How Would You Describe Your Political Views?

[knapplc]

Your question falsely presupposes that the means employed today protect us from those who break the "law." However, we both know, with countless victims and dead as proof, that this is completely untrue. Besides, there are numerous ways, other than employing a coercive monopoly on violence, to ensure that individuals do not aggress or violate the rights of other individuals. The limits are the extent of the human mind and could include simply ostracizing individuals, arming oneself or voluntarily employing a fully armed and well trained protection business. Not only could an individual find any amount or flavor of protection/defense in a free market, but he could pay for it as he sees fit and not be aggressed against to pay extortion fees for something that he may or may not want.

 

What "countless victims and dead" are you talking about? The Haitian earthquake victims our government sent aid to? The Katrina victims to whom we sent aid? The other countless humanitarian efforts effected by government throughout the last five/ten years alone? Those "victims?"

 

You act as if government ONLY harms people. Brother, I can tell you from personal experience that you're dead wrong in that regard. I strive every day to provide justice as a government employee. You're never, ever going to convince me that I'm part of the problem.

 

This whole notion you're on about where government is some oppressive overlord whose sole intent is harming its citizens is false. Government can and does harm people, but it also helps people in myriad ways. I'm living, breathing proof of that.

[knapplc]

PS - don't think that I'm all "rah-rah pro government," either. As someone inside the beast I know as well as anyone the deep-seated problems facing any government. I'm not trying to tell you that governments are these great, wonderful things. I'm just saying they're necessary for organization, period.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Your question falsely presupposes that the means employed today protect us from those who break the "law." However, we both know, with countless victims and dead as proof, that this is completely untrue. Besides, there are numerous ways, other than employing a coercive monopoly on violence, to ensure that individuals do not aggress or violate the rights of other individuals. The limits are the extent of the human mind and could include simply ostracizing individuals, arming oneself or voluntarily employing a fully armed and well trained protection business. Not only could an individual find any amount or flavor of protection/defense in a free market, but he could pay for it as he sees fit and not be aggressed against to pay extortion fees for something that he may or may not want.

 

What "countless victims and dead" are you talking about? The Haitian earthquake victims our government sent aid to? The Katrina victims to whom we sent aid? The other countless humanitarian efforts effected by government throughout the last five/ten years alone? Those "victims?"

 

You act as if government ONLY harms people. Brother, I can tell you from personal experience that you're dead wrong in that regard. I strive every day to provide justice as a government employee. You're never, ever going to convince me that I'm part of the problem.

 

This whole notion you're on about where government is some oppressive overlord whose sole intent is harming its citizens is false. Government can and does harm people, but it also helps people in myriad ways. I'm living, breathing proof of that.

 

I'd like to know how government helps anybody, yourself included, without first harming and stealing from those who fund its very existence? Are you implying that without government charity wouldn't exist or you couldn't find a business to pay you for your services? If you say no, I'd suggest you check out a few of the many private and voluntarily funded charitable organziations, including those who sent money and aid to both Haiti and Katrina, and as for yourself, maybe look into seeking out a new line of work.

[SOCALHUSKER]

PS - don't think that I'm all "rah-rah pro government," either. As someone inside the beast I know as well as anyone the deep-seated problems facing any government. I'm not trying to tell you that governments are these great, wonderful things. I'm just saying they're necessary for organization, period.

To which I disagree and have been presenting, and will continue to do so, a myriad of evidence to the contrary.

[knapplc]

I'd like to know how government helps anybody, yourself included, without first harming and stealing from those who fund its very existence? Are you implying that without government charity wouldn't exist or you couldn't find a business to pay you for your services? If you say no, I'd suggest you check out a few of the many private and voluntarily funded charitable organziations, including those who sent money and aid to both Haiti and Katrina, and as for yourself, maybe look into seeking out a new line of work.

 

I can't answer your question without an explanation of how I've "harmed" the people I've helped.

[knapplc]

PS - don't think that I'm all "rah-rah pro government," either. As someone inside the beast I know as well as anyone the deep-seated problems facing any government. I'm not trying to tell you that governments are these great, wonderful things. I'm just saying they're necessary for organization, period.

To which I disagree and have been presenting, and will continue to do so, a myriad of evidence to the contrary.

You've presented opinion, which I respect (but respectfully disagree with). If I've missed facts you've presented I offer my apologies, and request humbly that you point those facts out to me once again.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I'd like to know how government helps anybody, yourself included, without first harming and stealing from those who fund its very existence? Are you implying that without government charity wouldn't exist or you couldn't find a business to pay you for your services? If you say no, I'd suggest you check out a few of the many private and voluntarily funded charitable organziations, including those who sent money and aid to both Haiti and Katrina, and as for yourself, maybe look into seeking out a new line of work.

 

I can't answer your question without an explanation of how I've "harmed" the people I've helped.

When did I say that you harmed those you've claimed to help? Rather, I stated that people are harmed so that you, and government, can claim to help people. Are the people not harmed who have been stolen from so that the government can act charitable and you can be paid your salary? Are the people not harmed who then cannot sell goods and services, because their customers were robbed to pay the government and you your salary? Are the people not harmed who can't find work because their former or future employer's were robbed to pay the government and you your salary? Sure, you may have helped somebody but at who's expense? Is it really beneficial to help one person, when to do so comes at the expense and destruction of others?

[EZ-E]

SocialHusker- I agree with a lot of the things you say. You are a great source of information and I value your opinion just like everybody else on this board.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you basically want absolutely no government? I disagree with that. In spite of recent events I do believe in the system that we currently have in place. IMO I dont see how a society with no government would work at all. Who would enforce laws and such? You would have anarchy because it brings up the age old question again of "What would people be like if they could actually do what they wanted to do?" If we cant do anything as one nation then we may as well not even call it that.

 

Like I said I agree with you on a lot of things, I hate so much government involvement in our lives and I dont like taking/giving handouts. But I cant picture a society with no government. Make sense? If I am even correct in my assumptions of your views that is.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I'm almost where Socal is. I can't picture a nation completely without government, at least not right now. My main hangup is where the military is concerned. I don't know that I believe we could farm out something that would be comparable to a military force. I can see privatizing everything else with more success than what the federal government has had. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, but ideally we wouldn't need to fight wars except to defend ourselves. Even still, if we were to be attacked or bombed, and not just simply invaded, I don't see any way we could privatize anything that could stand up to that.

 

The principle ideas, though, that he has are similar to mine, I think. I certainly don't think a governing body comprised of men, no better than myself, has any right to tell me what to do. I do believe the only laws that should govern man are the rights of man.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I'd like to hear how you think that would work Socal, without people giving that privatized body some sort of authority.

[knapplc]

When did I say that you harmed those you've claimed to help? Rather, I stated that people are harmed so that you, and government, can claim to help people. Are the people not harmed who have been stolen from so that the government can act charitable and you can be paid your salary? Are the people not harmed who then cannot sell goods and services, because their customers were robbed to pay the government and you your salary? Are the people not harmed who can't find work because their former or future employer's were robbed to pay the government and you your salary? Sure, you may have helped somebody but at who's expense? Is it really beneficial to help one person, when to do so comes at the expense and destruction of others?

 

Who has been "stolen from?" What is this "robbing" you're talking about? Because if you're talking about taxes, you're first going to have to explain how we can have a government that provides services like the ones I offer without any funding.

 

You act like we're serfs living in some medieval land where the King would send his troops kicking in doors to take the commoners' last farthing.

 

Who has been destroyed so that I can do my job? Outlandish accusations like this require great proofs. I wait with bated breath for your answer.

[jnkyrdoff6]

When did I say that you harmed those you've claimed to help? Rather, I stated that people are harmed so that you, and government, can claim to help people. Are the people not harmed who have been stolen from so that the government can act charitable and you can be paid your salary? Are the people not harmed who then cannot sell goods and services, because their customers were robbed to pay the government and you your salary? Are the people not harmed who can't find work because their former or future employer's were robbed to pay the government and you your salary? Sure, you may have helped somebody but at who's expense? Is it really beneficial to help one person, when to do so comes at the expense and destruction of others?

 

Who has been "stolen from?" What is this "robbing" you're talking about? Because if you're talking about taxes, you're first going to have to explain how we can have a government that provides services like the ones I offer without any funding.

 

You act like we're serfs living in some medieval land where the King would send his troops kicking in doors to take the commoners' last farthing.

 

Who has been destroyed so that I can do my job? Outlandish accusations like this require great proofs. I wait with bated breath for your answer.

Man this new set up is frustrating me. I don't know if it's my browser or what, but I have to insert the html myself to bold, and I can't find emoticons. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure he is talking about taxes. I believe he says stolen because the people have no choice in the matter as to whether or not they pay them. That's why I've proposed the abolishment of the income tax. I think if we want a federal government, we should fund it strictly with sales taxes. That way the people at least have a choice about how much they fund the government. That or, at the very least, a flat tax. I think the progressive tax is the height of ridiculousness.

[knapplc]

I'm all for tax reform, and I'm all for far greater wisdom in the use of our tax dollars. Government corruption and overspending are truisms.

 

But that doesn't mean that taxes are pried out of our hands unwillingly, and if that's what SOCAL is talking about he's wrong. While nobody likes paying taxes, we recognize that we won't have roads or a military or any of the other myriad things government provides. Education, law enforcement, emergency services... the list goes on and on. We could privatize all of this, sure, but then who will be the watchdog over these private corporations? You have to have some governing authority in some form, and that governance needs capital with which to operate.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I'm all for tax reform, and I'm all for far greater wisdom in the use of our tax dollars. Government corruption and overspending are truisms.

 

But that doesn't mean that taxes are pried out of our hands unwillingly, and if that's what SOCAL is talking about he's wrong. While nobody likes paying taxes, we recognize that we won't have roads or a military or any of the other myriad things government provides. Education, law enforcement, emergency services... the list goes on and on. We could privatize all of this, sure, but then who will be the watchdog over these private corporations? You have to have some governing authority in some form, and that governance needs capital with which to operate.

I still believe they are pried out of our hands unwillingly, because I don't really see the alternative. I'm not really sure how this works. I've never tested this because I don't really believe it's true, but I've heard that the income tax doesn't legally have to be paid, and that there's no law that allows the government to enforce it. I don't know if that's true or not. Again I've never tested it. So maybe we're not forced to pay it, but aside from that, I had always been under the impression that we didn't have a choice there.

 

To the watchdog question, I'd say the people would be. It's ideal I know, but the principle is that there is a choice there. If you choose to continue a contract with one of the privatized organizations, you're saying it did a good job because if it didn't you'd pay some other organization to do it, just as a business would. There would, undoubtedly, be a market for all these services in this model. It's the ultimate in efficiency.

 

I honestly don't know that I'm for all of this. I'm more for the republican form with a government funded entirely by sales tax so it can't get too big. What the government can't afford would be footed by the people. I don't think any of the things you listed are absolute necessities, except for a military. Therefore, I believe communities should hire organizations to provide these services themselves. That also allows the maximum amount of freedom. If a community really places a premium on education, for example, it could hire a single Marshall as law enforcement, and further minimally fund the other services to channel as much funding as possible into education. That's extremely hypothetical though.

[knapplc]

If you want a military to protect the borders, how would we pay for it without taxes? That's what I'm saying - whatever government-funded service you're interested in has to have funding from somewhere.