Hypothetical: voting and taxes

[AZRedhawk44]

I'd just as soon abolish all forms of thugocracy that we call taxation via government, and go with no taxes.

Fee-based services.  Don't consume government?  Then you don't end up supporting it.  And make it impossible for buggy-whip bureaucracies that outlive their usefulness to compel their own survival via regulation or dipping into other tax pools.

If our government actually acknowledged some sort of "leave-me-alone-ism" I'd be a happy man.


And God save me from His followers.  Morality does not stem from God.  It stems from peaceful reflection into ones own being and his method of fitting into this world.  Our shifty-eyed enemies in that sandy place 10,000 miles away demonstrate how strict adherence to Godly Paper ends up playing out. 

God might aid in that peaceful reflection into one's self and role.  But he is not a pre-requisite.

[Ron]

Modern Protestantism and much of Roman Catholic thought have themselves abandoned (or never accepted) the classical principles our nation was founded upon.

Reference my first post, I did not blame government or call on government to install a moral/ethical system on anyone.

What I pointed out was that our founders believed the system they created with the constitution would not work without a moral/ethical people or those ignorant of the principles and basis of liberty.

Neither of you have provided answers to the questions I asked. Instead you want to hijack the principles of freedom and try to graft them into a philosophical system that would never bear the fruit of liberty. That is a recipe for cognitive dissonance because humans always ask why?

Why do we have rights? Why are they inalienable? Where do they come from?

  

  

[Ron]

And God save me from His followers.  Morality does not stem from God.  It stems from peaceful reflection into ones own being and his method of fitting into this world.  Our shifty-eyed enemies in that sandy place 10,000 miles away demonstrate how strict adherence to Godly Paper ends up playing out.

God might aid in that peaceful reflection into one's self and role.  But he is not a pre-requisite.

Talk about fantastical utopia talk.

Where is this land of liberty established by peaceful reflectors other than in your skull, lol.

[Ron]

It is also instructive to see how we bastions of liberty here at APS are brainstorming ways of limiting the civil right to vote.

It must be the religion causing that, right!

[AZRedhawk44]

What I pointed out was that our founders believed the system they created with the constitution would not work without a moral/ethical people or those ignorant of the principles and basis of liberty.

Why do we have rights? Why are they inalienable? Where do they come from?

  

OK, what major world faith provides these answers to what are the principles and basis of liberty?

What rights does $deity say I have?  When does $deity allow other men with fancy titles to abridge my rights?

[AZRedhawk44]

Our classical form of government as built in the 18th century has more in common with Plato's Republic and the philosophical libertarian discourse of the day than any anecdotal government or moral code reflected in the Bible or other sacred texts.

[Ron]

Our classical form of government as built in the 18th century has more in common with Plato's Republic and the philosophical libertarian discourse of the day than any anecdotal government or moral code reflected in the Bible or other sacred texts.

And a limited government republic will not stand once the moral and ethical rot infects a majority of the populace.

Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.

[TommyGunn]

Even the amendment process is absolutely fallible.  Without the 16th amendment, the states could tell the federal government to *expletive deleted* off.
Since the federal government controls the purse strings, it controls  the states like little puppets.  
When the national drinking age was raised several states held out and said no.  So, the federal government withheld federal highway funds.

A country of gullible voters, a sprinkling of class warfare, and bam! the Federal government gets unstoppable power to tax and spend.
We act like class warfare is a new construct, but its EXACTLY how the 16th amendment came into being.

I think the states also lost a lot of political wallop when we decided that senators should be elected through the popular vote rather than appointed by state representatives as was the Founders' original design.
The income tax of course didn't help . . . . . . . . .

[RevDisk]

Neither of you have provided answers to the questions I asked. Instead you want to hijack the principles of freedom and try to graft them into a philosophical system that would never bear the fruit of liberty. That is a recipe for cognitive dissonance because humans always ask why?

Why do we have rights? Why are they inalienable? Where do they come from?

Because we are humans. Because it's better than the alternative. From our sentience.

More importantly and in short, I have rights because I'm willing to defend them. The philosophical stuff is nice, and I like it. But at the end of the day, folks are (thus far) not willing to pay the price to take them from me.

That is the true answer at the end of the day. Because it works, we like it, and we're willing to kill to keep it.

It is also instructive to see how we bastions of liberty here at APS are brainstorming ways of limiting the civil right to vote.

It must be the religion causing that, right!

And the overwhelming majority explains, in logical reasoned detail, why it is not a good idea.

Nothing wrong with brainstorming anything, even if it is a bad idea. I often brainstorm how to break into a house (or bank), or cripple infrastructure, or illegally enter a network. It does not mean I'm a criminal. It means you have to consider situations from all perspectives if you truly want to understand it.

[AZRedhawk44]

And a limited government republic will not stand once the moral and ethical rot infects a majority of the populace.

Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.

And how are the writings of Bastiat, Locke, Paine and Rousseau insufficient for that?

Or those of Huxley, Orwell and Rand?

Or those of Von Mises, Spooner and Rothbard?

[Ron]

Because we are humans. Because it's better than the alternative. From our sentience.

More importantly and in short, I have rights because I'm willing to defend them. The philosophical stuff is nice, and I like it. But at the end of the day, folks are (thus far) not willing to pay the price to take them from me.

That is the true answer at the end of the day. Because it works, we like it, and we're willing to kill to keep it.


And the overwhelming majority explains, in logical reasoned detail, why it is not a good idea.

Nothing wrong with brainstorming anything, even if it is a bad idea. I often brainstorm how to break into a house (or bank), or cripple infrastructure, or illegally enter a network. It does not mean I'm a criminal. It means you have to consider situations from all perspectives if you truly want to understand it.

All you are saying is "might makes right" and not really offering much of an argument that we could use to convince the other side to come over to our way of thinking.

[Ron]

And how are the writings of Bastiat, Locke, Paine and Rousseau insufficient for that?

Or those of Huxley, Orwell and Rand?

Or those of Von Mises, Spooner and Rothbard?

Pretty sure I covered that base in my first post here in the thread #19 .

The anti religion anti God reaction completely ignored my inclusion of those who are not orthodox but correct in their thinking. I even included the Jefferson quote to help make that clear.

[lysander6]

Someone please give me an historical precedent of a limited government.  The entire notion is a chimera and a cheap talking point for folks who think that they don't like big government yet most of these folks simply want to trim the Federal Leviathan instead of a wholesale rendering, reduction and elimination of the beast.

And if the Federal government is so sacrosanct and America would not be the same if it broke apart, why not press for world government if consolidation and central planning are so dandy?

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”- Lysander Spooner

[Ron]

OK, what major world faith provides these answers to what are the principles and basis of liberty?

What rights does $deity say I have?  When does $deity allow other men with fancy titles to abridge my rights?

oops, missed this post somehow.

I would contend that the decentralization of Christianity that occurred in the new world by Christians, who like you wanted government to leave them alone provided the necessary moral and ethical balance to those who created our founding documents.   

Considering the USA is the culmination of many streams of religious and political thought of the western world. I also would contend that the deity you are asking about is that God revealed through Jesus Christ.



 

[HankB]

The last paragraph shows the flaws. As an E1, I would essentially have no vote. If that ever happens, **** you (collectively, not any one person) and **** this country.

I can't argue with that . . . but I will point out that during WWII, Korea, and earlier wars, there were a lot of men, 20 or younger, who were DRAFTED and sent off to war, even though they were considered too young & stupid to vote. And IMNSHO, that was a travesty.

But it's also a travesty for society's parasites - able bodied adults of sound mind who choose to be on the dole - to be enfranchised as well.

Does anyone think that Obama's nearly doubling of the food stamp rolls is anything other than a strategy to give people "free stuff" which they'll vote to keep by voting for Democrats? Offer parasites free bread and circuses, implement a grain dole, and they'll vote to keep them; politicians have been doing this at least since ancient Rome, and it always seems to contribute to a civilization's downfall.  

[Ron]

Someone please give me an historical precedent of a limited government.  The entire notion is a chimera and a cheap talking point for folks who think that they don't like big government yet most of these folks simply want to trim the Federal Leviathan instead of a wholesale rendering, reduction and elimination of the beast.

And if the Federal government is so sacrosanct and America would not be the same if it broke apart, why not press for world government if consolidation and central planning are so dandy?

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”- Lysander Spooner

The seeds of destruction were always there. Not in the constitution only but in human nature.

If there is a next time around the limitations and chains on government must be spelled out more clearly and forged stronger.

[AZRedhawk44]

The problem is not the constitution or the civil right to vote. The problem is the failure of our nongovernmental institutions, the family, religious and civic institutions. We have abandoned our cultural heritage and sold it for "a mess of pottage" in the name of "progress".

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  -John Adams

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson

There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.

The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.

2/3 of your selected quotes mandate an adherence to the Bible.  1/3 is from a self-confessed Deist that tended to stay away from organized religion.

And I take great exception with John Adams, on just about every level.  Probably my least favorite of the Founders.  [The Constitution] is wholly inadequate [to govern] a non-religious people? Hardly.  It may be true that the Constitution is wholly inadequate to contain the malignant tumor of "government mission encroachment" and that it is wholly inadequate to provide penalties to malicious lawmakers, but it is perfectly effective in governing free men, regardless of their faith.  The weakness of the Constitution is how it deals with Statists with a fetish for State Power.  Not in how it lays out the free association of free people.  Adams betrays his own Statist tendencies here.

And a limited government republic will not stand once the moral and ethical rot infects a majority of the populace.

Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.

This post appears to take a dismissive attitude towards 19th and 20th century philosophers.  That somehow only the Bible has answers to govern a nation.  That Constitution thingy that you like so much is rather dismissive of official state religions.  The Constitution draws much more from Bastiat than the Bible.

[lysander6]

Ron,

  I happen to think the Constitution is one of the most clever and nefarious instruments to empower the biggest government ever created on Earth. The Articles of Confederation were far superior in keeping a national government at bay.  But I am certain over time even that would have been suborned by government supremacists.

  See:  https://libertopiafestival.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-constitution-the-god-that-failed-to-liberate-us-from-big-government-by-bill-buppert-3/

  I will be preemptive with what I know is the inevitable riposte.  I think that Right and Left fails to yield any descriptive value as we see with the increase in the size of government under allegedly right wing prescriptions such as fascist states.  One can argue that Mussolini & Hitler were Right or Left.  A far more explicit descriptor is individualism and collectivism.  Either you think the former is more important than the concerns of the many or you agree with most governments today that the collective will always trump the individual.  In this you have the recipe for unlimited government no matter how you establish it.

  Finally, I would suggest that the Constitution was built from the ground up to put a gun in the hands of the national state and resist any encumbrances that limit its size and scope.

[longeyes]

Two words: earned stake.

[Ron]

There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.

The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.




2/3 of your selected quotes mandate an adherence to the Bible.  1/3 is from a self-confessed Deist that tended to stay away from organized religion.

And I take great exception with John Adams, on just about every level.  Probably my least favorite of the Founders.  [The Constitution] is wholly inadequate [to govern] a non-religious people? Hardly.  It may be true that the Constitution is wholly inadequate to contain the malignant tumor of "government mission encroachment" and that it is wholly inadequate to provide penalties to malicious lawmakers, but it is perfectly effective in governing free men, regardless of their faith.  The weakness of the Constitution is how it deals with Statists with a fetish for State Power.  Not in how it lays out the free association of free people.  Adams betrays his own Statist tendencies here.


This post appears to take a dismissive attitude towards 19th and 20th century philosophers.  That somehow only the Bible has answers to govern a nation.  That Constitution thingy that you like so much is rather dismissive of official state religions.  The Constitution draws much more from Bastiat than the Bible.

I do dismiss a lot of 19th and 20th century philosophy, because a lot of it is anti philosophy. The guys I like are probably a lot of the same guys you do.

state religion = straw man, where did you think I supported that?

I purposely chose three founders who were different enough from each other to properly illustrate how important an ethical right thinking populace was critical to a republics success.

Bastiat probably drew a lot of ideas from those that influenced our founders as well as being influenced by our constitution. You put the cart on the wrong side of the horse.

The declaration of independence and constitution were, and once again are revolutionary because they proclaim our natural rights are derived from natures God. We have rights because that is the way God created us. Natural law is discoverable because the law giver has created a rational universe.    

The Diests and Theists of that day were philosophical or theological derivatives of belief in the Jewish and Christian God.

[Ron]

Ron,

  I happen to think the Constitution is one of the most clever and nefarious instruments to empower the biggest government ever created on Earth. The Articles of Confederation were far superior in keeping a national government at bay.  But I am certain over time even that would have been suborned by government supremacists.

  See:  https://libertopiafestival.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-constitution-the-god-that-failed-to-liberate-us-from-big-government-by-bill-buppert-3/

  I will be preemptive with what I know is the inevitable riposte.  I think that Right and Left fails to yield any descriptive value as we see with the increase in the size of government under allegedly right wing prescriptions such as fascist states.  One can argue that Mussolini & Hitler were Right or Left.  A far more explicit descriptor is individualism and collectivism.  Either you think the former is more important than the concerns of the many or you agree with most governments today that the collective will always trump the individual.  In this you have the recipe for unlimited government no matter how you establish it.

  Finally, I would suggest that the Constitution was built from the ground up to put a gun in the hands of the national state and resist any encumbrances that limit its size and scope.

Due to GWB I've come full circle to where I started politically. Hopefully I'm done voting for the lessor evil. My second presidential vote ever cast was for Ron Paul in '88. Every vote thereafter I compromised myself. Even now the temptation to vote for Romney as the lessor evil is strong.

There isn't a human institution I trust on the planet. Purposely I attend a tiny church with weak official structure. The only thing keeping my church afloat is the members all care for each other. We currently don't even have a pastor.

Not sure how we get to small government from here. Short of total collapse and separation of the component parts after the fact into areas of like minded governing philosophies I don't see a path.

[birdman]

I think the states also lost a lot of political wallop when we decided that senators should be elected through the popular vote rather than appointed by state representatives as was the Founders' original design.
The income tax of course didn't help . . . . . . . . .

This.  Direct election of senators was probably the most damaging in the long run to the representative federal government intended.

[AZRedhawk44]

Bastiat probably drew a lot of ideas from those that influenced our founders as well as being influenced by our constitution. You put the cart on the wrong side of the horse.

You're correct.  I got my timeline mussed up in my head a bit.

The declaration of independence and constitution were, and once again are revolutionary because they proclaim our natural rights are derived from natures God. We have rights because that is the way God created us. Natural law is discoverable because the law giver has created a rational universe.    

I used to use this same argument, but it falls apart in the face of empirical reasoning and scientific process.  It's final justification lies in "because I think so."  It's subjective rather than objective.

The objective truth is closer to Rev's line of reasoning:  I have rights because I say so.  Want to take them away?  You better come with all you've got and have some will to back it up.

Or, a local activist by the name of Ed Vallejo here in PHX often says:  

Rights are like muscles; you must exercise them to keep them fit, or they will atrophy and die.

I suspect he lifted this from somewhere else, but I am unsure as to the source.

Due to GWB I've come full circle to where I started politically. Hopefully I'm done voting for the lessor evil. My second presidential vote ever cast was for Ron Paul in '88. Every vote thereafter I compromised myself. Even now the temptation to vote for Romney as the lessor evil is strong.

There isn't a human institution I trust on the planet. Purposely I attend a tiny church with weak official structure. The only thing keeping my church afloat is the members all care for each other. We currently don't even have a pastor.

Not sure how we get to small government from here. Short of total collapse and separation of the component parts after the fact into areas of like minded governing philosophies I don't see a path.

You and I aren't too far apart.  Much more in common than disparate.

[lysander6]

Not sure how we get to small government from here. Short of total collapse and separation of the component parts after the fact into areas of like minded governing philosophies I don't see a path.

Ron,

  I think the inevitable economic collapse in America will usher in a break-up of the US similar to the same thing in the USSR in 1989-91.

  I understand your notions in voting about a preference for evil which is why I became a non-voter b/c I don't have a preference for evil, period.  My reasons are more philosophical but Carlin gives a brillaint rejoinder to those who say if you don't vote you can't complain when the shoe is actually on the other foot:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

  There is a whole raft of essays on non-voting here:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/non-vote-arch.html

Bill

[RevDisk]

All you are saying is "might makes right" and not really offering much of an argument that we could use to convince the other side to come over to our way of thinking.

I did not say "might makes right". Might does make rights, however. A subtle but important difference. I said, "I have rights, because I and plenty of folks before me are willing to kill to keep them." Talking and reason are much more preferred. I don't think violence should be the first line of discussion, and I don't want to live in a society that believes so. I am always willing to keep it as the last line of discussion. Anything else ranges from foolishness to suicidal.

Folks have tried to kill me for my religious views. That is why I own firearms, and promote the legality and use of firearms. Without weapons, I would not be having this discussion with you. I would have been essentially lynched. Others decided they had some right to severely injure me, or even end my life. They obviously had their own philosophy, and subjective view of morality.

So, yes, I have the freedom of religion and the right to not be killed because I was very handy with a rifle. This is unfortunately based on empirical evidence. Perhaps your rights are based on something else. I wish so. I can speak only of my own.