Radar, In practice the world you describe creates an even larger chasm between the few rich and majority poor. To me, the mechanics it suggests seem to spin backwards towards ignorance, poverty and isolation. The trail of your extreeme values end at selfishness and greed at all costs. I believe we do need each other, that workings of daily life are bigger than my person, and there is value to the whole in providing assistance to others. (Its defining and deciding the assistance that is the issue, not the complete scraping of it.)

Its interesting that your entire position and mission rests on the ideal of educating, uplifting the masses you deride- those poor kids you feel so much contempt for you wish them dead. Just as paved roads and firetrucks, I think the educational opportunities and health of other people's kids are my investment, and it baffles me that you cannot see the benefit in that.

Keeping what you earn, not having government tell you what you will do with your own body, and forcing government to abide by the limits on their powers does inspire a revolution. Seeing thousands upon thousands of American families broken up because the Government wants to legislate their choice of medicines, having Americans murdered, attacking every right we have, inspire a revolution. Living on your own through your own merits is just what freedom is. If you don't want it, you're unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with freedom as many Americans are.

The opposite is true. When people get all the money they earn, their children have better educations, they have more money to start up businesses, which means more jobs, goods are made better and cheaper so even the most poor people benefit from what I'm proposing and they have a better chance to stop being poor.

See the response above. And don't make the mistake of comparing military non-interventionism and isolationism. They are entirely different. I suggest we have strong ties with other countries. We should sign non-aggression treaties, and trade freely, but we should never use our military to defend any nation that is not our own and we should always remain neutral in every situation.

Wrong again. It's not selfish to keep what you earn and to spend it how you want. It's selfish to expect other people to pay for your irresponsibility at the point of a gun. Also the poor, elderly, and sick would get MORE help than they do now under my plan.

Of course there's value in helping others, but not at the point of a gun. Charity comes from the heart. And instead of having glorified DMV workers who don't care about the poor keeping 85% of the money collected to help the poor and treating them badly, why not let us voluntarily give to the charities we want to support who only need 12%-17% of the money collected for overhead, actually care about people, and get more help to those in need?

Some people ignorantly believe that if you're against the government stealing money for forced charity, you're against charity or if you're against the government stealing money for education, you're against education. Perhaps they think if I don't expect the government to feed all of us, I'm against eating.

Private enterprise is more efficient, cheaper, and better than government 100% of the time.

lol. Let me play a sad song on a violin...

:violin:

Whenever people want to steal from you in America they say, "It's for the children...". We've got to attack your rights for "the children". I say I want my children to be free, well-educated, and prosperous and what I'm proposing will give them that. It's very obvious that government funded education hasn't.

Yes, they are YOUR investment. You may invest in the education of anyone you choose. All I ask is that you don't put a gun to my head and make me pay for it. Why should someone without children be forced to pay for the education of those who CHOSE to have children? If they want to pay for it, I'd encourage them to pay to educate children. It's a very worthwhile charity. But the second you force someone to do it, it is morally wrong, and no matter how many sad pictures you paint of starving, sick, poorly educated children dying in the streets, it won't change that fact.

oops. i meant pre ww2. and, obviously i don't know enough about it to argue this point.

i'm with you on the sending foreign aid bit unless there is profit to be gained in the near future from interest on loans, or product exports. Same with the subsidized farming, too. And at least partly with you on the welfare vs. darwinistic society.

When I say that the gubment evloved as it is from neccessity, i mean that for various reasons, people have elected and voted in ways that support the systems we have today, be they humanitarian, or reaction to problems, or whatever, we found it needful to do what we did in that respect.

you say that states could pay for infrastructures soley with sales, excise and property taxes. I pay state income tax. I know that the federal government assists the states road programs at least in part, from the whole 55mph speed limit debates from years ago. And if we didn't pay income tax, wouldn't our sales tax etc just be higher?
It would be really nice if we didn't have to pay any income tax. How much is collected annually from american workers in just federal income tax? in other words, how much income would the government find itself without when you are elected *king? would your america still support a Social Security tax? how bout medicaid?



(* not being smart, just simplifiying)
i have 2 ideas for when I am king of america:

1. all businesses should be open 24 hours a day.
-this would reduce traffic problems, and creat new jobs.

2. prisoners would be treated like prisoners. hard labor. no rights. no cable. prison would be a bad place to be. really bad. maybe people would try to stay out of it then.

lumberjim: Right now, the way roads are paid for is the federal government tells the states to give them a bunch of money to pay for crap they shouldn't be doing. The states send a whole bunch of money and the government takes a huge bite and sends back a few crumbs and table scraps to the states of their own money to build roads.

As I said, all of the constitutional parts of the federal government could be paid for solely with the tariffs and excise taxes collected currently. That means the states wouldn't have to send money to the fed. They could keep their own money and pay for their own roads, make their own speed limits, etc.

States wouldn't have to raise taxes to cover these things, because they'd be getting a lot more of their own money. They could actually lower taxes and still have more money to take care of infrastructure.

Most of the money currently collected in income tax goes to pay for unconstitutional parts of government like foreign aid. Hardly any stays in America. Did you know there are more US Dollars outside of America than inside of it?

Harry Browne laid out a good plan to take care of the elderly while still allowing the young people to escape from the bankrupt pyramid scheme of Social Security. I'm paraphrasing, but he'd have us sell all government property that isn't currently being used by the government for offices, military bases, etc. and use that money to buy annuities for those already retirement age or close to it so they'd be taken care of as they were promised. Everyone else would cut their losses and prepare for their own retirement and probably do much better than those on social security.

Keep in mind also that with people keeping what they earn, they'd have a lot more money to help out those who can't take care of themselves.

We'll be in touch, Paul.

And they'll have a lot more chance to earn that $50k (or whatever the equivalent buying amount is in a cheaper state) when more companies open, more jobs open up, and goods become cheaper because people got to keep their own money and opened new businesses.

Looking forward to it. I'd love to go up against the most evil, corrupt, vile, disgusting, group of lowlifes who stand in the way of freedom on the planet....namely....YOU. Just imagine how much pure evil must be in a man who actually ran the CIA.

we cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of this statement. I will say, however, that our benefits package is great!

:D LOL :D

Hrm...ok. So what do you do for those who are collecting SSDI and are on Medicare for a disability (like myself)?

The political compass thread is here

The political compass itself is here

Harry Browne laid out a plan whereby government would sell all land and assets not currently in use for military bases, etc over a 6 year period. and the money raised would buy annuities which would pay benefits to all of those already retirement age or close to it while allowing others to cut our losses escape all together from the bankrupt pyramid scheme of social security.

Perhaps she should have explained it better, Radar: She is 34 years old and on SSDI and Medicare because she is in end-stage renal failure, unable to work full-time.