🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris wrote:
> 
> Chuck Wright wrote:
> 
> > Chris wrote:
> > >
> > > Chuck Wright wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Last time I checked, taxes are not optional.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Isn't that what your party is trying to achieve?
> >
> > We're not trying to make taxes optional.  Limited government with
> > limited power, and with no power to run roughshod over peaceful
> > peoples lives is what we're trying to achieve.
> > 
> > At the federal level we favor just enough taxes to defend the
> > country (which does not equal being the policeman of the world
> > or placing troops in over 100 foreign countries), settle disputes
> > between the states, negotiate treaties with foreign countries, run
> > the federal court system, and not much else (which equals getting
> > rid of the federal welfare for corporations, politicians, and
> > individuals).
> 
> And the "user fee" financed armed forces you offered a few months back?

I never said that that was what the Libertarian Party was trying
to achieve.  Nor did I ever say that user fees alone could ever 
pay for an adequate defense.  I did say that I (not the LP) think
it may be possible to fund an adequate defense without using 
the coercive tax system to get the defense I want.  

User fees would not be the only source of funds.  For instance, 
corporations could advertise that they contributed x percent of 
their profit toward national defense.  If defense funding were 
strictly voluntary, such a marketing advantage could make the 
difference in many companies bottom line.  It would even be 
patriotic to buy from companies that donate to defense.

Anyway, user fees and business contributions are not the only sources 
of funds I envision for funding defense voluntarily.  And I'm certainly
not suicidal.  I'd want to be absolutely sure that we could do it before
embarking on all voluntary defense funding.  I'm not sure about the 
safety of all volunteer military funding.  Testing would have to be done
on a small country scale and then work our way up to larger countries.  If
it doesn't work on a smaller scale, then we back off.

I'm not about to support all volunteer military funding right now for
the US, and I don't expect we'll have tested it on a large enough scale
for me to support in within the next 20 years.  What I can safely support
right now is to cut the federal budget to $100 - $150 billion with 
about $50 - $75 billion for the military.

> Hey, I'm ready to invade Boulder - Pearl St. Mall watch out!

Be careful Chris.  $50 billion can buy a lot of guns and ammo.
 
> > If the federal government stuck to just these things, we could
> > end the federal income tax and fund the federal government with
> > only the existing tariffs and existing excise.
> 
> And if the world just played by *our* rules we'd all be fine. No oil crises,
> no IRA, no terrorists, no Saddam - getting the wakeup call yet?

The IRA is about to invade?  Head for the hills Chris!
  
I'm not sure why we fought Saddam.  I know, it was so we
could all choke on carbon monoxide and ozone for a couple 
of extra years.  Naw that wasn't it because oil does Saddam
no good in the ground.  He's got to sell it to get what he
wants.  Then why did we invade?  Oh I know, too save those
people in Kuwait from Dictator A so they could live under
dictator B.  I see.

> > A totally optional tax system would be nice, and might even
> > be particle and possible,
> 
> Allow me to interject with a real world lesson in libertarianism. And  TRUE
> story as well.
> 
> I live in a mountain subdivision where we have covenants, a homeowner's
> association, and annual dues. They are minimal
> ( less than $50 a year).
> 
> Currently, as in any year, less than 40% of the residents pay said dues.
> 
> Why, you ask.
> 
> They are optional!

Hmmmm.  Chris puts defense on the same level as covenants.
Did you really think anyone would fall for this one Chris?

> 
> Yes, we're mavericks. All 500 of us.
> 
> But worse than that - we're cheap, self serving humans with little regard
> for our own rules.
> 
> Oh, we have the usual problems, junk cars in the drives, bright pink houses,
> all number of covenant violations. But we have no money to enforce such, and
> no support to raise such. Less than 40% of us care enough to do the very
> thing we signed on to do in our closing papers - PAY THE DUES!
> 
> There is one other neighborhood up here with a similar situation. All true
> story. Results - those who care finance those who don't.
> 
> We who have some responsibility pull and spray the weeds, maintain the
> entrance signs, run neighborhood watch, mail the newsletter, etc.

See the work gets done voluntarily.  

But if you want people around you to do what you want, move
to a neighborhood with stronger covenants and higher 
non optional fees. 

> The other 60%  sit in their chairs and do ****!

So they should be forced at the point of a gun to do what
*you* think is the right thing? 

> Now that is Libertarianism in action.
> 
> ON TO VOUCHERS! My hair is up now....

I don't support vouchers.  Please go fight against vouchers.

Chuck Wright
http://www.self-gov.org/