The Alternative To Obama And Democrat Policies Thread

Originally Posted by nvidia2008



As they say, "Well, there's your problem".

I've given this forum a few days for people to actually post alternatives in this dedicated thread, particularly Obama critics.

Should we be surprised this thread is still void of Republican alternatives... Or, any alternatives?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Stealing from others to support them obviously isn't enough, either.

Originally Posted by BR

Taxes aren't theft. You have failed to prove this assertion again and again. Even still, stealing to save a life? You wouldn't? So much for the sanctity of human life. Imaginary baby Jesus weeps at you.

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

No politician will offer a truly workable solution, because it's painful.

The only way for things to get better (longterm) involves pain (short term)... we need to PAY DOWN THE DEBT!!!
That means cutting spending... cutting EVERYWHERE... military, social welfare, subsidies... EVERYWHERE.

It will be painful ... especially so for the poorest. Too bad.

You want to raise taxes??... then raise them on EVERYone... and i'll only support THAT if it includes paying down the debt...
(Reducing deficit spending is NOT the same as paying down debt.)
Total spending has to be LESS THAN the income from taxes... period.

Many people on welfare are going to loose a large portion of their "free money" under this plan ... middle and upper-class are going to see their tax burden increase ... if only due to closing all "loopholes" (though a flat tax, period, would be better.)

This'll cause the economy to tank again ... it'll take years to catch up ... years of pain and suffering ... but if we can get the spending under control, enact a balanced budget amendment and find a way to turn representatives into actual representatives (instead of full-time campaigners) the nation, and world, would be better for it 10-20 years down the road.

Nobody will do it, because the pain it causes will cost them re-election. The proles seem to be unable to see past the end of the week, much less able to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow.

Sorry for the rambling "stream of consciousness" approach, but I don't feel like taking the time to clean it up for you idiots.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

You say "we're not stealing enough".

I say stealing is wrong.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I know you don't think it's stealing when it's say military spending or enforcing the rule of law. So should the wealthy pay any more than the averagely wealthy American in taxes if it was a completely constitutional ideal set of taxes that were being payed?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Taxation is theft. Period. I don't care what the money is used for, it's still theft.

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

Oh come on!
So you're an anarchist?... You don't think we should have any government here in the USA?

It costs money to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. (Though today's government sure doesn't seem to be taking our "posterity" into account when they make decisions.)
Government doesn't come free... Defense, infrastructure, et al... It costs $.
The Constitution of the USA allows for taxation. The FORM of taxation has been questioned from time to time, but not the fact that some taxation is legal and necessary. (And therefore not theft.)

It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other . . . .

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, say to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Lysander Spooner wrote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I understand the sentiment, and a great deal of taxation falls under what you are describing, but not all taxation. The problem is, the line has become very blurred now and there are those that literally believe that it will mean death to them if you cut off those taxes.

What taxes are acceptable? What taxes are not? Even if it is done with high minded ideals and intentions, if something is wrong it is wrong.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

If it's so wrong he should stop paying taxes, otherwise he's just paying to further empower a tyrant who will feed off of others even more. But he won't stop because he's too scared to stand and fight the evil. Better to pay the mafia huh?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Lysander Spooner wrote:

Originally Posted by tonton

My suggestion with regards to taxation is a high flat tax (somewhere between 40 and 50% at first, to pay down the debt) and a very high standard deduction (somewhere around $80k). The numbers can be adjusted to support the actual budget.

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

So, Jazz...

How are we (as a nation) to pay for our defense? ... how will highways get built... how will we build and maintain a closed sewer system and water-treatment systems for large cities? How will the court system be funded? (In the event that someone wrongs you, that might come in handy!)

You've plainly stated that ALL TAXATION IS THEFT ... well, theft should not be tolerated, so taxation should not exist...
HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE PAY FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED GOVERNMENT? (I'll readily concede that our government has far overstepped it's mandate, but we still need to fund SOME sort of government.)

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

See... I feel that with a standard deduction like that, the low-earners won't be "invested" in the tax rate at all... They need to know what a 50% tax rate is actually like... They need to experience that just as much as the "millionaire" does!! Otherwise it leads to the same class warfare we have now, with politicians pitting one against the other. Nothing wrong with having the poor folks contribute a little to getting us out of this mess... They voted the dumbshits into office as much as anybody else!
(it could be argued that, since there are more poor than wealthy people, that they are MORE responsible for electing these assholes!)

Originally Posted by jazzguru

No, I haven't forgotten about the services that are provided by a coercive government monopoly that forcibly extracts money from me to pay for them whether or not I want or use them.

Originally Posted by BR

I cannot empathize whatsoever with this point of view. It is as foreign to me as your ridiculous religious beliefs. You are a walking contradiction and it's absolutely painful to talk to you.

You say government has a role and does have to be funded through taxes. Yet you also say all taxes are theft.

You talk about services you don't want to use when we are talking about the benefits of living in a healthy and educated society. That's not exactly a service you can choose to use or not use. The only choice in that matter is to decide whether you want to live in that society or go elsewhere. Believe you me, if this nation decided to follow your ideals to the letter, I'd be out of here.

You don't want to take part in the social contract? Fine. You have your out.

The belief that we can grant a monopoly on violence to an institution, along with the authority to determine whether its own actions are permissable — in other words, to grant limitless power to an entity and then say, “Limit yourself” — that is the truly utopian and unrealistic fantasy of a naive mind.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

You're leaving some important points out of your analogy, tonton. Consent, being one of them.

The restaurant is sending armed thugs to my house every day, kidnapping me, taking me to the restaurant, forcing me to eat its food whether I like it or not, and then forcing me to pay for it.

Yes, the money that is taken from me also happens to go towards cleaning the toilets, which I may or may not use.

You accuse me (and libertarians) of being utopian, when we are nothing of the sort.

You want to know what's utopian?

Originally Posted by tonton

I already said you can live off the grid and cook at home.


Oh come ON! You claim monopolies wouldn't be a problem under the free market! You claim businesses can self-regulate safety, pollution, fair wage, discrimination, etc. That's pretty fucking utopian!



Now you're using a Mormon Libertarian site to define "utopia", which simply means "an imagined perfect society", and saying I don't understand the meaning of the word? Good one.

What is it about anti-family nutters claiming same-sex marriage advocates aren't allowed to "redefine words"?