Colorado Atheists Challenging Cross in Public Park
Margie Wait
Now on the AMERICAN ATHEISTS web site...
COLORADO ATHEISTS CHALLENGING CROSS ON PUBLIC PARK
HIKING TRAIL...
It's only 4-feet high, but government officials are refusing to listen to
the objections of Atheists or Northern Colorado, who are protesting a
religious monument in a public park. One public officials wants to
"circumcize" the Christian symbol in hopes of making it secular! Find
out the latest on how Colorado Atheists Guy and Victorial McCoy are
taking a stand for state-church separation!
Visit us on the world wide web at http://www.atheists.org/flash.line
for news, analysis and commentary.
--
Margie Wait (#410) AMERICAN ATHEISTS
Internet Representative AACHAT Moderator
irep @ atheists.org aachat @ atheist.org
Subscribe to AANEWS: info @
aanews-...@listserv.atheists.org
**Visit us @ http://www.atheists.org
http://www.americanatheist.org **
Chuck Wright
I'm not an atheist, but church - state conflicts like this one can
be reduced if we make government as tiny as possible. Nobody can
put a cross on a governmnet owned park if the government doesn't
own any parks.
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
http://www.lp.org/
Joe Ventola
Ya know Chuck, I've tried to convince myself for years that I am a closet
Libertarian. I'm sick of big government and would like to see it shrink
substantially. Even went so far as to start getting the Lib newsletter and
reading it for some sense of where this party was heading.
The biggest reason I've failed to convert is the type of extreme statements
I see from Libertarians in charge. Like yours in the preceding post. The
Libs are the only folks who have ever made me look like a tax and spend
liberal.
Smaller, less-intrusive government yes. NO government? I think not.
Are you seriously suggesting that government should not own parks? Police
vehicles too? Fire trucks? Stations to put them in?
I happen to think that the people banding together (in the form of local
government) to set aside and maintain a common open space is a legitimate
use of local government.
Enlighten me Chuck. I am open to this conversion if I could just see where
you are trying to draw the line.
Yours in spirit, if not in name.
--
Joe Ventola
Microsoft Word MVP
MS Beta Site 259060
Joe_V...@msn.com
Chuck Wright wrote in message <356AC3...@ibm.net>...
Chuck Wright
Joe Ventola wrote:
>
> Ya know Chuck, I've tried to convince myself for years that I am a closet
> Libertarian. I'm sick of big government and would like to see it shrink
> substantially. Even went so far as to start getting the Lib newsletter and
> reading it for some sense of where this party was heading.
>
> The biggest reason I've failed to convert is the type of extreme statements
> I see from Libertarians in charge. Like yours in the preceding post. The
> Libs are the only folks who have ever made me look like a tax and spend
> liberal.
>
> Smaller, less-intrusive government yes. NO government? I think not.
Who's advocating no government? Certainly not me or the Libertaian
Party. We are advocating a limited tiny government (tiny relative
to its size for the last 85 years).
How did you make the giant leap from no government owned parks to
no government? Sorry your argument that government will implode
in on itself just becasue it doesn't own parks is implausible.
> Are you seriously suggesting that government should not own parks? Police
> vehicles too? Fire trucks? Stations to put them in?
Why must government own parks? Why can't individuals voluntarily
form organizations to pool their resourses to purchase parks?
Have you ever heard of the Nature Conservancy?
> I happen to think that the people banding together (in the form of local
> government) to set aside and maintain a common open space is a legitimate
> use of local government.
When you demand that government own parks, you are saying that
you want to -force- people to pay for parks. Otherwise, you'd
be happy to have the Nature Conservancy and its supports handel
everything.
Libertarins do not support using force to get what we want. Rather,
we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Chris
Chuck Wright wrote:
You may want to study the relatively small percentage of land owned nationally by
the Conservancy before you begin ceding them the national forests. It will also be
didactic to note that except for their own guided field trips and some
interpretive trails, their land purchases are run on a largely hands off
near-wilderness designation level. They have no interest in promoting hunting, off
road trails, fishing, or other extant recreational uses. their mission is species
ands ecosystem preservation - a goal at odds with recreational usage.
The Conservancy, while growing steadily in contributions and membership base also
has nowhere near the resources of the federal or even state government, and is
unlikely to burgeon into the free market parkmeister you envision.
That said - they are a fine organization and deserve all the support we can
muster.
> Libertarins do not support using force to get what we want. Rather,
> we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
Joe Ventola
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck....
Ya see what I mean here?
Here I am, practically BEGGING to be invited into the Lib party... All I ask
is some kind of line - a definition if you will - on where you (the party)
draws the line.
Instead I get an argument. I didn't demand that the government own the
parks, I said it seemed to make sense. What I asked you for was some
rational distinction between government parks (which you do not seem to
support) and some government functions that you DO support.
Where is the line here Chuck?
By the way, Jon Caldara (whom I would consider a friend if I was sure he
would even recognize my name) is getting more popular on KHOW. He subbed
for Peter Boyles today. Jon seems to apply the Lib principles (even if he
is ONLY a Republican) consistently yet rationally. If you work on the
conversion work Jon has started with me you may yet earn yourself a
neophyte.
Are you (personally and as a representative of the party) looking for
converts or just an argument? That has always seemed to summarize the
problem with the Libs to me.
--
Joe Ventola
Microsoft Word MVP
MS Beta Site 259060
Joe_V...@msn.com
Chuck Wright wrote in message <356BB9...@ibm.net>...
>Libertarins do not support using force to get what we want. Rather,
>we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
>
Chuck Wright
Chris wrote:
> owned nationally by the Conservancy before you begin ceding
> them the national forests.
Most people don't contribute becasue:
1. Government is already spending a lot of tax dollars on parks and
people believe they are already contributing to park funding. Why
give again?
2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
along without me."
> It will also be didactic to note that except for their own guided
> field trips and some interpretive trails, their land purchases are
> run on a largely hands off near-wilderness designation level. They
> have no interest in promoting hunting, off road trails, fishing, or
> other extant recreational uses. their mission is species and
> ecosystem preservation - a goal at odds with recreational usage.
Government is doing such an extraordinarily poor job of producing
hands-off type parks that it spawned the need for the Nature
Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy found a niche not served
well by government.
While the Nature Conservancy my not be interested in recrational
parks, other private groups are.
> The Conservancy, while growing steadily in contributions and
> membership base also has nowhere near the resources of the
> federal or even state government, and is unlikely to burgeon
> into the free market parkmeister you envision.
In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
Government didn't magicly pull the resources it's spending
on parks out of thin air. Any money it spends on parks it
must first take from us. Government can't give us anything
it hasn't first taken away form us.
> That said - they are a fine organization and deserve all the support we can
> muster.
Agreed.
> > Libertarins do not support initiating force to get what we want. Rather,
> > we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
>
> Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
Huh? What coattails?
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Chuck Wright
Joe Ventola wrote:
>
> Chuck, Chuck, Chuck....
>
> Ya see what I mean here?
>
> Here I am, practically BEGGING to be invited into the Lib party... All I ask
> is some kind of line - a definition if you will - on where you (the party)
> draws the line.
Libertarians do not believe in or advocate the -initiation- of force
as a means of achieving political or social goals. That's the
definition of where the "line" is.
> Instead I get an argument. I didn't demand that the government own the
> parks, I said it seemed to make sense. What I asked you for was some
> rational distinction between government parks (which you do not seem to
> support) and some government functions that you DO support.
>
> Where is the line here Chuck?
I think your question is how tiny do libertarians want government
to be. We want govenrment to be much smaller, but where do we stop?
My gut feeling is that I'll know when I get there.
Libertarians want to make government as small as possible.
If we can figure out a reasonable way to privatize a
government service, why not privatize it? Can we figure
out a way to privatize such basic government services as Police,
and Fire protection? I think so. Why not? Can I prove it to
your satisifaction? Probably not at this time, but as government
gets cut down to a tiny fraction of its present size, the solution
to such problems I think will become more obvious.
As government taxes and regulations become less burdensome and
their crippling effects greatly reduced, it will become more
obvious that people can afford to pay for these services
voluntarily themselves. After all, government can't give us
anything it hasn't already taken away from us.
Do you have to agree with me on exactly how small government
should be to be a Libertarian? No! There probably are no two
Libertarians who agree on this. But what we all agree on is
that we must make government much smaller and less intrusive
into the lives of peaceful people than it is today. As long as
you think government is much too big, you should be a libertarin
and a member of the Libertarian Party.
Where else are you going to go? The Republicians? Heck, now
that they've got control of Congress, the Federal goverenment
is growing at a faster pace than it was with a Democratic
Congress. Closer to home, the Colorado State Legislature has
been dominated by Republicians for as long as anyone can remember,
but state goverenment grew so fast that the people were forced to
slow it down with the Tax Payers Bill of Rights (TABOR, a State
Constitution amendment passed in 1992). And TABOR has turned out
to be nothing more than an speed bump for Republican tax and
spend.
Government is so enourmous now that it will be a long time before
we've made it so small that we'll have to worry about making it too
small. Rather than expend time and energy now arguing over how small
to make government, why not focus our energies on making government
smaller now in the areas where we agree it can be made smaller.
Anyway, here are some rational stopping points that most libertarians
would be happy with:
1. At the Federal level, eliminate the 16th amendment to the
Constitution and strictly enforce the remainder of the Constitution.
From 1791 until 1913 the Federal government operated without the
16th amendment and without being the giant monster it is today.
2. Only have laws which protect people from people who do initiate
force. This would justify the Police, the Courts, the Military, ...
and laws against murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, child molesting,
fraud, tresspassing, ... and not much else.
A colorary to #2 is: Eliminate all laws which make it illegal to
engage in peaceful activities where the participants are not
initiating force.
Why don't you check out the Libertarian Party's platform located
at http://www.lp.org/? See for yourself if you agree with
it more than the platforms of the Dems and Repubs.
Also, for solutions to the problems of privitizing government
services, check out these libertarian think tanks: The Cato
Institute at http://www.cato.org/ and the Reason Foundation
at http://www.reason.org/.
> By the way, Jon Caldara (whom I would consider a friend if I was sure he
> would even recognize my name) is getting more popular on KHOW. He subbed
> for Peter Boyles today. Jon seems to apply the Lib principles (even if he
> is ONLY a Republican) consistently yet rationally. If you work on the
> conversion work Jon has started with me you may yet earn yourself a
> neophyte.
I woke up yesterday morning to Jon's voice. Good show. I consider
Jon to be a friend, but now that he's a star on KHOW, he has probably
forgotten my name (just kidding Jon *;^) ).
By the way, Jon won the 1997 Libertarian Party of Colorado's "Friend
of Liberty" award for his outstanding work with the LP to defeat
Guide the Ride.
I think Jon's in the wrong party, and perhaps someday he'll come
around.
> Are you (personally and as a representative of the party) looking for
> converts or just an argument? That has always seemed to summarize the
> problem with the Libs to me.
>
> --
> Joe Ventola
> Microsoft Word MVP
> MS Beta Site 259060
> Joe_V...@msn.com
>
> Chuck Wright wrote in message <356BB9...@ibm.net>...
> >Libertarins do not support using force to get what we want. Rather,
> >we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
> >
> >Chuck Wright
> >Membership Director
> >Libertarian Party of Boulder County
> >http://www.self-gov.org/
> >
> >> Enlighten me Chuck. I am open to this conversion if I could just see
> where
> >> you are trying to draw the line.
> >>
> >> Yours in spirit, if not in name.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joe Ventola
> >> Microsoft Word MVP
> >> MS Beta Site 259060
> >> Joe_V...@msn.com
> >>
> >> Chuck Wright wrote in message <356AC3...@ibm.net>...
> >> >I'm not an atheist, but church - state conflicts like this one can
> >> >be reduced if we make government as tiny as possible. Nobody can
> >> >put a cross on a governmnet owned park if the government doesn't
> >> >own any parks.
> >> >
> >> >Chuck Wright
> >> >Membership Director
> >> >Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Gary Strand
c > Chris
[Libertarins do not support using force to get what we want. Rather, we
prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.]
c > Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
How long are the coattails that nearly one half of one *BILLION* dollars in
taxpayer money will provide?
At least free riders are free. Bowlen, the Broncos, and their idiot support-
ers like Chris are *DAMNED* expensive to the rest of us.
Vote *NO!* on a taxpayer-financed stadium!
--
Gary Strand
gst...@dimensional.com http://www.dimensional.com/~gstrand
Chris
Chuck Wright wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > Chuck Wright wrote:
> >
> > You may want to study the relatively small percentage of land
> > owned nationally by the Conservancy before you begin ceding
> > them the national forests.
>
> Most people don't contribute becasue:
>
> 1. Government is already spending a lot of tax dollars on parks and
> people believe they are already contributing to park funding. Why
> give again?
>
Uh...sorry Chuck..the Nature Conservancy has a different mission and charter than our
national or state park system. They are about species and ecosystem preservation. No
one in their right mind will confuse the heavy recreational bias of our national
forest and park system with the Conservancy's goals.
> 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
> many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
> your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
> along without me."
What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you need to ask
yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and servant of us - our
will - a manifest representation of our collective political and moral thought
functioning under a series of checks and balances.
> > It will also be didactic to note that except for their own guided
> > field trips and some interpretive trails, their land purchases are
> > run on a largely hands off near-wilderness designation level. They
> > have no interest in promoting hunting, off road trails, fishing, or
> > other extant recreational uses. their mission is species and
> > ecosystem preservation - a goal at odds with recreational usage.
>
> Government is doing such an extraordinarily poor job of producing
> hands-off type parks that it spawned the need for the Nature
> Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy found a niche not served
> well by government.
Precisely. Although you need again look at our wilderness areas by acreage and note
that even on this smaller scale effort, the government has a huge lead.
> While the Nature Conservancy my not be interested in recrational
> parks, other private groups are.
I don't think Disney and Six Flags are what I have in mind here.
> > The Conservancy, while growing steadily in contributions and
> > membership base also has nowhere near the resources of the
> > federal or even state government, and is unlikely to burgeon
> > into the free market parkmeister you envision.
>
> In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
As do they now.
> Government didn't magicly pull the resources it's spending
> on parks out of thin air. Any money it spends on parks it
> must first take from us. Government can't give us anything
> it hasn't first taken away form us.
>
And that is why we have any parks or wilderness at all. You may want to study the
history of grazing leases and mining claims to get a whiff of the free market in
action. We have regulations to prevent the abuses that led to the use of the "little
giant" near Yosemite and the almost total loss of riparian habitat in the 1800's.
> > That said - they are a fine organization and deserve all the support we can
> > muster.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > Libertarins do not support initiating force to get what we want. Rather,
> > > we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
> >
> > Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
>
> Huh? What coattails?
Please, the next time you enlist the Conservancy under your banner, call their
Boulder offices and verify their desire to be swaddled with your party's platform.
> Chuck Wright
> Membership Director
> Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Ed Smith
Chris wrote:
> Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> > Chris wrote:
> > >
> > > Chuck Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why must government own parks? Why can't individuals voluntarily
> > > > form organizations to pool their resourses to purchase parks?
> > > > Have you ever heard of the Nature Conservancy?
> > > >
> > >
> > > > When you demand that government own parks, you are saying that
> > > > you want to -force- people to pay for parks. Otherwise, you'd
> > > > be happy to have the Nature Conservancy and its supports handel
> > > > everything.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You may want to study the relatively small percentage of land
> > > owned nationally by the Conservancy before you begin ceding
> > > them the national forests.
> >
> > Most people don't contribute becasue:
> >
> > 1. Government is already spending a lot of tax dollars on parks and
> > people believe they are already contributing to park funding. Why
> > give again?
> >
>
> Uh...sorry Chuck..the Nature Conservancy has a different mission and charter than our
> national or state park system. They are about species and ecosystem preservation. No
> one in their right mind will confuse the heavy recreational bias of our national
> forest and park system with the Conservancy's goals.
Actually, I think Chuck said this, and then explained that another organization could be
formed to satisfy that goal.
> > 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
> > many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
> > your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
> > along without me."
>
> What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you need to ask
> yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and servant of us - our
> will - a manifest representation of our collective political and moral thought
> functioning under a series of checks and balances.
I agree.
> > > It will also be didactic to note that except for their own guided
> > > field trips and some interpretive trails, their land purchases are
> > > run on a largely hands off near-wilderness designation level. They
> > > have no interest in promoting hunting, off road trails, fishing, or
> > > other extant recreational uses. their mission is species and
> > > ecosystem preservation - a goal at odds with recreational usage.
> >
> > Government is doing such an extraordinarily poor job of producing
> > hands-off type parks that it spawned the need for the Nature
> > Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy found a niche not served
> > well by government.
>
> Precisely. Although you need again look at our wilderness areas by acreage and note
> that even on this smaller scale effort, the government has a huge lead.
Moreover, where we are talking about Federal lands we are not talking about lands that
the government bought (other than in the case of major territorial purchases, of course,
which were done for the purpose of expanding boundaries, not setting aside wilderness).
They are simply lands that were never homesteaded. So the question really is what should
be done with them. Should they be sold to the highest bidder? Milked for resources? Or
just put a chain around them and use them for nuke testing. Well, as a matter of fact, we
have done all of the above. That we should set some of it aside because a majority of
citizens think preserving some wild places is of value is certainly no more an imposition
on you than is below-market logging of public lands an imposition on me. In fact, the
cost of maintaining a wilderness area is virtually zero. Other forest lands derive
revenue from mining and logging and other such activities (though not enough, as the
government sells those rights below cost, and certainly below market). And NPS is
probably on a path that will lead it to profitability.
When we're talking about state, and especially community holdings, nobody is forcing
anybody, because you have a choice as to where you live. I have pointed out before that
your philosophy about taxation equaling theft belies the commonly held view of what a
"community" is. That is why it is called a community. If you want to live without
anybody's help whatsoever, there are plenty of rural places you can do that. But, then,
Chuck has never directly addressed this objection.
> > While the Nature Conservancy my not be interested in recrational
> > parks, other private groups are.
>
> I don't think Disney and Six Flags are what I have in mind here.
To be fair, I don't think that's what Chuck meant either. Nor, I suspect, do you.
> > > The Conservancy, while growing steadily in contributions and
> > > membership base also has nowhere near the resources of the
> > > federal or even state government, and is unlikely to burgeon
> > > into the free market parkmeister you envision.
> >
> > In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> > Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> > people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
This is precisely the problem. The idea that we should toss out our existing government
based on your faith that the things people will care about that government now handles
(especially those things that it handles pretty well, like police and fire protection)
will automatically be picked up by the free market is just that. There is no real
evidence. It is just your opinion (and the opinion of a handfull of others). I, for one,
am not willing to take those kinds of risks.
> As do they now.
>
> > Government didn't magicly pull the resources it's spending
> > on parks out of thin air. Any money it spends on parks it
> > must first take from us. Government can't give us anything
> > it hasn't first taken away form us.
> >
>
> And that is why we have any parks or wilderness at all. You may want to study the
> history of grazing leases and mining claims to get a whiff of the free market in
> action. We have regulations to prevent the abuses that led to the use of the "little
> giant" near Yosemite and the almost total loss of riparian habitat in the 1800's.
Or the near extermination of the American Bison, which we now realize could be an
important agricultural commodity in the decades to come. Or the great dust storms caused
by careless agricultural use which almost rendered the great bread basket a high desert.
> > > That said - they are a fine organization and deserve all the support we can
> > > muster.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > > Libertarins do not support initiating force to get what we want. Rather,
> > > > we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
> > >
> > > Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
> >
> > Huh? What coattails?
>
> Please, the next time you enlist the Conservancy under your banner, call their
> Boulder offices and verify their desire to be swaddled with your party's platform. \
I don't believe an organization has a right to choose who supports them (of course, they
can turn down donations). Nor do I believe that the support of a member of the party
represents being swaddled by the party's platform.
Chris, I chose to respond to your post instead of Chuck's original one, because I notice
when you write that you do so, less with an interest in getting to the truth of a topic,
than with a desire to inflame the fight. Maybe to make it more fun or interesting?
I disagree strongly with Chuck's and his party's views about many things. But I don't
think he's an evil person, or someone who wishes ill will on the poor and downtrodden, or
even the environment. I have heard him say some things that suggest he does care about
those things. I personally think he would be disappointed if his ideas were put into
place, because I don't believe that those things would be cared for quite the way he
thinks they would.
Ed Smith
Gary Strand
es> Ed Smith
c > Chris
cw> Chuck Wright
cw> Government first breaks your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says,
"See you couldn't get along without me."
c > What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you
need to ask yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection
and servant of us - our will - a manifest representation of our collective
political and moral thought functioning under a series of checks and
balances.
es> I agree.
Sadly, both of you are both naive and ignorant of how the US political sys-
tem currently works. Perhaps what Chris said was true at one time, and it
is a description of how the system is propagandized by public education, but
it's not reality.
The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the concerns
of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist, nor do
the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time the
government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and we would
do nothing to stop it.
Chris
Gary Strand wrote:
> es> Ed Smith
> c > Chris
> cw> Chuck Wright
>
> cw> Government first breaks your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says,
> "See you couldn't get along without me."
>
> c > What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you
> need to ask yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection
> and servant of us - our will - a manifest representation of our collective
> political and moral thought functioning under a series of checks and
> balances.
>
> es> I agree.
>
> Sadly, both of you are both naive and ignorant of how the US political sys-
> tem currently works. Perhaps what Chris said was true at one time, and it
> is a description of how the system is propagandized by public education, but
> it's not reality.
Nobody is saying there has not been change in our mechanisms over time - stasis is
death in society.
> The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the concerns
> of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist, nor do
> the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
No - sorry - as long as we have the three branches of government we have a system
of checks and balances. Will you next tell us the Bill of Rights and Constitution
are missing?
> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time the
> government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and we would
> do nothing to stop it.
It is *we*. If your gripe is that greed has become rampant in our society - we
concur. If you suggest some larger sub agenda for government, some nefarious
purpose ( we can bring the UN in now if you like ) then this must be proven with
hard data.
It poses an interesting thread don't you think.
Chris
Ed Smith wrote:
If he did, it is missing from my thread.
I should hope they would at least approach break even - although given the facilities decay
I've witnessed in my visits, I'll have to quit grousing about the spiraling entrance fees. At
least they've not been turned over outright to concessionaires like TWA services to own and
run as they please - a distinct possibility in the libertarian model.
Anyone familiar with ARA's record of dumping old boat batteries beneath the dock in Bullfrog
Bay at the lake Powell NRA would have to look at unregulated privatization with a jaundiced
eye.
> When we're talking about state, and especially community holdings, nobody is forcing
> anybody, because you have a choice as to where you live. I have pointed out before that
> your philosophy about taxation equaling theft belies the commonly held view of what a
> "community" is. That is why it is called a community. If you want to live without
> anybody's help whatsoever, there are plenty of rural places you can do that. But, then,
> Chuck has never directly addressed this objection.
Correct.
> > > While the Nature Conservancy my not be interested in recrational
> > > parks, other private groups are.
> >
> > I don't think Disney and Six Flags are what I have in mind here.
>
> To be fair, I don't think that's what Chuck meant either. Nor, I suspect, do you.
No, but given the example above - we can see the potential for abuse while even contract
control is in force is absolutely stunning. Really, nothing like a little dilute electrolytic
acid to dick up the ph of the water and melt those tan lines away!
> > > > The Conservancy, while growing steadily in contributions and
> > > > membership base also has nowhere near the resources of the
> > > > federal or even state government, and is unlikely to burgeon
> > > > into the free market parkmeister you envision.
> > >
> > > In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> > > Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> > > people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
>
> This is precisely the problem. The idea that we should toss out our existing government
> based on your faith that the things people will care about that government now handles
> (especially those things that it handles pretty well, like police and fire protection)
> will automatically be picked up by the free market is just that. There is no real
> evidence. It is just your opinion (and the opinion of a handfull of others). I, for one,
> am not willing to take those kinds of risks.
Benign neglect stands as a mutual exclusivity in human systems.
> > As do they now.
> >
> > > Government didn't magicly pull the resources it's spending
> > > on parks out of thin air. Any money it spends on parks it
> > > must first take from us. Government can't give us anything
> > > it hasn't first taken away form us.
> > >
> >
> > And that is why we have any parks or wilderness at all. You may want to study the
> > history of grazing leases and mining claims to get a whiff of the free market in
> > action. We have regulations to prevent the abuses that led to the use of the "little
> > giant" near Yosemite and the almost total loss of riparian habitat in the 1800's.
>
> Or the near extermination of the American Bison, which we now realize could be an
> important agricultural commodity in the decades to come. Or the great dust storms caused
> by careless agricultural use which almost rendered the great bread basket a high desert.
And the impact of the WPA and soil Conservation Service in renewing us from that travesty
with crop rotation, contour plowing, reservoirs for storage, and wind break planting all came
with the onus of regulatory management. Small shackles to bear given the pervious tragedy.
> > > > That said - they are a fine organization and deserve all the support we can
> > > > muster.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > > > Libertarins do not support initiating force to get what we want. Rather,
> > > > > we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
> > > >
> > > > Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
> > >
> > > Huh? What coattails?
> >
> > Please, the next time you enlist the Conservancy under your banner, call their
> > Boulder offices and verify their desire to be swaddled with your party's platform. \
>
> I don't believe an organization has a right to choose who supports them (of course, they
> can turn down donations). Nor do I believe that the support of a member of the party
> represents being swaddled by the party's platform.
As a member of said group, I take issue with being painted into the political corner of the
libertarians. There may be commonality, true - but guilt by association gnaws at my thoughts.
That said, I am nor representing any official position of the Conservancy here - and they may
rightly tell me to clam up. I do consider them a fantastic organization, and under Sawhill's
tenure their growth has been exponential.
> Chris, I chose to respond to your post instead of Chuck's original one, because I notice
> when you write that you do so, less with an interest in getting to the truth of a topic,
> than with a desire to inflame the fight. Maybe to make it more fun or interesting?
I may have been hanging around Weiser a bit too much Ed. But there are only so many times
that one can see common sense flagrantly bypassed for policies of expediency - even if no
malice aforethought is present.
> I disagree strongly with Chuck's and his party's views about many things. But I don't
> think he's an evil person, or someone who wishes ill will on the poor and downtrodden, or
> even the environment. I have heard him say some things that suggest he does care about
> those things. I personally think he would be disappointed if his ideas were put into
> place, because I don't believe that those things would be cared for quite the way he
> thinks they would.
I quite agree with you on this. I am astounded at the naiveté Chuck evinces here- but nothing
leads me to paint him as "evil" - far from it. I find it refreshing and innocent that the
libertarians believe we can all share the same sand box with no proctoring mechanism.
I must then credit the basic internal discipline evinced by these individuals as proof of
strong value oriented principles. What scares us both perhaps, is their belief that society
at large will not run amok given half a lead.
> Ed Smith
Stewart
> > 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
> > many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
> > your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
> > along without me."
>
> What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you need to ask
> yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and servant of us - our
> will - a manifest representation of our collective political and moral thought
> functioning under a series of checks and balances.
That isn't "mean-spirited" - it's fact. Look at how each state sends
all that money to Washington, then turns right around and sends
lobbyists to Washington to plead the case for federal funding for a
specific in-state project, such as road construction in Denver.
What is government? Force. Nothing more and nothing less.
Stewart
> Here I am, practically BEGGING to be invited into the Lib party... All I ask
> is some kind of line - a definition if you will - on where you (the party)
> draws the line.
I think it might be a good idea for you to check out the Libertarian
Party's website at <http://www.lp.org> and look at the party platform.
Donald L Ferry
gst...@dimensional.com (Gary Strand) wrote:
>es> Ed Smith
>c > Chris
>cw> Chuck Wright
>
>cw> Government first breaks your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says,
> "See you couldn't get along without me."
>
>c > What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you
> need to ask yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection
> and servant of us - our will - a manifest representation of our collective
> political and moral thought functioning under a series of checks and
> balances.
>
>es> I agree.
>
> Sadly, both of you are both naive and ignorant of how the US political sys-
> tem currently works. Perhaps what Chris said was true at one time, and it
> is a description of how the system is propagandized by public education, but
> it's not reality.
>
> The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the concerns
> of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist, nor do
> the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
>
> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time the
> government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and we would
> do nothing to stop it.
And the simplistic solutions offered by the Libertarians is the quick
route to a undeomocratic government!!
Gary Strand
c > Chris
gs> Gary Strand
gs> The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the con-
cerns of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist,
nor do the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
c > No - sorry - as long as we have the three branches of government we have
a system of checks and balances.
Nope. The Supreme Court writes law, the President fights wars, and Congress
has become the reserve of an elite committed to keeping their power.
c > Will you next tell us the Bill of Rights and Constitution are missing?
They might as well be.
gs> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time
the government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and
we would do nothing to stop it.
c > It is *we*.
The current governments of the United States represent *no* interests of
mine, period. The governments may be *yours*, but they are not mine, not
at all.
c > If your gripe is that greed has become rampant in our society - we con-
cur.
"Greed" is far too simplistic.
c > If you suggest some larger sub agenda for government, some nefarious pur-
pose ( we can bring the UN in now if you like ) then this must be proven
with hard data.
Johnny Chung buying Clinton with money from the Chinese military.
Chris
Gary Strand wrote:
> c > Chris
> gs> Gary Strand
>
> gs> The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the con-
> cerns of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist,
> nor do the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
>
> c > No - sorry - as long as we have the three branches of government we have
> a system of checks and balances.
>
> Nope. The Supreme Court writes law, the President fights wars, and Congress
> has become the reserve of an elite committed to keeping their power.
>
Er...no...what really happens is that laws are written in the legislative branch,
fall subject to executive approval, and may be tested and modified by the judicial
branch. Did you miss civics Gary?
> c > Will you next tell us the Bill of Rights and Constitution are missing?
>
> They might as well be.
If they were you'd know it - and we'd likely not be passing these missives back and
forth.
> gs> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time
> the government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and
> we would do nothing to stop it.
>
> c > It is *we*.
>
> The current governments of the United States represent *no* interests of
> mine, period. The governments may be *yours*, but they are not mine, not
> at all.
None at all...how tragic! That is a sobering and overly self revelatory statement
Gary.
> c > If your gripe is that greed has become rampant in our society - we con-
> cur.
>
> "Greed" is far too simplistic.
All things being equal, the most simple concept, as in engineering, is usually the
best. But we can shift it over to food chain if you prefer a broader and more
elegant view.
> c > If you suggest some larger sub agenda for government, some nefarious pur-
> pose ( we can bring the UN in now if you like ) then this must be proven
> with hard data.
>
> Johnny Chung buying Clinton with money from the Chinese military.
Is a campaign law abuse - it hints only at potential conflicts of governmental
interest. You can do better than that Gary - ever heard of the trilaterals?
Chris
Stewart wrote:
> > > 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
> > > many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
> > > your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
> > > along without me."
> >
> > What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you need to ask
> > yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and servant of us - our
> > will - a manifest representation of our collective political and moral thought
> > functioning under a series of checks and balances.
>
> That isn't "mean-spirited" - it's fact. Look at how each state sends
> all that money to Washington, then turns right around and sends
> lobbyists to Washington to plead the case for federal funding for a
> specific in-state project, such as road construction in Denver.
And consider that prior to EPA pollution restrictions in Denver during the winter - we had
some real problems. Were we hostaged by road funds into compliance- yes. Was the
overriding greater good justification - I believe so.
> What is government? Force. Nothing more and nothing less.
So let's try a voluntary income tax - a quick show of hands, who's paying this year?
Gary Strand
c > Chris
gs> Gary Strand
gs> The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the con-
cerns of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist,
nor do the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
c > No - sorry - as long as we have the three branches of government we have
a system of checks and balances.
gs> Nope. The Supreme Court writes law, the President fights wars, and Con-
gress has become the reserve of an elite committed to keeping their power.
c > Er...no...what really happens is that laws are written in the legislative
branch,
Roe v. Wade? When did Congress make abortion legal? Or, Title IX programs?
When did Congress mandate that?
c > fall subject to executive approval, and may be tested and modified by the
judicial branch. Did you miss civics Gary?
8th-grade civics and reality are two different things, Chris.
How many "wars" has the US fought in since WWII? How many received the prop-
er declaration from Congress? How many were uses of the "War Powers Act"?
Was it used by Bush to instigate the Gulf War?
gs> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time
the government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and
we would do nothing to stop it.
c > It is *we*.
gs> The current governments of the United States represent *no* interests of
mine, period. The governments may be *yours*, but they are not mine, not
at all.
c > None at all...how tragic! That is a sobering and overly self revelatory
statement Gary.
Explain.
A system begins to fall apart when those it allegedly represents no longer
believe in helping to maintain it. I'm hardly alone - a majority of indiv-
iduals under 40 believe more in UFOs than in Social Security being extant
when they retire.
c > If you suggest some larger sub agenda for government, some nefarious pur-
pose ( we can bring the UN in now if you like ) then this must be proven
with hard data.
gs> Johnny Chung buying Clinton with money from the Chinese military.
c > Is a campaign law abuse - it hints only at potential conflicts of gov-
ernmental interest.
Your knowledge of what's happened is *clearly* lacking. Check out the new-
est country to test nuclear weapons and follow the trail backwards. I'm
not saying that Clinton is directly at fault, but there is a chain that
can be constructed.
PS - Don't forget that you're dealing with a cynic.
Melissa
In article <356dc2d4...@news.mindspring.com>,
wolfb...@mindspring.com (Donald L Ferry) wrote:
>gst...@dimensional.com (Gary Strand) wrote:
>
>>es> Ed Smith
>>c > Chris
>>cw> Chuck Wright
>>
>> "See you couldn't get along without me."
>>
>> need to ask yourself what exactly our government is - it is a
reflection
>> and servant of us - our will - a manifest representation of our
collective
>> political and moral thought functioning under a series of checks
and
>> balances.
>>
>>
>> Sadly, both of you are both naive and ignorant of how the US
political sys-
>> tem currently works. Perhaps what Chris said was true at one time,
and it
>> is a description of how the system is propagandized by public
education, but
>> it's not reality.
>>
>> of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not
exist, nor do
>> the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
>>
the time the
>> government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted
and we would
>> do nothing to stop it.
>
>route to a undeomocratic government!!
What have we got now?
The latest is that the city of Denver has found a way to lay plunder
to the property of gun owners:
http://cssa-co.org/fcc/news/hunter_boycott.html
Government seems to be totally out of control now! They don't care
what people think anymore because THEY DON'T HAVE TO!
Big Brother is here!
- Melissa
That's my opinion. To email me, remove both spam proofing X's in my email
address. If you have anything negative to say, please do it in the newsgroups
and not in my private email box. Hostile or harassing email will probably be
instantly deleted and may result in complaints to the party's ISP.
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to
give it to others." - William Allen White
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolph Hitler, 1935.
Melissa
In article <356DC6...@emohtapohs.com>,
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
>> > 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome
regulations,
>> > many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first
breaks
>> > your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you
couldn't get
>> > along without me."
>>
>> What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think
you need to ask
>> yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and
servant of us - our
>> will - a manifest representation of our collective political and
moral thought
>> functioning under a series of checks and balances.
>
>all that money to Washington, then turns right around and sends
>lobbyists to Washington to plead the case for federal funding for a
>specific in-state project, such as road construction in Denver.
>
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like
fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George
Washington
“Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from
the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of
resistance.” - Woodrow Wilson
Samuel Martin Ventola
In <6kkjtn$n...@flatland.dimensional.com> gst...@dimensional.com (Gary
Strand) writes:
>
>c > Er...no...what really happens is that laws are written in the
> legislative branch,
>
> Roe v. Wade? When did Congress make abortion legal?
Well if you believe the opinion (which no serious and impartial student
of constitutional law really does) Congress and state legislatures did
that in passing the first, third, fifth, sixth, ninth and fourteenth
amendments, which the Court read to generally prohibit regulation in
certain "private" areas. You can argue, as I would, that the Court
read the Constintution incorrectly, but it is still the case that the
court's decision must be based on application of already written law to
specific cases.
There is law which is entirely court-made at the state level, called
"common law," but there has been no entirely court-made law at the
federal level since the case of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, which I
believe was decided in the 1920s or 30s. Further, state common law can
always be rejected and overturned in whole or in part by the state
legislature or, if in an area in which the federal government is
permitted to regulate, Congress.
>Or, Title IX programs? When did Congress mandate that?
Er, in 1964, when they passed Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Sam
Ed Smith
Gary Strand wrote:
> PS - Don't forget that you're dealing with a cynic.
ROFL!!!!!
That is the one thing none of us will ever forget Gary.
Ed Smith
Donald L Ferry
Meli...@concentric.net (Melissa) wrote:
>"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like
>fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George
>Washington
I see you like to quote slave holders and speculators of stolen lands
= hardly libertarian = or wait is it or not?????
Chris
Gary Strand wrote:
> c > Chris
> gs> Gary Strand
>
> gs> The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the con-
> cerns of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist,
> nor do the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
>
> c > No - sorry - as long as we have the three branches of government we have
> a system of checks and balances.
>
> gs> Nope. The Supreme Court writes law, the President fights wars, and Con-
> gress has become the reserve of an elite committed to keeping their power.
>
> c > Er...no...what really happens is that laws are written in the legislative
> branch,
>
> Roe v. Wade? When did Congress make abortion legal? Or, Title IX programs?
> When did Congress mandate that?
Ahh..Gary..our least contextual poster - no reply when the context is snipped.
Return to the thread and prepare to lose your case.
> c > fall subject to executive approval, and may be tested and modified by the
> judicial branch. Did you miss civics Gary?
>
> 8th-grade civics and reality are two different things, Chris.
>
> How many "wars" has the US fought in since WWII? How many received the prop-
> er declaration from Congress? How many were uses of the "War Powers Act"?
> Was it used by Bush to instigate the Gulf War?
I would agree the Gulf enticement was just that - even have evidence to the same.
Now consider whether global policy may be the culprit,and if so - who the
defendant.
> gs> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time
> the government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and
> we would do nothing to stop it.
>
> c > It is *we*.
>
> gs> The current governments of the United States represent *no* interests of
> mine, period. The governments may be *yours*, but they are not mine, not
> at all.
>
> c > None at all...how tragic! That is a sobering and overly self revelatory
> statement Gary.
>
> Explain.
>
I can't fall out of love with America - I hope you won't either - the substitutes
are globally lacking.
> A system begins to fall apart when those it allegedly represents no longer
> believe in helping to maintain it. I'm hardly alone - a majority of indiv-
> iduals under 40 believe more in UFOs than in Social Security being extant
> when they retire.
And given the current economics of SS that is hardly a slack assumption. So we
acknowledge the pyramid scheme of our parents - the breeder generation. Fine. That
is reason enough to tighten reproductive standards as has China - finite planet =
finite man. And need we examine Gov. Whittman's plan for N.J.'s pension plan?
> c > If you suggest some larger sub agenda for government, some nefarious pur-
> pose ( we can bring the UN in now if you like ) then this must be proven
> with hard data.
>
> gs> Johnny Chung buying Clinton with money from the Chinese military.
>
> c > Is a campaign law abuse - it hints only at potential conflicts of gov-
> ernmental interest.
>
> Your knowledge of what's happened is *clearly* lacking. Check out the new-
> est country to test nuclear weapons and follow the trail backwards. I'm
> not saying that Clinton is directly at fault, but there is a chain that
> can be constructed.
I can test that thesis, and with some primary evidence - now build your case.
> PS - Don't forget that you're dealing with a cynic.
And so I would have thought - I've tried to prime the pump Gary, let me be more
direct: Lucist Trust, C.F.R. , Bilderbergers, in easier terms - multinationals.
Like some reading points?
Chuck Wright
Chris wrote:
>
> Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> > 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
> > many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
> > your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
> > along without me."
>
> What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you need to ask
> yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and servant of us - our
> will - a manifest representation of our collective political and moral thought
> functioning under a series of checks and balances.
"So what is goverenment? Very simply, it is an agency of coercion.
"Of course, there are other agencies of coercion--such as the
Mafia. So to be more precise, government is the agency of coercion
that hangs flags in front of its offices.
"Or, to put it another way, government is society's dominant
producer of coercion. The Mafia and independent bandits are
merely fringe competitors--seeking to take advantage of the niches
and nooks neglected by government."
From "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne
St. Martin's Press, (c) 1995 p. 12
> > In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> > Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> > people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
>
> As do they now.
Excpet govenrment has taken away the means for people
to freely give as much of their income as they want
to such groups.
> > Government didn't magicly pull the resources it's spending
> > on parks out of thin air. Any money it spends on parks it
> > must first take from us. Government can't give us anything
> > it hasn't first taken away form us.
> >
>
> And that is why we have any parks or wilderness at all. You may want to study the
> history of grazing leases and mining claims to get a whiff of the free market in
> action.
Huh? And all this time I thought grazing leases and mining claims
were both granted by government.
> > > > Libertarins do not support initiating force to get what we want. Rather,
> > > > we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
> > >
> > > Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
> >
> > Huh? What coattails?
>
> Please, the next time you enlist the Conservancy under your banner, call their
> Boulder offices and verify their desire to be swaddled with your party's platform.
I don't think I tried to claim that the Nature Conservancy was a
Libertarian organization.
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Chuck Wright
Ed Smith wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> > Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> When we're talking about state, and especially community holdings,
> nobody is forcing anybody, because you have a choice as to where
> you live.
Not everyone has the choice of being able to move. Homeless
people for example have no means of moving anywhere else.
What you're calling a "choice" is realy no choice at all because
nowhere in North America there there a place with tiny government.
In fact, now that Hong Kong is gone, there is almost nowhere on the
planet that one can go to escape the mighty force of government.
> I have pointed out before that your philosophy about
> taxation equaling theft belies the commonly held view of what a
> "community" is.
The flat earth theory used to be the commonly held view too.
So what?
> That is why it is called a community. If you want
> to live without anybody's help whatsoever, there are plenty of
> rural places you can do that. But, then, Chuck has never directly
> addressed this objection.
There is nothing wrong with getting help from your neighbors.
What I object to is compelling my neighbors to help me.
> > > In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> > > Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> > > people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
>
> This is precisely the problem. The idea that we should toss out
> our existing government based on your faith that the things people
> will care about that government now handles (especially those things
> that it handles pretty well, like police and fire protection)
> will automatically be picked up by the free market is just that.
> There is no real evidence. It is just your opinion (and the opinion
> of a handfull of others). I, for one, am not willing to take those
> kinds of risks.
With respect to parks, I can live with whatever the sum total
of our individual voluntary decesions are, be they twice as
much land set aside for parks or one tenth as much. My
question for you is, what gives you or the "community" the
right to compel me to spend my money on park land rather than
on my grandmother's operation?
Privitizing police and fire protection is not at the top
of my agenda, but please explain why people wouldn't
voluntarily pay for something they need? And what makes
you so sure that the government is doing a good job of
police and fire protection?
> Or the near extermination of the American Bison, which we
> now realize could be an important agricultural commodity in
> the decades to come. Or the great dust storms caused by
> careless agricultural use which almost rendered the great
> bread basket a high desert.
Care to hazard a guess as to which government programs
brought about these disasters?
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
wolfb...@mindspring.com
In article <u#JIjBdi9GA.224@upnetnews05>,
"Joe Ventola" <joe_v...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> By the way, Jon Caldara (whom I would consider a friend if I was sure he
> would even recognize my name) is getting more popular on KHOW. He subbed
> for Peter Boyles today. Jon seems to apply the Lib principles (even if he
> is ONLY a Republican) consistently yet rationally. If you work on the
> conversion work Jon has started with me you may yet earn yourself a
> neophyte.
Oh Yea! We have Jon Caldara the libertarian. The man who orders that there
shall be no buses within two blocks of his house. The man in charge of the
board who sees to it that no bus passes with two blocks of his house even
though there are elderly riders who need the ride. Oh Yea Libertarians are
the new facists of America!!!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Ed Smith
Chuck Wright wrote:
> Ed Smith wrote:
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> > > Chuck Wright wrote:
> >
> > When we're talking about state, and especially community holdings,
> > nobody is forcing anybody, because you have a choice as to where
> > you live.
>
> Not everyone has the choice of being able to move. Homeless
> people for example have no means of moving anywhere else.
And they pay a lot of taxes, don't they. Can we stay on the issue, please?
> What you're calling a "choice" is realy no choice at all because
> nowhere in North America there there a place with tiny government.
> In fact, now that Hong Kong is gone, there is almost nowhere on the
> planet that one can go to escape the mighty force of government
I wish, just once, you would reply to the ACTUAL objection I have made
instead of one that you find easier to argue against.
Let me try this again. I have, on several occassions, conceded the point
that the Federal government is too big and expensive. I carefully broke
out my argument to distinguish between Federal lands and those that were
not Federal lands. In particular, I was addressing community parks when I
referred to the term community. Just as such questions as anti-smoking
ordinances, zoning issues and football stadiums are all community issues.
My point is, that a community DOES have a right to make collective
decisions to tax ALL of its citizens because those citizens live there by
choice. If you find a preponderance of those collective decisions to your
liking, you will most likely stay. If you find a preponderance of them to
be distasteful, you are free to find another community where the
collective will suits you better. You are even free, if you find yourself
in geographic company with enough like-minded individuals, to establish
your own community, with its own collective will -- perhaps a collective
will to not tax anyone at all and make every individual solely responsible
for his and her own welfare.
Now, I repeat, because you'll pull this out of context again if I don't, I
am talking about community issues. There is some sense of this at the
state level (Colorado's government is MUCH smaller than California's or
New York's, for example), but I will admit that there are no States around
with Libertarian-sized governments. And, as I have already said, I find
the size of our Federal government to be extremely excessive as well.
In fact, if Libertarians turned their attention to Federal issues and
stopped harping against public education and talking about privatization
of the police, I might be more interested in what they had to say.
> > I have pointed out before that your philosophy about
> > taxation equaling theft belies the commonly held view of what a
> > "community" is.
>
> The flat earth theory used to be the commonly held view too.
> So what?
So, am I to understand that you are really in favor of abolishing
community? That there should be no opportunity for those of like mind to
live in a common geographic area and define a set of common goals and
values and expect those that choose to be a part of that community to
abide by them?
If that is really your view, then you have a very tough hill to climb in
convincing your fellow voter.
> > That is why it is called a community. If you want
> > to live without anybody's help whatsoever, there are plenty of
> > rural places you can do that. But, then, Chuck has never directly
> > addressed this objection.
>
> There is nothing wrong with getting help from your neighbors.
> What I object to is compelling my neighbors to help me.
No, that's actually not what you object to. You object to being requiried
to contribute to those things from which you draw benefit. And that is
what irks me about your arguments -- as they relate to local issues. You
argue that you should have a choice to opt out of public education, or
stadium taxes, or police and fire protection costs. But, whether you want
to or not, you derive some benefit from some of these things. You simply
can't opt out of those benefits, even if you opt out of the costs.
This is why communities are geographically co-located. Because it is just
not possible to derive some benefits of collective will without compelling
all who occupy the same space to comply.
> > > > In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> > > > Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> > > > people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
> >
> > This is precisely the problem. The idea that we should toss out
> > our existing government based on your faith that the things people
> > will care about that government now handles (especially those things
> > that it handles pretty well, like police and fire protection)
> > will automatically be picked up by the free market is just that.
> > There is no real evidence. It is just your opinion (and the opinion
> > of a handfull of others). I, for one, am not willing to take those
> > kinds of risks.
>
> With respect to parks, I can live with whatever the sum total
> of our individual voluntary decesions are, be they twice as
> much land set aside for parks or one tenth as much. My
> question for you is, what gives you or the "community" the
> right to compel me to spend my money on park land rather than
> on my grandmother's operation?
Where city parks are concerned, the community derives that right from your
decision to live there and abide by its rules.
> Privitizing police and fire protection is not at the top
> of my agenda, but please explain why people wouldn't
> voluntarily pay for something they need? And what makes
> you so sure that the government is doing a good job of
> police and fire protection?
I know that it's doing a good enough job of them. I don't doubt that it
could be better, but I do doubt that the way to make it better is to
privatize it. I don't have time now, but we could get into this in more
depth later if you like.
Ed Smith
Chris
Chuck Wright wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> >
> > Chuck Wright wrote:
> >
> > > 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
> > > many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
> > > your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
> > > along without me."
> >
> > What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you need to ask
> > yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and servant of us - our
> > will - a manifest representation of our collective political and moral thought
> > functioning under a series of checks and balances.
>
> "So what is goverenment? Very simply, it is an agency of coercion.
> "Of course, there are other agencies of coercion--such as the
> Mafia. So to be more precise, government is the agency of coercion
> that hangs flags in front of its offices.
> "Or, to put it another way, government is society's dominant
> producer of coercion. The Mafia and independent bandits are
> merely fringe competitors--seeking to take advantage of the niches
> and nooks neglected by government."
>
> From "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne
> St. Martin's Press, (c) 1995 p. 12
From why Harry Browne won't ever get elected - he is a slanderous anti-American zealot.
Anyone who would dare compare our government with Mafia is beneath contempt.
> > > In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> > > Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> > > people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
> >
> > As do they now.
>
> Excpet govenrment has taken away the means for people
> to freely give as much of their income as they want
> to such groups.
And secured liberty, the common defense, and the protection of individual rights -
including the right to print the trash cited above.
> > > Government didn't magicly pull the resources it's spending
> > > on parks out of thin air. Any money it spends on parks it
> > > must first take from us. Government can't give us anything
> > > it hasn't first taken away form us.
> > >
> >
> > And that is why we have any parks or wilderness at all. You may want to study the
> > history of grazing leases and mining claims to get a whiff of the free market in
> > action.
>
> Huh? And all this time I thought grazing leases and mining claims
> were both granted by government.
If you know anything about the private interests who have, even with a government to
monitor the lands , bulldozed scars through our national forests, decimated old growth
timber, and turned pristine riparian habitat into cowpied erosion troughs, you will begin
to see why the market left to its own means is an insatiable omnivore.
> > > > > Libertarins do not support initiating force to get what we want. Rather,
> > > > > we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
> > > >
> > > > Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
> > >
> > > Huh? What coattails?
> >
> > Please, the next time you enlist the Conservancy under your banner, call their
> > Boulder offices and verify their desire to be swaddled with your party's platform.
>
> I don't think I tried to claim that the Nature Conservancy was a
> Libertarian organization.
If you feel so - fine. But don't point to them as an example of your party in action. They
work within the current idiom - not the developer's paradise the libertines would grant
us.
> Chuck Wright
> Membership Director
> Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Gary Strand
c > Chris
gs> Gary Strand
gs> The US system is based on the buying and selling of power, and the con-
cerns of "ordinary" citizens (for all intents and purposes) do not exist,
nor do the "checks and balances" Chris mentions.
c > No - sorry - as long as we have the three branches of government we have
a system of checks and balances.
gs> Nope. The Supreme Court writes law, the President fights wars, and Con-
gress has become the reserve of an elite committed to keeping their power.
c > Er...no...what really happens is that laws are written in the legislative
branch,
gs> Roe v. Wade? When did Congress make abortion legal? Or, Title IX programs?
When did Congress mandate that?
c > Ahh..Gary..our least contextual poster - no reply when the context is
snipped. Return to the thread and prepare to lose your case.
I see.
Two things:
(a) I erred in mentioning Title IX. It was part of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which was mentioned by Sam Ventola. My mistake.
(b) You didn't answer the substantive part of my question, which Sam did.
Roe v. Wade is a *clear* case of the SC creating legislation. So much
for your vaunted "checks and balances". Indeed, what you're aiming at
is "separation of powers".
And, if you'll note, there was no snipping of context. I merely chose to
reply to your "Er...no" comment in two pieces. No text was elided.
c > fall subject to executive approval, and may be tested and modified by the
judicial branch. Did you miss civics Gary?
gs> 8th-grade civics and reality are two different things, Chris.
How many "wars" has the US fought in since WWII? How many received the
proper declaration from Congress? How many were uses of the "War Powers
Act"? Was it used by Bush to instigate the Gulf War?
c > I would agree the Gulf enticement was just that - even have evidence to
the same.
If you're talking April Gillapsie giving Hussein a green light, that's nice,
but not terribly relevant.
c > Now consider whether global policy may be the culprit,and if so - who the
defendant.
Let's get back to your assertion about "checks and balances". Let's start
simply: which branch of the government has the power to wage war?
gs> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time
the government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and
we would do nothing to stop it.
c > It is *we*.
gs> The current governments of the United States represent *no* interests of
mine, period. The governments may be *yours*, but they are not mine, not
at all.
c > None at all...how tragic! That is a sobering and overly self revelatory
statement Gary.
gs> Explain.
c > I can't fall out of love with America - I hope you won't either
What "America" are you talking about? The one endlessly mythologized and
romanticized by Americans, or reality?
c > - the substitutes are globally lacking.
A sad state of affairs, to be sure. Doesn't mean that the least of all evils
is itself good.
gs> A system begins to fall apart when those it allegedly represents no longer
believe in helping to maintain it. I'm hardly alone - a majority of indiv-
iduals under 40 believe more in UFOs than in Social Security being extant
when they retire.
c > And given the current economics of SS that is hardly a slack assumption.
Exactly. Those who don't have faith in SS are rational and realistic.
c > So we acknowledge the pyramid scheme of our parents - the breeder gener-
ation. Fine. That is reason enough to tighten reproductive standards as
has China - finite planet = finite man.
The cure for a redistribution program from young working poorer to retired
older wealthier is to engage in limiting reproduction a la totalitarianism?
That is *waaaay* wrong, Chris.
c > And need we examine Gov. Whittman's plan for N.J.'s pension plan?
Specifics?
Why not privatize SS and let us keep that 12.4% of our incomes that's wasted
via SS?
c > If you suggest some larger sub agenda for government, some nefarious pur-
pose ( we can bring the UN in now if you like ) then this must be proven
with hard data.
gs> Johnny Chung buying Clinton with money from the Chinese military.
c > Is a campaign law abuse - it hints only at potential conflicts of gov-
ernmental interest.
gs> Your knowledge of what's happened is *clearly* lacking. Check out the new-
est country to test nuclear weapons and follow the trail backwards. I'm
not saying that Clinton is directly at fault, but there is a chain that
can be constructed.
c > I can test that thesis, and with some primary evidence - now build your
case.
Clinton, as part of a *quid pro quo* for Chinese cash, allows them access to
allegedly secret technical aid so that their Long March missiles quit blowing
up and losing US satellites. The Indians ain't stupid - they don't care for
the Chinese and vice-versa. The deal with the US tips the strategic balance
in China's favor, unless India can show that it knows nukes. Ergo, it tests
5 of 'em, including a thermonuclear device. Now, of course, the Pakistanis
are perturbed. So we get them testing nukes, *and*, saying that they'll put
'em on their own IRBMs.
So, in sum, thanks to the well-known Clintonian lust for power, and keeping
it, he helps destabilize the subcontinent and folks, we just may getta see
a real-live nuke war. Yee-haw.
gs> PS - Don't forget that you're dealing with a cynic.
c > And so I would have thought - I've tried to prime the pump Gary, let me be
more direct: Lucist Trust, C.F.R. , Bilderbergers, in easier terms -
multinationals. Like some reading points?
Being cynical about the state of government in the US does not mean being
(a) a believer in black UN helicopters (b) a Trilateralist/Bilderberger
Birchian paranoiac or (c) a neo-Nazi anti-Semite.
I suggest you retract the implication.
--
Gary Strand A cynic is an optimist with the facts.
gst...@dimensional.com http://www.dimensional.com/~gstrand
Donald L Ferry
gst...@dimensional.com (Gary Strand) wrote:
<Much vomited out>
> Being cynical about the state of government in the US does not mean being
> (a) a believer in black UN helicopters (b) a Trilateralist/Bilderberger
> Birchian paranoiac or (c) a neo-Nazi anti-Semite.
>
> I suggest you retract the implication.
>--
But Being cynical about the state of government in the US does
apparently allow one to make totally phoney and contrived
conversations!!!
Gary Strand
df> Donald Ferry (wolfbat359)
gs> Gary Strand
gs> Being cynical about the state of government in the US does not mean being
(a) a believer in black UN helicopters (b) a Trilateralist/Bilderberger
Birchian paranoiac or (c) a neo-Nazi anti-Semite.
I suggest you retract the implication.
df> But Being cynical about the state of government in the US does apparently
allow one to make totally phoney and contrived conversations!!!
Pardon?
Come back to reality and try again, using English.
Melissa
In article <6keebh$g04$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
"Margie Wait" <mdw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Now on the AMERICAN ATHEISTS web site...
>
> COLORADO ATHEISTS CHALLENGING CROSS ON PUBLIC PARK
>HIKING TRAIL...
>
> It's only 4-feet high, but government officials are refusing to
listen to
>the objections of Atheists or Northern Colorado, who are protesting a
>religious monument in a public park. One public officials wants to
>"circumcize" the Christian symbol in hopes of making it secular!
Find
>out the latest on how Colorado Atheists Guy and Victorial McCoy are
>taking a stand for state-church separation!
>
> Visit us on the world wide web at
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line
>for news, analysis and commentary.
I agree that it's wrong on public property but I though we lost that
one with the xmas crap on the Denver courthouse lawn. They still have
manger scenes and santa there.
Donald L Ferry
gst...@dimensional.com (Gary Strand) wrote:
>df> Donald Ferry (wolfbat359)
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> Being cynical about the state of government in the US does not mean being
> (a) a believer in black UN helicopters (b) a Trilateralist/Bilderberger
> Birchian paranoiac or (c) a neo-Nazi anti-Semite.
> I suggest you retract the implication.
>
>df> But Being cynical about the state of government in the US does apparently
> allow one to make totally phoney and contrived conversations!!!
>
> Pardon?
>
> Come back to reality and try again, using English.
Ya maka da stories up than ya gotta your point of view free and clear!
But it has nothing to do with fact!
Melissa
In article <356AC3...@ibm.net>,
Chuck Wright <caTwA...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I'm not an atheist, but church - state conflicts like this one can
>be reduced if we make government as tiny as possible. Nobody can
>put a cross on a governmnet owned park if the government doesn't
>own any parks.
Who should own them then? And would you mind paying admission & seeing
a McDonalds built in each of them if they didn't?
Chris
Gary Strand wrote:
Glaspie I think the spelling is, and it is certainly relevant. It is always
relevant when a spokesperson for the government alludes to future policy decisions
as a means of provoking conflict. We are assuming she wasn't a loose canon at that
point.
> c > Now consider whether global policy may be the culprit,and if so - who the
> defendant.
>
> Let's get back to your assertion about "checks and balances". Let's start
> simply: which branch of the government has the power to wage war?
I see your direction - congress, but of course. Though we need note that the
President may recognize a "state of war" initiated against the country, internally
or externally.
> gs> Sorry, guys, but the ideal was discarded a long time ago, about the time
> the government realized it could suck up as much money as it wanted and
> we would do nothing to stop it.
>
> c > It is *we*.
>
> gs> The current governments of the United States represent *no* interests of
> mine, period. The governments may be *yours*, but they are not mine, not
> at all.
>
> c > None at all...how tragic! That is a sobering and overly self revelatory
> statement Gary.
>
> gs> Explain.
>
> c > I can't fall out of love with America - I hope you won't either
>
> What "America" are you talking about? The one endlessly mythologized and
> romanticized by Americans, or reality?
The America of past ,present and future. The America I will experience in my life.
> c > - the substitutes are globally lacking.
>
> A sad state of affairs, to be sure. Doesn't mean that the least of all evils
> is itself good.
If you consider our country evil, you're a sad chap.
> gs> A system begins to fall apart when those it allegedly represents no longer
> believe in helping to maintain it. I'm hardly alone - a majority of indiv-
> iduals under 40 believe more in UFOs than in Social Security being extant
> when they retire.
>
> c > And given the current economics of SS that is hardly a slack assumption.
>
> Exactly. Those who don't have faith in SS are rational and realistic.
And those who seek to modify the investment balance are practicing brinksmanship to
save a pyramid undermined by increasing lifespan, medical technology, and raw
breeding progression numbers.
> c > So we acknowledge the pyramid scheme of our parents - the breeder gener-
> ation. Fine. That is reason enough to tighten reproductive standards as
> has China - finite planet = finite man.
>
> The cure for a redistribution program from young working poorer to retired
> older wealthier is to engage in limiting reproduction a la totalitarianism?
> That is *waaaay* wrong, Chris.
The cure for exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet is swift and measured
birth control. And we've not even invited Gov. Lamm to sound off yet.
> c > And need we examine Gov. Whittman's plan for N.J.'s pension plan?
>
> Specifics?
She took the New Jersey state employees pension fund and invested it in the market
to achieve a better rate of return.
> Why not privatize SS and let us keep that 12.4% of our incomes that's wasted
> via SS?
Or better yet, phase the whole thing out and increase IRA levels.
> c > If you suggest some larger sub agenda for government, some nefarious pur-
> pose ( we can bring the UN in now if you like ) then this must be proven
> with hard data.
>
> gs> Johnny Chung buying Clinton with money from the Chinese military.
>
> c > Is a campaign law abuse - it hints only at potential conflicts of gov-
> ernmental interest.
>
> gs> Your knowledge of what's happened is *clearly* lacking. Check out the new-
> est country to test nuclear weapons and follow the trail backwards. I'm
> not saying that Clinton is directly at fault, but there is a chain that
> can be constructed.
I may agree with you on that - it is an ugly possibility. I await further research.
> c > I can test that thesis, and with some primary evidence - now build your
> case.
>
> Clinton, as part of a *quid pro quo* for Chinese cash, allows them access to
> allegedly secret technical aid so that their Long March missiles quit blowing
> up and losing US satellites. The Indians ain't stupid - they don't care for
> the Chinese and vice-versa. The deal with the US tips the strategic balance
> in China's favor, unless India can show that it knows nukes. Ergo, it tests
> 5 of 'em, including a thermonuclear device. Now, of course, the Pakistanis
> are perturbed. So we get them testing nukes, *and*, saying that they'll put
> 'em on their own IRBMs.
It's a nicely wound yarn Gary.
> So, in sum, thanks to the well-known Clintonian lust for power, and keeping
> it, he helps destabilize the subcontinent and folks, we just may getta see
> a real-live nuke war. Yee-haw.
And you've not even mentioned the fact that Loral, the US satellite contractor, is
involved. But - to be fair - they had to correct the problems facing the deployment
of Globalstar, a fix was needed to protect shareholder value.
Hey I like a good conspiracy plot as well as the next guy - but this will be a
tough one to prove beyond inference.
> gs> PS - Don't forget that you're dealing with a cynic.
>
> c > And so I would have thought - I've tried to prime the pump Gary, let me be
> more direct: Lucist Trust, C.F.R. , Bilderbergers, in easier terms -
> multinationals. Like some reading points?
>
> Being cynical about the state of government in the US does not mean being
> (a) a believer in black UN helicopters (b) a Trilateralist/Bilderberger
> Birchian paranoiac or (c) a neo-Nazi anti-Semite.
>
> I suggest you retract the implication.
No, no...not my point at all. These are valid organizations, issues, that deserve
examination. The Birch society's origins might surprise you, given the body text
you've offered.
Gary Strand
I'm not terribly interested in a discussion in which major points are ignored
and molehills made into mountains.
Thanks for playing Chris, but you don't win even the home version.
Donald L Ferry
gst...@dimensional.com (Gary Strand) wrote:
>I'm not terribly interested in a discussion in which major points are ignored
>and molehills made into mountains.
Than stop posting your drivel!!!
Stewart
> And consider that prior to EPA pollution restrictions in Denver during the winter - we had
> some real problems. Were we hostaged by road funds into compliance- yes. Was the
> overriding greater good justification - I believe so.
I think that the local Colorado government is perfectly capable of
handling and managing pollution in Denver and Colorado. In fact, they
are better suited to the task because the know the environment around
here better, and, unlike a regulator in Washington DC, they actually
live here and as a result have to live with the consequences of their
pollution decisions.
> So let's try a voluntary income tax - a quick show of hands, who's paying this year?
That's pretty funny, but the reality is that the income tax in but one
tax in Washington's arsenal - there are other taxes and user fees, etc.
If Congress actually had any courage, they would pass the same budget
they did in 1987. Washington's appetite for money grows so much each
year (about 10% per year over the last 25 years), the federal government
grows more than the economy, inflation, the CPI, population growth, you
name it. If they passed the budget from only a decade ago, we could
abolish the income tax, replace it with NOTHING (not even a national
sales tax), and still have a budget surplus.
Stewart
> >What is government? Force. Nothing more and nothing less.
>
> fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George
> Washington
Thanks! That was the quote I had in mind, but I couldn't remember it
verbatim.
Stewart
> Oh Yea! We have Jon Caldara the libertarian. The man who orders that there
> shall be no buses within two blocks of his house. The man in charge of the
> board who sees to it that no bus passes with two blocks of his house even
> though there are elderly riders who need the ride. Oh Yea Libertarians are
> the new facists of America!!!
I think you should read Cal Marsela's letter to the editor of the Denver
Post regarding Caldara and the bus route change. The GM of the RTD says
that Caldera had nothing to do with the decision. That route doesn't
meet the ridership demand minimums that were established long before
Caldera ever got on the RTD board, and would have been eliminated
whether Caldera existed or not.
Donald L Ferry
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
>> And consider that prior to EPA pollution restrictions in Denver during the winter - we had
>> some real problems. Were we hostaged by road funds into compliance- yes. Was the
>> overriding greater good justification - I believe so.
>
>I think that the local Colorado government is perfectly capable of
>handling and managing pollution in Denver and Colorado. In fact, they
>are better suited to the task because the know the environment around
>here better, and, unlike a regulator in Washington DC, they actually
>live here and as a result have to live with the consequences of their
>pollution decisions.
Well News Media Boy apparently you don't read the paper. Read about
the settlement against the Lousiana Pacific in the areas Newspapers.
The striking message is that local and state governemtns ignored the
pollution and pollution violations that Lousiana Pacific was putting
out. Those effected had to appeal to the EPA for relief.
It would seem that local politicos are more or less paid off by the
companies. If you don't think they have the money or the lies, just
listen to the Local ads put out by the Big Tobacco companies against
the settlement. And see local stations like the one Peter Boyles is
on Parrot their message to the people. I mean the ads and Peter
Boyles don't even acknowledge that in Canada after taxes were raised
smoking among teens fell dramatically!
Seems to me also that what caused the Government to get involved in
the states to such a degree in the first place was the denial of civil
rights and voting rights to minorities. And with posts like yours I
don't see the mentality ( repeat I don't see the mentality )
changing that much to totally get the Big Government out!!!
Donald L Ferry
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
OH BOY I was waiting for that. The man under Jon Caldara comes up
with a testimonial supporting Jon and claiming his decision was honest
and true. That is like those supporting Nixon and under him saying he
was no crook. That is like those supporting and under Clinton (no Pun
intended) saying he has done no wrong. Boy you need a lesson in
logic!!!! And I see the route would have been terminated two blocks
before Jon's house no matter who was in charge = Oh I really really
bvelieve that one!!!!
Chris
Stewart wrote:
> > And consider that prior to EPA pollution restrictions in Denver during the winter - we had
> > some real problems. Were we hostaged by road funds into compliance- yes. Was the
> > overriding greater good justification - I believe so.
>
> I think that the local Colorado government is perfectly capable of
> handling and managing pollution in Denver and Colorado. In fact, they
> are better suited to the task because the know the environment around
> here better, and, unlike a regulator in Washington DC, they actually
> live here and as a result have to live with the consequences of their
> pollution decisions.
If we had done so there would have been no need for federal mandates or their application
locally. Trouble is we only woke up when the wheezing started.
> > So let's try a voluntary income tax - a quick show of hands, who's paying this year?
>
> That's pretty funny, but the reality is that the income tax in but one
> tax in Washington's arsenal - there are other taxes and user fees, etc.
> If Congress actually had any courage, they would pass the same budget
> they did in 1987. Washington's appetite for money grows so much each
> year (about 10% per year over the last 25 years), the federal government
> grows more than the economy, inflation, the CPI, population growth, you
> name it. If they passed the budget from only a decade ago, we could
> abolish the income tax, replace it with NOTHING (not even a national
> sales tax), and still have a budget surplus.
Please provide some line item support for that. I'm all for lower taxes, the flat rate postcard
tax and minimized deductions - but this sounds like hocus pocus Stewart.
Chuck Wright
Ed Smith wrote:
>
> Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> > Ed Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > When we're talking about state, and especially community holdings,
> > > nobody is forcing anybody, because you have a choice as to where
> > > you live.
> >
> > Not everyone has the choice of being able to move. Homeless
> > people for example have no means of moving anywhere else.
>
> And they pay a lot of taxes, don't they. Can we stay on the issue, please?
They may not pay much in taxes, but the government harms
them in many ways. And they are not able to escape. For
example, minimum wage laws forbid them from getting a job
with certain employeers at a wage they're willing to work
for. Also laws which prohibit them from going into business
for themselves such as becoming a barber, or driving a cab.
> > What you're calling a "choice" is realy no choice at all because
> > nowhere in North America is there a place with tiny government.
> > In fact, now that Hong Kong is gone, there is almost nowhere on the
> > planet that one can go to escape the mighty force of government
>
> Let me try this again. I have, on several occassions, conceded the point
> that the Federal government is too big and expensive...
I too prefer local government over state government, and state
government
over the Federal goverenment. The best government is the most local
government. Thus the best governmnet of all is the most local of all
-- individual self government.
> My point is, that a community DOES have a right to make collective
> decisions to tax ALL of its citizens because those citizens live there by
> choice.
You meant to say might instead of right.
> If you find a preponderance of those collective decisions to your
> liking, you will most likely stay. If you find a preponderance of them to
> be distasteful, you are free to find another community where the
> collective will suits you better. You are even free, if you find yourself
> in geographic company with enough like-minded individuals, to establish
> your own community, with its own collective will -- perhaps a collective
> will to not tax anyone at all and make every individual solely responsible
> for his and her own welfare.
But what if all of the communities have distateful government policies,
and no govenrment will alow you to create the type of community you
want? Ed, there is no place to escape to, and thus your argument is
bogus.
> Now, I repeat, because you'll pull this out of context again if I don't, I
> am talking about community issues. There is some sense of this at the
> state level (Colorado's government is MUCH smaller than California's or
> New York's, for example), but I will admit that there are no States around
> with Libertarian-sized governments. And, as I have already said, I find
> the size of our Federal government to be extremely excessive as well.
Why don't you respect my community? My community is a group
of libertarians who want a free community.
> > > I have pointed out before that your philosophy about
> > > taxation equaling theft belies the commonly held view of what a
> > > "community" is.
> >
> > The flat earth theory used to be the commonly held view too.
> > So what?
>
> So, am I to understand that you are really in favor of abolishing
> community?
No, not at all. I want communities to exist based on voluntary
relationships. What I want to abolish is communities based upon
the -initiation- of force. I want communities that will leave
peaceful people alone. Is that too much to ask?
> That there should be no opportunity for those of like mind to
> live in a common geographic area and define a set of common goals and
> values and expect those that choose to be a part of that community to
> abide by them?
As long as they don't initiate force, that's fine by me.
> If that is really your view, then you have a very tough hill to climb in
> convincing your fellow voter.
>
> > > That is why it is called a community. If you want
> > > to live without anybody's help whatsoever, there are plenty of
> > > rural places you can do that. But, then, Chuck has never directly
> > > addressed this objection.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with getting help from your neighbors.
> > What I object to is compelling my neighbors to help me.
>
> No, that's actually not what you object to. You object to being requiried
> to contribute to those things from which you draw benefit. And that is
> what irks me about your arguments -- as they relate to local issues. You
> argue that you should have a choice to opt out of public education, or
> stadium taxes, or police and fire protection costs. But, whether you want
> to or not, you derive some benefit from some of these things. You simply
> can't opt out of those benefits, even if you opt out of the costs.
I don't want your alleged benefits. Why should I be compelled to pay
for something I don't want, and I don't view as benefiting me? And
too often are mostly for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
That's not say that I wouldn't voluntarily pay for -some- of
the things you want to force me to pay for. Police and fire
protection for example, and the military. I see a benefit
for these things and I'm willing to voluntarily pay.
Chuck Wright
Chris wrote:
>
> Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> > Chris wrote:
> > >
> > > Chuck Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. Due to the government's high tax burden and burdensome regulations,
> > > > many people who wnat to give can't afford to. Government first breaks
> > > > your legs, and then offers you a cruch and says, "See you couldn't get
> > > > along without me."
> > >
> > > What an incredibly mean spirited assessment of our system. I think you need to ask
> > > yourself what exactly our government is - it is a reflection and servant of us - our
> > > will - a manifest representation of our collective political and moral thought
> > > functioning under a series of checks and balances.
> >
> > "So what is goverenment? Very simply, it is an agency of coercion.
> > "Of course, there are other agencies of coercion--such as the
> > Mafia. So to be more precise, government is the agency of coercion
> > that hangs flags in front of its offices.
> > "Or, to put it another way, government is society's dominant
> > producer of coercion. The Mafia and independent bandits are
> > merely fringe competitors--seeking to take advantage of the niches
> > and nooks neglected by government."
> >
> > From "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne
> > St. Martin's Press, (c) 1995 p. 12
>
> From why Harry Browne won't ever get elected - he is a slanderous anti-American zealot.
> Anyone who would dare compare our government with Mafia is beneath contempt.
Let's see, both the Mafia and Government fight wars over territory,
and they both extort money for good and services people don't want
to voluntarily buy. How are they different?
> > > > In a free market, I can't say how big groups like the Nature
> > > > Conservancy would be. They would have as many resources as
> > > > people freely choose to give them. No more, and no less.
> > >
> > > As do they now.
> >
> > Excpet govenrment has taken away the means for people
> > to freely give as much of their income as they want
> > to such groups.
>
> And secured liberty, the common defense, and the protection of individual rights -
> including the right to print the trash cited above.
Government doesn't secure liberty.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there,
no Constitution, no law, no court can save it." -- Judge Learned Hand
We can't have liberty unless we are willing to grant it to each other.
> > > > Government didn't magicly pull the resources it's spending
> > > > on parks out of thin air. Any money it spends on parks it
> > > > must first take from us. Government can't give us anything
> > > > it hasn't first taken away form us.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And that is why we have any parks or wilderness at all. You may want to study the
> > > history of grazing leases and mining claims to get a whiff of the free market in
> > > action.
> >
> > Huh? And all this time I thought grazing leases and mining claims
> > were both granted by government.
>
> If you know anything about the private interests who have, even
> with a government to monitor the lands , bulldozed scars through
> our national forests, decimated old growth timber, and turned
> pristine riparian habitat into cowpied erosion troughs, you will begin
> to see why the market left to its own means is an insatiable omnivore.
I never said I favored private business being in cahoots with
government. As you point out, that doesn't work. Japan has
proven that too.
> > > > > > Libertarins do not support initiating force to get what we want. Rather,
> > > > > > we prefer to get what want though voluntary relationships.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or by riding on someone else's coattails.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? What coattails?
> > >
> > > Please, the next time you enlist the Conservancy under your banner, call their
> > > Boulder offices and verify their desire to be swaddled with your party's platform.
> >
> > I don't think I tried to claim that the Nature Conservancy was a
> > Libertarian organization.
>
> If you feel so - fine. But don't point to them as an example of your
> party in action.
I didn't point to them as an example of my party in action. I pointed
to them as an example of private individuals pooling their resources to
buy and preserve land -- and they're doing this while the governement is
taking half of their incomes. Think what individuals would be able to
contribute to such organizations if they got to keep everything they
earned.
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Chuck Wright
Melissa wrote:
>
> In article <356AC3...@ibm.net>,
> Chuck Wright <caTwA...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >I'm not an atheist, but church - state conflicts like this one can
> >be reduced if we make government as tiny as possible. Nobody can
> >put a cross on a governmnet owned park if the government doesn't
> >own any parks.
>
> Who should own them then?
The Nature Consevancy, the Audubon Society, the Serria Club,
come to mind. Others would spring up to provide the type of
parks people want.
> And would you mind paying admission & seeing
> a McDonalds built in each of them if they didn't?
I'd pay more for one without a McDonalds.
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Ed Smith
Chuck Wright wrote:
> Ed Smith wrote:
> >
> > Chuck Wright wrote:
> >
> > > Ed Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When we're talking about state, and especially community holdings,
> > > > nobody is forcing anybody, because you have a choice as to where
> > > > you live.
> > >
> > > Not everyone has the choice of being able to move. Homeless
> > > people for example have no means of moving anywhere else.
> >
> > And they pay a lot of taxes, don't they. Can we stay on the issue, please?
>
> They may not pay much in taxes, but the government harms
> them in many ways. And they are not able to escape. For
> example, minimum wage laws forbid them from getting a job
> with certain employeers at a wage they're willing to work
> for. Also laws which prohibit them from going into business
> for themselves such as becoming a barber, or driving a cab.
I prefer to dodge the topic of minimum wages, as the economics of that topic are
more complex than the demagogues on either side of the issue will admit.
As for the latter regulations, surely you must concede the need for some
regulation of service industries that can cause harm. Even if I concede that
there may be cases (barbers may or may not be one of them) where regulation is
excessive or unnecessary, I will not concede the greater point that regulation
is unnecessary. So, I find your fringe examples unconvincing as evidence that
government causes the homeless more harm than good.
> > > What you're calling a "choice" is realy no choice at all because
> > > nowhere in North America is there a place with tiny government.
> > > In fact, now that Hong Kong is gone, there is almost nowhere on the
> > > planet that one can go to escape the mighty force of government
> >
> > Let me try this again. I have, on several occassions, conceded the point
> > that the Federal government is too big and expensive...
>
> I too prefer local government over state government, and state
> government
> over the Federal goverenment. The best government is the most local
> government. Thus the best government of all is the most local of all
> -- individual self government.
You, sir, are in a small minority of individuals who prefer the absolute freedom
of self-determination over some beneficial collectivization through communities
of interest. But, I see no reason why you can not find yourself an uncorporated
part of Elbert County somewhere and live unfettered by most of the regulations
you so despise. I'm not saying you will be free of the unfortunately high
Federal tax burden that you and I both despise, but you won't have to worry
about paying for stadiums, or city parks, or the salary's of Boulder Valley's
rain forest math teachers. It's not exactly what you want, but I pose this to
ask you consider, if you could really get rid of those extra burdens, would you
prefer life in such solitude?
> > My point is, that a community DOES have a right to make collective
> > decisions to tax ALL of its citizens because those citizens live there by
> > choice.
>
> You meant to say might instead of right.
I didn't mean to say might. I meant to say right. The right is derived from the
voluntary choice of those citizens that domicile there to do so, understanding
when they make that choice, that there are certain responsibilities thereby
entailed.
> > If you find a preponderance of those collective decisions to your
> > liking, you will most likely stay. If you find a preponderance of them to
> > be distasteful, you are free to find another community where the
> > collective will suits you better. You are even free, if you find yourself
> > in geographic company with enough like-minded individuals, to establish
> > your own community, with its own collective will -- perhaps a collective
> > will to not tax anyone at all and make every individual solely responsible
> > for his and her own welfare.
>
> But what if all of the communities have distateful government policies,
> and no govenrment will alow you to create the type of community you
> want?
What government is preventing you from doing that? Hypotheticals are hard to
argue against.
> Ed, there is no place to escape to, and thus your argument is
> bogus.
Chuck, listen. I think, in a strange sort of way, we are saying the same thing.
I wish there was a county in a state somewhere where you and your Libertarian
friends could live tax free (or at least tax minimal...I see know way around the
need for you to chip in for your defense and a few other basic necessities) and
then have to solve all your problems without government-enforced collectivism.
What I am saying is that I don't want you to take away the choice of the vast
majority of us to live in communities that do choose to represent their values
and priorities through the use of local governments. Suppose I campaigned on a
pledge to make it illegal for organizations like the Boy Scouts to impose sets
of rules on their membership, under the threat of expulsion.
There are only two significant differences between membership rules for the Boy
Scouts and local government for, say, the City of Boulder. The first is that the
latter example is established within geographic boundaries -- your membership is
established by your choice to live there or visit. And the second is the power
to impose criminal penalties. But, in both cases, membership is completely
voluntary. If you don't like the rules, you are free not to join.
So, I am not opposed to your establishing your own club with your own rules. I'm
opposed to you joining my club and then telling me that my club's rules should
be dismantled.
> Why don't you respect my community? My community is a group
> of libertarians who want a free community.
Already covered, I hope.
> > So, am I to understand that you are really in favor of abolishing
> > community?
>
> No, not at all. I want communities to exist based on voluntary
> relationships.
They are! You have absolutely every right to live in whatever community you
choose.
> What I want to abolish is communities based upon
> the -initiation- of force. I want communities that will leave
> peaceful people alone. Is that too much to ask?
Yes. It is. It is too much for you to ask those of us who live in communities
because we value the services that they provide to abandon that option. Seek out
your own options with your own choices, but don't tell the rest of us that we
can't live by our own rules.
> > That there should be no opportunity for those of like mind to
> > live in a common geographic area and define a set of common goals and
> > values and expect those that choose to be a part of that community to
> > abide by them?
>
> As long as they don't initiate force, that's fine by me.
Nobody is forcing you to live here, Chuck. I have brought this up before, and
your reply was, in essence, that you live here because you want to. Fine. But
you can't have it both ways. You can't say that, on balance, you prefer to live
here, but that the process by which the people that live here govern themselves
offends you and that they must change to suit your preferences.
> > No, that's actually not what you object to. You object to being requiried
> > to contribute to those things from which you draw benefit. And that is
> > what irks me about your arguments -- as they relate to local issues. You
> > argue that you should have a choice to opt out of public education, or
> > stadium taxes, or police and fire protection costs. But, whether you want
> > to or not, you derive some benefit from some of these things. You simply
> > can't opt out of those benefits, even if you opt out of the costs.
>
> I don't want your alleged benefits.
Then leave.
> Why should I be compelled to pay
> for something I don't want, and I don't view as benefiting me?
You aren't. You may leave.
> And
> too often are mostly for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
A non sequitor designed to emote some unrelated reply that you find easier to
attack than the issue at hand.
> That's not say that I wouldn't voluntarily pay for -some- of
> the things you want to force me to pay for. Police and fire
> protection for example, and the military. I see a benefit
> for these things and I'm willing to voluntarily pay.
It will be interesting to see, though, if there is ever a Libertarianville, if
all citizens of that berg will be so forthcoming.
Ed Smith
Chuck Wright
Ed,
Let's for a moment assume that your theory that taxes
and government regulation are voluntary because if one
doesn't support them, one can always move somewhere else.
Let's suppose I don't like the level of taxation
in the State where I live, so I move at great expense
to another State. Not too long after I arrive at my new
location, the "community" decides to change the rules, so
I have to pull up the stakes and move again. And the same
thing can happen over and over again without limit.
You want to call this voluntary? It might comfort you
to pretend that taxes are voluntary so you can sleep at
night, but one must prevert the meaning of the word
voluntary to come to that conclusion.
Also, please admit that the poor do not have the
means to move.
Ed Smith wrote:
>
> Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> > Ed Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Chuck Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ed Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When we're talking about state, and especially community holdings,
> > > > > nobody is forcing anybody, because you have a choice as to where
> > > > > you live.
> > > >
> > > > Not everyone has the choice of being able to move. Homeless
> > > > people for example have no means of moving anywhere else.
> > >
> > > And they pay a lot of taxes, don't they. Can we stay on the issue,
> > > please?
> >
> > They may not pay much in taxes, but the government harms
> > them in many ways. And they are not able to escape. For
> > example, minimum wage laws forbid them from getting a job
> > with certain employers at a wage they're willing to work
> > for. Also laws which prohibit them from going into business
> > for themselves such as becoming a barber, or driving a cab.
>
> I prefer to dodge the topic of minimum wages, as the economics of that topic are
> more complex than the demagogues on either side of the issue will admit.
No, it's realy quite simple. The law makes it illegal to
work for certain employers below a minimum wage. We can
argue all day about whether this is good or bad. My point
is that regardless of whether it's good or bad, if a poor
person doesn't agree with this law, they have no abilty to
escape it becaue they can't move. Thus another hole in your
theory.
> As for the latter regulations, surely you must concede the need for some
> regulation of service industries that can cause harm. Even if I concede that
> there may be cases (barbers may or may not be one of them) where regulation is
> excessive or unnecessary, I will not concede the greater point that regulation
> is unnecessary. So, I find your fringe examples unconvincing as evidence that
> government causes the homeless more harm than good.
There is no need for government regulation of service
industries. All too often, the purpose of the regulation
is to keep out competion, keep prices artificially high,
and to favor one group of people over another.
If you are harmed, there are legal recourses. And
Libertarians strongly support laws against fraud. But to
punish whole industries becaue there might be a few bad
apples is absurd.
Someone else posted to this newsgroup a series of posts
on making compliance with government regulations voluntary.
A company could choose to either be regulated or not. If
they chose not to be regulated, they would have to print
NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATED on the label of their products.
Then people who want the extra protection of government
regulation would simply buy the products without this
label.
> > > > What you're calling a "choice" is realy no choice at all because
> > > > nowhere in North America is there a place with tiny government.
> > > > In fact, now that Hong Kong is gone, there is almost nowhere on the
> > > > planet that one can go to escape the mighty force of government
> > >
> > > Let me try this again. I have, on several occassions, conceded the point
> > > that the Federal government is too big and expensive...
> >
> > I too prefer local government over state government, and state
> > government over the Federal goverenment. The best government is the
> > most local government. Thus the best government of all is the most
> > local of all -- individual self government.
>
> You, sir, are in a small minority of individuals who prefer the absolute
> freedom of self-determination over some beneficial collectivization
> through communities of interest.
You, sir are in the majorty of people who want to get something
for nothing by grabbing at other peoples wallets. Does it make
it right that you parasites are in the majority?
> But, I see no reason why you can not find yourself an uncorporated
> part of Elbert County somewhere and live unfettered by most of the regulations
> you so despise. I'm not saying you will be free of the unfortunately high
> Federal tax burden that you and I both despise, but you won't have to worry
> about paying for stadiums, or city parks, or the salary's of Boulder Valley's
> rain forest math teachers. It's not exactly what you want, but I pose this to
> ask you consider, if you could really get rid of those extra burdens, would you
> prefer life in such solitude?
I think you meant unincorporated Elbert County. This would free
me from a few taxes, but not enough to make much of a difference.
I'd still have to pay all the Federal taxes as you pointed out.
I'd also have to keep paying all State taxes, and I assume that
Elbert County imposes taxes too, and I assume there is a local
school district that has its taxes too.
Ed, there simply is no place to escape too. I wish there were.
But even if there were, I'd risk having the rules changed on me
once I got there. For example, the State of Connecticut never had
a state income tax until a couple of years ago. And I used to
live in a place that had no stadium tax.
> > > My point is, that a community DOES have a right to make collective
> > > decisions to tax ALL of its citizens because those citizens live there by
> > > choice.
> >
> > You meant to say might instead of right.
>
> I didn't mean to say might. I meant to say right. The right is derived
> from the voluntary choice of those citizens that domicile there to do so,
> understanding when they make that choice, that there are certain
> responsibilities thereby entailed.
Your theory that it's all voluntry is absurd.
> > > If you find a preponderance of those collective decisions to your
> > > liking, you will most likely stay. If you find a preponderance of them to
> > > be distasteful, you are free to find another community where the
> > > collective will suits you better. You are even free, if you find yourself
> > > in geographic company with enough like-minded individuals, to establish
> > > your own community, with its own collective will -- perhaps a collective
> > > will to not tax anyone at all and make every individual solely responsible
> > > for his and her own welfare.
> >
> > But what if all of the communities have distateful government policies,
> > and no govenrment will alow you to create the type of community you
> > want?
>
> What government is preventing you from doing that? Hypotheticals are hard to
> argue against.
The Feds are not going to let me set up a place exempt from
Federal taxes, the State of Colorado isn't going to allow me
to set up a place exempt from State taxes, Elbert County isn't
going to allow me to set up a place exempt from Elbert county
taxes, and the Elbert County school district isn't going to
allow me to set up a place exempt from school district taxes.
There's no place to go Ed. And even if there where, the rules
could, and often do, change.
> > Ed, there is no place to escape to, and thus your argument is
> > bogus.
>
> Chuck, listen. I think, in a strange sort of way, we are saying
> the same thing. I wish there was a county in a state somewhere
> where you and your Libertarian friends could live tax free (or
> at least tax minimal...
Me too, but as you well know, it doesn't exist, so your
argument is totally bogus.
> I see know way around the need for you to
> chip in for your defense and a few other basic necessities) and
> then have to solve all your problems without government-enforced
> collectivism. What I am saying is that I don't want you to take
> away the choice of the vast majority of us to live in communities
> that do choose to represent their values and priorities through the
> use of local governments.
There is no way I can compel the majority of people to
shun collectivism. They will have to be voluntarily
persuaded to that view.
> Suppose I campaigned on a pledge to make
> it illegal for organizations like the Boy Scouts to impose sets
> of rules on their membership, under the threat of expulsion.
You would be evil.
> There are only two significant differences between membership rules
> for the Boy Scouts and local government for, say, the City of
> Boulder. The first is that the latter example is established within
> geographic boundaries -- your membership is established by your
> choice to live there or visit. And the second is the power to impose
> criminal penalties. But, in both cases, membership is completely
> voluntary. If you don't like the rules, you are free not to join.
There is only one important difference between how the
Boy Scouts operate and how the City of Boulder operates.
The Boy Scouts get what they want through voluntary
relationships while the City of Boulder gets what it
wants by using force.
> So, I am not opposed to your establishing your own club with your
> own rules. I'm opposed to you joining my club and then telling me
> that my club's rules should be dismantled.
I've not joined your club. Imigine if the Boy Scouts tried
to force people into their club at the point of gun.
> > Why don't you respect my community? My community is a group
> > of libertarians who want a free community.
>
> Already covered, I hope.
Nope.
> > > So, am I to understand that you are really in favor of abolishing
> > > community?
> >
> > No, not at all. I want communities to exist based on voluntary
> > relationships.
>
> They are! You have absolutely every right to live in whatever
> community you choose.
I choose to live in a community where the total combined tax
rate is under five percent. There is no choice Ed. There is
no place I can go to live in a communty like that. The
authorities will not honor my choice to live in a community
like that.
> > What I want to abolish is communities based upon
> > the -initiation- of force. I want communities that will leave
> > peaceful people alone. Is that too much to ask?
>
> Yes. It is. It is too much for you to ask those of us who live
> in communities because we value the services that they provide
> to abandon that option. Seek out your own options with your own
> choices, but don't tell the rest of us that we can't live by our
> own rules.
Your rules don't allow for debate and persuasion?
> > > That there should be no opportunity for those of like mind to
> > > live in a common geographic area and define a set of common goals and
> > > values and expect those that choose to be a part of that community to
> > > abide by them?
> >
> > As long as they don't initiate force, that's fine by me.
>
> Nobody is forcing you to live here, Chuck. I have brought this
> up before, and your reply was, in essence, that you live here
> because you want to. Fine. But you can't have it both ways. You
> can't say that, on balance, you prefer to live here, but that the
> process by which the people that live here govern themselves
> offends you and that they must change to suit your preferences.
And where am I to go? Since this is one of the freest countries
on earth, I think I'll stay right here and keep on persuading the
community that it's in its best intrest not to initiate force
against other members of the community. Thus I fought very hard
for defeating Guide the Ride, and guess what Ed, the community
agreed with me. Next stop, the Bolwen Bowl.
> > > No, that's actually not what you object to. You object to being requiried
> > > to contribute to those things from which you draw benefit. And that is
> > > what irks me about your arguments -- as they relate to local issues. You
> > > argue that you should have a choice to opt out of public education, or
> > > stadium taxes, or police and fire protection costs. But, whether you want
> > > to or not, you derive some benefit from some of these things. You simply
> > > can't opt out of those benefits, even if you opt out of the costs.
> >
> > I don't want your alleged benefits.
>
> Then leave.
No. It's supposed to be a free county, and that's what
I'm gonna fight for.
> > Why should I be compelled to pay
> > for something I don't want, and I don't view as benefiting me?
>
> You aren't. You may leave.
Bogus.
> > And
> > too often are mostly for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
>
> A non sequitor designed to emote some unrelated reply that you find easier to
> attack than the issue at hand.
Not at all. The rich and powerful are always trying to tip
the "community" rules in their favor. Who would expect
otherwise? Often the way it works is the rich and powerful
try to trick the "community" into believing that some new
tax is in their best intrest, and then they hope no one else
has the resources to point out their lies.
> > That's not say that I wouldn't voluntarily pay for -some- of
> > the things you want to force me to pay for. Police and fire
> > protection for example, and the military. I see a benefit
> > for these things and I'm willing to voluntarily pay.
>
> It will be interesting to see, though, if there is ever a Libertarianville, if
> all citizens of that berg will be so forthcoming.
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder Couty
http://www.self-gov.org/
Ed Smith
Chuck Wright wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Let's for a moment assume that your theory that taxes
> and government regulation are voluntary because if one
> doesn't support them, one can always move somewhere else.
>
> Let's suppose I don't like the level of taxation
> in the State where I live, so I move at great expense
> to another State. Not too long after I arrive at my new
> location, the "community" decides to change the rules, so
> I have to pull up the stakes and move again. And the same
> thing can happen over and over again without limit.
>
> You want to call this voluntary? It might comfort you
> to pretend that taxes are voluntary so you can sleep at
> night, but one must prevert the meaning of the word
> voluntary to come to that conclusion.
I have not strictly said that paying taxes was voluntary. I said your choice to live
in a community was voluntary. What you continually advocate is freedom from any
governance by your peer citizens. You are chagrined that there is no escape from this
fact of life.
Your example of moving and moving, only to be oppressed no matter where you move,
betrays the fact that you simply don't want to be told what to do. You feel above
society and its responsibilities.
At the very least, you should try to understand that as long as this is the way you
and your peers in the Libertarian Party are perceived, you will make no progress. Stop
fighting the wrong fights. Don't tell people they can't build local communities and
fight for the chance to be free of the central oppression ... the one that really
hurts us all. If you can make that transition, I, for one, think that your message
will be much more broadly received.
> Also, please admit that the poor do not have the
> means to move.
Nonsense. It is harder, but poor people move. It happens all the time.
> Ed Smith wrote:
> > I prefer to dodge the topic of minimum wages, as the economics of that topic are
> > more complex than the demagogues on either side of the issue will admit.
>
> No, it's realy quite simple. The law makes it illegal to
> work for certain employers below a minimum wage.
Any issue is quite simple if you cull out the one dimension that proves your point. In
fact there are many issues and points of view on the issue of minimum wages. The fact
that even economists of similar political persuasion can not agree on these
ramifications illustrates that your take is too simplistic to be usefule.
> We can
> argue all day about whether this is good or bad. My point
> is that regardless of whether it's good or bad, if a poor
> person doesn't agree with this law, they have no abilty to
> escape it becaue they can't move. Thus another hole in your
> theory.
It's not a hole because your premise is flawed. Ever walk through People's Park in
Berkeley and talk to the people that live there? They are from all over the world.
They hitchhike, they bum rides from friends, they hop freight trains and other things.
They can move. And they often do. This is actually an issue with respect to welfare
benefits, as the few communities that tend to still be somewhat generous, strangely
enough, attract more poor and homeless people than other communities.
> > As for the latter regulations, surely you must concede the need for some
> > regulation of service industries that can cause harm. Even if I concede that
> > there may be cases (barbers may or may not be one of them) where regulation is
> > excessive or unnecessary, I will not concede the greater point that regulation
> > is unnecessary. So, I find your fringe examples unconvincing as evidence that
> > government causes the homeless more harm than good.
>
> There is no need for government regulation of service
> industries.
Is medicine a service industry? Building construction? Should the pilot of your
commercial airliner be regulated? Do you really prefer a society free of these
protections? I know our buddy Gary Strand says he does, but I can't imagine that he'd
really like it if it's what we really had.
> All too often, the purpose of the regulation
> is to keep out competion, keep prices artificially high,
> and to favor one group of people over another.
I agree that there are problems and that there is such a thing as excess regulation.
But I don't agree that all regulation is excess.
> If you are harmed, there are legal recourses.
Does me a lot of good if I'm dead.
> And
> Libertarians strongly support laws against fraud. But to
> punish whole industries becaue there might be a few bad
> apples is absurd.
Asking a pilot to be licensed is not a punishment. It is simply an investment in a
needed skill...a requirement that the investment be made.
> Someone else posted to this newsgroup a series of posts
> on making compliance with government regulations voluntary.
> A company could choose to either be regulated or not. If
> they chose not to be regulated, they would have to print
> NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATED on the label of their products.
> Then people who want the extra protection of government
> regulation would simply buy the products without this
> label.
Interesting idea. So we'll have quack doctors that take patients for significantly
less money, for example. How does it help your poor people to incent them to seek
inadequate medical care?
> > You, sir, are in a small minority of individuals who prefer the absolute
> > freedom of self-determination over some beneficial collectivization
> > through communities of interest.
>
> You, sir are in the majorty of people who want to get something
> for nothing by grabbing at other peoples wallets.
I beg your pardon? I can assure you that I am a net taxpayer. I would be much better
off financially under the society you propose. I still oppose it. Keep your misplaced
assumptions about my character to yourself, please.
> Does it make
> it right that you parasites are in the majority?
It makes it the collective will of the society in which you choose to live. Nothing
more.
> > But, I see no reason why you can not find yourself an uncorporated
> > part of Elbert County somewhere and live unfettered by most of the regulations
> > you so despise. I'm not saying you will be free of the unfortunately high
> > Federal tax burden that you and I both despise, but you won't have to worry
> > about paying for stadiums, or city parks, or the salary's of Boulder Valley's
> > rain forest math teachers. It's not exactly what you want, but I pose this to
> > ask you consider, if you could really get rid of those extra burdens, would you
> > prefer life in such solitude?
>
> I think you meant unincorporated Elbert County. This would free
> me from a few taxes, but not enough to make much of a difference.
> I'd still have to pay all the Federal taxes as you pointed out.
> I'd also have to keep paying all State taxes, and I assume that
> Elbert County imposes taxes too, and I assume there is a local
> school district that has its taxes too.
>
> Ed, there simply is no place to escape too. I wish there were.
> But even if there were, I'd risk having the rules changed on me
> once I got there. For example, the State of Connecticut never had
> a state income tax until a couple of years ago. And I used to
> live in a place that had no stadium tax.
I have agreed that you should have the chance to create such a Libertarian haven. I
simply will not agree that you have some god-given right to turn Boulder County into
one.
> > > > My point is, that a community DOES have a right to make collective
> > > > decisions to tax ALL of its citizens because those citizens live there by
> > > > choice.
> > >
> > > You meant to say might instead of right.
> >
> > I didn't mean to say might. I meant to say right. The right is derived
> > from the voluntary choice of those citizens that domicile there to do so,
> > understanding when they make that choice, that there are certain
> > responsibilities thereby entailed.
>
> Your theory that it's all voluntry is absurd.
It's not theory, and its not mine. It's political philosophy derived from the very
same icons of ideology that the Libertarians use to justify their points of view.
Those philosophers, including John Locke (whom some of your partisans are fond of
quoting, at least partially) developed the Rousseau's concept of the Social Contract
into its current form.
So you are arguing against hundreds of years of tradition and doctrine. We can only
brush the surface in a forum like this.
> > > But what if all of the communities have distateful government policies,
> > > and no govenrment will alow you to create the type of community you
> > > want?
> >
> > What government is preventing you from doing that? Hypotheticals are hard to
> > argue against.
>
> The Feds are not going to let me set up a place exempt from
> Federal taxes, the State of Colorado isn't going to allow me
> to set up a place exempt from State taxes, Elbert County isn't
> going to allow me to set up a place exempt from Elbert county
> taxes, and the Elbert County school district isn't going to
> allow me to set up a place exempt from school district taxes.
> There's no place to go Ed. And even if there where, the rules
> could, and often do, change.
So, let's fix that. Drop your banner to abolish local government and I'll march with
you to slash Federal government and free the States to represent their citizens' will
and allow local governments to be as collective or individual as its citizens want.
> > Chuck, listen. I think, in a strange sort of way, we are saying
> > the same thing. I wish there was a county in a state somewhere
> > where you and your Libertarian friends could live tax free (or
> > at least tax minimal...
>
> Me too, but as you well know, it doesn't exist, so your
> argument is totally bogus.
My argument isn't bogus, you just haven't figured it out yet.
> > I see no way around the need for you to
> > chip in for your defense and a few other basic necessities) and
> > then have to solve all your problems without government-enforced
> > collectivism. What I am saying is that I don't want you to take
> > away the choice of the vast majority of us to live in communities
> > that do choose to represent their values and priorities through the
> > use of local governments.
>
> There is no way I can compel the majority of people to
> shun collectivism. They will have to be voluntarily
> persuaded to that view.
Then why do you use words like "parasite" and "theft" as if you are on some sort of
moral imperitive? Your quest is not to convince us to shun collectivism, as you put
it, but to convince us that we are immoral for choosing it. Wrong fight.
> > Suppose I campaigned on a pledge to make
> > it illegal for organizations like the Boy Scouts to impose sets
> > of rules on their membership, under the threat of expulsion.
>
> You would be evil.
At least we agree on something.
> > There are only two significant differences between membership rules
> > for the Boy Scouts and local government for, say, the City of
> > Boulder. The first is that the latter example is established within
> > geographic boundaries -- your membership is established by your
> > choice to live there or visit. And the second is the power to impose
> > criminal penalties. But, in both cases, membership is completely
> > voluntary. If you don't like the rules, you are free not to join.
>
> There is only one important difference between how the
> Boy Scouts operate and how the City of Boulder operates.
> The Boy Scouts get what they want through voluntary
> relationships while the City of Boulder gets what it
> wants by using force.
You simply restated my second difference in terms designed to bring out more emotion.
You certainly won't convince me to drop my argument with that tactic.
But I think the first difference is relevant too. The rules for membership in the City
of Boulder apply to those geographically within its borders. There are no such
geographic restrictions for the Boy Scouts. Your membership is still, nonetheless,
voluntary, as you need not live in or visit Boulder unless, on balance, you consider
the benefits outweigh the costs. The fact that you can't find a club (or municipality)
whose rules you like does not change the fact that you do not have to submit yourself
to those of this one.
> > So, I am not opposed to your establishing your own club with your
> > own rules. I'm opposed to you joining my club and then telling me
> > that my club's rules should be dismantled.
>
> I've not joined your club. Imigine if the Boy Scouts tried
> to force people into their club at the point of gun.
Nobody is forcing you into the City of Boulder! And everytime you say that someone
is, I will correct you again!
> > > Why don't you respect my community? My community is a group
> > > of libertarians who want a free community.
> >
> > Already covered, I hope.
>
> Nope.
Covered and ignored.
> > > > So, am I to understand that you are really in favor of abolishing
> > > > community?
> > >
> > > No, not at all. I want communities to exist based on voluntary
> > > relationships.
> >
> > They are! You have absolutely every right to live in whatever
> > community you choose.
>
> I choose to live in a community where the total combined tax
> rate is under five percent. There is no choice Ed. There is
> no place I can go to live in a communty like that. The
> authorities will not honor my choice to live in a community
> like that.
You have not chosen to live in such a community. You have emoted a hypothetical
preference. I feel for you that you can't find a community that doesn't suit your
preferences, but that doesn't give you some moral right to change all of the others to
suit you. The fact that you can't find a city with almost no local government does not
change the fact that you do choose to live in the jurisdiction of SOME local
government. You are committing a logical fallacy.
> > > What I want to abolish is communities based upon
> > > the -initiation- of force. I want communities that will leave
> > > peaceful people alone. Is that too much to ask?
> >
> > Yes. It is. It is too much for you to ask those of us who live
> > in communities because we value the services that they provide
> > to abandon that option. Seek out your own options with your own
> > choices, but don't tell the rest of us that we can't live by our
> > own rules.
>
> Your rules don't allow for debate and persuasion?
Did I say that I don't want you to debate or try to persuade? If that's what I
thought, why would I be arguing this at all?
But it is your stated position that all municipalities and local governments should be
as unburdened by collective will as you would personally prefer. Why would you want to
react to your lack of choice of government by taking from others their choice of
government?
If there were a Libertarianville in Elbert County, would you be content to live there
and enjoy your freedom? Or would you not rest until all communities were
Libertarianville? Wouldn't you be guilty of the same sort of attempts at compulsion
(by trying to build a majority that then compels others not to organize into
geographically-structured communities of interest and collective will) that you
complain about now?
> > > > That there should be no opportunity for those of like mind to
> > > > live in a common geographic area and define a set of common goals and
> > > > values and expect those that choose to be a part of that community to
> > > > abide by them?
> > >
> > > As long as they don't initiate force, that's fine by me.
> >
> > Nobody is forcing you to live here, Chuck. I have brought this
> > up before, and your reply was, in essence, that you live here
> > because you want to. Fine. But you can't have it both ways. You
> > can't say that, on balance, you prefer to live here, but that the
> > process by which the people that live here govern themselves
> > offends you and that they must change to suit your preferences.
>
> And where am I to go? Since this is one of the freest countries
> on earth, I think I'll stay right here and keep on persuading the
> community that it's in its best intrest not to initiate force
> against other members of the community. Thus I fought very hard
> for defeating Guide the Ride, and guess what Ed, the community
> agreed with me. Next stop, the Bolwen Bowl.
Good luck.
I may or may not agree with you on any of these specific issues. But where we
fundamentally differ is that you think I don't have the right to favor any of them.
That to do so is immoral. That it makes me a "parasite."
> > > That's not say that I wouldn't voluntarily pay for -some- of
> > > the things you want to force me to pay for. Police and fire
> > > protection for example, and the military. I see a benefit
> > > for these things and I'm willing to voluntarily pay.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see, though, if there is ever a Libertarianville, if
> > all citizens of that berg will be so forthcoming.
>
I notice you didn't answer this one. I consider it an important point. You have
claimed that, if all such relationships were voluntary that people would chip in for
them. I suspect, instead, that Libertarianville would attract a lot of people who
derive geographic benefits from the community and don't provide for them adequately.
Ok, so I know you'll let the slackers' houses burn to the ground and you will keep
them from using your roads or schools, but how will you prevent them from breathing
your clean air that you've worked har through voluntary agreements to acheive even as
he burns sulfur-laden coal in his foundry? Or from drinking the clean water out of the
creek that runs through his property that the rest of you have agreed, voluntarily, to
divvy up amongst you all equitable? Or from housing 1000 people on one acre right next
to your house without regard for noise or trash or smell?
Ed Smith
Stewart
> OH BOY I was waiting for that. The man under Jon Caldara comes up
> with a testimonial supporting Jon and claiming his decision was honest
> and true. That is like those supporting Nixon and under him saying he
> was no crook. That is like those supporting and under Clinton (no Pun
> intended) saying he has done no wrong. Boy you need a lesson in
> logic!!!! And I see the route would have been terminated two blocks
> before Jon's house no matter who was in charge = Oh I really really
> bvelieve that one!!!!
If you buy the logic that Cal Marsela's lying because Jon Caldara's his
"boss" of sorts, I got an even better one. Caldara's really an alien,
having been born in Roswell, NM. It's all a government cover-up.
Stewart
> Please provide some line item support for that. I'm all for lower taxes, the flat rate postcard
> tax and minimized deductions - but this sounds like hocus pocus Stewart.
A good place to start would be "A Taxing Matter: Changes in Government
Revenue and Spending Priorities, 1950 - 1996" by Joseph L. Bast and
Diane Carol Bast, available at <http://www.heartland.org/taxintro.htm>,
parts of which are quoted below. An even better source is
<http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html>.
My figures for 1987 vs 1997 come from one of Thomas Sowell's books but I
forget which one. I'll dig around my bookshelves tonight.
Stewart
===========================================
Part 1
Total Government Revenues 1960 - 1992
How did revenue collections for all levels of government change between
1960 and 1992? To answer this question, we examined Bureau of the Census
data for 1960 and 1992 and adjusted the figures for inflation and
population growth.4 To see if trends since 1980 were different from the
long-term trends, we repeated the analysis using 1980 data.
A. Total Revenues
Between 1960 and 1992, annual revenues to all levels of government
increased nearly 1,400 percent, from $153 billion to $2.3 trillion.
Adjusted for inflation, the increase was 211 percent. If we further
adjust for the 38.7 percent growth in population that occurred during
this period, the increase was 121 percent.
In plain language, real inflation-adjusted government tax collections
per person more than doubled between 1960 and 1992. The most dramatic
increase was in revenues generated by Social Security and Medicare
taxes, which increased from $10.6 billion in 1960 to $394 billion in
1992, or 3,600 percent (681 percent after inflation).
Four revenue sources were responsible for 65.2 percent of all revenues
in 1960: individual income taxes (28.2 percent), corporate income taxes
(14.8 percent), non-tax general revenue (11.4 percent), and excise and
other sales taxes (10.8 percent). Thirty-two years later, individual
income taxes had fallen slightly as a share of total government
revenues, to 26.2 percent; corporate income taxes fell dramatically to
5.5 percent; non-tax general revenue rose to 19.0 percent; and Social
Security and Medicare taxes more than doubled their share of total
revenues, rising from 7.0 percent to 17.4 percent. Excise and other
sales taxes fell from 10.8 percent of all revenues to 4.0 percent.
The rapid growth of Social Security and Medicare taxes during this
period could, but does not, mask or distort the trends for other revenue
sources. For example, income tax revenues accounted for a slightly
larger share of all government revenues in 1992 than in 1960--31.7
percent versus 30.3 percent--when Social Security and Medicare are
excluded. Income from excise and other sales taxes as a share of overall
revenues still declines by approximately the same amount. Figures 1 and
2 on the facing page illustrate the change in tax revenue sources for
all levels of government in the U.S. between 1960 and 1992. Underlying
data can be found in Tables 1 and 2 in the appendix.
B. Total Tax Burden
According to the Tax Foundation, taxes per capita in 1996 averaged
$8,944, or 34.8 percent of per-capita income.5 Of that total, federal
taxes accounted for $5,910, and state and local taxes accounted for
$3,034. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress, using a different
methodology, estimates that the typical family in the U.S. paid 40.9
percent of its income in taxes in 1995.
Tax burden in the U.S. is at historical highs relative to gross national
product and as a percent of personal income. The Tax Foundation uses the
concept of a "Tax Freedom Day" to illustrate this growth.
In 1902, the entire earnings of an average U.S. citizen from 31 days of
work would have been sufficient to pay his or her annual tax bill.
Hypothetically, that person could have worked from January 1 to January
31 just to pay taxes. January 31 thus could be called "Tax Freedom Day."
By 1930, 13 more days of work would have been required, moving Tax
Freedom Day to February 13. In 1960, the date was April 16; in 1970,
April 26; in 1990, May 2. In 1996, Tax Freedom Day landed on May 7. The
average American worker in 1996 had to work 128 days just to pay his or
her taxes.
Because state tax burdens vary, overall tax burden varies from state to
state. Connecticut had the highest total tax burden in the nation in
1996, followed by New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The
state with the lowest tax burden was Alabama, followed by Mississippi,
Missouri, Louisiana, and Delaware.
C. Changes in Tax Rates
The combined employer-employee Social Security and Medicare tax was 2
percent when the program was enacted in 1937. The rate was doubled in
1954, and increased again to 6 percent in 1960. The tax rate reached
10.4 percent in 1971, 13.3 percent in 1981, and 15.3 percent in 1991,
where it remains today.
Revenues generated by individual income taxes rose from $43.2 billion in
1960 to $592 billion in 1992. State income taxes vary widely in marginal
rates and the number of income brackets, making a summary difficult. The
federal individual income tax in 1960 had rates ranging from 20 percent
to 88 percent. The top marginal rate fell to 60 percent in 1971 and to
50 percent in 1981. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 consolidated the rate
schedule to five rates and lowered the top rate to 38.5 percent. After
several more changes, the schedule today has five rates and a top rate
of 39.6 percent.
Rates under the federal corporate income tax have also been volatile. In
1960, corporations paid 22 percent on the first $25,000 in profits and
48 percent on any amount above that. During the 1980s, the schedule was
expanded to five rates ranging from 15 percent to 46 percent. During the
1990s, rates ranged from 15 percent to 35 percent.
Between 1960 and 1992, revenues from excise taxes on alcohol, gasoline,
tobacco, and "other sales taxes" (not general sales taxes) rose 451
percent, from $16.5 billion to $91.2 billion. After adjusting for
inflation, the increase was just 16.2 percent, and adjusting for
population reveals that the real per-person tax burden actually fell
17.4 percent.
Excise taxes are often levied on a per-unit basis (per gallon in the
case of alcohol and gasoline, and per pack or carton in the case of
cigarettes), and for that reason they did not keep pace with the rapid
price inflation of the 1960s and 1970s.6 Collections from income and
general sales taxes, on the other hand, rose with rising prices,
outpacing both consumption and income growth during the same period.
Income tax receipts grew fastest as taxpayers were pushed into higher
tax brackets, a phenomenon called "bracket creep."7
Overall, the sources of government tax revenues between 1960 and 1992
shifted toward payroll taxes--especially Social Security and Medicare
taxes--and general sales taxes and away from taxes on property,
corporate profits, and specific commodities. Social Security and
Medicare tax rates increased significantly during this period, while the
top marginal tax rates on individual income and corporate profits fell.
D. Non-Tax Government Burdens
While taxes are the most visible burden imposed by governments on their
citizens, it is wrong to overlook other burdens that influence the
fairness and efficiency of the U.S. tax system. Four additional burdens
are most notable:
Cost of complying with the tax code. The Tax Foundation estimates that
Americans will spend $235 billion complying with federal, state, and
local tax codes in 1996. This is more than half as much as all state
taxes collected in 1996. If added to Tax Freedom Day, the cost of
compliance would push the date forward by 13 days.
Cost of future obligations (debt). During 1996, the federal government
spent $144 billion more than it raised through taxes. This amount of
debt was incurred by taxpayers, even though it was not paid in taxes.
Because it will eventually have to be paid, the amount is essentially
the same as a tax. If added to Tax Freedom Day, debt would move the date
forward by eight days.
The inflation tax. When government inflates the money supply, it causes
prices to rise. Price inflation is similar to an income tax since it
reduces the purchasing power of a given holding or income by the rate of
inflation. The federal government receives the receipts of the inflation
tax when it issues new dollars, and taxpayers "buy" the new money to
bring their real money balances back to their pre-inflation levels.8
Inflation during 1994 was the same as a federal income tax of 2.6
percent with no exclusions or deductions. That tax cost taxpayers $142
billion, enough to add eight more days to "Tax Freedom Day."
The cost of regulation. According to the Center for the Study of
American Business, businesses spend $677 billion a year complying with
government regulations.9 The cost of regulation, like inflation, is the
same as a tax paid by every consumer in the U.S. When added to Tax
Freedom Day, the cost of regulation pushes ahead by 37 days the date
when taxpayers are able to begin working for themselves.
To reflect the true cost of government, Tax Freedom Day has to be pushed
ahead a startling 66 days, from May 7 to July 12. Average Americans, in
other words, have to work for the government 193 days each year before
they can begin working for themselves. Taxpayers are allowed to keep the
income earned from working the remaining 172 days each year.
E. Total Tax Revenues from 1980 to 1992
If we turn our attention to the final twelve years of the statistical
record, we find several new trends. Figures 3 and 4 on the following
page illustrate the changes. Underlying data can be found in Tables 3
and 4 in the appendix.
Total Tax Burden
Total government revenues continued to rise faster than inflation and
population between 1980 and 1992. Tax revenues rose from $932 billion in
1980 to $2.26 trillion in 1992, an increase of 142.5 percent. Controlled
for inflation, the increase was 42.4 percent. After further adjusting
for population growth, the increase was 27.3 percent. In plain language,
real inflation-adjusted government tax collections per person increased
by over one-fourth between 1980 and 1992.
Tax Freedom Day retreated by three days between 1980 and 1992, a
dramatic departure from the long-term trend described earlier. The
number of days the average American needed to work to pay his taxes was
123 days in 1980 and 120 days in 1992. During the years between 1980 and
1992, the number of days retreated to as few as 119 in 1984 and moved
ahead to as many as 126 in 1981.
Fast-Growing Revenue Sources
The four fastest growing revenue sources from 1980 to 1992, besides
nontax general revenues, were employee retirement savings, Social
Security and Medicare, utility taxes, and property taxes. Revenues for
employee retirement grew due to the rapid growth in government
employment and compensation during the 1970s and 1980s, an aging
workforce, and generous retirement benefits.10 Social Security and
Medicare taxes rose, due to the tax rate increases described earlier,
from $139 billion in 1980 to $394 billion in 1992, an after-inflation
increase of 66 percent, and grew from 15 percent of total government
revenues to 17.4 percent.
Utility taxes grew as state and local governments discovered that they
could require utilities to collect taxes on their behalf. Property taxes
increased slightly as a share of total government revenues during the
1980s, rising from 7.3 percent to 7.9 percent, reversing a trend from
the 1960s and 1970s.
Adjusted for inflation and population growth, the four fastest growing
revenue sources between 1980 and 1992 grew at the following rates:
Employee retirement, up 100 percent;
Social Security and Medicare, up 48 percent;
Utility taxes, up 38 percent; and
Property taxes, up 37 percent.
Slow-Growing Revenue Sources
The slowest growing revenue sources from 1980 to 1992 were corporate
income taxes, death and gift taxes, excise and other sales taxes, and
individual income taxes. Corporate income taxes fell from 8.4 percent of
all revenues to 5.5 percent, perhaps due to escalating competition among
states for businesses.11
Individual income taxes declined as a percentage of total government
revenues, from 30.7 percent in 1980 to 26.2 percent in 1992. This
reveals that all of the decline in reliance on individual income taxes
observed in the long-term trend occurred during the 1980s. Part 2 below
will reveal that states actually increased their reliance on income
taxes during this period, meaning changes in federal income tax policies
accounted for all of the decline in reliance on income taxes during this
period.
The change in revenues for the four slowest growing sources of revenue
from 1980 to 1992, adjusted for inflation and population growth, were:
Corporate income taxes, - 16 percent;
Death and gift taxes, - 3 percent;
Excise and other sales taxes, up 8 percent; and
Individual income taxes, up 9 percent.
The share of total revenue produced by excise taxes and other sales
taxes (not general sales taxes) declined from 4.8 percent to 4.0
percent. Adjusted for inflation and population, total revenues from this
source nevertheless rose 8 percent during this period, reversing the
long-term trend toward lower real per-capita burdens.
Two factors were largely responsible for the new trend: The lower
inflation rates of the 1980s, and rising motor fuel taxes. The latter
rose 71 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars, and grew from 1.6 percent
of total revenues in 1980 to 1.9 percent in 1992. The cause of this
increase was a series of tax rate increases at the national and state
levels, as shown in the table on the following page.
F. Summary and Conclusion
In summary, total government revenues during the 1980s continued some of
the trends observed since 1960, most notably the rising reliance on
Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes and nontax general revenue.
However, the 1980s departed from the trends revealed during the previous
two decades in four notable ways:
First, total tax revenue stopped growing relative to personal income, as
is revealed by Tax Freedom Day falling back three days. Total tax
revenues did, however, continue to grow faster than inflation and
population growth. Also, as is shown by the figure on page seven, this
fall in relative tax burden was due to be reversed again during the
1990s.
Second, reliance on individual income taxes fell by approximately 15
percent, from 30.7 percent of all revenues to 26.2 percent.
Third, excise taxes rose relative to inflation and population growth,
although their revenues continued to fall relative to total tax
revenues.
And fourth, a long-term trend away from property taxes was reversed, as
reliance on revenues from this source rose 8.2 percent, from 7.3 percent
to 7.9 percent of all tax revenues.
By 1992, the nation's tax system was less progressive and less
burdensome on the average taxpayer than it was in 1980. In both cases,
this required a major departure from the trends of the 1960s and 1970s.
Donald L Ferry
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
Very possible since Art Bell became a Libertarian also. One can
expect strange occurances now!! But Testimonials from lower ups in a
company about higher ups are worthless = as are most testimonials,
even in the Wizzard of OZ they were satarized!!!
Stewart
> Very possible since Art Bell became a Libertarian also. One can
> expect strange occurances now!! But Testimonials from lower ups in a
> company about higher ups are worthless = as are most testimonials,
> even in the Wizzard of OZ they were satarized!!!
Let me ask you something. Jon Caldara has said that the reason he got
interested in the RTD in the first place is because he kept seeing this
empty bus driving by his house. Do you really think he went to all the
trouble of getting elected just to change a damn bus route?
It really doesn't matter. You don't believe Cal or the other RTD board
members who will verify this, so nothing's going to change your mind
that this is all one big conspiracy.
Donald L Ferry
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
I believe Jon and his philosophy which appears to be ya can fool most
all da people enough of da time ta get anything ya want if ya nough of
da jerk!
Stewart
> I believe Jon and his philosophy which appears to be ya can fool most
> all da people enough of da time ta get anything ya want if ya nough of
> da jerk!
Now we're getting somewhere. It's not that you really believe this cock
and bull story about Caldara using his RTD post to re-route buses away
from his house; it's that you dislike his ideology. For heaven's sake,
why didn't you say so in the first place?
How about you step inside Jon's shoes for a minute? Say you hate the
bus that drives by your house every day. You run for political office
to gain a high post at the bus company, and [as you seem to believe]
then have the power to re-route buses to suit your fancy.
Why do you wait *years* after your election to change the route? Why do
you do it so close to your re-election time?
And, while we're at it, let's step in Cal's shoes as well. You're GM of
RTD, making a six figure salary. Life is good. Say one of the 15 RTD
board members comes by your office and tells you to change a bus route
by his house for no other reason other than he doesn't like the sight of
the bus each rush hour. Well, first, you know he can't fire you; you
are no more or less answerable to him than the other 14 board members.
Perhaps half the board can't stand this guy and will be highly pleased
if you came forward with evidence of wrongdoing on him. This guy is
coming up for election in a few short months and all kinds of people are
applying pressure to get rid of him - if you ally with him politically,
you could easily be dead meat in November. If you help him out and he
loses the election, you're likely to lose your six figure per year job.
And, since there's only one major transit company in Colorado, you're
probably going to have to leave the state to find any comparable work.
You also know that if you help him commit wrongdoing and it's
discovered, you'll likely be fired.
So what do you do? Well, you write a letter to the editor of the local
paper defending the guy and denying he ever asked you to change the
route. Sure...that's the way to handle it!
Donald L Ferry
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
>> I believe Jon and his philosophy which appears to be ya can fool most
>> all da people enough of da time ta get anything ya want if ya nough of
>> da jerk!
>
>Now we're getting somewhere. It's not that you really believe this cock
>and bull story about Caldara using his RTD post to re-route buses away
>from his house; it's that you dislike his ideology. For heaven's sake,
>why didn't you say so in the first place?
>
>How about you step inside Jon's shoes for a minute? Say you hate the
>bus that drives by your house every day. You run for political office
>to gain a high post at the bus company, and [as you seem to believe]
>then have the power to re-route buses to suit your fancy.
>
Oh!! The Clinton White House mentality becomes the defend Jon
mentality!
Stewart
> Oh!! The Clinton White House mentality becomes the defend Jon
> mentality!
I take it that you aren't interested in defending your position.
Donald L Ferry
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
That is the best defense there is! I could add all those who defended
Nixon to the end = except Goldwater who in the end viewed him as total
scum. Luckily the petty Jon has not that amount of power yet!
Stewart
> That is the best defense there is! I could add all those who defended
> Nixon to the end = except Goldwater who in the end viewed him as total
> scum. Luckily the petty Jon has not that amount of power yet!
Your entire statement was a logical fallacy. Let me explain how this
works:
Tomorrow I could claim that John Elway isn't coming back for another
year with the Broncos because he really wanted to. He's really
receiving an under-the-table payment from Pat Bowlen to come back, in
order to play upon people's emotions to make his stadium tax increase
more palatable.
John Elway and Pat Bowlen counter such a claim by stating that there is
no truth to it. Then you could reply to my message that it's just a
coincidence that Elway chose to come back and that his return will help
the stadium issue.
I could counter, in the exact same manner that you did, that we can't
accept John Elway's word as the truth because Pat Bowlen is his boss,
and Elway is lying to keep his job.
You could reply that that doesn't make any sense if you examine both
Elway's and Bowlen's motivations.
Then I could shoot back and dismiss your reasoning as coming from a
"Clinton White House mentality."
Even further, I could say that since there is no way you could ever
"prove" that Elway *didn't* take the kickback, I must be right.
Donald L Ferry
Stewart <ste...@emohtapohs.com> wrote:
>> That is the best defense there is! I could add all those who defended
>> Nixon to the end = except Goldwater who in the end viewed him as total
>> scum. Luckily the petty Jon has not that amount of power yet!
>
>Your entire statement was a logical fallacy. Let me explain how this
>works:
>
>Tomorrow I could claim that John Elway isn't coming back for another
>year with the Broncos because he really wanted to. He's really
>receiving an under-the-table payment from Pat Bowlen to come back, in
>order to play upon people's emotions to make his stadium tax increase
>more palatable.
Really! John was an intregal part of the Broncos who were the
National Champs last year. Under those circumstances, I would say no
under-the-table deals is needed for his return!
>
>John Elway and Pat Bowlen counter such a claim by stating that there is
>no truth to it. Then you could reply to my message that it's just a
>coincidence that Elway chose to come back and that his return will help
>the stadium issue.
I image most a lot of other teams would pay big for John to play for
them a year = no under-the-table deal needed!
>
>I could counter, in the exact same manner that you did, that we can't
>accept John Elway's word as the truth because Pat Bowlen is his boss,
>and Elway is lying to keep his job.
If Patty didn't want John he would be torn apart for that reason
alone. I think the statium issue stands alone as supported by a
majority of the Tax Payers = Which I oppose!
>
>You could reply that that doesn't make any sense if you examine both
>Elway's and Bowlen's motivations.
Elway likes to play football while Caldera likes no buses passing his
house = simplicity!
>
>Then I could shoot back and dismiss your reasoning as coming from a
>"Clinton White House mentality."
>
>Even further, I could say that since there is no way you could ever
>"prove" that Elway *didn't* take the kickback, I must be right.
I don't think Elway, unlike your fav drone Cladera needs such a
kickback = Elway has the clout to demand outrageous thing up
front!@!!!!
Larry Mulcahy
In co.general Chuck Wright <caTwA...@ibm.net> wrote:
> They may not pay much in taxes, but the government harms
> them in many ways. And they are not able to escape. For
> example, minimum wage laws forbid them from getting a job
> with certain employeers at a wage they're willing to work
> for. Also laws which prohibit them from going into business
> for themselves such as becoming a barber, or driving a cab.
Not to mention the active harassment of homeless people by the city of
Denver. First they were kicked out of Cherry Creek Park, then the
Platte River Greenway. I like to think some of them moved along to a
more hospitable region rather than joining the bleary eyed throngs
hanging around the Rescue Mission all day.
--
Larry Mulcahy lmul...@nyx.net lmul...@dimensional.com
http://www.nyx.net/~lmulcahy/ http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/9653/
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any
good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken
Chuck Wright
Ed Smith wrote:
>
> Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> > Ed,
> >
> > Let's for a moment assume that your theory that taxes
> > and government regulation are voluntary because if one
> > doesn't support them, one can always move somewhere else.
> >
> > Let's suppose I don't like the level of taxation
> > in the State where I live, so I move at great expense
> > to another State. Not too long after I arrive at my new
> > location, the "community" decides to change the rules, so
> > I have to pull up the stakes and move again. And the same
> > thing can happen over and over again without limit.
> >
> > You want to call this voluntary? It might comfort you
> > to pretend that taxes are voluntary so you can sleep at
> > night, but one must prevert the meaning of the word
> > voluntary to come to that conclusion.
>
> I have not strictly said that paying taxes was voluntary.
Paying taxes isn't strictly voluntarly? Are you kidding Ed?
Nothing about taxes is voluntary.
> I said your choice to live in a community was voluntary.
In a free country, this will always be the case.
> What you continually advocate is freedom from any governance
> by your peer citizens.
No not at all. I agree to be governed by my peer citizens as
long as they do not -initiate- force to do it. For example,
if I commit murder, I agree to accept whatever punishment
my peer citizens agree through due process to impose upon
me becasue I initiated force.
> Your example of moving and moving, only to be oppressed no matter
> where you move, betrays the fact that you simply don't want to be
> told what to do.
As long as I'm a peaceful honest citizen minding my own business,
you bet I want to be left alone by the government. Thus is
the nature of a free country.
Evidenlty what you want is something other than a free country.
Where control of peaceful honest people is the name of the
game.
> You feel above society and its responsibilities.
No, I want to acheive my goals via peaceful honest means.
Why do you find it necessary to be unpeaceful to acheive your
goals? Why can't you persuade peaceful people to do the things
you want them to do? Why do you have to be such a brute and
hurt peaceful people to get what you want?
> At the very least, you should try to understand that as long
> as this is the way you and your peers in the Libertarian Party
> are perceived, you will make no progress.
I think we are preceived as the Party that will leave peaceful
honest people alone. And the Republician and Democratic
Parties are preceived as the Parties that don't.
> Stop fighting the wrong fights.
The fights aren't wrong, and we're winning quite often.
The Guide the Ride vote was but our latest victory, and the
defeat of the Bolwen Bowl will be our next victory. And why
would I stop when our dues paying membership and the number
of registered Libertarians is soaring?
> Don't tell people they can't build local communities and
> fight for the chance to be free of the central oppression ...
> the one that really hurts us all. If you can make that
> transition, I, for one, think that your message will be much
> more broadly received.
I'm in favor of allowing people to build whatever type of
community they want as long as the abide by one simple rule:
leave peaceful honest people alone.
> > Ed Smith wrote:
> > > I prefer to dodge the topic of minimum wages, as the economics of that topic are
> > > more complex than the demagogues on either side of the issue will admit.
> >
> > No, it's realy quite simple. The law makes it illegal to
> > work for certain employers below a minimum wage.
>
> Any issue is quite simple if you cull out the one dimension
> that proves your point.
I do not know of any reputable economists that would argue
with the fact that the law makes it illegal to work for
certain employers below a minimum wage. What they argue
about is whether or not the minimum wage harms or helps
the poor and the economy.
> In fact, there are many issues and points of view on the
> issue of minimum wages. The fact that even economists of
> similar political persuasion can not agree on these
> ramifications illustrates that your take is too simplistic
> to be usefule.
I didn't say that the issue is simple. I'm only arguing
that the concept of a minimum wage is simple. My point is
that regardless of whether the law harms or improves the
economy, if a poor person is opposed to the law that the
"community" has mandated, he doesn't have the means to
escape to another country, and thus there is nothing
voluntary about this law.
In a free country, people don't have to move around to
obtain freedom. In a free country, one is free everywhere.
> > > As for the latter regulations, surely you must concede the need for some
> > > regulation of service industries that can cause harm. Even if I concede that
> > > there may be cases (barbers may or may not be one of them) where regulation is
> > > excessive or unnecessary, I will not concede the greater point that regulation
> > > is unnecessary. So, I find your fringe examples unconvincing as evidence that
> > > government causes the homeless more harm than good.
> >
> > There is no need for government regulation of service
> > industries.
>
> Is medicine a service industry?
Yes.
> Building construction?
Yes.
> Should the pilot of your commercial airliner be regulated?
That choice should be left up to me and not you. You
decide for you, and I'll decide for me. It's my life
and my body.
> Do you really prefer a society free of these protections?
I want a society where I am free to choose the protections
I want. And where you are free to choose the protections
you want. And where no one can force protections onto
anyone.
> I know our buddy Gary Strand says he does, but I can't imagine
> that he'd really like it if it's what we really had.
I can't imagine why someone can't respect the peaceful honest
choices of other people. I'll respect your choices as long
as they're peaceful. Why can't you respect my peaceful
choices?
> > All too often, the purpose of the regulation
> > is to keep out competion, keep prices artificially high,
> > and to favor one group of people over another.
>
> I agree that there are problems and that there is such a thing
> as excess regulation. But I don't agree that all regulation
> is excess.
Let's deal with specifics becasue what you might consider to
be a regulation I might not. For example, a law against
fraud would be acceptable to me. So if a tobacco company
claimed that smoking cigaretts was "good for the throat",
then the government should use force (after due process)
to stop and punish said tobacco company.
> > If you are harmed, there are legal recourses.
>
> Does me a lot of good if I'm dead.
Libertarians support laws against murder.
> > And
> > Libertarians strongly support laws against fraud. But to
> > punish whole industries becaue there might be a few bad
> > apples is absurd.
>
> Asking a pilot to be licensed is not a punishment.
It is if I want to choose an unlicensed piolot. Why
can't you respect my peaceful choices?
> It is simply an investment in a needed skill...a
> requirement that the investment be made.
Let me decide what peaceful investment choices I make,
and I'll respect the peaceful investment choices you make.
> > Someone else posted to this newsgroup a series of posts
> > on making compliance with government regulations voluntary.
> > A company could choose to either be regulated or not. If
> > they chose not to be regulated, they would have to print
> > NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATED on the label of their products.
> > Then people who want the extra protection of government
> > regulation would simply buy the products without this
> > label.
>
> Interesting idea. So we'll have quack doctors that take
> patients for significantly less money, for example. How
> does it help your poor people to incent them to seek
> inadequate medical care?
Libertarians are in favor of laws against fraud, and we are
in favor of victim compensation.
Why can't you respect my peaceful choice to choose the
doctor of my choice?
> > > But, I see no reason why you can not find yourself an uncorporated
> > > part of Elbert County somewhere and live unfettered by most of the regulations
> > > you so despise. I'm not saying you will be free of the unfortunately high
> > > Federal tax burden that you and I both despise, but you won't have to worry
> > > about paying for stadiums, or city parks, or the salary's of Boulder Valley's
> > > rain forest math teachers. It's not exactly what you want, but I pose this to
> > > ask you consider, if you could really get rid of those extra burdens, would you
> > > prefer life in such solitude?
> >
> > I think you meant unincorporated Elbert County. This would free
> > me from a few taxes, but not enough to make much of a difference.
> > I'd still have to pay all the Federal taxes as you pointed out.
> > I'd also have to keep paying all State taxes, and I assume that
> > Elbert County imposes taxes too, and I assume there is a local
> > school district that has its taxes too.
> >
> > Ed, there simply is no place to escape too. I wish there were.
> > But even if there were, I'd risk having the rules changed on me
> > once I got there. For example, the State of Connecticut never had
> > a state income tax until a couple of years ago. And I used to
> > live in a place that had no stadium tax.
>
> I have agreed that you should have the chance to create such a
> Libertarian haven. I simply will not agree that you have some
> god-given right to turn Boulder County into one.
Sorry, but I have a right through peaceful voluntary means
to make changes.
> Drop your banner to abolish local government
I do not want to abolish local government, and you know it.
Shame on you Ed.
> > > I see no way around the need for you to
> > > chip in for your defense and a few other basic necessities) and
> > > then have to solve all your problems without government-enforced
> > > collectivism. What I am saying is that I don't want you to take
> > > away the choice of the vast majority of us to live in communities
> > > that do choose to represent their values and priorities through the
> > > use of local governments.
> >
> > There is no way I can compel the majority of people to
> > shun collectivism. They will have to be voluntarily
> > persuaded to that view.
>
> Then why do you use words like "parasite" and "theft" as if you
> are on some sort of moral imperitive? Your quest is not to
> convince us to shun collectivism, as you put it, but to convince
> us that we are immoral for choosing it. Wrong fight.
They're just words Ed. My words can't force you to do
anything.
Morality is only part of my argument for a free society.
I also argue from the natural rights and utilitarian views.
To me, the utilitarian arguments for freedom are more
compeling than the moral and natural rights arguments.
A strong case can be made that the freer a society is,
the better off it will be. What good would all the
morality and natural rights in the world do us if a free
society is worse of than it is today?
As an aside, it sounds so silly to me that anyone could
conceive that people would be better off in an unfree
society than a free society. I can't believe I have to
make the arguement. But here I am defending a free
society while you try to defend an unfree society.
> > > Suppose I campaigned on a pledge to make
> > > it illegal for organizations like the Boy Scouts to impose sets
> > > of rules on their membership, under the threat of expulsion.
> >
> > You would be evil.
>
> At least we agree on something.
>
> > > There are only two significant differences between membership rules
> > > for the Boy Scouts and local government for, say, the City of
> > > Boulder. The first is that the latter example is established within
> > > geographic boundaries -- your membership is established by your
> > > choice to live there or visit. And the second is the power to impose
> > > criminal penalties. But, in both cases, membership is completely
> > > voluntary. If you don't like the rules, you are free not to join.
> >
> > There is only one important difference between how the
> > Boy Scouts operate and how the City of Boulder operates.
> > The Boy Scouts get what they want through voluntary
> > relationships while the City of Boulder gets what it
> > wants by using force.
>
> You simply restated my second difference in terms designed to bring
> out more emotion.
It was not intended to bring out emotion. It was meant to be
an accurte description of the one and only key difference
between government and the private voluntary sector.
The government's power to coerce is the reason, and the
only reason, you turn to government to get what you want.
Otherwise you'd be perfectly content to take your projects
the private voluntary sector to peacefully get what you want.
> You certainly won't convince me to drop my argument with that tactic.
> But I think the first difference is relevant too. The rules for
> membership in the City of Boulder apply to those geographically
> within its borders. There are no such geographic restrictions for
> the Boy Scouts. Your membership is still, nonetheless, voluntary,
> as you need not live in or visit Boulder unless, on balance, you
> consider the benefits outweigh the costs. The fact that you can't
> find a club (or municipality) whose rules you like does not change
> the fact that you do not have to submit yourself
> to those of this one.
I don't live in the City of Boulder. When I moved to this
area, I decided to move to Lousiville becaue of the
socialist policies of the City of Boulder. Yes it was
my choice to live in Louisville rather than Boulder, but in
a free country, I shouldn't be forced to make such a choice.
I should have the same freedoms everywhere.
> > > So, I am not opposed to your establishing your own club with your
> > > own rules. I'm opposed to you joining my club and then telling me
> > > that my club's rules should be dismantled.
> >
> > I've not joined your club. Imigine if the Boy Scouts tried
> > to force people into their club at the point of gun.
>
> Nobody is forcing you into the City of Boulder!
I thank God every day for that!
> And everytime you say that someone is, I will correct you again!
I've never said anything of the kind.
>Snip<
>
> But it is your stated position that all municipalities and
> local governments should be as unburdened by collective will
> as you would personally prefer. Why would you want to react to
> your lack of choice of government by taking from others their
> choice of government?
Becasue their choice requires violence against peaceful honest
people while my choice does not.
> If there were a Libertarianville in Elbert County, would you be
> content to live there and enjoy your freedom? Or would you not
> rest until all communities were Libertarianville?
I want a free country. I want the abilty to go anywhaere in
this country and be free.
> Wouldn't you be guilty of the same sort of attempts at
> compulsion (by trying to build a majority that then compels
> others not to organize into geographically-structured
> communities of interest and collective will) that you complain
> about now?
I cannot force people to be free. They can only come to freedom
voluntarily.
>Snip<
>
> I may or may not agree with you on any of these specific issues.
> But where we fundamentally differ is that you think I don't have
> the right to favor any of them.
You have a right to favor anthing you want as long as you
remain peaceful.
> > > > That's not say that I wouldn't voluntarily pay for -some- of
> > > > the things you want to force me to pay for. Police and fire
> > > > protection for example, and the military. I see a benefit
> > > > for these things and I'm willing to voluntarily pay.
> > >
> > > It will be interesting to see, though, if there is ever a Libertarianville, if
> > > all citizens of that berg will be so forthcoming.
> >
>
> I notice you didn't answer this one. I consider it an
> important point. You have claimed that, if all such
> relationships were voluntary that people would chip in
> for them.
Some will, and some will not. I think it's safe to say
that most people would be willing to pay for police and
fire protection. Many will choose not to pay for the
Bowlen Bowl.
Suppose you want to live in a community where everyone
is required to pay for police and fire protection. Is
there a way to do this without initiating force? Yes!
One way to do it is for a developer to put into the
contract when he sells lots that the buyer agrees to
purchase police and fire protection from any private
company approved by the abc police league and the xyz fire
foundation. Or it could be set up so that you can
only choose from three or four specific companies or
from only one company.
You can get everything you want in a free society.
> I suspect, instead, that Libertarianville would attract a
> lot of people who derive geographic benefits from the
> community and don't provide for them adequately.
Please be specific.
> Ok, so I know you'll let the slackers' houses burn to
> the ground ...
I'll have no involvement what-so-ever.
> and you will keep them from using your roads or
> schools, but how will you prevent them from breathing
> your clean air that you've worked har through voluntary
> agreements to acheive even as he burns sulfur-laden coal
> in his foundry?
Air polution is a form of initiating force.
> Or from drinking the clean water out of
> the creek that runs through his property that the rest of
> you have agreed, voluntarily, to divvy up amongst you all
> equitable?
I don't understand what you were trying to say.
> Or from housing 1000 people on one acre right
> next to your house without regard for noise or trash or
> smell?
1,000 people living next door on an acre lot is OK,
but noise and smells that come onto my property is
an initiation of force. Maybe I can work out a deal
with my neighbor. If he'll pay me 200/day for harming
my property, I'll put up with the noise and the smell,
but otherwise I'll take him to civil court.
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
http://www.reason.org/
Ed Smith
Chuck,
Why is it that when you argue for your views, you are using peaceful means to persuade,
but when I argue for my views I'm using force against honest peaceful people? Why is that
when you argue your preferences for a community with little or no local taxes and
regulation you are trying to be free, but when I argue my preferences to live in a
community that is activist and constructive I am trying to take away your freedom?
I have no problem with your personal choices. You say you respect my personal choices but
you don't. What you call freedom is in fact an imposition of your absolutist ethics on me,
and that is why you will not succeed in getting what you want.
I will support doing the things necessary to allow you to live in a community that
respects your values, but I will not support taking away the rights of other groups of
citizens of like mind to organize geograhpically and protect their collective interests.
You argue that you should have a right to move anywhere you want and be free from
compulsion to pay taxes. Yet you cited your own counterexample. You said that a builder
could require you, as a condition for buying a house, to buy fire or police protection.
Suppose he required you to buy that service from him? Would you prevent him (through the
force of law) from making such a requirement? If not, then, what is the difference between
that and a tax? You are faced with the same choice. You can choose to live there, and
accept the rules, or not. You can, for example, choose to live in Irvine, CA, and, in so
doing, agree not to leave your trash cans out for more than four hours, or you can choose
not to. (That, by the way, is not by city ordinance, but by covenant, i.e., voluntary
agreement between the buyer and seller. I find it repugnant, and so choose not to live
there, but I don't begrudge the rights of those who choose to live there to impose those
rules on themselves.)
You argue that regulation is an imposition on your freedom. You want the "freedom" to
choose an unlicensed airline pilot. Does the owner of the house into which that unlicensed
pilot plunges also have a choice in this agreement? I know your counter argument ("there
are already laws against plunging airliners into people's houses") but does that reply
really represent an adequate protection for the public safety? The same question applies
to building construction and medical doctors. No freedoms in life are absolute. There are
tradeoffs in life. Your freedoms are limited so as not to impinge upon my freedoms. My
freedom requires a certainty that the buildings I enter, in the normal course of my life,
be safe without needing to first inspect the credentials of the builder. It also requires
that a certainty that, even if I myself know nothing about what constitutes adequate
medical training, that the doctor I visit have a minimum level of skill.
The Libertarian Party may be growing (even soaring) as you put it, but I'm afraid I don't
see them making any significant inroads into the political process anytime soon. There are
too many REAL fights to battle to worry about idealogical skirmishes, especially when your
ideology is so extreme. I must submit that it does not represent anything like a
consensus.
So, I apologize for not replying to your response directly. First, I don't have time, and
second, it has started to degrade into the same sort of name-calling that our last
exchange did...I suppose an expected consequence of two people with such diametrically
opposed ideologies.
Perhaps we'll take it up again in another month or two. :^)
So get in your parting shots, I'm probably done.
Ed Smith
Chuck Wright
Ed Smith wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> Why is it that when you argue for your views, you are using
> peaceful means to persuade, but when I argue for my views
> I'm using force against honest peaceful people?
Not to worry Ed. Your arguemnets by themselves are
peaceful. To implement your views however requires
initiating violence. That's the reason you must turn
to government to implement your views. And it's the
only reason.
To implement my views does not involve initiating
violence at all.
Please pay particular attention to my use of the word
initiate. It's key.
> Why is that when you argue your preferences for a community
> with little or no local taxes and regulation you are trying
> to be free, but when I argue my preferences to live in a
> community that is activist and constructive I am trying to
> take away your freedom?
Because your community prefrence requires initiating
violence against peaceful people while my prefrence
has no such requirement.
> I have no problem with your personal choices.
Not ture. Further down in your post you tell me
you will not respect my personal choice of a
doctor, and an airplane pilot.
> You say you respect my personal choices but
> you don't.
I will as long as you stay peaceful.
> What you call freedom is in fact an imposition of your
> absolutist ethics on me, and that is why you will not
> succeed in getting what you want.
Don't you get it Ed? I can't get what I want
by forcing anything on you. I can't be free
unless I alow you to be free too.
> I will support doing the things necessary to allow you
> to live in a community that respects your values, but
> I will not support taking away the rights of other
> groups of citizens of like mind to organize geograhpically
> and protect their collective interests.
I agree with you as long as the group of citizens
remains peaceful.
> You argue that you should have a right to move anywhere you
> want and be free from compulsion to pay taxes. Yet you cited
> your own counter example. You said that a builder could
> require you, as a condition for buying a house, to buy
> fire or police protection. Suppose he required you to buy
> that service from him? Would you prevent him (through the
> force of law) from making such a requirement?
No, becasue the relationship between me and the
developer is totaly voluntary. If I don't like
this developers Terms and Conditions, I'll go
elswhere.
> If not, then, what is the difference between that and a tax?
The former is voluntary and the latter is not.
> You are faced with the same choice.
It's similar, but not quite the same. If you
realy thought they were the same, you'd be willing
to exchange the government coercive system for a
peaceful voluntary system. But you're not willing
to do that because there is a difference. A fundamental
differnce. The government system allows you to
initiate force against peaceful individuals while
the voluntary system does not.
> You can choose to live there, and accept the rules, or not.
> You can, for example, choose to live in Irvine, CA, and, in
> so doing, agree not to leave your trash cans out for more
> than four hours, or you can choose not to. (That, by the
> way, is not by city ordinance, but by covenant, i.e.,
> voluntary agreement between the buyer and seller. I find
> it repugnant, and so choose not to live there, but I don't
> begrudge the rights of those who choose to live there to
> impose those rules on themselves.)
>
> You argue that regulation is an imposition on your freedom.
> You want the "freedom" to choose an unlicensed airline pilot.
> Does the owner of the house into which that unlicensed
> pilot plunges also have a choice in this agreement? I know
> your counter argument ("there are already laws against
> plunging airliners into people's houses") but does that
> reply really represent an adequate protection for the
> public safety?
Why would people fly on airplanes that crashed all the
time?
> The same question applies to building construction and
> medical doctors. No freedoms in life are absolute. There
> are tradeoffs in life. Your freedoms are limited so as
> not to impinge upon my freedoms. My freedom requires a
> certainty that the buildings I enter, in the normal
> course of my life, be safe without needing to first
> inspect the credentials of the builder. It also requires
> that a certainty that, even if I myself know nothing
> about what constitutes adequate medical training, that
> the doctor I visit have a minimum level of skill.
If your worried about these things, then all you would
have to do is look for the sign in the window or the
yellow pages that says "Government Regulated" or
"Approved by the American Board of Sergons", or
"Certified by the Americn Builders Association."
Chuck Wright
Membership Director
Libertarian Party of Boulder County
Ed Smith
Okay, one more round.
Chuck, you are adept at verbal gymnastics. But that your words actually
meant anything....
Chuck Wright wrote:
> Ed Smith wrote:
> Please pay particular attention to my use of the word
> initiate. It's key.
Is it? Well, let's take a closer look at my covenant analogy, when we
get there, and see how your use of the word initiate supposedly proves
your point.
> > Why is that when you argue your preferences for a community
> > with little or no local taxes and regulation you are trying
> > to be free, but when I argue my preferences to live in a
> > community that is activist and constructive I am trying to
> > take away your freedom?
>
> Because your community prefrence requires initiating
> violence against peaceful people while my prefrence
> has no such requirement.
Saying it doesn't make it so. I might as well say "because Jesus loves
you." Your reply is rote and meaningless and completely irrelevant to
what I wrote.
> > I have no problem with your personal choices.
>
> Not ture. Further down in your post you tell me
> you will not respect my personal choice of a
> doctor, and an airplane pilot.
Then, let me rephrase. I have no problem with those personal choices you
might make that do not impose upon mine.
> > You say you respect my personal choices but
> > you don't.
>
> I will as long as you stay peaceful.
There you go quoting scripture again. Your words are meaningless when
you actually apply them.
> > What you call freedom is in fact an imposition of your
> > absolutist ethics on me, and that is why you will not
> > succeed in getting what you want.
>
> Don't you get it Ed? I can't get what I want
> by forcing anything on you. I can't be free
> unless I alow you to be free too.
Very cute. And, again, meaningless.
> > I will support doing the things necessary to allow you
> > to live in a community that respects your values, but
> > I will not support taking away the rights of other
> > groups of citizens of like mind to organize geograhpically
> > and protect their collective interests.
>
> I agree with you as long as the group of citizens
> remains peaceful.
<yawn>
> > You argue that you should have a right to move anywhere you
> > want and be free from compulsion to pay taxes. Yet you cited
> > your own counter example. You said that a builder could
> > require you, as a condition for buying a house, to buy
> > fire or police protection. Suppose he required you to buy
> > that service from him? Would you prevent him (through the
> > force of law) from making such a requirement?
>
> No, becasue the relationship between me and the
> developer is totaly voluntary. If I don't like
> this developers Terms and Conditions, I'll go
> elswhere.
Okay. Now, we can get down to it.
I want to know, exactly how this is more voluntary than your choice to
live in Louisville. In both cases you have the choice to buy a certain
house or not. In both cases, the tradeoffs you face are because the
house is located in a geographic region (in what case, within a city
boundary, in the other, in a specific development plat). In both cases,
if you fail to comply, the force of government can by invoked to force
compliance. How is one example more voluntary than the other?
> > If not, then, what is the difference between that and a tax?
>
> The former is voluntary and the latter is not.
You see? You're the one that doesn't get it. You sit there and bash
government as a use of force, but only when it does something you don't
like. You have said yourself that laws can be used to "protect others
from force" which, I presume includes enforcement of voluntarily entered
contracts.
Why is living in a city's jurisdiction less voluntary than living in a
covenant controlled development Chuck? Why?
> > You are faced with the same choice.
>
> It's similar, but not quite the same. If you
> realy thought they were the same, you'd be willing
> to exchange the government coercive system for a
> peaceful voluntary system.
Why would I be willing to make that change? To be interested in making a
change, I have to believe there is something wrong with the system the
way it is. At the local level, I do not. I believe in an activist local
government, the way the developers of Irvine Ranch believe in earth tone
exterior house paint. I like more flexibility in choices of house paint,
so I don't live in Irvine. I do like clean air, so I live in Boulder.
I'm exercising my free rights to live in the type of community that I
want to live with, as are all of the others here. If, for any one of us,
the nature of the community changes in such a way that I no longer find
it to my liking, I am free to move.
> But you're not willing
> to do that because there is a difference. A fundamental
> differnce. The government system allows you to
> initiate force against peaceful individuals while
> the voluntary system does not.
I am not initiating force against anybody. Everybody, when they come
here, understands the rules to which they are agreeing to abide. They
settle here voluntarily.
You're "government = force / Libertarian = free and peaceful" garbage is
just rote rhetoric with no basis in meaning.
Ed Smith
Chuck Wright
Ed Smith wrote:
> Chuck Wright wrote:
>
> > Ed Smith wrote:
>
> > Please pay particular attention to my use of the word
> > initiate. It's key.
>
> Is it? Well, let's take a closer look at my covenant analogy, when we
> get there, and see how your use of the word initiate supposedly proves
> your point.
The reason I'm using the phrase "initiate violence" is to distinguish it
from "retaliatory violence." The former is the first use of violence,
and the latter is a response to initial violence.
Libertarians are opposed to the first use of violence, but we are not
opposed to retaliatory violence (self defense). This is the point I was
trying to make when I wrote that the word initiate was key.
> > > Why is that when you argue your preferences for a community
> > > with little or no local taxes and regulation you are trying
> > > to be free, but when I argue my preferences to live in a
> > > community that is activist and constructive I am trying to
> > > take away your freedom?
> >
> > Because your community prefrence requires initiating
> > violence against peaceful people while my prefrence
> > has no such requirement.
>
> Saying it doesn't make it so. I might as well say "because Jesus loves
> you." Your reply is rote and meaningless and completely irrelevant to
> what I wrote.
No, I think you've misunderstood me. I'll give you an example. SupposeI'm
living peacefully on my land not bothering anyone. The majority
of voters in your community decide to impose a tax on everyone for the
purpose of buying a recreation center. I decide I do not want to spend
my money on a recreation center, so I peacefully decline to pay. You
eventually send men with guns to my house to force me to pay.
I've remained peaceful throughout. Your community is the aggressor.
Your community initiated violence against me, a peaceful citizen
minding my own business.
> > > I have no problem with your personal choices.
> >
> > Not ture. Further down in your post you tell me
> > you will not respect my personal choice of a
> > doctor, and an airplane pilot.
>
> Then, let me rephrase. I have no problem with those personal choices you
> might make that do not impose upon mine.
How does my personal choice of an unlicensed doctor or an unlicensedairplane
pilot impose upon your choices?
> > > You say you respect my personal choices but
> > > you don't.
> >
> > I will as long as you stay peaceful.
>
> There you go quoting scripture again. Your words are meaningless when
> you actually apply them.
Ed, stop pretending you don't know what peaceful means.
> > > What you call freedom is in fact an imposition of your
> > > absolutist ethics on me, and that is why you will not
> > > succeed in getting what you want.
> >
> > Don't you get it Ed? I can't get what I want
> > by forcing anything on you. I can't be free
> > unless I alow you to be free too.
>
> Very cute. And, again, meaningless.
More pretending. You know very well what I meant, but you haveno defense.
> > > I will support doing the things necessary to allow you
> > > to live in a community that respects your values, but
> > > I will not support taking away the rights of other
> > > groups of citizens of like mind to organize geograhpically
> > > and protect their collective interests.
> >
> > I agree with you as long as the group of citizens
> > remains peaceful.
>
> <yawn>
Out of arguments?
> > > You argue that you should have a right to move anywhere you
> > > want and be free from compulsion to pay taxes. Yet you cited
> > > your own counter example. You said that a builder could
> > > require you, as a condition for buying a house, to buy
> > > fire or police protection. Suppose he required you to buy
> > > that service from him? Would you prevent him (through the
> > > force of law) from making such a requirement?
> >
> > No, becasue the relationship between me and the
> > developer is totaly voluntary. If I don't like
> > this developers Terms and Conditions, I'll go
> > elswhere.
>
> Okay. Now, we can get down to it.
>
> I want to know, exactly how this is more voluntary than your choice to
> live in Louisville. In both cases you have the choice to buy a certain
> house or not. In both cases, the tradeoffs you face are because the
> house is located in a geographic region (in what case, within a city
> boundary, in the other, in a specific development plat). In both cases,
> if you fail to comply, the force of government can by invoked to force
> compliance. How is one example more voluntary than the other?
With the private voluntary development plat, the developer is the ownerof
the land, and therefore the developer can specify the Terms and
Conditions (Ts and Cs) upon which the land is sold. I am free to
voluntarily accept the Ts and Cs by signing the contract, or I am
free to go elsewhere. Once the contact is signed, the Ts and Cs
never change unless all parties to the contract agree to the change.
With the City of Louisville, the City doesn't own the land, there is
no voluntarily agreed to contract, and the Ts and Cs are always
changing without the consent of all the parties to the contract.
Basically, the city is setting the rules as if it were the owner, but
of course it is not.
Doesn't it seam odd to you that if anyone tried to do the things
government does they'd be thrown in jail?
> > > If not, then, what is the difference between that and a tax?
> >
> > The former is voluntary and the latter is not.
>
> You see? You're the one that doesn't get it. You sit there and bash
> government as a use of force, but only when it does something you don't
> like. You have said yourself that laws can be used to "protect others
> from force" which, I presume includes enforcement of voluntarily entered
> contracts.
I'm not opposed to government using force. I am opposed to
government-initiating- force. When government is the aggressor, that's the
only time I
cry foul.
> Why is living in a city's jurisdiction less voluntary than living in a
> covenant controlled development Chuck? Why?
>
> > > You are faced with the same choice.
> >
> > It's similar, but not quite the same. If you
> > realy thought they were the same, you'd be willing
> > to exchange the government coercive system for a
> > peaceful voluntary system.
>
> Why would I be willing to make that change?
Why does any tyrant want change?
> To be interested in making a
> change, I have to believe there is something wrong with the system the
> way it is. At the local level, I do not. I believe in an activist local
> government, the way the developers of Irvine Ranch believe in earth tone
> exterior house paint. I like more flexibility in choices of house paint,
> so I don't live in Irvine. I do like clean air, so I live in Boulder.
> I'm exercising my free rights to live in the type of community that I
> want to live with, as are all of the others here. If, for any one of us,
> the nature of the community changes in such a way that I no longer find
> it to my liking, I am free to move.
>
> > But you're not willing
> > to do that because there is a difference. A fundamental
> > differnce. The government system allows you to
> > initiate force against peaceful individuals while
> > the voluntary system does not.
>
> I am not initiating force against anybody. Everybody, when they come
> here, understands the rules to which they are agreeing to abide. They
> settle here voluntarily.
Yes, they move here voluntarily. I doubt anyone understands all the rulesor
even knows of the existence of all the rules. But because they move
here does not mean they agree to all the rules.
Chuck Wright
http://www.ij.org/
Ed Smith
Chuck Wright wrote:
> The reason I'm using the phrase "initiate violence" is to distinguish it
> from "retaliatory violence." The former is the first use of violence,
> and the latter is a response to initial violence.
I'm quite familiar with this argument. But as most would see by my example,
which I will continue to elaborate on until you see what I see, the argument is
just words. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
> No, I think you've misunderstood me. I'll give you an example. SupposeI'm
> living peacefully on my land not bothering anyone. The majority
> of voters in your community decide to impose a tax on everyone for the
> purpose of buying a recreation center. I decide I do not want to spend
> my money on a recreation center, so I peacefully decline to pay. You
> eventually send men with guns to my house to force me to pay.
Peacefully declining to pay taxes is just like peacefully declining to obey a
contract you entered into.
> I've remained peaceful throughout. Your community is the aggressor.
> Your community initiated violence against me, a peaceful citizen
> minding my own business.
No, you initiated it by failing to live up to the terms of your agreement.
> Ed, stop pretending you don't know what peaceful means.
I know what peaceful means. I think you use it very loosely.
> > > > I will support doing the things necessary to allow you
> > > > to live in a community that respects your values, but
> > > > I will not support taking away the rights of other
> > > > groups of citizens of like mind to organize geograhpically
> > > > and protect their collective interests.
> > >
> > > I agree with you as long as the group of citizens
> > > remains peaceful.
> >
> > <yawn>
>
> Out of arguments?
No, just tired of repeating myself.
> > I want to know, exactly how this is more voluntary than your choice to
> > live in Louisville. In both cases you have the choice to buy a certain
> > house or not. In both cases, the tradeoffs you face are because the
> > house is located in a geographic region (in what case, within a city
> > boundary, in the other, in a specific development plat). In both cases,
> > if you fail to comply, the force of government can by invoked to force
> > compliance. How is one example more voluntary than the other?
>
> With the private voluntary development plat, the developer is the ownerof
> the land, and therefore the developer can specify the Terms and
> Conditions (Ts and Cs) upon which the land is sold.
Only prior to selling it to you. The Ts and Cs are still in effect after you
take posession.
> I am free to
> voluntarily accept the Ts and Cs by signing the contract, or I am
> free to go elsewhere. Once the contact is signed, the Ts and Cs
> never change unless all parties to the contract agree to the change.
Not true. I'll be if you look at the covenants for the house you're in it says
something to the effect that any changes you make to the exterior of your house
must be approved by a homeowners' or design committee. That committee, elected
by the group of property owners on some regular basis, may, in fact, change
those rules. If you are in a more actively covenant controlled development,
there may be a very active homeowners' association that even has the right to
charge dues. They would even have the right to raise those dues.
But, again, you entered into this agreement voluntarily. So, you have a dilemma.
You must either find a way to explain why this situation is as immoral as a city
government, which requires you to initiate force to stop it (to deny people who
want to live in covenant controlled communities the right to do so) or you must
drop your argument that it is more voluntary than a city government, in which
case you have to agree that your neighbors have a right to tax you.
Which is it going to be?
> With the City of Louisville, the City doesn't own the land, there is
> no voluntarily agreed to contract, and the Ts and Cs are always
> changing without the consent of all the parties to the contract.
> Basically, the city is setting the rules as if it were the owner, but
> of course it is not.
No, not the owner. It represents all the property owners who all voluntarily
agreed to live there and set the rules by which everyone agrees to cooperate for
their various community goals.
> Doesn't it seam odd to you that if anyone tried to do the things
> government does they'd be thrown in jail?
I just gave you a counterexample.
> > > > If not, then, what is the difference between that and a tax?
> > >
> > > The former is voluntary and the latter is not.
> >
> > You see? You're the one that doesn't get it. You sit there and bash
> > government as a use of force, but only when it does something you don't
> > like. You have said yourself that laws can be used to "protect others
> > from force" which, I presume includes enforcement of voluntarily entered
> > contracts.
Like I said...
> Yes, they move here voluntarily. I doubt anyone understands all the rulesor
> even knows of the existence of all the rules. But because they move
> here does not mean they agree to all the rules.
Yes, it does. You may not like them, but, yes, if you move here, or visit here,
you agree to the rules.
Ed Smith