical argument is simply that of the collectivist who advocates the tyranny of the majority through "democracy." Whatever the masses want, they get, regardless of what it does to the individual.

This is a recipe for tyranny, oppression, genocide and slavery long recognized by people of intelligence. So, various social systems that modify the pure exercise of mob rule that is "democracy" in order to balance the rights of the individual against the desires of the mob.

The best of those systems ever discovered and implemented is the American system of government which presumes certain unalienable natural rights that each individual has as a function of their nature and status of a human being. These rights are held to be more important than other rights, and desires, of others in order to provide an ordered liberty for all that maximizes individual freedom while also acknowledging that the exercise of any right may be reasonably restricted to some degree in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare.

It's a complex system of balancing the free exercise of rights and resolving conflicts between the exercises of rights between individuals and society.

Whereas the Founders, and most Americans, see the nuance and balance in that system that is necessary for government to be just and reasonable, you appear to be unable to comprehend the philosophy involved in a societal decision to acknowledge and respect "natural rights" as being worthy of greater respect than the desires of the mob for whatever it wants at any given moment.

Libertarianism merely expands the philosophy of the Founders somewhat to place greater restrictions on all levels of government and their authority to interfere with the free exercise of rights by individuals or take their property without their consent, in the interests of liberty.

He who governs least, governs best.

[Seth]

Perhaps, but that would depend on what law it happens to be. If it's an unjust law that constitutes theft or violation of my fundamental, natural human rights the fact that some dweebs voted for it and wrote it down doesn't give it legitimacy. The Supreme Court has said that an unconstitutional law is "no law at all" and people are not obliged to obey it.

Interesting you raise your objection to laws based on your spurious invented conception of what is and isn't "natural", and then justify breaking them based on the Supreme Court's decision about what is and isn't "constitutional" - as though these somehow mean the same thing. Like, a bunch of politicians and lawyers sitting around drafting the rules of a country have got nothing to do with "natural" law and could well be breaking it in the laws they draft. But when A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS AND LAWYERS sat around DRAFTING THE RULES OF A COUNTRY (the constitution), some golden heavenly glow descended upon them and imbued their words with an eternal "natural" rightness. 'cos of course, it's not like they were just a bunch of politicians and lawyers sitting around drafting the rules of a country or anything.

Meh, natural schmatural. Been done to death, most recently here. You lost.

But then, I could just be pettifogging.

I think both of you are missing the point.

The point of a constitution is to constitute a government - i.e. build it, make it, structure it, give life, bring it into being. The government is not real. It is a human construct, made up by humans, created from the human mind, and it is an organization of humans that structures power.

Why do we have a government? Generally, even a king is generally needed to defend and the people against external enemies, provide for order, and out of that order to secure the betterment of the people. If a king didn't do those things, he was liable to be replaced by a new king. Having kings and aristocracies led to gross abuses, however, because once the power was obtained, it could be used to solidify the king's position against said replacement. Replacement was difficult, and often bloody.

Under a constitutional system, the purposes for which the government is constituted is set forth explicitly - in the US, the purpose was to provide for the common defense (defense against external enemies), ensure domestic tranquility (order), and provide for the general welfare (the betterment of the people). The idea of the separating the powers vested in the government and providing a system for an orderly passage of power by some form of representative government was designed to try to get the bloody abuse part of my last paragraph out of the system. I.e. - take the needs of the king out of the equation, and make it about the purposes for which societies of people have governments.

The rights of the people - fundamental rights - natural rights - whatever you want to call them, are not mere piffle. They are interests that individuals have that are generally thought at the time of writing of the constitution to be supremely necessary to be within the province of the individual. It is part of the separation of powers idea, which says that SOME things are within the purview of the President/executive branch, some things are within the purview of Congress/legislative branch, some things are within the purview of the Judiciary, some things are federal, some things are state, and some things are reserved to be in the purview of the people.

What things are within the purview of the people? There is no mathematical precise line - no pre-written book to look it up in. One must resort to reason, and that is what Enlightenment thinkers thought we could do. We could reason it out. They concluded some very broad concepts: freedom of thought, meaning that the contents of your own head is sacrosanct, and the government ought not have the right to force you to believe something, or to force you to SAY you believe something, or to force you to NOT SAY what you believe. Freedom of speech is a rational outgrowth of freedom of belief in that respect. So is freedom of and from religion - we aren't to have a state or government prescribe religious belief or prefer religion over non-religion, or one religion over another. Freedom of the press - under the technology of the day "press" was a printing press, and as a rational outgrowth of freedom of speech, to have a healthy republic, we need to have people able to write their communications down and report on events without the interference or censorship of the government. Freedom of assembly - also part of freedom of belief - which says that if a bunch of people want to get together to chat and plot their politics or spread scurrilous ideas, then they have that right, irrespective of what the government things is best. And, the list goes on and on -

We could have a set-up where the cops can just knock on your door and say "routine search for contraband, show me your papers", but we feel that personal privacy necessitates that we be left the fuck alone, unless the government has some reason to think we are up to something. That's a natural right to privacy in one's home, one's person, one's houses, one's papers, and one's effects.

These provide guideposts, but they are not forever. Those who put together the American constitution did not envision it to last forever. Jefferson himself figured there ought to be revolution every generation or so. That's because what was a reasonable then as structure and order of government may not be reasonable later. However, as long as the whole of the people values certain things as fundamental to ordered liberty, then they will want those things protected and to remain an individual right.

However, the tree of that liberty, it was once said, must be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. That means that what is given by the "politicians and lawyers" in a written document are not mere paper scribblings. They are big ideas that must be fought for.

So, it's a more complex thing than just a bunch of douche politicians and lawyers made up a bunch of stuff and called them rights, and there is none of it means anything, as you seem to suggest. And, likewise, it is not that there is some extant stockpile of "natural" rights that are unchanging no matter how humanity changes over time (that's not what natural rights means, at least by any natural rights thinker I've ever read, whether Locke or anyone else.

I agree with almost everything you say except one thing. You say that things are assigned to the purview of the different branches of government, and this is true, but you say that "some things are reserved to be in the purview of the people." This is not precisely true, and it's a very, very important distinction to make. The fact is that ALL THINGS to do with the governance of the people are within the purview of the people. In our system, we are governed ONLY by our willing consent, and all authority and power granted to government flows FROM the people TO the government as a grant of power and authority that may be revoked or amended by the people at any time, and to any extent.

It is extremely important to understand that in our system of governance, neither government nor any person who works for or in government has any power to do anything that is not under the direct control of the people, and which may be revoked at their will.

It was set up this way precisely to ensure that government would never be able to claim the right of the sovereign to rule. Government has absolutely NO RIGHTS whatsoever. Government has only powers, authorities and duties assigned to it by the people, with their consent, which may be withdrawn as they see fit.

[Seth]

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

Why is what some government bureaucrat thinks is "necessary" the appropriate metric? I'd say that the military should have to operate within the budget that the taxpayers are willing to allocate to them. If the public don't want to allocate money to the military, then soldiers get sent home. Since in such a system, no procurement would be deficit-based and would have to be paid in cash in full up front to the manufacturer, there would be no impact on contracts or the potential for waste because if the military didn't have the money in the bank PREVIOUSLY given to them by the public, they wouldn't be able to buy the goods.

So, the remaining costs are largely labor costs, and the size of the standing army should ALWAYS be subject to the willingness of the people to pay to support them. If they don't want to pay, soldiers are mustered out and equipment mothballed for future use. Pretty simple and elegant way to acknowledge public support for the military.

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

Simple solution: the default rule is that if you do not designate, your taxes may be allocated as Congress sees fit. Of course, in the Libertarian model, the government wouldn't be collecting income tax, it would be asking for voluntary donations and donors would be able to earmark what their donation is to be used for.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

It was just a mental exercise. All of it was completely arbitrary.

Yeah - I just carried the mental exercise to a logical conclusion, to illustrate my disagreement with Seth's suggestion that each individual allocate where he or she wants his or her tax money to go to. If you don't allocate enough money to the ambulance service, then no ambulance will come. And, what is "enough" will be unknown until after the fact, since the government could not know what size/kind of ambulance service, if any, could be provided until the taxes are collected so that we can see how much money we have to work with.

Well, government does have the capacity to communicate with the taxpayers, does it not?

Does it? That costs money. Paper, pens, typewriters, computers, internet access, advertising - that all would have to be paid for out of the funds that people voluntarily pay for government communications.

If ambulance services are insufficiently funded, then it is up to the bureaucrats to reach out to the public for more funding. That's why such things are best left to local authorities, not the central government.

And, what happens when only 10% of the population agrees to pay for the government communications? Do you only allow those who paid for the communications to receive them? That's not feasible when it comes to radio and television, so I know I'd not agree to pay for that. Let everyone else pay for it, and I'll pay for the ambulance service itself.

As Hayek points out in "The Road to Serfdom," central planning never works precisely because of what you have identified. No planner can ever know everything about what the public needs, and therefore will always misallocate resources according to his own prejudices and opinions, and the public will not have what it needs or wants.

Don't shift the goalposts. I'm not talking about "central planning." I'm talking about everyone checking a box for the government expenses they approve of.

Therefore, it would better for the free market to determine what ambulance resources are needed in any particular community, because the free market responds very quickly and efficiently to demand.

Again, that's not what you're talking about. The free market would mean that private entities provide ambulance services for willing buyers of that service at market prices. The free market is not "the government lists ambulance services on a tax checklist, and if enough people agree to contribute enough money, then we'll have an ambulance service."

And if it's a very small community with insufficient demand to entice an entrepreneur to provide commercial service, then the members of the community can themselves put together a volunteer ambulance company to serve the community's needs and agree to voluntarily support it.

Once again - different issue. We're talking about your check-a-box and pay for what you think is valuable to you in taxes...

Oh, wait, that's actually how most rural communities in the US do it.

Imagine that.

And, that has fuck-all to do with your check-a-box program. People in those rural communities are still assessed property taxes and other fees in their local communities, and that money goes to pay for what the city council authorizes and votes on. You're suggesting - "check a box - 20% to the library, 20% to the police, 20% to the building and zoning department, 10% to road maintenance..." etc. And, they don't do that in any rural communities, because it would be silly.

[Coito ergo sum]

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

Why is what some government bureaucrat thinks is "necessary" the appropriate metric? I'd say that the military should have to operate within the budget that the taxpayers are willing to allocate to them. If the public don't want to allocate money to the military, then soldiers get sent home.

Well, it's not just "some government bureaucrat" that sets the metric, so that's a straw man. It's Congress that sets the metric, and Congress is elected by the people to make that determination, because they can and do sit down, like the House Armed Services Committee does and spend time interviewing experts, researching things, meeting with intelligence agencies and the Pentagon evaluating international threats and military needs. They have information that John Q. Public doesn't have, and John Q. Public has neither the time, energy, nor capacity to understand 1/100th of what the elected legislature can understand. Does that mean the legislature gets it right all the time? Not by a long shot. But, they are definitely better equipped than me and you.

So, when they evaluate the military need and approve a budget for the Pentagon, it delineates how many tanks, planes, drones, bombs, and the like are to be purchased, and where the troops need to go, etc. John Q. Public has no baseline to make such determinations, and the vicissitudes of the public are such that one year they'll wan the SR-71 Blackbird or whatever, and then the next year they'll cancel the whole thing, only to start it up again the following year.

Since in such a system, no procurement would be deficit-based and would have to be paid in cash in full up front to the manufacturer, there would be no impact on contracts or the potential for waste because if the military didn't have the money in the bank PREVIOUSLY given to them by the public, they wouldn't be able to buy the goods.

Then you wouldn't have a military worth anything, because there is no way to save up the money ahead of time to pay for 10 year programs to build the next generation Stealth Fighter, and it's not even subject to ready estimation how much such research and development will ultimately cost or whether it will ultimately succeed. And, the public can't have knowledge of such programs, or even the basic information about troop levels, equipment and all that, or the entire world will know everything that John Q. Public does.

So, the remaining costs are largely labor costs, and the size of the standing army should ALWAYS be subject to the willingness of the people to pay to support them. If they don't want to pay, soldiers are mustered out and equipment mothballed for future use. Pretty simple and elegant way to acknowledge public support for the military.

Equipment can only be mothballed if the public is willing to pay for the mothballs. If not, it just rots.

It's not elegant, it's stupid and unworkable. It's an oversimplification of the reality and relies on a misapprehension that the US budget can be laid out on an index card for a check a box system. The reality is that people would have to fill out reams of forms at the federal, state and local level, approving and allocating various tax moneys for various purposes. The people would have to guess how many purchases one makes so that sales taxes can be allocated, for example. And, if money for licensing and other fees are put in the general fund, then they have to allocate that money too.

It sounds simple when you phrase it as "allocating my income tax money to major programs like military, social security, medicare," etc., but the reality is that there are thousands of functions at various levels of government that need to be paid for, and the money comes from many different sources, not just income taxes.

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

Simple solution: the default rule is that if you do not designate, your taxes may be allocated as Congress sees fit. Of course, in the Libertarian model, the government wouldn't be collecting income tax, it would be asking for voluntary donations and donors would be able to earmark what their donation is to be used for.

So, what about those who don't contribute to the military? We somehow let them get shot, while saving those who contributed?

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree with almost everything you say except one thing. You say that things are assigned to the purview of the different branches of government, and this is true, but you say that "some things are reserved to be in the purview of the people." This is not precisely true, and it's a very, very important distinction to make. The fact is that ALL THINGS to do with the governance of the people are within the purview of the people. In our system, we are governed ONLY by our willing consent, and all authority and power granted to government flows FROM the people TO the government as a grant of power and authority that may be revoked or amended by the people at any time, and to any extent.

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thus, any powers not delegated to the US are reserved to the States, or the people.

Of course the powers delegated to the US can be changed in accordance with the amendment procedure, or in accordance with a new constitutional convention.

But, by the people only being governed by consent, it doesn't mean that each individual gets to decide by fiat at any time that he or she is or is not a citizen of the US. If you are within the jurisdiction of the U.S., you are subject to its laws. Period. The "consent of the governed" means the consent of the governed duly conveyed, via either amendment to the constitution or constitutional convention. It's not "the government only has power over me if I say so, and only when I say so." If that were the case, then I'd revoke my consent right before I committed a crime.

It is extremely important to understand that in our system of governance, neither government nor any person who works for or in government has any power to do anything that is not under the direct control of the people, and which may be revoked at their will.

At their will in accordance with established procedural due process, yes. Which means that a law is not revoked by the people by fiat or declaration, or by a person by fiat or declaration, but by a vote of the elected legislature or duly authorized referendum. And, the constitution is amended by duly adopted and ratified amendment, or constitutional convention.

It was set up this way precisely to ensure that government would never be able to claim the right of the sovereign to rule. Government has absolutely NO RIGHTS whatsoever. Government has only powers, authorities and duties assigned to it by the people, with their consent, which may be withdrawn as they see fit.

I don't know why you're making this speech, since the only thing I talked about was delegated power, separated and disbursed among a federated collection of states and municipalities, and in differing branches of government.

[Seth]

I agree with almost everything you say except one thing. You say that things are assigned to the purview of the different branches of government, and this is true, but you say that "some things are reserved to be in the purview of the people." This is not precisely true, and it's a very, very important distinction to make. The fact is that ALL THINGS to do with the governance of the people are within the purview of the people. In our system, we are governed ONLY by our willing consent, and all authority and power granted to government flows FROM the people TO the government as a grant of power and authority that may be revoked or amended by the people at any time, and to any extent.

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thus, any powers not delegated to the US are reserved to the States, or the people.

Of course the powers delegated to the US can be changed in accordance with the amendment procedure, or in accordance with a new constitutional convention.

"Delegate" means : to entrust to another; to appoint as one's representative. What the 10th Amendment affirms (and the reason it was enacted) is that all powers begin with and flow from the people, and that government has NO "inherent" powers and may only exercise those powers expressly (or by necessary implication) delegated to it by the people. But the people retain those powers for themselves, as the delegation is a non-exclusive grant of powers, not an abdication or surrender of powers by the people.

But, by the people only being governed by consent, it doesn't mean that each individual gets to decide by fiat at any time that he or she is or is not a citizen of the US. If you are within the jurisdiction of the U.S., you are subject to its laws. Period. The "consent of the governed" means the consent of the governed duly conveyed, via either amendment to the constitution or constitutional convention. It's not "the government only has power over me if I say so, and only when I say so." If that were the case, then I'd revoke my consent right before I committed a crime.

Of course, but not all acts by government are lawful acts, and not all laws of government are constitutional laws. And it is within the power of the people to amend or repeal ANY law passed by ANY government body anywhere.

It is extremely important to understand that in our system of governance, neither government nor any person who works for or in government has any power to do anything that is not under the direct control of the people, and which may be revoked at their will.

At their will in accordance with established procedural due process, yes. Which means that a law is not revoked by the people by fiat or declaration, or by a person by fiat or declaration, but by a vote of the elected legislature or duly authorized referendum. And, the constitution is amended by duly adopted and ratified amendment, or constitutional convention.

Or by jury nullification or civil disobedience or, in the end, rebellion.

It was set up this way precisely to ensure that government would never be able to claim the right of the sovereign to rule. Government has absolutely NO RIGHTS whatsoever. Government has only powers, authorities and duties assigned to it by the people, with their consent, which may be withdrawn as they see fit.

I don't know why you're making this speech, since the only thing I talked about was delegated power, separated and disbursed among a federated collection of states and municipalities, and in differing branches of government.

Because it appears that some, or perhaps many people here do not understand that government has no inherent powers or authority and does not have sovereign status or existence separate from the people who have consented to be governed. It appears that some here, like MrJonno, think that government is some sentient entity that has sovereign rights and authority endowed from some source other than the people who comprise the society.

It's important to make this distinction clear, because socialism is entirely based on the principle that the government has authority over citizens sua sponte, and that somehow the collective has more or different rights from those which each individual enjoys. This is not the case. Only individuals have rights. Government only has delegated powers, not rights. Nor does the collective have rights independent of or separate from the rights of the individuals who make up the society. "The people" as a whole have no rights at all, those rights accrue to each separate individual and may be enforced collectively, but they exist at the individual, not the societal or collective level.

[Seth]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

It was just a mental exercise. All of it was completely arbitrary.

Yeah - I just carried the mental exercise to a logical conclusion, to illustrate my disagreement with Seth's suggestion that each individual allocate where he or she wants his or her tax money to go to. If you don't allocate enough money to the ambulance service, then no ambulance will come. And, what is "enough" will be unknown until after the fact, since the government could not know what size/kind of ambulance service, if any, could be provided until the taxes are collected so that we can see how much money we have to work with.

Well, government does have the capacity to communicate with the taxpayers, does it not?

Does it? That costs money. Paper, pens, typewriters, computers, internet access, advertising - that all would have to be paid for out of the funds that people voluntarily pay for government communications.

Yup, exactly.

If ambulance services are insufficiently funded, then it is up to the bureaucrats to reach out to the public for more funding. That's why such things are best left to local authorities, not the central government.

And, what happens when only 10% of the population agrees to pay for the government communications? Do you only allow those who paid for the communications to receive them? That's not feasible when it comes to radio and television, so I know I'd not agree to pay for that. Let everyone else pay for it, and I'll pay for the ambulance service itself.

If the community wishes to deny its government funds to lobby on behalf of public services and funding them, and wants government to STFU and leave them alone, then the community has every right to deny the government the funding with which to proselytize or propagandize them.

As Hayek points out in "The Road to Serfdom," central planning never works precisely because of what you have identified. No planner can ever know everything about what the public needs, and therefore will always misallocate resources according to his own prejudices and opinions, and the public will not have what it needs or wants.

Don't shift the goalposts. I'm not talking about "central planning." I'm talking about everyone checking a box for the government expenses they approve of.

It's all part and parcel. It's better for citizens to check what they want their tax money spent on than to allow government central planners to impose a tax and then use it as they see fit. It's a much better way to control government spending. If people don't like what the government is proposing, they can simply defund it and that program will come to an end or not be begun in the first place. All the bureaucrats will then have to do is to spend the money they get properly on the authorized projects and programs, to the extent they have money to do so.

Central planning, which is what we have to some degree now, albeit by Congress, is a couple of hundred central planners trying to decide how to spend the public's money. I'd rather deconstruct government to the place where it doesn't have anything to do really other than operate the military, make treaties and laws, and hire private contractors to do projects. Letting citizens vote with their pen on the federal budget would shrink the budget enormously and eliminate all sorts of pork.

Therefore, it would better for the free market to determine what ambulance resources are needed in any particular community, because the free market responds very quickly and efficiently to demand.

Again, that's not what you're talking about. The free market would mean that private entities provide ambulance services for willing buyers of that service at market prices. The free market is not "the government lists ambulance services on a tax checklist, and if enough people agree to contribute enough money, then we'll have an ambulance service."

Well, we are mixing Libertarian principles here with current tax policy to some extent, so there is some gray areas. Libertarian policy would indeed do as you say, but that would not prevent a local government from stumping for voluntary donations for a government-managed volunteer (or paid for that matter) service that competes with private enterprise. Nothing in Libertarianism prevents groups of citizens from coming together and voluntarily agreeing to fund some public service or works project...nothing at all.

Oh, wait, that's actually how most rural communities in the US do it.

Imagine that.

And, that has fuck-all to do with your check-a-box program. People in those rural communities are still assessed property taxes and other fees in their local communities, and that money goes to pay for what the city council authorizes and votes on. You're suggesting - "check a box - 20% to the library, 20% to the police, 20% to the building and zoning department, 10% to road maintenance..." etc. And, they don't do that in any rural communities, because it would be silly.

Why would it be silly? It makes even more sense at the local level. People are much closer to the needs at the local level. Why shouldn't they have a checkoff on their taxes that directs how the revenues will be spent?

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree with almost everything you say except one thing. You say that things are assigned to the purview of the different branches of government, and this is true, but you say that "some things are reserved to be in the purview of the people." This is not precisely true, and it's a very, very important distinction to make. The fact is that ALL THINGS to do with the governance of the people are within the purview of the people. In our system, we are governed ONLY by our willing consent, and all authority and power granted to government flows FROM the people TO the government as a grant of power and authority that may be revoked or amended by the people at any time, and to any extent.

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thus, any powers not delegated to the US are reserved to the States, or the people.

Of course the powers delegated to the US can be changed in accordance with the amendment procedure, or in accordance with a new constitutional convention.

"Delegate" means : to entrust to another; to appoint as one's representative. What the 10th Amendment affirms (and the reason it was enacted) is that all powers begin with and flow from the people, and that government has NO "inherent" powers and may only exercise those powers expressly (or by necessary implication) delegated to it by the people. But the people retain those powers for themselves, as the delegation is a non-exclusive grant of powers, not an abdication or surrender of powers by the people.

What are you arguing about? Is that in any way contrary to what I said? Where did I say that power was "inherent?"

But, by the people only being governed by consent, it doesn't mean that each individual gets to decide by fiat at any time that he or she is or is not a citizen of the US. If you are within the jurisdiction of the U.S., you are subject to its laws. Period. The "consent of the governed" means the consent of the governed duly conveyed, via either amendment to the constitution or constitutional convention. It's not "the government only has power over me if I say so, and only when I say so." If that were the case, then I'd revoke my consent right before I committed a crime.

Of course, but not all acts by government are lawful acts, and not all laws of government are constitutional laws. And it is within the power of the people to amend or repeal ANY law passed by ANY government body anywhere.

Who in the world said they were? An act by a governmental entity has to be within its powers. That's what a constitution is for, to say what the powers of different governmental entities are, in broad strokes.

Who in the world said it wasn't in the power of the people to amend or repeal laws? They can do so through their elected representatives, or through duly constituted public referendum. Who do you think is arguing otherwise?

It is extremely important to understand that in our system of governance, neither government nor any person who works for or in government has any power to do anything that is not under the direct control of the people, and which may be revoked at their will.

At their will in accordance with established procedural due process, yes. Which means that a law is not revoked by the people by fiat or declaration, or by a person by fiat or declaration, but by a vote of the elected legislature or duly authorized referendum. And, the constitution is amended by duly adopted and ratified amendment, or constitutional convention.

Or by jury nullification or civil disobedience or, in the end, rebellion.

Yes, but civil disobedience is not necessarily lawful, and people can be arrested if they commit a crime while being civilly disobedient. Like, tax protesters are free to refuse to file tax returns, but they run the risk of going to jail, and the fact that they are engaged in "civil disobedience" doesn't make their actions lawful. And, rebellion is only lawful if successful, like our original revolution, which was unlawful under British law.

It was set up this way precisely to ensure that government would never be able to claim the right of the sovereign to rule. Government has absolutely NO RIGHTS whatsoever. Government has only powers, authorities and duties assigned to it by the people, with their consent, which may be withdrawn as they see fit.

I don't know why you're making this speech, since the only thing I talked about was delegated power, separated and disbursed among a federated collection of states and municipalities, and in differing branches of government.

Because it appears that some, or perhaps many people here do not understand that government has no inherent powers or authority and does not have sovereign status or existence separate from the people who have consented to be governed. It appears that some here, like MrJonno, think that government is some sentient entity that has sovereign rights and authority endowed from some source other than the people who comprise the society.

Funny, I recall YOU claiming in a different argument that the federal government DID have the inherent power as a sovereign entity to control immigration. Remember that? When I pointed out that the entire federal immigration regime is facially unconstitutional because Congress was never delegated any power under the constitution to make laws concerning or prohibiting immigration? You argued that it still was the federal government's power to do so, inherently, because of the sovereign's inherent obligation to police its borders....? Or, am I misremembering that....and you don't feel the US government has the inherent power to regulate or control immigration?

It's important to make this distinction clear, because socialism is entirely based on the principle that the government has authority over citizens sua sponte, and that somehow the collective has more or different rights from those which each individual enjoys. This is not the case. Only individuals have rights. Government only has delegated powers, not rights. Nor does the collective have rights independent of or separate from the rights of the individuals who make up the society. "The people" as a whole have no rights at all, those rights accrue to each separate individual and may be enforced collectively, but they exist at the individual, not the societal or collective level.

What people think socialism is all about is a different issue than the one we were discussing. You've changed the subject.

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, " - thus, "the people" have a right to peaceably assemble.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - thus, "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, "

So, "the people" do have rights.

Whatever you're parsing as between an individual person and "the people" as a whole is irrelevant. The people have those rights because the express language of the constitution says they do. That's the strict construction. If you're advocating a liberal construction of the language, then you'll have to clarify that.

[Seth]

And your decision to opt for 10% over 5% of your federal taxes - completely arbitrary. How do you know what is necessary to take care of our service people, or how long they need the help for?

Why is what some government bureaucrat thinks is "necessary" the appropriate metric? I'd say that the military should have to operate within the budget that the taxpayers are willing to allocate to them. If the public don't want to allocate money to the military, then soldiers get sent home.

Well, it's not just "some government bureaucrat" that sets the metric, so that's a straw man. It's Congress that sets the metric, and Congress is elected by the people to make that determination, because they can and do sit down, like the House Armed Services Committee does and spend time interviewing experts, researching things, meeting with intelligence agencies and the Pentagon evaluating international threats and military needs. They have information that John Q. Public doesn't have, and John Q. Public has neither the time, energy, nor capacity to understand 1/100th of what the elected legislature can understand. Does that mean the legislature gets it right all the time? Not by a long shot. But, they are definitely better equipped than me and you.

They are still a bunch of bureaucrats who rely on information from other bureaucrats who have their own nests to feather in their minds. In broad strokes, I favor allowing people to designate specific dollar amounts to specific areas of government at the federal, state and local levels because this acts as a yearly referendum on how well the bureaucrats are serving the will and the needs of the public. They can decide specifically how to spend the money the taxpayers allocate to them, but how much they get in total should be a matter for each individual to decide for himself.

So, when they evaluate the military need and approve a budget for the Pentagon, it delineates how many tanks, planes, drones, bombs, and the like are to be purchased, and where the troops need to go, etc. John Q. Public has no baseline to make such determinations, and the vicissitudes of the public are such that one year they'll wan the SR-71 Blackbird or whatever, and then the next year they'll cancel the whole thing, only to start it up again the following year.

So what? If I don't like how the military is being used, I should not be required to pay for it. Moreover, if most people don't like how the military is being used, they should have the right to defund it by voting with their tax return. I don't care what the bureaucrats think about it, it's up to them to convince me that their requests for money are reasonable and necessary, which requires them to explain to me why they need an F22 Joint Strike Fighter rather than our existing fleet of F15 and F16 aircraft.

And they won't "start up" anything and then shut it down, because the companion requirement is that they can't start a program that they do not ALREADY have all the money to pay for in the bank. No. More. Deficit. Spending. Period.

If the public votes with its tax returns to fund the SR-71 program, and Congress collects all it needs to meet that financial requirement, then it gets to do the project. If not, it doesn't.

Since in such a system, no procurement would be deficit-based and would have to be paid in cash in full up front to the manufacturer, there would be no impact on contracts or the potential for waste because if the military didn't have the money in the bank PREVIOUSLY given to them by the public, they wouldn't be able to buy the goods.

Then you wouldn't have a military worth anything, because there is no way to save up the money ahead of time to pay for 10 year programs to build the next generation Stealth Fighter, and it's not even subject to ready estimation how much such research and development will ultimately cost or whether it will ultimately succeed. And, the public can't have knowledge of such programs, or even the basic information about troop levels, equipment and all that, or the entire world will know everything that John Q. Public does.

Then it's up to Congress to persuade people to fund the military by explaining to them why they need the money and the equipment and why they can't be specific about it for reasons of operational security. This requires Congress to generate credibility and trust in the public by properly exercising the authority they have been given and not abusing it or the public. If they violate that trust, the people can defund them, as is right and proper.

So, the remaining costs are largely labor costs, and the size of the standing army should ALWAYS be subject to the willingness of the people to pay to support them. If they don't want to pay, soldiers are mustered out and equipment mothballed for future use. Pretty simple and elegant way to acknowledge public support for the military.

Equipment can only be mothballed if the public is willing to pay for the mothballs. If not, it just rots.

If that's what the people want, then they will deny mothball funds. If they want to preserve the investment in equipment because Congress has convinced them of the need, then they will agree to fund mothballing.

It's not elegant, it's stupid and unworkable. It's an oversimplification of the reality and relies on a misapprehension that the US budget can be laid out on an index card for a check a box system.

With computers, it's easy.

The reality is that people would have to fill out reams of forms at the federal, state and local level, approving and allocating various tax moneys for various purposes.

Nope. They get to decide what level of detail to allocate by. If they want to use broad strokes and allocate so much for social welfare entitlements and so much for the military, they can. If they want to take the time to be more specific and work within a specific government spending sector to specify more closely how their money is to be used, they can do that. It can all be done with computers and the accounting and allocation of funds would be done automatically when the person files his return.

The people would have to guess how many purchases one makes so that sales taxes can be allocated, for example.

There would be no sales taxes, so that's a non sequitur.

And, if money for licensing and other fees are put in the general fund, then they have to allocate that money too.

There would be no licensing, and fees would be assessed when a service is used and paid for at the time of service.

It sounds simple when you phrase it as "allocating my income tax money to major programs like military, social security, medicare," etc., but the reality is that there are thousands of functions at various levels of government that need to be paid for, and the money comes from many different sources, not just income taxes.

This would fix that by eliminating all taxes, including income taxes, and giving people the power to donate to the government programs of their choice on a voluntary basis.

And, lastly, if you're one of the "47%", you'd be checking a box to designate what portion of "nothing" gets paid where.

Simple solution: the default rule is that if you do not designate, your taxes may be allocated as Congress sees fit. Of course, in the Libertarian model, the government wouldn't be collecting income tax, it would be asking for voluntary donations and donors would be able to earmark what their donation is to be used for.

So, what about those who don't contribute to the military? We somehow let them get shot, while saving those who contributed?

[/quote]

Sure. Or we convince them to contribute.