For my Libertarian friends

ProgressiveAttic wrote: JJLehto wrote: I've seen the light guys, I've decided that I want to run for office on a true libertarian platform, tell me what y'all think:.I will reduce the size of government by almost 100%, (by dissolving congress, cabinet positions, the supreme court, all agencies, which I suppose will leave just me...).I will completely eliminate welfare and leave it to the hands of competition and self reliance, (by arming the homeless) .I will cut waste in our government, especially in terms of defense spending. I will do this by launching all our nuclear weapons...I mean they're just sitting there.....I will eliminate our deficit totally and permanently (by raising taxes too 110%) .I promise to never, ever abuse my power in officeBy the way, my first matter of business will be an executive order moving the dodgers to Brooklyn,  the Giants get an automatic super bowl birth, and I am immune to all laws.You guys think I'll make a good politician? You are completely missing the point there: 1)Government should be reduced to just tribunals, police and army + congress, supreme court, etc. are necessary to keep balance in the government and its violence monopoly. 2)Arming the homeless? a free market needs the elimination of violence (only roll of the government). 3)The defense, security and tribunals spending are the number one and only priority! 4)Taxes are immoral and as such should be eliminated and substituted by other voluntary forms of financing. I know that a lot of libertarians go for this ideal of a "no-tax society", but it's really nothing more than an ideal. I do agree that the amount of tax money the government gets is way too high, but you can't rely on people to voluntarily give money away to keep the government afloat. I think that the best possible solution is to create a new tax code and in it, outline the bare minimum taxes that are necessary for the government to survive. No more, no less.

manofmystery wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I still like the libertarians for standing up for the legalization of grass and other drugs whenever they have the balls to do so publicly.      Well, if our team keeps working to try and legalize pot while your team keeps working on making cheeseburgers illegal and both team succeed then it's going to be a very confusing day for the stoned.

I'm willing to compromise on pot cheeseburgers.

manofmystery wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I still like the libertarians for standing up for the legalization of grass and other drugs whenever they have the balls to do so publicly.      Well, if our team keeps working to try and legalize pot while your team keeps working on making cheeseburgers illegal and both team succeed then it's going to be a very confusing day for the stoned.

For the record, and yes this is coming from a flaming liberal, I HATE all these food type bans....trans fats, whatever fats, caffine...I do like to think socially I've got a libertarian streak in me.
Also, here in NJ there is a state wide ban on smoking indoors, pretty much everywhere. Even some bars, (thought not required to) have done so.
Not a smoker, and I do see how it could be intrusive....but I think its kind of messed up.
I understand the smoking ban in six flags, there's children around...but a ban on smoking outside?? I dont know

And I do wonder if Rand Paul is gunna win. People are making a big deal about his statements on the Civil Rights Act, (and fair housing act, ADA) but if the Dems ran a simple, non attacking, campaign just talking about his views....the Pauls are pretty f*cking libertarian. I dont know if kentucky is that much so.

I still like the libertarians for standing up for the legalization of grass and other drugs whenever they have the balls to do so publicly. 
Rand Paul = no balls.
We're talking the blue grass state for crying out loud...


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 26 2010 at 23:56

I've been gone for a couple days, what'd I miss?

JJLehto wrote: I've seen the light guys, I've decided that I want to run for office on a true libertarian platform, tell me what y'all think:.I will reduce the size of government by almost 100%, (by dissolving congress, cabinet positions, the supreme court, all agencies, which I suppose will leave just me...).I will completely eliminate welfare and leave it to the hands of competition and self reliance, (by arming the homeless) .I will cut waste in our government, especially in terms of defense spending. I will do this by launching all our nuclear weapons...I mean they're just sitting there.....I will eliminate our deficit totally and permanently (by raising taxes too 110%) .I promise to never, ever abuse my power in officeBy the way, my first matter of business will be an executive order moving the dodgers to Brooklyn,  the Giants get an automatic super bowl birth, and I am immune to all laws.You guys think I'll make a good politician?

You are completely missing the point there:

1)Government should be reduced to just tribunals, police and army + congress, supreme court, etc. are necessary to keep balance in the government and its violence monopoly.

2)Arming the homeless? a free market needs the elimination of violence (only roll of the government).

3)The defense, security and tribunals spending are the number one and only priority!

4)Taxes are immoral and as such should be eliminated and substituted by other voluntary forms of financing.


Edited by ProgressiveAttic - June 26 2010 at 20:11

  Oh god, imagine our fat kids, now getting high and sitting around playing video games and eating more!
And why's that Stoney? Or should I say Stoner! 

Edited by JJLehto - June 25 2010 at 01:14

thellama73 wrote: If we merely shifted existing government programs from federal to state control, you would be right. By limited government, however, most of us mean drastic cuts in government spending, which would require far fewer taxes. And yes, I do support a flat tax, and I wouldn't consider 20% too unreasonable.

I see. So not just a shift from federal to state, but an overall cut in spending, period.
And most of the things cut would be taken care of by the private sector/free market I am guessing?

OK, fair enough. Since we mentioned Friedman...in some quick research I stumbled upon this idea he had of a "negative income tax" that I want to look into.

Also, (this is something I just thought of) anyone know what micro loaning is? I would not be so opposed to reducing welfare to just "the safety net" and having most of replaced with a system like that. I don't know, I need to do some reading...

So like I mentioned earlier...
If we did move to a more limited government system, would this actually alleviate the tax burden?
Maybe I am oversimplifying it, but if most things are shifted from federal to state control, then wouldn't the tax burden do so as well?


Currently, the top income tax bracket in the US is 35%. State income tax varies from 0 - 10.3% (in CA).
Not to mention local income taxes.
So, if I am making $500,000 a year and living in NYC I am facing 35% fed income tax, 6.85% NY income tax, and 3.6% NYC income tax.  That is 45.5% of my income being taxed.
Let's say we move to a less gvmt system and we implement a flat tax of, 15% (cool?) That's a huge reduction in my federal income tax but:
Wouldn't the state/local income taxes simply pick up the slack? How much would the overall tax burden be helped? In Sweden the federal income tax on you may only be 29%, but between state and local tax's you'd pay at least 49%, (and up to 60). Just for an example


Edited by JJLehto - June 24 2010 at 23:43

Don't know about the video but I've read the report, (or something) by Friedman talking about his views on legalizing it.
Well, it's no fun to agree on everything...

Here's why we need a heavily progressive tax system!



Edited by JJLehto - June 24 2010 at 23:20