I think if you're from the US you've grown up hearing how much liberty and freedom you have...yet really, how much do people actually have?

Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its pretty hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the overall tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a roof over your head and food on your plate for more than 3 months or so.

Do you really own anything? Well, considering you get taxed on your income, investments and land you own, I don't really contend that you do. What good is ownership of a house if the government has the power to just muscle it away from you with tax increases? What good are rights to a speedy trial if you can be held without trial against your will for an indeterminate period of time? What good are rights to privacy if they're mitigated without a warrant? What good is a right to life if you can be drafted into the army and forced into a war you don't support on foreign soil?

In reality what rights and freedoms do we actually have? I mean ####, I just got a copy of my birth certificate and I had to pay money for it. Then I changed my address on my driver's license and had to pay money for that too. Apparently, I don't even *own* the information used to identify *me*.

I'm not sure if its been voted on yet, but at one point there was talk about requiring written consent to leave the country even for American citizens.

Granted, its not quite Orson Well's depiction of Big Brother, complete with video camera's and elimination of thought, but its certainly not the "land of the free, home of liberty" that we've been told it is. At the very least, I think people need to stop confusing "comfortable" with "free". Having a nice couch at home doesn't make you free. Freedom means power and your average citizen has very little.

Discuss .

Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its pretty hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the overall tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a roof over your head and food on your plate for more than 3 months or so.

I'd agree that saving up for retirement can be a challenge, regardless of your income level. I find that the more money I make, the more I spend on stuff I definitely could live without. Not sure about the 60%, though...I'm in one of the higher tax brackets, and my "effective" federal income tax rate last year was about 18% of gross - and I wasn't able to itemize, since we were renting a house. Add in the 7.6% for Medicate and Social Security, and I'm looking at about 26% going to the federal government (I don't pay state taxes since my home of record is FL).

Adding in state and local taxes: sales tax in my part of SOCAL is about 7.5%, but that adds an element of fuzzy math when you try to combine it with the above federal taxes. Same with property tax (which I'll talk about later), since that depends on where you choose to live vice how much you make.

Even with state and local, I can't see you hitting 60% of gross. But whatever, I think the point you are trying to make is still valid (if a bit overinflated) - saving money for retirement (at whatever age you want to retire) is hard. But it's not impossible!

Do you really own anything? Well, considering you get taxed on your income, investments and land you own, I don't really contend that you do. What good is ownership of a house if the government has the power to just muscle it away from you with tax increases?

If you determine ownership in the absolute sense, i.e., no one can take it away from you, then no, you own nothing. Not even your life. But I think that governments do more to protect our right of ownership than you give them credit for. For example, I don't really worry about anyone taking my car away from me. The risk of punishment vs. reward in that case is pretty high, whether it comes from someone carjacking me, or the person I bought it from trying to repo it. In both cases, the government provides the framework of laws that makes it difficult (or unrewarding enough) for me to lose my car.

Property taxes are another subject entirely - but they're not federally controlled. States control the overall property tax rate, and your local city/county/municipality/whatever add their ad valorum costs on top of that rate. I've heard of instances where fixed-income families lose their homes in areas of rapid land valuation increase - this sort of thing really pisses me off. But there are plenty of states (California for one) where citizens have successfully lobbied and passed laws to limit the rate of property tax increases. So the groundwork has been laid; it's up to the concerned citizens of a particular area to ensure their property rights are protected in the same way.

What good are rights to a speedy trial if you can be held without trial against your will for an indeterminate period of time?

Those rights would sure as hell help me if I were arrested! Do I agree with what's going on in Gitmo? Meh. The part of me that's had those dudes (or dudes like them) trying to kill me sure as hell agrees with it. The part of me that swore to support and defend the Constitution has a much, much harder time with it.

What good are rights to privacy if they're mitigated without a warrant?

Not a lot of good, I'll agree there.

What good is a right to life if you can be drafted into the army and forced into a war you don't support on foreign soil?

While I agree with you in general, there are plenty of ways to avoid being drafted (Texas National Guard, anyone?) or actually going to fight once drafted. But whatever, the fact that there isn't a draft going on right now is a pretty strong indication to me that the "war" in Iraq isn't enough of a political priority for Congress to push for one.

In reality what rights and freedoms do we actually have? I mean ####, I just got a copy of my birth certificate and I had to pay money for it. Then I changed my address on my driver's license and had to pay money for that too. Apparently, I don't even *own* the information used to identify *me*.

*heh* I'm cool with that. I think that the fees are there to encourage people not to waste government resources, to a certain extent.

At the very least, I think people need to stop confusing "comfortable" with "free". Having a nice couch at home doesn't make you free. Freedom means power and your average citizen has very little.

If freedom is power, then having the power to choose comfort means you're free, right?

I agree that our government isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But given the fact that any representative democracy, especially a two-party system like ours, is basically founded on comprimise, and you'll be able to point out tons of problems with the system - depending on which side of the comprimise you come down on. Don't like the fact that our government spends so much on social programs? That's probably because you aren't directly benefiting from said social programs, but it's a comprimise that our citizenry has agreed to make. And I'd argue that if you don't directly benefit, you at least indirectly benefit from said social programs. They keep the "unwashed masses" happier, and less likely to rise up and just take what they want from those that have it. I like the education analogy: I have no kids, so why should I pay any taxes that go towards education? The answer is that I indirectly benefit from having an educated society surrounding me, now and in the future.

One of my biggest concerns for the future is the growing wealth gap between the haves and have nots, and the widening between the upper class and the middle class. The wider that gap gets, the more likely (historically speaking) the chance of revolution. Being a have, I definitely don't want that!

Anyway, I've run out of steam on this topic, though it's definitely an interesting one. I'm a pretty liberal Republican, but I've got huge problems with the way the Bush administration has been running the show for the past six years. Not sure who I'll end up supporting, but it will definitely be someone with some sense of fiscal responsibility.

Thanks for the post, man!

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

*** Email me your testimonials or two-line blurbs. Help our marketing efforts! ***

>Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its
>pretty hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the
>overall tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a
>roof over your head and food on your plate for more than 3
>months or so.
>
>I'd agree that saving up for retirement can be a challenge,
>regardless of your income level. I find that the more money I
>make, the more I spend on stuff I definitely could live
>without. Not sure about the 60%, though...I'm in one of the
>higher tax brackets, and my "effective" federal income tax
>rate last year was about 18% of gross - and I wasn't able to
>itemize, since we were renting a house. Add in the 7.6% for
>Medicate and Social Security, and I'm looking at about 26%
>going to the federal government (I don't pay state taxes since
>my home of record is FL).
>
>Adding in state and local taxes: sales tax in my part of SOCAL
>is about 7.5%, but that adds an element of fuzzy math when you
>try to combine it with the above federal taxes. Same with
>property tax (which I'll talk about later), since that depends
>on where you choose to live vice how much you make.
>
>Even with state and local, I can't see you hitting 60% of
>gross. But whatever, I think the point you are trying to make
>is still valid (if a bit overinflated) - saving money for
>retirement (at whatever age you want to retire) is hard. But
>it's not impossible!

That figure is derived because when you buy a shirt for $15, you're paying the income tax, sales and land taxes of everyone who makes their living selling T-Shirts. That's not even getting into more fuzzy areas like how much it costs you against investment potential (IE, not including capital gains taxes, the overall overhead costs and their compounding over the years until your retirement).

>Do you really own anything? Well, considering you get taxed
>on your income, investments and land you own, I don't really
>contend that you do. What good is ownership of a house if the
>government has the power to just muscle it away from you with
>tax increases?
>
>If you determine ownership in the absolute sense, i.e., no one
>can take it away from you, then no, you own nothing. Not even
>your life. But I think that governments do more to protect
>our right of ownership than you give them credit for. For
>example, I don't really worry about anyone taking my car away
>from me. The risk of punishment vs. reward in that case is
>pretty high, whether it comes from someone carjacking me, or
>the person I bought it from trying to repo it. In both cases,
>the government provides the framework of laws that makes it
>difficult (or unrewarding enough) for me to lose my car.
>
>Property taxes are another subject entirely - but they're not
>federally controlled. States control the overall property tax
>rate, and your local city/county/municipality/whatever add
>their ad valorum costs on top of that rate. I've heard of
>instances where fixed-income families lose their homes in
>areas of rapid land valuation increase - this sort of thing
>really pisses me off. But there are plenty of states
> California for one) where citizens have successfully lobbied
>and passed laws to limit the rate of property tax increases.
>So the groundwork has been laid; it's up to the concerned
>citizens of a particular area to ensure their property rights
>are protected in the same way.
>
>What good are rights to a speedy trial if you can be held
>without trial against your will for an indeterminate period of
>time?
>
>Those rights would sure as hell help me if I were arrested!
>Do I agree with what's going on in Gitmo? Meh. The part of
>me that's had those dudes (or dudes like them) trying to kill
>me sure as hell agrees with it. The part of me that swore to
>support and defend the Constitution has a much, much harder
>time with it.

I think my problem is precedent. I don't like those guys either. But in 20 years the fact that I didn't protest it when it happened to those guys might snag me in the ass if its used as a precedent for what happens to me.

>What good are rights to privacy if they're mitigated
>without a warrant?
>
>Not a lot of good, I'll agree there.
>
>What good is a right to life if you can be drafted into the
>army and forced into a war you don't support on foreign
>soil?
>
>While I agree with you in general, there are plenty of ways to
>avoid being drafted (Texas National Guard, anyone?) or
>actually going to fight once drafted. But whatever, the fact
>that there isn't a draft going on right now is a pretty strong
>indication to me that the "war" in Iraq isn't enough of a
>political priority for Congress to push for one.

Either way, the prospect is pretty damning in and of itself. A draft in my opinion is pretty much the closest this country has come to downright evil domination of its inhabitants.

>In reality what rights and freedoms do we actually have? I
>mean ####, I just got a copy of my birth certificate and I had
>to pay money for it. Then I changed my address on my driver's
>license and had to pay money for that too. Apparently, I don't
>even *own* the information used to identify *me*.
>
>*heh* I'm cool with that. I think that the fees are there to
>encourage people not to waste government resources, to a
>certain extent.
>
>At the very least, I think people need to stop confusing
>"comfortable" with "free". Having a nice couch at home doesn't
>make you free. Freedom means power and your average citizen
>has very little.
>
>If freedom is power, then having the power to choose comfort
>means you're free, right?
>
>I agree that our government isn't perfect by any stretch of
>the imagination. But given the fact that any representative
>democracy, especially a two-party system like ours, is
>basically founded on comprimise, and you'll be able to point
>out tons of problems with the system - depending on which side
>of the comprimise you come down on. Don't like the fact that
>our government spends so much on social programs? That's
>probably because you aren't directly benefiting from said
>social programs, but it's a comprimise that our citizenry has
>agreed to make. And I'd argue that if you don't directly
>benefit, you at least indirectly benefit from said social
>programs. They keep the "unwashed masses" happier, and less
>likely to rise up and just take what they want from those that
>have it. I like the education analogy: I have no kids, so why
>should I pay any taxes that go towards education? The answer
>is that I indirectly benefit from having an educated society
>surrounding me, now and in the future.

That's an entirely different debate. I wouldn't argue what we have constitutes as an education system as much as a de-education system.

>One of my biggest concerns for the future is the growing
>wealth gap between the haves and have nots, and the widening
>between the upper class and the middle class. The wider that
>gap gets, the more likely (historically speaking) the chance
>of revolution. Being a have, I definitely don't want that!
>
>Anyway, I've run out of steam on this topic, though it's
>definitely an interesting one. I'm a pretty liberal
>Republican, but I've got huge problems with the way the Bush
>administration has been running the show for the past six
>years. Not sure who I'll end up supporting, but it will
>definitely be someone with some sense of fiscal
>responsibility.
>
>Thanks for the post, man!
>
>Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends
>
>*** Email me your testimonials or two-line blurbs. Help our
>marketing efforts! ***

Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its pretty hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the overall tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a roof over your head and food on your plate for more than 3 months or so.

If you don't want to do useful labor and still have that roof and food, the style of government you are looking for is Marxist communism. You're, what, 25 years old? And you want to not work anymore and still have a home, food, and other necessities?

You are completely free to quit any job in this country, possibly with civil penalties if you signed a contract of your own free will to the contrary. You would definitely be free of the great majority of your tax responsibility if you did this. If you did this, you would either need to be independently wealthy, or else you would have to rely on taxpayer-funded programs which would provide subsistence-level resources for you.

Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I want without consequences." You're free to quit your job, and everyone else (except the government, ironically) is generally free to stop providing you with food and money. You may be of the opinion that your decade or so of employment entitles you to a lifetime of support, but reality may not agree.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its
>pretty hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the
>overall tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a
>roof over your head and food on your plate for more than 3
>months or so.

Not to speak for someone else, but I'm pretty sure that bolded bit is the point, not that you literally can't quit your job, or that he thinks he should be able to live without working.

That's correct. Likewise freedom means not obligated or affected by external constraints. Taxes are a fitting definition of external constraints. Its an imposed obligation to work and when you can't save up any money due to the tax burden, it just prolongs that obligation.

>Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its
>pretty hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the
>overall tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a
>roof over your head and food on your plate for more than 3
>months or so.
>
>If you don't want to do useful labor and still have that roof
>and food, the style of government you are looking for is
>Marxist communism. You're, what, 25 years old? And you want
>to not work anymore and still have a home, food, and other
>necessities?

Heh, no I don't want to retire. I'm actually looking at it from my parent's perspectives. They are significantly older than 25.

>You are completely free to quit any job in this country,
>possibly with civil penalties if you signed a contract of your
>own free will to the contrary. You would definitely be free
>of the great majority of your tax responsibility if you did
>this. If you did this, you would either need to be
>independently wealthy, or else you would have to rely on
>taxpayer-funded programs which would provide subsistence-level
>resources for you.

That's more or less what I mean. The rate of inflation is largely influenced by income tax. It wasn't such a huge problem until we implemented income tax and deficit spending. That and property taxes create the need to constantly require an income. My total spending, FYI, is primarily centered around rent and income tax (15% of my earnings go to rent, 30% of my earnings go to income tax and roughly 30% of my rent is my share of my landlord's land taxes, and that's with a salary that's higher than Joe Average). Utilities, entertainment and food make up a very small amount of my overall spending. Healthcare is a whole other issue which we've debated ad nauseum, but frankly due to the way the system works its not feasible to pay for it out of pocket when you're old.

>Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I want without
>consequences." You're free to quit your job, and everyone
>else (except the government, ironically) is generally free to
>stop providing you with food and money. You may be of the
>opinion that your decade or so of employment entitles you to a
>lifetime of support, but reality may not agree.

Here's a quick definition of freedom :

the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
exemption: immunity from an obligation or duty

- I would say that property taxes (and most regressive taxes) serve as a pretty good example of an 'externally imposed restraint'.

>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I can understand where you’re coming from when you look from your parents’ perspective. I see the same thing when I look at my grandparents (specifically my mother’s parents). They both worked their entire lives, and worked hard. My grandfather retired from the guard at 61 and retired from GM a year or two later due to congestive heart failure. My grandmother, although she is younger retired at the same time to care for him. As my grandfather retired from the military and from GM, he has decent health care benefits from both as well as pensions. Where as my grandmother who was a factory sort of seamstress has a very minor pension plan that I believe only pays around $60 a month. They were always very conservative with their money, and built up a nice little nest egg. So, they are by no means hurting for cash. Especially now, as they are both over 65, they can draw social security.

All that being said; they are still worried about loosing their house due to property taxes. My grandmother being an active and fit woman could very well live to be 100+. That’s a long time to think about when you’re only just over 65 and you are retired. So many elderly people (elderly being over 70) have to pull themselves out of retirement because they simply cannot make ends meet and continue to be retired. Sure someone, as to be the walmart greeter… but do you really want your 80 year old grandma to have to stand on her failing knees for hours at a time so she can make ends meet? Don’t even get me started on us not being a society that can/will take care of our elderly within the family unit.

Property taxes in my state have been going up like crazy. For the past four years at least, my grandparents have seen an increase every single year. It has been announced that this increase will continue to go for an indefinite amount of time. Their taxes have almost quadrupled in the past four years. That is an insane amount when they had their funds carefully budgeted.

Now, they have to think about selling the house that they built with their own two hands. The house they had their child in, raised their grandchildren in. Now, they have to think about settling for a tiny condo rather than face the ever increasing property taxes.

In conclusion, I see very well where you are coming from on this point. It tears me up to think my grandparents that followed the traditional American dream will have to give up what they pride most and worked so hard for due to taxation.

You definately summarized the situation much more eloquently than I did. These sorts of things put into perspect the nature of the relationship between a US Citizen and their government.

Its all fine so long as your income is high. Once you stop working, you're at the whim of forces beyond your control, irrespective of whether or not you've been a 'good citizen' and fiscally responsible. That's a reason why that sort of power needs to be guarded at the end of a knife blade, rather than meaded out over any trivial circumstance.

Once that power has been given (see Income taxes), you will never get it back. That's why the federal government and local governments spending habits is always forward moving, always outpacing inflation. At this point we spend billions of dollars per year paying the interest on our nation's debt, yet our spending is increasing. Its an anchor around the necks of the people that is just getting more burdensome year by year. Even now our economy just isn't keeping pace with foreign economies and its bound to get worse before it gets better.

When you go to save money, you take it out invisibly in small increments and you never miss it. Later you look back and see all you've saved. The government taxes in the same way, slowly, gradually, until they have all the money and thus all the control. Even now one of the bigger reasons why Congress won't relinquish the tax system is it provides them fine grained control over the market. Why exactly do we want them to have fine grained control over the market? They have no business meddling with such things.

Its all fine so long as your income is high. Once you stop working, you're at the whim of forces beyond your control, irrespective of whether or not you've been a 'good citizen' and fiscally responsible. That's a reason why that sort of power needs to be guarded at the end of a knife blade, rather than meaded out over any trivial circumstance.

Less-restrained capitalism (low taxation, small government) is directly better for high-income people and worse for the poor. The very poor pay little to no taxes, and receive the majority of the benefits of programs like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, subsidized housing, urban renewal, etc. If you cut the tax base indiscriminately, the poor suffer.

You can't argue liberarianism on the basis of things like retirement burden-- more libertarian regimes have historically made that worse, not better. In countries like Sweden (>60% tax burden, the lowest income disparity among major nations), they have their economic problems, but poverty or retirement plans aren't among them, relative to other countries.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Last I heard land taxes were charged at the state and county/township level.

Two things :

1) If your land taxes go down a dollar, some poor guy doesn't go a day without a can of soda. It just doesn't work that way. Federal government provides most of the benefits you listed. At some point we should probably separate the two, but I give you credit that you probably know this is far more complex than that. As an example, why is this person poor? Is it because the area doesn't have any jobs? Maybe they don't have any jobs because of the immense tax burdens. Etc.

2) I'm not really in favor of the government handling my retirement. If it wants to force me to save something for myself, in a relatively not-stupid way, ok. Social security doesn't work like that. It's pretty much the 'shoebox' approach to retirement savings.

And finally, do you think you could take Sweden's entire system, apply it in America and get the same success without any dire consequences? If not, why do you keep on bringing up Sweden, etc?

>Last I heard land taxes were charged at the state and
>county/township level.

I'd thought just at the city level, or maybe it varies state to state. For example, I know there's a town near where I grew up that has zero property tax because there's a rather large mall in town that sees a fair amount of out of town/state visitors and thus covers all the things that property taxes usually pay for by its sales tax.

I was talking about taxation in general. Most people don't care how their tax bill is broken up so much as what their total tax burden is.

1) If your land taxes go down a dollar, some poor guy doesn't go a day without a can of soda. It just doesn't work that way.

If your local or state government lacks the revenue to pay for their services, they end up either taxing more or transferring dollars from higher up. (In practice, the Northeast and Pacific Coast provide a huge transfer of money into the South and Mountain states, by way of the federal coffers. Ironic, considering voting patterns regarding small vs. big government.) Their other option is to cut services, which usually disproportionally impacts the poor.

You're making the mistake of assuming that at any level of government, you pay a dollar in property taxes and it ends up in a bin marked 'property taxes'. It goes to the treasury. This is why earmarks are so abusable-- maybe I institute a lottery with the proceeds earmarked for education.... and then just cut the normal education budget since it's now partially funded by the lottery.

So you can't just talk about cutting land taxes in a vacuum. You have to stat by raising revenue elsewhere, or reducing spending somewhere.

2) I'm not really in favor of the government handling my retirement. If it wants to force me to save something for myself, in a relatively not-stupid way, ok. Social security doesn't work like that. It's pretty much the 'shoebox' approach to retirement savings.

The government is constrained by needing to be ultra-conservative (low-risk, which lowers mean reward) and not favoring individual companies, so yes they can't match a good investor. (It's still far superior to shoeboxes, in aggregate.) The problem is that most people aren't good investors in practice, and don't save any money. (This is more true in America than Europe or Japan, even normalized for net income, which suggests cultural forces.) Unless you have another plan for what to do with these people, the safety net provided by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is often why the elderly are worried about being 'poor' rather than 'broke'.

And finally, do you think you could take Sweden's entire system, apply it in America and get the same success without any dire consequences? If not, why do you keep on bringing up Sweden, etc?

The Scandinavian Model provides real-world data on the economic impacts of a very high tax burden. I acknowledged that it comes with its own problems, more specifically low entrepeneurship, 'fleeing' wealth, and high unemployment. It's merely useful in demonstrating that high taxes aren't why retirement is a problem-- retired Scandinavians don't have these problems, and they have a lifetime of much higher taxes.

How you go from that to a complete endorsement of the Scandinavian Model is puzzling.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I'm not saying that taxation is not needed. I firmly believe that it is. A lot of people are helped by this system. I simply think it's a very flawed system. No, I'm not extremely educated in various governments and even a ton of our own laws. I simply know what I see every day. I see every day how one family that worked so hard to simply be middle class is shunned at old age, while young families that have never worked are given so much. I can pull out tons and I do mean tons of examples of how tax dollars from working families are abused and not given to people that worked so hard to be able to benefit from them.

I'll give you one real example. I have personally seen a young healthy man of 19 who doesn't have any children be able to draw almost 200 bucks a month in food stamps. He isn't even required to do job counseling to help him find employment. He lives for free with two other guys under the stipulation that he pays the food bill. When of course, he's not paying it the system is. Now, when I think of this man; I remember that 20% of the property taxes that I paid go to help this man and people like him. Let me also mention the county that I live in saw a 20% increase in residential property taxes. If you want to put that in perspective, that 20% increase goes to people like this man.

You can easily argue that taxes bring so much government control, but you have to remember they also help. If I saw more cases of people being helped, then I would not personally complain so much about the system. Yet, when I see so many examples of people being hurt by it rather than help I think it's time for a drastic reformation.

Our government is supposed to be in place to help us, it just isn't in so many ways. It’s very difficult for someone that doesn’t see this with their own eyes to put such things into prospective. There are counties near me where the property taxes are outrageous. Yet, in these counties they can easily see what their money has paid for. They do have some of the best public schools you can find anywhere. They can pay to have excellent teachers. Their roads are clean and flawless etc etc. They also can afford this, because they are upper middle class and higher. These are also the sorts of people that are going to be able to pay for campaigns to run for government positions. To people like this, our tax system is working beautifully. To people like myself that fall into the middle class and lower, our tax system is horrible.

All this being said, I still think taxes are needed. If my taxes allow four 19 year olds to not work but only help one crippled veteran, I can be ok with that. Not fully pleased, but ok with that. We are simply not a country of people that will step up and care for our disabled neighbor, or house our elderly parents. So, government does it for us. You may not agree with the process that government goes through to accomplish this, but something has to give to get it done. Also, think about it this way. Are you going to house your mother when she’s old? Watch over her? Change her when she becomes incontinent? The answer is probably no. At least for a good majority of people it is no. Most people say they have to work, and they simply do not have time. Yet, they have time to enjoy that new car in the driveway, or live in the county with the best schools.

In conclusion, we do not help ourselves nor do we help each other. That’s just how things have gone. You can say government has no business meddling here and there, but would you be happy if they just fed those people really in need to the wolves?

I would argue that no one is really helped by this system of taxation. Explain to me how someone on medicare is any better off than an illegal alien who just keeps revisiting the emergency room. If you're answer is 'not much', I have to question why we spend like many billions of dollars per year on it.

Try to walk around without SSN or credit history.

You have a point here. At times I frequent some "right-wing nutjob" type bulletin boards. Chalk it up to morbid fascination if you want. In any case, one of the guys on there never got SSNs for his children when they were born. According to him, now they can't even open up savings accounts at a bank because the bank requires a SSN.

Not just when you are born?

Yes. 20-30 years ago, people would get them when they were about to enter the workforce. The point is that they didn't want to get them, but the bank basically required it. SSN was never intended to be a national ID#, but people use it that way anyway.

There's also been talk of a federal system to associate SSN #'s with property ownership in order to reduce the amount of fraud with having "primary residences" in different states. Currently there is no system for associating the two, this would more or less require you to have a social security number in order to own a house.

- Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its pretty hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the overall tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a roof over your head and food on your plate for more than 3 months or so.

Absolutely. And I'm free to then find another job. For a majority of the population, finding a job is a fairly simple procedure. Will you always find one that pays as well? No. But it's not terribly difficult to make a living wage in the U.S. I just think most people don't understand what a living wage means anymore. 90% of what we deem necessities simply aren't.

- Do you really own anything? Well, considering you get taxed on your income, investments and land you own, I don't really contend that you do.

I don't believe owning something, and being taxed on it are related in the way you believe they are.

- What good is ownership of a house if the government has the power to just muscle it away from you with tax increases?

There are very few cases where the government can in fact do this. Most states/townships etc have laws in the books against raising taxes too highly over a short period of time.

- What good are rights to a speedy trial if you can be held without trial against your will for an indeterminate period of time?

I'm unsure what you mean by 'indeterminate period of time'. If you're going to bring up Guantanamo, it's an argument I won't get into. I'm not a big fan of it. But in general, I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense.

- What good are rights to privacy if they're mitigated without a warrant?

Quite little. There's been serious mistakes in that area.

- What good is a right to life if you can be drafted into the army and forced into a war you don't support on foreign soil?

I'm not sure who in America has been drafted recently.

- In reality what rights and freedoms do we actually have? I mean ####, I just got a copy of my birth certificate and I had to pay money for it.

You had to pay for a service? That seems pretty American to me. I'd rather you paid for that service, than my tax dollars paid for you to get a copy of your birth certificate.

- Then I changed my address on my driver's license and had to pay money for that too. Apparently, I don't even *own* the information used to identify *me*.

See above.

- I'm not sure if its been voted on yet, but at one point there was talk about requiring written consent to leave the country even for American citizens.

I'm can't comment on this, don't know anything about it.

- Granted, its not quite Orson Well's depiction of Big Brother, complete with video camera's and elimination of thought, but its certainly not the "land of the free, home of liberty" that we've been told it is.

At this point, I'm beginning to think this is an enormous troll. I would agree, however, that this is, indeed, not Orson Well's depiction of Big Brother at all.

- At the very least, I think people need to stop confusing "comfortable" with "free". Having a nice couch at home doesn't make you free. Freedom means power and your average citizen has very little.

Freedom doesn't mean power. America, to me, has always been fairly simple. Your rights stop where mine begin. In almost all cases, this still holds true in the United States I know.

>- Are you free to quit your job? Maybe...but since its pretty
>hard to save money when you're shelling out 60% to the overall
>tax burden you probably wouldn't be able to keep a roof over
>your head and food on your plate for more than 3 months or so.
>
>
>Absolutely. And I'm free to then find another job. For a
>majority of the population, finding a job is a fairly simple
>procedure. Will you always find one that pays as well? No.
>But it's not terribly difficult to make a living wage in the
>U.S. I just think most people don't understand what a living
>wage means anymore. 90% of what we deem necessities simply
>aren't.

My point was that the concept of ownership (not requiring ongoing revenue) no longer exists. Its a foreign concept, so foreign it didn't even occur to you what I was referring to.

>
>- Do you really own anything? Well, considering you get taxed
>on your income, investments and land you own, I don't really
>contend that you do.
>
>I don't believe owning something, and being taxed on it are
>related in the way you believe they are.

I'm refering to ownership in the absolute sense. Meaning that your controlling rights don't decay and degrade if you fail to pay a tax. In the sense that your ownership rights are undeniable, constant over time, and there exists no legal means to leverage them from you. If you can lose ownership without explicit consent, it isn't absolute ownership.

>- What good is ownership of a house if the government has the
>power to just muscle it away from you with tax increases?
>
>There are very few cases where the government can in fact do
>this. Most states/townships etc have laws in the books
>against raising taxes too highly over a short period of time.

What you consider 'too high' over 'too short' a period of time is both relative to your financial position and non-absolute (meaning it can change at any time if the laws are rewritten). People have undeniably sold their houses due to tax increases. If that tax were not there, they would not have been forced to.

>- What good are rights to a speedy trial if you can be held
>without trial against your will for an indeterminate period of
>time?
>
>I'm unsure what you mean by 'indeterminate period of time'.
>If you're going to bring up Guantanamo, it's an argument I
>won't get into. I'm not a big fan of it. But in general, I'm
>not sure what you're saying makes sense.

That is in fact what I was referring to. The patriot act as a whole is, frankly, evil.

>- What good are rights to privacy if they're mitigated without
>a warrant?
>
>Quite little. There's been serious mistakes in that area.
>
>- What good is a right to life if you can be drafted into the
>army and forced into a war you don't support on foreign soil?
>
>I'm not sure who in America has been drafted recently.

And there was Roman peace for a thousand years, but regardless of the fact that it hasn't happened within the last 40 years, it can happen at any time. Historically speaking, Vietnam wasn't very long ago. The fact that such ability exists denotes that you, in fact, do not have absolute right to life.

>- In reality what rights and freedoms do we actually have? I
>mean ####, I just got a copy of my birth certificate and I had
>to pay money for it.
>
>You had to pay for a service? That seems pretty American to
>me. I'd rather you paid for that service, than my tax dollars
>paid for you to get a copy of your birth certificate.

Who owns the information on the certificate? Apparently the state, as they charge me a fee simply for obtaining it. They also are the ones who require its use.

>- Then I changed my address on my driver's license and had to
>pay money for that too. Apparently, I don't even *own* the
>information used to identify *me*.
>
>See above.

Same response.

>- I'm not sure if its been voted on yet, but at one point
>there was talk about requiring written consent to leave the
>country even for American citizens.
>
>I'm can't comment on this, don't know anything about it.
>
>- Granted, its not quite Orson Well's depiction of Big
>Brother, complete with video camera's and elimination of
>thought, but its certainly not the "land of the free, home of
>liberty" that we've been told it is.
>
>At this point, I'm beginning to think this is an enormous
>troll. I would agree, however, that this is, indeed, not
>Orson Well's depiction of Big Brother at all.
>
>- At the very least, I think people need to stop confusing
>"comfortable" with "free". Having a nice couch at home doesn't
>make you free. Freedom means power and your average citizen
>has very little.
>
>Freedom doesn't mean power. America, to me, has always been
>fairly simple. Your rights stop where mine begin. In almost
>all cases, this still holds true in the United States I know.

Our rights stop long before that. We used to have the right to earn an income without a forcible tax. Apparently our rights end somewhere before that. This isn't a troll, its a statement of fact. I'd like to get people's opinions and I think yours are valid but don't deny anything I've said. Its, in my opinion, an essential question - at what point do we draw the line? We spilled British blood over a far, far smaller amount of taxes and we're immensely proud of it. There's a contradiction in that.

The problem here is, you likely have an axe to grind, and won't be listening to reason. But I'll try a bit again anyway.

- My point was that the concept of ownership (not requiring ongoing revenue) no longer exists. Its a foreign concept, so foreign it didn't even occur to you what I was referring to.

- I'm refering to ownership in the absolute sense. Meaning that your controlling rights don't decay and degrade if you fail to pay a tax. In the sense that your ownership rights are undeniable, constant over time, and there exists no legal means to leverage them from you. If you can lose ownership without explicit consent, it isn't absolute ownership.


When did this concept of ownership that you speak of actually exist? It's not like taxes are a new concept.

- What you consider 'too high' over 'too short' a period of time is both relative to your financial position and non-absolute (meaning it can change at any time if the laws are rewritten). People have undeniably sold their houses due to tax increases. If that tax were not there, they would not have been forced to.

Absolutely. It's happened many times. And sure, it's relative. But take a peek into what states and local governments can and cannot do. It's more limited than you think in the tax area.

- And there was Roman peace for a thousand years, but regardless of the fact that it hasn't happened within the last 40 years, it can happen at any time. Historically speaking, Vietnam wasn't very long ago. The fact that such ability exists denotes that you, in fact, do not have absolute right to life.

Historically speaking, neither world war was that long ago. Historically speaking, King George being our sovereign wasn't that long ago. But that doesn't mean I'm waiting to hear from the British Monarchy about our next move in Iraq. While you certainly pay attention to history, you deal with the facts as they are at the present.

-Granted, its not quite Orson Well's depiction of Big
>Brother, complete with video camera's and elimination of
>thought, but its certainly not the "land of the free, home of
>liberty" that we've been told it is.

The above statement is why I thought it was a troll. You might want to google Orson Well's. And maybe George Orwell for that matter.

Anyway, while there's a grain of truth in pretty much everything you say, I think you're making it out to be far, far worse than things truly are. There's room for improvement, and I don't care for the road we've been heading down for the past few years, but this seems a slight overreaction. Vote.

>The above statement is why I thought it was a troll. You
>might want to google Orson Well's. And maybe George Orwell
>for that matter.

Whoops. Well, its been a good ten years since I read 1984, my bad.

>Anyway, while there's a grain of truth in pretty much
>everything you say, I think you're making it out to be far,
>far worse than things truly are. There's room for
>improvement, and I don't care for the road we've been heading
>down for the past few years, but this seems a slight
>overreaction. Vote.

My lifespan will likely extend another 40-60 years and my childrens quite longer than that. I'd prefer not to be myopic. People would've labeled you a paranoid nut if you'd suggest that the average person would be giving in the ballpark of 20-30% of their income to income tax at the time it was ammended to the Constitution. Were that in their minds, it likely wouldn't have passed. I'd prefer to take a long term stance rather than focus on the last 10 years. Sadly, some things really do amount to a slippery slope, only by the time its blatantly obvious too much time has passed.

>The problem here is, you likely have an axe to grind, and
>won't be listening to reason. But I'll try a bit again
>anyway.

The problem here is, you have already dismissed everyone who might disagree with your world view as having an axe to grind, but I'll try a bit anyway.

Regarding your job, and more specifically your income, the problem is that an income tax presupposes that the government has a right to the fruits of your labor. It is not that taxes are new, or even that income taxes are new, but rather that they represent a form of slavery. If I brought over a poor person from a third world country and told them the price (for bringing them here) was that they would pay me 20% of everything they make for their lives, I would be arrested and likely jailed for enslaving another person. Just because our government isn't a private person doesn't give them any more right to enslave people than anyone else. Lest my argument be derailed because I mentioned slavery, go back to my first point, it is the crux of my point.

>- My point was that the concept of ownership (not requiring
>ongoing revenue) no longer exists. Its a foreign concept, so
>foreign it didn't even occur to you what I was referring to.
>
>- I'm refering to ownership in the absolute sense. Meaning
>that your controlling rights don't decay and degrade if you
>fail to pay a tax. In the sense that your ownership rights are
>undeniable, constant over time, and there exists no legal
>means to leverage them from you. If you can lose ownership
>without explicit consent, it isn't absolute ownership.
>
>
>When did this concept of ownership that you speak of actually
>exist? It's not like taxes are a new concept.

I own lots of things that I don't have to continue to pay to own. In fact, being a non-landowner I am not aware of ongoing payments (to government) of anything I own. Again the problem here is it presupposes the government has a greater property right to your property than you. How is rent different from a property tax? Eminent Domain laws have also changed such that if the state determines more tax money can be made by repurposing your property they can seize it against your will.

>- What you consider 'too high' over 'too short' a period of
>time is both relative to your financial position and
>non-absolute (meaning it can change at any time if the laws
>are rewritten). People have undeniably sold their houses due
>to tax increases. If that tax were not there, they would not
>have been forced to.
>
>Absolutely. It's happened many times. And sure, it's
>relative. But take a peek into what states and local
>governments can and cannot do. It's more limited than you
>think in the tax area.

It's only limited by what they think they can get away with.

>- And there was Roman peace for a thousand years, but
>regardless of the fact that it hasn't happened within the last
>40 years, it can happen at any time. Historically speaking,
>Vietnam wasn't very long ago. The fact that such ability
>exists denotes that you, in fact, do not have absolute right
>to life.
>
>Historically speaking, neither world war was that long ago.
>Historically speaking, King George being our sovereign wasn't
>that long ago. But that doesn't mean I'm waiting to hear from
>the British Monarchy about our next move in Iraq. While you
>certainly pay attention to history, you deal with the facts as
>they are at the present.

Again, it isn't about whether or not their is a draft on now, but that in registering for selective service (which every male is required to do at 18) the government is again presupposing they have the right to use your life as they see fit, whether you agree or not. They fact that it is reserved for only when they "really" need it is not the point. If the nation truly did need more soldiers, believe me, there would be no shortage of volunteers. Of course when you are involved in "police actions" half a world away that would have had little to no effect on your own people had you not gotten involved... well volunteers may be harder to come by.

>-Granted, its not quite Orson Well's depiction of Big
>>Brother, complete with video camera's and elimination of
>>thought, but its certainly not the "land of the free, home
>of
>>liberty" that we've been told it is.
>
>The above statement is why I thought it was a troll. You
>might want to google Orson Well's. And maybe George Orwell
>for that matter.

I've read 1984, and while overt control in the way depicted is certainly far from reality (at least in the US) the covert control is creeping in and just as real. The new hate crime legislation makes hate (especially racism) a thought crime. The action you take is less important in this instance than your reason for taking it. That is all kinds of wrong. Don't even get me started on the wire tapping/patriot act abuses...

>Anyway, while there's a grain of truth in pretty much
>everything you say, I think you're making it out to be far,
>far worse than things truly are. There's room for
>improvement, and I don't care for the road we've been heading
>down for the past few years, but this seems a slight
>overreaction. Vote.
>

I don't think it is an overreaction, in fact I think everyone should be much angrier about these things than they are. Much like the frog in the pot that is slowly being brought to boil, we may not notice until it is too late.

I will however agree with one thing... Yes, Vote. This time there is someone actually worth voting for. Vote Ron Paul.

- The problem here is, you have already dismissed everyone who might disagree with your world view as having an axe to grind, but I'll try a bit anyway.

That's not true. If it came across that way, it was unintended.

- Regarding your job, and more specifically your income, the problem is that an income tax presupposes that the government has a right to the fruits of your labor. It is not that taxes are new, or even that income taxes are new, but rather that they represent a form of slavery. If I brought over a poor person from a third world country and told them the price (for bringing them here) was that they would pay me 20% of everything they make for their lives, I would be arrested and likely jailed for enslaving another person. Just because our government isn't a private person doesn't give them any more right to enslave people than anyone else. Lest my argument be derailed because I mentioned slavery, go back to my first point, it is the crux of my point.

Sure, if you took 20% of everything from someone and gave them nothing in return, something would be terribly wrong. Are you saying you get nothing for your taxes? It's good to know you have no need of infrastructure at all. As for you comparing it to slavery... the mind boggles.

- It's only limited by what they think they can get away with.

Precisely!

- I think everyone should be much angrier about these things than they are.

I think the American population should be angrier, but only if that anger is well-directed, and actually is more than just helpless anger. It's fair to say most of America is angry about our present course in many areas. It's also fair to say most of them will do absolutely nothing about it, including voting.

>- The problem here is, you have already dismissed everyone
>who might disagree with your world view as having an axe to
>grind, but I'll try a bit anyway.
>
>That's not true. If it came across that way, it was
>unintended.
>
>- Regarding your job, and more specifically your income, the
>problem is that an income tax presupposes that the government
>has a right to the fruits of your labor. It is not that taxes
>are new, or even that income taxes are new, but rather that
>they represent a form of slavery. If I brought over a poor
>person from a third world country and told them the price (for
>bringing them here) was that they would pay me 20% of
>everything they make for their lives, I would be arrested and
>likely jailed for enslaving another person. Just because our
>government isn't a private person doesn't give them any more
>right to enslave people than anyone else. Lest my argument be
>derailed because I mentioned slavery, go back to my first
>point, it is the crux of my point.
>
>Sure, if you took 20% of everything from someone and gave them
>nothing in return, something would be terribly wrong. Are you
>saying you get nothing for your taxes? It's good to know you
>have no need of infrastructure at all. As for you comparing
>it to slavery... the mind boggles.

Ok, sure. Lets then replace it with "take 20% of everything you make, pocket 5%, spend another 10% on #### you don't want, 5% on things you do and somehow manage to lose the other 5%, without actually consulting you in the process". Is it less evil then? Maybe then its acceptable?

>- It's only limited by what they think they can get away
>with.
>
>Precisely!
>
>- I think everyone should be much angrier about these things
>than they are.
>
>I think the American population should be angrier, but only if
>that anger is well-directed, and actually is more than just
>helpless anger. It's fair to say most of America is angry
>about our present course in many areas. It's also fair to say
>most of them will do absolutely nothing about it, including
>voting.
>

Its not hard to be fairly disenchanted at the reality of exactly what your vote is worth. I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primaries though. I'm still a registered Republican, even though I'd like to punch them all in the face for ####ing up a triple crown so badly.

Regarding your job, and more specifically your income, the problem is that an income tax presupposes that the government has a right to the fruits of your labor. It is not that taxes are new, or even that income taxes are new, but rather that they represent a form of slavery.

The functions of government cost money. The reason you have roads, fire departments, power lines, clean(ish) air and water, police protection, public schools, national defense, sewers, a safety net for illness or disability, public defenders in court, and the like as an American is because the population pays taxes.

You can choose different distributions of taxation. You could have every citizen pay roughly 1/300,000,000th of the federal budget. (Historically speaking, you'd end up with a large group of starving, broke, angry people on your hands, but let's play the Ayn Rand Utopia Game and assume everyone succeeds.) You'd still be paying for the services.

You can choose what the tax is based on. We use a combination of income, ownership (property taxes, etc.) and consumption (sales taxes, etc.). You can shift that around all you like, but at some level the government is sending you a bill and you are paying it.

You can eliminate services and reduce the federal budget, but it becomes a matter of degree. Maybe you decide that Service X is unnecessary, and the budget is therefore lowered, but you still need to pay for Services Y and Z.

At the end of the day, everyone requires some level of government-level services. (If you dispute this, please look at the history of how things go with no effective government present. See: Congo, Democratic Republic of) If you excessively privatize this, you end up with a plutocracy. If having police protection scaled with what you paid (free market solution), only the wealthy would enjoy any significant protection. (The United States already has plutocratic elements to some extent, but additional privitization furthers it.)

Thus, every successful economy in history has chosen to collectivize functions susceptible to the "tragedy of the commons"-- national and civil defense being the oldest example, but transportation grids, ecosystem integrity, and educational systems are examples of things adopted in every country with a sufficient level of development. These institutions are the reason you can have rights. In the absence of government, your rights are strictly limited to what you can assert by force, and that is when you'd find out what the word "slavery" means.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>Regarding your job, and more specifically your income, the
>problem is that an income tax presupposes that the government
>has a right to the fruits of your labor. It is not that taxes
>are new, or even that income taxes are new, but rather that
>they represent a form of slavery.

I'd love to go through each one of these things, but it wouldn't be very useful to either of us as far as readability goes...

>The functions of government cost money. The reason you have
>roads, fire departments, power lines, clean(ish) air and
>water, police protection, public schools, national defense,
>sewers, a safety net for illness or disability, public
>defenders in court, and the like as an American is because the
>population pays taxes.

None of these things existed before government control/influence/involvement? That isn't true.

Most of those are controlled by state and local governments, which is much more desirable.

And finally, the amounts of my taxes that goes to those things I actually use is dwarfed by that which I will either never see benefit from (social security/medicare/medicaid/etc.) or which I don't support (foreign aid/wars on foreign soil/etc.

>You can choose different distributions of taxation. You could
>have every citizen pay roughly 1/300,000,000th of the federal
>budget. (Historically speaking, you'd end up with a large
>group of starving, broke, angry people on your hands, but
>let's play the Ayn Rand Utopia Game and assume everyone
>succeeds.) You'd still be paying for the services.

How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair. That seems to be how businesses get by.

>You can choose what the tax is based on. We use a combination
>of income, ownership (property taxes, etc.) and consumption
> sales taxes, etc.). You can shift that around all you like,
>but at some level the government is sending you a bill and you
>are paying it.
>
>You can eliminate services and reduce the federal budget, but
>it becomes a matter of degree. Maybe you decide that Service
>X is unnecessary, and the budget is therefore lowered, but you
>still need to pay for Services Y and Z.

That sounds like a good idea... when was the last time we did that?

>At the end of the day, everyone requires some level of
>government-level services. (If you dispute this, please look
>at the history of how things go with no effective government
>present. See: Congo, Democratic Republic of) If you
>excessively privatize this, you end up with a plutocracy.

I don't consider this to be true...

http://www.mises.org/story/1121

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

>If
>having police protection scaled with what you paid (free
>market solution), only the wealthy would enjoy any significant
>protection. (The United States already has plutocratic
>elements to some extent, but additional privitization furthers
>it.)

Police protection is a farce. I can protect myself much better than the police can or would. It seems to me that the very wealthy already hire private protection (Hi Vlad!) and that the poor wouldn't exactly consider the police their best friends.

>Thus, every successful economy in history has chosen to
>collectivize functions susceptible to the "tragedy of the
>commons"-- national and civil defense being the oldest
>example, but transportation grids, ecosystem integrity, and
>educational systems are examples of things adopted in every
>country with a sufficient level of development.

National defense, sure. I would argue that police forces have been oppressive and ineffective since the beginning of time and have almost always been created for that purpose.

>These
>institutions are the reason you can have rights. In
>the absence of government, your rights are strictly limited to
>what you can assert by force, and that is when you'd
>find out what the word "slavery" means.

Nope, sorry, but I was "endowed by (my) Creator with certain unalienable Rights, (and) that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". Presumably so were you.

>"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
>- James Madison
>
>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I am no anarcho-capitalist, and I certainly do consider some functions to be the proper domain of government. Some thing should be taken care of nationally (defense), others by the state (transportation), and other at more local levels (education), but our government, especially at the federal level has go so far beyond what the law allows (law being the constitution) it frightens me.

Nope, sorry, but I was "endowed by (my) Creator with certain unalienable Rights, (and) that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". Presumably so were you.

That's great on paper, but an effective government is necessary for you to actually enjoy those rights. Otherwise, your actual rights are limited to what you can personally assert by force.

And finally, the amounts of my taxes that goes to those things I actually use is dwarfed by that which I will either never see benefit from (social security/medicare/medicaid/etc.) or which I don't support (foreign aid/wars on foreign soil/etc.... How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair. That seems to be how businesses get by.

So, let's say we're discussing aid for injured veterans. If everyone only pays for the services they use, injured veterans are the only people who should pay for these services. That's the capitalism end of the spectrum.

The socialism end of the spectrum is everyone pays for everything equally. We're not there either-- transportation projects tend to be funded by taxes on gasoline, tolls on public roadways, and the like. Some government agencies fund themselves (some sectors of R&D, the Post Office, etc.) through capitalist methods.

We lean capitalist in most sectors, with the major exception being those government programs which provide aid for poverty. The problem is, of course, that the poor simply can't pay for these programs. Now, some people are poor because they make horrible decisions. Many people are poor because they were born poor, and thus got a sub-par education, and later had to make career decisions based only of short-term goals (I need food this week) instead of long-term goals (I can take this crappy internship because a few years down the line it will mean a better job). Poverty is terribly, terribly cumulative.

So, either:
1) The non-poor provide a net flow of money toward poverty relief, or
2) We find out what happens if you have a large group of people without enough money for true necessities. Specifically, a lot of people die, others riot, and you see either Depression-era collapse of economies or a reversion to de facto slavery/serfdom.

Police protection is a farce. I can protect myself much better than the police can or would. It seems to me that the very wealthy already hire private protection (Hi Vlad!) and that the poor wouldn't exactly consider the police their best friends.

This is completely ridiculous macho posturing. Read up on what happens to areas (say, Watts) when police protection systemically breaks down due to underfunding, corruption, and other factors. The result is not that everyone ends up better-protected. Rather, it reverts to anarchy, where rights are only asserted by force.

Heck, take a simpler case. How could you drive with no authority in charge of traffic enforcement?

That sounds like a good idea... when was the last time we did that? (Cut services)

You have to go all the way back to... the Clinton Administration. (Carter held it constant, Reagan and Bush 41 both increased the size of government steadily.)

Edit: Link is busted. Wanted to link to here for a graphical summary:

Clinton inherited a government with outlays equal to 22.1% of GDP and shrunk it to 18.4% of GDP in his eight years. Bush expanded it back to 20.2% in his first three years despite falling government revenues, and I can't find more recent data on how it's gone since, but going by the annual deficit's rapid growth I'm thinking the news isn't good.

The current administration has sharply expanded spending (primarily on defense) on things the majority of Americans don't support. (They've also brutalized scientific spending, with money bled out of effective programs to fund things like "faith-based works", abstinence education, etc... so the 'real' spending on things most people do support like R&D drops even as the budget numbers rise.) That's irresponsible government, not what the system was designed to do, and unfortunately I think we're going to wait for another round of elections to sort that out. Sadly, laws don't do much if the people in charge don't follow them, or don't follow them wisely.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

This is an interesting debate. I think my biggest problem with our government is that the Federal is just out of control now, and the states have been stripped of all their power. Also I think the point Eskelian is trying to make is that the government shouldn't have to be involved with every possible aspect of our lives. There are alot of things you can take out of the equation and not only save tax money but give back freedom to the people. Also as far as taxation, income tax did not even come into existance until the early 1900's, how did we survive so long without it? The average American has been reduced to a Serf working for their Lord(credit card companies, mortgages, taxes, etc). It's time Americans face the fact that almost all of our government policies are for the benefit of big business and special interest groups, and unfortunately this is having a horrendous effect on common folk which most of us are. As far as changing the government, it's been made nearly impossible. Basically democrats and republicans have divided the country so that each voting district will almost always keep them in power, and then we are given the illusion of choice with clown A or clown B. When an independent does manage to win a spot, both sides turn on them and basically cripple them. We need such drastic change in government that literally a revolution is needed, and unfortunately our government and big business have created a culture that has made the majority of us Sheeple where more people vote for American Idol then who is running their local government.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

> The average American has been
>reduced to a Serf working for their Lord(credit card
>companies, mortgages, taxes, etc).

>Basically democrats and
>republicans have divided the country so that each voting
>district will almost always keep them in power, and then we
>are given the illusion of choice with clown A or clown B.

I think you hit two key and critical points here, which are points I too have thought about quite a bit.

Those points are two things which I began thinking about in relation to the Matrix, two very important question which the film raised for me:

1) Can you be in a state of pseudo-slavery and not be aware of it?
2) Do we really have the ability to choose for ourselves?


In many ways, we're given the illusion of choice by our society and government. The perception of freedom boils down to having a choice, even if its not really a choice at all. The society we're in dictates a life for us, in many ways serf-like and punishes those that don't comply harshly (see the example of someone who doesn't obtain a social security number that Isildur brought up). As long as we think we have a choice, we don't get pissed off and think we're free, but in reality our society is engineered in a very specific way to create a very large herd of unthinking sheep.

I don't get why people were so hung up he cheated on his wife. He's a politician. In Britain, it's still pretty common for them to be rogering 16 year old boys.

Yhorian

A guy who has sex on the job isn't someone I want representing my country. That he lied about it illegally makes it even worse.

It doesn't matter if whether he had sex in the job or not if the results are not damaged due to it. As far as I see it, Clinton did an excellent job as the President of United States.

Because I'd take the lying adulterer any day. And I'm betting he hasn't lied half as bad as Bush has.

Yhorian

>Nope, sorry, but I was "endowed by (my) Creator with
>certain unalienable Rights, (and) that among these are Life,
>Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.". Presumably so were
>you.
>
>That's great on paper, but an effective government is
>necessary for you to actually enjoy those rights. Otherwise,
>your actual rights are limited to what you can personally
>assert by force.

Here we are at a fundamental disagreement. I don't consider that "great on paper" because I, and the millions of other basically good people in our country can and would stand up for ourselves to protect both our own rights and the rights of others. The citizenry can (and does) protect itself from abuses. To say I would only have those rights I can personally assert by force ignores other people. Not all of them are evil.

>And finally, the amounts of my taxes that goes to those
>things I actually use is dwarfed by that which I will either
>never see benefit from (social
>security/medicare/medicaid/etc.) or which I don't support
> foreign aid/wars on foreign soil/etc.... How about I pay for
>the services I use. That seems fair. That seems to be how
>businesses get by.
>
>So, let's say we're discussing aid for injured veterans. If
>everyone only pays for the services they use, injured veterans
>are the only people who should pay for these services. That's
>the capitalism end of the spectrum.

Injured veterans and veteran care in general is part of national defense.

>The socialism end of the spectrum is everyone pays for
>everything equally. We're not there either-- transportation
>projects tend to be funded by taxes on gasoline, tolls on
>public roadways, and the like. Some government agencies fund
>themselves (some sectors of R&D, the Post Office, etc.)
>through capitalist methods.

The Post Office claims it funds itself, but that isn't true.

http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt05/
http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt03/

Look for US Gov. appropriations - received. They may fund the majority of their operating costs themselves, but they are not as wholly self funded as most believe.

>We lean capitalist in most sectors, with the major exception
>being those government programs which provide aid for poverty.
> The problem is, of course, that the poor simply can't pay for
>these programs. Now, some people are poor because they make
>horrible decisions. Many people are poor because they were
>born poor, and thus got a sub-par education, and later had to
>make career decisions based only of short-term goals (I need
>food this week) instead of long-term goals (I can take this
>crappy internship because a few years down the line it will
>mean a better job). Poverty is terribly, terribly
>cumulative.
>
>So, either:
>1) The non-poor provide a net flow of money toward poverty
>relief, or
>2) We find out what happens if you have a large group of
>people without enough money for true necessities.
>Specifically, a lot of people die, others riot, and you see
>either Depression-era collapse of economies or a reversion to
>de facto slavery/serfdom.

Or a rise of private organizations designed to help combat poverty ala. Gates Foundation. I'd sure be more likely to donate money to helping the poor of 30% of my paycheck wasn't already being taken.

>Police protection is a farce. I can protect myself much
>better than the police can or would. It seems to me that the
>very wealthy already hire private protection (Hi Vlad!) and
>that the poor wouldn't exactly consider the police their best
>friends.
>
>This is completely ridiculous macho posturing. Read up on
>what happens to areas (say, Watts) when police protection
>systemically breaks down due to underfunding, corruption, and
>other factors. The result is not that everyone ends up
>better-protected. Rather, it reverts to anarchy, where rights
>are only asserted by force.

I'll look up Watts, but sounds to me like they didn't have a lack of police protection, but rather bad police protection. The difference being if you are still being "protected" people aren't as likely to take it upon themselves, but if you know no one is riding to the rescue, you (and others like you) will be more likely to take it upon yourselves. Switzerland is a decent example of this. They have police, but they don't do much in the way of protection, and more in the way of investigation and mitigation. People they protect themselves and their neighbors... This also leads to less crime. If I'm a criminal now, I just have to get out before the police get there. In Switzerland, I better hope no one catches me, because chances are they'll try to stop me.

I'll try and analogy. If I'm batting (baseball) with a helmet, then I'm not *that* worried about getting hit in the head... Sure I'd rather not, but it isn't that big a deal. If I have a broken helmet then I'll probably assume I'm mostly alright as well. If I have no helmet... Well you can bet I'll be getting my ass out of the way.

>Heck, take a simpler case. How could you drive with no
>authority in charge of traffic enforcement?

Ever seen how well traffic enforcement works in China? No enforcement, but people still manage. Granted, it's a mess, but I couldn't think of a better concrete example just now.

>That sounds like a good idea... when was the last time we
>did that? (Cut services)
>
>
>Clinton inherited a government with outlays equal to 22.1% of
>GDP and shrunk it to 18.4% of GDP in his eight years. Bush
>expanded it back to 20.2% in his first three years despite
>falling government revenues, and I can't find more recent data
>on how it's gone since, but going by the annual deficit's
>rapid growth I'm thinking the news isn't good.

Clinton was a good president IMHO, but he didn't (to my admittedly spotty recollection) cut programs so much as reduce spending overall. That's good, but I'm looking for bigger changes.

>The current administration has sharply expanded spending
> primarily on defense) on things the majority of Americans
>don't support. (They've also brutalized scientific spending,
>with money bled out of effective programs to fund things like
>"faith-based works", abstinence education, etc... so the
>'real' spending on things most people do support like R&D
>drops even as the budget numbers rise.) That's irresponsible
>government, not what the system was designed to do, and
>unfortunately I think we're going to wait for another round of
>elections to sort that out. Sadly, laws don't do much if the
>people in charge don't follow them, or don't follow them
>wisely.

Then we should start with the supreme law of the land, The Constitution. When all the programs and expenditures from the federal government that they do not have the authority or right to do by the Constitution are culled, then we can talk about people following the law again.

>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Switzerland is a decent example of this. They have police, but they don't do much in the way of protection, and more in the way of investigation and mitigation. People they protect themselves and their neighbors... This also leads to less crime. If I'm a criminal now, I just have to get out before the police get there. In Switzerland, I better hope no one catches me, because chances are they'll try to stop me.

Three major points I'd like to make about low Swiss crime rates:
1) All Swiss males are required to serve 300 to 1300 days of military training, at taxpayer expense. ( http://europeforvisitors.com/switzaustria/articles/swiss_army.htm ) In other words, you pay for 50% of the population to sacrifice ~5% of their working life, plus a smaller career police force. In the US, per the FBI, 3.5% ( http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_personnel/table_70.html ) of the population works in some form of law enforcement, including both officers and support staff. In terms of tax burden, you're not really saving money on police. You're just using a different system which removes individual freedom from the equation (conscripts vs. professionals).

1B) Now, the Swiss military budget is very low, largely because the country's goals are completely isolationist. This has nothing to do with domestic protection (law enforcement, etc.), and everything to do with foreign policy. I'd like to see us do less interventionism (see: Iraq) unless it's needed (see: Afghanistan, Kosovo), but not foreswear all foreign involvements.

2) Switzerland has high wealth, low wealth disparity, and high taxes which fund social programs like Social Security, health insurance, etc. Not only is Switzerland wealthy on average, but they're very far from the US where the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.

The single best variable for predicting crime rates is relative poverty. It's being poor, yet looking out the window or on the TV and seeing people with much more.

3) For a counterexample, consider Japan. Very intrusive police force (warrantless searches, near-complete ban on civilian arms, highly punitive sentencing), the complete opposite of the Swiss ideal you're presenting, and crime (especially violent crime) is nearly non-existent despite high population density. Why? Low poverty, good safety net.

4) For another counterexample, consider countries like Congo, Somalia, or Nigeria. Zero police enforcement, heavily armed populace, and they're all battlegrounds.

And one minor point:
Ever seen how well traffic enforcement works in China? No enforcement, but people still manage. Granted, it's a mess, but I couldn't think of a better concrete example just now.

It's a complete disaster. Even the Italians make fun of how bad it is there, and I wouldn't think of driving in Italy. And that's with a population that owns relatively few cars-- it is only recently that Chinese who were not officials of the Communist party were allowed to own cars, and most Chinese are too poor to buy one anyway.

How well does their non-enforcement work? According to the World Health Organization (2004), China accounts for ~20% of the world's automobile accident deaths (250K of 1.2M annual). (The government reports lower by a factor of 2, but.... Chinese Government, and they kind of have an incentive to under-report. I'm inclined to believe the WHO.) There are ~550M automobiles in the world, but only about 10M (~2%) were in China in 2003.

In summary, common sense generally prevails. Lower law enforcement means more crime. Lower traffic enforcement means more traffic accidents. If you're going to make extraordinary claims (police have no impact on crime, for example, you need to provide extraordinary proof.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

>Here we are at a fundamental disagreement. I don't consider
>that "great on paper" because I, and the millions of other
>basically good people in our country can and would stand up
>for ourselves to protect both our own rights and the rights of
>others. The citizenry can (and does) protect itself from
>abuses. To say I would only have those rights I can
>personally assert by force ignores other people. Not all of
>them are evil.

Not to talk down to you more than is usual for me talking down to most anyone, but this seems like a painfully naive statement to me.

I mean, if you could trust people to do what's right and not abuse the opportunities they have at the cost of others, there'd be no need to even think about something like welfare reform, either. It's sort of nice to think you can round up a posse of the just to fix all the problems, and sometimes you can... and sometimes you end up blaming the easiest scapegoat and lynching them instead. You have to gloss over a lot of abuses at the cost of the innocent to glorify simpler systems of law enforcement.

I stopped reading this post after you lied about how socialism works. Socialism doesn't imply everyone pays equally. It implies everyone pays, the rich vastly moreso than the poor.

>I stopped reading this post after you lied about how
>socialism works. Socialism doesn't imply everyone pays
>equally. It implies everyone pays, the rich vastly moreso than
>the poor.

I was discussing the extreme version of socialism, in which there are no rich or poor. Specifically the Marxist ideal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In a pure Marxist economy (never realized anywhere on an appreciable scale), private ownership disappears and the concept of "rich" becomes very fuzzy. You own two cars? The System decides you have more cars than you need and gives one to someone with zero. Obviously, in practice such an economy falls apart as incentives to produce approached zero.

All modern economies are neither pure socialism or pure capitalism. They're just useful constructs.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

For what its worth, I concur about Bush Jr. Guy is spending money like its water. The spending needs to go down significantly. I think you're focusing too much on poverty programs. They really are a very, very small percentage of the tax money that gets spent, if you ignore healthcare (which is a huge, nebulous topic that warrants its own discussion irrespective of this discussion).

If you downsized "defense spending" (its laughable that they call it that, we aren't using much of it for defense) and restructured education and social security to be more forward thinking we'd at least be in a much better position to reduce taxes and have a more stable long term financial position. Additionally, by consolidating our taxes, eliminating pork spending, replacing federal income and capital gains taxes with a consumption tax, you'd be 90% of the way there.

As an added measure, healthcare system needs a huge overhaul, but that's another discussion.

They really are a very, very small percentage of the tax money that gets spent, if you ignore healthcare (which is a huge, nebulous topic that warrants its own discussion irrespective of this discussion).

But I'm not willing to ignore health care in a discussion of poverty in the US. Social Security is also a safety net program with an enormous impact.

But yes, defense is the big one. The FY2008 request is calling for $440B for DoD, $36B for Veterans' Affairs, $31B for DHS, and a number of agencies (intel, etc.) spend part of their budget on national defense. Total budget request is $871B in discretionary spending, so the above is nearly 60% of that.

Education? $54B. NSF? $6B. HUD? $33B. DOT? $13B. State, including diplomacy? $34B.

A reasonable reduction in defense spending would be enough to make huge changes in those fields. Honestly, from the moment the Berlin Wall came down, we should have been thinking of only two facets:

1) Prepare for asymmetric warfare. Reduce the purchase of fighter planes, submarines, and other expensive items which are only useful against conventional militaries. No conventional military in the world wants to fight us. We outspend the next 10 combined. Prepare for the kinds of fighting we saw in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan-- large numbers of low-tech guerillas operating in decentralized units. Lots of those people want to fight us. Focus on rapid force projection, intelligence, and counterinsurgency work. Minimize how much we actually fight by only intervening when necessary, and involving other powers wherever practical. Diplomacy is cheaper than fighting anyway-- enough of this cowboy ####, and knock off the "Axis of Evil"-type rhetoric. Even if you do want to swat someone, running your mouth only makes you look unnecessarily aggressive and threatening, and if you don't swat them you've just made extra enemies for free.

2) Maintain enough of the nuclear deterrent. We don't need quite so many missiles as we have, but there is a political utility to having the ability to obliterate any state actor who posed a real threat to America, even if we don't intend to use it.

I'd bet you could do both of the above, cut the defense budget 25% in the short term, 50% in the long term, and still maintain global military dominance.

I suspect some reduction will happen during the next administration, which is why I made it a point in my recent job negotiations to switch some of my portfolio towards supervising energy-related projects (solar/PV, most likely) instead of purely defense-related stuff.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I think we have to look into the fact that greater than 50% of the budget is devoted to social programs. I find it absurd that any government thinks they can better spend >50% of my taxes (I'm ignoring the deficit) better than I can to take care of myself (and others).

Yeah, I totally agree on this. Regarding Social Security, my biggest problem is that its currently a stupid way to do things. The return on the investment, frankly, sucks. Pay the existing SS payouts, fine, but restructure it so that accounts moving forward allow discretionary investment, at least 50% in securities, municipal bonds, other long term safe investments, and 50% in whatever other funds they want to do (growth, whatever, maybe limit it to 'reasonably accredited domestic funds'). Basically, make it like a conservative 401k plan.

We'd spend money in the short term, but its a better long term solution.

Additionally, the reason I'm dodging healthcare is because its a 50 thread discussion in its own right, but we can fire up another one if we want I guess.

>None of these things existed before government >control/influence/involvement? That isn't true.

This is true! None of these things existed in service of anyone but those with or power/wealth. The only way to get away from needing these services is to live in a tribal society where everyone works as a collective for survival. At that point, you no longer have an inalienable rights save for those that you can earn for yourself at the cost or your own blood.

>And finally, the amounts of my taxes that goes to those things I
>actually use is dwarfed by that which I will either never see benefit
>from (social security/medicare/medicaid/etc.) or which I don't
>support (foreign >aid/wars on foreign soil/etc.

I love how arrogant you are. You may not be in need of any of these services now, however, times change as do situations. What you don't need now you may be thanking God for existing later.

>How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair. That seems
>to be how businesses get by.

I'm going to say that those who are in need of these services you do not want to pay for are dependants in one capacity or another. Whether they're elderly, or disabled. Please refrain from making an anecdote about your cousin who scams social insurance for beer money.

>http://www.mises.org/story/1121

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

This is the case of a tribal society, with small communities. Human beings cease to be able to function as a community above certain population levels. This also presupposes that the society in question is one with uniform ethics, values, wealth, and religion.

>Police protection is a farce. I can protect myself much better than
>the police can or would. It seems to me that the very wealthy already
>hire private protection (Hi Vlad!) and that the poor wouldn't exactly >consider the police their best friends.

Once again, you are so very arrogant. You think you can take on the world, don't you? Go live somewhere that doesn't have the things you claim you don't need, and see how well you carve out your comfortable living you've got going for you. I suggest finding a large source of income, many weapons, and a good number of well trained mercenaries before attempting this.

>National defense, sure. I would argue that police forces have been
>oppressive and ineffective since the beginning of time and have
>almost always been created for that purpose.

This I agree with. However, violent crime takes a steep nosedive when a population is capable of defending themselves, themselves. For example, nations with mandatory conscription. Oh wait, you oppose conscription because it presupposes that the gov't owns your Life.

>>And finally, the amounts of my taxes that goes to those
>things I
>>actually use is dwarfed by that which I will either never see
>benefit
>>from (social security/medicare/medicaid/etc.) or which I
>don't
>>support (foreign >aid/wars on foreign soil/etc.
>
>I love how arrogant you are. You may not be in need of any of
>these services now, however, times change as do situations.
>What you don't need now you may be thanking God for existing
>later.

My point is that at 25, the chances any of those programs will still be in existence when I need them is very near zero. Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security will all be lucky to last a couple decades more. Let alone the 40+ years until I qualify. Will I get a refund?

>>How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair. That
>seems
>>to be how businesses get by.
>
>I'm going to say that those who are in need of these services
>you do not want to pay for are dependants in one capacity or
>another. Whether they're elderly, or disabled. Please refrain
>from making an anecdote about your cousin who scams social
>insurance for beer money.
>
>>http://www.mises.org/story/1121
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
>
>This is the case of a tribal society, with small communities.
>Human beings cease to be able to function as a community above
>certain population levels. This also presupposes that the
>society in question is one with uniform ethics, values,
>wealth, and religion.

Do you have a local community? Does your local community then have representatives who speak for you amongst reps from other communities? Crazy how thats the system they had going on and is almost exactly like how ours works.


>>National defense, sure. I would argue that police forces have
>been
>>oppressive and ineffective since the beginning of time and
>have
>>almost always been created for that purpose.
>
>This I agree with. However, violent crime takes a steep
>nosedive when a population is capable of defending themselves,
>themselves. For example, nations with mandatory conscription.
>Oh wait, you oppose conscription because it presupposes that
>the gov't owns your Life.

Ya know, I like the Swiss way where everyone serves, but I also think that no one should be forced to serve. It's an interesting conundrum, though I think this statement and the one preceding it (which I deleted) are at fundamentally at odds with each other.

>How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair.
>That seems to be how businesses get by.

Two quick points:

1) I'd be interested to hear how a fire department would work in your world.

2) I think your viewpoint neglects the possibility that you might benefit from services indirectly. For example, it benefits me that the nearest hospital and my favorite stores don't burn down. It benefits me that poor people who don't want to be criminals can get food stamps or whatever instead of trying to rob me with a hobo knife. (Although where you draw the line there is obviously dicey.)

>
>>How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair.
>>That seems to be how businesses get by.
>
>Two quick points:
>
>1) I'd be interested to hear how a fire department would work
>in your world.

Fire departments used to be private. You can look up for yourself how that worked, but it wasn't ideal. Local governments got involved and now we have a better system. I'm not aware of a federal fire department, so I don't have a problem with them.

>2) I think your viewpoint neglects the possibility that you
>might benefit from services indirectly. For example, it
>benefits me that the nearest hospital and my favorite stores
>don't burn down. It benefits me that poor people who don't
>want to be criminals can get food stamps or whatever instead
>of trying to rob me with a hobo knife. (Although where you
>draw the line there is obviously dicey.)

I'm sure I do benefit from some services indirectly, but the food stamps hobo knife thievery is pretty weak argument, since ya know, they're out there robbing now with food stamps.

First of all, property taxes are far more regressive than progressive. There are ways to tax which aren't as burdensome. Consider a consumption tax, for instance. Consumption taxes or luxury taxes are far better ways to tax than property taxes.

An income tax isn't terrible either, however I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that we couldn't/shouldn't signifcantly reduce federal government overhead. If the income tax worked like it did when it was first implemented, it'd be fine. In its current form it amounts to 20-30% of everyone's budget. That's pretty god damn insane.

And do bear in mind when the nation was first formed our federal goverment was wholely funded on tariffs.

I realize Ron Paul is the internet darling now, and I can see why. There is a lot to like about so many of his positions. Here is, personally, why he wouldn't be getting my vote.

The Constitutional is not the be all end all to everything we do in this nation. It's a framework. It's a fantastic one, but there is more to what we as a nation must be than the Constitution.

When I think of Ron Paul and his beliefs on limited taxation and small government, I ask myself...

With Ron Paul as President, would we have intervened in WWI? WWII? Would we have even attempted space travel? Would we have established Social Security? (Sure its a mess now, but it has been a massive success). Would we have the interstate highway system we have now? Would we have so many of the things that have helped this country thrive, and make me so proud of it overall, even if at times I'm not? With Ron Paul as President, would this country be able to dream, to think big? I'd wager not. That's what really gets me about that guy, even though I like a lot of what he's saying.

>I realize Ron Paul is the internet darling now, and I can see
>why. There is a lot to like about so many of his positions.
>Here is, personally, why he wouldn't be getting my vote.
>
>The Constitutional is not the be all end all to everything we
>do in this nation. It's a framework. It's a fantastic one,
>but there is more to what we as a nation must be than the
>Constitution.

We have a system for amending it if that is necessary. Since that hasn't been done a whole bunch, I assume it's better than just "a framework".

>When I think of Ron Paul and his beliefs on limited taxation
>and small government, I ask myself...
>
>With Ron Paul as President, would we have intervened in WWI?

No. We weren't attacked. It also would have been resolved without our intervention. "Entangling alliances" caused WWI. We were supposed to try and avoid getting involved in those.

>WWII?

Yes, as we were attacked at Pearl Habor. We might not have gotten involved in the European theater, but who knows.

> Would we have even attempted space travel?

I believe so, but not perhaps by a national organization (NASA).

> Would we
>have established Social Security? (Sure its a mess now, but
>it has been a massive success).

I don't see how it has been a massive success, especially considering that programs could have been established to allow you to save your own money before taxes. I don't know, perhaps I'm missing the success stories.

>Would we have the interstate
>highway system we have now?

I'd say that falls pretty clearly under the regulating interstate commerce clause, but telling states how to link up could have been done without providing the money or increasing federal taxes to do so.

>Would we have so many of the
>things that have helped this country thrive, and make me so
>proud of it overall, even if at times I'm not? With Ron Paul
>as President, would this country be able to dream, to think
>big? I'd wager not. That's what really gets me about that
>guy, even though I like a lot of what he's saying.

If for no other reason than he'd be a push in the other direction from where we're headed now I think you should vote for him, but hey, I'm a big fan.

- Yes, as we were attacked at Pearl Habor. We might not have gotten involved in the European theater, but who knows.

You don't think that would have been a huge problem for us, and the entire world?

- Would we have even attempted space travel?
- I believe so, but not perhaps by a national organization (NASA).

How would we have done it? It wasn't, and isn't profitable. But amazing things came out of it.

- I don't see how it has been a massive success, especially considering that programs could have been established to allow you to save your own money before taxes. I don't know, perhaps I'm missing the success stories.

The success story is that we are not a complete welfare state, which we likely would be without social security. If people are not forced to save through a pension or social security, do you know how many people actually save properly for retirement? Very, very few.

- I'd say that falls pretty clearly under the regulating interstate commerce clause, but telling states how to link up could have been done without providing the money or increasing federal taxes to do so.

How is that clear? States didn't do a damn thing about linking up. It took Eisenhower to grab some cash and get it going.

- If for no other reason than he'd be a push in the other direction from where we're headed now I think you should vote for him, but hey, I'm a big fan.

It's pretty clear you're a big fan. I'm a big fan of scaling back government. I'm just not sure he's the guy to do it.

>- Yes, as we were attacked at Pearl Habor. We might not have
>gotten involved in the European theater, but who knows.
>
>You don't think that would have been a huge problem for us,
>and the entire world?

Honestly? Not really. I'm not sure why it would have been. It also depends upon how aligned Japan and Germany were. History isn't really my thing, but were they working together? If so, we would have probably gotten involved in Europe. If not, the USSR takes over a whole lot more of Europe and destabilizes that much quicker.

>- Would we have even attempted space travel?
>- I believe so, but not perhaps by a national organization
> NASA).
>
>How would we have done it? It wasn't, and isn't profitable.
>But amazing things came out of it.

We have satellites and such that are profitable no? Are human space voyages profitable? I don't think so, so they might not have happened... I'm not entirely sure we lose a whole lot.

>- I don't see how it has been a massive success, especially
>considering that programs could have been established to allow
>you to save your own money before taxes. I don't know, perhaps
>I'm missing the success stories.
>
>The success story is that we are not a complete welfare state,
>which we likely would be without social security. If people
>are not forced to save through a pension or social security,
>do you know how many people actually save properly for
>retirement? Very, very few.

I don't consider it the job of the government to take care of those that don't take care of themselves. Also, were there other options for people to save pre-tax money on their own? To opt out of Social Security? No and no.

>- I'd say that falls pretty clearly under the regulating
>interstate commerce clause, but telling states how to link up
>could have been done without providing the money or increasing
>federal taxes to do so.
>
>How is that clear? States didn't do a damn thing about
>linking up. It took Eisenhower to grab some cash and get it
>going.

Were they asked? Did Eisenhower first try to get the states to work together on an interstate highway system? Either way, it does fall under instate commerce clause, so they had the authority to make it happen one way or the other.

>- If for no other reason than he'd be a push in the other
>direction from where we're headed now I think you should vote
>for him, but hey, I'm a big fan.
>
>It's pretty clear you're a big fan. I'm a big fan of scaling
>back government. I'm just not sure he's the guy to do it.

Fair enough, but I'm not seeing another option right now.

I promised myself I wouldn't post anymore. But I can't help it!

- Honestly? Not really. I'm not sure why it would have been. It also depends upon how aligned Japan and Germany were. History isn't really my thing, but were they working together? If so, we would have probably gotten involved in Europe. If not, the USSR takes over a whole lot more of Europe and destabilizes that much quicker.

Japan, Germany and Italy formed the 'Axis', allied against pretty much everyone else. USSR wouldn't have just taken over a good part of Europe and destabilized. Oh, and we'd have something called Nazi Europe to deal with eventually. I know history wasn't really your thing, but most people tend to agree that the Nazi's weren't nice fellows. And they were very ambitious not nice fellows.

- We have satellites and such that are profitable no? Are human space voyages profitable? I don't think so, so they might not have happened... I'm not entirely sure we lose a whole lot.

We do have satellites that are profitable, yes. Would we have been able to create them without NASA in the first place, so soon? Hell, we likely wouldn't have them now if it wasn't for the Nazi scientists we took in (see above answer) after their defeat to aid our space program.

- I don't consider it the job of the government to take care of those that don't take care of themselves.

I do. Making sure pretty much everyone has bread on their table keeps a country from total and complete chaos. There is a fine line between charity and being taken advantage of, but it's a line we often have to walk.

- Were they asked?

Asked? They didn't do it on their own. If someone shows zero initiative, someone else has to step in.

- Did Eisenhower first try to get the states to work together on an interstate highway system?

If all the states were involved, and had final authority, each with their own little bickering opinions, we'd still be in the middle of figuring out the route for I95.

There are very few things the goverment does better than the private sector, but the things they do fairly well should remain in their hands. The government isn't as good as they make themselves out to be, nor nearly as bad as most citizens make it out to be.

>I promised myself I wouldn't post anymore. But I can't help
>it!
>
>- Honestly? Not really. I'm not sure why it would have been.
>It also depends upon how aligned Japan and Germany were.
>History isn't really my thing, but were they working together?
>If so, we would have probably gotten involved in Europe. If
>not, the USSR takes over a whole lot more of Europe and
>destabilizes that much quicker.
>
>Japan, Germany and Italy formed the 'Axis', allied against
>pretty much everyone else. USSR wouldn't have just taken over
>a good part of Europe and destabilized. Oh, and we'd have
>something called Nazi Europe to deal with eventually. I know
>history wasn't really your thing, but most people tend to
>agree that the Nazi's weren't nice fellows. And they were
>very ambitious not nice fellows.

I'm aware they were the 'Axis', but I am not sure how much they actually worked together. I've become more leery of labels recently. I mean I'm pretty sure North Korea and Iran don't work together, but some people are try to label them together.

I don't think it is clear that without US involvement in the European theater (which from what your saying wouldn't have been the issue anyway) that all of Europe would have fallen to Germany. I consider it more like that Communist Russia takes more than they did and then destabilizes like they did and things are more or less the same. It's all theoretical anyway.

>- We have satellites and such that are profitable no? Are
>human space voyages profitable? I don't think so, so they
>might not have happened... I'm not entirely sure we lose a
>whole lot.
>
>We do have satellites that are profitable, yes. Would we have
>been able to create them without NASA in the first place, so
>soon? Hell, we likely wouldn't have them now if it wasn't for
>the Nazi scientists we took in (see above answer) after their
>defeat to aid our space program.

Rockets were a known (emerging?) technology. I'm optimistic that someone would have thought to use them for something other than an explosive (or nuclear) payload.

>- I don't consider it the job of the government to take care
>of those that don't take care of themselves.
>
>I do. Making sure pretty much everyone has bread on their
>table keeps a country from total and complete chaos. There is
>a fine line between charity and being taken advantage of, but
>it's a line we often have to walk.
>
>- Were they asked?
>
>Asked? They didn't do it on their own. If someone shows zero
>initiative, someone else has to step in.
>
>- Did Eisenhower first try to get the states to work together
>on an interstate highway system?
>
>If all the states were involved, and had final authority, each
>with their own little bickering opinions, we'd still be in the
>middle of figuring out the route for I95.

They wouldn't have final authority because of the interstate commerce clause not to mention the national defense implications of that sort of infrastructure.

>There are very few things the goverment does better than the
>private sector, but the things they do fairly well should
>remain in their hands. The government isn't as good as they
>make themselves out to be, nor nearly as bad as most citizens
>make it out to be.

And since we threw out some founding father quotes earlier...

"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."

James Madison

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

George Washington

I swear there was one about governments being the greatest enemy of the people... but I can't find it....

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves..."

James Madison (I edited out the part about the 10 commandments.)

And this one is perhaps my favorite.

"There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from anothe quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing."

Daniel Webster

I don't think it is clear that without US involvement in the European theater (which from what your saying wouldn't have been the issue anyway) that all of Europe would have fallen to Germany. I consider it more like that Communist Russia takes more than they did and then destabilizes like they did and things are more or less the same. It's all theoretical anyway.

More or less all of Europe did fall to the Axis, aside from Britain, Spain, and a couple neutral countries. That isn't theoretical. This is why Americans (and Britons and others) got shot to hell on Normandy's beaches instead of walking in from friendly ports.

By 1942, the Nazis controlled all of continental Europe (except Spain, which was neutral and in civil war), much of North Africa, and had made significant headway into the Soviet Union. Without US involvement, you're looking at one of two possibilities-- Nazi-controlled Europe/Britain and Stalinist Asia, or Stalinist Eurasia. If you think either of those leads to a better America today, I don't know what else to say.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

But this whole discussion has gone way off on a tangent. Basically the question is, would we get involved in a war if we are not attacked with Ron Paul as President. AFAIK the answer is no, we wouldn't. Since we were attacked at Pearl Harbor the rest of the argument is theoretical in the extreme.

A better question would be - if we never elected anyone like Ron Paul, who would scale back all of the *bad* things we get involved with? Who would reduce waste and simplify the system? We need guys like Ron Paul. The system is in desparate need of an enema.

I agree that guys like Ron Paul can be a very good thing. But I don't want someone like him as my President. I like them in the House, but that's about it. One of my main drawbacks with Ron Paul, the darling of the Liberatarians, is that he decided to go Republican because it's more electable. I understand the reasons for it, but what he says loses a lot of punch to me because of it. His comments after Virginia Tech upset me as well. Whenever anyone immediately uses a tragedy as a chance to make a political point, it upsets me.

Question is, can a guy like that actually get anything done in the current two-party system? I can't really see that other Republicans in the other two branches of government would back him on half of his agenda even if he somehow managed to be elected president.

The power to veto is a pretty good power to have. Additionally, just the fact that someone with those views got elected would be a huge step in the right direction, both in terms of what other politicans emulate and in terms of what sorta mindset the country would have to be in for that to take place to begin with.