Would you voluntarily support murder?

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil.

[jts]

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil.

Use facts and reason to convince people that they need to financially support wars and then they will do so voluntarily and will not need to be forced.

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil.

Use facts and reason to convince people that they need to financially support wars and then they will do so voluntarily and will not need to be forced.

Then there are the "free riders" who do not mind getting a benefit they should pay for, for free. You are very naive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil.

Use facts and reason to convince people that they need to financially support wars and then they will do so voluntarily and will not need to be forced.

Then there are the "free riders" who do not mind getting a benefit they should pay for, for free. You are very naive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

List them in a public place.

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil.

Use facts and reason to convince people that they need to financially support wars and then they will do so voluntarily and will not need to be forced.

Then there are the "free riders" who do not mind getting a benefit they should pay for, for free. You are very naive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

List them in a public place.

Several tens of millions. I can't do it. If it were not for withholding few would pay their taxes period. And that means all the taxes.

In America it is considered irrational not to get something for free, if one can.

I pointed out that just about the only way to have a voluntarily paid for armed force is for rich guys to pool their resources and build a dooms day device. Then they could name their terms. Are you ready for people who possess arms to impose their will upon you with no accountability? I'm not. I will put up with the tax to assure that we have the means to destroy anyone who attempts to destroy us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Government = force = taxes. The more responsibility government has the more force it will use and, generally speaking, the more taxes it will impose.

Rand imagined small government voluntarily funded. Some libertarians know that's impossible so they imagine no government. Both are fantasies. Ideological purity stops where the real world begins unless the ideologists are after power so they can screw everybody else over.

Two things can be rationally posited by Objectivism (Objectivists) re politics: the ideal, which is protection of individual rights, and how to get there: by moving toward more freedom in principle, not away from it as today. Because of human nature, the closer we actually get to the ideal the more obscure it will become so then we will fall out of paradise into hell. This has been going on since the American Revolution and the formal establishment of the Republic, BTW--slo-mo falling into hell.

--Brant

abandon ship?

glad I don't have any children

[jts]

How much money would people voluntarily donate to government? (without taxes)

We can't know until we find out. But the Catholic church seems to be doing okay for money from voluntary donations.

If people would not voluntarily give much to government, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe government needs to shape up or shut down.

How accountable to the people is the government?

It is normal for government to tell lies. Jesse Ventura wrote a book about government lies. Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a book about government lies. FDA (Fraud and Deception Administration) exists for the purpose of telling lies. Everything the FDA approves is bad; they never approve anything good. Does government ever tell the truth? Do you know how to tell whether a politician is lying? Watch his lips. Turn the sound off. There are a few rare exceptions like Ron Paul.

Hans Blix didn't find any WMDs. Didn't matter. WMDs was just an excuse. It was not the real motive. Imagine a guy is on trial for something that if he is found guilty he is going to get the death penalty. Imagine the prosecutor says we have evidence that he dunnit but we can't show you this evidence is because it would violate some kind of security and we ask you to take our word that we have this evidence. Imagine that the prosecutor has a record for telling lies. That is how USA went to war against Iraq.

One thing that would greatly improve government's accountability to the people would be if the people could cut government funding. Then government would be terrified shitless of getting out of line because their funding would be cut.

As it is, government can tax as much as they damn well please and make money out of thin air besides and spend money with no restraint. As Ronald Reagan said, government is like a baby, with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other end.

Is war making USA etc. more safe?

Do we have any evidence other than government say so that there is any threat? Government is probably the least trustworthy of all sources of information.

I watched a video of USA army officer telling a story. He was approached by an elderly Iraq woman who was crying. Her entire village had been destroyed and she was the only survivor. She wanted to know why it was necessary for USA forces to destroy her village. The officer had no answer. I suppose the answer was that the village had to be destroyed to defend the USA.

Does the thought occur to anyone that maybe people in other countries don't like being bombed? If you were bombed (by China or Martians or whatever), would you like it? No? Then why do you think they like it? Maybe, just maybe, they develop negative feelings about USA: like anger, hatred, fear.

If you go around doing very bad things to people, you shouldn't be surprised if you develop enemies. Once you have enemies, you have it made. Then you can use that as an excuse to make war.

[BaalChatzaf]

If they asked for some one to press the launch switch on North Korea and offered a dollar to do so, I would take the job and give 99 cents change.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

Aren't their laws obligating employers to pay at least a specified minimum number of hours for asking an employee to come to work? And then there's minimum wage.

So if all you wanted was the penny, you'd have to return $26.99 if it's 3 hours at $9.

But I think they could offer you the opportunity and charge you for it. I'm guessing you'd be willing to pay at least a couple grand for the privilege.

[tmj]

I can tend to be an idealist, that said, I want the US to be the world's military superpower. I also think Eisenhower's admonitions were prophetic. Look at Iraq, the problem there could have probably been put to rest during Desert Storm. Since it wasn't , Saddam was allowed to be a festering sore. WMDs or no , the powers that be took action(or advantage) and opened the gates of government military spending to degrees that if and when are finally tabulated will probably be unbelievable. But in a free society, albeit a mixed economic system, manufacturing is owned by the private sector, is the fix to turn those capabilities over to the state? Corruption and waste are the necessary evils, should the public demand higher standards of accountability, yes I think we should.

As to the Vietnam example, didn't we lose that one? How do you think the survivors of the Japanese regime in WW2 appraised the US's actions?

[Brant Gaede]

What was lost in Vietnam were the consequences of not fighting there in the first place or getting out earlier than we did or not trying to win and many lives and a lot of time and treasure.

--Brant

communists always lose--that's all they want to do--like James Taggart, they don't know it

[Peter]

jts wrote:

How much money would people voluntarily donate to government? (without taxes) We can't know until we find out. But the Catholic church seems to be doing okay for money from voluntary donations. If people would not voluntarily give much to government, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe government needs to shape up or shut down.

end quote

Wow. Very intelligent and true, but at the same time that premise would make a good Saturday Night Live sketch. Its satire time.

Imagine the late Chris Farley saying: Engage in anarchic behavior, and you and your defense agency can strive to come out on top. Lots of luck with that. My top of the line defense agency would be the FBI and the U.S. Armed Forces. Whats the problem with that?

Come on, admit it, you Rational Anarchists. Its just a state of mind. Anarchy is here now, down by the river, if you WILL IT SO! There are thousands of defense agencies out there. Pick one. Under anarchy no one need swear allegiance or agree to which is the best. Under anarchy its simply up to the individual, and that dude over there, standing under the city street lamp, and every other person on earth can pick their DA too. Theres no harm in having a Federal Defense Agency competing in the process. If youse dont like the Seventh Infantry, you can hire Tony Sopranos Joysee boys.

jts, from the audience says to the chubby Chris Farley:

As it is, government can tax as much as they damn well please and make money out of thin air besides and spend money with no restraint.

end quote

And Chris answers as he hitches up his pants: So can an anarchic non government. I need a drink. Wheres my glass of Old Overholt, bourbon? JTS, do you seriously think a defense agency wont defend what it decides is in its best interest? Print tokens for the vending machines. Dont pay the toll on the turnpike. See if I care. Seize those counterfeit federal dollars at The Bank of America. I will gladly step out of your way.

You impress me with your humor, jts, then you miss the mark when you say:

Hans Blix didn't find any WMDs. Didn't matter. WMDs was just an excuse.

end quote

That is certainly a possibility but you are missing the bigger picture, amigo. As Roger Bissell stated (and I will paraphrase), Before the second gulf war, we could not afford, to NOT KNOW, if Iraq had WMDs. We knew he had used WMD against his own people, the Kurds. The intelligence was there from many sources, that he had been buying yellow cake (the precursor to weapon-izing) from African countries. Saddam was a monster. We had to step on that roach. By the way, tons of yellowcake made it from Iraq to Canada, then to the US for safekeeping. Investigate that Geraldo.

Say jts, want to join me and the cast of SNL at my new bar, a block and a short clock from the studio?

Seriously, jts, collateral damage in wartime is always to be minimized and civilians are never targeted by the United States. Never. I have sat in the briefing classrooms when I was in the Army. It was spelled out. We do not target civilians. Terrorists do. Terrorists are your enemy. Dont step on my defense agencys toes, and you are free to go about your business.

Peter

[FuturistNow]

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil.

Use facts and reason to convince people that they need to financially support wars and then they will do so voluntarily and will not need to be forced.

Then there are the "free riders" who do not mind getting a benefit they should pay for, for free. You are very naive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

>>>List them in a public place.

Several tens of millions. I can't do it. If it were not for withholding few would pay their taxes period. And that means all the taxes.

In America it is considered irrational not to get something for free, if one can.

I pointed out that just about the only way to have a voluntarily paid for armed force is for rich guys to pool their resources and build a dooms day device. Then they could name their terms. Are you ready for people who possess arms to impose their will upon you with no accountability? I'm not. I will put up with the tax to assure that we have the means to destroy anyone who attempts to destroy us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

People who possess arms already impose their will upon me with no accountability. Its called taxation and its wrong. If you want someone's money earn it.

I can think of plenty of ways to defend my people cheaply and effectively, if you can't that is your problem.

[BaalChatzaf]

People who possess arms already impose their will upon me with no accountability. Its called taxation and its wrong. If you want someone's money earn it.

I can think of plenty of ways to defend my people cheaply and effectively, if you can't that is your problem.

Let me tell you what would happen if the existence and maintaining of an armed force were totally voluntary. We would be open to invasion and destruction. I have no faith that enough people would voluntarily contribute to maintain an appropriate level of defense to protect the nation. Remember it is the nation that has to be protected. Defense is not a divisible service.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, voluntarily donating $50,000 per year is laughable. You would not do it voluntarily. But you are quite willing to be forced to pay the money as a tax.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil.

Use facts and reason to convince people that they need to financially support wars and then they will do so voluntarily and will not need to be forced.

Then there are the "free riders" who do not mind getting a benefit they should pay for, for free. You are very naive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

>>>List them in a public

place.

Several tens of millions. I can't do it. If it were not for withholding few would pay their taxes period. And that means all the taxes.

In America it is considered irrational not to get something for free, if one can.

I pointed out that just about the only way to have a voluntarily paid for armed force is for rich guys to pool their resources and build a dooms day device. Then they could name their terms. Are you ready for people who possess arms to impose their will upon you with no accountability? I'm not. I will put up with the tax to assure that we have the means to destroy anyone who attempts to destroy us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

People who possess arms already impose their will upon me with no accountability. Its called taxation and its wrong. If you want someone's money earn it.

I can think of plenty of ways to defend my people cheaply and effectively, if you can't that is your problem.

What tribe do you belong to?

--Brant

[FuturistNow]

People who possess arms already impose their will upon me with no accountability. Its called taxation and its wrong. If you want someone's money earn it.

I can think of plenty of ways to defend my people cheaply and effectively, if you can't that is your problem.

Let me tell you what would happen if the existence and maintaining of an armed force were totally voluntary. We would be open to invasion and destruction. I have no faith that enough people would voluntarily contribute to maintain an appropriate level of defense to protect the nation. Remember it is the nation that has to be protected. Defense is not a divisible service.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No one is going to invade the US.

The real problem is terror states/rogue nations. We know who those people are, and yet nothing has been done to stop them. All in all this is just proof that involuntary methods have not led to an appropriate level of defense of our nation. Yet the defense contractors make money, because they don't have to negotiate with the people who pay them.

@Brant

Why must I belong to a tribe? I don't understand your question.

[BaalChatzaf]

af

No one is going to invade the US.

The real problem is terror states/rogue nations. We know who those people are, and yet nothing has been done to stop them. All in all this is just proof that involuntary methods have not led to an appropriate level of defense of our nation. Yet the defense contractors make money, because they don't have to negotiate with the people who pay them.

@Brant

Why must I belong to a tribe? I don't understand your question.

How about bombing the shit out of us then? Two dozen nuclear devices planted in the right urban locations would finish us off. That plus poisoning the public water supplies. If we did not have a standing policy to retaliated which demands at the very least a first rate air force we would be done in almost for sure.

What we need is a Samson Strategy. If we are going down we take our enemies with us. We shall all be dead together.

[tmj]

Furturistnow said

No one is going to invade the US.

The real problem is terror states/rogue nations. We know who those people are, and yet nothing has been done to stop them. All in all this is just proof that involuntary methods have not led to an appropriate level of defense of our nation. Yet the defense contractors make money, because they don't have to negotiate with the people who pay them.

Why is no one going to invade the US?

I think the problems with military/defense contractors are the results of politics. No administration wants to be seen as going beyond any UN sanctioned action as it concerns US personnel and deployment, so companies like Blackwater are used to get around 'size' of our engagements. Does this type of system open more avenues for fraud and waste, I think it does.

[FuturistNow]

@BaalChatzaf

Do nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them really require the massive amount of money that the military industrial complex uses?

Probably not.

@tmj

Are you serious? Who has an army, a navy, and an airforce that is capable of reaching the US and isn't economically connected to us in a major way?

Those problems with politics aren't going anywhere. Look up public choice theory. There isn't any incentive to buy things at a reasonable price if it isn't your money, but the taxpayers money.

[tmj]

@BaalChatzaf

Do nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them really require the massive amount of money that the military industrial complex uses?

Probably not.

@tmj

Are you serious? Who has an army, a navy, and an airforce that is capable of reaching the US and isn't economically connected to us in a major way?

Those problems with politics aren't going anywhere. Look up public choice theory. There isn't any incentive to buy things at a reasonable price if it isn't your money, but the taxpayers money.

Any one nation or regime perhaps not, a few acting in concert ? maybe. That whole ww2 thingy comes to mind. My point was the US is not threatened by invasion currently because no one thinks they could do it. I am not fan of involuntary taxation but even so , citizens donating to a general fund to pay for defense would in practical terms be administrated by a group of decision makers that was less in number than the total amount of citizens.

[Peter]

Baal wrote:

Two dozen nuclear devices planted in the right urban locations would finish us off. That plus poisoning the public water supplies . . . . What we need is a Samson Strategy. If we are going down we take our enemies with us. We shall all be dead together.

end quote

What a lethally beautiful analogy. You wrote on your profile, A day without a twenty mile bicycle ride is a day without joy, and I hope you keep it up Robert. I like to jog and hike the fields and woods around my house in the country. Robert, the world is a better place because of you, and here are two quotes as a reward for your hard edged posts:

Quote one:

Si vis pacem para bellum: If you wish for peace prepare for war.

Ironic, isnt it? I have a nine millimeter barabellum, for retaliatory force. And I have inner peace because of my precautions. My wife calls our few guns and pistols, equalizers, for women. And I am sure they are equalizers for retired vets like me, though I am far from decrepid.

And heres the other one from Rudyard Kipling:

When you are wounded on Afghanistans plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, just roll to your rifle, and blow out your brains, and go to your god like a soldier.

end quote

Both of those I discovered in a book by Lee Child, so I will include one more of his quotes:

Before you criticize someone you should walk a mile in his shoes. Then when you start criticizing him, youre a mile away and hes got to run after you in his socks.

Lee Child in Gone Tomorrow, page 259.

It is THE BEST Jack Reacher ever written Robert, and it is now in paperback. It is required reading so go spend the $9.99 plus onerous taxes.

Coincidentally I saw, Skyfall last night which I got from Netflix and it is THE BEST James Bond movie ever. I am in no way exaggerating when I say it is also required viewing for all patriots and Objectivists. If you are UNfamiliar with either the Lee Child Book or Skyfall, you are in for a treat.

Poisoning the public water supplies by our enemies would be catastrophic. There is plenty of bottled water in stores and there should be some uncontaminated water in the pipes and cisterns for a few hours but after that, the cities would need to be evacuated. I dont think the city dwellers will need any prodding but there will always be old folks who will stay and die in their houses and apartments.

Peter

[Peter]

FuturistNow wrote:

Are you serious? Who has an army, a navy, and an air force that is capable of reaching the US and isn't economically connected to us in a major way?

end quote

When someone criticizes our military or police I feel like they are criticizing Objectivism and me personally. But your thinking above is a complement.

North Korea is capable. If we are going down I would also strive to take our enemies down with us . . . but without poisoning the earth any further or harming our allies or other innocent people. If Kim Jong Un isnt assassinated by his army for being loony toons and he does launch a nuke and hits our allies in Japan, or South Korea, or our territories in Guam, Alaska, or California, then I want to see a parking lot north of the Korean DMZ. Unfortunately, I also remember from serving in Korea from 1968 to 1969 that our allies in South Korea DO NOT want us to nuke or conventionally kill civilians in North Korea because they all have relatives up there.

Your phrase, economically connected to us got me thinking about our potential enemies who are connected to us, like China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. There are certainly enemies within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who are actively working to destroy us but I would not call them, The Government. And elements within China are in a financial, economic, copyright, and hacking duel of brinkmanship with the United States.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

People who possess arms already impose their will upon me with no accountability. Its called taxation and its wrong. If you want someone's money earn it.

I can think of plenty of ways to defend my people cheaply and effectively, if you can't that is your problem.

Let me tell you what would happen if the existence and maintaining of an armed force were totally voluntary. We would be open to invasion and destruction. I have no faith that enough people would voluntarily contribute to maintain an appropriate level of defense to protect the nation. Remember it is the nation that has to be protected. Defense is not a divisible service.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No one is going to invade the US.

The real problem is terror states/rogue nations. We know who those people are, and yet nothing has been done to stop them. All in all this is just proof that involuntary methods have not led to an appropriate level of defense of our nation. Yet the defense contractors make money, because they don't have to negotiate with the people who pay them.

@Brant

Why must I belong to a tribe? I don't understand your question.

You alluded to "my people" so I wondered what your tribe was.

--Brant

[FuturistNow]

FuturistNow wrote:

Are you serious? Who has an army, a navy, and an air force that is capable of reaching the US and isn't economically connected to us in a major way?

end quote

When someone criticizes our military or police I feel like they are criticizing Objectivism and me personally. But your thinking above is a complement.

North Korea is capable. If we are going down I would also strive to take our enemies down with us . . . but without poisoning the earth any further or harming our allies or other innocent people. If Kim Jong Un isnt assassinated by his army for being loony toons and he does launch a nuke and hits our allies in Japan, or South Korea, or our territories in Guam, Alaska, or California, then I want to see a parking lot north of the Korean DMZ. Unfortunately, I also remember from serving in Korea from 1968 to 1969 that our allies in South Korea DO NOT want us to nuke or conventionally kill civilians in North Korea because they all have relatives up there.

Your phrase, economically connected to us got me thinking about our potential enemies who are connected to us, like China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. There are certainly enemies within Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who are actively working to destroy us but I would not call them, The Government. And elements within China are in a financial, economic, copyright, and hacking duel of brinkmanship with the United States.

Peter

I am really shocked that you can not separate your own ego from the military and the police. These institutions have serious problems. These things need to be talked about by people who do care about the military and police existing.

The major problem with these institutions is that they are used by corrupt politicians to achieve goals that have nothing to do with their functions (re-elections).

@Brant Gaede

I mean "The people I care about". I was pointing out that the other's inability to come up with solutions to a problem does not mean there is not a solution. I can think of ways to defend the people I care about, even if you guys can't.

I don't think the free rider problem is immense. Considering how frenzied people get up about war already, I can't imagine an Objectivist/Libertarian/Liberal population not getting the same way. In addition to this there are many private ways for defense contractors to maintain and improve capital while they are not performing purely defensive operations for the United States.

As an example, I can imagine that an Oil Company that was having its rights violated by a foreign company could pay mercenaries to protect their assets. This isn't an action that the US Government could take by itself, but one that sanctioned mercenaries can take. Right now the costs of these actions (Iran) are passed down to others who have no interest in fighting a foreign government.

[KacyRay]

jts,

Have you seen any of the studies done on the response that people tend to have toward crisis situations when they are in groups versus how they respond when they're the only ones around?

It's been demonstrated time and time again that when individuals observe what they perceive as a crisis that requires intervention, they tend to intervene - particularly when there's no one else around to handle it.

However, when a crisis situation is observed by a group, individuals tend to observe the situation shell-shocked and confused, apparent waiting - and expect - the situation to be handled by one of the other observers. In other words, they take more of a "Hey, one of these other people can handle the problem" approach. This has been tested and demonstrated over and over again.It's been observed in uncontrolled situations as well as controlled experiments. There have been cases where an entire city block of people watched as a woman was beaten and killed... and all the observers interviewed went on to say some variation of "I kept waiting for someone to help that poor lady out!"

As it is, we can barely get half our citizenry to go out and vote. All of them (with good reason) believe that, individually, their vote won't count for much. All of them (correctly) figure that the country will go on just fine without their individual contribution.

Imagine a wartime scenario where you have a country of people, all of whom are thinking "I could donate to this cause... but it I don't, it's alright because enough other people will". And among the ones inclined to donate, there are a good percentage who figure "You know, I want to donate for the war cause, but how do I know my money will go toward it, and not toward some general's personal cook?"

Everyone figures that someone will do something, and therefore they don't really need to do anything.

If you don't believe that would be the prevailing thought process, then you are the picture of idealism. There's absolutely no way our nations defense could be funded by voluntary donations, particularly not with all the enemies we've made at this point in our history.

Don't forget... if we were attacked in such a situation, it would probably be be a nation that funds its military with taxes. Game, set, and match. We lose.