B
Bill_7154
Guest
What have we spent in the past 50 years on national OFFENSE? How about we start there?
- Status
B
Bill_7154
Guest
And they put down rules that the gov’t people should live by and do, which they don’t. In my mind that negates any obligation on my part to participate via the Catechism. Get the gov’t to do what the Catechism says they are to do, get them to do it well, consistently, and across the nation, then come back with this as an argument. At that point it might have some legitimacy from my point of view, but certainly not now.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
IMO businesses would have a vested interest in having roads that gave customers access to their businesses. Some sort of tol system could also be used. But private roads with competition would certainly be more efficient that gov’t ( you know, where there is like one guy working, and 4 sleeping in the trucks). That’s what you get with gov’t. You don’t get it with companies that are forced to compete with other companies- because they will be driven out of business.
.
Are you in the habit of hiring bunk artists? Are you in the habit of hiring people with bad reputations to provide goods and services for you? I’m not. I prefer to hire people with good reputations that do good jobs. And now with the internet and free access to information of all sorts it is that much easier to investigate companies, people, etc.
And we all know that the companies that have made the most money over the long term are the one’s that provide good products at good prices. This is the business model of success. I like to do business with such outfits and not random fast talking strangers. That’s just me though.
Would the system be perfect? No. But it’s not fair to compare it to a perfect system as we know that our current system is far from perfect (it basiclaly stinks IMO). Gov’t creates artificial barriers to entry to businesses of all sorts. Do away with that and let a mans work stand on his reputation and not a 1/2 million degree’s and prices would drop. Gov’t also INHIBITS trade, making it cost more. End this and trade prices would drop, making it better for the consumer.
Gov’t has so many rules and regulations about everying it’s as if they assume we are all babies that need mommy and daddy constantly looking over our shoulder to make sure we make the correct decision. If other people want to live that way, i have no quarrel with that. But I don’t. I’m capable of making my own decisions and living with the results.
There could be dispute resolution companies, we have something like that now as an alternative to court. Maybe one would only do business with a company that were signed up as a business who agrees to go to one of the dispute resolution companes if a dispute arises. If they renig…word gets out and they are blacklisted as a company. End of story.
In my opinion we are not even close to ready as a society but this is because we have been conditioned to rely on gov’t for everything. It does not have to be this way. Government could be dismantled piece by piece, with private companies taking over. Would society ever be perfect? No. Is it perfect now or has it ever been perfect? (except with Adam and Eve before she ate the apple) No.
So I think there are some changes that could be made tomorrow that would save us money and improve our society. I’m sure others have idea’s along these lines too. The war on drugs is an obvious failure. It’s cost 2 Trillion and rising and kids sitll get drugs easier than booze and drugs are still accessable in max security prisons! Talk about a failure. 40 years and 2 Trillion and they can’t even be kept out of one single max security prison in the entire country? I think anyone who believes the war on drugs has any chance at all at actuall working maybe should consider a lobotomy. I don’t think we need military bases in every country around the world. I think we could focus on national defense, rather than national offense against the world as another way to start which would show direct financial benefits immediately. I have other ideas too and I’m no genius.
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
What’s funny, is that in my state, if someone breaks into my house, I am by law supposed to RUN AWAY. That’s the LAW. Of course if someone breaks into a police officers house in my state I"m sure that the law will handle it much differently if he doesnt’ obey the law and run away like he is supposed to since he is off duty and a citizen and not a law officer at that point.
So I gues I’m supposed to hope I don’t get shot in the back while I’m running away from a home invader rather than taking out a weapon and placing him under citizens arrest until the police arrive.
Some states actually allow citizens to defend themselves if someone breaks into their houses. Who would of thunk of such a concept? Must be a bunch of crazies, huh?
R
Rence
Guest
Ok, then stop paying your taxes
Tell us how it works for you.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
You really believe that is why we have the 10 thousand different rules and regulations regarding building houses, etc? I think maybe it started that way, but decades back it became a system self-serving, where new regulations were created to give gov’t more things to do,etc .
If I were to have a house built I would investigate the builder and their reputation. And If I wanted to buy a plot of land and build my own house, saving a ton of money in the procees, what business is that of yours? If you want to use the current system I have no quarrel, but why do you feel the need, to tell me how i should build MY house?
[/QUOTE]
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Maybe you missed the post where I said that while I do not recognize gov’t authority, I do recognize there are men who control other men with guns and I do certain things because I don’t want those men to point guns in my face. This is different that respecting go’vt.Ok, then stop paying your taxes
If gov’t were so good, why the need to point guns at everyone to get them to go along? Why not simply be like any other business, offer the product and let people decide of their own free will if they want it?
If it’s soo good they should have no problem getting everyone to line up and go along…
R
Rence
Guest
That’s an easy one to answer: because there are always some out there who would refuse to pay for the perks that go along with living in society.
If you move out to a rural area that doesn’t have garbage collection and street clean up, etc. you’ll pay less taxes
B
Bill_7154
Guest
We also get to pay for the telephone poles and telephone wires going out miles into the wilderness to Ted Turners ranch rather than him paying for it himself.That’s an easy one to answer: because there are always some out there who would refuse to pay for the perks that go along with living in society.
If you move out to a rural area that doesn’t have garbage collection and street clean up, etc. you’ll pay less taxes
I have no problem with a fee for service system. And I have no problem with people who want to live under the current gov’t, or any gov’t for that matter, so long as they mutually consent.
I simpy don’t want to be forced to live under a system I disagree with. Yes I know I can move. I can also avocate for change and point out the nonsense that gov’t does until such a time as I move.
Do you agree with everying gov’t does? I have yet to meet one person who does. Do you think that they engage in a lot of ‘waste’ because they operate as a business with no competition, so they can create a beaurocracy that is enormous compared to any private business and get away with it since they have no competition? Do you agree or disagree with this practice??
B
Bill_7154
Guest
And after I establish dual residency status, and permanently move to another country, every time I come back to the usa I am going to use my usa passport and stop by Cuba and then onto mexico or wherever, before landing in the usa so my usa passport is stamped by Cuba (btw it’s not illegal to visit cuba, it’s illegal to spend any money there) so I’m sure I will likely be detained and questioned but not charged with any crime. Just as a way to show the comtept I have for what this government has been perverted into.
God Bless,
Bill
God Bless,
Bill
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
What country are you looking at? Unfortunately, even as it is, there are few that can match the US.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Brazil. The people are some of the most frinedly on this earth. I have family there through marriage. Also a place a 5 min walk from a beautiful beach. There are pitfalls but I’m sure I will be much happier there than here. My US $ will also streach much further there.
C
Contarini
Guest
Why would taxation be theft? This has never made sense to me.
Aristotelian political thought, which has shaped Catholic understandings of the natural law, holds that human beings are “social animals” and naturally live in communities which provide for the common good. Taxation is part of that.
Scripturally, Jesus told his fellow Jews to “give Caesar what is Caesar’s.” I think this often gets interpreted too broadly (as if it meant unthinking support for government in wars, etc.), but the one thing we know it means is that they should pay taxes (even though they were an occupied nation with no rights of citizenship, let alone representation in the government). St. Paul also speaks of rendering to all what is due, and mentions financial exactions as part of that.
So the proposition that taxation is theft seems to have no basis either in reason or in revelation. It’s something made up by modern libertarians out of thin air, as far as I can see. And in practice people usually mean “taxation I don’t like” while allowing for other taxation, which makes no sense at all. (Consistent libertarianism is something I respect, even though I don’t agree with all of its philosophical premises.)
Now I think there are all kinds of reasons to question whether the modern nation-state is well-adapted to the task of providing for the common good. I’m very sympathetic to anarchistic forms of libertarianism insofar as they question the usefulness of the State and point out how easily it seems to commit injustice. I thoroughly believe in the principle of subsidiarity. But that’s different from saying “taxation is theft,” which clearly isn’t true.
Also, any morally serious libertarianism, in the U.S. context, needs to start by dismantling the military-industrial complex. People who aren’t doing that have no credibility when they talk about the evils of the state. Another often unexamined and in my view utterly baseless opinion you hear these days is that since the state is a coercive entity it is good only for military and police functions (and related things like criminal justice, international diplomacy, etc.), and should be allowed to do those things vigorously while being kept out of such functions as providing for the poor. I see no sound reasoning behind this opinion either. If the modern state (as I’m inclined to believe) is generally a bad way for human beings to organize themselves, then its critics need to go to the root, which is the state’s claim to be necessary to keep its citizens safe.
Edwin
R
Reep
Guest
As a “morally serious libertarian,” I have to agree with you that any draw-down in government power must begin with the military.
Both the welfare state and the empire are coming to an end, whether we plan for it or not. The money is just not there. I would, however, like to survive the crash landing.
As I referenced in my last post (“St Paul Tweaks the Emperor’s Nose”) I think we sometimes make too much of the biblical verses on “rendering” taxes, honor and respect to Caesar.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes. Although I think a case can be made, as part of a general critique of state coercion, that coercion isn’t the best way to end abortion. That’s not a pro-choice position, because I’m not saying that the government has no right to restrict/ban abortion or (God forbid) that people have a right to murder their unborn children. It’s not a question of rights but of the best way to go about it, and in particular of the best way for Christians to work to protect the unborn.
So here as with the previous topic, I find libertarians more tolerable the more consistent they are. Where I part company with libertarians is in the basically individualistic philosophical presuppositions that thoroughgoing libertarians hold. But after reading Dorothy Day’s autobiography last week, I’m less inclined to put “daylight” between myself and libertarians–if the term was good enough for her (since she was certainly not an individualist) it’s good enough for me.
Edwin
B
Bill_7154
Guest
LIke I said before, I have no problem with a fee for service system.That’s an easy one to answer: because there are always some out there who would refuse to pay for the perks that go along with living in society.
If you move out to a rural area that doesn’t have garbage collection and street clean up, etc. you’ll pay less taxes
B
Bill_7154
Guest
So there is no other way to provide for the common good? All groups of people who have attempted this, be they large or small, have all failed becaue there was no formal tax system in place?
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
Interesting. While a fee for service may work in some instances. License, and permit, issuance comes to mind. Many of the government provided services. Would require funding,* prior to activation*. Police, fire, roads, and sewers just to name a few.
This is why taxes are collected, and yearly budgets are hammered out. This way, the government knows what service it can afford to supply. If extra funding is required. They have bonds, and other options available. But, the collection of taxes is the bread, and butter of service.
ATB
S
SalesianSDB
Guest
You would be interested in reading and listening to Murray Rothbard. He is the leading thinker behind the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy.
- Status