Radar's last post convinced me that he just wants to disagree with everything everyone says.

Okay hermit...let's test that theory.

The Libertarian Party is far superior to any of the other established parties.

Bullshit. Microsoft outlook handles pop3 and all other emails according to set standards. They do DHCP, WINS, TCP/IP, SNMP, and hundreds of other services, protocols, and software implementations according to standards they they didn't create. The fact that you don't like the way they handle a few of things doesn't mean they don't follow standards.

So has Bill Gates. He worked hard to build the largest and most profitable software company in the world and he's giving his entire fortune away. And 3 billion dollars helps poor and sick people a lot more than non-violent protests and helping only a few sick orphans.

I use the number of needy people who got assistance and the level of assistance they got.

We don't PAY taxes. We don't get a tax bill in the mail and we don't choose which programs we support with those taxes. Nearly half of our income is STOLEN from us to pay for UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL social programs that don't help anyone. The government keeps close to 85 cents of every dollar STOLEN from us as overhead.

I defy you to show me how it's different than armed robbery or extortion. Money is taken from you against your will and you have no choice about it and if you don't like it and try to avoid it, men with guns show up.

100% of the constitutional parts of government can be run solely with the tariffs and excise taxes we already collect. But in order to make it a more free market for everyone the tariffs should be spread out evenly across all importers from every nation. A flat 3% tariff and the standard excise taxes on telephone, gas, power, etc. alone would pay for our military, judiciary, and the other constitutional parts of government. Everything else is unconstitutional and needs to go.

Under a Libertarian plan the poor, elderly, and infirmed would get MORE ASSISTANCE not less. Less people would fall through the cracks if people had more of their income and got to choose where it went. The government steals from us to pay tobacco farm subsidies and then to pay for no-smoking campaigns.

I don't want to pay for either of those. I'd much rather have the people who genuinely care about the poor, elderly, and infirmed like private charities, churches, friends, family, and relatives have more money to help them. And that's not a fantasy like trying to get the government to do everything for everybody like the socialists want. I think it's selfish of people to want to use government to steal from people and allow government to violate the constitution when a private system run without force or coersion would provide even more assistance. And it would without a doubt.

The government isn't here to clothe, feed, shelter, prepare for retirement, educate, give healthcare, or any of those other things. It's only here for those things specifically listed in the constitution and that's it. NOTHING MORE.

Well Win2k is better than any Mac OS, better than Linux, better than Novell, better than Unix, better than OS2, and better than any mainframe OS. So how is that bullshit?

Absolutely true. Libertarians won't sacrifice their principles to get elected and actually do what they promise when elected. (See Art Olivier) and it's this reason why they will come out ahead in the end not the reason they will fail. A Libertarian president isn't a dream, it's a certainty. It will happen in my lifetime for sure.

<a href="http://www.libertymall.com/Products/Books/federal_mafia.htm"> The Federal Mafia </a>

"Irrefutable - an expose to end all exposes"
—Irv Homer, WWD, Philadelphia

If you read this book, you will at the very least, understand why so many people feel the incometax is illegal. It is very well put together with hundreds of examples from tax forms and official IRS documents.

You may very well disagree with the idea that the income tax is illegal after completing Schiff's book, but you will admit that there is a strong case against it.

oh yeah, i forgot about how bill wakes up every morning and spends all day making the world safe for orphans in india with his perfectly secure and stable operating systems.

radar, youre an idiot.

~james

Damn it perth I had put off saying that for a couple days.

Radar, if you want to discuss stuff, please be willing to listen to argument, no one agress with you, yet you have not given one source or any other form of information other than your opinionated bullshit. I'm willing to listen to about most everything you've said(excluded the ridiculous comparison of Bill Gates to Mother Teresa that's just complete fucking bullshit) but please give me some proof.

so far in this thread...
 

i became bored, i was surprised, i bought three books, i disavowed anarchism, i laughed once, and am now considering that i may be a libertarian. pray continue this very enlightening squabble.

HI mig, and welcome

Re: so far in this thread...
 

I think you may enjoy Mr Jaguar's comments. You two seem to have a similar style.

mig, part of the problem is that there is big-L and small-l libertariansm. One is a party, the other is a general school of thought. Neither one is a fully-formed all-encompassing philosophy although many adherents to both believe that it is.

mig
 

slang : i suspect you are a member of my family. specifically one of my uncles or my mother. if you are not, we should adopt you so i have somone else to argue against. if you know the name of a certain pony, tell me so i can razz you at Christmas.

undertoad : i have trouble with capital letters. i meant lower case. doesn't do to leap into a political party headfirst.

thank you Cam :D

sorry cam. feel free to follow up. :)

~james

*sighs*
You're frigging insane.

I don't know the intricacies of constitutional law in the US to the validity of social programs I cannot comment on. I was not, after all discussing this on a legal level, but a moral level. I would love to see these social programs that don't help anyone, isn't that a self defeating statement? The difference with armed robbery is the money is not spent on my country and community, in theory for the benefit of all, and I can't leave the country if I dislike an armed robbery.
I'm also yet to see how by not having income tax the poor get more assistance. Private charities are often a vehicle for religious institutions and these days have become a competitive industry, with marketing budgets as big as their welfare budgets. I see you have no actually made any rebuttal to the healthcare sys I explained, that is in place here, but instead have continued with your unsupported rubbish.

slang: I have never, in any sense put any value whatsoever on the concept of anarchy, it's nothing more than protest politics for those too lazy to think about what they're protesting about.

Easier to use than OSX? Riiiggghhtt. More secure than OpenBSD? Riiiggghhht. More stable than linux? Riiiggghhhtt. 'better' than True64unix and AIX in mainframes? tehehahahahHAHAHAHA you are a moron. I'm sorry, but if you think Win2k is the best operating system across the board on every system in every environment it is clear why you're so proud of your MCSE – you don’t have a bloody clue. I’ve worked a bit in IT, but there are people here who get their bread and butter out of HPUX and the like who I’m sure will enjoy ripping up your farcical statement.

I'll help you with the constitutional law, jaguar. I'm not an expert, but general readings have shown me that people who deal with constitutional law pretty much fall into 1 of 2 categories: strict constitutionalists and interpretists. Strict constitutionalists can be compared to some Islamic movements of the late 20th century: that the theoretical framework was complete in an earlier form, and the course of time has corrupted it. Interpretists believe that the Constitution is a living document, and that it was set up that way so that it would not become outdated: it could be adapted to fit the evolving nature of society.

This is a bit simplistic, of course; there are extremes at each end. But the people who claim that taxes or social policies are illegal are at the far end of the constitutionalist spectrum. They do not understand how much revenue is required to run the greatest (by size & influence) economic, military, political and ideological power in the world.

Again, I'm not an expert, so I'll be the first to admit that I may be wrong on parts of this typology.

I actually do have some idea how much revenue is required. Does that in itself make the tax system legal?

It is true that the current system funds almost all of the programs and policies many of us are against. Take the money away, the house of cards crumbles.

People far smarter than me are finding very little actual law supporting the tax system , while at the same time quite a bit of intimidation that keeps it going.

Schiff's book is a good resource for understanding the argument, whichever side you are on. I bought and read it years ago and no longer have a copy, but you would find it interesting , I'm sure.