70 Comments

sadodharma:

I like the idea,reminds me of Heinlin’s Starship Troopers form of government.

Jul 18, 2008 - 4:41 pm Paul from Hollywood:

A nice idea, except the left will never go for it.

The sole purpose of many leftists’ involvement in government and political activities is that it often gives a chance to control other people lives. These leftists believe people’s lives cannot be left to be run by ordinary people themselves. The common folk need experts, usually those very same self appointed leftists, to decide how people should live.

Jul 18, 2008 - 4:53 pm Teresita:

Declaring independence means you no longer want or need the government to pass laws to protect you from yourself. It means you are happy to take the risks and bear the consequences of your own, freely chosen actions.

Okay, but here’s some consequences of declaring “independence”:

You’ll have to get your own electric power instead of using our transmission lines in the Commons.

You’ll need a Buck Rogers jet pack to get around so you don’t end up tresspassing on our roads in the Commons. Either that, you you need to pay a toll for every mile you drive.

If some jerks break into your house, don’t call 9-11. Maybe you can retain a private detective to get your stuff back. And pray you don’t have a fire.

Jul 18, 2008 - 5:26 pm Doug:

9-11, always there even before you need them!
—
The Late Great State of California

California - No. 1 in Taxes -

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average.

This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state’s history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, “hasta la vista, baby” to the state.

First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. “It costs more to do business in California,” said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs.
Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi.

There is already a reverse gold rush going on in California and the evidence points powerfully toward high tax rates as a culprit.
—
Productive citizens leave, leaving non-citizens and non-productive government trolls.

Study: More than one-third of LAUSD students drop out -
LAUSD four-year dropout rate of 33.6 percent was well above the statewide average of 24.2 percent, sparking renewed calls to beef up academic standards in the nation’s second-largest school district.

Fresno dropout rate exceeds LAUSD.
…VDH could fill in Mexifornia details.

Worse than Appalachia

WASHINGTON — Poverty, poor health and low graduation rates have put the San Joaquin Valley’s 20th Congressional District dead last in a new national scorecard that ranks the well-being of residents.

Even notoriously grim Appalachia fares better than the congressional district that sweeps in Fresno, Kings and Kern counties, the study made public Wednesday shows. The assessment of health, education and income ranks the district 436th out of 436 districts nationwide.

Jul 18, 2008 - 5:31 pm RWE:

Paul from Hollywood: It’s worse than that, actually. Much worse. Obama says he is for raising taxes because of “fairness.” He then cited a number of hedge fund managers who collectively have made hundreds of millions of dollars. And that is just not fair in his mind. Never mind that raising taxes is proven to reduce tax revenue. Never mind that most of what he would spend the money on consists of programs that were proven to fail over 30 years ago. It’s about fairness. In other words, it is not enough that I do well; others must be laid low – and “laid” as in “screwed.”

Jul 18, 2008 - 5:35 pm El Jefe Maximo:

“Most controversially the paper argues that those who voluntarily choose dependency should not have a full role in selecting the nation’s government.”

In a back-handed way, allowing people to opt to be clients of the welfare state, but taking away their ability to share fully in the governance of the State is a return to the property and literacy qualifications that were a standard feature of late 19th and early 20th Century republicanism and parliamentary government.

The Left would never allow itself to be cutoff from mobilization of the power of so many clients and voters,nor would it allow others to escape the tax and regulatory clutches of the welfare state. The only way the welfare state shall pass is to collapse by its own weight, or be buried by more efficient, more ruthless rivals who do not care about the popular equality god.

Jul 18, 2008 - 5:52 pm NahnCee:

I want the same sort of independence from the government that illegal Mexicans currently have: paying no taxes, free health care, free education for my spawn including college, food stamps and welfare payments to supplement my own income, and the right to use the city / county / state/ national highways, water and electricity set-ups with no restrictions. Oh, and I get to vote, too, but don’t need a driver’s license nor do I need to carry car insurance.

Jul 18, 2008 - 6:00 pm Brock:

Um, what laws would this allow you to opt out of besides drugs and prostitution? You’d still be subject to environmental regulations, the tort system, securities filings, etc. and bear the externality induced costs of those regulatory burdens. Or do you opt out of social security too? Because if you’re paying even more taxes, aren’t you LESS able to invest for your own retirement?

I think the only reform that’s really necessary is to disenfranchise anyone whose government payments (whether social security or welfare) exceeds their taxes paid. Because then government becomes a service which is purchased, not a sugar daddy.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The ones who sign their checks, that’s who.

Something still needs to be done though about the perfectly wealthy and well-informed who lobby for laws that create great wealth for themselves and their cronies, regardless of the cost to the rest of the citizenry. Our culture has become desensitized to government as a source of competitive advantage (whether in direct payments or regulatory advantage) and it is the failing of our age.

We also seriously need a better way of selecting legislators.

Jul 18, 2008 - 6:02 pm Charlie (Colorado):

I love the idea, but I suspect that the actual members of the government won’t buy it. After all, a slave is an asset.

Jul 18, 2008 - 6:09 pm LunarTuna:

Independents paying government to leave them alone….Sounds like a protection racket to me. Government wants more up the price or the threat of interference. Castro would love it

Jul 18, 2008 - 6:25 pm Ledger:

The Pelosi gang has a firm grip on California via the government employees, unions and their “pension funds.” This power is huge and entrenched. California has an economy the size of France.

I have done some construction work in and around the LAUSD and other SoCal school districts. Three days after the last election I comment to a school official about an instructor who was still sporting a “I voted” flag sticker on his shirt.

I said something to the effect, “I am glad to see he has voted. He still has the voter sticker on his shirt” The school official said “He did. I put it on his shirt.”

The message was obvious that if the instructor did not vote and show he voted by wearing the “I voted sticker” then he would have been in trouble with school district. As you can guess he voted for the dems.

The real question is how to break he head-lock that the dems have over the unions and government employees in California. We need solid answers.

If any of you have suggestions of how to disslodge these dems from their entrenched positions please speak up.

Jul 18, 2008 - 6:38 pm LunarTuna:

On second thought…not Castro, but Vito Corleone

Jul 18, 2008 - 6:49 pm Ari Tai:

Perhaps it’s not opt out in 1st world country, but some other country that offers this as its social contract. Or Australia could offer a nation state-within-a-state opportunity (say, offer to sell a 10,000 square mile tract of Australia w/ a little seacoast and lots of desert along the southern bite). Consider it a form of leveraged-buy-out. Pay for it over, say, 100 years with an option to pay off early. This would be all “new” money to Oz government coffers. Where the fees cover defense spending initially until these willing-to-depend-on-only themselves can build their own deterrent ability.

Jul 18, 2008 - 7:33 pm 3Case:

My current thesis to ponder in this area is that anyone who takes money from government, whether as welfare or wage, should not have a right to vote. Further, such people should also have no rights of inheritance or of gifting or bequest.

Jul 18, 2008 - 8:13 pm fred:

Grudgingly, I admit that Teresita has a point. The real problem is how to get citizens to understand that we have to draw a line somewhere beyond which it is not healthy for government to take and to intrude. The most critical shortcomings of our society are education and media, which are pretty much owned by all the various Leftist groups. Lacking balance in how they present our national narrative, a huge fraud is perpetrated upon the public - and much of the public does not even know it.

There is no substitute for an informed, well-educated, and engaged citizenry. And in order to get there we have to allow citizens to have choice in how and where their children are educated. The teachers and professors unions are strangling the country. It is imperative that a legal battle be waged on behalf of a voucher system. Otherwise, the NEA will accomplish its task of destroying the nation.

Jul 18, 2008 - 8:28 pm James:

How much are you willing to pay to keep your neighbor from being richer than you?

Jul 18, 2008 - 8:29 pm wretchard:

The proposals of the Founding Fathers were much more radical, with respect to their time and millieu than some of the ideas — which will seem so outlandish to some — are to this time and place. The problem isn’t the novelty of the ideas, but the lack of a movement to implement them. Things aren’t bad enough to provide the ground for such proposals to grow.

Ironically, the rebellion against the politically correct Welfare State may begin in Europe because that is where the tensions are potentially the greatest for a variety of reasons all too familiar to repeat here. The main constraint which the Welfare State will soon hit is Demographics. The arithmetic is too stark to be ignored. Sooner rather than later, the mandarins will run out of geese from which to pry the Golden Egg.

Moreover, the forces of Globalization are weakening not only community, but the State itself. All that is lacking now is the technology to create market-state societies that are viable alternatives to the post-World War 2 Welfare State. Things will have to get a whole lot worse before ideas like “opting out” or “buying your freedom back” become mainstream. But the day will come and soon.

In a sense Obama represents not the future but the irretrievable past. He is not yet the One we have been waiting for.

Jul 18, 2008 - 8:39 pm wretchard:

I think Teresita didn’t understand what “opting out” meant. As the paper said, it doesn’t mean they want no government, just essential government.

The present slim volume … explores the idea that we might ‘turn off’ the government when there is nothing useful for it to do. I hasten to add that I do not mean we should turn it off completely. There is plainly a need for government to organize foreign affairs, chase criminals, enforce contracts, and provide indivisible ‘public goods’ that the rest of us need but would not organize for ourselves if we were left to our own devices. …

Curiously enough the anarchists had a concept which was very similar to some aspects of those put forward by the Australian think tank paper. Anarchists spoke of “surplus repression” as that excess part of the state power above and beyond the quantity necessary to provide for required order. There are today in Europe regulations on how to set out your garbage, what things to say, clearances to get before being a scoutmaster. They are even considering carbon rationing coupons. And the question is, what has all this to do with government?

So the idea of “opting out” is not to turn oneself into an island, but to restore the balance between the individual and the state somewhat.

Jul 18, 2008 - 8:47 pm Doug:

Fred,
McCain spoke in favor of vouchers in front of the NAACP.
Kind of ironic, since that particular group, unlike rank and file black folk, is no doubt NEA All the Way.

Still good to hear.

Teachers Unions are the Left’s greatest asset in elections.
(and in molding properly ignorant and compliant subjects)

Jul 18, 2008 - 8:54 pm Vilmos:

> “One hundred years ago, it took just over
> three weeks for Australians to produce all
> the wealth needed to pay for all the state
> and federal government services for a whole
> year. Today, this takes almost four months.”

Good argument, but it has a basic flaw. Back 100 years ago, the military didn’t cost as much as today. And I, and I guess you too, actually support the strong military. Especially just south of the world’s biggest muslim state.

Also, back 100 years ago, there was no need to maintain roads, of if was, it cost much less. Other infrastructure was also far more rudimentary than now.

Healthcare is another issue. I am sure it cost much less 100 years ago … and delivered even less. That’s a different question, that maybe the gov’t is not the best to do healthcare, especially the way they do here, in Canada.

So while I agree that the state is far too big and expensive, and also very intrusive, comparing it to a situation 100 years ago is just not right.

I think the first and most important area where the gov’t has to step out of our lives are welfare, education, and laws protecting one against himself.

Welfare. I, as a citizen, *CAN* choose/discriminate whom to give my extra money. The state is bullied by the loudest and most aggressive lobbies, and the charity will go to their pet projects. I, on the other hand, can support only those who are genuinely in need, and I actually see, that they truly want to improve themselves.

Education. Indoctrination. While it might be a good idea that the gov’t collect money for education, they should not be involved in providing it. They simply should collect the money, and give back vouchers to parents who can use to buy education in qualified schools. That’s an another question, that the state can still “guide” the education by selectively qualifying schools…

Laws which protect me from myself. There is not much to explain here.

Vilmos

Jul 18, 2008 - 9:21 pm Dave:

Another Heinlein proposal: Have a bi-cameral legislature with one house passing laws,
the other house repealing laws.

When all payment goes to creating new laws, you SHALL be smothered by legislation. Just a amtter of how long it will take.

Pay people to repeal them. Pay them LOTS of money to repeal them and the total number of statutes will decline. Hopefully by enough.

Jul 18, 2008 - 9:26 pm Doug:

To: Ambassador Crocker
From: Manuel Miranda, Office of Legislative Statecraft
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Departure Assessment of Embassy Baghdad

After a year at the Embassy, it is my general assessment that the State Department and the Foreign Service is not competent to do the job that they have undertaken in Iraq.

Most emblematic of the State Department’s weakness in basic management was its decision to dismantle and cannibalize the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office rather than to strengthen it and to fix its problems, among them inadequate management by Foreign Service officers placed at the helm. The fact that this massive reorganization was undertaken at the critical time that it did, and even while the Commanding General was requesting greater civilian support of the GOI has to join the list of fatal errors that we have made, this time under the State Department’s ledger.

There is a near complete lack of strategic forethought or synchronization between Embassy staffing and program initiatives and funding. This is also true of PRTs. Only the military takes seriously the Joint Campaign and its metrics of achievement, while State Department leaders use it only when advantageous.

Overall, the lack of coordination and leadership in key areas (including Rule of Law activity, PRT’s, and others), upon which the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has repeatedly commented, is real and pervasive.

The waste of taxpayer funds resulting from such mismanagement is something that only a deeply entrenched bureaucracy with a unionized attitude, like the Foreign Service and Main State, could find acceptable.

ht - Desert Rat

Jul 18, 2008 - 10:03 pm Cannoneer No. 4:

The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means. And of course the money comes from those who work and save and pay their bills and live within their means — who else will have any money for the government to take? — JERRY POURNELLE

A multi-national Legion of Entrepreneurial
Frontiersmen banding together to preserve the fruits of their labors from rapacious redistributionist totalitarians; gated, resilient islands of light in a sea of socialist darkness; yeoman producers defecting in place, seceding from The Welfare State and making Caesar work for what is rendered instead of ovine obedience to commands from Gov’t and Federally Designated Victim Groups to stand and deliver . . .

A Randian wet dream. I like it.

Jul 18, 2008 - 10:42 pm Cannoneer No. 4:

To each according to his ability.

From each according to his conscience.

Jul 18, 2008 - 10:52 pm Demosophist:

The proposals seem rather inconsistent with human nature. In the first place, one never knows when one will need the assistance of others… but extended families or tribes used to fill that gap, albeit not without the imposition of some control. Ultimately, about the worst fate that one could suffer would be to become an outcast. It’s these intermediate level associations that really prevent the enlargement of the state. Arendt called them “mediating institutions.”

So, you can’t actually make a decision to be unbound, without simultaneously making yourself impotent. We’ve got some rather romantic and inappropriate notions about what freedom is, and what it gives us. Absolute freedom would mean the absence of purchase. Think walking on the ice wearing ice shoes. There is effectively no difference between complete freedom and complete bondage. Both entail total impotence.

We could also define the mission of the state as the support of independent capital acquisition, and the establishment of estates that would make people independent. This would require some rather unfamiliar changes to banking and finance, but it’s not so exotic that it slips the bonds of human nature. It’s a doable thing. Many of the retirement instruments established by Patrick Moynihan move things in this direction.

Jul 18, 2008 - 11:38 pm Panday:

I’ve been saying for a while that someday, historians are going to look back on the 20th and 21st century and say that statism is one of the greatest evils ever afflicted upon mankind.

Doubly so because it was wrought with good intentions.

Jul 19, 2008 - 3:10 am bobal:

From each according to his conscience.

Alas, since we live in a fallen world where the words original sin mean something even if not genetically, precious little will be forthcoming for the common good without state coercion.

Jul 19, 2008 - 3:34 am RWE:

Actually, it’s not slavery, folks.

The old slavemasters of the Antebellum South used to require that the slaves work for them 1/3 of the time and use the other 2/3 of their time to care for their own needs.

Don’t know about y’all, but I shell out in excess of 50% of my real income to various governments in the form of taxes. Aside from that, I have to comply with all sorts of costly, complex, and aggravating regulations. If you really want to get crossways with the government as many ways as possible, go buy an airplane.

A study done by some U.S. senators in 1993 showed that for every dollar collected in taxes the private sector had to spend another 40 cents complying with government tax regulations. And those are just the tax regulations.

The slaves had it easy.

Jul 19, 2008 - 5:50 am Bill Hocter:

Freedom from the State sounds nice, but I suspect most of us are more dependent than we want to believe. The “Masters of the Universe” on Wall Street were a proud and independent bunch while the market was rising and credit was easy. See them clamor for bailouts and line up at the discount window now.

To some extent, the politically correct nanny state has arisen due to changes in technology and the degree of hyperspecialization our economy demands. But to at least an equal extent, it has grown due to the activism of committed (but I think largely misguided) people who were willing to spend their time and money, and occasionally even go to jail for their beliefs.

If libertarian folks want smaller government, they’ll have to get organized, which may represent a bit of a contradiction in terms. If it happens, the road is perilous. Our 1994 Republican friends in Congress wanted term limits and a smaller government, but ended up overstaying their welcome and fattening on pork.

Jul 19, 2008 - 5:52 am Alexis:

In a sense Obama represents not the future but the irretrievable past. He is not yet the One we have been waiting for.

Despite rumors of impending revolt in Europe, Obama is wildly popular there. He is more popular in Europe than he is in the United States. And given his popularity elsewhere, this opens up possibilities…

Perhaps John McCain can become the President of the United States and Barack Obama can become the President of the European Union!

Jul 19, 2008 - 7:27 am Jay:

The percentage of the US population that live off the productivity of the non parasitic working population is very large. I do not know how the number of Australia’s human parasites compares with our numbers. The high income parasites are the trial lawyers, government consultants, protected industries and of course our “leaders”.
Obama says that he will tax the hedge fund managers while he takes their campaign contributions. He did not mind getting rich from Chicago mobsters in the low income business and from UC’s hospital getting grants from the government.
Meanwhile Bush has caved on Iran by listening to his unqualified Sec State and the CIA. Nuclear war and economic chaos are coming while the greens dream of a world that they organically rule.
I suggest that we read up on how the 30 years war played out.

Jul 19, 2008 - 7:43 am Soflauthor:

There’s an apocryphal story that seems appropriate to this discussion. The story, often told in the old Soviet Union, goes like this:

Fyodor, poor farmer in Russia, scraped and saved until he was able, after many years, to buy a goat. He nurtured the goat and before long, began to get a daily supply of goat’s milk. He quietly sold the goat’s milk and cheese to some neighbors. The money he received allowed him to buy better cloths for his children and more farm tools to grow vegetables. In his own modest way, Fyodor began to prosper.

One neighbor, a rabid communist, watched this transpire and then went to the mayor of the local village.

“Fyodor has a goat,” he proclaimed angrily.

“So what,” said the mayor, a progressive in such things. “He’s hurting no one.”

The neighbor winced. “He has more milk than me and more cheese. By god, he’s selling these things and buying nice cloths for his children while mine dress in rags. He’s buying better equipment than I have. It’s not right.”

The mayor thought for a moment, “Well, maybe we can get you a goat. After all, Fyodor is doing well. There’s milk and cheese not only for him but for many of the townspeople — all because of his goat. You can do the same.”

The neighbor became visibly angry. “That won’t do!”

The mayor sighed. “Then what do you want me to do?”

The neighbor smiled. “Kill the goat.”

Jul 19, 2008 - 7:55 am geoffb:

3Case,

I too have thought about this and my solution would be for there to be another box on the W-2 form stating the percentage of revenue the employer received from a government source and then the amount of your income times that percentage. Then on your tax form if your government sourced income was greater than your taxes paid you don’t get to vote the next year. This would eliminate voting by all public employees, and those whose companies are dependent on government contracts.

It will never happen of course.

Jul 19, 2008 - 8:04 am Vinny Vidivici:

LunarTuna gets it. ‘Nice productive, career/life/business you got here, bub. Shame if anyting were to happen to it.’

I’m afraid this is an interesting idea but, like declaring an abandoned ocean drilling platform a sovereign entity, relies too much upon good faith and non-interference by state actors. Good luck with that.

3case points out why we must keep looking for a solution. That is, the inevitability of a permanent, expanding voting bloc of rent seekers and supplicants who, by the very act of casting a vote, endorse larceny on their behalf.

Jul 19, 2008 - 8:12 am Charles:

One solution to encroaching state control will come naturally from decentralized power generation–and this is coming fast imho. A second solution will come naturally from a flattened corporate structure due to the internet–ie the movement of people will be away from the main corporate offices–to their homes. Computer conferencing is getting to be pretty easy. A third solution to encroaching state control is home schooling.

I don’t see much evidence of it as yet — but I think churches are going to become more important.

Jul 19, 2008 - 8:31 am Tcobb:

In the context of the United States my preference would be that people who receive more money from the government in benefits than they pay in taxes should not be allowed to vote in races for the House of Representatives. I would still let them vote for Senate and Presidential races. After all, the Constitution provides that all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. I would think that they would think twice about creating expensive benefit packages that would essentially remove large blocks of voters who they would need to get themselves re-elected.

Jul 19, 2008 - 9:15 am 3Case:

“…precious little will be forthcoming for the common good without state coercion.”

You really believe that?

Jul 19, 2008 - 9:29 am Andrew:

There is some precedent for the concept even in the United States. For example, in some States there is a mechanism whereby you can pay off your property tax obligation on a piece of real estate for as long as you own it in a lump sum that is typically several times your normal property tax bill. There is a technical term for such a buyout of tax obligation that escapes me at the moment, but the first time I heard of such a thing, in a State that apparently supports such a concept, the price tag was 5% the value of the property IIRC whereas annual property taxes were effectively around 1%. The interesting thing is that, to the extent such provisions exist, hardly anyone knows about them. Hell, I only discovered it by accident while researching something else.

Jul 19, 2008 - 9:34 am bobal:

In the sense of taxes. Which we must have some of. Maybe I’ve missed something, but the people I know always bitch about taxes. To be sure there’s much else of the common good other than filling in potholes, etc. but we are a highly developed society and we need the army, police, courts, the list is long.

Jul 19, 2008 - 10:07 am bobal:

Take heart. Emerson said, if the price is too high, the people won’t buy, if the taxes are too steep, the people won’t pay. A wonderful balance obtains in all things….

Jul 19, 2008 - 10:10 am Cannoneer No. 4:

precious little will be forthcoming for the common good without state coercion.

bobal, those who arrogate to themselves the power to decide what “common goods” will be redistributed from those whose labor produced them to those whose idleness puts them in need of them are beating the mules that pull the wagon with the coercion club too vigorously, and they’re whomping the wrong end if they expect the mules to pull harder instead of sit on their haunches.

The free riders that voted in the muleskinners should get down and lend a hand at the wheels when the going gets rough, lest the mules kick over the traces and run off leaving the wagon and passengers slowly sinking in quicksand.

Jul 19, 2008 - 10:44 am Cannoneer No. 4:

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. – Robert A. Heinlein

Jul 19, 2008 - 11:28 am Charles:

“massive numbers of assimilated illegals” should read “massive numbers of unassimilated illegals”

Jul 19, 2008 - 11:47 am Lowell:

It’s obvious that the people are being dishonest when they talk about all government payments as being the same with respect to what their effect should be on voting rights. I say this because they make certain to specify that even people who receive government payments for services rendered should be included. In other words, not just politicians and their aides, but also military men, police, firefighters, and those who build roads, bridges, government buildings, those who provide necessary services or equipment. Frankly, we can argue about whether various “services” are necessary, but if the duly-elected government decides it is necessary, then people should not lose their voting rights because they provide those services or equipment to the government. Should Ford or GM employees not be allowed to vote because they built pickups purchased by the Forest Service? No, the distinguishing thing should be if someone receives money without providing something in return. As for the “corporate welfare”, I suspect that a system which has a two-tiered citizenship will take care of it fairly quickly since one half of the mutually-supporting welfare state would lose it’s power.

Jul 19, 2008 - 12:12 pm geoffb:

Perhaps you are right but I did say percent of revenue derived from government contracts applied to wages. Most companies do not derive a large portion of their income from government contracts.

With the government employee unions now at all levels of government, the government employees are in a position to vote in the people who will then raise their pay. Also puts the politicians in the position of using the promise of pay increases to raise money from those unions and employees to get themselves elected easier. That is a cycle that also must be broken.

I would expect that if a “services rendered escape clause” were in that all of the transfer payments such as welfare would suddenly sprout some small work requirements that would make them services rendered too.

All academic anyways as nothing like this will ever happen.

Jul 19, 2008 - 1:20 pm Kirk Parker:

Part of my own comfort with the ideas proposed by Dubossarsky and Samild (in contrast to Teresita’s silly dystopian nightmares) is that I’ve lived in the Third World. I’ve seen slums like Kibera–but also seen waitresses and store clerks emerge from there on their way to work, looking as presentable as anyone from any other part of Nairobi. I’ve spent plenty of time in Juba, and believe me, a place further from being Paris does not exist–but still you can’t keep the young adults down on the Sudanese farm once they’ve seen it.

There is no way that anywhere in the West would devolve to those kind of circumstances, no matter what increase in income distribution might result from their plan, so I’m not afraid to give it a try. The difficulty lies not in any physical circumstances, but in the world view that already weakens us so seriously. The left (cf. Teresita) would do their best to keep that in place, or strengthen it if they could.

Wretchard, I’d be especially interested in your take on this aspect.

Jul 19, 2008 - 1:35 pm Kirk Parker:

Hmm, I think the foregoing left the connections a bit too implicit. My point was to compare those places I’ve seen where people survive, and some even make economic headway in life, with the way public assistance and “poverty” interact here in the US, where the number living in poverty nearly disappears once you add food stamps, subsidized housing, medical coupons, and the like.

People write about the moral-hazard aspects of this all the time–how the marginal value of entry-level employment can be tiny, or sometimes even negative, in these circumstances–and this was a large part of the impetus for welfare reform (which admittedly has improved the situation to some degree.)

So the point is: given that so many survive, and even progress, with so much less, maybe every once in a while the defenders of our statist systems should have to actually come up with a positive justification for the status quo, rather than getting everyone to buy in to their assumed mantle of superior morality.

Jul 19, 2008 - 1:51 pm Eggplant:

As the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution abolished slavery, I’ve long wondered if there could be an analogous amendment abolishing socialism, e.g. “Congress may only allocate funds in exchange for goods and services rendered to the United States”. I know this example wouldn’t work legally but have long speculated whether some sort of language could be constructed to make socialism illegal.

An additional problem would be unintended legal side effects. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended as a companion to the Thirteenth Amendment in extending the full rights of citizenship to ex-slaves. However the Supreme Court later gave sweeping interpretations to the Fourteenth Amendment that went far beyond its original intent. Through a similar process, a No-Socialism amendment could have disasterous impact upon the economy if it was improperly written to enable inappropriate interpretation by the Supreme Court.

Along these lines, I think we’ll eventually need to have a balanced budget amendment. This concept was popular a few years ago but later abandoned. A properly constructed balanced budget amendment could have the same impact as a No-Socialism amendment.

The U.S. federal government may eventually be bankrupt by Medicare, Social Security and deficit spending. After the system has crashed and burned there will be an opportunity to craft a revised constitution (a constitutional convention?). The legal system needs to be reconstructed such that people can’t vote themselves a paycheck rather than earn one.

Jul 19, 2008 - 2:58 pm dla:

Terrista shows us the camel’s nose under the tent by writing…

Okay, but here’s some consequences of declaring “independence”:

You’ll have to get your own electric power instead of using our transmission lines in the Commons.

You’ll need a Buck Rogers jet pack to get around so you don’t end up tresspassing on our roads in the Commons. Either that, you you need to pay a toll for every mile you drive.

If some jerks break into your house, don’t call 9-11. Maybe you can retain a private detective to get your stuff back. And pray you don’t have a fire.

And that is how the “controllers” justify their existance, how they justify an ever-increasing intrusion into productive citizens lives.

IF people want interstate highways, they will fund them.
IF people want a regulated monopololy for electric service they will fund it.
IF people want a 911 service they will pay for it.

But people should have the right to say NO to stuff if they don’t want it. And people should have the right to demand excellence from these services if they do allow them.

Sooooooo here in America, public education should be optional, and parents should control the purse-strings by being issued vouchers.

And here in America, if you are capable of generating your own electrical power, and an increasing number of folks are, then you are allowed to be disconnected from the grid - no taxes, no fees.

I am thankful that I live in a country where I’m allowed to make these decisions. And I will continue to oppose the “nanny staters” who would rob me of these liberties.

Jul 19, 2008 - 3:34 pm Doug:

Politics - Schwarzenegger urges ‘creative’ revenue increases without tax hikes -

Schwarzenegger’s January proposal included some new revenue, though none as substantial as Hill proposed through ending tax breaks.
The governor’s budget proposed a new 1.25 percent fee on homeowners insurance, as well as an $11 increase in vehicle registration fees, neither of which the governor considers tax hikes.

The Republican governor campaigned on a no-new-tax pledge during his 2006 re-election effort, but some Republicans have charged that raising fees or closing tax loopholes is the same as increasing taxes. Schwarzenegger insisted Tuesday that he remains an anti-tax advocate.

“I am not a believer in raising taxes because you cannot raise your way out of this problem,” he said.
—
Democrats Propose Doubling Tax before it Exists!
The rocketing cost of fighting California’s wildfires has prompted Democratic lawmakers to double the homeowners insurance surcharge that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed earlier this year for disaster preparedness.

Under the new proposal, homeowners in “high-risk areas” - which, between fires, floods and earthquakes, covers about 95 percent of the state - would have a 2.8 percent surcharge added to their policies.
—
Former Mayor Jerry Brown’s $118,000-a-year adviser, Jacques Barzaghi, got $13,500 from Oakland developer John Protopappas - whom Brown appointed to the Port Commission -
for feng shui consulting on various Protopappas projects.

Brown also defended Barzaghi, his friend and confidant, when Barzaghi was hit with a sexual harassment claim that eventually cost the city $50,000.

It wasn’t until Barzaghi’s sixth wife frantically phoned 911 in a domestic violence spat - to which then-Police Chief Richard Word personally responded - that Brown finally cut his close friend loose in 2004.
—
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, Mayor Villar and Chief Bratton raised fees to hire 700 new policemen.
Instead, they hired 300 and kept the change for other interests and activities.
Each LA City Councilperson has TWENTY well-paid assistants.

Jul 19, 2008 - 4:31 pm bobal:

I always vote for the politician that is the lower tax guy. We were better off here when we had a legislature only every other year. But, there’s a minimum you can’t get away from. My city for instance needs public wells, and a police force. No taxes, no services.

Jul 19, 2008 - 6:21 pm bobal:

Not to mention a sewage treatment plant.

Jul 19, 2008 - 6:22 pm Paul from Hollywood:

I am one of those simpletons that believes the Constitution means what it says.

Like that often ignored passage of the 4th Amendment: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. As an architect in LA, I deal with government all too often. Ingenious taking of property happens almost routinely now where I live , because the government cannot be sued for damages in land use cases. Therefore, there is no penalty for government to take your property without compensation. You might spend a half million minimum getting your property back and could actually win, but without money for your time or other loses. But then again, in our legal roulette system, you have a high probability of losing and getting nothing.

As far as taxes, I kinda thought that phrase in the 13 th Amendment, “No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” kinda meant that somehow taxes were to be applied equally in some sort of fashion . Phony, absurd and ridiculous ideas of fairness shouldn’t apply, but in our fashionable Democrat controlled world they do big time. But that’s just me.

Jul 19, 2008 - 7:50 pm bobal:

I’m with you on that taking business, Paul. It’s not much of a problem here though. When that last supreme case came down, our legislature reaffirmed our property rights. As to the 13th you’ve been snookered.

Jul 19, 2008 - 8:32 pm Paul from Hollywood:

Oops ! My bad . That would be the 5th and 14th , not the 4th and 13th.

Jul 19, 2008 - 9:17 pm bobal:

One amendment is much like another.

Jul 19, 2008 - 9:57 pm 3Case:

“It’s obvious that the people are being dishonest when….

As it was taught to me, the ad hominem attack is a sure sign of a losing argument.

You also seem to misplace that this is a discussion of how to solve the currently very real problem which was identified by Benjamin Franklin, I believe, as the great threat to the existence of the Republic: the possibility of the electorate voting itself increasing benefits from the Treasury to the point of the destruction of the nation. Rather than add to the discussion, you choose to impugn. Too bad. Framed civilly, your point about the military is well-taken. I am not so sure about police in other than patrol billets, though.

Jul 19, 2008 - 11:02 pm Doug_S:

The Founders were smart enough to form a limited government with limited democracy.

Our MSM tells us that unlimited government and unlimited democracy is the best of all possible worlds.

Jul 20, 2008 - 5:32 am SunSword:

A simple solution:
(1) After paying federal taxes every year, all tax filers would receive a code number, in the form of a sticker.
(2) When voting in a federal election, the voter would bring the sticker, and the vote judges would transfer the code number to the ballot.
(3) The vote tallying computers would scan the code number (think UPC code) and multiply the vote by the number of tax dollars actually paid.

Result:
(a) People that did not pay taxes, or did not provide a code number, would have their vote multiplied by the number 100. (Equivalent to paying 100 dollars of tax per year.)
(b) The people who paid taxes would have their votes weighted by the amount of tax paid. Pay a lot, your vote gets weighted more.

Implications — tax cheats and the wealthy who don’t earn “income” — their votes are devalued. Middle class taxpayers suddenly dominate the vote in a major way. And it fixes the problem that all those who pay no taxes or get “earn income credit” (almost 50% of the population now) cannot vote goodies from the government for themselves from those who pay for it.

Jul 20, 2008 - 9:04 am NahnCee:

I always vote for the politician that is the lower tax guy.

I always vote for the guy who does not have a Hispanic or Arab name.

Jul 20, 2008 - 9:48 am Sus:

” .. and provide indivisible ‘public goods’ that the rest of us need but would not organize for ourselves if we were left to our own devices …”…

You lost me at that point. I believe the state should be limited to its essentials: protection of its citizens via strong police & defence forces and administering the justice system.

That’s it. Everything else can be arranged peacefully, without state coercion.

You’re dreaming if you expect the state ‘to work efficiently’. On the contrary, it behoves the state to be as inefficient as possible in order to justify its grotesquely bloated existence.

http://www.lp.org.nz

Jul 20, 2008 - 8:42 pm Charles:

The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld

Clarity

I think what you’ll find,
I think what you’ll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

Jul 20, 2008 - 8:45 pm NahnCee:

Wretchard - do your new digs allow for banishment of spammers?

Jul 20, 2008 - 9:54 pm gumshoe:

when the governemnt “issues you your rights”, you no longer have “inalienable rights”,
you have “temporary priveledges”.

the idea that one needs to “buy” these from said government means the citizen *has already lost* any right they imagined themselves to have had.

road to serfdom,indeed,wretchard.

Jul 21, 2008 - 12:09 pm Roderick Reilly:

Teresita said:

“”"”Okay, but here’s some consequences of declaring “independence”:

You’ll have to get your own electric power instead of using our transmission lines in the Commons.

You’ll need a Buck Rogers jet pack to get around so you don’t end up tresspassing on our roads in the Commons. Either that, you you need to pay a toll for every mile you drive.

If some jerks break into your house, don’t call 9-11. Maybe you can retain a private detective to get your stuff back. And pray you don’t have a fire.”"”"”

NO, you misunderstand. You actually included this quote in your post, and STILL managed to misunderstand:

“”"”"Declaring independence means you no longer want or need the government to pass laws to protect you from yourself. It means you are happy to take the risks and bear the consequences of your own, freely chosen actions.”"”"”"

One would not lose the protection of government from the criminal actions of others, and you would still get power and other utilities because that is actually a private business transaction between home-owner (or, your landlord and the utilities) and the utilities. Remember the quote is “laws to protect you from yourself,” NOT an abdication of relinquishing the most basic protections government affords you. It also means you would still be paying taxes.

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:09 pm Roderick Reilly:

Nancee said:
“”"”"I want the same sort of independence from the government that illegal Mexicans currently have: “”"”"

Bingo. Therein lies the germ of an idea. If 12-to-20 million people can live largely “outside” the system with virtual impunity, then actual citizens who want to opt out of the nanny state will have to “go underground in plain sight,” by adopting similar tactics.

I confess, though, that I have no concrete or realistic suggestions as to how to pull that off on a grand scale.

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:31 pm Wolf Pangloss:

Ever wonder why fire stations are called “companies”? Perhaps safety, police and fire services should be handled the same way they were in the old days, as insurance policies offered by private companies. With consideration aforethought, much of what contemporary government provides could be restored to a free market of competing private providers. With letters of marque, even some national security tasks could be privatized.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:15 pm Robert:

Wolf’s comment reminded me of something I read on the mises.org site a while ago, which described a society in which insurance companies could be competitive, free market providers of the services we commonly think of as government services these days - police, fire, justice, and defense. I found that an interesting idea, and looked for that article, but have so far been unable to locate it again. I did find another article explaining the same concepts and how it would work at:

http://mises.org/story/2874#_ftnref15

It would be very interesting to see a society of go-it-aloners such as what Ari Tai (July 18, 7:33 p.m.) wrote about try implementing such a society. Or would we need the big insurance companies, with properties spread far and wide, to implement such a society?

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:26 pm Robert:

I finally found the article I had originally read for the idea of defense provided by insurance companies:

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

I had also read:

http://mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=16

and

http://mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=7

but those two links don’t seem to be working today. One of them extended the idea to private, free-market fire, police, justice, and even law. Interesting stuff to be sure.

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:40 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: