All taxes are immoral however. And a voluntary donation funded government is a government run over everyone by the people paying for it. Which is basically a tyranny.
The key thing which must be changed, is monopoly government. It cannot exist without being oppressive.
That actually undermines your case, but it is breaking the natural law to not have force initiated against you. You know this.
A government funded by donation serves only the donors, and still doesn’t have the moral authority over the people who have chosen to not donate (not supported the government). The very process of donation is a market funded approach. But it is irrational and immoral for the government to claim an authority over people who clearly did not “vote” for it with a donation.
What do you think the term is when some people pay for a system that everyone is forced to live under? I think slavery would be appropriate.
The problem in all of your posts remains, the minarchist position is rationally incoherent and self-contradictory.
I agree.
Subjectivity is a problem with the Constitution, and both parts are written by people (Hamilton, Madison) who favored big government. Hamilton had every intention of it being a document which could expand government and democratic rule. It basically encouages inflation, because it specifies the state can print and coin money, rather than just coin. It doesn’t specify a standard to disallow inflation either. That’s the biggest problem with the Constitution right there.
Under the Constitution, passing taxes as going along is really the best way (i.e., the way Jefferson did it); however, the way the Constitution is set up, prosperity from that would be dependent upon too much else. Going back to allowing direct election of only House members is one of those many things. That’s 2 Amendments right there that would have to be repealed, and by the name of democracy. And, that’s one thing a democracy would never do.
Well, I’m happy we agree, but that is not what I was talking about.
The Constitution is an implicit contract, with no way out. Thus, it is not a valid contract. Any contract can be executed in bad faith, which is why the contract can be dissolved. When the US government acts in bad faith (forgetting for a moment that it never gained explicit consent from every citizen in the first place) a citizen should be able to dissolve their ties with the US government without having to surrender their property.
You should check out Lysander Spooner, he comes Ron Paul approved.
Well, as I said, law is the product of human action, not human design, not God, not Nature. The whole point of spontaneous order theories is that people, acting in their own self-interest, promote an end that was no part of their intention. That was Menger’s argument in his theory on the origin of money. That’s Hayek’s argument about law.
I recommend you go through those links I posted above. I, too, was once a minarchist. But then I read the anarchist literature and that was the end of that. I imagine the same is true of most anarchists.
So, to paraphrase Roy Childs from his famous “Open Letter to Ann Randers”: Let us walk forward into the sunlight, Stephanie Bond. You belong with us.
I agree, I was focused on the question at hand…
Speaking of other taxes did you see this?
My suggestion was simple, I could expand on it…
Still thinking of a way Competition government might work out…
Sure. That’s what we have in Canada. We call it the GST (Goods and Services Tax). When it came in, it was only supposed to be temporary. It is permanent. We pay it, plus we play PST (provincial sales tax, aka state tax) at the checkout. That is in addition to provincial and federal income tax, employment insurance (another tax) and pension (another tax). Then there are the speciality taxes, but I won’t bore you with those.
The UK has a VAT, and I believe the Eurozone may as well. When they tax production and consumption, you’re screwed.
Whatever the scheme, the problem is the same. However or whoever funds it, doesn’t give it the authority over others. If people want that government, they will fund it. If they want a different government, they will fund that. If they want no government, they will fund nothing. This is moral and this is a market process.
I just illustrated it above. People will pay for the government they want, and not a penny more. That eliminates all of the Randian problems about proper role. The role is whatever people will pay for. No foreign aid, no foreign aid. No welfare, no welfare.
Pretty straightforward in my opinion.
Ms. Bond,
Taxation is an abridgement of rights, I was focused on the question at hand, hence why I specified the income tax…
People already voluntarily contribute much more than the government’s pay out to the people who “need” this money into private charities that are government mandated to provide over a certain % (I think it is over 75%, I remember 85% for some reason), meanwhile the government “loses” 99% of ICT to bureacracy and plain old corruption (or as I say it corruption or plain old corruption). No it is not the government’s role or any individual’s responsibility to pay for other people, and was not waht I was talking about as far as the voluntary donation’s ultimate destination…
The voluntary donation would comprise of, for the most part paying for the government (salary), Post (which is what it is now if you do not use it you do not pay for it), common defense (Navy) and infrastructure (roads), as a government should be…
The voluntary donation tool allows you to make a clear statement to the government, I do not like what you are up to, I am not paying you or the opposite if you agree the government is doing its proper job…
There is an easy way to prevent corruption… (this is my thoughts, feel free to refute them)
Cap household donation
2007 estimate: 111,162,259 Households in the United States
If you cap it at $2000/household/year
$222,324,518,000 Max federal budget...
Now there is the issue of making it impossible for them to print their shortfall, which a commodity based currency (example Gold Standard) deals with
accordingly...
If your rep is not doing what he said, you do not donate and all of government gets the message…
Well this is more or less my “scheme”…
This was where I was at with competition government…