Recently, I was doing some research on thomas.loc.gov the legislative information guide from the Library of Congress (this is a site where you can get the complete texts of all legislation before congress as well as search the Congressional Record). For grins and giggles, I search Ron Paul name to see what type of legislation he put forward and I found this HJ RES. 23 (meaning House Joint Resolution #23) Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
Most of Ron Pauls proposed legislation, is like this, but I thought everyone would like to take a look at the type of laws Mr. Paul proposses.
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 23
Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 7, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. MILLER of Florida) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
`Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.
`Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.
`Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts.'.
Now some of you may wonder what this would mean, it would mean the end of the IRS and a tax code that can turn every single one of us into criminals whether we intended it or not.
In Liberty
Joseph V.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 43
Ron Pauls position on foreign policy is exactly according to the Constitution Mr Smith. The United States has no business meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.
Which Supreme Court cases were those?
The Seventh Circuit Court, in United States v Thomas, concluded that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified.
And the US Supreme Court, in "Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.", said "It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes."
And apart from all that, if the 16th Amendment hadn't been legally ratified, then Dr. Paul wouldn't need another amendment to nullify it, would he?
It's stuff like this that pretty much guarantees that Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States.
Ron Paul is an idiot. He proposes these meaningless resolutions and bills and doesn't have a clue how to pay for it. He is wrong on so many levels. One thing that must be considered is that he brings home the bacon for his district in Texas. He is very good at getting what his district needs. That's why he's been in Congress so long.
This is, of course, a direct assault on our constitution, which very clearly states the nation's committment to "promote the general welfare of society." However, this is truly what hard core libertarians believe is correct. Luckily, there are very, very few in this country that agree with them on this. They are viewed as extremists, with regard to this aspect of their beliefs, and will be viewed as such eternally. The vast majority of Americans recognize what the constitution refers to when it suggests promoting the general welfare.
That said, there is much to be said for eliminating the federal income tax altogether, and returning the nation's revenue reliance on import fees. Not only would it stimulate manufacture in this country again, but it would also necessitate a gutting of military funding, which has gotten completely out of hand. We simply cannot continue spending $1 trillion or more each year on the military.
Dr. Paul is no idiot, but he is very misguided in many ways. I actually agree with him on many issues, but I vehemently oppose his idea to demolish the social fabric of this nation.
Next up, the Preamble of the Constitution does not have the force of Law behind it. The newly minted document began with a grand flourish - the Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done.
All one has to do is look at Ron Pauls congressional record. It tells the story.
Providing for the general welfare of the United States through the collection of taxes is one of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8.
No, it's not a misquote. What do you think the constitution is in place for, if not "society?" Why do you think that phrase was placed at the very beginning of that sacred document? So you could ignore it right away?
I appreciate that you find Dr. Paul appealing, and I share some of your enthusiasm for him. I simply cannot support the whole of libertarian ideals, as the vast majority of America cannot. Your beliefs are radical and extremist, and will always be marginalized in this country.
This country is largely progressive in idealism. We tend to believe that we're obligated to care for the least fortunate amongst us, that we deserve the best (not #37) health care in the world, that we deserve safe bridges, dams, and highways, that we should be the beacon of the world in terms of access to technology, and that we, as a whole, should be able to live in a safe, stable society, regardless of how much wealth we may personally possess.
The libertarian ideal of shoving a fat, spiked pole up the nation's collective ass simply isn't what the majority wants, thankfully. I'm with you 100% on many libertarian ideals, but you people completely fall flat on your faces with regard to promoting the general welfare, and that is why you will remain a marginalized party.
To be totally honest, yes cutting off all of the all of the health and human services, foreign aid, and corporate subsidy programs over night would be the best way to solve a lot of financial problems in the US. And yes, there will be economic upheaval all over the country, but that would be short term compared to what will happen if the government keeps going the way it is going.
The best analogy that I can give you is what the government is doing with the economy is similar to trying to control a machine with positive feedback. Now, those of you with even a smattering of engineering will know that you control any machine or system with positive feedback because positive feedback will cause any system to oscillate out of control. But from everything that I have read in history, there doesn't seem to be anything that government can do to the economy that doesn't act as positive feedback or brake. Or both.
For the last 40 plus (70+ if you want to count Social Security) years government programs have either acted as a brake on the economy, or positive feedback, and we are now at the point where is starting to oscillate out of control, the eventual result of that oscillation is going to be a total break down of the economy in such a way that it is going to make the first great depression look like a Sunday picnic in comparison.
Buy shutting down these programs, yes there will be financial hardship for all Americans, but it is short term compared to the depression that is staring us all in the face.
If you do a little research into what set off the Great Depression, the first domino that fell was the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs which triggered the rest of the nations to do the same and brought international trade to a stand still and brought about the Market Crash of 1929. The truly sad part of the Great Depression was the fact that it was government actions that prolonged it, just about every remedy was tried and none of them worked and the depression continued until the US blundered into war - which didn't cure what was wrong, just masked it with a high fever.
Here is something else to think about Clark. If we (meaning Libertarians) are so marginalized, why are the Democrats and Republicans having issues with recruitment of members (they are both loosing members) and the Libertarian Party is growing?
Sure, Libertarians are not in high offices, but then Libertarians are not backed by the big corporations, unions etc. We are backed by people just like me, we are a true grass roots organization. I once referred to us as crabgrass, because once we take root, nothing short of killing us is going to make us go away.
Excuse me, but not everyone who is unproductive is so of their own desire to be unproductive. Many are drug or alcohol addicted, many are combat veterans suffering from PTSD, many are severely handicapped persons, many were destroyed from childhood by abusive parents/guardians, many are simply the recipients of some very crappy fortune.
So, you and Ron Paul see fit to throw these people away, and let them die and rot in the streets, in order to protect your twisted ideology? Sorry, but the vast majority of America strongly disagrees with you, thankfullly.
"Here is something else to think about Clark. If we (meaning Libertarians) are so marginalized, why are the Democrats and Republicans having issues with recruitment of members (they are both loosing members) and the Libertarian Party is growing? "
You are a marginalized party, and I've just explained why you will always remain so. Your ideology is simply viewed as extremist, and is not at all favored by the masses.
FYI, the republican party is the one losing support. The democrats have picked up double digit percentages of independent voters. In fact, a recent poll in IA found that 40% of all respondants who planned to vote for a dem candidate were independents. That's a stunning number.
Another bit of food for thought for you: If libertarian beliefs are so widely embraced and so glorious, why has the only libertarian presidential candidate chosen to run as a republican, and why have libertarians historically run as republicans? Could it be that when people truly learn the full libertarian agenda, they reject it resoundingly? Yes, of course. They must disguise themselves in order to have a chance at positions of power. That SHOULD be telling you something about their agenda. It's simply not an acceptable agenda for the vast majority of America. That makes those who feel otherwise extremists.
What responsibility does a society have to the percentage of the population that's unable to cope?
We can give them nothing.
We can spend untold amounts of money winnowing out the "deserving" and deny help to the rest.
We can give people no questions asked minimal support.
Naturally people fear option 3. Maybe they fear it because they know they'd sign up for it tomorrow.
A complicated system that may have administrative costs higher than the amounts disbursed. You ought to try to get some form of public assistance. It's more work than you think. Of course the rewards are rich. In no time you'll be riding in chauffeured limos to and from the track and lighting your crack pipe with $20 bills.
You know something that's really sad? You represent the face of today's GOP. The party of division, seething hatred, intolerance, abusive lack of compassion, blinding ignorance, and boundless bigotry.
Gee, I wonder why the masses are abandoning that party?
Because, until you answer that question what you are really advocating is that it is okay for the government initiate force, to take away the fruits of our labor, and wholesale slaughter chasing some imaginary, and at its roots mystical "Greater Good."
It's called "the constitution." Look it up sometime. It's also a civilized society's obligation to care for all, especially those most in need. In fact, has it not been said that the truest measure of any given society is how they treat their most needy?
"Because, until you answer that question what you are really advocating is that it is okay for the government initiate force, to take away the fruits of our labor, and wholesale slaughter chasing some imaginary, and at its roots mystical "Greater Good.""
You're trapped in your own ideology, so much so that you are blinded to the fact that you have no problem whatsoever with fruits of one's labor being taxed and spent by government, as long as that money isn't being funneled to those truly in need. You people have NO problem with showering the oligarchs with massive amounts of public funds. In fact, you can't wait to hand over our entire public infrastructure, so that these people can profit even more.
The "greater good" is not arrived at by handing the entire nation's wealth to the upper 1/10th of 1%, and screwing everybody else, and then watching them die and rot in the streets.
The greater good is arrived at when ALL citizens receive EQUAL opportunity (another constititional phrase that you'll undoubtedly recognize when you finally read the document), not when only those annointed with massive wealth are afforded opportunity.
Were we better off before we collectively pooled our money to build a national highway system, massive irrigation systems and aquaducts, electrification grids, and communications grids, or before? Collectively, as a nation, was society better off before massive public funding was used to build those infrastructures, or before?
Were we better off as a society before our people were educated, or after? And, in general, does society benefit from a more educated populace, or less educated?
Do we benefit, as a society, from having a health care system that costs us nearly 20% of our GDP annually, kills 18,000 each year from lack of coverage and another 100,000 each year from malpractice, results in somewhere around 40% of the nation's personal bankruptcies, and leaves 47 million uninsured? Is it even conceivable to imagine that, by lifting the massive financial burden of this failed private system from the minds and wallets of American citizens and businesses, the economy and society as a whole might actually benefit?
Does society benefit from pouring money into prisons rather than schools?
Does society benefit from a system of privatization that results in economically crippling the largest state in the nation?
Does society benefit when CEO's are allowed to rape and destroy entire corporations with their greed, and often, corruption, and then slither off to become the heads, or sit on the boards of other corporations, at unimaginable salary?
You see, these questions lie at the heart of the differences between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberals view public funding of infrastructure as being critical assets and investments of the whole of society.
Libertarians see no such thing. In their minds, ANY public funding for social benefit is wasteful and unnecessary, and must be eliminated. Education is for those that can afford it. Health care is for those that can afford it. Welfare doesn't need to exist at all, because those who need it, deserve where they're at. All critical infrastructure, including fire and police protection, roadways, etc., should be entirely privatized, and only offered to those who can afford it.
There's nothing wrong with holding these particular beliefs, except that they're viewed as extremely radical by the vast majority of the nation, which, as I said earlier, is why your party will never be a real, viable consideration. These ideals simply would not produce a successful society. We've already gotten glimpses of how disastrous they would be with such notable failures as ENRON (among many other colossal corporate failures), the current banking crisis, stratospheric rises in health care costs, a direct relationship between lack of education and criminality, etc., etc., etc.
The simple, harsh fact is, libertarian economics policies simply do not work, except for the wealthy corporate elitists that they favor.
Which goes a long way to explain why Ron Paul finished 5th and 10% in Iowa. The polls were right. Despite the Ronulan online presence, Dr. Paul and his views just aren't particularly popular with voters out there in the real world.
"It's called "the constitution." Look it up sometime. It's also a civilized society's obligation to care for all, especially those most in need. In fact, has it not been said that the truest measure of any given society is how they treat their most needy? "
Clark, I hate to break it to you, but society has no rights and has no claim on the fruits of my labor. Society is made up of individuals, each with their own wants, needs and desires. Society is a made construct and has no rights no will of its own.
Secondly, there is nothing in the constitution that empowers the federal government, any branch, to provide charity. It isn't listed in the Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress; Article 2, Section 1 - Powers of the Presidency; Article 3, Section 2 - Powers of the Supreme Court. The simple fact of the matter is, the Constitution and the Amendment thereof were created to limit the power of the federal government and to protect individuals from not only Tyranny of the Majority, but from Tyranny of the Minority.
You go on about education, here is something to ponder, why is it that home schooled and privately schooled children outstrip publicly schooled children on standard tests for reading, writing and math, yet more money is spent per child in the public schools than private & home schooled children combined. The last set of national average spent per child per year (please note I am doing this from memory, so I may not be spot on) was $7800 per child in public schools, $3500 per child in private, and $1000 per child home schooled. Worse yet, those parents who take up the burden of teaching their children or putting them in private schools are not given a tax break for not being a strain on the public school system, so they are being force not only to pay for their children's education, but others as well, and that my fine liberal friend is not right. (Ron Paul introduced a bill in congress to give tax breaks to those parents who were not a burden on the public school system).
I didn't sign any contract with any society agreeing to give up the fruits of my labor to help someone else.
And lets be honest here Clark, you didn't answer the question, you tried to dodge, but you are still in my sights, so answer the question. By what right, moral or ethical, does the government have to initiate force to compel me or anyone else to give up the fruits of my labor to help someone else?
That's your opinion, and the opinion of all libertarians, and you're all fully entitled to it. It is not, however, the opinion of the vast majority of Americans, which, again, is why you and your party will never be seen as anything but an extremist fringe political movement.
"Society is made up of individuals, each with their own wants, needs and desires. "
Societies do not exist in a structure without a structure, and structure cannot occur without a social contract. Nothing happens in a society without such social contract, whether your want to accept it or not. Without laws, no commerce happens. Without communication and power, commerce is extremely limited. Without education, commerce is not lasting.
There is no such thing as a "free market." That is a myth. Nothing happens in "the market" without there being a social infrastructure firmly in place. You can talk about rugged individualism all you want, but the fact is, without a collective social contract and infrastructure, nothing happens. That is a simple, undeniable fact.
"Secondly, there is nothing in the constitution that empowers the federal government, any branch, to provide charity."
In your opinion, once again. Obviously, the vast majority of American strongly disagrees with you, and again, this is why your party will never rise above extremist fringe status. Another simple, undeniable fact.
"here is something to ponder, why is it that home schooled and privately schooled children outstrip publicly schooled children on standard tests for reading, writing and math,"
They don't. Studies have been, thus far, not terribly conclusive at all. While privatized schooling produces stronger test results fof specific age groups, public education produces stronger results for other age groups. You have no definitive case for either, frankly. Some public schools are outstanding. Some are not. Some private schools are outstanding. Some are not.
The FACT remains, however, that a society has a collective obligation, if they wish to excel as a society amongs the world's societies, to educate their masses to the highest level that each individual can possibly achieve. That requires public funding. Another simple, undeniable fact.
"I didn't sign any contract with any society agreeing to give up the fruits of my labor to help someone else."
So, move. You live in a society in which the vast majority fully understand their obligation to their fellow citizens. We realize that, in order for America to excel in this competitive world, we are obligated to do everything that we can to work together to make this happen. If you wish to live on an island by yourself, without safe roads, police and fire protection, laws under which business can be conducted, etc., so be it. Nobody is forcing you to live in a country that you obviously cannot stand.
"And lets be honest here Clark, you didn't answer the question, you tried to dodge, but you are still in my sights, so answer the question. By what right, moral or ethical, does the government have to initiate force to compel me or anyone else to give up the fruits of my labor to help someone else? "
I have answered you, but you're apparently too ignorant to realize it. "in your sights." How condescending and patronizing of you. I've already told you that you're entitled to YOUR opinion, and I've actually commended you for it. And, you feel that you have the right to condesend to me, simply because you haven't seen a response from me that you wished to see?
Guess what? I'm entitled to MY opinion as well, as are the rest of the vast majority of America that agrees with ME. The vast majority of America recognizes that, in order for all of us to succeed as a nation, we have to do whatever we can to help every single person achieve as highly as they possibly can.
That means providing safe roadways, safe medicines, efficient energy, effective communications, rational and effective laws and enforcement, decent education, safe drinking water and air, etc. Those things don't happen by accident, nor do they happen when left solely to the "free market."
Why? Because, not everybody has the same means at their disposal to excel on a personal level. Some are born into abject poverty, of no doing of their own whatsoever. Some are denied access to decent education. Some are subjected to horrific tragedies that cause their lives to turn inside out and fall off track. Some are afflicted with chronic, crippling disease.
As a society, we cannot simply throw these people away. You may personally WANT to, and long for the day that you can step over their dead, rotting bodies in the street, but again, this is not what America stands for. America never became great by ignoring the needs of their most needy. We became great because our constitution saw to it that the smallest among us received equal treatment.
But, beyond that constitutional obligation, we have a moral and ethical obligation to our fellow man, to do what we can in a given day to ease human suffering. Whether it be as simple as allowing a car to pass in front of you during rush hour, or as impressive and noteworthy as sacrificing our own personal time to share our talents and abilities with those truly in need. We are all God's children, and that mandates that we act as such.
Your ideology, while certainly within your right to embrace, is in contrast to this very basic, human obligation. And, quite thankfully for all of us, it is also in stark contrast to what the vast majority of America believes.
Only individual can have rights, the claim "it is the will of society" is nothing more than an excuse for the wholesale sublimation of individual rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.
The Declaration of Independence seminal passaope opens wiht perphas the most imporatin line. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" turths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to critizize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of the US political system.
But the reason is the foundation of the Founders vision--the method by which we justify our political order--liberty is its aim. Thus, the cardinal moral truths are these:
"that all men are created eaqual, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers for the Consent of the Governed."
What this means is, we are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights, and this includes society, that are superior to those of anyone else. More importantly, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government--indeed, whatever rights or power government has, comes from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish--to pursue happiness as we think best, by our lights--provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same.
Since Ron Paul isn't being considered for a position of High Priest or Chief Philosopher, what do moral or ethical rights have to do with anything? The right of the government (which of course is really just a bunch of individuals acting on behalf of us) to collect taxes is a matter of law, not morality. So the short answer would be something along the lines of 'by the same right it has to initiate force to make people obey any other law."
But since you've already made it clear that such answers aren't what you want to read, here are some other points you might want to consider. If we're going to make this about ethics and morals, OK, here goes.
First, nobody's forcing you to give up anything. As you've already pointed out, whatever rights the government has come from us. We the people. That whole "consent of the governed" thing. We consent to be among the governed by recognizing the authority of the government, by choosing not to renounce our citizenship and leave the country, and by participating in the very system through which we labor in order to collect some of those fruits.
The flip side of your question is -- by what right, moral or ethical, does an individual insist that they are entitled to keep all the fruits of their labor?
By insisting that those fruits are theirs, and they don't have to share if they don't want to? Who says it's theirs? Oh yeah, the same system that says the government gets a cut.
The thing about libertarians is, they think they should get to keep all the fruits of their labor because they earned it all by themselves. But of course that's not true. They had lots of help. But they want to pretend that they could've earned the same amount of money without receiving any of the benefits provided by government -- public roads, police and fire departments, a legal system to protect against fraud and enforce contracts (OMG, more coercion!) and so on -- and that they shouldn't have to share their fruits with that same government. Then they have the gall to accuse others of trying to get a free ride.
As for the final part of your question, using the money collected by the government to provide various forms of public assistance, we've already covered that. Article 1, Section 8.
"The Congress shall have power [t]o lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
Of course we can all argue until the cows come home about enumerated powers and whether public assistance provides for the general welfare of the United States, but I know you're only interested in morals and ethics, not the law, so I guess there's no point.
I think it's perfectly moral and ethical for a group of individuals to agree to pool a portion of their resources to provide aid to those in need. We could do that by agreeing to pool a portion of our assets in a privately-managed fund which will be used to mitigate risk (private insurance), or we could do it by paying taxes and redistributing a portion of the money collected as a form of public assistance (social insurance).
And not only do I think it's perfectly moral and ethical, I think it is essential for a free society.
I don't need to know about enumerated powers and what the intent of the framers of the constitution had in mind, that information is readily available, little things like the Federalist Papers, the writings of James Madison, James Jay, et al. And I know for a fact that Personal Income was not a thing they wanted Taxed.
But the real question is, by what right, moral or ethical, does the government have to INITIATE FORCE?
It is the Initiation of Force, that I have a problem with.
To be honest with you, I am not out to convince you, Clark or anyone else who feels that the initiation for force is okay. I am writing for those who are like me, to let them know that they are not alone in their thinking, and to give those who are sitting on the fence something to think about.
Because in the end, when the fecal matter hits the rotating blades, it is going to be people like me who are going to be the one who pick up the pieces.
"The flip side of your question is -- by what right, moral or ethical, does an individual insist that they are entitled to keep all the fruits of their labor?"
By the right to be as selfish and/or generous as I want to be. Because I have the right to dispose the fruit of my labor in the manner that I wish. Just because you don't like how I may dispose of it doesn't change the fact that I have the right to dispose of it as I wish.
Come on, give me a harder question, that was two easy.
A common fallacy about Libertarians is that we don't care about the poor, elderly or the sick because we want to end all of the government run charity programs. When nothing could be further from the truth. We see private charity as better than government run charity, because private charity has something that government run charity doesn't have. A real reason to get people off of the program.
For the person that works for one of the government charity agencies, their paycheck is dependent on people needing them to justify their job, and thusly their pay check. Whereas a private charity concern is not only to actually help the person not to need them, because they want to help as many as possible, so they are motivated to get the person off of the program as soon as possible.
The other advantage to private charity, is the fact they can shift funds and assets around to make sure the money goes where it is needed the most at a moments notice. Such as what the Red Cross and many others did with Hurricane Katrina. Most of the private charity disaster relief groups were in New Orleans and Mississippi within 24 hours and where was FEMA?
But the primary difference lies in the fact that private charities have to persuade people to help, government use COERCION and the THREAT OF FORCE to COMPEL people to provide charity, and that my friends is fact, and nothing is going to change it.
But you don't have the right to dispose of the fruit of your labor as you wish. Why in the world would you think you did?
If you have children, you have a moral and ethical obligation to use a portion of the fruits of your labor to provide for their well-being.
If you borrowed $50 from me last week and said you'd pay it back to me this week, you have a moral and ethical obligation to use a portion of the fruits of your labor to pay me back.
"A common fallacy about Libertarians is that we don't care about the poor, elderly or the sick because we want to end all of the government run charity programs. When nothing could be further from the truth. We see private charity as better than government run charity, because private charity has something that government run charity doesn't have. A real reason to get people off of the program."
That's not a fallacy that I believe. I'm sure many libertarians are very generous and caring people, and I actually agree that in many cases, private programs can work better than public programs.
"For the person that works for one of the government charity agencies, their paycheck is dependent on people needing them to justify their job, and thusly their pay check."
Sorry, but you've lost me right here. People who work for private programs are dependent on people needing help from that program to keep their jobs, too.
"But the primary difference lies in the fact that private charities have to persuade people to help, government use COERCION and the THREAT OF FORCE to COMPEL people to provide charity, and that my friends is fact, and nothing is going to change it."
Why would we want to change it? We are the government, and we use coercion and the threat of force to compel ourselves to obey the law, and to punish ourselves when we break the law.
Then if you know about little things like the Federalist Papers, then you probably know that "the framers" were arguing about enumerated powers and what constituted the general welfare back then, just like people argue about them now.
And you'd no doubt also be aware that "the framers" anticipated the need of the federal government to exercise the "power of creating new funds upon new objects of taxation, by its own authority" (Federalist 30) in order to survive and thrive.
As well as "A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people." (Federalist 31)
So whether or not "the framers" wanted personal income to be taxed, at least some of them acknowledged that the federal government, with the consent of the governed, could decide what it would and would not tax. Including personal income.
AMENDMENT XVI: Ratified on Feb 3rd, 1913
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes of incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment amon the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This my friends is what is called a blank cheque for congress to tax whatever they want to call income.
Will B. writes:
"But you don't have the right to dispose of the fruit of your labor as you wish. Why in the world would you think you did?
If you have children, you have a moral and ethical obligation to use a portion of the fruits of your labor to provide for their well-being. "
You are right I do have a moral and ethical obligation to provide for the well being of MY CHILDREN, I brought them into the world and that puts an automatic obligation on me. HOWEVER, this does not mean I have any moral or ethical obligation to provide for someone elses children, much less be forced to do so.
Just because the Government has the power to do something, doesn't make it morally or ethically right. This is an important distinction many fail to grasp. Just because the majority want it done, doesn't make it right or just. This was a flaw in demacracy the framers of the constitution were attempting to correct.
Privacy is a big thing right now, and there are some who say that we don't have such a right because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution and the Amendments Thereof. But privacy is a constitutionally protected right under the 9th Amendment; "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to dey or disparage others retained by the people." And, if you really want to get technical about it, looked at in a certain light the 4th Amendment; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
The 16th Amendment didn't allow personal income to be taxed. It allowed personal income to be taxed without apportionment to the states. The Constitution gave Congress the power to tax income if it wanted to, and in fact it did for several years during the Civil War.
It was only when the Supreme Court ruled that income from property had to be apportioned that the 16th Amendment was ratified so that from income, including income from property, could be taxed without being apportioned to the states.
What about your moral and ethical obligation to pay me the $50 bucks you owe me? Don't I have a legitimate claim to a portion of your fruits? And if you don't pay me back at the time we agreed, don't I have the right to take my $50 by force if necessary?
You've said you have absolutely no moral or ethical obligation to provide for anybody else's children, so I have no moral or ethical obligation to care that you need to keep that $50 to take care of your kids, right? I have a legitimate claim on that $50 and I have the right to take it by force, even if it means you and your children starve. Is that right?
If you're going to talk about rights, then I think we need to establish that there is right to keep all the fruits of your labors no matter what. There are circumstances where other people have legitimate claims on a portion of those fruits. And that includes the claim of the government (also known as "we the people"), in the form of taxes, so that you can help contribute a bit towards covering the cost of all those wonderful services that are provided to you and your fellow citizens.
If I owed you money, be it for services rendered or products ordered and received, then I would be morally and ethically bound to pay you back, and you were right up to a point of that you would have a right to portion of the fruits of my labor. Value paid for value received. And it would have been my choice to trade the fruits of my labor, thusly I am VOLUNTARILY giving them up, not being forced to do so. And you would be with in your rights to use force to seek restitution to get your money back, because you would be REACTING to the fact that I stole from you or broke my word about paying it back when I said I would.
But in the case of government controlled charity programs, we are not given a choice, we do not receive value returned for value paid, and are told if we don't pay, we get threatened with force to be used against us and our freedoms taken away from us.
I have the right to dispose of the fruits of my labor in the manner that I see fit, in honest VOLUNTARY trade with value received for value given.
But we are given a choice. Lots of choices, actually. We can choose to change the laws that require us to pay the taxes. We can choose not to work. We can choose to go live in another country. We can choose to relinquish our citizenship. And I'm sure there are other choices that I just can't think of right now.
Again, this gets back to libertarians trying to get a free ride. I know that a lot of libertarian ideals are very appealing, but I just don't think they work in complex societies. Even when you consider the example where you owe me $50. From a moral and ethical perspective, what happens if you can't pay me? Is it OK (morally and ethically speaking) for me, under those circumstances, to kill you, imprison you, or maybe enslave you?
From a moral and ethical perspective, what happens if you can't provide for yourself, your spouse and your children? Would you feel a moral and ethical imperative to let them starve before you'd ask for help from your government?
Believe me, Joseph, there are a lot of things about libertarianism that appeals to me. There are a lot of things about the notion of a small government that appeals to me. A lot. But at the end of the day, I just can't be an ideologue. Maybe I just haven't found the right "ism" yet, but libertarianism ain't it, and Ron Paul ain't getting my vote.
I am not an ideologue, I am a pragmatist. The fact of the matter is this country is in real trouble, not just financially, but our current crop leaders over the last 25 years, with very few exceptions are morally and ethically bankrupt. Our government has become a place were bureaucratic rules over ride Constitutionally set limits. Our government has become a place where our rights as individual are used as chip in a political ideological poker game.
Drastic, radical change is needed now, it isn't something that can be put off, economically the country is oscillating out of control, it is time to return government back to its Constitutionally mandated limits. I would rather see limited economic pain and loss of life now, by cutting off all of the subsidies, than the wholesale slaughter and ruination that is coming.
This isn't rocket science folks, anyone who can read and bothers to take the time to look at the data can see that the recessions are getting closer together and getting longer.
And yet I've pointed out a number of ways in which libertarians are trying to get a free lunch. Libertarians have the opportunity to opt-out of the social contract (or if you prefer, as did James Madison, the social compact, and yet you choose not to. Libertarians accept the benefits provided by the social compact (or at least the opportunity to accept those benefits), but claim that they only provide a portion of the money required to provide those benefits under duress.
"Libertarians don't want to do away with charity, just government controlled charity. Libertarians ethics and principles say it is better to let individuals decide who they want to give charity to than to be forced to provide for things we don't believe in and let an inflexible impersonal government make those decisions who qualifies for help and who does not."
But we are the government. We decide, collectively, how to spend the money. I accept that the system is far from perfect, but the same can be said of other, non-government attempts to provide "charity" services. I also accept that in many cases, non-government "charity" services are more efficient than government programs. I contribute to both sorts of programs, and hope that the money I provide ends up helping people.
"Drastic, radical change is needed now, it isn't something that can be put off, economically the country is oscillating out of control, it is time to return government back to its Constitutionally mandated limits."
To be honest, I spent a good ten years or so waiting for everything to fall apart, for many of the same reasons you've mentioned here. It hasn't happened. That doesn't mean it won't happen some time in the future, but for the most part, I'm becoming more confident and more optimistic that it won't.
And even if I accept that it's more than likely that it will eventually happen, I don't buy into the libertarian argument that they're the ones who are most capable of stopping it. Or that any "solutions" they provide won't be just as bad, or worse, than the problems they're trying to solve.
If the US was to end all subsidies (HHS, corp, foriegn aid, etc.) the government would save untold billions of dollars. Here is something else to think about. At the beginning of the "Great Society" when LBJ signed these programs into law, they represented around 6% of the federal budget, to HHS programs represent just about 31% of the buget. That is somewhere around 500% increase, and the same percentage of the population are still without medical, houseing, etc. As with business, you can't keep throwing good money after bad and hope the problem goes away.
If you want to get the feel for the National Budget, goto the Budget Explorer at http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/index.html, it will allow you to play with the budget utilizing the same data the federal government is using.
I was playing around with it, and buy eliminating the budgets of the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Devel would save the taxpayers $941.5 billion, but then I did increase moneys for the Departments of Veterans Affairs (better benifets for retirees and soldiers who were disabled and the families of those killed), Transportation, Defence, & Justice (increase in the number of courts), which created a surpluse of $465.9 Billion.
To be honest, most Libertarians know the fecal matter is eventually going to hit the rotating blades, we just don't know when, most of us believe it will happen sometime in our lifetime. So far the governement has been able to dodge the bullet, but it is getting harder and hard for it to do so.
Since the formation of the Libertarian in 1972, we have been fighting a, well, lets be honest, a Quioxtic battle to protect the rights of the individual and return the government back to it constitutional limits. We may be loosing the battle, but in the end we know we will win the war because we know the ideals and principles we believe in cannot be killed and cannot be eradicated, we are a true grassroots organization that can be likened to crab grass, once our principles and ideals take root, it is next to impossible to kill.
Ron Paul (who is, it should be pointed out, running as a Republican, not as a Libertarian) wants to drastically reduce the power of the federal government. But in many cases, that means more power for the state governments, not for "sovereign individuals."
You claim that our "current crop of leaders" are morally and ethically bankrupt. Does that only apply at the federal level, and not the state level as well? And what about business leaders? Are they somehow immune to moral and ethical bankruptcy? Don't get me wrong, I think free markets are wonderful things. But not completely free. I don't buy into the anarcho-capitalist utopian dream any more than I buy into the promises of communism or fascism.
"If you want to get the feel for the National Budget, goto the Budget Explorer..."
Thanks. It's a very interesting tool. I've only played with it a little bit, but already it's been interesting to see how little money the government would have if we got rid of income taxes and had to rely on nothing more than excise taxes and customs duties. It wouldn't even be enough to cover the interest payments on the national debt. Surely that wouldn't be a good thing.
"To be honest, most Libertarians know the fecal matter is eventually going to hit the rotating blades, we just don't know when, most of us believe it will happen sometime in our lifetime."
It seems to be, a lot of Libertarians are pretty much counting on it. It's like they desperately want it to happen, either so they can say "I told ya so!" and feel vindicated, or because they think that's what it'll take for Americans to "wake up" and "see the light" and dedicate themselves to the concepts of libertarianism. Libertarians aren't the only ones waiting for everything to fall apart so that their particular "ism" can get a shot.
"...we are a true grassroots organization that can be likened to crab grass, once our principles and ideals take root, it is next to impossible to kill."
Best of luck to you, Joseph. As I've said, I understand much of the appeal of libertarianism. I just don't think it works for large, established, complex societies that have already evolved other ways of doing things. Look at the polls -- they make it clear that Ron Paul is not what the vast majority of the American people are looking for.