100 years of income tax

[Texashiker]

This gives me an idea. How about food regulations do not apply to sales that are done face to face by the owner? That would allow people to set up small businesses and sell whatever the hell they want. Companies with employees would need to follow regulation, which would make them slightly more expensive than owner operated stores, but the big stores would have the assurance of food safety. If you want raw milk, you can buy it, but it might be risky. If I want FDA inspected food, I can go to the big store and get it. Everybody wins.

Texas recently updated its cottage laws.

If you make a jelly or jam in your kitchen you have to put the ingredients and your name and phone number on the label.

You also have to take a food handlers class through the local health department.

If it does no involve interstate trade, the federal government needs to stay out of my business. It is the states job to regulate whatever happens inside its borders.

 

[Lithium381]

This gives me an idea. How about food regulations do not apply to sales that are done face to face by the owner? That would allow people to set up small businesses and sell whatever the hell they want. Companies with employees would need to follow regulation, which would make them slightly more expensive than owner operated stores, but the big stores would have the assurance of food safety. If you want raw milk, you can buy it, but it might be risky. If I want FDA inspected food, I can go to the big store and get it. Everybody wins.

That's feasible. Having something verified by a trusted third party keeps everyone more honest, right? Think of how many people buy toothpaste based on the ADA endorsement? If you don't want to pay to have it endorsed, well then you'd risk losing business that cares about that sort of thing. Nowadays, with the internet, free market can work much better than in the past because of the ability to find reviews and opinions. How many of you use Yelp? see.

 

[Lithium381]

The first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply robbery. No more and no less. For what is "robbery"? Robbery is the taking of a man's property by the use of violence or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim's consent. And yet what else is taxation?
Those who claim that taxation is, in some mystical sense, really "voluntary" should then have no qualms about getting rid of that vital feature of the law which says that failure to pay one's taxes is criminal and subject to appropriate penalty. But does anyone seriously believe that if the payment of taxation were really made voluntary, say in the sense of contributing to the American Cancer Society, that any appreciable revenue would find itself into the coffers of government? Then why don't we try it as an experiment for a few years, or a few decades, and find out?
But if taxation is robbery, then it follows as the night the day that those people who engage in, and live off, robbery are a gang of thieves. Hence the government is a group of thieves, and deserves, morally, aesthetically, and philosophically, to be treated exactly as a group of less socially respectable ruffians would be treated.

-Murray Rothbard

 

[First]

It is clear you do not understand Libertarians.

Infrastructure is well within the scope of the federal government.

However, if I want to sale yard eggs and raw milk to my neighbors, the government needs to stay out of my and my neighbors business.

If I want to sale baby chicks on the side of the road, I have to have a permit. Farm supply stores are required to have a permit to sale baby chicks and rabbits.

If I want to sale rabbits on the side of the road, I have to have a permit.

The whole thing about Libertarians is the government takes care of its business, I take care of my business, and the government leaves me alone.

In other words, libertarians fail at basic American law.

 

[First]

-Murray Rothbard

Murray Rothbard was a well known racist, and not very many particularly important people with influence ever took him seriously. FYI.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Haha you guys are awesome.

We don't need the Government because we have Yelp. If I was into signatures Id put that in there.

And every time you point out to Libertarians how nonsensical and impractical their ideology is they always fall back on THATS NOT LIBERTARIANISM.

 

[Lithium381]

Murray Rothbard was a well known racist, and not very many particularly important people with influence ever took him seriously. FYI.

I see, so if someone is racist then their ideas are all of a sudden null and void? Like our founding fathers who owned slaves? Lets strike any ideas they ever had out of existence. OMG someone has an opinion about something that isn't the same as mine! Define people with influence? You mean the people in congress who strive to maintain State power at all costs? Yeah i can see that. I've read several of his works, and some ideas I agree with and some I don't. Just because a few of his ideas are 'zomg radical' it doesn't mean he's all and all useless to look at.

 

[Lithium381]

Haha you guys are awesome.

We don't need the Government because we have Yelp. If I was into signatures Id put that in there.

And every time you point out to Libertarians how nonsensical and impractical their ideology is they always fall back on THATS NOT LIBERTARIANISM.

Examples?

libertarianism =/= anarchism.

 

[BoberFett]

That racist FDR locked people up for their ethnicity. We should definitely dismantle the entire New Deal. Because racism.

 

[First]

I see, so if someone is racist then their ideas are all of a sudden null and void?

Yes of course not, it doesn't invalidate his other thoughts and positions. But his ideas, specifically, were the basis of the racism. They informed his racism, this is well known. He was against forced integration. Against the 64 Civil Rights Act because "Private property herp a derp!". Parts of his ideology led to that maddeningly inane reasoning.

Like our founding fathers who owned slaves? Lets strike any ideas they ever had out of existence.

They detested the whole notion of slavery, but their beliefs of equality and justice certainly didn't lead most of them (AFAIK) to believe in the legitimacy of slavery. The practicalities of getting all 13 colonies to ratify was the more immediate issue.

OMG someone has an opinion about something that isn't the same as mine! Define people with influence? You mean the people in congress who strive to maintain State power at all costs? Yeah i can see that. I've read several of his works, and some ideas I agree with and some I don't. Just because a few of his ideas are 'zomg radical' it doesn't mean he's all and all useless to look at.

Yes of course, I'm sure he had other good ideas....um what were they again? You know, for the record.

 

[Lithium381]

back towards the topic in the OP,

why do we fall for the 'temporary tax hike' thing every time? A new income tax that's only for Some people. . . slowly encompassed more and more. Now instead of 1%, it's 80+%. Why? The rates were single digits. Now we're up to 35% and at one point were 70+%. What is the government doing that it needs that much funding?

Tax Freedom Day. . . Middle of April now. 4 months out of the year to support the leviathan. where does it go? do we get to decide?

Even though some of you propose that MNR didn't have any followers with influence... he proposed an idea that for one year the government (federal) would be 100% funded voluntarily. Those people could dictate to what function or department their donations went. It'd be interesting to see how people spent their money and how much the State collected. . And how much we could (as individuals) save. I've paid $10k+ this year in income taxes. Not counting sales tax, property tax, filing 'fees' at the dmv etc.

 

[BoberFett]

Yes of course not, it doesn't invalidate his other thoughts and positions. But his ideas, specifically, were the basis of the racism. They informed his racism, this is well known. He was against forced integration. Against the 64 Civil Rights Act because "Private property herp a derp!". Parts of his ideology led to that maddeningly inane reasoning.

You know, of course, that doesn't make someone racist. It means that someone believes that the right to freedom of association is more important than phony integration. It means some people are aware that laws don't change opinions.

 

[First]

You know, of course, that doesn't make someone racist. It means that someone believes that the right to freedom of association is more important than phony integration. It means some people are aware that laws don't change opinions.

He wasn't overt like, say, the KKK. Absolutely true, and I probably should have clarified that. But his positions are (perhaps entirely unintentionally or perhaps not, I really don't know) undeniably bigoted due to the inevitable conclusions they lead to. He can talk about the CRA as an affront to private property until he's blue in the face, but anyone who knows anything about basic property laws knows there are all sorts of property restrictions that have been in place for a long, long time, both before and after the American Revolution, and that a logical progression of property restrictions should absolutely include overt racism i.e. "freedom of association" as some might call it.

It's this strain of isolated individualism in libertarians that I used to find attractive, until realizing it has severe limits and is mostly naive. In reality, we deeply impact and are a part of communities, and individual and property rights can only go so far before you start (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not) necessarily start feeding the bigotry of the true knuckledraggers (KKK, Nazis, etc.).

 

[BoberFett]

He wasn't overt like, say, the KKK. Absolutely true, and I probably should have clarified that. But his positions are (perhaps entirely unintentionally or perhaps not, I really don't know) undeniably bigoted due to the inevitable conclusions they lead to. He can talk about the CRA as an affront to private property until he's blue in the face, but anyone who knows anything about basic property laws knows there are all sorts of property restrictions that have been in place for a long, long time, both before and after the American Revolution, and that a logical progression of property restrictions should absolutely include overt racism i.e. "freedom of association" as some might call it.

It's this strain of isolated individualism in libertarians that I used to find attractive, until realizing it has severe limits and is mostly naive. In reality, we deeply impact and are a part of communities, and individual and property rights can only go so far before you start (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not) necessarily start feeding the bigotry of the true knuckledraggers (KKK, Nazis, etc.).

I guess some of us feel that forced integration often fuels racism and bigotry more than letting people change at their own pace.

It's one thing to say you can't own another person as a slave. It's entirely another thing that not only can you not own them, but you have to serve them in your restaurant. The first might create resentment against the system, but the second creates resentment against the individual.

 

[Lithium381]

He wasn't overt like, say, the KKK. Absolutely true, and I probably should have clarified that. But his positions are (perhaps entirely unintentionally or perhaps not, I really don't know) undeniably bigoted due to the inevitable conclusions they lead to. He can talk about the CRA as an affront to private property until he's blue in the face, but anyone who knows anything about basic property laws knows there are all sorts of property restrictions that have been in place for a long, long time, both before and after the American Revolution, and that a logical progression of property restrictions should absolutely include overt racism i.e. "freedom of association" as some might call it.

It's this strain of isolated individualism in libertarians that I used to find attractive, until realizing it has severe limits and is mostly naive. In reality, we deeply impact and are a part of communities, and individual and property rights can only go so far before you start (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not) necessarily start feeding the bigotry of the true knuckledraggers (KKK, Nazis, etc.).

True, but is participation in these groups and communities not voluntary? I don't oppose the existance of a governmental entity, in fact i think it's vital that we have one. The criteria that should be asked 'how does this impact individual liberty?'.
If I want to buy a pair of jeans from a neighbor that I see fit to wear and he sees fit to sell me, why should the government have a say in that transaction, or apply a tax to it? If I choose to smoke in my own home or have five girlfriends, of what business is it of the government? If i want to have a gun for self protection. . . etc. so long as i'm not violating the right of another to be secure in their person or property then hands off!

why am i taxed on my labor? We weren't taxed on labor for 140 years after we became a nation and yet somehow we had a government that survived. what has the government become that so much revenue is required to sustain it?

 

[Lithium381]

I guess some of us feel that forced integration often fuels racism and bigotry more than letting people change at their own pace.

It's one thing to say you can't own another person as a slave. It's entirely another thing that not only can you not own them, but you have to serve them in your restaurant. The first might create resentment against the system, but the second creates resentment against the individual.

True. I choose not to buy from Safeway and Starbucks because they're not pro-2A. I respect their decision. I have my reasons. Just as I used to choose not to attend restaurants that allowed smoking. Voluntary.

 

[jackstar7]

The number of people who only want to pay for the things they agree with is a sad indicator of the state of our society.

It's especially sad that most of them will never have "enough" money, nor would they know what to do with it if they did.

 

[BoberFett]

The number of people who only want to pay for the things they agree with is a sad indicator of the state of our society.

I find it sad that so many are so willing to continue feeding an out of control beast, either naively thinking they can control it, or blindly hoping that it will change.

 

[jackstar7]

I find it sad that so many are so willing to continue feeding an out of control beast, either naively thinking they can control it, or blindly hoping that it will change.

Do you have a top 5 programs or departments you'd like to see ended in the service of taming the "beast" as you see it?

 

[Lithium381]

The number of people who only want to pay for the things they agree with is a sad indicator of the state of our society.

It's especially sad that most of them will never have "enough" money, nor would they know what to do with it if they did.

how do you mean?

 

[BoberFett]

Do you have a top 5 programs or departments you'd like to see ended in the service of taming the "beast" as you see it?

DoD and DoE for starters, slash and burn. We don't need our imperial stormtroopers stationed worldwide, and the DoE is clearly failing in their mission and can be disbanded. The IRS could be slimmed down massively if we had a simpler tax code. Medicare and SS needs massive overhauls, but they're going to be tougher to reform based on society's dependency on them.

 

[jackstar7]

how do you mean?

Which part?

 

[yllus]

True, but is participation in these groups and communities not voluntary? I don't oppose the existence of a governmental entity, in fact i think it's vital that we have one. The criteria that should be asked 'how does this impact individual liberty?'.

If I want to buy a pair of jeans from a neighbor that I see fit to wear and he sees fit to sell me, why should the government have a say in that transaction, or apply a tax to it? If I choose to smoke in my own home or have five girlfriends, of what business is it of the government? If i want to have a gun for self protection. . . etc. so long as i'm not violating the right of another to be secure in their person or property then hands off!

why am i taxed on my labor? We weren't taxed on labor for 140 years after we became a nation and yet somehow we had a government that survived. what has the government become that so much revenue is required to sustain it?

Ultimately it's a balance that has to be constantly judged and re-judged. But unless you two are living in the middle of the desert, the odds are that your ability to make a transaction have been enormously influenced by the works of greater society (seen as "government"):

- He bought the jeans (or the fabric of the jeans?) from a store travelling there by society-built and maintained roads

- The store set up shop nearby because it was provided assurance that heat, water and electricity would be extended to its location

- If one of you went to public school, your ability to understand the English language to transact with is partially a result of a society-built and staffed organization

- Transactions both at the store and between the two of you are relatively well assured to be peaceful because the law protects both of you (both in a fraud case and from a violence perspective); I don't believe that people are innately evil and will murder each other over jeans, but this is in play to some extent

And so on. Only the most isolated individuals are fully free from the interference (good and bad) of society (again, seen as "government"). It is reasonable to ask that some amount be paid back to continue to maintain those services.

I think that as we find ourselves in more dense environments with other humans (big cities), the need for privacy-encroaching laws grows. You probably shouldn't have people using their backyards as gun ranges in a suburban area with tiny yards, for example. Or allow people to barbecue in their condos. I don't like telling people what they can't do on their own land, but like fees for fire and police departments, there are things that you just have to agree to paying for the sake of everyone.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Examples?

libertarianism =/= anarchism.

Who said it was?

Libertarianism came about as a reaction to Communism, so its the Un-Communist State.

The problem is being the opposite of something doesn't lead to a better truth or solution.

 

[Lithium381]

Ultimately it's a balance that has to be constantly judged and re-judged. But unless you two are living in the middle of the desert, the odds are that your ability to make a transaction have been enormously influenced by the works of greater society (seen as "government"):

- He bought the jeans (or the fabric of the jeans?) from a store travelling there by society-built and maintained roads

- The store set up shop nearby because it was provided assurance that heat, water and electricity would be extended to its location

- If one of you went to public school, your ability to understand the English language to transact with is partially a result of a society-built and staffed organization

- Transactions both at the store and between the two of you are relatively well assured to be peaceful because the law protects both of you (both in a fraud case and from a violence perspective); I don't believe that people are innately evil and will murder each other over jeans, but this is in play to some extent

And so on. Only the most isolated individuals are fully free from the interference (good and bad) of society (again, seen as "government"). It is reasonable to ask that some amount be paid back to continue to maintain those services.

I think that as we find ourselves in more dense environments with other humans (big cities), the need for privacy-encroaching laws grows. You probably shouldn't have people using their backyards as gun ranges in a suburban area with tiny yards, for example. Or allow people to barbecue in their condos. I don't like telling people what they can't do on their own land, but like fees for fire and police departments, there are things that you just have to agree to paying for the sake of everyone.

How much might that be?

Public roads? Makes sense. Do I think unions and politics makes our system very inefficient to maintain those roads? Yep.
Government schools? On this front I think opening up and expanding the private schools could benefit us. Our government school system is admittedly poor.
Most of the things you're talking about are dealt with at the local level. Not the state nor federal level.
I think some sort of taxation is required because there is some form of government necessary but the monster we have now is ridiculous.