But that's just one. The others haven't. And people still say that America is still viewed as the best bet, so an AA+ rating won't kill us. Especially from one company.

however, maybe this will get the tea party and similar people to STFU so we can get something done. Hopefully that something won't kill jobs though. Which everyone seems to be forgetting about: jobs. How about working for some of those? Maybe a job creating thing included in one of these cuts? A second stimulus maybe? (One that isnt 40% tax cuts. The last stimulus was considered too small. http://krugman.blogs...-was-too-small/ And here's some others: http://economistsvie...-too-small.html http://www.economy.c...andi-011310.pdf ("This says nothing about the efficacy of the fiscal stimulus. If anything, it suggests the $787 billion fiscal stimulus was too small given the severity of the financial crisis." http://www.politico....0211/48586.html (Humtsman- a SMART Republican. never thought I'd see the day. But he brings up the third thing I linked.)

And i promise I'll answer all of your points- i just haven't had a chance to do so yet.

[In Soviet Russia]

In Soviet Russia, God made man. (I had to, I apologize =))

In Soviet Russia, Waldo finds you.

Well, here's some good news: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/july_jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?iref=BN1&hpt=hp_t1

Ah shoot. i had a whole big thing, and then because I forgot to sign in first, I lost it. ARGH!

I did select all first, like usual, but it says quote tags are uneven.

And it looks all weird.

Ah well. i don't have time to redo it now. I'll do it later i suppose =)

Gvg:

Yeah I agree it is a good exercise. Though the choices are necessarily limited. Lets face it the solutions are infinite. I am assuming the are limiting themselves to propositions already made by either side. Lets face it without this you and I could never have as good a discussion on the issue as we would both be talking in much much vaguer terms.

OK I’ll try and respond to your post only where we differ or to clarify some of my points. Where we agree no comment is necessary

Foreign aid: your link didn’t work but I’ll just point out it is 50% cut not 100% I will just hope they cut the $ that goes directly into some corrupt persons Swiss bank account. Still as you guys are on the precipice you need to start to help yourselves before you can do too much to help others. And yeah the China thing sucks but i think they have finally ended it (after huge public outrage), either that or buried it.

I suppose. Seems fair enough.

10% workforce cut: private companies do this all the time. Govt is massively over staffed. This is true in the USA and Canada. Especially management, where i hope most cuts would come (though being a cynic i doubt it) as an example when we privatized ATC here we went from 7 to 3 levels of management or a ratio of 1 manager per 3-4 workers to 1 manager per 10-12. as managers make more than regular staff savings is even better Also yes you need people to work but govt work does not produce anything and is mostly a drain on the economy, though much work is necessary to allow private companies to be able to do their work. Eg infrastructure, regulatory bodies, IRS(no taxes no govt) etc.

Well, when our businesses aren't hiring people who have been unemployed for 6 months (many have), and thus those people aren't making any money that can be put into the economy, well, I don't think a workforce cut would go well. At least they're working. now, should the government go and hire everyone? No, obviously not. But getting rid of people who are already working- i dunno, seems like it would hurt.

Other cuts : yes vague but i needed the $ for the exercise perhaps if more detailed I would be against it.

Alrighty, fair enough.

Cut aid to states: well back in the 90's when we had our deficit crunch this is what the feds did. The provinces complained but mostly they managed to get along without the money. Basically any level of govt will spend any cash it can get. That is one of the reasons you are in this mess.

I do think it depends on the state. But i could understand this. Just seems like taking money from Michigan, where Detroit is located, would be bad.

Reduce nukes: yeah i agree getting rid of all of them would not be a good idea ATM.

Yep. Sadly so.

Reduce navy air force fleets: The USA is the only country with global commitments (the Brits are a shadow of what they used to be, hong-kong is gone etc) you are attached by land to only 2 neighbours Canada/Mexico, neither of which there is much chance of physical force being required in. Russia is basically on the same continent and very close to most potential hot spots, china also but less so and they are expanding rapidly! Again build up takes time and gettign caught with pants down is bad. Look at Falklands war. Britain was in the process of decommissioning their fixed wing carriers. Decision was reversed and ships were hurriedly put back in operation. If they had kept up navy war would have been shorter and probably cost less in lives and $ (yes war want long but shorter is always better) Argentina might even have decided not to invade thus avoiding war. Still having said all this i reduced as again i needed the $$$.

Well, if we have 12, and the next biggest is 2, i think we can reduce it to 8 (maybe 6) and be fine. 8 on two is still tipped in our favor.

cancel/delay programs: agree with you 100% but it said cancel/delay only some so I will assume they will get rid of the molecular destabilization ray programs and not the valid/reasonable/feasible ones.

Hopefully.

Medical malpractice: just a note you guys are the most litigious society in history i don’t think just medical malpractice but a whole overhaul of your civil justice system is in order.

America: Land of the lawsuit =) Well, some Judges take ridiculous law suits, throw them out, and fine those involved (the lawyer usually for being moronic enough to help a stupid lawsuit). But mostly, i'd say something has to be done when people can sue McDonald's for not saying their coffee is hot.

Medicare age 68: disagree with the age 30 but it should be fazed in IE those 60 go to 66 those 55 to 68 or something like that, 30 is too far off.

Again, if it needs to be, then yes. if it can be prevented, wait. But I guess we need it, huh?

Medicare growth: DO NOT expect costs to decrease because of universal health care, that will only happen if health care is severely degraded. Now i am in favour of universal health care, we have it here in Canada. It has its limits and you need to allow a private health care on the side. We technically do not allow private health care( for stuff covered under public) but we actually do allow it. Yes the 6 month wait for cancer diagnostics exist here. Sometimes is faster sometimes is slower but usually if you are afraid you can get it done privately. Often the private is covered by health care and if not your private insurance usually covers it. YES we have private insurance as well here. Not everything is covered. Example my knee brace (after my rugby injury, torn ACL/MCL) was not covered. Drugs arent usually covered, dentist are not (except young children and then not for everything) its all rather complex. Another example My daughter needs 4 teeth removes, the dentist could not do it as she refused to open her mouth. She referred us to either another dentist who has more anaesthetic options or the hospital. The hospital was free the dentist covered mostly by my health insurance (90% i believe). Hospital would be 4-8 month wait dentist i could see right away. I chose dentist we visited, he explained the options (oral anaesthetic or go through the hospital for general anaesthetic. As it was rather obvious that there was little chance we would be able to get here to drink the anaesthetic I chose the hospital. Now because of the way the system works she is having the teeth removed this Friday (about 1 month after we were referred to him) instead of November at best if we went directly to the hospital. I know the system is crazy but that is how it works. I will reiterate anyone who says health care costs will shrink under universal health care is lying through their teeth!

The reason they say this is a big one: people here currently wait to the last minute to visit the doctor or a hospital because, well, they don't have insurance. Thus, when they finally hit the emergency room, a huge bill emerges. Also, we currently spend twice as much per person as countries with universal healthcare, so it could very well go down. But i dunno fully.

Reduce SS benefits: actually i have no problem with rich collecting unemployment insurance. They paid into the INSURANCE system it should be there if they lose their jobs. Food stamps for rich is silly and SS well if your rich you have means to plan for retirement, if you don't then i have no sympathy for you. I would like someone who pays into SS to get money back as i think it is fair but the system at least here in Canada is untenable (and from what I understand in the USA as well)so what ya gonna do reduce everyone or only those that don't actually require the money?

Well, for the UI insurance: In a time where we need money, giving billionaires unemployment insurance isn't exactly helpful. but i could accept it.

Now, for the SS: SS is actually fine, and doesn't add to the deficit (http://www.youtube.c...h?v=U8JlK6k29uQ). The fund it has (i was wrong, it isn't the payroll tax, it's FICA. (payroll taxes here: http://www.alllaw.co...ax/article5.asp)) actually helps a lot, and the only reason anything is wrong with social security is because our government has borrowed something like 2 trillion from social security. That's why; we owe it money. it is actually solvent for a while.

Estate taxes: Bill Maher is a comedian. He doesn’t give a reason why estate taxes are justified only that rich people shouldn't complain that they are rich. Honestly those that accumulated the estate paid the taxes as they did so. Thus i believe it is just taxing money that has already been taxed. I don’t care if your estate is 10$ or 10 billion$ the taxes were already paid and to tax it is just a money grab by the govt. BTW look at the Kennedys when Ethel died they went through the estate process in Florida not Massachusetts to avoid estate taxes you don’t think other mega rich people wont do runarounds like this as well?

Oh i know he's a comedian. I just thought he brought up a good point: people complain about getting 7 instead of 8 million dollars (and that money, after all, goes to our defense, our other stuff, etc.) as if it's the end of the world. it really isn't. And why is it justified? Well, here's one thing: http://www.commondre...s06/1226-25.htm And plus, isn't it tachnically income? The person receiving it is making 7 million dollars, or whatever.

And maybe having a universal standard in all 50 states will change the avoiding thing. I dunno.

Investment taxes: I went for this, remember I don’t like taxes in general but accept them as necessary. I am sorry however, I do not accept the argument that the rich are rich and should pay because they are rich. That seems like class warfare to me. Taxes should be fair and justifiable for all, they shouldn’t be based on Bill Maher's silly sketches on complaining that the rich are rich. Still ya need $ so taxes go up.

I never said they should pay because they are rich. unless that statement also includes the fact that because the rich benefit more from society, they should give more back to society. Then, I suppose I accept the statement.

And Bill Maher, while he is a comedian, does bring up good points. Especially considering he is rich, and is pushing for all of these things. t's not like he's on welfare asking the rich to pay 100% in taxes. bill is loaded, he knows it, and yet he fights for increasing tax on the rich and what not. I like him.

Oh, and the class war thingy: Bill has actually called for it. Even though he's rich (odd, actually. Here's the video:

And another:

) And plus, he does bring up good points that people don't think about. For instance, is he wrong here?

But anyway, I know he's a comedian. I just think he has good points.

Bush tax rates: as already discussed in another thread, I don’t think taxes should ever be over 50%

I am willing to put it at 50%, as long as the loopholes disapear.

Payroll tax: here in Canada the payroll tax is a tax on a company based on their total payroll. An insane tax that reduces a companies desire to hire extra personnel. Like I said seems to mean something completely different in the USA

See above.

Millionaires tax: As i understood it it was just an extra tax on those making over 1kk or in other words another way of increasing the tax rate on income over 1kk without calling it that. If I am wrong in this assessment i could change my mind. But again ya need $$$.

Yeah, I agree.

reduce mortgage deductions: OK not sure 100% how it works in the USA but as i understand it you can deduct a percentage the interest you pay on a mortgage from your income tax. This is a measure to try and help people purchase their own homes. Again if I am wrong on this and it works completely differently than in Canada I could change my mind.

Well, why is this a bad thing? OK, maybe some rich guy will take advantage and use it to cut his taxes, but why shouldn't a middle or working class person be able to do this?

National sales tax: yup legalize and tax the vices I'm with you on that.

Woot. Weed for all

Carbon tax: the idea is that if you make things that create CO2 more expensive people will use them less. The truth is it only slows the CO2 emissions by the amount that it slows the economy. The big difference you must remember between the USA and Europe( and even more so Canada and Europe) is size. Europe is tiny and everything is close in comparison. If gas gets too expensive transport of people/goods gets insane compared to the relative closeness of Europe.

What you say makes sense. Indeed, Europe is very small. i can see why it's different.

Bank tax: Ok here are a few things we had you guys didn't (as i understand it). Mortgages were a max 35 years (now dropped to 30). No interest only mortgages, min 5% deposit was lowest amount (needed to qualify), next level was 10% again needed to qualify (note requirements are very strict vis a vis USA. Regular is 20% down-payment. You have 0% of getting a mortgage if you have no job. Many jobs automatically make it harder and discount you from 5% or 10% down-payments (these are jobs where the income is not stable, ie varies from week/week month/month. For example a waiter(i was one for a while is how i know) they will accept your salary but will only accept a % of what you declare as your income from tips as this can vary wildly and drastically depending on season/economy and other factors. There are much more I am sure but I only have had to deal with these regulations in my life. I am not a banking expert just know that all reports without exception claim our regulations were the reason our banks didn’t fail. Oh yeah one more thing as to personal banks (not investment) We have far far fewer banks than you guys (even when your 10X population is taken in account). But the vast majority of our banks are on a national scale not small local or provincial banks

So, reasonable things that prevent meltdowns? No wonder we didn't have it =) But yeah, we need more regulations for sure. The deregulation under Bush screwed up majorly.

As to too big to fail I agree with you if they are too big to fail they are too big to exist.

I mean seriously, if a few banks decide the fate of Wall ZStreet, something is very wrong.

Now i gotta go fix my motorcycle

Have fun with that =)

Oh, and i don' tthink it included corporate taxes. This is one of the things (one of the FEW things) i agree with lowering taxes on. i see no reason that lowering it to 28% from 35% (much too high for those who follow the rules) while closing loopholes to increase revenue wouldn't work beautifully. And maybe we should use the Citizens United ruling to our advantage: If a corporation is a person, than I guess they can be charged for tax evasion, and we can punish them more severely for their enviormental mistakes (BP executives i'm looking at you) and such.

just a thought. if they're a person, they have all the responsibilities of one too =)

Dawh: About the earmarks: According to the link I put up, the NY Times thing, earmarks do conribute something. Granted, it wasn't much, but from what I understand, all they do is allow for useless pet projects by politicians, and so since it's useless, and might help, I see no reason to get rid of it. Now, i may have gotten what an earmark is wrong, but i don't think so.

And for Quag:

My response is in red

oh yeah ill try and explain my choices:

foreign aid: read last post

Got to this

earmarks : seems like a no brainer you guys have been trying to get rid of them forever

Yeah, i see no reason for them.

farm subsidies: well wast so keen on this but everyoen shoudl learn the real cost of food i guess

If what Dawh says is true, i see no reason to keep these. Isn't this a leftover from the Great Depression or something like that? When the farmers needed a price boost? I'm a little shady on my New Deal history, but...

5% govt paycut: if liek canada most are overpaid, and that is what happens to people in real world when company is in trouble

Well, the average senator makes 80k. Yeah, pay cut. Let's see how they act when they get a more... middle class wage

10% worforce cut: you could probably cut more, ive worked in govt its increadibly over staffed escpecially management.

With the unemployment rate, i dunno about this. Seems like we need people to work, after all they put money into the economy and what not.

250k contractors: come on you like us have way way to many and im guessing liek here contracts tend to go to "friends" of politicians.

Agreed. Especially war ones. We basically hire mercenaries- there's the same number of private guys in Afghan. as US Army guys. i find that to be insulting to our armed forces, quite frankly.

other cuts: not sure what this is exactly but i needed for the 30 year

Eh... I stayed away from this. Too vague.

cut aid to states: they gotta cut waste as well sorry but as a country you are broke and so are your states giving money liek this leads them to act innefeciantly.

I didn't put this. i still think the Federal gov. has to help out the states. Some are worse off than others.

reduce nuclear arsenal : no like nukes!

i agree.... but i wouldn't get rid of em all, honestly, til Russia does. I know the cold war is over, but still...

reduce troops: ya still have a kick A$$ army

Oh believe me, i say cut the army in half. It'd still be more. And most of the cutting would come from ending the wars and bringing home our European/Asian troops. (i don't get this. They don't need them anymore.)

reduce navy/air force fleets: actually tried to avoid this as if needed buildup takes way to long but needed for 30 year

We have 12 carriers... vs 2 in the next biggest. our navy, like our army, is too obese.

cancel/delay weapons: ya got no $$ ya gotta be frugal

Depends what it is. There was an article in the NY Post (I'm holding it in my hand actually, can't find it online though) saying that China is catching up with us technology wise in the military, while Iran is doing the same with precision guided missles. They are comparing the Chinese thing with 'Finlandization' (says here that it has to do with maintaining military balance with the enemy, originally the USSR).

Now, should we go and build AI Fighter robots that can do kung fu and fires missles from their wrists? No, that's ridiculous and unnecessary. But there's certain things I feel we need to work on, like more drone technology so we use fewer people and more anti-missle stuff (kinda like what Reagan wanted with the Star Wars defense system (one of the few times I'll agree with him =)). If we get that going, we don't need nukes.

Oh, and we also need it so they don't shoot out military satellites out of the sky. That would screw us over.

noncombat compensation: seems cruel and hartless so i no touch

I agree. The veterans served us, leave em alone.

reducing troop levels: seemed obvious

Hell's yeah. Not that they'll do this one, but I think the faster we leave the better. it's the 21st century equivalent of Vietnman in Afghanistan (and has lasted longer at that), and iraq- well, we f***** up Iraq. Both are failed, time to leave.

medical malpractice: cant believe it would save so little, but it needs be done yesterday!

After reading it over I had to agree. in fact, i one book I read (Nudge by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein) suggested adding an option to eliminate your 'right' to a malpractice suit altogether, which, if selected by the person, would end up saving them money.

medicare age to 68: sorry retirement age is gonna increase as well, no way around it

On one condition will I accept this- it doesn't affect anyone who is right now over thirty. me being fifteen, by the time I turn 68, we'll have a life expectancy well above what we have now. it's no big deal. But for my Dad and Mom's generation- hell's no. We don't need this yet.

medicare to 70: lets not go too fast here!

Agreed.

tax break for employer health: yeah make it harder for company funded programs no thank you!

i forget what this one is, but i don't think i selected it.

cap medicare growth: seems this will just reduce service not force efficiencies(well that is what always has happened) so im against this one

Yep. You know what else: How's about universal healthcare? *Fends off tea partiers*

But seriously, I dunno about Canada (I've heard conflicting opinions, what do you think of it), but from what i know about Europe (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html), there's is much better. And costs less. And makes sure people who have the sniffles don't clog the whole damn thing up.

Saving money, covering everyone- sounds lovely to me.

social security to 68: gotta happen we are living longer and using a system based on much shorter life expectancies.

Same as above

SS70: lets not go too fast yet

Yep

reduce SS benefits for rich: its gonna happen anyways so just admit it!

I find the fact that the rich can have unemployment, food stamps (i think, not sure about that one), and SS to be ridiculous. Warren buffet and Bill Gates, and even someone who made 1 or so million a year (that's my rich cut-off line for what it's worth) doesn't need it.

tighten eligibility for disability: really didnt want ot do this but needed more cuts and you keep hearing those stores about person X who abuses system (i personally know some)

And person y who was saved by it. Abuses can be dealt with in other ways.

Alternate accounting: yeah i avoided this as accounting trickery always seems liek a bad idea

I might have missed this one. I don't remember it.

Estate taxes: Avoided all of these as the money earned was already taxed it is just a money grab on grieving families. also the richest of the rich would transfer money out of USA to avoid paying anyway.

Nope nope nope. Cue bill Maher:

Put it to the Clinton Era. Seriously. I'm sorry, but complaining that 'OMG now I'm getting 5 million instead of 6!' or whatever- i feel no pity. Most people don't get that. They should seriously stop complaining.

Investment taxes: didnt liek this one either as it slows investment but needed the cash and i am against estate taxes so raise had to come somewhere.

Ah the capital gains tax. Cue politifact (One of my favorite websites): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/19/grover-norquist/grover-norquist-said-economy-has-grown-or-been-dam/ It does nothing to investment, and if people don't invest because they have to pay 35% instead of 15%- I mean seriously, it's not 90%. They had to deal with it before. And who usually is affected by this? The rich, the people who invest. It won't hurt them.

bush tax rates: picked the lesser of 2 evils ya need more income but dont liek hitting the middle class so over 250k you pay more

I picked this, but for the record, the tax system I want is: 1mil+, 60% (if you cant live on 400k or so a year, with the average family being two kids, and my family has 6 people, plus helping one set of grandparents out, with about 100k between my dad and my mom, somebody done f'd up.), something like 250k to under 1 mil: 50%, middle 40% (it is a raise, but not much), poor 30%, poverty zero. I'll even put it 50, 40, 35, 30, 0. But it needs a boost. it's inevitable.

payroll tax: was confused payroll tax here in canada means somethign else apparently, so i picked it without understanding what it was (again needed more $$)

This tax adds to SS. it's from... well, a person's payroll. This option (which i selected) would push up the cap on the amount the payroll tax affects to whatever it said, thus bringing some of the wealthier Americans into the pot.

millionaires tax: think that without loopholes there shoudl be no need but there was for this exercise so i added it

I wasn't too sure what this meant, so i left it alone.

eliminate loopholes: picked the one with higher taxes as again ya need $$$$$

Yep.

reduce mortgage reductions: yeah your economy fell apart with the collapse of the real estate market i think this is a no go zone ATM.

i don't really get what this means. An explanation would be wonderful =)

national sales tax: well not 100% against but you must realize it will exlode your underground economy liek it has here in canada resultin in much less $$ than projectiosn show so i said no thanx

Here's an idea. Ready... Legalize drugs and prostitution, tax them. Well. That seems simple. Saves on police, adds revenue, increases safety. Yep.

I said no to this anyway =)

carbon tax: this is a ridicoulous tax that gives the appearance of helping the environment without doing anythign but inceasing the cost of everything. please people do stuff that actually helps, not just shuffle money around!

Couldn't really get what this was, so despite my feeling (apparantly false, then) that it would help the enviornment- i didn't o it. Now, another thing i've heard is a big gas tax. just a thing on this- i would, normally, say yes. (What they have in Europe. It's like 9$ a gallon due to tax, though maybe i wouldn't go that extreme) however, due to the state of the economy, the lack of a true alternative yet (though i say add more funding to research alternative energy), and the fact that there would be riots in the streets, i disagree with it.

bank tax: seems like a lets tax anyone we think is rich tax but seems to me will decourage investments by banks. a better approach would be to look at our canadian regulations as we were barely affected by your banking disaster. only banks that invested in the USA got slightly singed as our system avoided lending to people who had no $ to pay.

Explain you regulations then. This is one of the things that I decided i wanted to include when i went back to do it again. but tell me what Canada does.

Oh, and maybe something else that would help would be to 1. Make sure they understand- NO MORE BAILOUTS. At least, i'd rather there not be. For those wonderful free marketiers out there- let em fail =)

And if their too big to fail, well, i go by the words of one of my political heros, Bernie Sanders:

"if they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist." (Something like that)

Break em up if they're too big to fail.

well that is a very very quick explanation of my thinking on this exercise, i didnt actually try and keep the cuts and taxes to be roughly equal but it turned out that way.

There were some things that I think could have been added (indeed, they say politicians have more stuff), but 'm very glad to have found this exercise. Very enlightening. And it makes you wonder why we, normal people, seem to be able to do this (and compromise)... and not our officials.

Quag: Ok, i can see foreign aid reform for sure. (i don't think we send it to china though. Good job with that =)) But cutting it outright- I don't know about that. For instance, although I don't completely agree with everything it does, Israel does rely on us. And since we (and England, but from what I know we encouraged them) created it, to get rid of it would be, well, not fair really.

And we don't need foreign aid just yet, ya know, with our huge economy and all that. We're still, to my knowledge, the biggest.

Those nutjob dems. have much less of a say than the tea party, and are much less paid attention to. And I don't think Obama (again, this is an assumption), or whoever, would put dems. on there that wouldn't negotiate. Even just talking political advantage, they have the republicans cornered due to the stuff that just happened. I'm much more hopeful than you seem to be.

And I disagree with the plan being ignored- 1. because it isn't really possible. You can't just ignore a law. 2. That would be political suicide. Too many people, unlike usual here, care about this for it to be forgotten by the public.

Also, I think it's a good start. We did finally begin cutting, and hopefully the bipartisan thing that's being developed would be good. And it kinda has to be over a ten or so year period. If too much is taken out at once, well, we'd be screwed. And the credit rating would be catastrophic for everyone from what ive read. I am sure something would be created to help us if the need arise. If they busted out greece, they'll bust out us.

And by the way, I don't like the debt ceiling exactly because of this thing that happened. No other major nation has it (from what ive read), and really there's no need. It's not worth what just almost heppened. The debt ceiling, after all, is to be able to pay the bills we already owe, not to increase spending.

Now, plain:

1. Congrats on becoming a moderator =)

2. I agree with the second half of what you wrote. i don't know enough about the first half to say yes or no, so, yeah...

And I found out that the US basically is Europe's military. Is there any further sense in this? It isn't the 50's. Europe is no longer a bomb-filled continent.

ill answer your other post later tonight, QUag.

1. Well, definitely more equal then mine. By what's with the foreign aid cuts? You're one of many. Is it that big of a deal?

2. Couldn't a credit downgrade be avoided with an actual deal, involving both revenue increases (tax raises, loophole fill-ins, etc.) and cuts, that adds up to 4 trillion? I thought i read that somewhere. And i think it's possible. IF no tea partiers are put on the bipartisan thingy of course. Then we're screwed. But i doubt Boehner (who I assume is going to appoint the people) is that stupid. He knows the tea partiers are crazy, i hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=bktj45ny I solved the deficit apparently =)

I have to do this again though, when I actually pay attention more. But anyway, here's the link for the rest of ya: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

flamebird, it's the S surrounded by the blue square. Under 'My Media'

Or this:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Well, here's my plan:

First, I think we need to raise taxes. That one is just common sense. Reducing it or leaving it the same won't bring in as much revenue.

Second, close tax loopholes, both for people and corporations, that aren't necessary, which would allow the corporate tax rate to actually be lowered (35% is a bit much)

Then, capital gains tax cannot stay at 15%. That is just too low.

Now, for the cuts:

Defense in half, by ending the wars, whatever.

Cutting SS or Medicare won't do anything, that is out of the question (Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8JlK6k29uQ)

Then we move to Senatorial pay. For instance, the speaker of the house makes something like 150K a year. That's ridiculous. there's no reason for it to be more than, say, 100K.

Then, just find some more waste.

By the way, I need someone to explain to me the difference between the Deficit and the debt. From what I get, the Debt is to foreign places while the deficit is to domestic places (like the Fed and SS, which the government has been taking the surplus from for years).

If this is true, why does anyone care about the deficit? It's debt that doesn't leave the country. i don't see what the big deal is.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

By the way, have any of you noticed the general (or perhaps almost absolute) trend that wars seem to happen because of governments? Can you imagine a bunch of guys in planes flying over and bombing Pearl Harbor in the absence of governments? Why would they ever do such a thing? Can you imagine someone flying a plane over Hiroshima and Nagasaki dropping an atomic bomb on them in the absence of governments? Again, I couldn't at all, because all of their motives for doing so would be lost. Without governments the motives and funding for wars would be gone. I'm sure there would still be some violent conflicts (anarchy is not a utopia), but there would be nothing even close to the wars that governments have waged throughout history.

http://www.rmprofessional.com/rm/survey-puts-somalia-top-of-terrorist-attack-league.php

Um, yeah, i could. It's called terrorism. or do the terrorists count as governments? People always have motives for killing. Religious, economic, social, etc. Absolutely such things could happen. A bunch of planes were flown into the twin towers by a fundamentalist group. not a government. A group of terrorists. Somalia, an anarchic country, is number one on the most terrorist attacks list (the link). Now your just blaming everything on governemnts. War has been around since the first human (hell, even animals; ants wage war) took a rock and hit someone upside the head for a mate. Blaming such things on governments is ridiculous. War will be war, regardless of there being a state or not. Like what i said before about the private organizations being bribed (ill reply to your other stuff tomorrow): Obviously they may not have a monopoly on violence. but does that matter? What if it the company that has 60% of the market? Backed by some greedy rich aristocrats who want power? Civil war will easily run rampant, and any peace will be fragile. Seriously, war will always exist as long as the quest for power contnues. Which will be as long as humans exist. The companies will fight amongst themselves. Rich aristocrats vs other rich aristocrats. Shareholders vs shareholders. The companies that were attacked by any other rogue one would retaliate, obviously, because why should the sit and do nothing? And in an era without governments, the same ones that made the Geneva Convention and POW rules, war will be worse. No battle field news, since reporters will haev no protection. Thus, no knowledge for the population about human rights violations and what not. Saying that full-scale war, like that seen in the past and present, will suddenly disapear when governments do, is being naive. people cause wars. Any agent of warfare, private or otherwise, will be exploited if power is at stake.

And i'm noticing that you seem to think we should have stood their and taken it when japan attacked us and when the terrorists did. That's BS if I'm understanding you correctly. If I'm attacked, I'm fighting back. The stories of the Gandhi's are wonderful when they work. but seriously think about it: Imagine that was the N. Korean government. Gandhi and the revolutionaries would have disapeared.

And saying the dilemna with Japan was a false one is to not understand the predicament. if we didn't attack, Japan would have; there is no question of that. So it was either attack or be attacked. I dunno about you, but I'll take the former. After that it becomes morally fuzzy territory that I won't even begin to try to solve, and thankfully such things won't have to happen again (drones now make sure that military targets are exclusively attacked. They do much more damage, and hopefully will allow for less use of actual humans in warfare, lowering further the possibility that any civilians will be harmed).

But if you say we shouldn't have attacked and instead should have taken it, well, then i simply can't agree with that. And if that's what NAP is, then I'll take the plunge and say NAP is not fully for me. if it means waiting to be attacked even if we can attack first to stop it, if it means being Gandhiescue for everything, and if it means that in WW2 we should have let Japan beat the crap out of us- than NAP is not the greatest thing to use.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

I meant to say condone or condemn it outright in that last section.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

Wait, what are you saying? I lost you when you said, "you say that even though the Native Americans oftentimes sold the land." I was going to say that certainly not all of the European settlers invaded America with force (i.e. many of them obtained their land in America by legitimate non-violent means), but then you said "even though the Native Americans oftentimes sold the land" and now I'm doubting that I understand your point so maybe my response isn't on target.

"First off, even though you may not like it, conquest is a legitimate means of getting land, otherwise you have to give your land back to the Native Americans."

No, it's not. Conquest is an act of aggressive violence--it's in clear violation of the non-aggression principle. You know, you really are assuming that everybody here accepts NAP. I'm still not sure I do, since I seem to be 'violating' it in multiple ways. As for the part about the Native Americans, again as I said above not all land in America was conquered violently from the Native Americans. Which does include the East Coast. All the settlers did was fight back if they were attacked, but most of the actual deals were made on the East coast(if you find something saying I'm wrong, I'd be glad to hear it). SO then, according to you, the English had the East coast, so when the Revolution happened, and the ownership switched over, the US now owned the land. So then, you living on the East Coast, should be paying 'rent' Although, for the sake of argument, even if all of the land was forcefully seized from the Native Americans, that would not justify conquest as a legitimate means of gaining ownership of something. Then I guess we have to return the land to the Natives. They would love the news. Because if it isn't legitimate ownership, then the Natives should have all the land.

"And besides, your going to roll your eyes when you read this, but your group of friends is not a nation. If France attacked the US and took the East coast, I'd either have to accept being under French rule or I'd have to move West."

I don't believe in states/nations. Well the thing is, they exist. And your friends are not a nation. So once again, your hypothetical is irrelevant. I disagree with you that if some of my friends and I conquered your house with force then that would be legitimate. It most certainly wouldn't be legitimate. If you say otherwise then we really can't argue with each other as the differences in are views are just a matter of differences in axiomatic principles. Well, if we replace your group of friends with nations (since once again, your friends aren't countries), and you still don't consider that legitimate (as you don't, from what I'm getting), then I guess it is a difference in axiomatic principles If I break into your house and point a gun at you and say get out, the house isn't legitimately mine. And similarly, when you come back with some other people with guns and force me out of your house, the house isn't now yours because you just reconquered it, but rather it is yours because it was yours originally before I forced you out with a gun.

If the act of conquest was a major war many years ago and the original legitimate owners of the property are long dead then there's really nothing else we can do but reestablish who the rightful owners of the property are. OK, so what if I reestablish that it's the US government? After all, the Natives are, like you said, long dead.Hopefully that will be easy because the property will have been traded around voluntarily free of any violent conquest for a long time and so whoever happens to be the current owner of the stolen property that is traded around now becomes, in a practical sense that we must accept as we have no reasonable alternative, the legitimate owner. I see a reasonable alternative. The US government. This does not mean that the original act of conquest was legitimate though, it just means that years later in order to retain are concept of ownership which is necessary to us to have a prosperous society, we have to settle on a new understanding of who legitimately owns what. So applying this to the European settlers who forcefully conquered much of the native American's land from them, now hundreds of years later we can say that you own your property and I own mine. We can, but we can also say that we only own it in the sense of 'renting'. Of course, you have to accept conquest as a legitimate means of getting ownership, and if we can't agree on that, then you're right, this piece of the argument is going nowhere.It would also thus not make sense to say that the government owns our property due to the fact that it was the government institution itself that committed the illegitimate conquest of the land in the first place. Only if you think it's illegitimate To make another common sense analogy, if a thief steals something and sells it to you, and then you sell it to someone else, and then you use the money you make by selling it to buy something from someone else, and then that person uses that money to buy something from someone else, etc, the more time that goes on and the more transactions that take place, and the more that people can't possibly tell that they're buying and selling things that were stolen from somebody years ago, the more legitimate the transactions become. Again though, it's important to note that the original act of conquest or theft is still not legitimate even though we now call the current (many years later) owner of the piece of conquered or stolen property as the legitimate owner of the property. You can see this even in the short term actually. For example, if I steal something and sell it to you and you had no reason to suspect that I stole the property I was selling from you, then isn't your ownership of that property after you buy it from me more legitimate than my ownership after I stole it from whoever? But again, this is on an individual level. Not nations.. Nations run differently, because they are NOT individuals. So yes, your analogy is common sense for individuals- and only that.

"because a democratic nation that protects your rights is so horrible because it takes some of your money"

It's "so horrible" because it initiates violence against people, just like all tyrannical governments and people. It doesn't matter if a thief goes into your house with a gun, demanding all of your money, your computer, your TV, your refrigerator, etc, etc, and then gives it all to people poorer than you--he still stole the stuff from you and thus it's still wrong. Also, what would you think of the thief stealing from you if he himself was living a semi-luxurious life? Wouldn't you say at the very least that before thinking of stealing stuff from you to give to the poor he should first give up as much of his own wealth as he could to the poor without dying from starvation himself, before going after you to steal your property to give to the poor? This guy makes the same point getting to the end of his article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

At the end of the article he finishes with the point:

"The problem, however, with violating libertarian law for special exigencies is that these occurrences are more commonplace than supposed. Right now, there are numerous people dying of starvation in poor parts of the world. Some are suffering from illnesses which could be cured cheaply, e.g., by penicillin. We have all read those advertisements placed by aid agencies: "Here is little Maria. You can save her, and her entire village, by sending us some modest amount of money each month."

In point of fact, many so called libertarians who have attacked the non-aggression axiom on these emergency grounds live in housing of a middle class level or better; drive late model cars; eat well; have jewelry; send their children to pricey colleges. If they truly believed in their critiques, none of this would be true. For if the cabin owner and the apartment dweller are to give up their property rights to save the hiker and the flagpole hanger, then they must give up their comfortable middle class life styles in behalf of all the easily cured sick and starving people in the world. That they have not done so shows they do not even take their own arguments seriously.

The logical implication of their coercive welfarist argument is far worse than merely being required to give a few dollars a month to a relief agency. For suppose they do this. Their standard of living will still be far greater than those on the verge of death from straightened circumstances. No, as long as these relatively rich "libertarians" have enough money to keep themselves from dying from poverty, the logic of their argument compels them to give every penny they own over and above that level to alleviate the plight of the endangered poor." - From http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

Of course people should. I will give what I can when I actually make a steady income (considering I'm 15, I have none, so...) But the government does give money, since your dollar bills are its money, which it then gives to foreign places, its own people, etc. (noting of course that the number one job of a government (well, at least our's) is to protect its people, so it may not give as much to other nations as it does to itself). And actually, this goes against what you say- if people would give enough of their money to help the poor, why are there still such issues?

"On an individual level, and even internationally now for those in the UN, they don't ["tolerate the people involved in the dispute battling it out with force"]. unless you count going to court as violent, in which your DRO is quite violent"

No. Going to court does count as violent because the government enforces the court's rulings with violence. On the other hand, DROs do not violently enforce their rulings, contrary to your statement that they are "quite violent." Do you really not know this after our big discussion on DROs (and after reading my sentence following your quote: "instead, if some tenant claimed that he owned his owner's apartment, rather than using force against that tenant (to get him to pay his rent) like governments do in our current society, non-violent alternatives to dealing with the problem such as economic ostracism would be used instead.")? Surely after reading that sentence immediately after mistakenly writing "in which your DRO is quite violent" you should have gone back and corrected your mistake....

What I meant by that if you think court is violent, then DRO's must be violent, because it is court. But your right, it wasn't worded right. Now, remember of course that the government 'violently' enforces its laws because you know, as a citizen, that if you break the law, this is what will happen. It's like what you were saying about contracts before- people know what will happen if they do it. they are well informed. And if they disagree with a law, they vote for people who agree with them to change it (think about this: Many states, like colarado, are slowly accepting commercialized drug use, and there's a bill in congress now that will make the Federal government stop enforcing drug laws (I forget if it was for all or just Marijuana, but either way, it's a step in the right direction. Change takes time after all)

"This is one of the things I forgot. The rich look at this sentence and think, 'Oh goodie! I can do whatever I want!' Why? Well, if they are ostracized, they simply move to another DRO jurisdiction, either by private jet or whatever. The poor are screwed. What can they do? Assuming it's a HUGE DRO area (that it 'controls'), they couldn't do anything. Heck, even if it was small enough that they can get to a neighboring one, the news of their crime would reach the neighbor. The rich guy can avoid this, he'll just move to California."

I've told you many times that this is an empty fear you have, but you still go on thinking that initiating violence against people is necessary to resolve disputes... it's crazy. Anyways, didn't you (or was it just dawh?) say earlier that you thought wealth was power, not violence? That was Dawh, actually How is it that these poor people you speak of are "screwed" if they can get the wealthy "powerful" people to move all the way to California without so much as even threatening to raise a gun at them and while being so poor? Well, first off it isn't fair that they can't do the same and if they, say, steal a loaf of bread or something because otherwise they can't survive, then they will have to suffer the punishment while the rich don't. If some wealthy guy in town steals something you've just demonstrated that you yourself don't think that using violence against such rich thieves is necessary to deal with them. Unless by "deal with them" you want to use violence against them to lock them up or kill them or harm them in some other way as "punishment" for their crime then really the aggressive violence that you support isn't necessary. I think it is. If some rich guy, or anyone really, murders someone, I sure as hell want him put in jail, violently or otherwise, for life, or maybe even the death penalty depending on the circumstances. Absolutely, to do otherwise is just not fair to the victim, especially if they are rich and just avoid the penalty anyway.And again, you seem to be comparing my suggested non-violent methods of dealing with such criminals and disputes to a perfect world (nirvana fallacy). In reality you should be comparing it to what we have now, a state that acts as a monopolistic coercion apparatus that nobody can stand a chance to defend themselves against. Well, the Arab nations have been having success. You just have to have enough people convinced. The masses can do many things. And either way, you have voting. that is a way of defense. What happens when the wealthy man steals something in this society? Can't he just pay off the law enforcement people (bribe them) to get himself free? Uh... well yes, but that wouldn't be any different. It'd be easier in your society actually, since private firms don't answer to the people. And if you don't think it's an empty fear now, if you think people bribe people (which is true, I'm not saying it isn't), why would it be any different with private firms? It'd be worse. What are the poor to do then? People are selfish Woah! So you admit it. So then i return to something said earlier: If you admit that people are selfish, and you want to help the poor, how does that add up? Because if people are selfish, no one will.--if you give a group of people (the state) the legal right to initiate violence against others they aren't going to protect the poor. They are going to inevitably accept bribes from wealthy lobbyists and wealthy criminals because its in their self-interests to do so. You can "reform" the system to reduce as much of this as you can, but you will never remove enough of the injustice as you would remove by removing the coercive institution itself that is responsible for providing the injustice to the wealthy people that can pay the coercive institution off for the favor to turn a blind eye to their crimes. At least the government answers to the people, and when such a travesty is discovered, people are arrested and such. What makes you think this won't get worse with a private firm (the DRO) running the show?

"Court isn't violent. The government doesn't shoot people over rent fees"

The government generally doesn't shoot people over rent fees because people would rather be evicted from their apartments than be killed. When the police finally come to the apartment with their guns in their holsters and demand they get out they submit to the police's demands because they know that they stand no chance resisting it and would rather submit to it then die resisting. If you really still can't see that the government uses force (violence) against people in such instances though....

Yes, I do see it. However, considering the fact that the government makes it very clear what will happen if a law is broken, i don't care, because they knew what would happen.

"When did this become objective morality? They ARE occasionally necessary, though things should be done to avoid them, and they AREN'T necessarily immoral (for instance, let's say we knew that some country was going to fire nukes at us tomorrow. Would we wait until AFTER they attacked us, or would we attack now to make sure we aren't blown to bits?"

Oh god, we're in trouble. Do you support the US government's bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki too? If there's something to be called evil it is the position that you support--the position that initiating violence against people can ever be moral or just. You really are a tyrant even though you think you are helping people.

"Oh, but he had good intentions."

"But he murdered countless innocent people."

"Yes, but with good intentions!"

'Good intentions' don't matter. It's what people actually do that matters. I'm not quite sure what made me feel that I should say this. Maybe it's because I think you have "good intentions" when you support attacking people in an effort to not get nuked and yet on the other hand the attacks that you support are utterly immoral. So again, it's what you do that matters, not your "good" intentions. If you support such utterly immoral things as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I can't pretend to use your "good" intentions as an excuse to tolerate your support of such evils. What you actually support is wrong even if your intentions are good and thus I can't and I don't tolerate what you're saying.

You're right, that is a tough thing to think about. First off, the issue isn't as black and white as that. We did warn the Japanese Emperor both times (we told him before Hiroshima and Nagasaki that if he doesn't surrender, we'll do this). There was only one other choice: A land invasion of Japan, which very likely would have led to the deaths of far more American troops, Japanese troops, and Japanese citizens than the bombs did. If we stopped attacking altogether, they would have attacked us again. This was known. Therefore, only the two choices I stated above were possible. The president at the time (I forget who it was...) chose what he thought would be the option that saved the most American and Japanese lives, and he repeatedly warned them about what would happen. The bombs did end the war, saving a lot of lives that would have been lost. Plus, we've been helping Japan with everything ever since, and were (to my knowledge) their biggest donator when the tsunami hit.

Now, it definitely could have been done differently. For instance, there was a petition that wanted it to first be dropped in the ocean, showing Japan its power without killing anyone, and then bombing elsewhere if they didn't surrender.

Add to this the atrocities Japan committed to Americans and Filapanos when about 80,000 in total were killed during a POW march that was against the Geneva Convention, and the other atrocities committed...

In truth, I dunno. I will not condemn it outright. Maybe the petitioners' plan would have been better.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

You all see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpqKIzxiixc&feature=player_embedded

Those neighbors seem like real a-holes not for nothing.

And that's a hell of a law. Wonder if they have that in NY....

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

As for your most recent post that I just saw: What if I reject NAP? Because not for nothing, but I'm not entirely sure that it works. For instance, the only reason Ghandi's actions worked is because it was against a government that wasn't totalitarian/screw the populace, and that accepted the world's criticism. If he had done that against, say, China or NK, we would leran about the futile attempts of an Indian man to break away peacefully, which led to his death and a bloody revolution (of course, according to you, that would then mean India wouldn't legitimately have its land).

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

My stuff's in red, but before I begin with the line by line:

Who the hell was the first to legitimately own it then? The Native Americans? I could see that, of course, but then you should be arguing to give the Native Americans back all their land. Are you fighting for that? Because think about it, you say that even though the Native Americans oftentimes sold the land (yes, they got screwed in the deal, no one disputes this, but you think voluntary contracts are OK, and since they were voluntary, it's exactly like the bad deals homeowners made recently with the mortgage stuff.)

Now, to the specifics...

It's not unarguable at all. How did the US government gain ownership of the territory of Louisiana? Buy buying it from another government that claimed ownership of that land (the French government) without legitimacy meaning that the US government didn't legitimately own the land after they paid the French for it. The French's claim of ownership over the Louisiana territory was no more legitimate than a claim by some Joe Shmoe living on the east cost of the US or a Joe Shmoe living in Europe that they owned the land. The US government then went in to the territory and committed genocide against the native Americans living there and used force against people who didn't accept their claim of ownership to violently gain physical "authority" over the land. In reality though they didn't have actual authority over the land, only the "authority" of superior force. And also don't forget that the US government financed the land purchase with taxpayer's money. If Mafia A sells "their" territory to Mafia B, not only does Mafia B still not own the territory, but also Mafia B bought the territory with stolen money adding another reason why it's not legitimate.

OK, a couple of things. First off, even though you may not like it, conquest is a legitimate means of getting land, otherwise you have to give your land back to the Native Americans. After all, the entire reason you can even think to own it is because of previous conquests. Also, the Native American genocides were horrible; again, no one disputes that. What would I have done? I would have encouraged the settlers to live among the Natives peacefully. Obviously that would ave been wonderful. Thing is, it wasn't happening because the settlers were being attacked, and vice versa. The government made the wrong decision, but it thought at the time (supported by the populace) that what it was doing was helping their people. They were wrong, obviously. Also, the government used taxpayer money... to give taxpayers more places to live. It's not like they didn't benefit (the taxpayers I mean). They got land, and they got it gratefully.

The French had authority because they conquered it (and if you don't think conquering something means legitimate ownership, you go ahead and return you land to the natives. But do realize that that would mean a redrawing of the world maps and the collapse of the US (including the return of all US citizens back to Europe, because after all, we aren't here legitimately.

Again, the English government's claim to the land consisting of the thirteen original American colonies was again just as empty a claim. At this point I'm guessing that Dawh is going to want to reply to my post saying that by my standards of legitimacy nobody can then have a legitimate claim to own land, but this isn't true. The American colonists living in the American colonies agreeing on trades of land with each other voluntarily free of any violence most certainly had much stronger claims to owning the land then the government that tyrannical ruled over them. But you forget how they got this land: By it being granted to them by the same British Empire that took the land. Therefore, they didn't have it legitimately either. Once again, a return of all land to the Natives.So while the concept of ownership may not be black and white it is still certainly clear that some claims of ownership are much more (or less) legitimate than others. And when it comes to the English government's claim of owning the American colonies or the French's government claim of the territory of Louisiana, or even the US government's claim of owning all of the geographic United States, it is clear that while we may not be able to say with black and white certainty that they had no claim to the land, we can still say with confidence that their claims to the land lacked a lot of legitimacy, at least in comparison to the individual's claims of owning the land that they lived on and acquired and began using peaceably and voluntarily without using coercion.

Actually, they are equal, since the latter could not exist without the former. The only ones who can claim full legitimate ownership of land if you do not include conquest as legitimate are the Natives.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! ??? You said "Or conquered in the Mexican American War" and yet you're acting as if that is a legitimate means of gaining ownership of the land? Seriously, a war?? What about the Mexicans who were living on the land before the US decided to attack with force? Why do you think there claims to the land are illegitimate? Well, according to you they are because they got it after revolting from the Spanish who took it from the Natives. Again, back to the Natives Because they were too weak to defend themselves against the mighty US government? Ha, wow. I know the concept of ownership isn't a black and white issue, but in cases as blatant as this it's hard to believe that you'd look at the war and then say the US government justly acquired the land.

Once again, we are left to conclude that we must return all land to the natives. You first.

Again, the British government's claim to the land wasn't legitimate in the first place. Although, for the sake of argument, even if we say it was legitimate, can you really say that the trade of the land from the British government to the US government was just? Yes. Revolutions are legitimate ways of getting land. Otherwise, again, we must return all land to the natives.You could say that the British "voluntarily" agreed to give up the land in the Treaty of Versailles, but that would be dishonest as you'd be ignoring the war that proceeded the treaty. For example, if I went to your house with a few of my friends and some guns and we had a nice battle between us and then eventually you said, "Wait! Cease fire! Okay, I'll give in! You can have my land!" then certainly it would be inaccurate to say that you "voluntarily" gave up your land to me. And thus, even if you legitimately owned your land in the first place I wouldn't be able to honestly say after the battle that I owned the land, as my means of getting you to sign the treaty to get you to give up the land involved using force against you and thus wasn't legitimate. Again, that's fine if you don't want to include conquest in your definition of legitimate ownership, but then you have to give you land back to the Natives. And besides, your going to roll your eyes when you read this, but your group of friends is not a nation. If France attacked the US and took the East coast, I'd either have to accept being under French rule or I'd have to move West. Or we do as you say and return the land to the Natives.So despite the superiority of my force to yours my claim to your land still wouldn't be justified, just as the US government didn't justly "acquire" the land from the British government (presuming the British justly owned the land in the first place remember, although of course I reject this claim).

So again, no, essentially for the two reasons that:

1) The former "owners" of the land didn't justly own the land in the first place and so any act of selling this land to another entity does not make that entity a legitimate owner of the land, and

2) In the case of the Treaty of Versailles and the Louisiana Purchase (among many other cases that you didn't specifically mention), the US government used force against the British government and Native Americans(/other people with claims to the land) respectively to forcefully either make them "voluntarily" (not really voluntarily) give up the land (Versailles's Treaty and Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek and other treaties following the Indian Removal Act of 1830) or just plain violently forced them out of the land (or killed them on it) (referring to Native American genocide). The Native American genocides were obviously horrible, but it has nothing to do with land ownership. the only reason it really happened was because of 1. Racism and 2. The settlers didn't like continuing to live next to people who were trying to kill them. It was badly handled (it may have been better to say that any attack on the settlers would be met with equal force or something, I dunno), but is irrelevant to the ownership part, since the US already had the land. (Or we go by what you're saying and accept that we must return all land to the Natives.

So no, the government is not renting out the land I live on. Rather, the mafia (a slightly nicer mafia than the mafias people usually call "mafias", although still a violent, coercive, tyrannical mafia)Yes, because a democratic nation that protects your rights is so horrible because it takes some of your money is using its far superior amount of violent force to get people like me to pay taxes against our will simply for living on land that we believe we have a far greater claim of ownership for than the government (<-- acknowledging that the issue of property ownership is not completely black and white, but still saying that it is quite clear that private individuals own their land despite the governments that tax them under your justification that the governments own the private peoples' land). Again, the latter could not occur without the former

By the way, have you ever heard of a tenant claiming that they shouldn't have to pay their apartment owner rent because they own the apartment, not the apartment owner? Actually, I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened before, but my point is that despite the issue of ownership not being completely black and white, I think you would agree that it's much clearer that the apartment owner owns and not the tenant, than it is "clear" (to you) that the government owns peoples' land, not the people.

And a last point for now, in a stateless society if a property ownership dispute were to arise (as I'm sure they would since the issue isn't black and white), nobody would tolerate the people involved in the dispute battling it out with force. On an individual level, and even internationally now for those in the UN, they don't. unless you count going to court as violent, in which your DRO is quite violent.Instead, if some tenant claimed that he owned his owner's apartment, rather than using force against that tenant (to get him to pay his rent) like governments do in our current society, non-violent alternatives to dealing with the problem such as economic ostracism would be used instead. This is one of the things I forgot. The rich look at this sentence and think, 'Oh goodie! I can do whatever I want!' Why? Well, if they are ostracized, they simply move to another DRO jurisdiction, either by private jet or whatever. The poor are screwed. What can they do? Assuming it's a HUGE DRO area (that it 'controls'), they couldn't do anything. Heck, even if it was small enough that they can get to a neighboring one, the news of their crime would reach the neighbor. The rich guy can avoid this, he'll just move to California.For example, people could put economic pressure on his employer to get him to fire the tenant employee unless he paid his rent. Also though chances are the apartment owner would have put in the contract with the tenant something about what would happen if the tenant didn't pay his rent so as to deal with the possible dispute before it happened. For example, the contract could say that as a condition of renting the apartment that if the tenant refused to pay at some point (e.g. for the reason that the tenant now thinks he owns the apartment) then force could be used against him to make him leave the house (the force would likely be defined) given X days/weeks of warning after the failure to pay. And so, as the tenant would have agreed to this use of force before moving in then it wouldn't be an initiation of force and would be entirely consistent with NAP. Anyways, I'm just mentioning this because in the past on this thread you all have doubted that such simple disputes as these are solvable without initiating violence against people Court isn't violent. The government doesn't shoot people over rent fees and so I just wanted to remind you again that there certainly are ways of dealing with these problems without violence and so again there's no reason for you all to support such violence. Initiations of force are not necessary, but rather are immoral, When did this become objective morality? They ARE occasionally necessary, though things should be done to avoid them, and they AREN'T necessarily immoral (for instance, let's say we knew that some country was going to fire nukes at us tomorrow. Would we wait until AFTER they attacked us, or would we attack now to make sure we aren't blown to bits? and you all don't have to go on continuing believing that they're not always immoral due to the false reason that sometimes initiating violence is necessary to get society to function properly (i.e. avoid collapsing and spiraling into chaos, which is still, at this point in the thread, what you all seem to think will happen in a free society).

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

I really haven't tried to argue for or against the idea that taxation is voluntary. I find it irrelevant.

However, let's look at this municipality thing logically UtF:

First off, (this piece doesn't apply to you, as you live in the NE), but the ENTIRE western half of the country was at one time completely owned by the government (Louisiana Purchase, etc.). It was given to its citizens (Homestead Act) and was taxed, like what Quag was saying, as a kind of rent. After all, it was the government's. It was a government contract that set up the terms, conditions, etc. So that is unarguable. (In fact, most of it is still titled 'Federal Land')

But like I said, you are in the NE. So that doesn't apply to you.

But think about this:

Originally the East coast was owned by England, who gave the colonists the rights to settle, again with a rent-like tax. After the Revolutionary war, all of this English land was given to the new US government in the Treaty of Versailles that ended the war. Thus, it was the US government's land.

So now let's look at the outcome:

The West was directly purchased (or conquered in the Mexican American War, or annexed) by the US government.

The East was transferred by the Treaty of Versailles.

The governemnt is renting out the land you live on.

Thus, the taxes (rent) are legitimate.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

1. Just because you think someone has plenty of wealth to live by and be happy, etc, does not make it okay to steal from them.

I'll get to this in my list below.

2. Yes, I understand those reasons. I just wanted to express how difficult it is to sympathize with the brainwashed religious people who fear the thought that their gods/afterlife/etc might not exist after all. I can understand the extreme emotional attachment that they can have to their beliefs as a result of being raised to believe that the beliefs were true for their whole lives, but even understanding this I can't imagine myself ever being afraid of such an idea in the slightest, so the phenomenon of the religious people being so attached to their beliefs really still seems quite amazing to me. Also, the social consequences are definitely a major part. While many people may be able to give up their emotional attachment to the idea of the big loving god watching over them, they still refrain from doing so due to not wanting to give up the social aspect of their religion which often makes up a large part of their lives.

I have to admit that my religious experience wasn't one of fear. I was taught about a god of love, one who cared and watched over you. If you were good, he rewarded you (which is really what they emphasized). Looking back, I realize it wasn't so loving, but at the time I thought it was wonderful.

And the social implication is HUGE. When I became an atheist (which came about through careful reasonable thinking and arguments, many from this site =)), everything changed really. I hide it from most of my family, and its really only my immediate family and friends that know. I cannot discuss religious stuff with my siblings (I do anyway with my 12 year old brother though, and thankfully he isn't one of the crazy religious people (he's very scientific, and i'm sure he'll accept evolution when he learns about it)), and at one point a friend of mine that I've known since I was 6 (I consider him to be my best friend) basically damned me through an XBox conversation, explaining that he now thought differently of me since he knew i was going to hell. Thankfully that's where it ended and it hasn't been brought up since (it was a couple of months ago), but many people aren't so lucky. I'm sure you know the horror stories of being trown out of the house for being an atheist. I'm quite lucky.

These are just a couple of things really. I feel my dad is more accepting than my mom, but she is still OK with it (took her a bit to get used to it though).

But the social part is surely the biggest, especially for those who reached adulthood in a religious household. But what I don't think people realize is that atheists aren't as few as they think. I've met many (gotta love high school), and I'm qutie friendly with all of them. It's great really.

But that's why i am not an 'anti-theist' unless they try to push social conservative BS. Because it really is tougher than most people think. My switch took a few months. many take years, and I'm sure if I hadn't found this website i would still be a theist (maybe not a Catholic, since I was completely disgusted with that church after my confirmation, but at least a deist, maybe more).

But anyway...

And for what you're proposing (starting over by restating/summarizing everything... a good idea perhaps), do you want me to lay out my objections just to quag's argument defending roads again or do you want me to lay out why taxation in general (not just for roads and not just municipal taxation) is really just a theft that most people in society happen to be okay with?

Do the general argument. i agree with you that the road thing is a little nit-picky (although of course i agree with Quag but not for the same reason; I think it is irrelevant, Quag, what the rules are, they have to be justified. If the government suddenly said 'We're shutting down the border and burning unapproved books,' I'd be one of the first to get the hell out of here (probably moving to Canada in the process =)).

So do it in general. i think a restart would be beneficial to this debate. You set up your main arguments, and I'll do mine below (I may miss some, so if so, I'll bring them up as we go).

So, first off:

Unregualted Free Market

Now you are (correct me if I'm wrong) an Anarch-Capitalist, correct?

Because of this, I will begin with an argument against on unregulated free markets.

I will once again bring up historical references. First off, it is well known (you agree, yes?) that unregulated free markets have led to monopolies and cartels, and though some (like the chocolate cartel and possible gas cartel) still exist, the trust-busting efforts of the like of Theodore Roosevelt and Taft led to an opening up of the market for competitors. THink about: What is more 'free', a market of Mom and Pop stores or a few monopolies in each product area, like gas, coal, etc.? Again I will say it: The freer (more lazie-faire) the market, the less free its buyers. In order to keep the market free, you need to regulate it so that small businesses aren't tirelessly squeezed out of the market. Now, I believe you said somewhere that you don't think competitors would fall to monopolies. Well first off, it's already happened, but secondly, they would have no choice. Imagine I opened up a burger joint next to a McDonald's. I set my price at 2$ a burger (let's say there's is $2.50) which will allow me to make a profit of 10 cents a burger.

Now, the McDonald's sees this. Obviously, they don't like it. They know that in order to reduce the price to $1.95 (or whatever lower amount than mine you want), they would have to lose 40 cents per burger.

The thing is, they can lower the price dramatically, losing money in the process, and still force me out of business, because they are big enough to have enough money on hand to be able to lose some and still run, unlike me, who has a few bucks in the bank and my brother working the cash register.

Now, i don't know if that came out the way i wanted it to, but Dawh made a clearer argument about this earlier, so I shall push on: Without regulation to make sure smaller companies can compete, Bigger ones (like Monopolies) would eat up everything. Just like Standard Oil did, just like US Steel did, just like Microsoft was doing before the anti-trust suit. Regulations like anti-trust laws are needed to MAKE a market free. Without it, there would be few options for the consumer.

Also, think about working conditions: Regulations have made it mandatory to have safe working conditions with reasonable hours. Yes, unions fought for it, but they would have simply been another nuisance had the government not stepped in. (In fact, in other countries, union workers and union heads are killed by businesses. literally killed. For instance, in Colombia, some Banana company killed the union head and told the workers, basically, "unionize and you're next.")

Government regulations are there to make sure the market is free for everyone, not just big bussiness and monopolies.

Fairness

This goes along with #1 at the beginning of the post. My aim in life, as I'm sure yours is, is to make sure as many people as possible are happy and not miserable. Let's look at what happens when government gets out of the way:

• 
  
  
• The EP disaster, which ruined the Louisiana fishing industry
  
• Poor working conditions like those that existed before laws were put into place against them. (Like making sure someone was compensated for losing a limb on the job)
  
• Irresponsible speculation on the part of Wall Street and Oil companies (to name a few), which in the case of Wall Street helped along an economic collapse, and in the case of oil companies raised prices unnecesarily (remember that oil cartel article I linked earlier in the thread?)
  

I could continue. Look at Fuedal society. That's an extreme, yes, but it does show: little government, little benefits for anyone who isn't rich. I am not suggesting that your idea is as bad as fuedalism, but i see it quickly degrading into fuedalism without government intervetion (which is obviously not anarchy).

The rich will be rich no matter what occurs. Be realistic. Bill gates won't be scrounging in the gutter thanks to a tax increase. Since the rich benefited most from society, and continue to benefit, they should give more back to help their fellow man. Why? Because they can. To not do so is selfish. Why public and not private schools? Ask the poor inner-city kids who can't afford to go to Catholic or private school and instead can settle for at least some level of education, however little it is. Ask those who benefit from the free lunch and breakfast program, which for many allow them to eat three meals a day, and for some they are the only meals they get. Ask the poor kid who, thanks to being able to afford school because of public school, got a free ride through colege with a scholarship for being athletic, or being smart, and because of it, getting to be someone. it's simple compassion, simple fairness. I know you don't think so, but there wouldn't be enough charitability to cover what current government programs do, let alone surpass them. If such a thing could happen, why is Africa still, generally, a wasteland? Why is Somalia (which may be better off or not, I don't know, it is irrelevant) still a hell hole? Why does 'third world America' exist? Why do over 40 million people not have healthcare?

You get what I mean. Unemployment insurance for those down on their luck (i'm all for weeding out the 'welfare queens'), etc. etc. The middle class didn't exist until recently becuase such charitability doesn't exist; it is shrinking because charitability doesn't exist.

Some things shouldn't be for profit. No one should make money off of denying people healthcare, no one should make money off of denying people from school because they are too poor. It would undo all the adancements humanity has made. We would see a rise in illiteracy, religious fundamentalism, etc. And some things weren't made by private things. The internet you're using? Developed in large part through government grants.

Taxation is a way of fairness. Government (properly sized) is a way of fairness. It makes sure all can have a decent quality of life, not just those with money. it makes sure people can in fact rise and fall through their own merits and not because of how much money they have. Etc.

The greater good is what should be looked for. The benefit of as many people as possible, even if some have to give up some of their millions while they have 100's of millions more. If taxation is theft, then not all theft is wrong, because I do not see taxation as wrong. And besides, I will once again point out that the government is taxing its own creation, the green paper in circulation. If you really hate it, try to convince people to deal in something else. Tell me how much luck you have.

Consumer Protection/Related Stuff

This kinda goes along with the faults of unregualted free markets. Consumers don't, as you say, vote with their wallet on issues like whether or not a company uses slave labor, or is anti-union, or whatever. They 'vote' for the one that's cheapest, or looks prettiest, regardless of how or why it was there. People don't care about the slave labor being used by big companies like GAP and Nike, otherwise they wouldn't stay open. I can't tell you how many people decided to stop buying Nike's only because they started to promote Michael Vick. not becuase of the poor 8 year old chinese boy being paid 1$ an hour. I pledged to stop buying Nike and GAP for those reasons; I am among a minority. Perfect song to illustrate:

(I LOVE Rise Against =))

People don't care enough to research. Thus, government has to step in. The discovery of an oil price fixing scheme? THat happened thanks to a government agency. Otherwise the public, who is often very ignorant, would continue to buy it, blaming the high prices on Obama or 'Those damn A-rabs.' The ideal free market relies on an educated populace. The plutocratic oligarchy we're moving towards, the same that your system would usher in, relies on the current uneducated republic.

I'm sure i've forgotten some things, but I'm just as sure you'll inevitably bring them up.

Now for something more specific: My defense of the very military i wish to cut but not kill.

Military

As any sane person would, i agree that any wars fought after WW2 have generally been oil or politically motivated (like the anti-communist feelings of the cold war that led to the Korean and Vietnam wars). But this does not mean that the military should be abolished.

First off, I must ask: What would you have done when the japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor? If I understand correctly, NAP allows for self-defense, so I assume fighting back wouldn't have been an issue. But, how could you fight back without a military? If things were your way, there would have been no military to fight back with. What then? Let them go? THAT is ridiculously stupid.

Now, you may say private companies could do that work. I would reply: BS. Maybe it would have been profitable for the Hawaiian and West Coast Defense Companies to use their resources to fight back, but would they stand a chance without the constant funding needed to fight a war? How would it be able to fight back against the Japanese navy or army, the same one that had easily conquered much of the far east, even China? It may ask for help, but why would my NY defense company help them? It wouldn't be profitable. Why waste money on something that may remain a West Coast phenomenon?

It's like the poem, 'First they came for the jews...' (minus the races, replaced with the sections of the continent).

Defense is something that shouldn't be for profit. Our army is bloated, obese, wasteful, and about as useful in its current uses as a hairstylist in a balding clinic. (What i mean by that silly simile is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been total failures at this point, and haven't helped us at all). I think we could cut it in half and still be lovely. But without our military, we are defenseless. China will look at us and say, 'Hmmmm, well, now that they don't have a government to give us our money back, and they have no military, we might as well take, let's see, half of it for compensation.' (Oh, and btw, do you know about the disastrous consequences that would oddur if the US went into default? Could you imagine if it went into default because it no longer existed? That would cause economic chaos). You may think I'm too paranoid. Well, i think you would be naive to think something other than this scenario would happen. Maybe it would be the chinese, but for sure, the US would be split up amongst foreign nations. SW to Mexico. Hawaii to Japan. Alaska to the Canadians (Dman you Quag =)). The NE to the British (maybe no this one). hell, the whole South could become Mexican territory.

Anyway, point is, the military may be too big, but it certaintly isn't unnecessary. War sucks. i'm wuite anti-war. But sometimes war is necessary, like in cases of self-defense. And we all benefit from having protection.

Minimum Wage

I think dawh did this already, but I'll do it too:

Let's bring in two men (or women, whatever suits you). One is a teenager, say, me, 15, able to work for whatever they offer because my expenses are obviously taken care of by my parents (you can insert a single guy with no family to support as well).

The other is a father of four, mid 40's, a family to take care of, maybe some college and credit card debts to pay, etc. He needs at lest $7.50 an hour so his family doesn't starve.

In a non-minimum wage scenario, I get the job. I'm young, and whatever experience the other guy had (let's assume it's not something like a company executive position we're both after) is disregarded due to the fact that i'll accept a pay of, say, 5$ (what I get paid, actually, to 'unofficially' work for my neighbor).

Thus, now the family man must either take equal or less pay, and in the process probably lose 2 meals a day and most of his non-necessary possesions (no HD TV for him), or keep looking in this current job market where many companies have a policy that if you're unemployed for more than 6 months they won't hire you.

Either way, the guy's screwed.

Now a minimum wage scenario:

Noting the man's obvious superiority in experience and, probably, responsibility, they decide it is more worth it for them to hire the older gentleman than me. THe guy gets the pay he needs, and I go home to play XBox and type this up =)

Everyone's happy. Is this such a bad scenario?

I wanted to say something else, but i forgot. i'll type it up if i remember.

So now you reply to me (or don't. Whatever =)), and also add your list of stuff (Probably all counter to mine of course =))

Edit: THis is the longest thing i've ever posted on Brainden. It's a milestone =)

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

UtF: I have time to only reply to a couple of things:

1. If Bob can go and get a private helicopter or whatever else (flight or digging is the only way to not use roads), it means he has enough money to pay his taxes so that the roads can be kept for the benefit of those who cannot afford to do what he can. Simple act of helping people. Not everything should be for profit.

2. For your question as to why religious people hang on to it so much: As someone who has 'found the light' after being very religious (I at one point sought to be a theologian or priest), I can tell you:

The horror of what a godless world means

The social consequences

Being brainwashed from birth

So, yeah.

When i get the chance, I'd like to answer your questions and ask my own. If you don't mind, could you lay out your objections in one post: At this point, i've lost track of them all. i will do the same. Let's start over if we have to.

http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_44751517-4820-500b-b3f6-42d928d5e1c3.html

Well. Authoritian much? This is just horrible. And then the coup (well, some people equate it to a coup) was even worse.

Whaddya you guys think? I am simply shocked that outside help wasn't brought in. I mean, this is a blatantly obvious right's violation. The fact that no one responded to the mayor's plea for help is somewhat sickening.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

UtF:

By the way, I don't see the sales tax as a claim that the government owns what you make. Think about who the government is taxing: the consumer, not the producer of the good. So, I don't understand why you think it's the government claiming that it owns the goods you produce.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

For the Waco Siege thing:

"A gunfight ensued (debate continues over which side fired the first shot)."

"The government was hoping that the gas would safely push the Branch Davidians out of the compound."

"In response to the gas, the Branch Davidians shot back."

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1990s/qt/waco.htm

You can't just assume the government shot first. No one knows. Kinda like the American Revolution. And the Branch Dividians fired back after the government used tear gas. Which doesn't hurt or kill people.

Were the government's actions perfect? No. Police raids/sieges are never perfect. But don't make it sound like the government went in, guns blazing, slaughtering their own civilians.

And the 80 people died in a fire that started. And unless you wanna find a source that says the government lit the house on fire, that wasn't their fault either.

[Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election]

Shoot, the bolded stuff should be the two sentences before the .

And I've noticed another thing:

The Articles of Confederation were, in a way, like a DRO. The gov. could REQUEST payment, congress could REQUEST that the State's follow their laws, etc. etc.

Notice that it no longer is followed. Why? Because people like the founders knew it sucked. The only really important thing they got done was the NW ordinance of some year (anybody more knowledgeable on the subject correct me if I'm wrong).

So we have, in a fashion, historical proof that a system very much like a DRO worked about as well as young Earth Creationsim. (OK, maybe not THAT bad... =))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Oh yeah, it says it got the Land Ordinance of 1785 done as well.

(By the way, completely off topic, but I often wonder why so many people are skeptical of Wiki. It's new way of doing things and constant sourcing is done very well. Why isn't it accepted? Is it because of its Wild West Days?)