🚀 go-pugleaf

Chuck Wright wrote:

> 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.

No, incorrect - you said "user fee", and as a representative of the LP you may
wish to enunciate policy with more care in future.

> 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.

Oh i can just see us modeling our army on say Scotland's - totally different
geography, politics, culture, strategic importance. Cripes man, have you been
smoking rope?

> 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.

And when you provide us with some inkling that you understand basic accounting
practices and can cogently enumerate the specific branches of government no longer
necessary, their impact on the populace, and the price tag for such, maybe you'll
have an audience. So far it's just a dog and pony show.

> > 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.

You're right - I should think bigger, heck we'll take Longmont, Niwot, and Hygeine
as well.

> > > 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!

Try and stay on point Chuck.

> I'm not sure why we fought Saddam.

Not a surprise.

> 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?

The US had been supplying Iraq with slant drilling rigs and technology. They used
this to siphon oil from the Kuwaiti fields. The US ambassador at the time April
Glasspie state that "The US does not have a position on the conflict between Iraq
and Kuwait." Green light. The rest is history.

On the larger scale we had a safe chance to test a global response mechanism in a
small scale police action. We made a point about strategic interests and our
willingness to fight for such, and we isolated a potential power for continuing to
develop into a regional threat to our sovereignty.

> Oh I know, too save those
> people in Kuwait from Dictator A so they could live under
> dictator B.  I see.

Kuwait is not a dictatorship.

> > > 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.

No Chuck, that was your leap of logic. I simply offer a real world example of the
folly of libertarian policies in action.

> Did you really think anyone would fall for this one Chris?

A better question would be did I really think I had even the slightest chance of
getting a reasoned response from you.

> >
> > 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.

Yes, the 40% support the 60% - you're catching on now...

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

In the libertarian model this is exactly what happens, then the neighborhood is
left with people who do absolutely nothing and it disintegrates to chaos.

Meanwhile the decent places become increasingly exclusive, clubby, expensive, and
secular.

It's all about the food chain. And that's all about predatory behavior. To pretend
otherwise is idiotic, and to hide behind the skirts of liberty to rationalize how
jolly that world would be is utter hypocrisy.

> > 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?

You so love to amp up the rhetoric Chuck!

What they should be doing is complying with the very covenants which were a part
of their package at closing. Yes the dues are optional - no, the standards and
rules are not.

> > Now that is Libertarianism in action.
> >
> > ON TO VOUCHERS! My hair is up now....
>
> I don't support vouchers.  Please go fight against vouchers.

Well that is a shock!

And yes, I will do exactly that.

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