Miles, UncleBill and other Libertarians

[gleam]

Markov Cain is an idiot. Sheesh. Property taxes keep you from owning
property? You know that taxes are the responsibility of each and every
citizen? They are part of living in a civilization not an anarchy.
Property taxes generally fund local things like schools, police, parks
and recreation, the roads in town, and local civil servant pay. The
reason behind property tax is that those who live in the community
fund the community. And you pay federal and may pay state income tax,
but there is no local income tax added in on top of that.

Income tax? You HAVE to pay for the highways you drive on because the
government is entirely funded by tax dollars. You HAVE to pay for your
government. This is responsibility as a citizen. Taxes aren't what
steal your freedom, they fund your government. How free do you think
we'd be without police or a military? Who pays for it? Coca cola?
Chrysler? Mitsubishi? American taxpayers? Grow a fucking clue.

What is a tax? It helps to say what exactly people mean by this and,
like usual, different people mean diffent things. Some people define a
tax to be money that goes to the government, irrespective of the way
that this happens. If this is your ONLY defing characteristic of that
concept we call a "tax", then libertarians are definitely NOT against
certain types of taxation. Specifically, they are not against the
kinds of taxation that don't involve an initiaiton of force on the
part of the government. In other words, they are not against what
some people would call "voluntary taxation". The prime example of
voluntary taxation is the State Lottery. Another example would be
simple, voluntary governmental donations. It is this issue of
force initiation that libertarians find repulsive.

It is not that libertarians don't think that some of the services a
government provides (roads, education, electricity) aren't
useful. They just don't think that the government has any right
WHATSOEVER to put a gun to your head and say something along the lines
of "Give me your money or I'll shoot! But don't worry! I'm robbing you
for a good cause!"

Yes, this is the main premise behind (compulsory) taxation. The fact
that most people don't think of it that way is simply a testimony to
the complacency of people when it comes to paying their taxes. If you
suddenly decided tommorrow that you didn't want to pay your taxes,
then you would eventually be visited by the police. They would likely
arrest you. I doubt the police would like it very much if you decided
that you didn't want to be arrested and tried to give them the
slip. You probably wouldn't do that, though, becuase the police are
the one's with the guns. The threat of the gun is ALWAYS there.

The most popular response to this, as far as I know, is to view the
taxation system as some sort or "social contract" between you and the
government. Hence, when you don't pay your taxes and police come after
you, that is not the initiation of force, but rather the enforcement
of a contract. This is a VERY bad mis-analogy. Contracts get their
moral force from the CONSENSUAL agreement of both parties involved in
the contract (at least, this is the general consensus; anyone want to
debate that?). No one ever signed a social contract.

And before anyone says anything, yes I know I can just LEAVE the
country if I don't like its policies. That is not the point. Suppose I
want to move into a neighborhood and the local gang leader, with his
gun plainly visible - tells me that I need to pay him $100 a month for
the services he provides for the neighborhood, none of which I want
anything to do with, for various reasons. He then graciously informs
me that if I don't like his price I can just leave the neighborhood,
no questions asked. When I ask him what right he has to takemy money,
he simply retorts that of course he has a right - just his loyal
henchmen down the road.

Would it make a difference if the gang leader was actually good on his
word? That is to say, would his actions be acceptable if he really did
provide the services he said he did? Would he have a right to point
the gun at you?

It is generally conceded that when Al Cappone extorted money from
people in exchange for "protection" from other gangs, that his
"protection" usually amounted to nothing. In other words, he just
wanted the money, and didn't give anything in return. What if he
had given you something in return? What if he really
did give you protection from other rival gangs? Would the
extortion be morally acceptable?

Hate crime laws? They have very little to do with what you say and
everything to do with what you act. The KKK and Louis Farrakhan both
spout their racist philosphies to their hearts content, and both of
them violate the law when they actually do things like burn crosses in
another person's yard or burn down white churches.

If that was all there was to hate crime, I'd be a believer in hate
crime laws in a second. Unfortunately, if this was all there was to
hate crimes, there wouldn't be any need for hate crime
laws. When a KKK member kills a black person, that is murder - and we
already have laws against that. When a KKK member burns a cross on a
black person's lawn, that is tresspassing and property damage - and we
already have laws against that. When KKK member burns down a church,
that is arson - and we already have laws against that.

When libertarians refer to hate crime laws, they refer to the laws
that prohibit KKK members from spouting racist opinions. And yes,
libertarians are against laws that prohibit THAT. Free speech is free
speech. The minute we start saying that some opinions are just so
OBVIOUSLY wrong that we can safely prohibit anyone from mouthing them,
is the minute we decend into slavery.

The freedom to secure your own property... I'm still not
getting the correlation between having a seatbelt and securing your
own property. You have the right and responsibility to protect your
own property.

Well I'm with you on this. What do you mean Markov?

Nah, you're an idiot and probably a mask for another regular who has
no brains either. You don't know what freedom is and you sure as fuck
don't know why possessing freedom means you also possess the
responsibilities that go along with it. Maybe you should look into
actually completing high school.

Insulting people never did any good.

Gawd I hate stupid people. And I can say that. I hate stupid
people.

Careful. I think there's a law somewhere prohibiting that opinion. Let
me check

 

[gleam]

Very good points ShadowSource. Another thing we must remember about Rand is that she is writing from a very jaded perspective. She learned to hate communism and in all her works she tried to so alienate her ideology from that of equality. The communist ideal of pure equality left a very bad taste in her mouth, as is evident in her book Anthem. However, I believe she went to the extremes in the creation of her own ideology.

I don't consider myself a Randite, but I feel forced to defend her here

Rand was against all forms of dictatorship (read: governments that initiate force against their citizens and others). So, yes, she was against Communism which, around the world, has been responsible for more deaths that both world wars combined. If the "evilness" of a dictator is measured by the number of deaths he is directly responsible for, then Joseph Stalin makes Adolf Hitler look like a boy scout.

So, yeah, she was against Communist Russia. Who isn't?

She was beside herself when people started insisting that Russia was not, in fact, a communist country at all. She thought that this was complete bullshit. I tend to agree. The communist program was eventually supposed to produce a stateless society, but before that could happen there had to be a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to lead the way.

Read that again. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That's not Stalin talking, that good old Karl Marx himself.

I think that Rand herself said it best:

"The secret dread of moderl intellectuals, liberals and conservatives alike...is the unstated knowledge that Soviet Russia is the full, actual, literal, consistent embodiment of the morality of altruism, that Stalin did not corrupt a moral ideal, that this is the only way altruism has to be or can ever be practiced. If service and self-sacrifice are a moral ideal, and if the "selfishness" of human nature prevents men from leaping into sacrificial furnaces, there is no reason - no reason that a mystic moralist could name - why a dictator should not push them in at the point of bayonets - for their own good, or the good of humanity, or the good of posterity, or the good of the latest bureaucrats's latest five year plan. There is no reason they can name to oppose any atrocity. The value of a man's life? His right to exist? His right to pursue his own happiness? These are concepts that belong to individualism and capitalism - to the antithesis of the altruist morality."

I don't agree with everything Rand said. She thought a women should never want to be president of the United States. And she tended to rationalize alot of her more indenfisible positions (she thought, for some reason that she never really explained, that men were metaphysically superior to women, whatever that means). But her views on politcs/economics was quite impressive, in that she was one of the first people to offer a MORAL defense of capitalism.

You take the good and ignore the bad, that's all. She was quite a charcter

 

[floridaguy64]

Whoa!!!!!!! Did I just stumble into something?

Just so everyone knows where I'm coming from up front:

I'm a conservative............. Not a democrat, not a republican, not a libertarian.......... just someone that tries to live his life with somewhat of a mixture of values from some of the aforementioned...............well, at least those that make any common sense at all.

Yeah, I listen to Rush............ But I also listen to Boortz and Hannaty.......... I even like when I get the chance to hear Walter Williams too!........... None of the folks is 100% right in their opinions, take from them what you will and expound upon the ideas they help plant into your head as you like. Nuff said.........

I am also a former United States Marine, which by the way, when I served under Reagan, I sure as hell payed income taxes! And forced to pay for life insurance, savings bonds.............these items weren't an option, they were mandatory. So for those who think that income taxes totally funds whatever service they are collected for............... you can forget it!

Income taxes pay for what? Let's break it down...........

Military: All enlisted men and comissioned officers pay income taxes............so, in a sense, they have to pay taxes so that they can have the honor to protect the citizens of this nation................. sound fair?

Police: All police personnel pay income taxes, from the beat cop, administration, all the way down to the guy working in the impound yard, and everyone else in between............ Is it fair that the men and women out on the beat, the ones risking their lives daily for you and I, have to then pay a portion of their wages in taxes just for the privilage of doing so?

Highways and Roads: The workers that build the roads pay taxes that go back into the roads................ sound fair? After all, without the workers, there would be no roads. And on that note: The trucking industry alone pays taxes in excess of what is neccesary to maintain and keep our national roadway infrastructure healthy and up to date. It is when the beauracracies of the DOT's step in, that is where all the extra money is needed........................ I know this for a fact, as I was an Assistant District Manager for one of the most recognized transportation companies in the world. I have personally sat in on DOT monthly district meetings and heard local DOT beauracrats state that if X number of dollars weren't spent by Y date........... the money would be lost and would revert back to federal hands........................ So, lay of the roads crap as far as income taxes are concerned.............. Roads have up until the last couple of decades ALLWAYS been payed for by way of a CONSUMPTION TAX !!!!!! At least anyways, until the Teamsters got their digs into politics.

I could rant on and on, just about taxes, but I'll finish with this thought............. I am self employed, make about 100k or so a year, working 12 or more hours a day, usually 6 days a week........
pay about 55% of that in taxes.........................

Ask yourselves this, and be honest about it too:

WOULD YOU WORK FOR SOMEONE 72 HOURS A WEEK FOR A SALARY OF $ 45,000 A YEAR.............. OR 3,744 HOURS PER YEAR AT A RATE OF $12.00 PER HOUR STRAIGHT TIME (NO O/T !!) AND PAY FOR ALL OF YOUR OWN BENEFITS YOURSELF??????

WELL....................... WOULD YA?

 

[Laurel]

Re: Whoa!!!!!!! Did I just stumble into something?

Military: All enlisted men and comissioned officers pay income taxes............so, in a sense, they have to pay taxes so that they can have the honor to protect the citizens of this nation................. sound fair?

Do said military personnel use our roads? Are their dependents protected by local police? Do their children attend public schools? Do they, in the process of their daily lives, utilize services that were made available by taxes? If so, then yes. In fact, it is unfair to take advantage of services and expect everyone else to pay but not you.

Police: All police personnel pay income taxes, from the beat cop, administration, all the way down to the guy working in the impound yard, and everyone else in between............ Is it fair that the men and women out on the beat, the ones risking their lives daily for you and I, have to then pay a portion of their wages in taxes just for the privilage of doing so?

See above.

Highways and Roads: The workers that build the roads pay taxes that go back into the roads................ sound fair?

See above.

Everyone wants bigger military. Military pay raises. Star Wars defense. Better public schools. No one wants to pay for it.

People seem to believe these things grow on trees. They don't. Money makes things happen. The many government services that separate the U.S. from places like India (where the roads are atrocious) do not magically appear. They are the result of all of us pooling our money to make our lives better.

You don't like having to pitch in and help - go to Missouri and declare yourself a sovereign nation.

 

[christo]

A trade off

We could argue all night about whether taxes are too high, or not distributed fairly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if you give a bureaucracy the power to tax and spend, they'll do it.

But remember, when those crazy Patriots rebelled against the British, their cry was "Taxation without representation". Well, we have representation in this country, at the local, state, and federal level. Getting that representation to behave is our job, the voters. And since like 40% of eligible voters actually get off their asses and cast ballots, it's not easy to hold politicians responsible.

And that leads to my larger point-- that if you want freedom, you have to accept the responsibilities of citizenship. Freedom without responsibility isn't freedom. It's sucking at the teat, like a baby, until someone comes along and takes it away from you. And then you find out that your freedom was illusory.

A nation can be stronger than the sum of it's parts. You want to go build a fortified compound and stock up on guns and canned goods and live like that, go right ahead. If the shit hits the fan you aren't going to last too long all by yourself, no matter how many AK-47's you have. It's pretty easy to be outnumbered when you're by yourself. People can protect themselves much better when they band together. Been that way since caveman times.

Taxes help pay for that defense. Taxes help pay for things like Marines, Aegis cruisers, Maverick missiles, and other things that make people who would like to attack us think twice. Taxes pay for roads, bridges, student loans, medical research, museums, libraries...the list goes on.

The list also goes on to include things like politically-driven pork projects, arms-for-hostages, ossified and overstaffed buraucracies, and internships for the orally-fixated daughters of major campaign contributors. So the system isn't perfect, far from it. So what do we do? Withdraw, abdicate our responsibilities? Or work to effect change?

If you want a society where everyone makes what they can make, and keeps what they can keep, don't do it around me. Yes, you don't have a choice about paying taxes, though I think that saying the collection of taxes if enforced at the point of a gun is a bit melodramatic. But there are laws about paying taxes, just as there are laws about stopping for red lights and not taking other people's property. These laws weren't passed in a vacuum, the idea was to build a more just society. And these laws can be change, by us, the citizens of this nation. We don't have a Stalin dictating how we must live our lives. We do.

You can say that you're trading your freedom for security, but you could rephrase it and say that you're accepting responsibilty with your freedom. They go hand in hand.

So far as sin taxes and seat belt laws go, ehh. The seat belt laws are silly, tho why people don't wear their seat belts is beyond me. I don't think arguing that cigarettes shouldn't be taxed because dead smokers save us money is a winning argument. From a purely economic viewpoint I'm not sure I buy it, and when you think about the pain and suffering caused by premature deaths caused by smoking, a tax on cigarettes seems a better idea. If you believe in market forces, you can reduce demand by increasing price. Though a tax on beer would be a Grievious Intrusion against my Rights <g>.

 

[Unclebill]

Lavender, somewhere in this post are the links you requested. Good hunting.

The Libertarians are followers of that fabulous adventure book writer, Ayn Rand, who never dealt with RACE, RELIGION, or many other longstanding causes of war in her endless "Objectivist' works (which I loved when i was 12).

Perhaps you should look farther before you start generalizing. Just peruse the first few pages of the National LP site and you can correct your misperception.

If you've read more than the two books you named, you already know the statement is wrong that she didn't address racism or religion. Just of curiosity, what was Rand's chosen religion since you are familiar with her works?

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Markov Cain is an idiot. Sheesh. Property taxes keep you from owning property? You know that taxes are the responsibility of each and every citizen? They are part of living in a civilization not an anarchy. Property taxes generally fund local things like schools, police, parks and recreation, the roads in town, and local civil servant pay. The reason behind property tax is that those who live in the community fund the community. And you pay federal and may pay state income tax, but there is no local income tax added in on top of that.

It's easy to throw stones. It would be nice if your aim were a bit better.

In the 70's Proposition 13 in CA was a virtual revolt against property taxes that were so high people couldn't pay them and their HOMES were being confiscated (stolen) by the state. Property taxes do fund some of the things you noted. Why does government run schools? It's not the province of government unless you wish government to have the means at hand for social indoctrination. And we have a substantial amount of that today.

And, BTW, there are more than a few localities in which there IS A LOCAL INCOME TAX. Take a look at your next W2; you'll see a copy to be filed with one's local income tax return.

And much of the things you noted could just as well be paid by the sales taxes imposed on top of the other things.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Income tax? You HAVE to pay for the highways you drive on because the government is entirely funded by tax dollars. You HAVE to pay for your government. This is responsibility as a citizen. Taxes aren't what steal your freedom, they fund your government. How free do you think we'd be without police or a military? Who pays for it? Coca cola? Chrysler? Mitsubishi? American taxpayers? Grow a fucking clue.

Highways are supposed to be paid for by the taxes on fuel. In CA, about $0.43 of the price of every gallon of fuel is tax. It varies a bit from locale to locale, but it's about the same in all areas.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Hate crime laws? They have very little to do with what you say and everything to do with what you act. The KKK and Louis Farrakhan both spout their racist philosphies to their hearts content, and both of them violate the law when they actually do things like burn crosses in another person's yard or burn down white churches.

Get a grip. Hate crime laws specifically delineate a harsher penalty as a result of the thoughts or statements of the perpetrator before, during or after the crime. In truth, they have EVERYTHING to do with one's thoughts and words and NOTHING to do with the criminal act itself.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
The freedom to secure your own property... I'm still not getting the correlation between having a seatbelt and securing your own property. You have the right and responsibility to protect your own property.

Huh?

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Nah, you're an idiot and probably a mask for another regular who has no brains either. You don't know what freedom is and you sure as fuck don't know why possessing freedom means you also possess the responsibilities that go along with it. Maybe you should look into actually completing high school.

And perhaps you should research your facts before you post if you wish to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Gawd I hate stupid people. And I can say that. I hate stupid people.

No comment.

Originally posted by lavender
Very good points ShadowSource. Another thing we must remember about Rand is that she is writing from a very jaded perspective. She learned to hate communism and in all her works she tried to so alienate her ideology from that of equality. The communist ideal of pure equality left a very bad taste in her mouth, as is evident in her book Anthem. However, I believe she went to the extremes in the creation of her own ideology.

How did she learn to hate Communism? In fact, she studied a number of ideologies, analyzed them and finding none rationally and intellectually honest and consistent, set about devising her own to these standards, a first in human existence.

Originally posted by lavender
Miles, one time UncleBill and I got into a discussion about freedom. I said that freedom is not absolute. And he said that if freedom is absolute it is not a value or right but a principle.

If I stated that freedom is not a value that was a misstatement. It is not a right per se, but it is a fundamental principle or value directly derived from the right of ownership of one's life.

Originally posted by lavender
Our rights are not unlimited, they are not absolute. Not even freedom. We do not have the liberty/freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre.

I also addressed this before and we share a difference of perception. With rights and freedom, the corollary is responsibility. While there is no such thing as the right to commit a crime, i. e. initiate the use of force, there is responsibility and accountability when one does take such an action.

The idea that freedom permits one to yell "FIRE" in a crowded space which will likely result in harm to others falls into the category of criminal behavior, i. e., falsely inducing fear, panic, etc., which equates to the covert initiation of force. And one's actions as such necessarily entails the consequences for that act.

Originally posted by lavender
There are many examples of one man's freedom being another's oppression. UncleBill on numerous occasions has discussed about having the freedom to discriminate. He said that that is our option as a property owner, a business owner, through our freedom of association, etc. However, the practice of this freedom is the oppression of the minorities in many cases. Wasn't it Rand who abhored pure democracy because of the lynch mobs who would oppress the single individual. She hated utilitarianism because the masses cannot oppress the minorities? Read her Lexicon about utilitarianism and you can see where some of her philosophy comes into direct contradiction with some of the political beliefs that objectivists/libertarians proclaim. I just find numerous contradictions.

If you read her analysis of utilitarianism, you'll find it is another variant of collectivism. This particular one is a combination of tenets drawn from Hedonism and from Christianity. But the common thread it shares with collectivism is that the individual has no right to act for his own benefit, only for the benefit of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Fundamentally, it says (like all forms of collectivism), that the individual is the means to the ends of others. It is this philosophical expression of the hatred of mankind as a whole that Rand rejected in her quest for a rational philosophical expression of man as a noble species, not a herd animal to be used as the means to feed others' ends.

And despite your protestations to the contrary, it was her love of man that was the root of her philosophical labor, not a hatred of Communism.

The LP platform is at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/.

Its Statement of Principles is at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/sop.html.

Some issue statements are at http://www.lp.org/issues/.

Originally posted by shadowsource
… hate crime law can help protect those whatevers from your most gullible readers. Fair enough...

When was the last time a law protected anyone from anything?

For gleam, I know from my perspective and I believe from the Libertarian perspective, the hate crimes against which we speak are those which seek to impose harsher penalties based on the motivation, i. e., thoughts and words, of the perpetrator, not his actions. Libertarians believe in punishing criminals for the crimes they commit, not for the words they utter or the thoughts they harbor.

For example, there have been times I've thought about killing someone. I've never acted on it and won't. Thus I am not guilty of a crime even if I've shared my thoughts verbally or in writing with someone else. I should not be subject to any punishment for my thoughts or words.

But if I actually attack someone and kill him, I am then guilty of murder and deserve punishment for the action. But even in that situation, I should not be punishable for my words or thoughts, only for my act.

But the Liberal/Left mentality would say that my crime is more heinous if I hated the victim. I find this concept ludicrously anti-intellectual and dishonest. If I kill someone because I hate him, is he any deader? What if I kill someone because I love him? Should I then go unpunished because I loved the victim? Because by their rationale, it is completely justifiable that loving the victim should excuse the crime if hating makes it worse. What intellectual vacuousness can seriously offer to justify such a proposition? But it can sound good if you only consider half of the proposition they postulate, can't it?

Originally posted by Laurel
Do said military personnel use our roads? Are their dependents protected by local police? Do their children attend public schools? Do they, in the process of their daily lives, utilize services that were made available by taxes? If so, then yes. In fact, it is unfair to take advantage of services and expect everyone else to pay but not you.

Yes, and they pay the gas taxes in the local economy to pay for them. They pay local property taxes to pay for the schools. They pay local sales taxes to pay for myriad other government services whether or not they make use of them. What's your point? And they also pay income taxes in their home state to pay for government services there that they cannot use because of their absence if they live elsewhere on military duty.

Originally posted by Laurel
Everyone wants bigger military. Military pay raises. Star Wars defense. Better public schools. No one wants to pay for it.

Not everyone wants a bigger military. Clinton and his cohorts did what they could to destroy and demoralize our military. He even gave enough nuclear weapons and missile guidance technology to China to make them a real potential threat in the future and is hailed as a great American president. We do need to improve and strengthen our military in order to protect ourselves.

Originally posted by christo
If you want a society where everyone makes what they can make, and keeps what they can keep, don't do it around me. Yes, you don't have a choice about paying taxes, though I think that saying the collection of taxes if enforced at the point of a gun is a bit melodramatic. But there are laws about paying taxes, just as there are laws about stopping for red lights and not taking other people's property. These laws weren't passed in a vacuum, the idea was to build a more just society.

First, I hardly think the idea is so melodramatic. When the authorities come for you when you don't pay taxes, the police, marshal, or sheriff is armed and they are not coming to deliver and invitation.

Second, can you please explain how you call it just to steal one person's property and give it to another?

Those who use cigarettes are inflicting the damage on themselves voluntarily. Holding tobacco companies responsible for the actions of others is a brand of stupidity which I've come to associate with the Left/Liberal/Democrat contingent. They are routinely the proponents of trying to absolve people of responsibility for their actions. And it is a very effective technique to seduce people to surrender their freedom for absolution from accountability.

It would not bother me if only the people so gullible were subject to the ensuing abuses, but I am also the victim of their ignorance, laziness or evil.

And, BTW, you already suffer this Grievious Intrusion because you pay several taxes on your beer including probably sales tax, so you're violated without even being conscious of it. How does it feel to be suckered already?

 

[MinkSoul]

I'm a Libertarian... but not a very well versed one...

The reason i became one is, if i'm not hurting someone else then the Government shouldn't have the right to tell me what to do...


i don't know much on the tax issue... i think i pay too much, but, that seems to be pretty much a common feeling among the people i know...


In my opinion, the Government is there to protect us from those who wold do us harm and to help maintain the infrastructure of the country.

and Nothing else...


When i was a child my parents looked after me, now that i'm an adult, at least chronologicly(sp?), i'll look after myself... i don't want/need a beaurocrat to hold my hand and tell me to wear my seat belt when i'm driving or give me money if i don't have a job..... tell me who i can marry or have sex with (the homophobic laws are there, weather or not they're enforced.... they're Still on the books).

in my town, they can arrest me if i fall asleep in my own truck...... in my Own driveway...

"Don't do this, you might get hurt.... Don't do that, it doesn't look right"

no... wrong...

if i do something stupid and get killed then that just means my Idiot DNA is removed from the gene pool.... But it's MY decision weather or not to do it.... NOT good old Uncle Sam...


Get off my back and Get out of my house...

 

[miles]

There is agreement here that we need police, the military, etc.
Guess what - that's only a fraction (20%) of what the government spends. Where does the rest go? Even if they spend another 30% on what some people consider necessary, the remaining 50% is being redistributed - but not to the people from whom it was collected.

The government is stealing you blind and they are getting away with it. Where is the outrage when we hear about $400 toilet seats? Or the government credit card scandal that's hitting the news? Or the FBI's missing computers and weapons? In the big scheme of things these sound pretty minor, but we all know how they add up, and worse, they pale in comparison to the way the government pisses away the money they took from you and me.

It never fails. Remember what happened the last time there was a cable TV rate increase where you live? Or banks raised their ATM fees? Or you electric utility raised their rates 5%? People went ballistic, calling these companies theives, robbers, criminals, baby killers,etc. But the government continually raises taxes to the highest level in history, and there's hardly a peep. The Democrats intentionally lie to our parents and grandparents and tell them the Republicans will take away their SS benefits. They get away with it. They actually have the balls to say a tax cut is bad - like they have a right to our money. In California the Santa Monica City Council passed a resolution/ordinance that the minimum wage in their city is now $12/hour. In OR farmers lose their crops to protect some fucking goldfish they claim is endangered. The inmates are running the asylum. But I really don't blame the politicians. The blame lies with the American people who believe the lies, demand the government provide them security, and are too stupid or lazy to get off their ass to learn what's going on, or or that matter, actually vote.

You can doubt what I'm saying, or call me whatever you want, but do me a favor. Learn the facts. Before saying Libertarians want to have sex with children, or abolish all laws, or do without police or the army or schools or roads, know what you're talking about. In fact, don't go to the Libertarian website. Go to the DNC website and read about how government will improve our lives and make us happy. They will tell you exactly what they think you want to hear.

 

[christo]

Unclebill,

There are of course taxes on beer, I'm aware of that. I meant an additional sin tax for alcohol. So far as blaming tobacco companies for people dying of smoking, I don't absolve smokers from their plight. There's been a Surgeon's General warning on cigarettes for decades, a warning required by the Federal Government.

But the tobacco companies always denied that there was any correlation between smoking and health problems, they said that nicotine wasn't addictive, the CEO's of the major tobacco companies got up in front of a congressional committee (made up of OUR representatives) and testified under oath that, in their opinion, smoking was not a health risk. We now know that they were lying, all along. Internal memos showed that tobacco companies KNEW that their product was a major health risk, that nicotine was highly addictive, and they lied about it, so they could make more money. They even adulterated cigarettes to increase the nicotine content and make them more addictive.

As someone who obviously values freedom, aren't you outraged that these people denied consumers the truth, hid the facts from them, while supplying them with a product that was addictive and potentally lethal? You write that libertarianism has one fundamental right-- ownership of your own life. Don't you think that tobacco companies egregiously violated that right?

If you were a person inheritly suspicious of government, and chose to believe the tobacco companies when they said the health warnings about smoking were just a Left/Liberal/Democrat conspiracy, and you ended up getting terminal lung cancer, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "It's all my fault". Or would you be furious that a corporation you trusted lied to you for decades and never told you what they knew--that what you were doing was very dangerous to your health and could quite possibly shorten your life.

 

[MinkSoul]

With freedom comes responsability...

i smoke and i know that it is slowly killing me... i can't see how anyone could beleave otherwise... Any kind of smoke is a health hazard... when you start hacking and coughing after getting a lung full that's your body telling you it's not a good thing...


if i choose to smoke, that's My choice.... Not the government's...
if i get Ca, Emphasema(sp?), COPD or whatever that's My problem... why is that such a hard consept for people to grasp?
i'm not directing that comment at you christo.... i'm speaking about the population in general... taking responsability for ones own actions seems to be the exception in the world rather then the norm....

if i injure someone else then i should pay for it... (monitarily, criminal conviction ect... depending on the injury...)
but if i injure myself though i know better then no one else should have to pay for it... i did it.... i'm responsable for it...
Period.

 

[shadowsource]

More Ayn Rand!

Yes, she was a delightful rogue. Loved the way she conned her way up in Hollywood! Has anyone seen the Italian 40s version of WE THE LIVING? Amazing, beautiful film that in a bizarre way exalts a loyal Russian communist as much as anything, and which won prizes in Irtaly and played very well until Mussolini's folks realized that Rand's critique of Leninism might also apply to Fascism. That and the fact that non one had purchased the rights to WTL for the movie left it in a basement for decades, until a US couple dug it up and spent another decade restoring it. Left or right, the movie's way cooler than whatever's playing at your multi right now....

Have any of you libertarians ver tried to organize a godamned picnic with a bunch of strangers? I love anarchism in theory, but it bumps into reality in five minutes, when people start reaching for their guns over the rare vs. well-done principle. We all have needs that can't be achieved without social rules. My NYC was virtually anarchistic in the late 70s and 80s, and I loved it! Now it's a tourist mall where New Jersey meets Long Island, and some 15% of all the Americans arrested for pot last year were popped by our psycho fascist Mayor. It's kind of what people wanted; they reelected him. The plus side is that far fewer women get raped, though that was never a problem for me (Yes, I walked by that dying guy in the firefighters' arms on my way to the next club one night). Order is what people actually want - they just rarely agree on WHOSE order!

 

[Bob Peale]

The freedom to raise your own child - oh why the hell flagellate a deceased equine...

Of all your comments, this one is by far my favorite.

Makes the whole thing sound....kinky and seditious

 

[miles]

shadowsource

It's not often I see posts like this. According to you:

Libertarians represent anarchy. No laws, authority, or leadership.
It's pretty obvious you don't have a clue what Libertarianism represents.

Your mayor is a Fascist - a racist dictator who controls everything and terrorizes the citizens. Before he took office anarchy ruled (but you loved it). Now crime is way down. Fewer women are being raped (but that was never a problem for you). Despite that, he was re-elected, and you're pissed off about it.

I'll let your statement rest on its own merits.

 

[lavender]

 

[Purple Haze]

And this is a bad thing?

 

[MinkSoul]

Purple Haze

i think the points he was trying to make were:

What else are we spending money on?
and
Is the military able to do what we expect of it with less money?

 

[Siren]

I dont know enough about Libertarianism to comment on this topic except to say

 

[lavender]

 

[MinkSoul]

Throws arms up in front of his face...

i wasn't doing the compairing.... i was just trying to give a small explanation of the chart....


like i said before.... i'm not well versed enough on the tax/budget issue to comment...

i'm just addressing my remarks to the small area of the big mess that i do understand...


i'll just sit over here and watch the big guns volly back and forth on the other things...

 

[Weird Harold]

The reason the defense budget has decreased whereas other budgets have increased is because at one point we were spending and exorbitant and unnecessary amount on defense. Our desires to break the communist Soviet Union and to win the cold war led to this.

I think it is a faulty comparison to apply defense spending over the last 30 years with spending of any other kind. It's an entirely different breed.

If you accept that the only reason goverment exists it to "provide for the defense of the realm", then defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget is a key indicator of how much the government is doing other than defense.

The chart is flawed in that it give the impression that defense spending declined over the time frame shown, which is NOT true.

In a properly run "libertarian" government, the percentage of defence spending would remain a constant in the 50-60% range. From that viewpoint, the chart clearly indicates a government that is spending far too much on things it does NOT exist to do. A government that exists to provide defense that spends more on other things is either not doing it's job or doing more than it should in addition to defense.

 

[miles]

Lavy

I was quoting shadowhateverhisnameis. He called him a fascist and I was mocking him. Nice try.

And by the way, do me a fucking favor....turn your avatar around so we can see her ass.

 

[miles]

Harold

The chart is flawed in that it give the impression that defense spending declined over the time frame shown, which is NOT true.


Bzzzzzz...wrong answer!!!! It says very clearly PERCENT OF DEFENSE SPENDING TO OVERALL BUDGET.

Sure, it would give you that impression if you didn't read it!!!!!!

Classic doublespeak.

Jesus H. Christ!

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Harold

[BBzzzzzz...wrong answer!!!! It says very clearly PERCENT OF DEFENSE SPENDING TO OVERALL BUDGET.

Sure, it would give you that impression if you didn't read it!!!!!!

Classic doublespeak.

Jesus H. Christ! [/B]

Clearly labeled or not, it is misleading and poorly constructed -- As are most charts that show a range of 100%.

To give a true impression of defense spending vs total federal budget, it should show the total increase in spending as well.

Your chart is indeed a case of "classic double speak" and a very good example of the truth of your signature line.

 

[Unclebill]

I think it is a faulty comparison to apply defense spending over the last 30 years with spending of any other kind. It's an entirely different breed.

That's true. Defense spending is legitimate within the definition of the Federal government's authority. The rest is not and it's the illegitimate spending the Left uses to buy political careers that is raping the economy of America.

Gotta agree with ya, miles. The chart indicates exactly what it says. It clearly conveys the portion of Federal expenditures which are defense related (excluding, of course, the things of a pork barrel nature that certain influential congressmen can have put under the defense budget to hide the true nature of their spending spree).

And it is a clear indictment that the Federal government is grossly abusing the American taxpayer by engaging in things they are not permitted under their Constitutional constraints. But, hey, why should they be required to abide by laws. That's a limitation to which only the great unwashed masses should be subjected, right? The ruling elite certainly are to be held above the fray of such petty restraints, aren't they? After all, they have been elected to nobility, right?

I mean, isn't it our job to pay for whatever they decide they want?

Clearly labeled or not, it is misleading and poorly constructed -- As are most charts that show a range of 100%.

Wow, I must be looking at a different chart. What I saw was quite clearly labeled and very precise in the information it conveyed. It didn't hint at providing dollar amounts, only at the percentage of total Federal spending related to defense. What am I missing?

 

[Weird Harold]

Wow, I must be looking at a different chart. What I saw was quite clearly labeled and very precise in the information it conveyed. It didn't hint at providing dollar amounts, only at the percentage of total Federal spending related to defense. What am I missing?

You and Miles are both correct that the chart shows exactly what it is labeled to show. My problem with charts of that nature is that they can be misleading because of the way they are scaled -- they don't show the whole story or how those percentages fit into a wider context.

In this particular case, the chart gives a visual impression of a decline in military spending where it should actually clearly depict a rise in non-militaryspending to properly show the context.

As one chart in an integrated display, there is nothing wrong with it. taken out of context and placed in a discussion of this nature, it can be misleading. The visual impresion of military spending declining within a steady government spending level is far more powerful to the subconscious than the label at the top of the chart.

One of my management courses in the AF covered scaling charts and how the way charts are scaled affect a presentation positively or negatively. Charts scaled to 100% that show two values were highlighted as one of the most misleading ways to construct a chart. Scaling charts to exagerate the changes is another common way of misleading with charts.