How Do I Liberate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways
 

How Do I Liberate Thee?
Let Me Count the Ways

by Harry Browne

December 15, 2003

Sunday's capture of Saddam Hussein made it a great day — a great day for empty rhetoric and meaningless posturing by politicians and journalists.

Somehow it was assumed by politicians and the press, without explanation, that Hussein's capture has vindicated the Bush administration's attack on Iraq. But from September 2002 to March 2003, George Bush said nothing about capturing Saddam Hussein. Instead, Bush talked incessantly about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's ability to attack the U.S. with them — as well as Al Qaeda camps in the Iraqi desert. How does finding Saddam Hussein make Bush's claims any more true than they were last week?

We're told that that the Iraqis can see now that Saddam Hussein isn't coming back to power — as though they couldn't figure that out for themselves with 130,000 foreign troops occupying their country.

But in the wonderland occupied by politicians and journalists, the capture of Hussein must mean that all the resisters — also known as "loyalists of the old regime" — would have no more reason to resist.

Some politicians said that if anti-war protesters had their gotten way, Hussein would be in his palace today, instead of in jail. Yes, and if the anti-war protesters had gotten their way, several hundred Americans and thousands of Iraqis would be alive today, instead of dead.

The press played its part in the celebration. Wolf Blitzer of CNN said that Hussein's capture proves to the world that "the President of the United States means business" — whatever that means.

In fact, we've known all along that George Bush means business — the business of getting reelected.

There were plenty of TV pictures of Iraqis firing AK-47s into the air. But no inquiring minds bothered to ask how everyday Iraqis could be carrying AK-47s out in the open, when the American occupiers have imposed strict gun-control edicts and are at war with resisters.

What if Saddam Hussein says that all the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction were destroyed years ago? Well, we know that George Bush believes in preemptive strikes, and he's already made one on this front. On Monday, he said of Hussein:

• He’s a liar. He’s a torturer. He’s a murderer. . . . He’s a — he’s just — he is what he is: He’s a person that was willing to destroy his country and to kill a lot of his fellow citizens. He’s a person who used weapons of mass destruction against citizens in his own country. And so it’s — he is the kind of person that is untrustworthy and I’d be very cautious about relying upon his word in any way, shape or form.

In other words, "Believe him only if he confirms what I've been telling you for the past year."

Liberation

Donald Rumsfeld said that Hussein's capture means that the Iraqis can now be free in spirit, as well as in fact.

Ah yes, liberated Iraq. It is now a free country. George Bush has liberated it.

How has Iraq been liberated? Let me count the ways . . .

• 1. The country is occupied by a foreign power.
  
  2. Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.
  
  3. Its citizens must carry ID cards.
  
  4. They must submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.
  
  5. They must be in their homes by curfew time.
  
  6. Many towns are ringed with barbed wire.
  
  7. The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves — making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common.
  
  8. Trade with some countries is banned by the occupying authorities.
  
  9. The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.
  
  10. Families are held hostage until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters — much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.
  
  11. Protests are outlawed.
  
  12. Private homes are raided or demolished — with no warning and with no due process of law.
  
  13. The occupiers have created a fiat currency and imposed it on the populace.
  
  14. Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers.

This is liberation in the NewSpeak language of politics.

Words like freedom just don't seem to mean what they used to, do they?

Once again Harry shows his contempt for history and complete lack of understanding of foreign affairs. This is the process of installing rule of law. It is temporarily and purposefully and distinctly not Democratic. The purpose of this period is to ensure that the power vacuum is not quickly replaced with another tyranny.

This is how freedom was born in Germany and Japan, similarly militaristic/collectivist countries who are now generally free and peaceful and export their productivity to the world instead of keeping it for their war machines.

By the way, why didn't that widespread AK-47 ownership -- which applied throughout Hussein's reign -- prevent tyranny in Iraq? Could it be that the standard gun argument is a little more complex than you thought?

Once again, you show your complete ignorance of history, and a desire to re-write it to suit your own agenda. Harry was absolutely historically accurate in this and the other article I posted regarding WWI & WWII. You and your ilk prove your so-called foreign affairs are nothing but war mongering and the same type of imperialistic tyrrany America was created to escape from.

Too Late. As we've all seen in Iraq.

And I'd hardly call the democratic socialistic country of Germany a free one, and neither of those countries is able to defend themselves thanks to our military interventionism and the American people are left paying the bill for it.

It most likely could have, but it didn't because the people CHOSE to follow Hussein and supported his leadership much like those who support Bush in America are supporting tyrrany.

No, it couldn't.

It's become painfully clear that you need to read a few history books, some political science books, and try to develop some common sense.

Iraq is no better off now, than they were with Saddam and America's illegal attack against Iraq wasn't to "Liberate" the Iraqi people.

So are there any countries in the world that you would regard as free?



And what lesson do you draw from that answer?

The USA used to be free but Republicans and Democrats have been attacking that freedom for decades. Even socialistic Holland and Canada are more free than America these days.

So, none?

And what lesson do you draw from that answer?

The lesson is that when you allow imperialistic military interventionism to occur because someone tells you it's for "freedom" or to "liberate" another country, there can't be freedom anywhere on earth. In order to secure freedom we must clamp down on government and ensure it never steps beyond the bounds of the Constitution and never interferes in the affairs of other nations with "foreign aid" or military interventionism.

Noting that the use of force between countries to spread one particular notion of "Freedom" is wrong,...

How would you clamp down on government?

First I'd get rid of every single part of government that isn't specifically listed in the Constitution. Some incredibly ignorant people stupidly think phrases like "general welfare" or "common defense" are vague and give the government unlimited power. Once unconstitutional things like the "homeland security" department, foreign aid, FBI, FDA, FCC, DEA, BATF, IRS, Welfare, Social Security, Federally funded education, Medicare, etc. were eliminated, our country would be safer, more prosperous, and free.

After that I'd propose a few amendments to make sure there are no further attempts to circumvent the Constitution...

ARTICLE.

All people have the right to do ANYTHING they want as long as their actions do not PHYSICALLY harm or endanger a non-consenting other or their property or prevent the equal exercise of another person's rights.


ARTICLE.

ALL people shall be treated equally under the law regardless of their age, gender, social status, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or country of origin.


ARTICLE.

NO LAWS SHALL BE WRITTEN against any consensual activity between two adults in any of the states, territories, or by the federal government.


ARTICLE.

Under no circumstances is the federal government to construe the terms "general welfare" or "common defense" to give them cart blanche to make any laws they wish or do anything they want. The Federal government may not take part in, or legislate anything that is not specifically listed in the Constitution.


ARTICLE.

Rights are natural and inalienable and the role of government does not include defining those rights or limiting them.


ARTICLE.

Gun ownership is an individual right and applies to all guns without limits on the number of guns, the type of guns, the amount or type of ammunition. Guns will no longer have serial numbers or have any oversight of the government. Nobody may keep track of who owns guns or require registration or waiting periods to get guns. Anything that prevents a person from walking into a gun store, buying a gun from someone willing to sell a gun to them, and walking out with it like he would with any other product is an infringement on the right of gun ownership.

ARTICLE.

The government may not possess any weapons that individuals may not also be able to buy.


ARTICLE.

The states entered into the union on a voluntary basis and they may leave the union if they choose without retaliation from those remaining in the union.


ARTICLE.

The United States has no authority beyond our own borders and as such is not the police of the world.


ARTICLE.

The military of the United States will only be used for the DEFENSE of America and not any foreign nation. DEFENSE will never be construed to mean America will launch a pre-emptive attack. DEFENSE will never be construed to mean OFFENSE. The military of the United States will only be large enough to defend American soil from eminent attack and will not be stationed all over the world in a show of imperialistic force and will not be used for humanitarian aid missions, to overthrow the leadership of nations that haven't attacked America, to violate the sovereignty of foreign nations, to settle disputes among other nations, or to take part in any conflict other than an attack directly against America.


ARTICLE.

ONLY Congress may declare war, and then only when America is under an immediate threat of danger. Congress may only declare war when they have disclosed indisputable proof to the American public that America is about to be attacked or is currently being attacked. War may be declared only against another nation, not against an activity or an idea (See the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror).


ARTICLE.

All forms of income-based taxation are slavery and will be abolished immediately in all states and the federal government. (Social Security, income tax, etc)


ARTICLE.

The laws of the states and the federal government bind all people who live within the borders of the United States or any of its territories unless those laws are in direct contradiction with the Constitution. If someone does not like these laws, they can vote to change them or move to another country, but if they stay, they are giving their implied consent to be governed by these laws and by the government.


ARTICLE.

The Electoral College is arcane and flawed and will henceforth be eliminated. The citizens of the United States will vote directly for their leader and a simple majority will decide the winner without going through an intermediary (middle-man).


ARTICLE.

All Military Service is forever voluntary in the United States of America and is open to all citizens regardless of their sexual preference, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or social status providing they can pass the same minimal physical standards already required of other candidates. And all people who join the military will have the same chances of being exposed to danger regardless of their sexual preference, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or social status.


ARTICLE.

Immigrants from all over the world built the United States of America and non-dangerous immigrants will always be welcomed to America without limitations.

OK, but you can't do that alone, and the masses seem pretty content with the current interpretation, so what then?

First, I don't "interpret" the Constitution. It means what it says and "the masses" are mostly stupid people who are content to get handouts because they don't realize that they are the masters of government (not the other way around), that they are entitled to keep everything they earn, and that they can make a difference.

I intend to change things peacefully within the system until it can't be done that way anymore (which is quickly approaching), and when it can't be done that way anymore, I will take up arms to defend my country against the government and forcefully return America back to the Constitutional republic we started with (althought with the new amendments in tact....at least those that were legally ratified so the income tax amendment would be toast)

Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force, but have no problem in using force to defend our rights, property, or persons against attack and that's been happening for the last 100 years.

If goverment doesn't start abiding by the rules, we have THE RIGHT to overthrow it and replace it with one that does. Those who fought in the first revolution only amounted to about 5% of the population and those in the military would hardly fire on other Americans even if ordered to do so.

OK, but since the moment you take up arms against the government, you'll be killed or jailed for the rest of your life, your own personal attitude has no bearing; as long as you don't wield enough power to actually bring about revolution, it's pretty irrelevant what you do, right?

You really have no bearing, and can cause no change, until you have enough people who agree with you that the tipping point is reached. Yes?

Enough people already do. The number of people being victimized by the US Government within our own borders is staggering and it's only getting higher. And if I take up arms against the government I'm within my rights if that government stops defending me and my rights and starts infringing upon them or attempting to limit them or define them. There are well over 5% of the population that would take part in an actual revolt against those who have usurped power from the people and are violating our rights.

Government is the servant and I, along with other citizens, are its master. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic where the rights of individuals supercede the powers of government. It's monumentally stupid to think that the apathy of many who see going against the government as futile or impossible to be people who are satisfied with the status quo.

The vast majority of Americans are not happy with what our government is doing right now in one way or another. People like me are the majority, not the other way around.

Of course, there is the other 95% to consider. They would certainly take up arms against you, eh?

If any free country such as Radar posits ever existed, it would be assailed constantly on all sides by every radical faction on the planet, seeking to overturn it for either appearing weak or being too open and liberal.

Oh...wait...that's what is already happening to the US, isn't it? Nevermind.

No. As I said, those dissatisfied with the government are in the majority and it only took 5% of the population of America to overthrow the English. The others did not take up arms against the true American patriots who were fighting for freedom just as they wouldn't now. In fact very few of those in the military right now would fire on Americans fighting for freedom and trying to make government adhere to the limits on their powers in the Constitution if ordered to do so.

It did exist, and I'm living in the same location where it existed. The country I describe was right here in America and it turns out we weren't attacked on all sides because we're neutral. Just as Switzerland hasn't been attacked even though they're surrounded by war.

What was the time frame you were thinking of as representing a free country?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I intend to change government peacefully from within the system as long as it can still be changed peacefully from within the system, but the government is quickly closing that door. I don't intend to take up arms until it's the only way to return government to its Constitutional limits. Until then I will continue to educate people and to try to bring about change peacefully and without bloodshed. So I guess the timeline is all in the hands of the government.

No, I mean, which years of the past US represent the free country you feel was free by your definition?

For the most part the US Government stuck to the Constitution for the first 100 years. I'd say things really fell apart in 1913 when the federal reserve act was enacted and the income tax amendment was fraudently added to the Constitution. But I suppose the first time the Constitution was really abused badly was in 1861 by Lincoln. He murdered thousands upon thousands of Americans and those who had left the union legally. He also created income taxes, suspended habeus corpus, etc.

OK. So to start, slavery is just a weird blip that doesn't count because it's not in the Constitution, because those people weren't considered people and therefore it's all just a re-do somehow, right?

Women didn't participate in your pet process - that's gotta be worth an asterisk in your thinking somewhere?

Trying to figure out how this plain-speaking document that protects freedom could have these gigantic holes in it. Holes so large they failed to protect the rights of the majority of people.

absolute freedom doesn't work

how could it?

You'll have the money to send them to the school of your choice, b/c you won't have to pay income tax.

Radar needs to meet my friend Reality too...

One thing I do remember from history class is that the first 100 years were the most corrupt.

Times change and the Constitution changed. All I expect is for the Government to abide by the Constitution and the limits on their powers within the Constitution. So if we forced government to start over and stick to the Constitution it would be the current Constitution minus the 16 amendment which was fraudently added.

A non-dangerous immigrant is one which doesnt' pose a danger. One that isn't a criminal, doesn't have a strong history of ties with terrorist organizations, etc. But any normal working person from another country without some sort of violent criminal past should be allowed in.

That's right. If you weren't paying income tax, you'd be able to send your children to schools 10 times better than public schools at half of the cost. You'd afford the best healthcare, have a better retirement, and have money left over to give the your favorite non-profit charities which would get more money to those in need than welfare.

If you doubt any of what I said, reality is not only your friend, you've never even met.

Yes, now you pay 1/2 of what you were paying before. And if you can't afford to send children to school on your meager earnings, perhaps you shouldn't have children.

I would have mentioned that, but it's not the truth. America still has conscription during times of war. A draft. I believe in voluntary military service, but think all citizens should do their duty voluntarily. I'd also be for using government to encourage gun ownership.

What changes do we need in the justice system other than removing laws that keep non-violent non-criminals in jail and let genuinely dangerous criminals out of jail early to make room? Once we empty the jails of non-violent drug offenders, prostitutes, and those in jail on other consensual activities, we'll have plenty of room for Billy Jo Jim Bob to stay in jail a long time when he goes on a Rampage. What do you think should be done? And you're fooling yourself if you don't think you're already paying for your kids to go to school. The only difference is in my situation, they might actually learn something which could put them ahead of you.

Then you didn't learn much in History. The last 30 years have been more corrupt than all the other years combined. Just the Bush administration has violated the Constitution more than all previous administrations combined.

Well, I suppose which decade was the "most" corrupt is a matter of opinion. But I guess my point was that there has been corruption in the U.S. government almost since the very beginning. I think your claim that the Constitution wasn't violated much until 1913 is highly unlikely. That is, if one takes your strict, fanatical view about the Constitution.

Let's go back then to the notion that no "free" country exists on the planet and that this is the fault of the US government's use of military power. Howzat again?

When all else fails, go for the personal insult. How charming and persuasive you are!

Again, you weren't reading. I am tax-exempt. I was living in a no-income tax state. Making $12 an hour. And not able to make it, even in substandard housing.

Since I wasn't paying taxes, explain how I send my kids to better than public schools at HALF the cost? I'm not paying anything now...how do you half the cost of that?


Again, you didn't read. I DON'T pay anything now.

How many people in the United States are making $24,000 or less per year? Do you have a percentage? Even if that is tax-free, that is very little to survive on, let alone pay for school, day care, healthcare, retirement and charitable donations. $12/hour is a little over $23k per year, so I was being generous with my number.

But think about that. $24,000 a year. That certainly is meager. Then consider that people who make minimum wage get around $10,500 per YEAR. Talk about meager!! So you're saying that if you make less than $24k a year you shouldn't have children??

What was that percentage of the population again? I don't think your platform is going to be popular with us "po-folk".

We had the potential to be free, but through our militarism we've lost that opportunity.

Radar gives the Constitution too much credit. Hell, by 1913 we'd already democratized Cuba.

Let's run some numbers, shall we?

Let's assume for this post that person is making $24,000 per year. Tax free. Single parent, 2 children.

Under HUD guidelines, a person or family should pay no more than 30 percent of their income for housing in order for that housing to be considered affordable.

That's $7200 a year, or $600 per month for rent.

Food (at $75 per week) is $300 per month, or $3600 per year.

We'll assume our mother has a vehicle that she pays $200 a month on +$75 a month for car insurance. (A stretch by any standard.) Add $10 a week in gas, and a jiffy lube at $20 four times a year, that's $3860 a year.

You have to clothe the children, and if you go to the thrift store and catch the sales at walmart, you can clothe your kids for $200 every school year. But lets assume you have to pay to send them to school. Radar says 1/2 price, so we'll take the going rate at a private school in Vegas (where I lived taxfree) = $500 a month x 12 months. We'll half that, to $3000 a year and assume they don't require uniforms, so we can use the "thrift store" price given. So 2 kids x 1 year half price schooling ($3000) + thrift store clothes ($200)= $6400 per year for both kids.

Let's talk about healthcare. When I was on my HMO, I was paying $210 a MONTH for myself and 2 children to be covered, and that didn't pay for co-pays on office visits or pharmacy. We'll half that, and add $1260 to our running total. This does NOT count costs for glasses, dentists, or accidents like broken limbs or stitches.

I won't even get started on daycare, and assume the older child looks after the younger child until mommy gets home.

Utilities: In a desert community or colder climate, it's around $90 a month average, assuming electric heating and cooling. Let's say heating and cooling all types (oil, kerosene, electricity, propane) average $50 a month, or $600 a year.

Telephone, if you don't have cellular, and don't make any long distance calls, will run $15 a month, or $180 a year.

We're at $23,100. I haven't included most of the other "incidentals" and expenses that we all know exist in the real world. And I was being conservative in my figures. MY costs were a hell of alot more than that in some areas, and less in others.

The average cost of living for single parent families with two children is $29,604 a year, taking income taxes out of the equation.

So, according to your standard, Radar, since 20% are below poverty, ($15,020/year) and the average cost of living ($29, 604/year) is ABOVE the average single parent income ($28,590/year), the average American should NOT have children.

Even on paper your world sucks.


I looked it up.

**Average female householder (single income female) makes $28,590 per year.

**20.3% of households in the United States are considered below the poverty line, (for a household of 3 is $15, 020 per year.) That's over 56 MILLION Americans.

Again, YOUR needs don't entitle you to reach into anyone else's pocket to pay for your children's education or anything else you think you need. What's happening right now is theft, and you support it since you're one of the theives. You are not entitled to healthcare, an education, or anything else that you didn't pay for. Maybe someone will feel generous and send your children to school, or maybe you'll do the responsible thing and adopt them to someone who is capable of taking care of them. In either case, if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. It's an irresponsible decision that you want to force other people to pay for.

You wanted to know how you'd be better off paying half of what it costs to send your kids to a public school than you are now? You wouldn't be stealing, your kids would have a superior education and might be a lot more financially secure than you seem to be, and maybe you'd deserve some respect. If you were educated, you'd probably be making more than $12/hr.

No, I'm saying if you make less than $50k/year you shouldn't even think about having children. You shouldn't have children unless you can afford to feed them, clothe them, pay for their healthcare, education, and other needs without the need for charity from government or anyone else. I'm saying if you do have children under these circumstances, you're irresponsible and if you expect other people to pay to educate, feed, clothe, etc. you or your children at the point of a gun (welfare) you are a common theif. If you are pregnant and have kids while knowing you can't afford to have them, you are doing them a disservice. Poor people should not have children, plain and simple and if they do have kids and really love them, they should to the right thing and adopt them out so they can have a decent life.

A free country is one where the government doesn't do anything to define or limit the rights of the citizens, and doesn't make any laws that prevent ANYTHING they want to do as long as their actions don't PHYSICALLY harm a non-consenting other or their property. It's a country in which the government abides by the limits on its authority and where people can go as far as their talent, drive, and wit can bring them. It's a country in which people don't look to the government to be their nanny, but rather take responsibility for their own lives.

In a free country the government wouldn't mess with the free market. In a free country your government does what you want it to do instead of what the UN or other countries want it to do. US military interventionism and foreign policy have ensured that virtually no countries are free because America bribes them, bullies them, threatens them, coerces them, cajoles, them, and otherwise pushes other countries around into adopting ignorant policies that even the people of America don't want like the zero-tolerance drug policy.

Even if you only go to 1861 when Lincoln made major violations of the Constitution that's roughly 80 years of government that mostly stuck to the Constitution.

So places like Canada and Europe would be "free" if only the US would not force them into unproductive policies?

And if their governments wouldn't practice socialism and met the other criteria. Let's look at Australia which in many ways is more free than America and in others not as free. They've got legal prostitution which is the sign of a truly civilized nation and they wanted to adopt a common-sense drug policy that gave addicts medical treatment instead of jail time. The USA threatened Australia (as America often does) to adopt a zero-tolerance drug policy or we'd use our clout at the UN to remove thier ability to grow poppies for pharmaceutical companies (billions of dollars), so they did. America gives "foreign aid" to countries like a drug dealer gives out the first hit of heroin and after they're hooked on it, America threatens to take it away if they don't do what America says to do. Does being bullied, pushed around, threatened, etc. sound free to you?

So, if the US did not practice this kind of interventionism, these other countries would still not be FARD (Free According to Radar Definition), yes?

It's not MY definition. It's the commonly accepted definition of freedom. Doing what you want without being molested by another or having your rights trampled upon.

What does free mean to you? Being robbed at the point of a gun? Having another country tell yours what to do under threat of violence or financial restrictions?

Why don't you start offering up what YOU think freedom is. You obviously seem to think America is free right now. So you must think a government that doesn't abide by limitations on its powers, that attacks civil rights instead of defending them, that starts unprovoked wars against non-threatening nations, that practices imperialistic tyrrany and terrorism under the guise of stopping terrorism, etc. is free. But hey I might be wrong.

Why don't you tell us what you think freedom is.

I'm ignoring everything in your posts that is evasion of my questions. FARD does not exist in any country on this planet, and would not even if the US did not intervene, am I correct?

Fine than I'll ignore all of your posts. If you expect me to answer your questions, and you won't answer mine, you can just fuck off.

OK look, I don't really need you to answer, because I already know your answers AND your evasions. 8-10 years ago I would have been writing them.

What I'm doing is making a point to everyone reading. Every evasion is informative. Every misdirection, every over-dramatic change of subject, every five-paragraph end-around to my simple, one-sentence question, is informative. My careful respect and your strategic disrespect. My caution in definition and your over-generalization. Your early departure of the discussion. Informative, informative, informative.

I haven't evaded a single thing. I"ve answered every question fully. It is YOU who are evading questions. I asked you questions and you evade them and then accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. I'd say that says a lot more about you than anything I've said does about me.

You make up bullshit terms like FARD and expect me to take it seriously. The freedom I describe is the freedom we once had in America and it was pissed away. You seem to think we've got freedom right now. But you refuse to say what you think freedom is.

Your tactics are weak. You want to keep me on the defensive by always being the one asking the questions, but never answering any yourself.

Now give me the same courtesy I've given you and stop evading my questions.

I don't pay taxes because the government says I don't make enough per year to tax me. I'm not on Food Stamps, although I could have been. I'm not on welfare, although I qualify. I did what I could on my own until I was forced to move to a location that was less expensive to live.

Teachers only make $16 an hour (average), about $31,000 a year. Mid-level Accountants earn an average of $45,000 a year, and Mid-level management earns about $52,000 a year.

You're saying over 68% of Americans should adopt their children out, so that the other 32% can adopt them and give them the education and lifestyle your policies would limit them to? And what if the 32% don't want those kids? Who takes care of them then under your "new Amerika"?


Edit: And by the way, I have a degree in Psychology and I'm earning another in secondary Education with a minor in foreign languages. Your assumptions only highlight the flaws in your reasoning.

Radar, you started this thread by evangelizing for your own personal philosophy. That's the context of this whole discussion.

I don't need to post my philosophy in order to show yours to be in error. My philosophy could be full of holes and yet I might locate the biggest hole in yours.

The only way to know whether your philosphy is strong is to permit any number of tests of it. You must rigorously and HONESTLY test it, personally in your own mind, and you must also accept tests of it from others.

When others see you not permitting any test of your philosophy, they will decide - with good reason - that you yourself do not test your philosophy, and therefore that it is probably not very strong.

When others see that you do not want to endure a simple, open-ended discussion with honest skeptics, but that you do want to endlessly evangelize, what do you think they assume? What would you assume?

I'm saying anyone who has children without being able to afford to give them the education, healthcare, clothing, food, shelter, etc. they need and desire is irresponsible at best and they are thieves if they expect government to force anyone else to pay for those things.

I'm all for you not paying income-based taxes. Nobody should pay them. But don't expect anyone else to pay for the education, healthcare, clothing, food, shelter, toys, etc. of your children except through some voluntary charity organization, but never through government.

I'm also flat out saying that poor people should not have children and if they do, they are irresponsible.

I'm saying that those who can't afford to pay for all the needs of their own children including education should adopt their children out to people who can afford it. This is the responsible thing to do. I don't think they should be forced to adopt their children out though. But if they don't, their children should only get the education, healthcare, etc. their parents do pay for. So I guess your kids wouldn't be very educated. Much like a person who can only earn $12/hr.

I love how you put the 'k' in America as though I were promoting some horrible authoritarian violation of your rights when it is you who want to use men with guns to make other people pay for your irresponsible decision. Freedom means you pay for what you want and don't steal from others to pay for it. Freedom and Responsibility are inseparable.

There's your mistake. If you had majored in an applied science instead of a liberal art, you might stand a chance of making actual money. I'm an engineer, as far as I'm concerned taking language and liberal art classes (I speak 3 and am working on a 4th) are for fun. You might as well major in underwater basketweaving.

A responsible person would have gone to college and finished BEFORE having children and wouldn't have them if they couldn't afford to fulfill all of their needs including paying for their educations.

Wrong, this thread started off with an articulate, well-founded, cogent article written about the situation in Iraq. You then made ignorant comments about its author. It's not a discussion about my own personal philosophy which I've examined and is solid as a rock. It's not a thread for you to question me without offering any answers of your own.

Your attempts ot keep me on the defensive are transparant. If you want to keep evading questions but expect me to answer yours, you can piss up a rope and slide down the dry side.

And who the hell are you to test my philosophy without offering a test of your own? My philosophy is well-tested, has a solid historically factual foundation, and offers the most freedom to the most people without coercion or force while maintaining safety and prosperity. I think you are bothered by it because there are no holes in it what-so-ever.

If you care to start a thread to question each other's philosophy, go ahead, but be prepared to answer questions about yours if you expect me to answer questions about mine.

I'm content to let the readers decide what's happened here. It's been a productive discussion, thanks.

I'm content to let them see your smug attitude and your evasive tactics. They'll also note that I answered all of the questions directed at me honestly, fully, and without hesitation while you ran away like a coward when confronted about your own beliefs.

OK, so they are irresponsible. What you will have if you remove "free" education is a LARGE group of children that are completely uneducated, sick, and breeding irresponsibly. A downward spiral.

What happens in your world? They simply starve to death, out of the economic gene-pool? Just because their parent, an educated teacher making much less than your $50,000 winning number a year, can't afford to send them to school?

I heard you. But you didn't answer my question. Let's say all 68% of the populous suddenly becomes responsible and adopts their children out because they can't afford them.

Who then, adopts them? By your definition, the 32% of the people that can afford them. And when those 32% are having their OWN children, what parcentage of that 32% is going to adopt? What do you do with the rest of the children?

Please check my edit on the post above this one. I am educated. And will be more educated by the time I earn my second degree. But according to your definition, I will still be too poor to have children. So you can't use the "uneducated" argument, when educated people STILL make less than your magic number per year.

What you are promoting is not possible in today's world. It simply will not work.

You're saying only those making over $50K a year should procreate, because they are the only ones who will be able to afford to live in America. Since when was that considered freedom?

There is no such thing as a "free" education. There is theft to pay for substandard education.

No, they learn how to perform a menial job as their parents did until one of them is smart enough to act responsibly by not having kids and educating themselves until they can afford to have them.

If they suddenly became responsible they wouldn't have the kids in the first place. And if they already had kids, they'd work 2 or 3 jobs to support them. And if they did adopt them out, those that did get adopted would be better off. Those that didn't get adopted would suffer because of their parent's initial irresponsible actions. They'd probably grow up poor, but if they were hard-working and industrious enough, they'd earn their own education and get themselves out of the situation their irresponsible parents placed them in.

I edited my own post after your edit, and I still can use the poorly educated argument. Did you earn your degrees BEFORE you had kids? No, you didn't. You had the kids before you were able to take care of them. You made an ignorant, poorly educated decision to have children before you had the earning potential to pay for their needs.

Wrong. What I'm promiting was a reality in America for most of the time we were a country. Federally funded education only started recently. Before the federal government got involved, America had the best education system on earth. Before the federal goverment got involved we had the best healthcare system on earth. What I'm promoting is possible, and it offers a superior education, and work perfectly in America for more than 100 years. In fact Libertarians also say as long as we do have income based taxes, we should give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to anyone who pays for a child to attend a private school. That means companies and individuals could choose to send their tax dollars to Washington, or to send poor children to school. Which would you do if given that choice?

Since the beginning of time. Those that have children they can't care for soon have sick, poorly educated, children and many of them die. 50k is an arbitrary number since it's the average income of most people in America. The number could be $1 or $1 million. As long as you can pay for the education, food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and other needs of your children with that $1, $50k, or $1 million.

You're free to have children, but you're not free to steal from me to pay for their education. That's not freedom.

Yes, one last thing. I do come at this from a certain smugness. It's the smugness of one who knows he does not have all the answers, meeting someone who thinks he does.

Two things I know for sure. 1) I am not always right. 2) Neither are you.

I know you understand and agree with my point #1. I'm trying to convince you of point #2.

I don't need convincing of #2. I've never claimed to be always right. But my philosophy is more solid than any other you can name and it offers the most freedom to the most people at the least cost. If you think you have a better idea, let's hear it. As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

The GDP per capita numbers in America are $37,600 per person per year. But that number divides the GDP by the number of every man, woman and child so it's skewed downward since most kids don't earn a living. When you go to urban areas (LA, Chicago, New York City, New Orleans, Miami, Dallas, Seattle, San Francisco, St. Louis, San Jose, Las Vegas, etc.) the cost of living is higher and so are wages. $37,600 can buy a lot more in Kansas than $50k can buy in San Francisco.

According to the Census numbers of 2002, the actual average median household income in America (all 50 states) is $43,017 (Not too far from $50k before we even making purchasing power parity adjustments) And in highly populated areas it's higher up to about 56k per year depending on the state.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/in.../statemhi.html

So there you go. It's certainly higher than what you were saying. In the cheapest state it's over $30k. Maybe you should move to West Virginia. I'm sure your earnings would almost be average, and even if you couldn't pay for your kids to go to school, they probably have all their teeth and are brilliant compared to the locals.

It's ok, you can say it. Tell me I'm right. :haha:

sorry to intrude on this heated debate so late in it's evolution, and i want to confess that I have NOT read ALL of the posts as they seem to be, ostensibly at least, mainly argumentative, but Radar, if there is no income tax, who pays for the infrastructure? roads, sewers, etc.? who defends our borders? if there was no tax, wouldn't this all be privatized and therefore cost the consumer a whole shit load more? would all roads be toll roads? I don't see it.

If there existed the articles of rights as you describe, wouldn't there be huge grey areas where peoples rights overlap, and infringement on those becomes muddy?

the government exists as it does because it has evolved that way from neccessity. The tax laws from greed and special interest kickbacks. However, in your defense, I agree that the Patriot act and the Homeland security act are potentially disastrous acts that in "time of emergency" can rob us of our rights. And now, we keep hearing different colors of alert status. Is this just to warm us up for when it goes RED and they begin to take away our rights? Maybe.

And if that happens, I'm joining your revolution. Take some time and look into pre WWI germany and what they did with peoples rights and "state of emergency" scenarios. It didn;t take hitler long to declare that state of emergency and militarize the country in preparation for his Imperialistic goals. And here we are taking over Iraq.


uh oh.

don't trust them. don't trust any of them.

Lumberjim: Every single constitutional part of government can be paid for with the excise taxes, tariffs already collected from other countries (although I'd have it spread out evenly at about 3% to make it fair). That includes our military, judiciary, etc. Who do you think pays for the roads now? The states do. The states have sales taxes, property taxes, and other taxes that pay for local infrastructure. If not a single penny of income tax was collected starting today, we'd still have a military, court system, sewars, roads, libraries, police, firefighters, etc.

You've got that backwards. Private industry is ALWAYS cheaper than government. The roads, and everything else would be far cheaper privately than through government. Competition breeds superior quality and lower prices.

That's completely false. It's not necessary for government to steal from Americans and send it to other countries. To pay tobacco farmers to grow tobbacco and then pay for anti-smoking campaigns, to try to do everything for everybody. But those trying to get elected are trying to please everyone looking for a handout and who gets left to pay the bill? It's you and me.

I'd rather pay for what I want to use, and not for what I don't. I'd rather go through voluntary exchange than through coercive force. I'd trust private industry far more than I trust goverment.

Hitler came to power because of America's involvment in WWI. The war was nearly over and armistice talks were already being prepared when America came in and prolonged the war for a year and a half, and then because France was our friend (They were still pissed about losing land to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war) we blamed the war on Germany even Austria started it and put unimaginably horrible restrictions on them and took all their assets. When the whole world went into depression, it was even worse in Germany which left the people so desperate they'd even listen to Hitler. Were it not for the conditions forced on Germany by America, Hitler would have been laughed at and never come to power.

Life is a "fend for yourself" thing. And I agree that not all people are born with the same abilities, talents, brains, looks, etc. but Constitutional equality refers to equality of opportunity, not of standing. You have the equal freedom to go as far as your particular talents, abilities, brains, looks, etc. can take you. For some people that's not as far as others.

Also the majority of HOUSEHOLD incomes are single incomes.

There aren't 251 million working age adults in America and everyone can live responsibly if they choose to. That means if they can't afford to have kids, they don't have them. And it's not a new America, it's the same America we've always had. I'd just remove the forceful government robbing some people to pay for others. One persons needs don't entitle them to rob another person just because they are doing better.