How to Defeat the Right in 3 Minutes: A Libertarian Perspective

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8ful said: You mean more incentive than cheaper, unregulated slave labor? Less regulation here could backfire. We could go even further backward than bush. Less taxes? The corps. already dont pay taxes if they rent a $10 mailbox in Haiti.

I say:
Dan, you unfairly assume when I say more incentive to move here, I am talking about monopolistic corporations. You and I have conversed at length over the issue of corporatization that are ruining this country. Monopolies have ruined almost every industry they have entered into, and especially government. This nation was built with strict laws that put communities in charge of THE POWER OF INCORPORATION, just to LIMIT what you are talking about. The anti-constitutional Democrip and Rebloodlicans have gutted that anti-corporate, anti-monopoly safety net. The 14th amendment to the Constitution clearly has been used by corporations WRONGLY to attain the rights of individuals, isolating them from individual responsibility should the business fail. You are trying to blame the very people who SOUGHT to protect you in the writing of the Constitution, and you are praising those who BROUGHT you the corruption you are speaking of being so inherantly evil.

It is corporations that make the ridiculous fortunes that you speak of, that are NOT being forced to pay for damage done to local communities, BECAUSE of republican and democrat legislation to EMPOWER corporations BEYOND citizen, or community LIMITATIONS on their PRIVILIDGE of INCORPORATION.

You are talking about the problem ass backwards. This is why petroleum companies are getting TAX CREDITS as opposed to being saddled with community compliance standards for providing jobs to attain wealth, AT THE COST OF INCREASED COMMUNITY RISK, POLLUTION AND AIR STANDARDS.

Republicans and Democrats built this system of corruption, and you just have to understand that that is the fact. Taxes as they are now, are so far out of reason they are criminal, they are extortion, and the only people the government FORCES to pay their FULL amount of taxes, is the individuals. They are the only ones who DONT HAVE the money to pay for competent tax preparers to wade through the thousands of pages of contradictory tax laws that wrangle the system of faux transparency.

Gr8ful said: Do what again? What if you break your back lifting a cast iron tub. What again? WTF are you talking about? I was almost homeless again, my family rescued me this time. Now I am mooching off of family rather than strangers. I have known hard times before, too, when it wasnt by choice. I was born for trouble. I have always done very physical, demanding, dangerous work. I have also done very demeaning under payed work that didnt allow me to save money. Years, many many years of working day to day, hand to mouth. I am not whining, I am a witness to the human condition.

I say:
Look Dan, I understand how much it sucks, but it is what family is for, and when family isn't there, that is why there is charity. Also you need to understand that a lot of the reason your wages have been so shitty is due to over-regulation by government, forcing you employer to pay more than twice what YOU SEE as your salary in workers compensation, insurance, taxes and other bullshit feelgood legislation that is being looted by the politicians. Tom Noe's coin scandal was proof of how ill managed government is when left un-attended with the keys to the coffers of workers compensation money. I bet the workers themselves wouldn't gamble with that money Dan, at least if they viewed their LIFE and FUTURE as important, would they? That money that is being taxed could be in your check Dan. Pick any job you ever did, and multiply the wage you earned by 2.2 TIMES that wage, and you COULD have been earning that much if not for over taxation by the government.

Now don't say you wouldn't have been "smart enough" to have done that, because then I will say you deserve the position you are in. If a man makes more than he reasonably needs and still can't save money, there is a problem. A man shouldn't work for less than he is worth. If a man can't find work for an amount he feels hes worth, he needs to diversify his skills through more education, or try to start up his own business providing a service in the community for a reasonable market price based on his skills.

I understand that "unexpected" things happen. We take risks everyday of our life, just by being alive. The price for life, is risk. Nature imposes risk, and ALL men are forced to deal with it. Being a thrill seeker myself to some extent, I understand the lure of those types of jobs. But as an individual, you have to be willing to accept some form of risk for any job you perform, if those risks are inherant to the job. As an employer, a person would try to minimize risk through efficient training and tools. An an employee, a person should try to save for unexpected injuries, accidents or lay-offs.

You are born into a family, whether of one or more. That family consists of a mini-society, where the person in charge is the only one with rights and the ABILITY to obtain money from OUTSIDE the society. The PARENTS JOB when deciding to HAVE a child, is to RAISE a child, by having the MEANS AND ABILITIES to educate, and place that child into a life of sustinence the best they can. A society is made up of individuals and famillies. In a real full sized society with multiple famillies and individuals, each person bears their own brunt of responsibility to maintain and provide for their own life, with the aid of their OWN famillies until they are of a manner of self support. An orphanage, hopefully privatized, can take care of children without famillies if an adoptive family is not available.
Charity also, can help the young and the adults, with financial or shelter aid. Government however SHOULD NOT be in the charity business, nor the orphanage business, since they have not their own ability to earn money, they use the WORKERS money to provide that safety net. Over time, welfare states rise, and the burden on society overwhelms the ability of the workforce due to the combination of inflation and the lack of pride and independence available in the workplace due to wages declining, or stagnating due to over-taxation as opposed to rising or levelling with demand from the economy.

Gr8ful said: I want to know what you think. You havent answered where the money will come from for city works projects like highways and sewer pipes and water treatment..........You know the things that make life a little better than some 3rd world country. Where does that money come from? I am not being rude. I just dont see how it works. Will it be an un-armed IRS man that will go around and take up a collection?

I say:
If you read the link above, you will see clearly where FEDERAL necessities can be obtained through state apportionment tax, and states have the right to tax for representation and EMERGENCY use.
The problem isn't necessarily about taxation, it is the amount, the specific forms, and the tactics used in current taxation that is the problem. Some level of taxation will be a neccessity, it is where and how derived that makes all the difference Daniel, and also that ALLOWS for the checks and balances to work as designed.

I hope this sheds a little light on exactly what I am trying to convey here, and answer your questions.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr. Perfecto said: The people who get to make the laws? Whose idea of fairness should be used?

I say:
Who made the laws? Most of the laws Libertarians and Constitutionalists have fault with were created and proposed by anti-constitutional, pro-corporate, government subsidized labor major party canidates. Most of these laws can be directly linked to the problems we now are seeing all over in our society.

The only just reason for taxation, is representation, and we aren't getting any from the people that are being PUSHED by the BI-PARTISAN political, and corporate owned media monopoly. The bi-partisan monopoly created the media monopoly by design, to propagate and facillitate their own agendas.

The proof is in the pudding.

Mr Perfecto said: Even ignoring the fact that those who would help might have the resources to do so, you need to take into account that the concept of incentives, like almost everything, exist as a continuum. Where I might not see an opportunity to work for a dollar an hour as enough of a positive incentive to get out of bed...you see where this is going?

I say:
Thank your acceptance of lack of representation, and transparency in lawmaking and tax creation. You are trying to blame the people who think YOU should be paid what YOU are worth. If I need x amount of people to make x amount of money, I will employ them at the amounts I can afford to maintain the necessary profit margin and labor incentive to provide the work. If there is no benefit by the person staking the initial risk in openig the business and providing the jobs in the first place, with his own money, why then would ANYONE have an incentive to work other than to hunt and gather?
Minimum wage creates an "easy out" for employers, to make an exorbitent profit at the expense of labor wages, since all they have to meet to comply with the law is paying a "minimum wage". The minimum wage has been surpassed by ACTUAL wages in almost all industries, EXCEPT where subsidies have directly fucked up the supply and demand equation(farming, etc.)

If you don't have incentive to work for 1$ an hour, than you will either not work for that and find another job that pays better for the same type of work, or you will educate yourself more to justify earning a higher wage by utilizing that new skill in your new job.

Do you have a CLUE as to what PERCENTAGE compared to your wage, your employer pays out for you to work for him under our current system? That is all money YOU could be earning.

Mr. Perfecto said: If a stick is tossed into a furnance, what will happen to each of the individual atoms/molecules/whatever that make up the stick? You don't need to track each atom to predict the end result--a lump of ashes.

I say:
Bad analogy. Life is not fire, government is. Life is abound with opprotunity, thanks to man and nature. Government on the other hand, is like fire.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington

Government is only beneficial to the ends it aids society, without IMPEDING it, or the individuals that make it up.

Once a society has so many laws that a common citizen cannot recite them, they can't live within them. This should be common sense. That is why all of our laws are SUPPOSED to be limited by certain rights, that are inalienable. Those rights are very vague, and they allow people to interact freely in personhood and transactions of trade of service or goods.

Under our system, a person who understands their basic rights as defined in the Bill of Rights, should be able to opearte in society without a hitch or interference by law.

If you don't believe there are too many laws, you have never seen a copy of the United States Code, or the United States Federal Register. The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land, and it is the core of all laws, and that has been trampled and ignored by the people in power for the last 156 years, BECAUSE there has been no REACTION from the people, or I should say sheeple, that make up the politically and governmentally uneducated majority. Thanks public schools!

Mr Perfecto said: Perhaps not. But the population density was also lower. Justice was also swifter and more deadly. And what fell within the sphere that legislation could reach into was also broader. It is very well to bring up the past as a starting point to fixing current problems, in fact, as a conservative I encourage it. But not if you ignore the fact that conditions have changed since then.

I say:
Accepting that conditions have changed since then does not mean blanket acceptance of the concept of the loss of all rights, and individual responsibility as you want to imply. It also does not void the Constitution, or its validity.

Mr. Perfecto said: Things already function that way. But, in addition to the grapevine/press/internet we also have institutions in place to take collective action against inappropriate conduct. Why? To eliminate the incentives to misbehave.

I say:
Oh yes, the results are truly showing themselves by the massive lack of corruption........ :rolleyes: The question is since the results are BAD, why are we not now FIXING that BAD legislation?

Lack of accountability, and a lack of demand for it, thanks again to the uniformed, mis-educated majority of sheeple. Thanks again public schools.

Mr. Perfecto said: It isn't so much about me wanting to protect him as it is about wanting to protect myself and my family. And you know, that is the great thing about democracy. The people have fairly decent tools to protect themselves.

I say:
If you feel that way, you should try to vote in a constitution that states we are a democracy, or move to a nation that has a democracy. The tools we have aren't being taught, or used, instead they are being subverted by those we entrust to protect and enforce those tools, and laws.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Gr8ful said: I want to know what you think. You havent answered where the money will come from for city works projects like highways and sewer pipes and water treatment..........You know the things that make life a little better than some 3rd world country. Where does that money come from? I am not being rude. I just dont see how it works. Will it be an un-armed IRS man that will go around and take up a collection? I say: If you read the link above, you will see clearly where FEDERAL necessities can be obtained through state apportionment tax, and states have the right to tax for representation and EMERGENCY use. The problem isn't necessarily about taxation, it is the amount, the specific forms, and the tactics used in current taxation that is the problem. Some level of taxation will be a neccessity, it is where and how derived that makes all the difference Daniel, and also that ALLOWS for the checks and balances to work as designed. I hope this sheds a little light on exactly what I am trying to convey here, and answer your questions.

I assume you are referring to "the link above" as this one: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/tax-history.htm

What I want to know is , If you are in favor of

Quote by: Osborn source I say abolish all acronym letter agencies in the U.S. federal system. ALL acronym letter agencies.

(this is a quote from another thread, yesterday) Dont you think the problem with these agencies is the corruption of the agents, rather than the agencies themselves? I do. Are you an advocate for making America a 3rd World Country? A stone age civilization? Anarchy? I did not find the answer to this in your link. I admit I havent read the whole web page yet.

I am in favor of dismantling the Dept of Defense, because it really has more to do with Offense/Agression and its current form of existence is more about profiteering and empire than anything else. We need a Dept of Peace to work as checks and balances, to oversee the iron jawed behemoth. To file down the old fangs once in a while.
If you abolish all gubmint, who gets to be Judge Roy Bean? And what makes the replacement better after the dust from chaos clears?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SlantedFacts Now to agree with part of what you said: That is so true! How is Seperation of Church and State seperated when it is a TAX DEDUCTION? Taxes are part of the government - not the church. It would help reduce the popularity of the harlot churches (which may well be 99.8% of them)

Let's just do away with all tax deductions and bring taxation back under its constitutional bounds.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gr8ful said: Dont you think the problem with these agencies is the corruption of the agents, rather than the agencies themselves?

I say:
Dan, this problem has been festering for years. The corruption started out as individual agents, but now it is a whole body of corrupt practices due to years of bi-partisan control.

The reason for the corruption is the lack of transparency and the ability of the feds and the state to collect funds without a clear and defined path of where the money will ultimately go, and what conditions it will be collected, and what method it will be collected.

gr8ful said: Are you an advocate for making America a 3rd World Country?

I say:
Is that not what Bush is doing with outsourcing, and democrats are doing by forcing business to leave with minimum wage, and overbearing safety laws as well as RIDICULOUS tax rates at all levels of market interaction, and labor interaction?

What I am talking about has nothing to do with a third world nation, simply WHO controls the agencies, and a clear delineation of power among agencies, and their necessity and clear transparency of operation and fund collection for those agencies.

Stop going to the extreme again Dan.

gr8ful said: If you abolish all gubmint

I say:
Once again, that is not what I said. I said abolish all UNCONSTITUTIONAL AGENCIES and PROGRAMS. That is not even remotely the same as abolishing all government, so please, once again, stop trying to play the extreme card.

gr8ful said: And what makes the replacement better after the dust from chaos clears?

I say:
The people who make up the nation, again hold the reigns of power.

Chaos is inevitable. The current government has ASSURED that for us, by charting its path in these waters. We are no longer able to "maintain our quality of life" without dependence on foreign goods, services and business. This makes us weak, a target, and prime canidate for SANCTIONS, which the U.S. loves to hand out since they did away with the free trade system.

So, what if China agrees to buy all oil that the U.S. currenlty buys from its sources? Our system STOPS, including the tanks, helicopters, and jets that people think "make them safe". Will you feel safe if all oil nations that supply us decided to sanction our purchase of oil, and Russia, China and France backed it up?

Being isolationist in means of defense is ESSENTIAL, and INTEGRAL to having a secure nation in the modern world.

Russia and China are already blocking U.S. action to Iran. What will they do if the U.S. takes action anyway?

think about it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Stop going to the extreme again Dan.

But, you dont think this:

Quote by: Osborn source I say abolish all acronym letter agencies in the U.S. federal system. ALL acronym letter agencies.

is a bit extreme?
You will be eliminating a lot of noble jobs. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
There are over 500 acronym agencies

[gr8fuldaniel]

Are you sure you dont just want to eliminate the ones the help the helpless. Because you think you are somehow impervious to misfortune? Because you are strong now, doesnt mean things cant do a 180 in a day. You or your family or a friend may need help soon enough.

I think how we treat our own says more about America than any number of bombs dropped by a few bad apples (in the white house).

[Osborn F Enready]

gr8ful said: You will be eliminating a lot of noble jobs. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I say:
I didn't say they should not be allowed to operate, if they have a VALID CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE.

If they are unconstitutional, why are they there to begin with, and what fault is it of the people that citizens were lured to work for corrupt agencies, in a corrupt government? (at a great expense no less)

gr8ful said: Are you sure you dont just want to eliminate the ones the help the helpless. Because you think you are somehow impervious to misfortune?

I say:
I am a walking, talking example of misfortune, so no, that is not my reasoning.

gr8ful said: Because you are strong now, doesnt mean things cant do a 180 in a day. You or your family or a friend may need help soon enough.

I say:
That is where friends, family and assets come in. It is not the place of the fed, to insure all people, that is why there is INSURANCE. The responsibility comes with knowing you look after yourself, have to provide a means for your self, and need friends or family for support.

Wouldn't society be better if people had a reason to "need" each other on an individual level, instead of just sending in a check to be mis-used, and sent out of the nation for foreign aid instead of to OUR citizens for citizen aid?

Our social society is dying due to independence, with no responsibilities, much as Athena says, but she thinks the state should take care of the people, and I opposedly say it is the nanny-state along WITH moderate independence that causes the isolation and societal defragmentation.