How Do I Liberate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Radar
Why should someone without children be forced to pay for the education of those who CHOSE to have children?

Because it improves the general, overall quality of society that you also play a part in. Businesses and people pay into the local taxes, the local schools educate the children with that money, then down the line the children grow up with that education and enter the workforce. The money comes back. If you feel that your children need an education better than what the state can provide, then send them off to a private school. Do not, however, remove the system that enables children from low-income families to receive an education that will provide them with the means to get a job and enter the workforce as a productive adult and return the money you invested back into the system. Despite what you perceive, the money that is taken out of your paycheck comes back in the form of business and employment to yourself as well as others.

Why do you think college tuition is different for in-state students when compared with the inflated rates for out-of-state ones? Because the in-state students are more likely to stay in the area in which they attended college after they graduate, get a job, and begin returning money to the local community. The money taken out of your paycheck ensures that children in your local area have a chance to become edcuated, productive adults that will get jobs, earn money, and return what was given to them many times fold.

If the system of "buy your own education with your own money" were already in place and had been for decades, I could see this working. Implementing such a policy now would result in disaster for communities across the entire country.

[OnyxCougar]

Thanks for the link UT. Where I fall on the graph wasn't really a surprise to me. I suppose I'm just too new at all this to know what it means...

[Radar]

Because it improves the general, overall quality of society that you also play a part in.

Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. "Society" has no rights, only individuals do. "Society" is not above the rights of individuals.

Businesses and people pay into the local taxes, the local schools educate the children with that money, then down the line the children grow up with that education and enter the workforce. The money comes back.

Wrong. Businesses need educated people, and those who have been educated apply for the jobs. Businesses have no obligation to educate these people or as you say "invest" in their education. They have a responsibility to educate themselves and thier children. Education is not a right, nor is healthcare, or even eating. You have the right to have any education, healthcare, food, etc. you obtain honestly whether it's donated to you, or paid for by you, but you don't have the right to force anyone else to pay for it.

If you feel that your children need an education better than what the state can provide, then send them off to a private school.

Actually home schooling is superior to public or private schooling.

Do not, however, remove the system that enables children from low-income families to receive an education that will provide them with the means to get a job and enter the workforce as a productive adult and return the money you invested back into the system.

You do not use a gun to force other people to pay for the education of other people. They are not entitled to reach into my wallet or anyone elses to pay for their education. There are plenty of ways (as I've already described) for children from low-income families to get an education, and if not all of them can get one, that is the fault of their parents for having children they couldn't afford. If you have children, you alone are responsible to pay for 100% of their needs and "society" isn't.

"Despite what you perceive, the money that is taken out of your paycheck comes back in the form of business and employment to yourself as well as others."

Despite what you just falsely claimed, the truth is very different. The money that is STOLEN from my paycheck does not come back to me. It's sent to other countries, it pays for farm and business subsidies, it pays for things I don't want and don't use; some of which are used against me to attack my rights. And if a little of it pays for education, I don't benefit from that either. No matter how many times you claim I benefit from paying for the education of other people's kids, you'll be wrong. It's a crock of shit. In fact the opposite is true. If less people were getting an education, my life would improve since I'd be one of few people who educated MYSELF. I'd have more opportunity, more money, etc.

Implementing such a policy now would result in disaster for communities across the entire country.

Wrong again. Implementing such a policy would mean people would take having a child much more seriously, and they'd act more responsibly. It would also mean children would get a superior education including poor children.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar


Wrong again. Implementing such a policy would mean people would take having a child much more seriously, and they'd act more responsibly. It would also mean children would get a superior education including poor children.

You're contradicting yourself.
If they are poor children, that means their parents are already poor. Their parents aren't going to get richer overnight when you take taxes away, because I guarantee you they AREN'T paying taxes, because they don't make enough. So you aren't increasing their income by saying "No more taxes!"

Since parents aren't getting richer, how are they supposed to afford school now? I think that is what Kitsune means. If we had started this system years ago, it would be different, but implementing it now would wreak havoc with low income families.

[Kitsune]

No matter how many times you claim I benefit from paying for the education of other people's kids, you'll be wrong. It's a crock of shit.

The sign above the door that reads 'Sarcasm' has turned on.

Yeah -- you're right. I'm sorry.

So, let's get set on changing some other things then, shall we? There are some other things, along with public schooling, that need to go.

1. Parks - All national, state, county, and city parks need to be shut down and put up for sale. The money raised will, in turn, be given back to the people. If there is a demand for the conservation of wilderness and the preservation of historic areas, the people will pay for it on their own. The Grand Canyon, for instance, could be made to turn a profit if a roller coaster is installed by a theme park company. Its time these lazy park rangers stop being paid for having such a slack job. The majority of the land will be logged or paved over and business will boom.

2. Police - These are the people that are always holding a gun to our heads to force money out of our paychecks and, when they aren't doing that, they're eating donuts. Each individual will need to take the law into their own hands through the ownership of a weapon. If their house is broken into, they will have to deal with it on their own. Private industry could also provide certain protections and investigative powers. Instead of calling 911, you might call your local Pinkertons office.

3. Fire Departments - Your local firestation should be replaced by a private or volunteer organization. If your house burns down, you get to pay to save it. After all, if it burns down, you didn't build it with proper safety materials in mind, anyways. In the event of a major fire, each family must fend for itself. Towns will not send fire departments to other towns in need of assistance unless the people are willing to pay a premium for it. Forest fires will finally have the opportunity to burn unchecked.

4. Art and Culture - If the public really feels the need to preserve art, culture, and historic items, they will pay for it.

5. Roads and Infrastructure - State and Federal governments need to stop building roads. Private industry, in turn, needs to take over this responsibility. If there is a market demand for it, then it will happen. I'd personally like to see multiple roads, side-by-side, that all go in the same direction built by competing companies. You could be charged for whichever road you take and the more you pay, the higher the speedlimit could be or the better quality of pavement.

6. Emissions and EPA Control - Hey, if the people want clean air and water, they'll pay for it.

7. Government Assisted Medical Research - Its time we stopped funding Universities and research centers! If people really need to find a cure for HIV, they'll pay for it. It is more likely, however, that Cancer research will advance faster than AIDS. After all, those with money don't contract HIV nearly as often -- why pay for something you aren't ever going to need?

8. Coast Guard and other DOT departments - Have you been swept out to sea? Boat sinking? You probably shouldn't have been out there in the first place.

This freedom is going to be awesome. The quality of life is going to skyrocket.

[Radar]

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. When more people have more of their own money, they'll give to charities including those that pay for the education of poor children. But the difference is it would be voluntary.

If there is a demand for the conservation of wilderness and the preservation of historic areas, the people will pay for it on their own.

That's right. There are many conservationist groups. Dr. Gordon Labedz (Founder of the Surf Rider Association and Chairman of the largest chapter of the Sierra Club) is a Libertarian and believes, as I do, that the private ownership of land is the best way to preserve it. Companies don't pollute on their own land, they pollute on PUBLIC land because the government allows them to do so. If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy.

Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road.

As far as Art & Culture go, the valid role of government doesn't include paying for art or culture. Those are private industries and if the people want them, they'll get them.

Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc.

As far as the EPA goes, they were guilty themselves of leaking mercury into ground water a few years ago and don't do much to stop the largest polluter on earth (the US gov't) from polluting since the government says they're immune from prosecution. The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies.

If we want cheaper healthcare, and more medical research, stop using government to prevent life-saving new medicines from being released, allow people to practice medicine without arbitrary licensing, etc. Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher.

You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government. In fact the only truthful thing you said was this...

This freedom is going to be awesome. The quality of life is going to skyrocket

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Radar
The money that is STOLEN from my paycheck does not come back to me.

Did you change jobs recently?

Originally posted by Radar on 4/16/2003
I won't be filing any income tax returns ever again and I'm not paying income taxes either. I'm working for an employer that doesn't withhold any taxes and pays me in cash.

[Kitsune]

Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road.

Really? How would these public services be paid for? Why should they be paid for?

As for the toll road, you obviously haven't driven on any of them in and around Pittsburgh.

If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy.

Do you think a nature conservancy, based on donations, would be able to out-bid a corporation attempting to slash-and-burn an area? Would any land be conserved at all if logging companies had the ability to bid on the plots?

Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc.

I didn't say you were against anything. I'm stating that if you remove government funding from certain forms of research, only the research that gets money will continue. An incredible majority of the people with HIV and AIDS have little income, so therefore that research will shrink as compared to, say, cancer research.

The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies.

I would love to see companies held responsible for the land, water, and air they pollute -- Piney Point currently holds Tampa Bay in check with overflowing water with a pH of 3. The phosphate company that caused the pollution moved to Texas and declared bankruptcy in the state of Florida, so they are under no obligation to clean up anything. Under your laws, how would this change? For that matter, what companies are "clean" and who would you buy from? Who would define "clean" and how would you know that a company wasn't lying when they told you they were? Certainly, there would be no government organization that forms these standards, nor any that would enforce them.

Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher.

Umm... we might prevent them because they might not have proper training? They might be quacks cheating common citizens, who don't understand medicine, out of their money? I actually see quality becoming much lower if you allow anyone to practice medicine without a license and cut all the corners they can to make it as cheap as possible. Malpractice insurance would go through the roof, along with the prices patients have to pay.

You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government.

I'm not stating that the government does an outstanding job at what it is attempting to do through its programs. I'm also not saying that a lot of these applications could be better handled by private industry. I'm saying that companies inherently cut as many corners as they can in a desperate attempt to make as much money up front as they are able in order to please the shareholders, and then run. I'm also stating that neither the public, nor corporations, hold many long-term views. With all of these factors, simply "flipping the switch" on the controls in society has the potential to completely ruin it. In the coming years, we're about to see a massive catastrophe as millions of baby boomers, who were planning on seeing social security see them through their final years, find out there is nothing for them. Now they are told that they should have opened 401Ks and IRAs and all that they were previously told was false. Do we just permit these people to suffer for the better of the coming generations? The issues of the interim are not easily ignored.

[OnyxCougar]

I was reading the Constitution and Amendments today.

Radar said:
ARTICLE.

All forms of income-based taxation are slavery and will be abolished immediately in all states and the federal government. (Social Security, income tax, etc)

and he also said
First, I don't "interpret" the Constitution. It means what it says and "the masses" are mostly stupid people who are content to get handouts because they don't realize that they are the masters of government (not the other way around), that they are entitled to keep everything they earn, and that they can make a difference.

But the Constitution says

Article XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So, since the Constitution says Congress shall levy income tax, how do you propose following the Consititution AND getting rid of income tax?

[Radar]

Did you change jobs recently?

If 6 months ago is recently.

So, since the Constitution says Congress shall levy income tax, how do you propose following the Consititution AND getting rid of income tax?

The 16th amendment was fruadently ratified and didn't have the required number of votes to pass. But even if it did have the valid number of votes, it would still be illegal because it contradicts other parts of the Constitution and nothing may be added to the Constitution that contradicts another part as Article 6 Paragraph 2 says.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

No new laws may be made (which includes Constitutional amendments because the Constitution is the highest law of the land) that contradict any part of the Constitution. You may add something to the Constitution, You may take something away from the Constitution (repeal it), but you can't have one part of the Constitution say something is legal and another part say it's illegal.

Contrary to the opinion of many idiots out there, when you add an amendment to the Constitution it doesn't "override" other parts it happens to contradict with. Let's look at the 18th and 21st amendments. The 21st didn't say "Alcohol is legal", it said it was repealing the part of the Constitution that said it was illegal in the first place. (The government has no authority to tell anyone what they may or may not consume, but that's another topic). The proper procedure was followed.

In the case of the 16th amendment, which not only didn't have the required number of votes to pass, but also contradicted Article 1 Section 9, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 13th amendments so it is a blatant violation of the Constitution and therefore illegal.

The first Supreme Court of America decided in Marbury vs. Madison that any laws that are contrary to the Constitution are null and void and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

It's an open and shut case.

[Undertoad]

Remind us again who decides whether there's a contradiction?

[OnyxCougar]

Article I. Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 9. Clause 4

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

I looked up enumeration. It means "to list before"

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Proposal and Ratification

The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States.

The dates of ratification were:
Alabama, August 10, 1909;
Kentucky, February 8, 1910;
South Carolina, February 19, 1910;
Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
Oklahoma, March 10, 1910;
Maryland, April 8, 1910;
Georgia, August 3, 1910;
Texas, August 16, 1910;
Ohio, January 19, 1911;
Idaho, January 20, 1911;
Oregon, January 23, 1911;
Washington, January 26, 1911;
Montana, January 30, 1911;
Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911;
Nevada, January 31, 1911;
South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
Nebraska, February 9, 1911;
North Carolina, February 11, 1911;
Colorado, February 15, 1911;
North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Kansas, February 18, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911;
Iowa, February 24, 1911;
Missouri, March 16, 1911;
Maine, March 31, 1911;
Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier);
Wisconsin, May 26, 1911;
New York, July 12, 1911;
Arizona, April 6, 1912;
Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912;
West Virginia, January 31, 1913;
New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913;
New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.


So explain please, how this amendment is not legal again? You mentioned that it wasn't legally ratified. For those people that are completely ignorant, please provide sources.

[elSicomoro]

Radar discusses the issues with the 16th amendment in this thread, and provides various links.

[OnyxCougar]

Thanks, Syc! I'll go look at that.

[elSicomoro]

No problem...just trying (probably in vain) to head off another of his maniacal rants.