Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything In This Country

Recs

24

August 02, 2010 – Comments (22)

This exchange speaks for itself. Although later, you know I will have something say :)

David in Qatar

22 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 02, 2010 at 9:29 PM, NDimensionalDino (98.45) wrote:

Her argument can be applied to ALL services rendered by the federal government.  To maintain the highway, we neccessarily have to MAKE someone fund and maintain it.  To maintain a military we neccessarily have to MAKE someone fund and maintain it.

 See the logical flaw here?  If you cannot make anyone fund and maintain anything or render any services, then you have no government at all.

As far anything being a "right" - I won't try to defend that claim.  I don't think it is a right - just something the majority of Americans wanted.  I want it too, just not in the form they passed; that just buys into more of the problems that is making health care unaffordable for so many already.  So in my opinion, universal health care, in principle, is desirable, but what we got was worse than nothing.

Report this comment
#2) On August 02, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Varchild2008 (83.79) wrote:

Oh Yea Pete Stark??????  Oh Yea??  Federal Government can do anything????

Can it leap tall buildings in a single bound?????

Can it break an unbreakable sheet of Plexi Glass?

Can it teleport through time, space, continuum?

Can it make anyone immortal???????

Can the Federal Government travel to planets billions of light years away?

No?????   Can't do any of that?????  HAH!  Proved you wrong Crazy Pete Stark!!!!

Report this comment
#3) On August 03, 2010 at 2:07 AM, FleaBagger (28.92) wrote:

NDimensionalDino - how is that a logical flaw? Please elaborate. You seem to be demonstrating that forcible government with forcible taxation is a form of slavery. It is. I agree. Where's the logical flaw?

Report this comment
#4) On August 03, 2010 at 10:21 AM, whereaminow (20.23) wrote:

FleaBagger,

Yep, this is how minarchists walk into some logical contradictions, unable to determine exactly why one service provided by force is not theft/slavery, but every other one is.  But, I'm not too hard on them since every minarchist who investigates it eventually becomes an individualist anyway.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On August 03, 2010 at 11:47 AM, whereaminow (20.23) wrote:

Actually, I better clarify that before one of my friends takes that the wrong way.  I don't ever confront minarchists here or anywhere because I know that, like me, they respect liberty and reject collectivism.  And I do feel confident that most people who really look hard at it would agree about the minarchist thing.  But it's not a big deal to me either way.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On August 03, 2010 at 12:34 PM, eldemonio (98.53) wrote:

She sounds like she knows what she is talking about, until you listen to what she is saying.  Slavery?  Get real.  Slaves were not paid for the services they provided, and their masters could beat the holy hell out of them.  How is that like mandated health care?

I too am against big governement ruling my life, but this woman doesn't represent my views.  She comes across as an irrational, intellectually dishonest whacko.

Report this comment
#7) On August 03, 2010 at 1:10 PM, whereaminow (20.23) wrote:

eldemonio,

From a libertarian perspective, she is correct.  You can not lay joint claim to another person's labor.  Either you are free to enter into contracts to perform a service or you are not.  Income taxation, something Americans had freed themselves from and were doing just fine without until 1913, is the government laying highest claim on your labor.  They're saying they own the money you make, and will let you keep a portion.  They don't come out and say that, of course.  (The truth from a politician?)  But that's what it is. 

If you pay 33% in taxes, then 4 months of the year you are working for someone else, involuntarily.  And you're not getting paid for it.  That's slavery, from a libertarian point of view.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#8) On August 03, 2010 at 1:30 PM, eldemonio (98.53) wrote:

David,

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but we shouldn't imply that we don't reep any benefit from paying taxes, because we do.  Are taxes too high?  Absolutely.  The amount we pay goes to support agencies and departments that are not essential to our well being, but a lot of our tax dollars do support essential services. 

I don't trust the government when it comes to my retirement or health care, but I do acknowledge that the fire department knows more about putting out fires than I do, the police department is more capable of enforcing the laws in my city and state.  I don't mind paying for these services with my tax money.  Do you honestly think that people would voluntarily pay their fare share for these services if they were not taxed?  I don't.

Report this comment
#9) On August 03, 2010 at 1:33 PM, whereaminow (20.23) wrote:

eldemonio,

That's fair enough. I just wanted to point out that from a libertarian perspective, she is correct, though I will say that I don't know if she is a libertarian or just a really pissed off taxpayer.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#10) On August 03, 2010 at 2:39 PM, GADawg (< 20) wrote:

eldemonio,

You have an inaccurate view of slavery. Slaves were compensated for their labor. They were provided for. They were fed, clothed, housed, and in some cases educated and paid. They were rarely abused. Would you break valuable property that you use simply because you could? And slaveowners generally weren't evil people who viewed themselves as committing a terrible crime. Most earnestly believed that their slaves were not capable of living outside of servitude.

Slaveowners were a lot like today's politicians. They can do anything they want to us, but we can trust them with that power. They wouldn't misuse it. And it's not like we can be trusted to make our own decisions. We're idiots. We would only screw up our lives. We need our wise overlords to care for us.

I can only hope that our great-grandchildren will judge today's politicians as harshly as we judge slaveowners.

Report this comment
#11) On August 03, 2010 at 2:50 PM, ag77840 (23.42) wrote:

whereaminow -

Just curious, do you advocate a privatization of the police force/courts of law?  I am a minarchist because I see major issues without these forms of government existing, but if you have a solution please share. 

Report this comment
#12) On August 03, 2010 at 2:54 PM, ag77840 (23.42) wrote:

I am all for a society with the least possible amount of government intervention, but I do not see how a society with a complete lack of government, thus a complete lack of taxation, could function.

Report this comment
#13) On August 03, 2010 at 3:13 PM, lctycoon (< 20) wrote:

Something like a consumption tax (or even an import tax) is not really a form of slavery like this.  I believe that whereaminow is advocating a switch from the income tax to something such as this, and I would agree.

 There is no way to have a society function without a government of some form and a taxation system.  However, there is no reason why we need an all-encompassing government like what is found in the USA.  Currently, the largest budget items (except the military) are all various forms of "stealing your productivity to give to someone else who does not produce."  This is only going to escalate in the future - and that is what I have a problem with.  I won't presume for David, but I suspect that he agrees with that stance.

Report this comment
#14) On August 03, 2010 at 3:14 PM, eldemonio (98.53) wrote:

Dawg,

Wow, slavery sounds pretty awesome when you put it like that.  Get real.

Report this comment
#15) On August 03, 2010 at 3:21 PM, ag77840 (23.42) wrote:

Completely agree with the redistribution of wealth becoming more of a problem in the future.  Americans seem to be forgetting that our country was founded on hard work, ingenuity, and entrepeneurship.  Socialist policies always fail at some point.  People are already losing the desire to invest with capital gains taxes going up, taxes on dividends rising, and government enforced low interest rates. 

Report this comment
#16) On August 03, 2010 at 3:22 PM, whereaminow (20.23) wrote:

sah713,

Just curious, do you advocate a privatization of the police force/courts of law?

Yes.

but if you have a solution please share. 

What kind of solution do you want?  We try not to place utilitarian value judgments on these issues that determine path A is better for society than path B. 

For a primer on what the solution might look like, i recommend this essay.  However, to understand why an anarchist society would be more free and more orderly than a government run society, I recommend Rothbard, Hoppe, and Block.  David Freidman's Machinery of Freedom is a good one too, but from a utilitarian approach.

I approach the issue a little differently.  In a government-run society, we have no rights.  How did I determine this?  Well, I looked at the history of rights. 

The first governments were bandits that preyed on peasants.  They would kill and rape them and steal everything they had.  Eventually they figured out that if they didn't kill the peasants but subjugated them instead, they'd reap more rewards.  After a while, seeing how their own wealth increased, these early bureaucrats discovered that allowing people to live must be a good thing.  Hence, you have a right to your lfie - in their system.

If you look at every right that people think they have, the origination was that governments figured out that this privilige, when granted to the people they ruled, increased the government's wealth (which they all squander to varying degrees).  Hence, all political rights are merely tools to increase government power. We see this today when governments bestow certain "right" on favored political groups.  It's merely an exercise in increasing power.

So I came to the conclusion that I have no rights, since I don't have any interest in increasing their power and wealth.  I would welcome anyone's attempt to convince me otherwise, and I'd be happy to take a pill that would erase this knowledge since it is a bit discomforting.  But to me, it's crystal clear.

It followed from there, as a personal value judgment - no more than that, as I began to investigate every service provided by government if it was really the only way.  I have concluded that it is not.  I don't think every neighborhood should be forced to use the same giant red fire truck at the same inflated cost to fight fires.  I think firefighting is a risky and noble job.  I think there is plenty of demand for it.  I'm not concerned that people won't want firefighters in their community.  Same goes for police and courts.

The biggest concern that most people have is that one private security company will become so powerful that it will turn into a monopoly and use force to terrorize people.  I contend that we already have that, so what's the concern?  Besides, I've never seen a private security company intentionally harm its own clients. It's not good for business.  Where would the money come from to pay for these brutes?   We're talking about a world with the Fed.  Money would come to the market in the same way clothes and shoes do, by market demand.

Anyway, as you can see, this would be a vastly different society than the one we currently have.  I don't propose bringing it about overnight.  In fact, I don't propose anything because it's not anywhere close to happening.  So I don't sweat it.  I just focus on trying to increase my own liberty and learning to live outside of The State.  That makes life more fulfulling.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On August 03, 2010 at 6:07 PM, GADawg (< 20) wrote:

eldemonio,

I'm real.

Is your opinion that all slaveowners were strictly evil people who constantly beat their slaves, and then in 1865 human nature changed and people became good and pure?

Do you not see any similarities in the beliefs of slaveowners (slaves needed slavery because they weren't capable of making their own decisions) with the beliefs of today's politicians (citizens need the nanny-state because we aren't capable of making our own decisions)? If you don't, then you need to get real.

Report this comment
#18) On August 03, 2010 at 6:47 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

The constitution was pretty straitforward in outlining the responsilities and power of the federal government.  In the bill of rights, which is meant to be immutable, the 10th admendant grants all powers not expicitly given to the federal govt. to be within the scope of the states.

These idiots think there is no limit on their power, the question to Kagan during the confirmation hearing about a mandate to eat certain things is illustrative, she wouldn't say that the federal govt. doesn't have the power to dictate such things.  I guess this point was too subtle for most people.  If conservative Republicans or Democrats will not fight this crap, I think I will go drink on the beach in the carribean with ChrisGraley.

 

Report this comment
#19) On August 03, 2010 at 6:52 PM, ragedmaximus (< 20) wrote:

read article the govt might resort to taking our 401k  and ira cause of cash problems.i might need to use that bear arms amendment.

Report this comment
#20) On August 03, 2010 at 7:39 PM, whereaminow (20.23) wrote:

sah713,

I also want to add to you, or anyone else interested, that economist Robert Murphy will be giving an online class on this very topic (privativizing law/police) at the Mises Academy:

The Economics of Private Legal & Defense Services

I haven't used their online classroom yet, but it looks very high-speed and interactive.  and the cost is around $250 I believe.  So, if you have the time and money, have a look.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#21) On August 03, 2010 at 7:41 PM, whereaminow (20.23) wrote:

Excuse me, it's only $150.  I must have been figuring it in 2012 dollars.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On August 03, 2010 at 7:56 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

raged, that 401k-ira thing is true in the sense that it is being discussed.  I don't have the links but I am sure others do if you need them.  See? the govt. wants to take control of your investments because you are too stupid to do it by yourself.

Oh, and instead of equities they would wind up buying T-bills, lol.  There is also discussion of negating all the the tax advantages for these things.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement