[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Pat, much of what you say above makes good sense.

I like the flat tax idea myself, but wonder how long it might take us to decide to tweek the tax code to (again) deliberately encourage some types of financial decisions. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just saying a move to a flat tax would upend a number of industries, and some of them are industries we would like to encourage. Home ownership, for example. The practical implications are not so simple as the glamorous ideal.

It's wrong to use government force to get us something we think desirable, i.e. homeownership. You haven't come to grips with the fact that government does all of it's things with the implication that if you do not do what the the government asks of you, men with guns may or will show up to make you comply. Yes, the government does accomplish things that you, and sometimes I, think desirable, but since it uses violence to do so, it's immoral and should not be tolerated.

Government cannot legislate morality. Christianity is not a government. It might be a great idea to discourage a behavior, and a lousy idea to criminalize it.

I don't mind government, since we have it upon us, staffed by men who are Christians, real Christians, not those that go to church on Sunday, and hum everybody on the other six days. Do you really want to depend on moral men being the only ones running government? Of course not, in fact most drawn to government are the least moral among us.

Drug laws do little more than maximize drug profits.

so you see, we can agree on some important things. And gubmint is corrupt. Human nature is what it is.

Now, I have asked and asked and am still waiting. What happens when you have no government? How does that work? Your lofty ideals are amazing and you are obviously a genius, far beyond our feeble understanding.

Sorry, again I say, I'm not going to tell you that.

So now, tell us how police services are provided under your government-does-not-exist plan, and who gets those services.

Let me provide examples. First, myself. I now live in what you might call a semi-rural environment. A large, enough, town is about 15 miles away. I have no need for police here, which is good because there are no police here. My security is mine alone to provide, and I do provide it. Now, if 20 or 30 armed men show up out here, then I'd like to be able to call for help. That call can go to my neighbors, and to a private security firm should I decide to retain one. There is still absolutely no need for police. As an aside, I'd suggest that you do a bit of research on the history of the police in America. You might find you need them less than you think.

Second, garbage service. In California, our garbage was picked up by a private, actually corporate, concern. However, I didn't have a choice to go with someone else, it was that company or haul it myself, by city edict, and lucrative contract with said company.

Here, I had the choice of three companies, all with different prices and pick up days. I chose one, and am happy so far. If I become unhappy with their service, then I can demand better or switch companies.

Tell us why America will not come under attack.

Sorry, I asked you first. What or which country could attack America? Besides Mexico, I mean. The Chinese? Why would they come here? The Russians, likewise. There are 600 million firearms in America, and close to 7 billion rounds of ammunition sold. The US Army couldn't successfully invade America against the will of even a tiny minority.

Tell us how private businesses will form a utopia in the absence of gubmint regulation, and how those businesses will resist the temptation to cheat people.

What utopia?

The corporation is a creation of government to protect companies from responsibility for their acts. Without government, companies would be at the complete mercy of the citizenry, just like they were in the early 19th century before government acted to protect them.

Or is that something we should not care about?

Let's say I discover oil on my property here. Should I be able to let the side effects drain down into my neighbors pond? Shouldn't he be able to recover any damages I might cause, including recovering proveable reduction in property values? No, of course not. There's a method to handle that.