🚀 go-pugleaf

pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)  wrote :

> In article <yaWdnTlA9-6TrabZRVn-qw@forethought.net>,
> Lady Libertarian  <Lady_Libertarian@FreeWorld.xxx> wrote:
>>"Chas" <chasclements@comcast.net>  wrote :
> ....
>>> Just cut out the 'non-essentials'; do the stuff that 'people
>>> would willingly support', like 'things the people really
>>> wanted'. That's so, like, insightful.
>>> You know, if you get all 300,000,000 of us moving in a
>>> similar direction. 
> 
>>Yeah, you could call it something like "government of the
>>people, by the people and for the people", instead of the
>>monster it is now. How profound. What a concept. Why it almost
>>sounds like what the founders intended. Nah, can't have that.
> 
> So if a vote were taken to form a military that would require
> taxation to support, you would need not just a majority but
> 100% yes to pursue this? All 300,000,000 moving the same
> direction. 

No, taxation is slavery. You'd have to run the government solely 
with voluntary, optionally earmarked contributions. It would 
eliminate all pork and anything the people didn't want the 
government doing.

> Or you could go ahead form such a military and ask for
> donations? 

It wouldn't work that way. Think of the essential things people 
would really want the government doing for them. Police and 
military would be at the top. Wine tasting committees and trips 
on African safari for senators would not be.

So people could still even sign up at work for payroll 
deductions. They could pick what they wanted to donate for, from 
a suggested donation list, or perhaps just donate a blanket 
percentage. 

> Do you have an example of a country that is funded by such a
> model? 
 
Before the light bulb came out, no one had an example of that 
either, but the U.S. was very close to this when it was first 
founded.


-- 
Lady Libertarian - United States of America