Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Terry 1956]

I seem to have tuned into this thread a little bit late for the discussion about restricting voting rights to only those who don't have any conflicts of interest with any of the candidates. In my opinion, this would be a serious step backward in our political process.

The federal government should not be allowed to continue programs like Social Security, Medicare, and other similar things, simply because the right to do those things is not defined in the Constitution, and so it should therefore be reserved to the states. However, it is important to remember that most state constitutions do not prohibit hand-outs like welfare, unemployment checks, and similar things. In my opinion, it is perfectly allowable for a candidate to advocate higher government spending at a state level, because there are few Constitutional limits on the powers of a state government as far as spending is concerned. To deny certain people the right to vote, simply because they are likely to support a candidate who will enact laws that we don't like, would frankly be un-American.

Like it or not, people in this country have the freedom to make their own decisions about what they want out of their government. Our goal should not be to create a voting system where only liberty-minded people have any say in government. Our goal should be to create a society where everybody is taught about the value of liberty from an early age, and most would never even think their life would be better if the government started giving hand-outs to everybody. This type of society will not be formed by taking away voting rights from our opponents. It can only be formed by many years of hard work reforming the government from the inside out and showing people first hand that liberty does work.

                                                                                  I think if you are going to have a free state, your going to need to have a constitutional agreement from the bottom up, something as far as I know was never done in any of the 50 state constitutions, they where  made up by consent and never have been by consent.

[Terry 1956]

I seem to have tuned into this thread a little bit late for the discussion about restricting voting rights to only those who don't have any conflicts of interest with any of the candidates. In my opinion, this would be a serious step backward in our political process.

The federal government should not be allowed to continue programs like Social Security, Medicare, and other similar things, simply because the right to do those things is not defined in the Constitution, and so it should therefore be reserved to the states. However, it is important to remember that most state constitutions do not prohibit hand-outs like welfare, unemployment checks, and similar things. In my opinion, it is perfectly allowable for a candidate to advocate higher government spending at a state level, because there are few Constitutional limits on the powers of a state government as far as spending is concerned. To deny certain people the right to vote, simply because they are likely to support a candidate who will enact laws that we don't like, would frankly be un-American.

Like it or not, people in this country have the freedom to make their own decisions about what they want out of their government. Our goal should not be to create a voting system where only liberty-minded people have any say in government. Our goal should be to create a society where everybody is taught about the value of liberty from an early age, and most would never even think their life would be better if the government started giving hand-outs to everybody. This type of society will not be formed by taking away voting rights from our opponents. It can only be formed by many years of hard work reforming the government from the inside out and showing people first hand that liberty does work.

                                                                                  I think if you are going to have a free state, your going to need to have a constitutional agreement from the bottom up, something as far as I know was never done in any of the 50 state constitutions, they where  made up by consent and never have been by consent.

                                                                             
I think something similar to the NATO model is the better way to go, that is any member government can veto a  major action by the larger body. One of the problems I see with NATO is a clear idea on payment for leaving the body and the ablity of member governments to black ball or kick a government out of the group, which should also have a payment formula set in the constitution. Most of the time if a government leaves it should pay the higher body, if the higher body blackballs a government, the higher body should pay, exceptions would be noted in the constitution and if necessary decided in a neutral court.

[Michael Enquist]

What I find very ironic is when people pretend to believe in liberty, but then whine about others who "don't contribute to the economy."

Who gives a shit if someone "contributes to the economy"? I don't. If others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash, then they were smarter than you, who worked your whole life just to pay more taxes.

I don't blame people on the dole for being able to live on others' taxes, I only blame the voters for electing the governement that made it possible.

There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program. You either went to government school, worked in an industry that had government subsidies, or got some job perk ordered by the law (me, too). You pretend to be so holier-than-thou by whining that you have paid more than your fair share for the roads or postal service or parks or whatever: How do you know? How much do those services really cost? How much more did you take because you felt you "paid for it"?

I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use. Government subsidies are so ingrained into our economy, we have no idea what the true price is for anything. We think we are so independent when we vote agianst a new road tax, but by God, someone's gonna pay if we get held up in traffic.

Right wingers who have infiltrated the libertarian movement because they hate welfare mothers should just go back to the Republican party where they belong. If the Republicans are not conservative enough for you, the National Socialists are always looking for new members.

[Terry 1956]

What I find very ironic is when people pretend to believe in liberty, but then whine about others who "don't contribute to the economy."

Who gives a shit if someone "contributes to the economy"? I don't. If others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash, then they were smarter than you, who worked your whole life just to pay more taxes.

I don't blame people on the dole for being able to live on others' taxes, I only blame the voters for electing the governement that made it possible.

There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program. You either went to government school, worked in an industry that had government subsidies, or got some job perk ordered by the law (me, too). You pretend to be so holier-than-thou by whining that you have paid more than your fair share for the roads or postal service or parks or whatever: How do you know? How much do those services really cost? How much more did you take because you felt you "paid for it"?

I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use. Government subsidies are so ingrained into our economy, we have no idea what the true price is for anything. We think we are so independent when we vote agianst a new road tax, but by God, someone's gonna pay if we get held up in traffic.

Right wingers who have infiltrated the libertarian movement because they hate welfare mothers should just go back to the Republican party where they belong. If the Republicans are not conservative enough for you, the National Socialists are always looking for new members.

                                                                             
I agree with you on somepoints but I think you overall piece is  hyperboil. I agree that welfare to the poor is a small percentage of the budget as compared to entitlements, corporate welfare and other rent seeking spending on the political class.                                                                                  
That being said there are still net gainers and net losers( with some breaking even) from the not actual contractual tax systems.

[SteveA]

Who gives a shit if someone "contributes to the economy"? I don't. If others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash, then they were smarter than you, who worked your whole life just to pay more taxes.

I believe when enough people get to the point where they make a statement like this, we're all doomed.  What value is there putting corruption on a pedestal?  Do you believe people reject government aid out of stupidity?  You said, "others have been successful filling out forms and meeting the criteria for free food, housing and cash" - do you truly believe the feed they eat, the house they live in, the medical services they receive are free?  Who builds the houses, grows the food and spends half their life studying medicine and then gives their work away?

I don't blame people on the dole for being able to live on others' taxes, I only blame the voters for electing the governement that made it possible.

I've said the same thing but in reality many on the receiving end are guilty as well.

There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program. You either went to government school, worked in an industry that had government subsidies, or got some job perk ordered by the law (me, too). You pretend to be so holier-than-thou by whining that you have paid more than your fair share for the roads or postal service or parks or whatever: How do you know? How much do those services really cost? How much more did you take because you felt you "paid for it"?

I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use. Government subsidies are so ingrained into our economy, we have no idea what the true price is for anything. We think we are so independent when we vote agianst a new road tax, but by God, someone's gonna pay if we get held up in traffic.

It's true we receive some services back - but think about who is actually performing those services.  Is it one of our representatives who comes down and lays asphalt on the roads, or constructs a new housing project.  No, it's us.  They just give back a small amount of the money and then tell us what to do with it.  It's purely about control.  The paper has no value except what our minds attach to it.  If you believe Bush knows better how you should live your life and what you should do with your time then by all means, read up, there's plenty of legislation and tax code to keep you busy for a long long time.  Maybe there are a lot of people that do need to be told how to live but I think it's fewer than you believe.

I believe most people who come to the free state are going to have a rude awakening when they have to pay full price for everything they use.

We already do!  Every government service is provide by peoples time and effort.  There is no such thing as a free meal or even a half price one.  There is human labor devoted to providing these things.  Let the house of cards fall so we can see the real costs and be able to make better choices in what we do and strive for.  As your statement even implies, government masks the true costs of things which hurts the economy because what you think is cheap or free can actually cost significantly more in taxes but you still pay for it.

I will make the counter claim that you will be surprised at how people will live just fine without much government involvement.  Prove me wrong

[Radar]

There isn't one of you on these threads who hasn't benefitted beyond your due from some government program.

Bullshit.  I have never collected a single dime of money from any government program.  I have also paid for every government service I've ever used and then some.  I will never see a penny of social security, I am robbed by the government each and every single week.  I don't work for a company that gets government subsidies, nor have I ever.  Although when I was in the military I worked for the government.  

Unlike those who are perpetually on the dole, I have worked for every single thing I've ever gotten.  Even when I was dead broke I refused to steal from others by taking government assistance in any form.  

I'm not against charity, but I'm against committing robbery and calling it charity.

[BillG]

I have also paid for every government service I've ever used and then some.

One simple question Radar?

Have you ever driven on a gov't created road or are you only driving on private roads and paying your users fees?

sheesh, give it a rest!

There is no such thing as a free meal or even a half price one.  There is human labor devoted to providing these things

One simple question SteveA - so what do you call a land speculator who contributes ZERO labor to improve their property and then is rewarded handsomely for collecting all of the appreciated site value that naturally occurs when populations rise, the public makes infrastructure investments, and your neighbor improves their property?

A productive member of our society or a leech like the welfare queens?

[Radar]

Have you ever driven on a gov't created road or are you only driving on private roads and paying your users fees?

I've paid for every government road ever made in America.

[Michael Enquist]

Terry 1956- You are correct. In some ways it is hyperbole. Which parts?

In the overall economy, there are net gainers and losers, but in your personal economy, which are you? How could you figure it out?

SteveA- I never said the benefits received by the recipients were free. I'm just trying to bust the balls of all those who think they are so much better than the ones who "never contributed to the economy." They are very hypocritical in claiming to be libertarian and then going around telling others how to live.

People on the receiving end are guilty of what? Knowing how to work a system that government created at the request of the voters?

Yeah, I know who does the work. And I know how much they really get paid for those government contracts. I live in Boeing's backyard.

When I say "full price" I mean the cost of the thing, such as a loaf of bread, from farm through processing and transportation to grocery. We don't know how much a loaf of bread should really cost, because all of those steps have subsidies, taxes and regulations that skew the end price.

I do believe, however, that many of our costs for food, fuel, schools and roads are skewed low, while other areas (such as healthcare) are skewed high to compensate.

I'm not really as cynical as this post makes me out. Again, there's just a group of pseudo-libertarians that gets me riled up whenever they pretent to be so moral, while driving on gov't roads, sending their kids to gov't schools, buying subsidized groceries, etc. etc.

Radar- Yeah, yeah. You never went to public school, either, or to a sports event, or watched TV or mailed anything. You never got government-mandated job benefits, or ate the products of American agriculture or used FDA approved drugs. How do you know if you paid, "and then some"? Could you show a breakdown of your taxes and what they went for?

****

If you-all want to end welfare, then you have to show the welfare recipients that they will be better off working. This requires more than just saying, "Why don't you get a job!" Most people I know on welfare would like to get out from under the thumb of government, but going to crappy schools, being told all their lives they will never amount to anything and being shut out because their skin tone is just a little too dark makes them feel their options are limited. They are not limited, you and I know this, but others have a different world view, shaped largely by their environment.

You-all can pretend that you are self-made, but most of you did grow up with either positive influences towards work, or enough negative influences against welfare to keep you just motivated enough to get your job and work you asses off for 45 years (to end up in a government nursing home).

Anyone who thinks that they got where they are today without the help of others is lying to themselves. Even if it was just help from the "invisible hand," you grew up in an environment that provided opportunities. -You- took advantage of them, it's true, but you already had the mental conditioning to feel you could.

Unless you have interacted extensively with "the poor," as I have, you really can't understand all the internal and external factors that led them to where they are.

Finally, the phrase "contribute to the economy" is just code for "contribute to society." In other words, those who say that are just closet socialists, wanting others to be forced to pitch in so you can benefit.

The welfare budget is so small compared to all the money we spend killing people in other countries or paying corporations to destroy the environment. I think we should focus our attention on these things, and by the time they are taken care of, the poor will be mostly taken care of, too.

[Radar]

Radar- Yeah, yeah. You never went to public school, either, or to a sports event, or watched TV or mailed anything. You never got government-mandated job benefits, or ate the products of American agriculture or used FDA approved drugs. How do you know if you paid, "and then some"? Could you show a breakdown of your taxes and what they went for?

Every single goverment service I've ever used, (post office, schools, etc.) was paid for by taxes that I paid or my parents when I was a child.  In fact not only was my stuff paid for by me and them, but so was that of other people who are lazy and inept drains on others.  

And don't get me started with the unconstitutionality of farm & business subsidies or the FDA.  The FDA causes thousands of deaths each year by keeping life saving medicines from people who need it, while rushing through genuinely dangerous drugs for weight loss, etc.  

And if you want an accurate breakdown of where our taxes go you can check out the budget or checkout the pig book  

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2003

I can say that 85 cents of every dollar collected for welfare, social security, medicare, and the other unconstitutional parts of government like business and farm subsidies, foreign aid, etc. is kept for overhead.  Compare that to any private non-profit charity.

[SteveA]

One simple question SteveA - so what do you call a land speculator who contributes ZERO labor to improve their property and then is rewarded handsomely for collecting all of the appreciated site value that naturally occurs when populations rise, the public makes infrastructure investments, and your neighbor improves their property?

A productive member of our society or a leech like the welfare queens?

He provides resources to someone selling property.  The selling wants cash to invest in something else, the speculator "works" to determine a fair price for the house and is willing to offer it to the seller.  It would not be efficient to buy a house and leave it unused only to sell it later, so a speculator who merely bought and resold it quickly for a profit without anyone living in it, is at a disadvantage but if he can find a buyer will to buy it for more and earn a profit then he is effectively performing marketing and earns money buy matching sellers with buyers.  I agree there may be little physical value in what he does, and personally think we have too many salespeople but he does provide a service, takes a risk and helps assure fair market values are available to buyers and sellers.

[BillG]

the speculator "works" to determine a fair price for the house and is willing to offer it to the seller.

I am not talking about the realtor "working to determine a fair price" (what a joke that is) and I am not talking about a house. I am talking about a buildable lot ready to go...

The speculator buys it for X dollars 5 yrs. ago and sells it today for 2X without applying (himself or hire) any labor what-so-ever to the land.

How is the price determined? By a willing buyer walks up to him and says "hey, I'll give you 2X what you paid for that buildable lot!"...no broker involved.

So in your words "is this a free lunch or maybe half-a-lunch" or not?

If not - by what libertarian principle makes it just?

[SteveA]

SteveA- I never said the benefits received by the recipients were free. I'm just trying to bust the balls of all those who think they are so much better than the ones who "never contributed to the economy." They are very hypocritical in claiming to be libertarian and then going around telling others how to live.

I'm not telling anyone how to live their life.  I'm just saying not to include me in the latest socially fashionable legislation.  I'm also asking them to get out of my pocket and pay for it themselves.  What's hypocritical about that?

People on the receiving end are guilty of what? Knowing how to work a system that government created at the request of the voters?

I see you have not encountered corruption in our welfare system.  How about this one?  You tell me if the recipient is guilty of anything.  Many "unmarried" women collect for their children and state they don't know who the father is while living with the father who pays no child support.  Is that mere guilt, criminal or noble in your opinion?  Is that intelligently "working the system"?  I claim it's a lot of the reason that when my friend had trouble with work and needed some temporary support for his wife and two children he couldn't receive any help.  I could go on with plenty of other scams but I won't, if you think you have a defensible position you aren't looking very closely.

Yeah, I know who does the work. And I know how much they really get paid for those government contracts. I live in Boeing's backyard.

So you've run into all the government mandated employee training programs, endless planning meetings and stacks of paperwork that add almost no value to the end product.  You also pay the taxes that the government gives back to you  to keep working for them.  From your position I'll assume you've never been the victim of legislated racial descrimation either.  How often do you get to use your end product?  Would you rather be building something else?

When I say "full price" I mean the cost of the thing, such as a loaf of bread, from farm through processing and transportation to grocery. We don't know how much a loaf of bread should really cost, because all of those steps have subsidies, taxes and regulations that skew the end price.

That's what I meant too though I am unsure if you are considering the taxes you pay to fund all those inefficiencies as well.

I do believe, however, that many of our costs for food, fuel, schools and roads are skewed low, while other areas (such as healthcare) are skewed high to compensate.

And taxes are skewed high also.

Don't get wrong, I know that there are legitimate services the government provides that have value and there are some people who currently need public assistance but I really want to emphasize the amount of waste and inefficiency in such a large and uncompetitive beaurocracy.  There are reasons upon reasons why this is true but basically Jefferson summed it up nicely:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. " - Thomas Jefferson

Let's shoot for something like this.  People did just fine before we started with the nanny state ideas.

[SteveA]

the speculator "works" to determine a fair price for the house and is willing to offer it to the seller.

I am not talking about the realtor "working to determine a fair price" (what a joke that is) and I am not talking about a house. I am talking about a buildable lot ready to go...

The speculator buys it for X dollars 5 yrs. ago and sells it today for 2X without applying (himself or hire) any labor what-so-ever to the land.

How is the price determined? By a willing buyer walks up to him and says "hey, I'll give you 2X what you paid for that buildable lot!"...no broker involved.

So in your words "is this a free lunch or maybe half-a-lunch" or not?

If not - by what libertarian principle makes it just?

Thanks for defining speculator.  The situtation is similar to any type of "investment" except land value can currently be largely affected by government (generally not good for free market trading).  I'll use investor here to make the statements more general.  

Services provided by an investor

1)  A successful investor will find items being underutilized by a seller and supply those to a buyer who can make better use of those items.
2)  A successful investor will maintain or improve the value of such items.
3)  For items that have value in their continual use a successful investor will attempt to limit the time such unused property is in his possession.

Basically, a successful investor provides efficient usage of property by assuring a good matching of this property to the customers.  It's the only way they earn money.

Unsuccessful investors are eventually weeded out and have less effect on the inefficient use of property.

Now you will argue that just because a buyer provides a high offer to buy an object doesn't mean it will be utilized more efficiently.  That is somewhat true though true though the object could be considered a luxury item for someone rich and is used as an incentive to encourage their continued work in whatever made them rich in the first place.  Why work if you can't buy something just because you enjoy it?  That's the problem with communism.

Additional factors that affect the speculator in real life are zoning, property taxes, tax laws and loop-holes, building codes and low incoming subsidies (which affect desirability of land), loan overhead, paperwork, supply of fiat money etc.  These can affect the value of property in an almost whimsical fashion and can give advantages to those who have the right influencial friends.

[BillG]

SteveA are you going to run for political office in the Free State?

what a duck (quack) that was!

The situtation is similar to any type of "investment" except land value can currently be largely affected by government (generally not good for free market trading).  

So you see no difference between labor-based property and title-based property at all? Then you completely pass over the fact that site values naturally rise as populations increase or as your neighbors simply improve their own property (plus public infrastructure investment as you mention) letting your dogma get infront of intellectual honesty...

1)  A successful investor will find items being underutilized by a seller and supply those to a buyer who can make better use of those items.

what if the speculator just sells the property to another speculator who continues to underuitilize the land and sells it in 5 yrs. for 2X again without lifting a finger - is that your definition of success?

2)  A successful investor will maintain or improve the value of such items.

this sentence suggests that someone will take action to "maintain or improve" that is not the case in my scenario. What about the scenario where the speculator just lets a building fall into complete disrepair because he knows that the land will become more valuable if the building just crumbles so no one has to tear it down to reap the benefits of a vacant lot which will fetch a higher price?

3)  For items that have value in their continual use a successful investor will attempt to limit the time such unused property is in his possession.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. They continue to "sit" on their titled property in the hopes that it will fetch an even higher price in the future while people are living in the street because they can't afford any shelter...

Basically, a successful investor provides efficient usage of property by assuring a good matching of this property to the customers.  It's the only way they earn money.

Not so with a "successful" speculator. The incentive is to build something that is easily torn down (like a billboard) so the next speculator can sit on the property and do nothing as the value rises...I think this is commonly called a "free lunch" - no?

Additional factors that affect the speculator in real life are zoning, property taxes, tax laws and loop-holes, building codes and low incoming subsidies (which affect desirability of land), loan overhead, paperwork, supply of fiat money etc.  These can affect the value of property in an almost whimsical fashion and can give advantages to those who have the right influencial friends.

why no mention of populations increasing because speculators know that they aren't building anymore land!

Now you will argue that just because a buyer provides a high offer to buy an object doesn't mean it will be utilized more efficiently.  That is somewhat true though true though the object could be considered a luxury item for someone rich and is used as an incentive to encourage their continued work in whatever made them rich in the first place.  Why work if you can't buy something just because you enjoy it?  That's the problem with communism.

I could care less if it labor-based property we are talking about whcih we can create more of by definition right?...but instead I am talking about access to the natural world by which we provide sustenance for our very EXISTENCE. Without a place to make a home or a living are we not just wage slaves (taxes) to the landholders (government) as we hand over the fruits of our labor simply to get access?

Honestly - would you not feel outraged if we were talking about the same subject as it relates to the air that we breath or is that a "communistic" statement that I just uttered?