Libertarian Plan

[BlueSkyJaunte]

prostitution -- legal in Nevada, Amsterdam, Germany, and other immoral places like that
underage drinking, -- legal in most of Europe
public lewdness, -- wtf is that? Breastfeeding?
beastiality, -- tell that to the folks in New Zealand
incest, -- depends on your defintion
rape, -- no argument
robbery, -- hmm...like taking 40% of a person's income to pay others to not work?
polygamy, -- Utah might have something to say about this
etc are illegal.

Basically except for rape, all of your examples fall into the "it's accepted somewhere, just not in your personal 'morality'" category.

Sorry, try again.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, let's take your "Personal Morality" position and look at it shall we??

Are you against incest?? What if the 5 year old girl is "consenting" to the incest? The father might think that was fine by his morals. Would you still prosecute him?

How about cannibalism?? You against that? What would you say to a South American native who moved to the US and wanted to practice his tribe's customs?

Let's take serial killers. I would think that Charles Manson might say his actions were completely rational and moral.

If you insist on the "if it's ok somewhere, it's ok here" test, then almost nothing will be against the law.

[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.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I never said that the government should force my religious beliefs or anyone else's on others. I simply said that to say that government doesn't or shouldn't legislate morality is not an accurate statement.

That is why prostitution, underage drinking, public lewdness, beastiality, incest, rape, robbery, polygamy, etc are illegal.

At the core of it, you must have some moral code to your society. If you are going to say it is a free for all, then that is called anarchy, not libertarianism.

Those things aren't legislated because of "morality." Those things are legislated as they infringe on the rights of others. Rape, robbery, beastiality, public lewdness. Underage drinking is because the child is not of mature mind yet. Incest is legislated because of the risks against birth defects.

Polygamy, I dunno why, making that illegal is contrary to thousands of years of God's word....

Bottom line, it's not "morality," it's infringement of other's rights.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat
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.

What in the world are you talking about? I know of no one who bought real estate because the gubmint was holding a gun to their head. Speaking from a pure and factual economic/sociological perspective, if you eliminate the tax incentive to own a home, the real estate industry is going to take it in the shorts, and there will be less private home ownership. Home ownership, they say, reduces crime for reasons you maybe are not aware of. If you are comfortable upsetting these various apple carts, then fine. Just be aware that your "plan" will have some significant fallout.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Ok, let's take your "Personal Morality" position and look at it shall we??

Are you against incest?? What if the 5 year old girl is "consenting" to the incest? The father might think that was fine by his morals. Would you still prosecute him?

How about cannibalism?? You against that? What would you say to a South American native who moved to the US and wanted to practice his tribe's customs?

Let's take serial killers. I would think that Charles Manson might say his actions were completely rational and moral.

If you insist on the "if it's ok somewhere, it's ok here" test, then almost nothing will be against the law.

The child thing, that's because the child cannot make an informed concent, thus is infringed upon. The cannibalism is again because of an infringement of rights.

It's not an "ok" here and "not ok" there kind of thing, it's an infringement of rights of the victim standard of measure.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat
*I have no need for police here......You might find you need them less than you think.

*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.

*The corporation is a creation of government to protect companies from responsibility for their acts.
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.

*Nice that you don't need police. If we got rid of them, you would.

*So, you feel that if America did not have military, we would still be invincible?

*I'd agree that the corporate form of business is a responsibility-dodge. With that liability back in place, stockholders would be placing their homes in jeopardy by investing? What would happen to commerce in that event?
Also, you seem to be suggesting that we replace regulation by gearing up the legal industry. I guess you feel we don't have enough attorneys and lawsuits as it sits?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Superman
What in the world are you talking about? I know of no one who bought real estate because the gubmint was holding a gun to their head. Speaking from a pure and factual economic/sociological perspective, if you eliminate the tax incentive to own a home, the real estate industry is going to take it in the shorts, and there will be less private home ownership. Home ownership, they say, reduces crime for reasons you maybe are not aware of. If you are comfortable upsetting these various apple carts, then fine. Just be aware that your "plan" will have some significant fallout.

We are in unanimity...Let me get my gun.

[cool_chick]

What in the world are you talking about? I know of no one who bought real estate because the gubmint was holding a gun to their head. Speaking from a pure and factual economic/sociological perspective, if you eliminate the tax incentive to own a home, the real estate industry is going to take it in the shorts, and there will be less private home ownership. Home ownership, they say, reduces crime for reasons you maybe are not aware of. If you are comfortable upsetting these various apple carts, then fine. Just be aware that your "plan" will have some significant fallout.

That would only be initially. It would stabilize.....

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
What in the world are you talking about? I know of no one who bought real estate because the gubmint was holding a gun to their head.

Are you becoming thick? The government is able to encourage homeownership via tax relief only because they coerce such a huge percentage of our earned money from us that we'll do what they want to keep even a modest portion, even though, for some folks, home ownership isn't what they want or need.

In this case, the government is reducing coercive force, modestly, to get what they want.

Speaking from a pure and factual economic/sociological perspective, if you eliminate the tax incentive to own a home, the real estate industry is going to take it in the shorts, and there will be less private home ownership.

Not if the citizen is keeping all or most of his income. Tax relief for home ownership is only meaningful in a high tax environment. If you offered the average person a tax exemption in 1900, they'd simply look at you as if you were addled.

Home ownership, they say, reduces crime for reasons you maybe are not aware of.

Please tell me you don't think more people own homes today with tax relief on the interest on home mortgages than did in 1900 when there were no income taxes to be paid at all.

You're thinking tactically, and with no depth of history in your knowledge base. You really must correct that.

If you are comfortable upsetting these various apple carts, then fine. Just be aware that your "plan" will have some significant fallout.

I've explained above why your thinking is in error.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
We are in unanimity...Let me get my gun.

Don't you mean let you get your surrogate to get his gun?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman

*Nice that you don't need police. If we got rid of them, you would.

*So, you feel that if America did not have military, we would still be invincible?

*I'd agree that the corporate form of business is a responsibility-dodge. With that liability back in place, stockholders would be placing their homes in jeopardy by investing? What would happen to commerce in that event?
Also, you seem to be suggesting that we replace regulation by gearing up the legal industry. I guess you feel we don't have enough attorneys and lawsuits as it sits?

*No, I don't need the police at all. They're not out here, because we have no police here. We do have a Sheriff's Deputies, only God knows where they are at any given moment. We defend ourselves here, and we're much safer for it. Also, in every jurisdiction in America, the police have no duty to protect any citizen at all, or didn't you know that?

*Yes, that's correct. The US Army has invaded a country of 27 million, wiped out their standing military in a few weeks, and is now completely stalemated and cannot win. That is not because they're Mr. Niceguy either, in fact they've acted quite ruthlessly. Now, thnking of all the other countries on earth, which one do you see being able to come here and invade, even if there were no military troops at all? Name just one.

*You really want to go to the extreme of all possible situations, don't you? Companies, trusts if you will, would be liable for damages caused. Do you have an issue with that? A stockholder would be liable for the value of his stock loss, that's just about their liability now. You're asking for tactical answers, with no thought to strategic questions.