Well, it’s existence is illegitimate, but while they’re at it they could do something 
Yeah, ha, I’ve always thought it better for State criminals to die in defence of the private sector, rather than the private sector itself. (Here in case of invasion, that is).
I really don’t blame soldiers or policemen. It’s part of a tradition of thousands of years and they really do put their lives at risk for the liberty in the US. Sadly politicians who should be smarter than that start wars and pass bad laws.
And no, I don’t say “liberty” sarcastically. If you think the US is bad, try Italy or Bulgaria. The US is amazing in comparison. But it doesn’t mean that it can’t be better.
Very nice post Wheylous. I agree with you on all the issues you presented. CSL is fine, or you can just call me Adam. Even though I know anarcho captialism is the way to the highest prosperity and liberty, I do not think it can be implemented or if it were would it be sustainable. An almost complete 180 is required to do this and while the young may be on board, I do not think you can convince the family man, who looks forward to retirement and finally getting that 69 Camaro SS. Also lets say it was implemented I think we would naturally come back to the same place we are now. As prosperity rises, so does the desire to keep that prosperity. Governmennt officials are already in the market and the people have chosen what they want from the government. Therefore I do not strive for a complete overhaul.
What I do think we can change is consumer preferance. What I want is free trade, replace social programs with a negative income tax, a strict cap on spending of the GDP, a non interventionist foreign policy, zero long term subsidies, reformation of the tax system resulting in a flat tax and a requirement for partial gold reserves to keep interest rates around their natural level and to prevent hyperinflation. If people understand the benefits of these they will act and if the government does not reciprocate they will know. A more informed and aware public is required, so politicians that want to keep their jobs will have to meet what the people’s desires. The key I think is finding a way to consistanly entertain the majority, while delivering the message.
I honestly didn’t think anyone was going to speak positively about Santorum or Romney on this forum, but I thought that it would be a good exercise to name specifics and a chance to share knowledge. Thank you for your post.
What’s so bad about Italy or Bulgaria? Do they also have 70% or less in PPP, irradiating airport scanners and demand their overseas citizenry pay income tax?
Praetyre, to be honest I don’t know what PPP stands for, but our standard of living is in incomparable to the former socialist countries of Europe. I do not now how Bulgaria is doing now, as some former countries of the Soviet Union, like Estonia made a very successful conversion to capitalism, but in Poland the people are quite poor. Skilled workers and college graduates come to America to clean our houses, so they could live a better life. We should be grateful, but if we focus on our own prosperity and implement free trade we will also benefit the poor countries of the world.
So I guess you have time for responses now, Lako? I guess that means I should be expecting a nice writeup addressing all the points I brought up in direct response to your assessments any minute now, eh?
I was thinking more of a social ladder which is missing numerous rungs which can only be provided by the right connections to people in power. Italy’s in debt, Bulgaria is controlled by Commies and the Mafia, and they’re both influenced by the Euro.
Just to outline what we dicussed before Mr. James;
I agrued that Romney’s mandate was a state mandate and you responded that you do not trust that he will not institute it nationally. In response I say because he has made such a big deal about repealing Obamacare, he will have to come through because the people are aware and they will be watching.
You agrued that we should never intervene and gave me a few links to read about the consequences of interventionism. I agree with you, but I wanted to ask what do you think we should do in a case of genocide and is their such thing as preventive action? To be specifc, if we remove our bases in the middle east and Israel is on the verge of defeat, do we prevent the genocide of the Israelis?
Lastly I argued the case for a negative income tax. I agree with you that it is wrong to take from one person and give to another, but given our current situation, the people would not agree to the removal of social programs. I do think you can convince them though to gradually let go of social programs if you give them a new safety net. Maybe call it the New New Deal. (It worked before) They proably will want to keep health care for the old and children though, which is understandable because I’ve work with the sickly old and young and it is really quite sad. I cite Friedman because I agree this is flawed, but its the best idea I’ve heard thus far, and I cite Hayek because I agree given the prosperity of the nation that this is feasible. Wrong yes, but it is what the people want.
Right, because Presidents are so afraid of not sticking to their word. That’s why “the peace candidate”, the guy who was “opposed from the start” and was all about “the transparent government” and would “eliminate wasteful programs” and “cut deficit”…that’s why he was so adamant about ending the wars and bringing the troops home right away. That’s why he closed Gitmo and allowed CSPAN cameras to broadcast the healthcare negotiations.
Yeah that’s certainly how it works historically. Presidents do exactly what they say they’re going to do becaue they know “people are aware and will be watching.”
Define “we”.
I don’t understand what this means. Yes there is such a thing. “Preventive action” takes place all the time. People wear seatbelts to prevent their bodies from flying about an automobile during a collision. People use mouthwash to prevent gingivitis. I don’t understand what would lead one to such a thing didn’t exist.
Again, you’ll need to define “we”, but more than that, I’m wondering how you got from a removal of bases in the Middle East to “Israel is on the verge of defeat”.
I must have missed that part. All I recall is you mentioning the fact that Friedman argued for it. If that counts as you arguing the case, then you and I have different definitions of that phrase.
What does this have to do with anything we were discussing? And what is the difference between taking from one person and giving to another and calling it “social programs” versus taking from one person and giving to another and calling it “new”?
Fat middle aged people who can’t walk are sad too. Is it not understandable that they should be provided a rotorscooter at your expense?
Wow. You actually kind of scare me.
I thought you would argue that Romney would not keep his word, but I feel that leaves us at a stalemate. He says he won’t and you say he will. I don’t think this is enough to be irrefutable.
By we I mean the government as it stands. I know its wrong to use we, Mises made a great arguement against it in Human Action. Its a habit, I should a have clarified.
Preventive action I mean in the case of preventing war, or murder on a large scale. Specifically I’m referring to in a foreign country.
By removing bases causing Israel to be attacked, I’m giving a hypothetical situation, were say Syria, Iran and Hezbollah attack Israel at once. I’m not arguing if it will happen, or if they will be successful, but given the hypothetical situation what should we do.
Your right, I should have said why I agree with Friedman, rather then saying I agree with Friedman, thinking that you would conclude because I agree with his reasoning.
Well there is no difference between a social program and calling something new, its just a different social program that consolidates many together, while still giving people the initiative to contribute to society. It has to do with what we were talking about because we were talking about a negative income tax and government provided health care. I’m arguing for the negative income tax and that people will want health care for the young and the old. I’m not saying I agree with them, but Im looking pragmatically at what can be implemented.
I think there’s enough evidence to suggest you can’t exactly put much stock in what this man says.
(Not to mention, your entire defense was “he will have to come through because the people are aware and they will be watching.” I think I provided plenty of evidence in the last post unequivocally proving that is completely false.)
So you’re asking what “should” “government” do in a case of genocide. As in, how much money should be stolen and what exactly should the theives do with it if there is conflict somewhere else in the world. Is this accurate?
Yes, I suppose that kind of “preventive action” exists too. I’m still not quite sure what you’re getting at.
So you’re suggesting that having US military bases littered throughout the region is the only thing stopping a country with 300 nuclear missiles from being brought to its knees by a country that can’t even afford to make its own gasoline.
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. You said you “argued the case for a negative income tax.” All I did was point out that I had to have missed the part where you argued this case because all I recall is you simply stating that someone else argued for it. Again, if you’re under the impression those are the same thing, then we just have a difference of interpretation of the phrase “I argued the case”.
So you’re saying if we just had more central planning in the welfare state, the beneficiaries of such a scheme would all of a sudden have initiative to “contribute to society”? How exactly do you see this working?
So again, it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, if “it’s what people want”, then that’s what should be done, huh?
“I think there’s enough evidence to suggest you can’t exactly put much stock in what this man says”
You may right, but it is not irrefutable. I’m sure there are many irrefutable things we can find.
“So you’re asking what “should” “government” do in a case of genocide. As in, how much money should be stolen and what exactly should the theives do with it if there is conflict somewhere else in the world. Is this accurate?”
If that is the way you want to put it. I’m not saying the government has to, but I’m just asking what do you think. If you are completely for non interventionism, Im right there with you, but it brings a new question. Will the majority in America demand for interventionism in a case of genocide?
“Yes, I suppose that kind of “preventive action” exists too. I’m still not quite sure what you’re getting at.”
Okay, would preventive action be an exception to non interventionism? Lets say we have knowledge that Iran has a nuclear weapon and will use it on Israel, (Lets say Israel can not defend itself) should we prevent this?
“So you’re suggesting that having US military bases littered throughout the region is the only thing stopping a country with 300 nuclear missiles from being brought to its knees by a country that can’t even afford to make its own gasoline.”
I’m not. I’m giving a hypothetical situation. We could really just lump this situation with the genocide situation.
“I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. You said you “argued the case for a negative income tax.” All I did was point out that I had to have missed the part where you argued this case because all I recall is you simply stating that someone else argued for it. Again, if you’re under the impression those are the same thing, then we just have a difference of interpretation of the phrase “I argued the case”.”
I was just saying you were right and I was wrong. I don’t know what else you to say.
“So you’re saying if we just had more central planning in the welfare state, the beneficiaries of such a scheme would all of a sudden have initiative to “contribute to society”? How exactly do you see this working?”
We would have one much smaller social program, that provides people the minimum sustenance and still give them the initiative to work because it would only we be enough so they wouldn’t go hungry. They would have no fear of reentering the work force, because if they loose their job they still have the safety net to fall back on. The key is having the safety net be an undesirable place. There would be less waste, it would cost less money and it would drive people to find jobs.
“So again, it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, if “it’s what people want”, then that’s what should be done, huh?”
I agree with your ideals, but if the people do not want it then it won’t be implemented and if it were we would eventually revert back. I think we need to be flexible, but ideals are important as it gives us a place to strive for. I believe your ideals are correct, but I’m looking at what compromise can we make.
First off, again, New member? READ THIS!
such as…
You’re right. That is a completely different question. But I guess we know where you stand on that…whatever the majority wants, goes. Right?
Have you ever heard interventionism called anything other than “preventive action” or some other euphemism?
Again there you go with this “we” stuff. First of all, the situation would depend on what you mean by “knowledge”. If you mean “knowledge” like “we” had “knowledge” of WMDs in Iraq, then, no that is not sufficient to prove an attack is eminent. Second it depends on what you mean by “prevent”. If you go by what warmongers/brown-people-haters like Romney and Santorum believe, it would mean anything including nuking the entire region.
Third, I would argue that Israel has a say in how and who gets involved in their affairs. As it stands now, it is not exactly a sovereign nation and would have to get permission from the U.S. government to defend itself. Unlike many others I do not consider Isreal to be a nation of helpless children who don’t know what’s good for themselves.
Right, but your hypothetical was “what if the US removed its bases and Israel was on the verge of defeat”…as in, your hypothetical assumes that not only could a country with basically no military by today’s developed standards make a country with an entire nuclear arsenal its slaves, but you’re saying this would be the inevitiable consequence of a US base removal. Again, you even said it “removing bases causing Israel to be attacked.”
Yes I understand this is a “hypothetical situation”. But it’s a “hypothetical situation” that’s so ridiculous it’s asinine to propose it. It’s just like this guy asking “but what if the economy does grow”…have a listen to the answer. It’s about on par with your hypothetical.
So let me get this straight. Someone could not work, and still have their basic needs met for them, guaranteed, by the sweat of someone else, and you’re telling me the only reason they don’t get a job is because they’re afraid of losing the job they get?
Are you seriously that naive? People who don’t have to work don’t work simply because they’re “afraid” of losing any job they might get?
That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard. The only way that makes sense is if you made up some rule that said “if you’re on the public dole now and for some reason you stop taking the stolen money at some point, you can’t ever take it again.” Obviously there wouldn’t be much interest in getting off welfare then. But simply saying “you’ll always have your basic needs met, no matter what the hell you do” I don’t see how that incentivizes anyone to do anything either.
Can you please explain how literally telling someone “you don’t have to do a damn thing, ever in your entire life, and you will still be guaranteed your basic necessities” incentivizes them to do anything. See cuz in my mind, that kind of does the exact opposite.
There are people committing crimes just to get into jail, for the living quality. Good luck with that.
Again, “guaranteeing people that they never have to work a day in their life drives them to find jobs.” You really need to explain that. And if you could, explain why it’s a better motivator than “not guaranteeing anyone anything”.
Oh I see. “Wrong yes, but it is what the people want.” = “compromise”
So I guess if the people want to enslave blacks, jews and gays, it would be wrong, yes, but we need to “compromise” because right or wrong, “it’s what the people want.” Right? Maybe we could make a compromise with “the people” and only enslave the gays. That way we’re bound to catch someof those blacks and Jews too. Make more people satisfied. Hey, it’s what the people want, right? After all, we need to flexible.
A++++++++++++++++++++++
“such as…”
Putting tariffs on China and his stance on Iran. He promises to name China a currency manipulator thus giving him the power to impose tariffs. You could agrue his stance on Iran does not guarentee war, but it is definetly not the path to peace.
“You’re right. That is a completely different question. But I guess we know where you stand on that…whatever the majority wants, goes. Right?”
I’m not looking at past majorities, I’m looking at the present majority. I’m not debating ideals, I’m looking at what change the people will accept as of now. I’m not saying that what the current majority thinks should be written in stone and all ideals from now until the end of time should be compared to this, but I do think that looking at the current majority is necessary before attempting change. Just like driving on the highway and anticipating the turns and twists. Looking at the road doesn’t change your desired destination. Making comprimises doesn’t change your goal, but it does change the future majority.
"Right, but your hypothetical was “what if the US removed its bases and Israel was on the verge of defeat”…as in, your hypothetical assumes that not only could a country with basically no military by today’s developed standards make a country with an entire nuclear arsenal its slaves, but you’re saying this would be the inevitiable consequence of a US base removal. Again, you even said it “removing bases causing Israel to be attacked.”
Alright we won’t use specifics in this situation, as it is understandable that you will use specifics to defend you point. I will use an example from a prior post. If there was a village of talking puppies in central Africa, who like to wear funny hats and a rival funny hat manufacturer is about to cross a bridge to exterminate the talking puppies, should our government blow up that bridge or not? Also if we were the talking puppies and the bridge was on foriegn soil should the talking puppy government destroy the bridge, even if the talking cat government where the bridge is located does not allow it, because they would like to see our monopoly on the funny hats disappear also? That is what I mean by preventive action and I’m asking if that is the exception and the “should” situation. If there is a different way that you call it, I’m willing to use that. What I’m getting at, given our current situation should the government prevent genocide and/or take preventive action, or should the government as it stands only use military when attacked?
“Are you seriously that naive? People who don’t have to work don’t work simply because they’re “afraid” of losing any job they might get?”
People stay on welfare because if they get a job they will lose their welfare, so they have no urgency to find a job. We already have a safety net called unemployment, where people get a percentage on what they made before, so why not stay on unemployment as long as possible if that percentage is substantial? I’m proposing everyone gets much less, but at the same time they still have the safety net even if they get a job. They will have urgency and they won’t be afraid to lose their benefits. As I said the key is to make the point where they recieve benefits and undesirable place.
“And if you could, explain why it’s a better motivator than “not guaranteeing anyone anything”.”
Its not, but looking at the present environment I do not think we could remove all social programs. The recievers wouldn’t allow it for obvious reasons and the non recievers may fear crime and/or may deem it wrong morally, so this is my comprimise given the present environment.
“So I guess if the people want to enslave blacks, jews and gays, it would be wrong, yes, but we need to “compromise” because right or wrong, “it’s what the people want.” Right? Maybe we could make a compromise with “the people” and only enslave the gays. That way we’re bound to catch someof those blacks and Jews too. Make more people satisfied. Hey, it’s what the people want, right? After all, we need to flexible.”
Domestic violence against one another should always be condemed. That is an exception to freedom. If somehow the majority elected politicans that were for enslaving blacks, jews and gays and the majority of politicians were for it, then in the comprimise atleast we saved the blacks and jews that otherwise would have been enslaved. The comprise doesn’t change our goal, put it does change the future majority. The future majority will see that it is wrong to enslave blacks and jews and then over time the people will ask why not the gays? This won’t happen though as we already went over this hurdle and we put a wall so we can’t go backwards, so even if the people wanted it they couldn’t have it.
P.S Thank you for sharing the video. Have you seen the one Wheylous embedded, it was something like Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time? Great video.
Oh sorry, I should have read the how to quote before my last post. I changed my settings though.
Okay so lemme get this straight. You argue that you like Mitt Romney because of what he claims he would do. I argue that not only is the crap he claims he’ll do immoral, economically bad, and downright dangerous, but more than that, I argue that he’s a liar and the fact that you simply like what he claims he’ll do is no reason to like him (the least of which being you cannot trust what he says).
I provided links to literally dozens of examples of him saying one thing, and then doing or saying the exact opposite, from his own mouth. Your response is “oh, well, uh, of course he will have to come through because the people are aware and they will be watching.” So I also provided plenty of irrefutable evidence proving that not only making, but running on big promises and having the people be “aware” and “watching” offers exactly zero reassurance that it will actually get done. Absolutely none, whatseoever. In fact, it would seem the exact opposite…that whatever is promised you can do well betting it won’t happen.
So your response to this is, “well, it’s your word against his. (And please don’t mind the fact that he’s been proven untrustworthy countless times). It’s still just your word against his. This hardly makes it irrefutable. I’m sure there are many irrefutable things we can find.”
So I ask for examples of these “irrefutable things” you speak of that will prove he can be trusted. And what do you give me? “His stance” on Iran, and “his promises” on China. In other words, more of his talking.
So again, just so we’re clear. I say (1) the guy’s just talking, but more importantly, (2) we have virtually no evidence that he will actually follow through on what he says and mountains of it that suggest he wouldn’t. You tell me this isn’t good enough, that we need “irrefutable”. So I ask for some examples, and you give me more of his “promises”.
Have you ever heard of begging the quesion?
So like I said. Majority rules. Great recipe. So convenient of you to ignore how horrifically it’s worked in the past so that you can try to claim how well it will work in the present/future.
Not what you said. You said “Wrong yes, but it is what the people want.”
Uh. No. It changes the process, as well as the outcome. Allow me to use alternate words: “Sacrificing your principles doesn’t change your vision, but it does change the actual outcome.”
Again, “government” (i.e. the State) is illegitimate, so it shouldn’t be “doing” anything. If you’re simply asking a moral question about whether an individual should blow up the bridge if he had the ability, then again it would depend on the specifics of the circumstances, but I would say if the attack was completely known and utterly imminent, and the owner of the bridge welcomed your destroying it, then yes, you personally could by all means destroy the bridge.
Obviously if the bridge was owned by the aggressor, it would be within your defensive rights to destroy it as a prevention of imminent threat.
That would be up to the individual and whether or not he wished to risk the consequences of violating the sovereignty of the cat nation that owned the bridge. It could probably be assumed that if the cats wished to see our destruction so much that they would be willing to aid our murderers, they would be enemies too. So if one were to destroy the bridge on the cat property as a defensive measure, assumedly the hateful cats would then move to attack us themselves, in which case we would need to defend against them.
But one would need to wonder how these parties came to such animosity (despite the fact of being cats and dogs). You don’t usually find communities of people who trade freely with each other (and are therefore more prosperous because of it) getting into wars. Even people who really don’t like each other tend to find ways to get along, at the very least to a point of tolerance…if for nothing else than the symbiotic relationship that makes them both better off…(and the mutually assured nature of war that makes both worse off).
This is part of the point. If it wasn’t for all the xenophobia and nationalism and isolationism, there wouldn’t be as much tension. (Not to say it would completely disappear, but there would be less actual violence).
Great.
https://wiki.freecapitalists.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
And what I’m getting at is that there’s not an easy answer along these lines. For one, again, the state is illegitimate, and therefore shouldn’t be doing anything. For another, it could easily be argued that “the government as it stands now” should not be getting involved in anything that doesn’t threaten the security of the nation it governs. Of course there are others who would argue “oh yeah well if we hadn’t stopped Hitler he would have taken over the world…you’re just gonna sit back and let him conquer the rest of the world until he attacks you?”
If you’re interested in this, I suggest bumping one of these threads:
Why didn’t the US need to get involved in WWII?
Was invading Nazi Germany to stop genocide justified?
But again, since you want to keep using “the government as it stands now”, of course there would need to be a declaration of war by Congress before committing an act of war. I am of the belief that if just this simple Constitutional mandate were upheld, it would do a lot to make such “humanitarian acts” actually what they are sold to be as opposed to anything but. However, even then, its not an easy answer. Again, see the links here for more detail on libertarian interpretation of war.
Right. Just like I said. So how in the world is guaranteeing them welfare a motivator to get a job? You just said yourself it wasn’t (contradicting yourself from your last post)
Now you’re getting it.
You still haven’t explained why someone who would be given everything they need to sustain themselves even if he didn’t do a damn thing, would have “urgency” to do anything.
And again, I’m still waiting to hear what this place is when you have people purposfully trying to get into jail because of the living situation it provides. So please tell me how you guarantee someone that all their needs will be met, regardless of whether they do anything productive or not, and have them be motivated to do anything.
Then why argue for it?
…so you argue in favor of them? This doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m sorry but there is nothing to call the belief that creating more government programs will be a step in the direction to shrinking government other than “delusional”, or perhaps “naive”.
Oh? Why’s that? Why’s that violation of liberty so special, yet others are to be freely trampled on? And what about non-domestic violence? I suppose that’s okay?
I cannot believe you just actually argued in favor of slavery. And yes, I notice you did it in the name of “compromise”. That’s actually what makes it even more frightening.
"So I ask for examples of these “irrefutable things” you speak of that will prove he can be trusted. And what do you give me? “His stance” on Iran, and “his promises” on China. In other words, more of his talking.
So again, just so we’re clear. I say (1) the guy’s just talking, but more importantly, (2) we have virtually no evidence that he will actually follow through on what he says and mountains of it that suggest he wouldn’t. You tell me this isn’t good enough, that we need “irrefutable”. So I ask for some examples, and you give me more of his “promises”."
Taken to this extreme we have no basis on which to support a candidate. Imagine you are arguing with a Romney supporter, (which I am not one of and I never said I liked him) or Romney himself. You could argue he is a flip flopper and you could argue his stances are not good for the economy, but you could not argue with certainty of success that we will impose national healthcare, or somehow force every state to impose a individual mandate. He will just say no I won’t and so will his supporters. That is why I feel going down that road leads to a stalemate. I shouldn’t have just said irrefutable though, but irrefutable to Romney or his supporters. Romney nor his supporters will argue his stances on China or Iran, but they will argue that they are beneficial. From there I believe you can convince them otherwise.
"Not what you said. You said “Wrong yes, but it is what the people want.”
The was in the context of people not agreeing to the removal of social programs and that I feel that the negative income tax would be the best compromise. I was agreeing that the negative income tax is wrong, but that the people want social programs.
"Uh. No. It changes the process, as well as the outcome. Allow me to use alternate words: “Sacrificing your principles doesn’t change your vision, but it does change the actual outcome.”
If you have a way to remove social programs and prevent them from ever returning, I will gladly listen. I’m not stuck in my ways, but I haven’t heard a better solution.
Again, “government” (i.e. the State) is illegitimate, so it shouldn’t be “doing” anything. If you’re simply asking a moral question about whether an individual should blow up the bridge if he had the ability, then again it would depend on the specifics of the circumstances, but I would say if the attack was completely known and utterly imminent, and the owner of the bridge welcomed your destroying it, then yes, you personally could by all means destroy the bridge.
Obviously if the bridge was owned by the aggressor, it would be within your defensive rights to destroy it as a prevention of imminent threat.
I’m not asking a moral question. We can say the State is illegitimate, but lets say it is not going anywhere for a while. So therefore can the State attack a foriegn country to prevent them from attacking us, if there is no other way of prevention. Is this only if they are going to attack us, or lets say there is the human equivalent to the talking puppies, as far as helplessnes, what then? Is this only if the threat is imminent, or whenever a treat arises? and how far can we take bridge destruction equivalents in real life?
But one would need to wonder how these parties came to such animosity (despite the fact of being cats and dogs). You don’t usually find communities of people who trade freely with each other (and are therefore more prosperous because of it) getting into wars. Even people who really don’t like each other tend to find ways to get along, at the very least to a point of tolerance…if for nothing else than the symbiotic relationship that makes them both better off…(and the mutually assured nature of war that makes both worse off).
Your right, it is a very unlikely situation between trading partners, but thank you entertaining this hypothetical situation.
And what I’m getting at is that there’s not an easy answer along these lines. For one, again, the state is illegitimate, and therefore shouldn’t be doing anything. For another, it could easily be argued that “the government as it stands now” should not be getting involved in anything that doesn’t threaten the security of the nation it governs. Of course there are others who would argue “oh yeah well if we hadn’t stopped Hitler he would have taken over the world…you’re just gonna sit back and let him conquer the rest of the world until he attacks you?”
But again, since you want to keep using “the government as it stands now”, of course there would need to be a declaration of war by Congress before committing an act of war. I am of the belief that if just this simple Constitutional mandate were upheld, it would do a lot to make such “humanitarian acts” actually what they are sold to be as opposed to anything but. However, even then, its not an easy answer. Again, see the links here for more detail on libertarian interpretation of war.
I agree with you, if this constituational mandate was upheld, it would prevent alot of wars.
Right. Just like I said. So how in the world is guaranteeing them welfare a motivator to get a job? You just said yourself it wasn’t (contradicting yourself from your last post)
I’m not because in welfare people lose their benefits when they get a job. In a negative income tax they still have the safety net. Plus the negative income tax that I am proposing would not allow them to live comfortably, but they wouldn’t go hungry either. Just throwing a number out, lets say something like the negative income tax is 70 dollars a week. (This may go up over time with inflation, just like the minimum wage, which I am against but I don’t think it is going anywhere also). This gives them 10 dollars a day and around 3 dollars to spend on each meal. You could in theory live in your car, if your in a warm climate, but just like people willfully going to jail, this would be rare.
“Then why argue for it?”
Because I feel we would have to offer a replacement, or the majority wouldn’t go along with it.
“I’m sorry but there is nothing to call the belief that creating more government programs will be a step in the direction to shrinking government other than “delusional”, or perhaps “naive”.”
Im not saying more, I’m saying less. The negative income tax would be a replacement.
“Oh? Why’s that? Why’s that violation of liberty so special, yet others are to be freely trampled on? And what about non-domestic violence? I suppose that’s okay?”
I didn’t say the others are to be freely trampled on, I said violence can be trampled on. Personally I believe that the government could take people within their borders to trial, so the government has no power in non-domestic violence. In my prior question I am looking for exceptions to the rule.
“I cannot believe you just actually argued in favor of slavery. And yes, I notice you did it in the name of “compromise”. That’s actually what makes it even more frightening.”
If your giving me the alternate that no one becomes a slave, I would take that of course, but if that option is not available I would save as many as I could.