I think you answered some of my questions in your last post while I was typing my last. :)

just a thought:

If we didn't have to pay taxes, don't you think employers would tend to pay us less?

Why are those (excise, "tariffs", etc.) taxes not theft and why do they not have an economic impact while income taxes do?

While your economic theory is certainly from the deep end of the doomsday camp it's not fundamentally flawed. On the flipside it's been a matter of time ever since people realized they could vote themselves bread and circuses and will until fiat currency collapses. The market has a way of sorting these things out though. The biggest problem at the moment is a tad ironic: Japan is in the long term, fucking america hardcore. They're buying everything the treasury has to offer with printed yen to encourage inflation and press down the yen, thus treasury yields are shithouse (which pisses off people like me who liked them) and makes debt look cheap for governments. When they stop buying them, yeilds will rise causing MASSIVE problems for fiscal policy. The economist in particular has been harping this line for a fair while now. Don't ask me how the game ends.

So...um....how exactly does this work with essential services exactly. Do I have to pay the postman every time I want my letter delivered? Pave a road to the local store myself? Can I then charge people to use it?

Pull out of your ass social theory and fuzzy-beyond-analyisis numbers aside wouldn't this mostly result in the disadvantaged having a choice between starving and swallowing some religious bullshit to get a meal?

Look I agree good fiscal policy is needed but I do not agree with your answer.

Life doesn't have safety nets and government isn't here to provide them. Some people act irresponsibly, and that's unfortunate. I think if young people see that you don't have a safety net and must rely on voluntary charity from your friends, family, neighbors, churches, and non-profit charities for health care, food, shelter, etc, they will be more apt to take their personal responsibilities more seriously.

People would only have to donate a fraction of what is currently collected in taxes to maintain the same or better level of assistance currently offered by government. As I mentioned earlier, government on average keeps 85 cents of every tax dollar marked for these charity (it's not charity if it's forced) programs and those in need get less than 15%. The opposite is true of private charities, which on average only require 12%-15% in overhead while 85% or more makes it to those in need.

Wow, you guys are posting fast and furiously, I'll try to keep up.

Some might, but I think most would think they could pay the same amount, and have happier and more productive employees. They look like a hero and don't have to pay a dime more. In either case, the economy would be doing better because when people got to keep what they earn, more people could start new businesses offering more jobs to people. The increased competition in the market would drive wages upward.

Who pays for local roads right now? Your town or county through property taxes. Property taxes are fees to pay for police, firefighters, parks, and local roads. I don't see that changing. But I do support toll roads. All of the toll roads I've been on in CA are better maintained, traffic is smoother, etc. And with lots of them, the costs would remain very low and reasonable. That way those who use it pay for it, and those who don't do not. As far as a postal service, there would no longer be a monopoly. You could choose your postal service and arrange payments with them. My guess is some would offer a monthly fee, some would have postage meters, etc. and all would be faster, cheaper, and more efficient.

There are many non-profits that are not affiliated with any religion. And those are the only ones I personally donate to. More would crop up with government out of the picture. But if I'm starving and cold and someone says I can have a hot meal, a shower, and a place to sleep in exchange for hearing thier religious pitch, I might go for it.

As far as economics are concerned, mine are extremely sound. Sadly many Americans don't understand the concept of inflation. They look at politicians on television pointing to higher prices as though THAT were inflation. The politicians promise to fight politician, but THEY are the cause of it. All the government would have to do to stop inflation is turn off the printing presses, cut the unconstitutional parts of government, and back our money with something of value instead of empty promises by government. We'd eliminate the illegal federal reserve system entirely.

Tariffs are a fee paid for the priviledge of selling foreign goods in America. In most cases, labor in other nations is far cheaper (thanks to inflation caused by politicians) so the fee is negligable for those importing the goods and they still have a chance to compete fairly. Do these things have an economic impact? Unfortuantely yes. This is a non-direct hidden tax on consumers because the cost is passed on by those importing the goods onto them in the form of higher prices. Not necessarily higher than the goods made in America, but higher than they might have been otherwise. Income taxes aren't as much about economic impact as social impact. We each own our own bodies, minds, and labor. And nobody has a claim on the fruits of our labor but ourselves. To take it by force is theft and slavery. Some would argue that you get something back for the money that's taken so it's somehow not theft but of course they are wrong.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your watch, and then I give you money before leaving, you have still been robbed. And even if I stupidly give you more money than the watch is worth, you have still been robbed.

So they are theft, and do have an economic impact (we haven't even gone into the international value of the dollar or the impact to American trade overseas of competing tariffs)...

...but are acceptable because they do not have as deeply a social impact.

Now, what was your complaint against the Georgists again?

My complaint against Georgists is that they are socialists who think they are entitled to something for nothing. They deny that land can be owned. They might as well deny that gravity exists.

I would like to know how exactly you are qualified to judge your economics as extremely sound. They have merit but they are by no distance bulletproof, do you think you're years ahead of the entire economic world?

I work with economists, financial analysts and traders on a daily basis. What you are suggesting would cause nothing short of economic chaos, particularly the idea of abolishing reserves, how do you propose to exercise anywhere near the level of economic finesse exercised by central banks these days (which is responsible, along with a bit of luck for unparalleled economic stability) without basic tools. God knows the only reason Japan is finally crawling out of the hole is due to effective monetary policy of printing money and filling their coffers with foreign currency.

Judging by your posts and discourse I'd say you have a fairly solid understanding of rudimentry economic concepts and theory but little or no understanding of how the international financial system works on a day-to-day basis.

Economics is a fairly easy topic. The problem is you get economists, and other people trying to make it more complicated than it really is.

No Federal Reserve + Fiat Based Currency = No Inflation + Economic Stability

The only stability we've gotten from the Federal Reserve is our money steadily becoming worth less and less.

tehehehehehehehehhahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

God you're a gem. Send that one off to Alan Greenspan, I'm sure the revelation that economics is quite so infantile in complexity and solutions so obvious will change his thinking entirely.

Let me revise.

Judging by your posts and discourse I'd say you have a poor and most likely deeply flawed understanding of rudimentry economic concepts and theory but little or no understanding of how the international financial system works on a day-to-day basis as well as little or no understanding of economic history.

I don't care what your opinion is of me. My knowledge of how economics works is very solid. And economics don't change when dealing internationally.

When you've got something to back your money, your money is worth something (fiat based currency). When you print more money than you have of something to back it up, money is worth less. It doesn't take a brain surgeon.

The Federal Reserve is an illegal organization in the first place and so was the Federal Reserve Act. The Constitution says that ONLY government may make money. And common sense dictates that money be worth something whether it be gold, oil, or some other commodity.

Judging by your posts, you are someone who barely knows economics but who thinks themselves above others because they know a few buzzwords and formulas that do nothing but hide what's really happening. The Federal Reserve is totally unnecessary and those who think it is, don't know shit about economics. That means you, Alan Greenspan, and anyone else who fits the description.

I'll stick with Nobel Prize winning economists like James Buchanan, Milton Friedman Friedrich Hayek, and Vernon Smith thanks.

That's nice. You go tell the fairies how Federal Reserve is illegal and if everyone stops printing money the world will exist in perfect economic peace and I'll go back to working in the real world with real money on real markets and all the complexities involved in doing so.

One final question, mostly out of morbid curiosity, do you actually think there is no different between macro and micro economics?

Getting back to the how-does-Elspode's-son-live hypothetical...

(Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these steps: )

So, in your ideal world, beyond the actual goods-and-services charities, like a meal and a place to sleep for the night, would there be straight-up money charities? It sounds like his son is capable of living on his own, he just can't work at a capacity to make enough money to live. BUT... if there are charities where you can just get a check, what's to stop those who want to from collecting such a check from EVERY charity?

Right now, because there's really only one place to go and get money directly, you can't collect more than once unless you start stealing Social Security numbers (don't get me wrong, I think Social Security is a scam, I'm just trying to figure out how this new system would work.) Would all the new charities that pop up have to be sure to communicate with each other, make sure no one's taking $300 a month or whatever from all of them? I think charities that gave actual money would soon disappear.

So let's say, instead, the charities won't give you money directly, but they'll pay your landlord directly. What's to stop the landlord from collecting multiple times and giving kickbacks to the person living there?

So where does that leave Elspode's son? He would have to rely on someone providing him with all his goods-and-services directly, since in theory there's no advantage to having them duplicated. Ok, so effectively, he'd have to live in a "home" where everything would be taken care of for him.

But a lot of people simply couldn't live like that. Would someone with Multiple Sclerosis have to live in a dorm with a bunch of people with Down's Syndrome, just because his muscles wouldn't enable him to work more than part-time? A lot of folks would consider it degrading, both being lumped in with people with all sorts of disabilities, as well as giving up so much independence when they really only need a little help.

If all direct payments for people on Social Security were removed, you'd have to have a big shift in how the benefits of charity were realized. If you were put in charge of an extremely large non-profit charity group, that could cover a lot of different needs, how would you structure it?

I'll PM ya in a bit. :)

Really? I thought people give less because...they just.don't.want to contribute.

Quote:

If government today ended all of these programs and people could keep all of what they earn, non-profit charities would get donations through the roof.

You'd better hope they do. Misers would still exist, so donations would probably not go up THAT much....

At any rate, I'm still wondering how I'm stealing money that I put in the kitty for me to collect on anyway?

*irony: I just received my SSDI check today and put it in the bank, and no one is about to take that money away from me, or else I'll fucking stab them in the eyeball with a heated needle...point blank, end of story* :rar:

I have been avoiding this discussion as a pointless wate of time, but I guess I’m feeling self destructive today. How to set aside my feelings of rage and attempt to gain understanding? Well, I’ll practice on you guys, but I’ll say at the outset that I’m pessimistic about by ability to reach anyone.

I’ll start with the question of poverty first. For the sake of this discussion, lets set aside the percieved or real situation of welfare mom’s or illegal immigrants who come across the border solely to live at the US government’s expense. I’ll write merely of the plight of the disabled – a plight which I know intimately since I am only just now recovering from a long term disability myself. I am further going to limit my discussion to people who did not have private disability insurance at the onset of their disabling condition or become disabled due to an injury that was covered under workman’s comp.

There are about 7.5 million disabled Americans who fall under the criteria I listed above. Anyone who wishes to check this for themselves can start with the National Center for Disability Statistics http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/main.php?name=publications
These 7.5 million have incomes of less than $6,000 a year (There are far more than 7.5 disabled Americans, by the way. A significant presentage of these live in poverty. I’m talking only about those who live BELOW the poverty line here).

I have experienced the temporary poverty brought on by college expenses and youthful flings of adventure. I’ve eaten bean loaf and never turned the thermostat above 55 degrees because I had to buy text books. My car has broken down thousands of miles from home and I’ve had my money and passport stolen in Mexico and had to hitch hike back to the States. There were periods in my life when my income derived solely from a minimum wage job and I drove my car mostly on gas fumes and prayed for long down hill coasts. These things were trivial compared to what I experienced as a disabled individual without private insurance in the US today.

The very worst part was the despair. I knew I could get back on my feet with medical help, but there was NO medical help, just the occasional band aid here and there. I wanted to work, but I couldn’t. Time after time my neurological impairments caused employers to fire me from even the most menial jobs. After a while I lost all hope along with everything else. I went through every penny I had saved or invested, sold off every last thing I owned of any value in my bitter struggle to survive. When all my resources were exhausted I found myself out on the streets and I ended up camping on National Forest land for three months until I was able to find shelter indoors. I had food stamps but they only give you enough to buy your ramen and rice and beans for 3 weeks of the month. The final week of the month I went hungry unless somebody gave me the $3.00 to drive from my camp site to the nearest food bank in a town 30 miles from my camp. As a woman alone, I chose this isolation for reasons of personal safety. I figured my survival odds were higher than on the pavement of the urban area where I had been living. I didn’t have the money to buy a full month’s prescription of the expensive neurological meds I had been prescribed. I would run out of these at the end of each month as well, and be rendered almost incapable of functioning.

Each time I made the drive to the food bank I became an unwilling enemy of the state because I could not afford to insure my car of keep its plates current. In my state the penalty for driving without insurance is anywhere from 30 days to a year in jail. Sometimes I used to wonder if I wouldn’t be better off if I got pulled over because in jail I’d at least have shelter and a consistent (if not very good) supply of food. Despite the allure of jail, I lived in terror of being pulled over by the cops every time I made one of these survival runs.

The only source of distraction I had during this period was my car radio. In the isolated area I was camped in I was able to pick up a single radio station – a country/western one – that’s it. Even that I couldn’t listen to often for fear of running my car radio down. Every penny I had went to buying my meds. I had no choice because my neurological functioning deteriorated so much without them. I mean EVERY penny, too. I had no money for so much as an envelope and a stamp; no money for items of personal hygeine. If it didn’t come in my food bank box, I did without it. And always the despair, the despair, knowing that with proper medical evaluation and treatment I could do some sort of work again and knowing that without it I was doomed to a life spent living out of my car.

I waited 5 years to get medical assistance from this country. 5 long years, 4 of which I probably could have been a productive citizen again, standing on my own two feet just like I always had. Instead, I was in effect consigned to a human garbage heap while my health went steadily downhill for lack of proper medical care. My recovery has been made consiberably more complicated thanks to this long delay. I am not alone. My story has 7 .5 million variations but the people who could tell them lack the ability to be heard and, more importantly, the belief that anyone really cares to listen.

The disabled of this country are even more handicapped by the open prejudice they all too often encounter. People dismiss us as lazy druggies living off the government tit for lack of will to do better. We are all a bunch of shiftless cons in some people’s eyes. Let me tell you. There is NO government tit. Radar himself states this:
“Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits” Whatever the government does with this money, almost none of it is going to the needy disabled and charities are NOT taking up the slack.

Radar is espousing Libertarian beliefs with all the sunny innocence of a child. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a moment that Americans would take up the slack by an onslaught of charitable giving if their tax burden was taken away. For one thing most Americans find it incomprehensible that people could be reduced to such desperate circumstances in the good old US of A. For another, under libertarian anarchy people would remain largely uneducated about these and other issues. There would be no public libraries or school systems. The wealthy would give their children a good education. Everyone else would home school their children or forget about the whole thing entirely. On top of that, people would be too busy arming themselves to the teeth without police or fire protection. The disabled would be the last thing they thought about.

Radar advocates an end to all government services because he resents paying taxes. This is the real world, not some utopia. If the libertarians would put down their copies of Ayn Rand long enough to look out their windows, they might realize this. OK now, go ahead and attack me. I may respond or I may not. I’m feeling very tired.

Not to get off topic, but this reminded me a bit of when I started dialysis. I had to go to a clinic three times a week, and sit among older, more sickly people...people who were almost near death in some cases. This was not a comfortable situation for me for the last thing I wanted to think about was death during my early 30s. Thank goodness for peritoneal dialysis (where you can do the treatments at home, and on your own).

PS I just now looked at my post above and see any number of grammatical and spelling errors. My brain is still not hitting on all 6 cylinders, OK? No need for anyone to point this out to me. I may make spelling mistakes but this doesn't detract from either the reality or validity of what I describe.

Shout AMEN! I've heard that myself a number of times. And I tell anyone who thinks that of me that they are a pile of rancid dogshit and to go fuck themselves with an infected dick.

It was shitty that you had to wait five long years and had to suffer like you did. NO ONE should have to go through such crap. You could have died for fuck's sake!!!!

Quote:

Let me tell you. There is NO government tit. Radar himself states this: “Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits” Whatever the government does with this money, almost none of it is going to the needy disabled and charities are NOT taking up the slack. Radar is espousing Libertarian beliefs with all the sunny innocence of a child. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a moment that Americans would take up the slack by an onslaught of charitable giving if their tax burden was taken away.

Neither do I. Think about it: suddenly, Americans can keep every single dime that they work for?? Well shit! "Hey honey, let's go on that vacation we've been dreaming about." "Wow, now we can get that luxury item that we've been saving up for!!" "How about we get that expensive bike that Johnny's been asking us about for ages?" Please! Reality check folks: as it stands now, people pick and choose which charities they want to donate to, and there are plenty that need money and don't get it.

Quote:

For one thing most Americans find it incomprehensible that people could be reduced to such desperate circumstances in the good old US of A. For another, under libertarian anarchy people would remain largely uneducated about these and other issues. There would be no public libraries or school systems. The wealthy would give their children a good education. Everyone else would home school their children or forget about the whole thing entirely. On top of that, people would be too busy arming themselves to the teeth without police or fire protection. The disabled would be the last thing they thought about.

*standing ovation*

Quote:

Radar advocates an end to all government services because he resents paying taxes. This is the real world, not some utopia. If the libertarians would put down their copies of Ayn Rand long enough to look out their windows, they might realize this. OK now, go ahead and attack me. I may respond or I may not. I’m feeling very tired.

Don't even sweat it. The world he's taking about won't even begin to happen in our lifetimes anyway. We're all living on borrowed time...who has time to wait for change? (at least, for THAT kind of change??)

Chronic illness has opened my eyes to a lot of things, and most of them are not so pretty. :mad:

If your own grammatical errors bother you then the edit button is your friend, if not then let them be. It's only really a problem if they can't be deciphered.

Yep, and I didn't even notice any, because the message came through louder than and errors.

You wish it was a fairy tale. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 gives ONLY the U.S. Government the legal authority to make money and in Section 10, clause 1 the Constitution even goes further to prevent the states or anyone else from making money.

And I'll go on agreeing with those Nobel Prize winning economists who agree with what I'm saying and who would laugh at you.

Fundamentally, all economics are the same.

The government taking so much there isn't enough left over to "take up the slack". With government gone and not taking the vast majority of money for charity, there wouldn't be any slack. And even when Americans are forced to work two jobs...one to pay the taxes...and the other to pay the bills, they still give generously to charities in America and abroad.

I am not espousing beliefs, I'm espousing facts. You are free to be a pessimist all you like. But nobody's needs regardless of how badly off they are, entitle them to rob others and no amount of rationalization will turn income taxes into anything but theft and slavery. Do you think because you are handicapped, you are entitled to rob others?

That's laughable. First off with very few exceptions, libertarians are not anarchists. They advocate a small government that does only what it is allowed to do in the Constitution and nothing else. Smaller government = more freedom. Second, we'd have superior school systems that even poor families could attend, and privately owned libraries that were available to the public or public libraries that are funded locally instead of federally.

Put down the crack pipe before you burn your lip. You start off by saying the wealthy would have a good education and the poor would be home schooled. Home-schooled kids perform better than those educated in private and in public schools. Watch the national spelling bee, geography bee, etc. so even if your false world were true, those who were home schooled would have a good education. But the truth is we'd have more schools with better teachers that even the poorest family could attend because they would be cheaper, and because companies would choose to use their tax money to send kids to school instead of sending it to the government. All kids of all income levels would have access to a far better education than the failed and worthless system currently in place, but kids wouldn't be COMPELLED to go by force. Libertarians certainly support anyone's right to home school their children without government oversight.

And the most ludicrous statement you've made is the one painting a post apocalyptic frenzy of people running through stores grabbing guns to defend themselves against the onslaught of marauding bandits. What a crock of shit. Apparently you think before the invention of income taxes we didn't have roads, libraries, a post office, police, or firefighters and the streets were full of people who would shoot you just as soon as look at you. But in reality (something you don't seem to know much about) crime was far lower before income taxes, education was better, and people had more freedom. For the record, I have no problem with people buying as many guns of any type they choose with any kind of ammo.

Your attempts to paint a libertarian America as a lawless America won't fly here chief so try selling that shit to someone else.

No, I advocate an end to all unconstitutional government programs because they are illegal, and they are funded with stolen money. It's theft. You seem to think there is something wrong with someone resenting a person who is robbing them at the point of a gun. Your values are completely out of whack. You think the thief should be respected instead of resented, and there is something wrong with the person who dislikes being robbed or seeing others be robbed.

Your type are hilarious. You attempt to rationalize your desire to rob others. You think that if someone is against the government educating people poorly with stolen money, they are against people getting an education. You think if someone is against the government helping out the needy, they are against charity. I suppose you think if someone is against the government using stolen money to feed people, they are against eating.

That's funny coming from you. Libertarians are the only people who don't believe in utopia. Libertarians are the only one offering real solutions that work in the real world right now. Not some fantasy where people are happy to be robbed and the government is actually helping people.

I haven't attacked you, I've responded to your offensive diatribe promoting theft and attacked your warped value system….ok, I attacked you a little bit, but you deserved it. :) But it's ok, go ahead and continue your martyr bit. You're so good at it.

What's to stop someone from taking a chainsaw to every baby they see on the street? A conscience. But some might be unscroupulous. Do you think there aren't people who get away with that kind of stuff right now using the current system?

As far as I am concerned, charities are there to help people help themselves. I would imagine she would have to provide some things for her son. And what makes you think businesses and people with lots of money since they aren't being robbed anymore won't give to a charity that does medical research, and builds large homes where parents can live with their kids like the Ronald McDonald house charities?

A person would be free to approach as many charities as they like if they think they could get more assistance in living the lifestyle they wanted, but help wouldn't and shouldn't be guaranteed because nothing entitles you to charity.

The America I'm talking about was a reality for more than 100 years and it will be again.

Well fundamentally, all languages are the same too, they consist of blocks that carry meaning. This does not however mean I can speak Russian because I speak English. You largely sidestepped my question.

There are some not-so-great people in social services, ones who have been in it too long, who are burned out, and who do just plain suck.

However, that is not true of the majority.

Actually, the ones who burn out (especially early) are the ones who DO care about their clients and truly bust their asses on their clients behalf.

I can assure you, radar, that I know a lot more case managers and direct care staff than you do ... from my own and other agencies.

Your "assessment" is without merit.

People who truly don't care can't do this kind of work.

Actually I didn't sidestep the question, I've said that all economics are the same. It's funny that you should use the different language analogy though because that's all the difference between macro and micro economics....the language associated with it. Economics are the same whether you're handling your family budget or the budget for an huge international conglomerate.

I have had to wait in government lines and know of what I speak. I couldn't believe the rudeness and gall of some of the bureaucrats who are my civil servants.

But it's just great that the people who are case workers in your area are so caring. Perhaps they'd do the same job well in the private charity arena with money given in good will rather than that stolen from people.

"But in reality (something you don't seem to know much about) crime was far lower before income taxes, education was better, and people had more freedom."

Class, please give a brief one page analysis of the population size and composition in the United States in the 19th versus 21st centuries. Extra credit: Discuss civil liberties in the two times.

You know, one reason why Ayn Rand could write as she did was because she was a Russian with little grounding in the American experience or American history. Presumably you don’t have the same excuse, Mr. Reality, I mean Radar. Yeah, the US and every other country in the world could get away with all sorts of things in the 19th century, including the abuse of personal liberties of which slavery is only the most obvious example. And if I go along with your theory that life was so much better in 19th century America before income taxes with no other economic or sociological factors taken into account, then I get to say stuff like “Well, you see, when they didn’t have income taxes, they had slaves. QED!” It makes as much of a logical argument as you do.

I want to see your statistics on literacy rates in the 1850’s versus the 1950’s. I want to see your analyses of the crime rate and personal safety, especially that of black Americans. I want you to give concrete examples of how people like child factory workers and slaves had more personal freedoms. If you are going to make such a statement, I want you to back it up with solid evidence, not rhetoric. When you have proved to me what a great place 19th century America was, I want you to prove that this was directly the result of no income taxes. I want hard facts and the use of logic in your conclusions.

You bet I cherish my right to keep and bear arms. I’ll need weapons in the case of any potential libertarian take-over. As a matter of fact, let the Libertarians and all those who espouse similar beliefs set up their own state or their own area of anarchy – however they would define it. Since we all live in the REAL world, I’m sure the good people of say, New Jersey or New Mexico would happily cede a portion of their state to the Libertarians since everyone is so disposed to be in a frenzy of charitable giving. And since the Libertarians are opposed to government handouts, we’ll even let them pay fair market value for their little bit of New Jersey. The sole stipulation will be that they leave for their new territory and never come back. I for one am sick and tired of having to engage with the libertarian voice in matters of national dialog. Bottom line, you don’t WANT a nation, so why don’t you retire from the scene and leave the rest of us in peace?

Go live in your “Libertaria” with no public schools or libraries or system of highways. No public health facilities or police protection or national mail distribution. These things should be no problem in the REAL world, right? There will be no tariffs, so anything and everything will flow freely both ways across their borders. Except people out – you’ve all signed an agreement, remember?

After five years of this experiment with everyone building their own roads and hiring their own thugs to protect them, sending their children to school while the children of the working class be damned (just how many of the working class will sign on for “Libertaria,” anyhow? The American worker is not as dumb as he may look), just how strong a border patrol will the US have to have to keep you crack pots from coming back in to the system you so despise? The current problem on our border with Mexico would pale by comparison. But its OK, Radar, I promise you that in such an event we’ll show you all the sympathy and compassion you have shown for the poor and disabled of your former country. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you go. After all, “America – love it or leave it!” Right?

“I suppose you think if someone is against the government using stolen money to feed people, they are against eating.”

Frankly, if that’s the only way people can be fed, then so be it. There’s a reason why Robin Hood became a cultural icon. By the way, they didn’t have income taxes back in Robin’s time, so why wasn’t he a bit merrier about the whole thing?

I'd love to hear what they say about you.:haha:

DITTO! ;)

Damn I started a shit storm !!!!!
Some body get Radar a cork for his mouth so it will quit raining shit !!!!

Radar, some kids have parents that are dumber than blocks of wood. Their children wouldn't learn to read if it was not for public education obligating those parents to take their children to school. Even then, these kids struggle because at home, education is not given any respect. Your brand of crazy would give those parents the freedom to give their children NO education whatsoever. That doesn't fly in my book, even if I have to pay a tax to insure the system is in place to guarantee education is available to everyone. You want to home school or private school, fine, but there has to be a way to insure that ALL children get educated. Here we can argue if the childless should have to pay into this, but that does not change the fact that this should exist even if only parents were obligated to pay into it.

Then we have the issue the disabled, the sick, the elderly. The government (if it worked properly), is a safety net for these people. Your brand of crazy would say these people are fucked if they have no insurance or family. That doesn't fly in my book, even if I have to pay a tax to insure the system is in place to provide a safety net for those who need it. And this should not be an optional charity donation. Everyone runs the risk of falling into an illness where the cost to get out is insurmountable, so everyone should pay into this safety net.


I'm not saying this bloated, bureaucratic mess of a government is doing a great job in the above functions, but a more ideal government would provide these functions efficiently.

No, no, no!!! This is great.

I'm making popcorn!!

GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY THREAD!!!

You bastards....last damn thread I start for you ingrates...I'm taking my ball and going home.

There is a fine, old, established cellar tradition of tread piracy.

Taxation and entitlements just happen to be a certain bull named Radar's red flag.

Well, there goes blue ball(s):worried:

Whenever real change is necessary, one or two generations have to take it in the ass as payment for the following generations.

The trick is convincing those generations to bend over for it.

You also have to be sure that the price doesn't put the following generations so far back that they can't recover.

Er, might I ask what change you are referring to? (I always like to know the reason when someone walks up and wants everyone to take it up the poop shoot one more time)

I was of course speaking metaphorically, but say for instance that we all quit paying taxes.

When that source of funding dried up, and it would quickly dry up, we'd lose a bunch of the money going to education (as only one example). What would happen until something took up the slack?

We'd take it up the poop shoot as one of the sevices that, while they do suck, fills a necessary role is gone and then we end up with a generation of semi to non-literate, unskilled children to take up our banner into the next millenium.

Edit: grammatical issue corrected

So how about some historical citation about how the disabled or handicapped were better off before big Federal government?

And I disagree that people will eagerly rush to do more charitable giving if they aren't taxed. We may be generous, but are we consistent? And will anyone distribute relief funds without hanging some sort of philosophical or theological baggage on it?

No one gives something for nothing now, I don't see how a lack of taxes is going to change that.

Now I'm a little more awake I feel I am going to have to call you on your dated theory. Doing otherwise I'm simply leaving the possability that others will fall from your simplistic understanding of economic texts that some feel were made a little to accessaible for those with not enough background.

What you are espousing is a very narrow view of an economic school of thought called monetarism that developed initially as opposition to Keynesian policies of demand management. This of course goes back further into older debates (Mercantilism vs Classical Economics in particular) but that's not relevant here. Of course even Friedman understood that the supply of money had to grow a little each year in line with the economy otherwise you get ickyicky deflation like Japan.

The theory goes that if you do that, market forces will solve pretty much everything else. Nice idea. Pity it never worked and certainly doesn't today. It was very trendy for a while, particularly around the early 1980s resulting in overanalyisis of every new money-supply stat for intel of interest rates movements.

The problem with this theory is relies on the basis that the relationship between money supply, nominal GDP and therefore inflation is stable. This is simply not the case in the real world. Velocity of circulation can simply change too rapidly and this can have a significant impact on the way money supply affects prices and output making it a very hamfisted approach.

There is a good reason central banks the world over dropped this policy in favor of simply setting target rates of inflation.

You would be well advised to look up more recent comments by Friedman in particular who admitted in 2003 that targeting money supply had not been a success. In particular:

'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).

I can understand how you became attached to the passion of Friedman in particular but that's no excuse for expousing economic theory from the 70s, let's keep retro to flares thanks.

(edited for typos and clarification/extension of a couple of points)

Wow, I didn't check this thread all day yesterday and today, and man a lot of stuff went down. I am enjoying the exchange on this thread a great deal.
I just want to point out one little insignificant detail.

The Postal System is a self funded entity of the government. They take no tax or government money of any kind, and have been that way for a number of years now. While they don't get any money from the government they still have to ask congress if they want to raise the cost of stamps. In 2002 the Postal System went into the red with their finances. They asked congress for money to help them out of the red, and were turned down. They then asked congress if they could raise the cost of stamps a few cents to help them out of the red. Congress told them to reorganize there budget, because there would be no raise on the cost of stamps.

Like I said, an insignificant detail, but I just wanted to point out that the Postal System does not need government money to function.

Remember the names of these people who disagree with you Radar: they are called voters and governing them without their consent is the worst foul possible in politics.

JAAGUAR! JAAGUAR! JAAGUAR! (Cheering loudly and jumping to her feet with arms over head, applauding wildly)

Thank you for the expert rebuttal of Libertarian economic so-called thought.

And to the poster who pointed out the way in which the postal service actually works these days, its not a minor point. If one is going to debate an issue, one better get the facts straight from the outset in order to make rational statements and conclusions.

I would also like to note that Radar is dead wrong about the funding of your local public library. As a former professional librarian I can state for a fact that public libraries are funded almost exclusively by the communities they serve. The amount they get from the Federal government is negligible. When a public library feels the need to increase the size of its collection or build a branch to serve a growing area of the community, the library board has to put the added expenditure to a vote of the people. If the community votes to tax itself for library services, it gets them. If not, it doesn't.

Libraries are a wonderful example of representative democracy at its finest. Go down and check yours out. The books on its shelves YOU paid for (if you want more, vote in an increase in the library's budget). YOU paid for the public internet service the library offers, YOU pay the salary of the person at the desk. The Feds don't. If you got a beef, you can go talk to the director or board yourself. YOU and every other voter in your town directly approved the existence of this building with all its books and tapes and videos and CD's. The public library is a far cry from government theft. If voters at the local level didn't approve it, it wouldn't be there.

Get your facts straight, Radar.

:beer: marichiko ;)

I should point out I'm not formally trained in Economics (to any degree of completion anyway), my experience is largely practical with most of the deeper theory coming later. For me this kind of theory is useful insofar as it helps me understand the logic of the day behind the moves and shakes of central banks.

I always assumed library funding was federal. I'm now wondering what it is in Australia (or Switzerland for that matter).

From exhibit A here it appears libertarians main platform is recycling outdated grandiose ideas that have no place in the real world as a moral platform.

I dug out some old textbooks on Keynes and others out of curiousity about a couple of points to do with this and I found this gem from Keynes himself:

"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences are usually slaves of some defunct economist"

Need I say more?

Well after we ALL are dead. You honestly think that the US government is suddenly NOW, after all this time having such power, is going to give that up??? Please. They are drunk with the power that they hold, and no one is going to "make" them give that up.

I have other things to worry about than to dream that this country is going to change THAT dramatically. :rolleyes:

*STANDING OVATION GODDAMNIT!!!* :beer:

My God, I was nearly screaming when I read this (not in a bad way). I get so tired of his temper tantrums about how this country should be run, knowing that it's not going to happen anytime soon, and certainly, not THAT many people would agree to it. Hell, as many times as I been told to "go back to Africa", why doesn't he just leave and create his OWN goddamned land, since this land isn't "good enough", or whatever the fuck. :rolleyes: Motherfuckdamnittohell already! {/rant} Ok, I'm done now. ;)

*applause*

That's an awesome statement UT (and perhaps a brilliant sig line as well). :thumb:

Motherfuckdamnittohell already!
 

You OK now LadySyc??

You do have a way with words. :)

Re: Motherfuckdamnittohell already!
 

:haha: Yeah, I'm cool now. Just letting off a bit of steam.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program. :D

why doesn't he just leave and create his OWN goddamned land, since this land isn't "good enough", or whatever the fuck.

Actually, some national Libertarian organization (I forget which one) sort of decided to do just that. They chose New Hampshire, because it's the state with the laws already most closely matching their goals, and also because the population is small enough that several thousand people of a like mindset moving in could genuinely affect things.

Thousands have already moved, and around ten thousand have pledged to do so, IIRC.

You're referring to The Free State Project.

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to New Hampshire, where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

These people seem a little more reasonable than Radar though, on the surface at least.

My facts are straight. I was the one who said we DID have public libraries before income taxes and I said they were funded locally. Pay attention.

That's very apparent from your completely erroneous and backward critique of Nobel prize winning economists whose shadows you wouldn't be worthy to stand in and whose theories are as fresh today as the day they were written. Instead you go with the status quo which has been failing for decades.

You are genuinely insane. I don't mean that facetiously. Libertarians don't promote anarchy. Although it might seem that way to a statist who wants to benefit from robbery.

Sorry, but you don't live in the real world. You live in a fantasy world and don't have a grasp on reality.

You're sick and tired because you will always look stupid compared to libertarians. It must make you sick and tired to be proven wrong constantly. It must make you sick and tired to know that libertarians have always had real world solutions that actually work when you are promoting everything wrong in the world.

Libertarians DO want a nation! We want the nation our founders fought and died to give us. We want the freedom, liberty, and justice that was stolen from us by the likes of YOU. If you don't want the freedom we are promoting, feel free to pack your bags and move to one of the failing socialist nations where they have so-called "free healthcare" like Canada that actually costs more than American healthcare.

Wow, you genuinely don't know shit about libertarianism (along with most other things). And knock off your lame ass bullshit of "libertaria". Libertarians DO NOT require or believe in utopia. People like you believe in utopia. You use false sayings like "free education" or "free healthcare". You live in a utopian fantasy where nobody minds being robbed. Well it's about time you woke up and took a look at the real world. Libertarians would have plenty of mail distribution of superior quality when compared to the USPS, a far better highway system, and better libraries. STOP TELLING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES TO THE CONTRARY!!!

You think if we don't want government to do something, that we won't have it at all. How typical of a statist. If you love nanny states so much, move to Vietnam or Cuba.

Now you've gone off the deep end. I can't even figure out what the hell you're talking about. Did this happen in one of your drug induced hallucinations? What the hell agreement are you talking about?

Put down the crack pipe and step away from it slowly. After 5 years of people having superior roads, more professional police, better schools for people of every class, more jobs, financial prosperity, and freedom, people all over the world will be clamoring to have a taste of the liberty, freedom, and opportunity offered in this country. The working class will be doing far better than they are now. And our borders would be open to all who would want to come to live and work here and to contribute just as they were when our nation was created. Immigrants created this country and made it the best on earth.

I've shown FAR MORE sympathy, compassion, and understanding to the plight of the elderly, disabled, and poor than you ever have. I am offering a system in which they will have better healthcare, more assistance than they have now, and more freedom for all Americans. I didn't say America love it or leave it, but America WILL return to a Constitutional republic during my lifetime even if it requires a bloody revolution to make it happen. If you think you are owed something just because you have a perceived need you think you have, you won't be happy living in a free country. You are free to stay in America as long as you like as long as you don't expect to reach into someone else's pocket to take what they've earned by force. You're free to ask for help, but not to help yourself to someone else's hard earned income at the point of a gun. If you don't like that, I say TOO FUCKING BAD, GET OVER IT.

Great minds think alike, and this quote shows that the opposite is also true.

MY country was already created. The United States of America is it. The bottom line is you can learn to live with freedom and personal responsibility in America or learn to live elsewhere. It's that simple.

Actually we had some here for a while. They were attacking Radar for not being Libertarian enough. It sounded like the Catholic/Protestant thing in Ireland, to me. They were the same only different and couldn't agree.
I realize what Radar's preaching isn't going to happen, but maybe if enough people are convinced it's the right way to go, they'll press their Congressmen. The pols aren't giving up real power but they might slack off on some issues to win votes.

*shudders*

I love it when Libertarians start foaming at the mouth. Try this one on for size, buy guy. I worked from the age of 16, paid social security and other taxes from the age of 18 - social security alone a good 1/3 of my hard earned money. I did this for over 25 years, then fought for 5 years to have the bastards return to me what was rightfully mine in the form of social security disability insurance payments. I have statements from 6 doctors and a Federal Judge about my "percieved" needs. If you or any other son of a bitch wants to come take MY money away from me, I'll see you in hell first. My SSDI comes from MY payments over a lifetime of solid productive work, and how dare you or any other Libertarian crazy attempt to deprive me of it? Come and try, Sweet Pea, I dare you!

Oh yeah, almost forgot:

You can't have it both ways, Radar. In one post you state one thing and then when you get called on it, you back pedal and state something else. Just WHO is on crack around here, anyhow? Personally, I never tried the stuff, but you seem to be enjoying SOMETHING that effects your thought. At least MY meds have helped with my memory problems, maybe YOU should try them.

Who says you can't have locally funded public libraries and privately funded libraries also?

No problem. I will take away the all of Social Security, and you'll have to suffer through having improved benefits tough guy. Now don't make me come over there and kick over your wheel chair.

He's such an optimist it scares me.

Hey, the more libraries, the better! God knows, the better informed our citizens, the less likely they are to vote libertarian.

Your last two sentences are priceless. I'm sure they will win the Libertarian party many voters. Wasn't it Hitler who said something about "useless eaters"?