Just what is a Libertarian?

Internet - Lost URL | FR Post 01-11-02 | Written by Deanna Corbeil

[CyberCowboy777]

State sales tax or Federal?

[weikel]

The federal governments sole responsibilities should be in foreign affairs( intelligence defense diplomacy) and chasing criminals across state lines. So their should be a small federal sales tax for that. Tariffs drive up prices even more than sales taxes.

[CyberCowboy777]

If you mean a Federal Sales Tax, why do you think it is better than this?

To the degree that tariffs on foreign products are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of the United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation’s citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.

The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.

[weikel]

My idea is that the fed does nothing other than catch criminals who run across state lines( using bounty hunters preferably rather than a standing police force) and do national defense intelligence and diplomacy. I don't like tariffs( they help unions too much and drive prices way up much more than sales taxes) so I would rather have a federal sales tax in place of the income, social security, and other taxes we currently pay. I do not want any other taxes besides a sales tax period.

[Dane]

Uh maybe it is you who is using "pretzel logic". In your reply #229 you corrected my spelling. You used "force" to do that. That "force" was you correcting my spelling. You could have not been "forceful" in noting my bad spelling, if you had wanted to. I wasn't bothering anybody.

Now you espouse a tenet called "No force, no fraud", if you lived up to that tenet, you would have not used any force. Just like Libertarians tell us that drug users aren't bothering anybody and that no force should be used against them.

IMHO, to truly live up to your ideals as a Libertarian you are going to have to get rid of the tendency to help people.

[FITZ]

The big problem is as a libertarian since you cannot initiate forceyou cannot go after anyone before they start going after you they need to allow for a preemptive strike.

I could almost be a libertarian but a few things don't make sense. If you had an ideal libertarian country but open borders and another kind of people moved in who preferred socialism, they would vote for socialists and you'd lose your libertarian country.

Also if a group of people wanted to have a "dry" county for example and got the majority to vote to have it that way, who can stop them? Would there be a large Liberarian federal police force that would keep control over that kind of thing so communities like Santa Fe would allow everyone to build their own style of home? With very limited federal government, how will you keep communities in control so the individual can do whatever they please?

[FITZ]

you are going to have to get rid of the tendency to help people

Why? Helping people should be entirely voluntary. It's not helping if either side is forced into the help, at least if the giver of the help is forced.

[MadameAxe]

Hey, at least I didn't say "half-baked".
:-b

[CyberCowboy777]

If we were to go back to a Constitutional Federal Government, all existing tariffs would be removed, replaced by much smaller and more balanced tariffs. This would actually decrease current cost.

Of course it would also force US corporations to become competitive (steel, auto, etc.), which they could....by firing all union member and rehiring the ones willing as private individuals. Lowering Cost and forceing survival of the fittest (and the most industrious).

[southern rock]

But aren't you dismissing your own "no force, no fraud" tenet, by forcing yourself to correct my bad spelling?

Do you honestly believe that you are making valid points here?

[tacticalogic]

Shouldn't you be waiting until someone passes a law to determine wheather or not it's even moral to be complaining about it?

[southern rock]

Also if a group of people wanted to have a "dry" county for example and got the majority to vote to have it that way, who can stop them?

If a person wishes to drink, they may do so anywhere. No one can stop them. Therefore, a county may not go "dry", because that would infringe on an individual's inalienable rights.

[FITZ]

So will there be a big Libertarian army or police force to keep communities from trying to do that kind of thing? How will you keep control of citizens if they wanted that and made some attempt to do that?

[Dane]

Why? Helping people should be entirely voluntary

Uh that was not the question. The question was if anybody who goes 100% for the "no force, no fraud" Libertarian tenet should "help" people.

Isn't "forcing" yourself into anothers life a violation of that tenet?

[FITZ]

If pockets of democratic types sprang up and voted for certain restrictions, how will the very small limited Libertarian federal government control them? Will they be imprisoned? If people tried to harass a bar or porn shop, would the army crush them?

[Libloather]

...with minimal governmental interference.

Total rubbish. The Liberteen panacea has Big Gubmint first and foremost. Don't let 'em fool ya...

[southern rock]

So will there be a big Libertarian army or police force to keep communities from trying to do that kind of thing?

No. There would simply be a guy sitting on his front porch drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels with one hand, and maybe his shotgun in the other. No army necessary.

You see, our rights are inalienable. No one can take them away from us. While a state or county may have rights over the Federal government, they have no rights over the individual. Where the state outranks the Fed, the individual outranks the state/county. Laws that violate one's rights are unconstitutional, and may simply be ignored. A county may pass any "dry" law it wants. It is automatically null and void, because I have a right to drink, buy, or sell booze without government permission.

[FITZ]

What would happen if some southern states tried to enact "blue laws" like they had at one time? Would the federal government have the right to override that?