Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

[Guest]

I think it would be helpful to some people in this thread if they attempted to come up with ways to solve problems without using violence. Dawh suggested that Dawh couldn't think of a way to have a working system of money without using violence to get the system to function. I'm sure you're smart enough to come up with many solutions, Dawh, that don't require violence to get the money to work. It's in everyone's interest to have money so they don't have to trade/barter with each other, right? So why do you think that people wouldn't cooperate with each other and come up with a system of money to help out their own interests? I'm sure they would. I think the problem is that we're all so used to seeing our government "solve" problems with violence that we're not used to thinking about solving problems without violence. I assure you that if you seriously try thinking about it you can easily come up with ways to have money without violence. You don't need a violent government like our own government in order to have money.

Quag: A stateless society would of course not be absent of violence. If you really thought that the vegetables that I was spending hours planting and growing on the plot of land next to the home I spent my time living in (for example) was yours and not mine, you could choose to come after me with whatever weapons you wanted to commit whatever violence you wanted to against me. I doubt you're so mean of a person to want to attack me like that and put your own life at risk by doing so, but if you wanted to you could. I and others would certainly take action against you to make sure that you weren't such a nuisance in the future. As I said, I could go to my non-violent dispute resolution organization rather than the government's violent courts whose rulings are violently enforced by the U.S.'s monopoly on violence. If you can't think of ways to resolve disputes (e.g. is that my vegetable or yours?) without violence for some reason then I suggest you Google dispute resolution organizations and read up on how problems may be solved without violence or simply ask yourself if you really think you would attack me with violence simply because I thought that your vegetable was mine. Are you really that violent of a person that "eventually these kind of problems will lead to violence" -Quag.

[Quag]

UTF yup your talking of a utopia.

Ok first with the money there is NO WAY aside from a govt to create a monetary system. Before govt there was barter then the ancient govts came up with money that represented something of equivalent value to avoid having to take 20 chickens to the next farm 10 miles away and get 2 pigs. If there is no govt creating the money you WILL end up with runaway inflation as someone WILL figure out to print their own and make themselves rich. Sorry HUMAN NATURE has showm 100% of the time that utopias WILL NEVER WORK!

As the the land thing again why is it your land?? because you live there?? possesion may be 9/10 of the law but ther eis now law without govt. So who says it yours you?? well me and the guy on the other side disagree, 2-1 we take your land. You either go peacefully or 2-1 chances are you will have a shallow grave. I'm not trying say I would do that but it only takes a very small percentage of the people to act in such a way for your anarchist society to become a true state of CHAOS.

Now if you first come up with a way to remove greed/violence/dishonesty etc.. from the human psyche there is a chance it could possibly work but then what would you do if any of these traits re-emerge???

I suggest you read The Dispossesed by Ursula K Leguin. She sets up a perfect utopian anarchistic society (I sense you will strongly agree with this society). Honestly it seems wonderfull for the first half of the book. Mind you she had to set it up on a different planet to make it work, then she shows all the flaws in this perfect system.

Note all these arguements are for societies larger than a small village. In a small village almost any type of govt or lack thereof will work as everyone knows each other and peer pressure to conform is increadily strong. Once you get to the size where everyone does not know each other it breaks down. Even in a village, if you get a psycopath or sociopath, well all bets are off.

[Molly Mae]

If you want to change America, do what I do every election. Make a serious statement.

http://www.mickeyforpresident.com/faq

[Quag]

no such thing as a write in here in canada

that is one thing you yanks have on us. Here ya need 100 signatures from people in the riding to get your name on the ballot. That roots out a lot of the crazies and keeps there from being 10 pages of names. So im kinda torn on that.

[Guest]

no such thing as a write in here in canada

that is one thing you yanks have on us. Here ya need 100 signatures from people in the riding to get your name on the ballot. That roots out a lot of the crazies and keeps there from being 10 pages of names. So im kinda torn on that.

For the most part, ours is tempered by apathy. People could make a concerted effort to write in crazy candidates' names, but there is never a large enough population with a vested interest to bother with most write-ins. However, the two-party system we have currently does a pretty effective job of keeping most people outside of the major parties (and a few better known third parties) off the ballot. Though after Senator Murkowski (think I spelled that right) from Alaska lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller in 2010, she still managed to win the election as a write-in, since Miller proved to be a bit of a secessionist nutcase.

I can't find a link, but I did hear about a woman in Washington DC (I think), who saw that there was no candidate running for a position for her district's Advisory Neighborhood Commission. So she wrote in her own name just for fun. She was informed that evening that she won the election 1-0. So write-ins can affect the election results.

Also, as a media stunt, Steven Colbert (who plays a conservative on his TV show) ran for President in the Democratic primary in his home state of South Carolina (though I don't know how long it's been since he actually lived there) because the Republicans prevented him from running in their primary. Some of our election laws are pretty screwy () since they are a weird amalgam of Federal and State laws (that differ from state to state).

[Quag]

Good points Dawh,

we just had an election here and i would have loved a write in. As it was i ended up spoiling my ballot by voting for everyone. Our silly system gives 2$/year per vote. This made it impossible for me to vote for the guy who came 2nd place (in hopes of knocking off the guy whose party has won my riding for all but i think 8 of the last 150 years) because i didnt want to give the party 8$ as i dont agree with most of their platform. Usually there is a silly candidate (we used to have rhinocerous party that promised ot quit if elected) but this time there was only the established parties.

On a bright note the new govt is a majority and they will almost certainly get rid of the forced subsidy to political parties as they have been trying to kill it since it first came to be. Though, they have other policies i disagree with.

[gvg]

Molly Mae: Suppose Mickey wins....... =)

[Molly Mae]

Molly Mae: Suppose Mickey wins....... =)

Yes. That's the point. =P

Edited May 9, 2011 by Molly Mae

[Quag]

If Mickey wins Republicans AND Democrats whould be screaming to see his birth certificate :wacko:

Edited May 9, 2011 by Quag

[benjer3]

Quag: Can we please stop beating up on UtF? One can't win an argument, because both people will only leave it feeling more strongly about their opinion than before. Talking and listening is the only way to find the best solution, whether it's what one person thinks or a collaboration of ideas.

UtF: You are right that violence is not needed for a society to work. If a society didn't need violence, it would be much better than what we have today. However, though not you nor I nor the vast majority of people in the world would use violence without reason, it is the minority that make violence necessary. If an institution didn't enforce its laws, its laws would be overrun. Without laws, the society would collapse and those few violent people--those with morals that oppose ours--would rule.

Again, violence can only be avoided when everyone is unified in their morals and wants to do what's right. Different morals will eventually lead to dispute and then to violence. I think it would be helpful to note that our government's violence is defensive. You said yourself that you would defend yourself if you were threatened. While it may not be directly, governments protect us from the chaos and violence that would eventually emerge without it. And violence is needed to defend oneself against violence. And again, while all governments inevitably have corruption and thus violently take from their citizens, it is our duty to make it the least corrupt as possible and thus remove such violence.

[gvg]

Yes. That's the point. =P

I know, just joking =) but I'm wondering, would they actually have to leave him as our president?

And I could see it now. Speaker of the house Goofy =)

Edited May 9, 2011 by gvg

[Guest]

I know, just joking =) but I'm wondering, would they actually have to leave him as our president?

And I could see it now. Speaker of the house Goofy =)

I'm thinking that there might be some eligibility problems. Actually, looking at the requirements, he might pass. According to this, the three requirements are:

• natural born citizen
  
• 35 years old
  
• resident for 14 years
  

Based on the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Mickey would be a natural born citizen, since he was "born" in the United State in 1928. So that's the first one. (Though it occurs to me, there could be some issues with the birth certificate... )

Having been born in 1928, he definitely meets the age requirement, so that's a go as well.

The most nebulous one is the requirement to be a resident for 14 years. This is the one where I think that there would be problems since I'm not sure where he's living at the moment. He would have to be able to show that he's been living in one state or another for at least the last 14 years, but considering that the 14 year residency requirement is rather vague in the Constitution, he might be able to get away with it anyway since anyone challenging him would have a hard time proving that he was living out of the country for most of his "life."

[Molly Mae]

I know, just joking =) but I'm wondering, would they actually have to leave him as our president?

And I could see it now. Speaker of the house Goofy =)

Yeah. I remember when I jumped on the Mickey bandwagon. I found it a few years ago by typing something along the lines of "This election is bullsh*t" into google. It was one of the first results.

Since then, I've always wondered what would happen if Mickey won. Further, I wonder what would happen as the results came in and political commentators reviewed the results.

"Uh...folks...really?"

The idea that Mickey is written in (and getting so many votes) goes to show that this whole election is b/s.

But imagine this: I could change my name to Mickey Mouse. Imagine an army trying to make a joke of an election and they end up inadvertently putting me into office.

[gvg]

Dawh: Well then. There we go =)

Molly: I should do that now. That would be epic. =)

[Guest]

What about instead of selecting a candidate by name, voters would answer a series of political/ideological questions and would be matched to a candidate with the most closely matching views? This would take the political party aspect out of the equation, and a "vote" would be cast based on what people actually think.

This is just a thought, and I'm sure there are a lot of holes/exploits, so feel free to point them out!

[Molly Mae]

What about instead of selecting a candidate by name, voters would answer a series of political/ideological questions and would be matched to a candidate with the most closely matching views? This would take the political party aspect out of the equation, and a "vote" would be cast based on what people actually think.

This is just a thought, and I'm sure there are a lot of holes/exploits, so feel free to point them out!

Clever, but letting a system decide for you would cause problems. The system likely couldn't accurately gauge how much more one issue means to you than another issue.

[gvg]

Molly: What if they did those things you see on some political quizzes online and do a scale? It would go under each question: How important is this to you? With the choices being very, somewhat, nuetral, not really, andnot at all. There are still probably some holes in it but actually, I like the idea.

[Guest]

Molly: What if they did those things you see on some political quizzes online and do a scale? It would go under each question: How important is this to you? With the choices being very, somewhat, nuetral, not really, andnot at all. There are still probably some holes in it but actually, I like the idea.

So let's see...Candidate A and B answers questions regarding the economy, defense, education, etc.

I answer how important certain topics are to me. While that makes sense, what gets overlooked are things that can't easily be quantified. How good of a leader is each candidate? How do they work under pressure? How comforting are they as a speaker? How well are they able to work with people of different backgrounds (political & social here, all types for international diplomacy) To me, those things are at least as important.

[Guest]

Molly: What if they did those things you see on some political quizzes online and do a scale? It would go under each question: How important is this to you? With the choices being very, somewhat, nuetral, not really, andnot at all. There are still probably some holes in it but actually, I like the idea.

I agree with Molly. I like the idea in principle (and I've considered it in the past*), but without a direct brain interface, it would be nearly impossible to ideally match a candidate with voters' desires. Plus, a candidate would have to rate his views on each issue in the same fashion and what would prevent a candidate from lying about his views just to win the election?

It would also require asking the right questions. Around the 2008 election, some of my friends found a poll on some news site (might have been CNN), that asked a series of questions and then ranked your likely candidate matches based on how well your answers matched the candidate. They asked a question regarding whether you would prefer a candidate that was a governor, a senator or a representative. I said representative (I can't remember if they were mutually exclusive options) and it told me that I would most strongly support Dennis Kucinich. I might agree with some of his stated views and he was the only representative running, but I would never vote for him because he seems like a very ineffectual person (with some truly bizarre views to boot ). So, the reliability of such a system would be very hard to establish. This goes into what maurice just said: while I sometimes agree with the sentiment of what Kucinich says, I think he'd be a terrible president largely because of his personality, which can't be .

They say that some people voted for President Bush because he seemed like a guy you could have a beer with (never mind that he's a dry drunk ), which, in my opinion, seems like a horrible criterion for selecting a president.

* Actually, it was more of a thought experiment in my head, framed as, "How many people would wind up voting for a different candidate, if they chose the candidate purely on their stated intents, rather than on party (or other) affiliation?"

[Molly Mae]

They say that some people voted for President Bush because he seemed like a guy you could have a beer with (never mind that he's a dry drunk ), which, in my opinion, seems like a horrible criterion for selecting a president.

Or voting for a guy just because he's black. Or voting against him for the same reason. *Shrug* People do some dumb stuff, especially in politics (and especially during election time).

[Guest]

UtF: You are right that violence is not needed for a society to work. If a society didn't need violence, it would be much better than what we have today. However, though not you nor I nor the vast majority of people in the world would use violence without reason, it is the minority that make violence necessary. If an institution didn't enforce its laws, its laws would be overrun. Without laws, the society would collapse and those few violent people--those with morals that oppose ours--would rule.

I don't think that a stateless society would be absent of violence--certainly not. The difference is that there wouldn't be a state that could use violence to take your money against your will, etc.

Also, when you say that it is the minority that makes violence necessary, I think the opposite is true. In a democracy the minority gets no say. It is only the democratic majority that gets to decide what the government's monopoly on violence should make people do. I am a part of many minorities, such as opposing taxation for a great number of things. You say that government is needed to protect me from such violence? Why? It is the government that is using violence against me. It is indeed ironic that many liberal people who call themselves progressive claim to support minority rights and yet they support democracy, a system that establishes one or a few broad set of rules to follow that simply point a middle finger at the minorities that disagree with the rules. In a democracy the majority can vote to point guns at the minority against the minority's will.

You say that if the government didn't enforce its laws then the laws would be overrun. My question is why you think that laws are "right" simply because they are the government's laws. Why should a rule be followed? Because it is "the law" or because the rule is right? If the United States decided that it was going to make murder legal would you start killing people? Of course not. Sure there would be some attacks if that were to happen, but that's because we live in a society where everyone expects the government to protect them. In a stateless society these matters would be taken care of and you wouldn't need an institution with a monopoly on violence that we call government to point guns at every murderer just to prevent crime. I think there would be less crime, less violence, etc, in a stateless society than in the U.S. now, for example, but if your idea of anarchy is "Without laws, the society would collapse and those few violent people--those with morals that oppose ours--would rule" then it might take a good amount of thought on how a society might function without a government--how it might solve problems without violence.

Again, violence can only be avoided when everyone is unified in their morals and wants to do what's right. Different morals will eventually lead to dispute and then to violence. I think it would be helpful to note that our government's violence is defensive. You said yourself that you would defend yourself if you were threatened. While it may not be directly, governments protect us from the chaos and violence that would eventually emerge without it. And violence is needed to defend oneself against violence. And again, while all governments inevitably have corruption and thus violently take from their citizens, it is our duty to make it the least corrupt as possible and thus remove such violence.

I don't think it's true that violence can only be avoided when everyone is unified in their morals and wants to do what's right. I'm sure that we could find many things that you and I disagree on, but I highly doubt either of us would use violence against each other because of that. Well, that is, unless you might use the violence against me indirectly by voting for the state to use violence against me.

Our government's violence is defensive? Pointing guns at me to force me to give up my money to fund wars in the Middle East to kill people in the name of "national security" is defensive? Consider comparison the government to a mafia. I know the government is somewhat better than the typical mafias you would see in gangster movies, but the basics are the same. You can't defend yourself against the mafia; it is too powerful. It takes protection money from you to defend you against other mafias. If you don't pay the protection money then the mafia will come after you, but if you do pay then they won't attack you, but will defend you from the other mafias. Don't you think it's wrong of the mafia to use violence against people even if they are defending those people against other gangs, etc? What if I don't want the United States' protection? What if I think our military is unnecessary? Would you support violently forcing me to pay my protection money anyways like mafias do? I know there's a difference between our government and mafias, but the principle is the same. The principle is that if they don't want to pay for protection money or anything else, it's wrong to use violence to force them to anyways.

"And again, while all governments inevitably have corruption and thus violently take from their citizens, it is our duty to make it the least corrupt as possible and thus remove such violence."

I think the United States is one of the best examples of this in history. We have a very accountable government in comparison to many of the dictatorships in the Middle East that have recently been in the news and we have a very accountable government compared to most other governments in history. Sure, we could improve it slightly even more, but it will forever use violence against me, I guarantee it. If it is our duty to make it use as little violence against people against their will as possible, why not just abolish it completely so that it cannot use violence against people at all. At last, all forms of violence will then be viewed as crimes. If a mafia tries to collect protection money, people will consider it wrong. And remember, there's nothing wrong with using violence to defend yourself against violence.

But, then again, I think that many of the "crimes" of today that are punished with violence would be dealt with nonviolently in a stateless society. Some of the methods of dealing with crime in stateless societies without using violence that people have come up with are truly amazing. They make our government's methods insane. Why point guns at petty thieves, etc, when it's completely unnecessary? Why point guns at drug users or people who don't pay protection money? It's really crazy.

[curr3nt]

UtF, are you against all forms of taxation then? You seem to be combining that with an example of the uses of some tax money.

[Guest]

UtF: You keep mentioning these "Conflict Resolution Centers," but you provide no context or explanation for what they are or how they work. They seem either pie in the sky or government by another name to me. If you think that they are so amazing, it would be helpful to your argument to share details with us.

I go back to Churchill's quote: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

To date, I can't think of a single anarchic society that has existed since the pre-tribal era tens of thousands of years ago. So I guess that you could argue that it might be better because it's never been tried, but that's a false dilemma since there's no guarantee that it would be better. I don't see a way to build a stable society around an anarchic model. Churchill's point was that most of the other forms of government tried in the world have been autocratic in nature and generally tyrannical with an extreme minority (often a single person) controlling the actions of everyone else.

Also, when you say that it is the minority that makes violence necessary, I think the opposite is true. In a democracy the minority gets no say. It is only the democratic majority that gets to decide what the government's monopoly on violence should make people do. I am a part of many minorities, such as opposing taxation for a great number of things. You say that government is needed to protect me from such violence? Why? It is the government that is using violence against me. It is indeed ironic that many liberal people who call themselves progressive claim to support minority rights and yet they support democracy, a system that establishes one or a few broad set of rules to follow that simply point a middle finger at the minorities that disagree with the rules. In a democracy the majority can vote to point guns at the minority against the minority's will.

In a society of 300 million people, how can each person's wishes be fulfilled, especially if many people's wishes lie in direct opposition to each other? In a stateless society, everyone would have to negotiate their own livelihood with their neighbors and and associates. If your views didn't align with your neighbor, at least one of you is going to have to be disappointed. You can't satisfy everyone's wants and needs in every situation, regardless of what your government structure is. I don't see how a stateless society can mitigate this particular problem. So while the majority in a democracy might step on the toes of a minority, it's the best system that we've field-tested because at least a majority of people's needs are getting met. In an autocratic society, we can only guarantee that the minority in charge is getting served. So between an autocratic society (the vast majority of societies in history) and a democratic one, the democracy is worlds better.

Liberal progressives support democracy because it provides the best chance to protect the interests of the most people. A well-structured democracy can protect the interests of the majority, while simultaneously trying to mitigate the collision with the interests of the minority (it doesn't have to, but that's the goal of liberal progressivism as I define it).

You say that if the government didn't enforce its laws then the laws would be overrun. My question is why you think that laws are "right" simply because they are the government's laws. Why should a rule be followed? Because it is "the law" or because the rule is right? If the United States decided that it was going to make murder legal would you start killing people? Of course not. Sure there would be some attacks if that were to happen, but that's because we live in a society where everyone expects the government to protect them. In a stateless society these matters would be taken care of and you wouldn't need an institution with a monopoly on violence that we call government to point guns at every murderer just to prevent crime. I think there would be less crime, less violence, etc, in a stateless society than in the U.S. now, for example, but if your idea of anarchy is "Without laws, the society would collapse and those few violent people--those with morals that oppose ours--would rule" then it might take a good amount of thought on how a society might function without a government--how it might solve problems without violence.

I have trouble following your arguments. You talk of anarchy and then use terms that imply structured government to me. What is a "law" in a stateless society? Who decides what is "right"? If you don't have a government creating laws, then what constitutes a "crime"? I don't see how any of these words can have any meaning in a society that doesn't have a State. I guess if there were no laws, then there would be less crime by definition since you can't have a crime without a law to transgress.

Our government's violence is defensive? Pointing guns at me to force me to give up my money to fund wars in the Middle East to kill people in the name of "national security" is defensive? Consider comparison the government to a mafia. I know the government is somewhat better than the typical mafias you would see in gangster movies, but the basics are the same. You can't defend yourself against the mafia; it is too powerful. It takes protection money from you to defend you against other mafias. If you don't pay the protection money then the mafia will come after you, but if you do pay then they won't attack you, but will defend you from the other mafias. Don't you think it's wrong of the mafia to use violence against people even if they are defending those people against other gangs, etc? What if I don't want the United States' protection? What if I think our military is unnecessary? Would you support violently forcing me to pay my protection money anyways like mafias do? I know there's a difference between our government and mafias, but the principle is the same. The principle is that if they don't want to pay for protection money or anything else, it's wrong to use violence to force them to anyways.

The mafia is a good example. What would happen if a mafia-like entity rose up in a stateless society? Who would oppose it? If a violent minority of people got together and decided that they could impose their own rules on the rest of society, who would be there to challenge it? You would need the other people to rise up against it in a relatively unified fashion to prevent them from taking violent control. If you wanted to oppose the mafia, you couldn't compel your neighbor to join you. He's under no obligation to defend you if you challenge the mafia. He might decide that it's easier (and safer) to just pay the protection money.

The state is an overarching entity that can deal with groups that will overpower an individual. The state already opposes the mafia today. Sure, it doesn't work 100% of the time, but organized crime's power is greatly reduced from what it could be because the state tries to root it out. You could argue that paying taxes to the state to defend you is paying "protection money" to defend you from the actual mafia, but it's a weak comparison. The mafia doesn't build a sewer system or a road system or an educational system with your money; it just uses it to support its own interests. A democratic government is supposed to use your money to support your interests. And I think that of any form of government, a democracy provides the best chance that your money will be used as you want it, while also trying to balance the needs of the rest of society. You can get no such guarantee from any more autocratic one.

"And again, while all governments inevitably have corruption and thus violently take from their citizens, it is our duty to make it the least corrupt as possible and thus remove such violence."

I think the United States is one of the best examples of this in history. We have a very accountable government in comparison to many of the dictatorships in the Middle East that have recently been in the news and we have a very accountable government compared to most other governments in history. Sure, we could improve it slightly even more, but it will forever use violence against me, I guarantee it. If it is our duty to make it use as little violence against people against their will as possible, why not just abolish it completely so that it cannot use violence against people at all. At last, all forms of violence will then be viewed as crimes. If a mafia tries to collect protection money, people will consider it wrong. And remember, there's nothing wrong with using violence to defend yourself against violence.

What makes "violence" a crime? I don't really see you as an adherent to "Natural Law," as that's generally associated with a theological worldview. If there are no natural laws and no state to create laws, from what do these laws originate? I don't see how a law can exist without a state to regulate and enforce it.

I don't think that a stateless society would be absent of violence--certainly not. The difference is that there wouldn't be a state that could use violence to take your money against your will, etc.

Again, you bring up the concept of "money." How can money exist without a state? Legislators in South Carolina are trying pass a bill to create a state currency (which is blatantly unconstitutional). But even if it wasn't illegal, what good is it for them to do that? Who would want to use it? If I lived in SC and I wanted to do business in North Carolina, Georgia or Florida, I would want to use US dollars, since that's the currency used in all three of those states. It would only be useful in the state of SC itself. Once you leave the state, it would be useless. You would have to exchange it with US dollars. So why bother in the first place?

If each state had its own currency, how could any form of interstate commerce exist? That was the problem with the Articles of Confederation. The central government had no authority to create a currency, so every state had its own currency. When you traveled to a different state, you had to exchange it. It made any sort of large commerce operation inefficient and impractical. So when they wrote the constitution, they mandated that only the federal government could produce currency. It seems like you are opening the door for creating the Articles of Confederation on steroids. If you wanted to use the dollar for commerce and I wanted to use the yuan, who would decide which got used? Would people have to take dollars to you and bring yuans to me? Even if we adopted a unified currency, who decides what it's worth? It seems somewhat arbitrary and leading to financial inequity without some greater entity to step in and try to regulate it.

But, then again, I think that many of the "crimes" of today that are punished with violence would be dealt with nonviolently in a stateless society. Some of the methods of dealing with crime in stateless societies without using violence that people have come up with are truly amazing. They make our government's methods insane. Why point guns at petty thieves, etc, when it's completely unnecessary? Why point guns at drug users or people who don't pay protection money? It's really crazy.

I agree that many of the laws passed are pretty out there. There are perhaps better ways of dealing with petty thieves and drug users than the current system, but just because some of the laws are bad doesn't justify throwing out the whole system. That would only work if we could guarantee that what replaced it would be on the whole better, and I don't see that from a stateless society. You bring up these "truly amazing" things concocted by people advocating for stateless societies, but you don't actually mention them in any detail. How could we evaluate their viability if you don't tell us what they are? Please, enlighten us.

[gvg]

Dawh: Brilliantly put =)

[Guest]

UtF, are you against all forms of taxation then? You seem to be combining that with an example of the uses of some tax money.

Yes, I am against all forms of taxation where the taxation is coercive (i.e. the person didn't agree to be taxed). To clear up the confusion I will say that there are some government services that I support and others that I do not support. For example, I do not support paying for the U.S.'s wars and military, but I do agree with paying for some other government program services. The thing is, though, that even though I may agree with some government spending, it remains that not everyone agrees with that spending and thus I don't support the government using force to tax those people against their will. So an analogy for your perspective might be that you agree with paying for our public schools, but if I were you I would still oppose that taxation because there are OTHER people who do not wish to pay for those schools who you are coercing to pay against their will. Did I clarify or is there something else?