Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Um, I think it was Simon you wanted to address that to.
Anyway, just remember that when the Soviets went into Afghanistan, they told the soldiers they were fighting bandits. Don't always believe what they tell you. In fact, I would go so far as to say don't believe anything they tell you! I know from first-hand experience how intelligence can be manipulated or just fabricated to meet political expediency.
Whoops. yes it was Simon I meant to reply to. Was a little far into my cups when I posted. Sorry about that.
I'd stick with don't always believe what they tell you. It's just that what I hear isn't always from an intelligence standpoint, but from what the guy who told me saw. Remember, there is a lot to this war that doesn't make it into the news. And some of it is for good reason. We could find ourselves in a much worse situation if half the things I've heard about the higher levels of th Ba'ath party are true and became public knowledge.
This may be the only discussion board on the internet talking about American politics and the war in Iraq that isn't full of fights and flaming, just civil, respectful and intelligent posting. I find that pretty amazing. I just wanted to point that out because I think it's something worth noting.
Bushi,
I'm so glad you're on this board. I have a tendency to lean to the left a bit too much and my goal is to stick to the middle. Your point of view and your intelligent posts always help pull me back to the center. A few years ago I would have been too full of outrage about the war to listen clearly to those who had a different perspective than mine. But I'm growing older and I'm starting to really understand that nothing in this world is black and white, just as you say. Reading your posts and truly believing your intentions are good and noble in everything you try to do has helped me immensely because I respect you, and as a result I can see things from a more measured perspective. Like I said, I'm so glad you're on this board.
Let me just reiterate the Buddhist viewpoint that wars solve nothing and only cast the seeds for more wars and violence. You can't create the conditions for peace by planting the seeds of violence. Just doesn't work that way, no matter how justified or noble you may feel.
This may be the only discussion board on the internet talking about American politics and the war in Iraq that isn't full of fights and flaming, just civil, respectful and intelligent posting. I find that pretty amazing. I just wanted to point that out because I think it's something worth noting.
Bushi,
I'm so glad you're on this board. I have a tendency to lean to the left a bit too much and my goal is to stick to the middle. Your point of view and your intelligent posts always help pull me back to the center. A few years ago I would have been too full of outrage about the war to listen clearly to those who had a different perspective than mine. But I'm growing older and I'm starting to really understand that nothing in this world is black and white, just as you say. Reading your posts and truly believing your intentions are good and noble in everything you try to do has helped me immensely because I respect you, and as a result I can see things from a more measured perspective. Like I said, I'm so glad you're on this board.
Brigid, I have to say I agree with you completely. Whenever I get a head of steam going, my barometer goes way, way left until I have a chance to calm down, then it`s more centered. Bushi, I have to admit, when I first saw your username, I thought you were a right winger. (talk about judging a book by it`s cover!) After reading your posts though, I`m with Brigid. Your points make good sense and help bring me back to an even keel. Thank you for your input!
jj5 I take it you recognized the Japanese and know it's meaning. I'm just right of center on many issues. Just left of center on social issues. I believe in personal rights, and letting the individual live his life how he chooses, so long as that lifestyle doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I believe in a small government, with only enough regulation on business to keep human greed from running wild.
Pally, as for the violence of war, you are right. Just going in, blowing things up, killing a bunch of people, and withdrawing when the enemy is vanquished sews the seeds for further violence. So does outright imperialism after you defeat the enemy. However, what the objective of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars has become is to rebuild the nations, and build solid partnerships with them that will last for decades, much as the Allies did with Germany and Japan post WWII.
As for the GWoT in general, the fact of the matter is, we're dealing with the radical elements of Islamic fundamentalists. These people are religious fanatics and if we don't face them over there on our terms, they'll be over here, fighting on their terms. And their terms will eventually involved a nuke in a major city. It is imperative for the Modern World to win the War on Terror, and prove that Islamic culture can co-exist with the rest of the world. And the War on Terror is better fought by limiting the bullets and bombs on our side, and sending the bread and lumber.
I think that one of the problems we face in both Afghanistan and Iraq arises from an unintended consequence of our invasions. Both countries - but most particularly Iraq - were multi-religious before the invasions. In Iraq, for example, there were some of the oldest Christian and pre-Christian groups, including followers of John the Baptist, a Jewish community and secularists. By our actions, we have enabled the fanatics to take power. We have simply not learned that a single, dominant religious creed is a recipe for fanaticism.
Anyone remember Yugoslavia? When the peace-keeping forces were sent in, I thought, fine, temporary solution given, now what? These divisions have been there for centuries and this is like children knocking seven bells out of each other in the playground - as long as teacher is there, they will stop. If teacher goes inside for a coffee, they will start again.
And what is happening now?
I see some similarities with Iraq and Afghanistan - nobody thought through the "and after?" questions.
You're assuming, Bushi, that the Great White Father knows what is best for the ignorant rag-heads in Iraq and Afghanistan who couldn't possibly create a workable government without our magnanimous help.
Actually, pally, I think the answer does lie in having help from Persian/Arab nations. If Saudi Arabia and UAE were to support the rebuilding of nations like Iraq and Afghanistan more fully, it would have a tremendous impact on the insurgencies in both nations. In fact, that is often an overlooked aspect of the rebuilding of Iraq, what nations are contributing what, beyond the troop numbers. Lumber, food, heavy equipment to build infrastructure with. I wouldn't say donate, but lease it or sell it for little profit to the peoples of these nations, and let them rebuild. Once they are trained, have a solid infrastructure, including a viable irrigation system in place, and the nation starts to prosper, then we would see a decline in violence.
Simon, I am aware of the diversity of religion in Iraq pre war, but Saddam Hussein did clamp down on any non-Sunni group, often targeting them for retaliation any time there was an attempt on his life. However, the fanatics aren't in power in Iraq, mostly moderates. The people are too tired of Saddam Hussein's secret police and Gestapo type tactics to vote someone that hard core in.
Let me just ask a question, if I may (silly me!). Are you aware of how many invaders have come and gone in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past? How are we different in any way?
Let me just ask a question, if I may (silly me!). Are you aware of how many invaders have come and gone in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past? How are we different in any way?
Palzang
"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me", the hatred of those who harbour such thoughts is not appeased.
Just because Mesopotamia has been invaded over the centuries simply makes us no better than those who have gone before.
Simon, that is very true. It isn't called the fertile crescent for nothing. The only way to be better than those in the past is to conduct ourselves better, and to stand up a truly self-sufficient, prosperous nation.
That was my point, Simon. This whole Pax Romana idea is hardly anything new, and the outcome will invariably be the same. History does repeat itself, at least for those stupid enough not to learn from it.
Update: After careful consideration, I have decided to place my vote for Obama [in the Oregon primary]. While originally an independent, I registered as a Democrat in order vote in the Democratic primary. For a long time, I was thinking of supporting Clinton, but her excessive pandering (e.g., gas-tax holiday), wild exaggerations (e.g., landing under sniper fire), and negative political ads have turned me off. Conversely, I have found that Obama's character better reflects what I would like to see in my next president. If, by chance, Obama does not receive the Democratic nomination, then I will mostly likely vote for Nader.
If, by chance, Obama does not receive the Democratic nomination, then I will mostly likely vote for Nader.
I would have thought that that would open the door to a McCain win. Whilst he isn't in the same league as the Bush family, he is still a Republican and will continue to damage the US poor, US relationships with both friends and foes alike and any chance of a peaceful resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. I would strongly urge all Democratic party supporters to vote for whoever is the eventual candidate and not let in McCain by wasting a vote on Nader.
How about a massive campaign to 'spoil' the ballot papers in order to demonstrate what a farce the whole thing is - sham democracy: casting artificial pearls before those our 'masters' consider to be real swine.
Or else be honest about the process, like the Romans at the death of Commodus: auction off the job to the highest bidder and then make him/her pay for the tasks ahead out of their own pocket.
In my case, I am not a "Democrat" or a "Republican." I am an independent that happens to really like Obama, as well as a lot of Democrats running for local offices here in Oregon (which has closed-primaries, and therfore, one must register as a Democrat to vote for Democratic candidates, et cetera). That being said, I am not against certain conservative ideas; although, I am certainly against the neo-conservative movement. I understand where you are coming from; neverthless, to me a vote for Nader would not be a wasted vote because I take voting seriously in my own way. For me, it is not about voting strategically, it is about voting for the candidate who I feel is the closest in regard to representing my own views and vision for the future (plus, I am unhappy with the two-party duopoly that we currently have, and I support election reforms that would make it easier for third-party and independent candidates to simply get their names on the ballot). For me, Obama and Nader fit the bill more than Clinton or McCain; therefore, my vote will go to the former rather than the latter. Incidentally, I think that if the Democrats lose this election, then they seriously need to make some drastic changes or pack up the party and do something else because the Bush administration (i.e., neo-conservative Republicans) has done so much damage to the Constitution and this country's image that the Democrats should get a free ride into the White House this year.
How about a massive campaign to 'spoil' the ballot papers in order to demonstrate what a farce the whole thing is - sham democracy: casting artificial pearls before those our 'masters' consider to be real swine.
Ballot papers? How 20th century! We use electronic voting machines now. That way the machine determines whose votes get counted...
-I believe that fighting Islamic terror is a noble undertaking and our successes in Iraq should not be squandered by simply leaving at this moment.
-I believe that taxation on income is downright sinful and should, if not abolished altogether, at the very least be lessened. Taxing income is theft, plain and simple no matter how much money a person makes.
-I believe that as Jefferson once said, "A government that governs least is a government that governs best" (or vice a versa)
-And I refuse to believe that the government knows "what is good for me."
-And I believe we've spent far than enough on education.
In short, I don't want a nanny state. I want a weaker state. One that allows me to make my own money, protect myself, and forge my own destiny with as little interference as possible.
I could go on, but this should be enough debate fodder for now.
-I believe that fighting Islamic terror is a noble undertaking and our successes in Iraq should not be squandered by simply leaving at this moment.
-I believe that taxation on income is downright sinful and should, if not abolished altogether, at the very least be lessened. Taxing income is theft, plain and simple no matter how much money a person makes.
-I believe that as Jefferson once said, "A government that governs least is a government that governs best" (or vice a versa)
-And I refuse to believe that the government knows "what is good for me."
-And I believe we've spent far than enough on education.
In short, I don't want a nanny state. I want a weaker state. One that allows me to make my own money, protect myself, and forge my own destiny with as little interference as possible.
I could go on, but this should be enough debate fodder for now.
I pray that you never get ill or poor; that you earn enough to educate your children (because all schools will be private and fee-paying); and that you never get old and need help and support. Also, as no one will be paying for them, there will be no road mending either so you had better get a horse in order to travel.
And, KoB, can you ex[plain how you intend to fight against terrorism and criminality, at home and abroad, if there is no taxation to pay for police and army? After all, income tax was introduced for that specific reason.
Without taxation, just think what will close down. Do you want to be without, say, the Centers for Disease Control?
I was planning a rather long response to KoB but as Simon has so eruditely said in 2 paragraphs what I would have taken 2 pages to say, all I will do is echo Simon's wonderful words.
It has just occurred to me that KoB could be having a good joke. But if not, then perhaps you (meaning all Americans) should think about the number of people without health insurance. Or the number of families below the poverty line. Or the size of the prison population and how that is distorted by the number of african-american and hispanic inmates. Or the number of african-americans and hispanics who do not have internet access because there isn't a federally funded program to assist them. I could go on and on and on, but thats enough for now.
It has just occurred to me that KoB could be having a good joke. But if not, then perhaps you (meaning all Americans) should think about the number of people without health insurance. Or the number of families below the poverty line. Or the size of the prison population and how that is distorted by the number of african-american and hispanic inmates. Or the number of african-americans and hispanics who do not have internet access because there isn't a federally funded program to assist them. I could go on and on and on, but thats enough for now.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, too, Digger. Perhaps KoB is suggesting doing away with the 'nation state', closing the prisons, disbanding the border police, the Immigration service and, of course, the FBI and all other law-enforcement agencies. He may be letting us know that he has become an out-and-out anarchist.
I'm in between on this one. I don't want a nanny state, but there has to be social fallbacks for emergencies. And something does need to be done about the healthcare/insurance industries, but not to the degree of hampering the capitalist aspects of it outright. If Hilary were to get the nom, I would have no problem voting for her, but Obama is way too liberal, and McCain comes across as liberal in the wrong areas. I think the US is royally screwed.
How can you possibly say that after 8 loooooooong years of George Bush, the man who has done so much more to destroy what's left of the US than Mr. bin Laden could ever hope for?
Ah, the wolf in sheep's clothing. That's what scares me the most. Will McCain be eight more years of the same? Perhaps that is what would make Obama tolerable, as liberal as he is. There would just be enough balance in Congress to keep him in check. Still, unless Hilary pulls out a miracle comeback, I hold little hope for the current election.
I pray that you never get ill or poor; that you earn enough to educate your children (because all schools will be private and fee-paying); and that you never get old and need help and support. Also, as no one will be paying for them, there will be no road mending either so you had better get a horse in order to travel.
And, KoB, can you ex[plain how you intend to fight against terrorism and criminality, at home and abroad, if there is no taxation to pay for police and army? After all, income tax was introduced for that specific reason.
Without taxation, just think what will close down. Do you want to be without, say, the Centers for Disease Control?
Well, first of all, I'm not joking just to make that clear. And I'm not an anarchist. I'm a republican.
America fought and won several wars both at home (Civil war) and abroad (Barbary Wars, 1812) without stealing peoples' income. Despite income tax being declared unconstitutional by the supreme court on numerous occasions before hand, the court's wisdom was overturned by a constitutional amendment. Kudos to the fascist and war socialist Woodrow Wilson. Revenue was raised through tariffs and excise taxes before him.
Perhaps you have not heard of the "Fair Tax." Essentially, this would abolish the income tax and instead raise the sales tax to make up for lost revenue. By doing so, nobody could get around paying the tax and a drug dealer and millionaire alike would pay the same.
The reason I am against the income tax is because it rests on the presumption that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do. No thanks. The revenue raised from the fair tax could still pay for roads, military, and police.
I don't believe that government is evil by nature. I do believe that some government is necessary especially in the areas of defense and national security and immigration.
Are you going to volunteer your time and money to fix and maintain all the infrastructure? Who will?
If we were all enlightened perhaps...but we don't even trust our neighbors so how can we really trust that the big things will get done.
Like I said, infrastructure can still be maintained through the fair tax system. Income tax is not the only source of revenue for government. It doesn't have to rely on charity alone.
I find it interesting that you have very little trust in individual people to get things done. According to you, human goodness and charity are not things to be relied upon. But what might I ask is our government made of then? Is it not the same unenlightened people whom you claim cannot be relied upon?
Human goodness and charity? If you knew my story you would see how that sounds.
Who is going to provide for the disabled? How is health care going to be provided for the poor? Who will fix the roads? What about programs for children in school? Transportation for those who do not have cars? Maintaining the fire department? And on and on and on.
I believe in the principles of anarchism for small groups who are willing to take responsibility, but it is dangerous to be libertarian on a larger scale.
How would you spend your money? What responsibilities would you take up? What would you expect of others? How far do you think they would go to meet you?
How would you spend your money? What responsibilities would you take up? What would you expect of others? How far do you think they would go to meet you?
You have to understand. I'm not for doing away with the federal government or the state government. I do believe though that the more things that can be effectively privatized and put under control of local communities, the better off they are.
And as for transportation, my own city of Cleveland has shown that government run transportation flat-out sucks. I believe a competitive transportation market would do the city a little good.
Once again, the elimination of the income tax does not mean less revenue. If people were able to keep all that money in their pockets that is annually stolen from them, they would in turn invest it into the economy.
I am not as sanguine about capitalism as you are. I do not see how people's supposed liberation to invest in the economy would address social issues. Capitalism runs on profit, not on kindness so where would the motive be to help out. I just don't think that linking an economic system designed on the principle of greed with a social system designed on the principle of equal rights works all that well. And things are so complex and interrelated that I don't think that the average individual has the know-how to do the right thing even if that person wanted to, which is a big if.
I am not as sanguine about capitalism as you are. I do not see how people's supposed liberation to invest in the economy would address social issues. Capitalism runs on profit, not on kindness so where would the motive be to help out. I just don't think that linking an economic system designed on the principle of greed with a social system designed on the principle of equal rights works all that well. And things are so complex and interrelated that I don't think that the average individual has the know-how to do the right thing even if that person wanted to, which is a big if.
Help out in what regards? There seems to be no shortage of people willing to donate to charitable institutions like breast cancer or poverty or AIDS. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government having to play Robinhood and steal peoples' money and redistribute it to people who need it more. You don't give people enough credit.
I miss the old days when teenagers KOB's age were communists...
PRICELESS, Brigid!
Just imagine a whole generation of nothing but Libertarians. How very boring!
Even a generation of nothing but anarchists would be more poetic. It might indeed be scary and chaotic, but at least there'd be lots of people doing the right things for the right reasons.
I miss the old days when teenagers KOB's age were communists...
I'm a bit of a lone wolf at my school. There are very few others who even have an interest in politics. And the ones that do are left of center for the most part save my one immigrant friend.
It's rather ironic considering that my school is a Catholic school and many of the values it espouses are of a morally traditional/conservative stock. Despite my lack of religious convictions, I guess I still hold a bit of a special place in my heart for the faith of my childhood.
I'm a bit of a lone wolf at my school. There are very few others who even have an interest in politics. And the ones that do are left of center for the most part save my one immigrant friend.
It's rather ironic considering that my school is a Catholic school and many of the values it espouses are of a morally traditional/conservative stock. Despite my lack of religious convictions, I guess I still hold a bit of a special place in my heart for the faith of my childhood.
You raise an interesting and important point, KoB. The depoliticisation of the young has worried me for some time but it is nothing new, I fear. Periods when students engage vigourously in political action tend to be followed by periods of conformity and passivity. In the UK we certainly experienced this just before I went up to university (1963). I recall a conversation with Maurice Bowra of Wadham who told me of his despair, seven years earlier, during the Suez Crisis, when his students took the attitude that "the government knows best".
On the other hand, I think that viewing the world as a whole, we must conclude that student activism is still alive and well - just not in the UK/US.It is in our countries of "Anglo-Saxon" culture that the student body has become apathetic and ovine (sheeplike). No such problem in the Arab world, you notice.
Hi:
I've come to this post late, but have read over the previous comments with some interest. For me, Buddhism doesn't so much point me to the left or right but rather reminds me always to try to approach each problem fresh and not to get stuck in ideologies. I think that much (most?) of the suffering in the world comes from people who begin to believe in a particular viewpoint to a degree that it clouds their ability to see how things actually are. I've seen folks on the right and left fall into this trap. I look forward to the election in the fall because both Obama and McCain are a little more unpredictable and free thinking than the usual crowd, and are willing to think creatively about problems in ways that cross party lines. It should be an interesting election!
-I believe that taxation on income is downright sinful and should, if not abolished altogether, at the very least be lessened. Taxing income is theft, plain and simple no matter how much money a person makes.
.
Hey, if your Republican buddies would get off their asses and tax corporations which by the way what paid for the founding of this country we could slack on trade tax which is what the income tax really is. I'm for stopping the trade tax labor traded for wages is trade, and is not cosidered corporate tax.
That means slap everyone who derieves income from corporations IE. hedge funds, equity funds, stock market windfall taxes and the like should be hit a full measure. Why because they are allowed to flurish in a free enterprise sytem in which they are indebted to and protected by.
Ballocks to the corporate giveaways. The ilk that think all this stuff we have is free is full of dung, and should expatriate like all the other thieves who raped and ran off to panama or somewhere in south america.
Republicans without all the corruption, hmmm, sort of like war without all the violence you mean?
Palzang
I'm curious. In what specific way do you think Republicans are corrupt? It's a common stereotype, but I just don't see it pervading the party outside of the few bad eggs like Abramhoff and others. It just seems strange that the party that is most in favor of limited government would be corrupt.
I'm certainly a purist in the sense that I believe in the absolute separation of government and business. I dislike when the government bails out corporations. (Bear Stearns anyone?)
As a good, local example though, recently, the thieves that run the show around Cleveland (our honorable county commissioners) approved of a sales tax increase without voter approval. This tax hike went to funding a private corporation's project in setting up one of their new big buildings that will supposedly "give a boost" to the economy. (This is a lie of course)
You can't come up with a much better definition of corporatism (Mussolini's synonym for fascism). To think that this country started its revolution over an issue similar to this. "No taxation without representation."
Comments
Anyway, just remember that when the Soviets went into Afghanistan, they told the soldiers they were fighting bandits. Don't always believe what they tell you. In fact, I would go so far as to say don't believe anything they tell you! I know from first-hand experience how intelligence can be manipulated or just fabricated to meet political expediency.
Palzang
I'd stick with don't always believe what they tell you. It's just that what I hear isn't always from an intelligence standpoint, but from what the guy who told me saw. Remember, there is a lot to this war that doesn't make it into the news. And some of it is for good reason. We could find ourselves in a much worse situation if half the things I've heard about the higher levels of th Ba'ath party are true and became public knowledge.
Bushi,
I'm so glad you're on this board. I have a tendency to lean to the left a bit too much and my goal is to stick to the middle. Your point of view and your intelligent posts always help pull me back to the center. A few years ago I would have been too full of outrage about the war to listen clearly to those who had a different perspective than mine. But I'm growing older and I'm starting to really understand that nothing in this world is black and white, just as you say. Reading your posts and truly believing your intentions are good and noble in everything you try to do has helped me immensely because I respect you, and as a result I can see things from a more measured perspective. Like I said, I'm so glad you're on this board.
Palzang
Good post!
Pally, as for the violence of war, you are right. Just going in, blowing things up, killing a bunch of people, and withdrawing when the enemy is vanquished sews the seeds for further violence. So does outright imperialism after you defeat the enemy. However, what the objective of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars has become is to rebuild the nations, and build solid partnerships with them that will last for decades, much as the Allies did with Germany and Japan post WWII.
As for the GWoT in general, the fact of the matter is, we're dealing with the radical elements of Islamic fundamentalists. These people are religious fanatics and if we don't face them over there on our terms, they'll be over here, fighting on their terms. And their terms will eventually involved a nuke in a major city. It is imperative for the Modern World to win the War on Terror, and prove that Islamic culture can co-exist with the rest of the world. And the War on Terror is better fought by limiting the bullets and bombs on our side, and sending the bread and lumber.
And what is happening now?
I see some similarities with Iraq and Afghanistan - nobody thought through the "and after?" questions.
Palzang
Simon, I am aware of the diversity of religion in Iraq pre war, but Saddam Hussein did clamp down on any non-Sunni group, often targeting them for retaliation any time there was an attempt on his life. However, the fanatics aren't in power in Iraq, mostly moderates. The people are too tired of Saddam Hussein's secret police and Gestapo type tactics to vote someone that hard core in.
Palzang
Just because Mesopotamia has been invaded over the centuries simply makes us no better than those who have gone before.
Palzang
In my case, I am not a "Democrat" or a "Republican." I am an independent that happens to really like Obama, as well as a lot of Democrats running for local offices here in Oregon (which has closed-primaries, and therfore, one must register as a Democrat to vote for Democratic candidates, et cetera). That being said, I am not against certain conservative ideas; although, I am certainly against the neo-conservative movement. I understand where you are coming from; neverthless, to me a vote for Nader would not be a wasted vote because I take voting seriously in my own way. For me, it is not about voting strategically, it is about voting for the candidate who I feel is the closest in regard to representing my own views and vision for the future (plus, I am unhappy with the two-party duopoly that we currently have, and I support election reforms that would make it easier for third-party and independent candidates to simply get their names on the ballot). For me, Obama and Nader fit the bill more than Clinton or McCain; therefore, my vote will go to the former rather than the latter. Incidentally, I think that if the Democrats lose this election, then they seriously need to make some drastic changes or pack up the party and do something else because the Bush administration (i.e., neo-conservative Republicans) has done so much damage to the Constitution and this country's image that the Democrats should get a free ride into the White House this year.
Jason
Ballot papers? How 20th century! We use electronic voting machines now. That way the machine determines whose votes get counted...
Palzang
-I believe that fighting Islamic terror is a noble undertaking and our successes in Iraq should not be squandered by simply leaving at this moment.
-I believe that taxation on income is downright sinful and should, if not abolished altogether, at the very least be lessened. Taxing income is theft, plain and simple no matter how much money a person makes.
-I believe that as Jefferson once said, "A government that governs least is a government that governs best" (or vice a versa)
-And I refuse to believe that the government knows "what is good for me."
-And I believe we've spent far than enough on education.
In short, I don't want a nanny state. I want a weaker state. One that allows me to make my own money, protect myself, and forge my own destiny with as little interference as possible.
I could go on, but this should be enough debate fodder for now.
I pray that you never get ill or poor; that you earn enough to educate your children (because all schools will be private and fee-paying); and that you never get old and need help and support. Also, as no one will be paying for them, there will be no road mending either so you had better get a horse in order to travel.
And, KoB, can you ex[plain how you intend to fight against terrorism and criminality, at home and abroad, if there is no taxation to pay for police and army? After all, income tax was introduced for that specific reason.
Without taxation, just think what will close down. Do you want to be without, say, the Centers for Disease Control?
Perhaps I have misunderstood, too, Digger. Perhaps KoB is suggesting doing away with the 'nation state', closing the prisons, disbanding the border police, the Immigration service and, of course, the FBI and all other law-enforcement agencies. He may be letting us know that he has become an out-and-out anarchist.
Palzang
Well, first of all, I'm not joking just to make that clear. And I'm not an anarchist. I'm a republican.
America fought and won several wars both at home (Civil war) and abroad (Barbary Wars, 1812) without stealing peoples' income. Despite income tax being declared unconstitutional by the supreme court on numerous occasions before hand, the court's wisdom was overturned by a constitutional amendment. Kudos to the fascist and war socialist Woodrow Wilson. Revenue was raised through tariffs and excise taxes before him.
Perhaps you have not heard of the "Fair Tax." Essentially, this would abolish the income tax and instead raise the sales tax to make up for lost revenue. By doing so, nobody could get around paying the tax and a drug dealer and millionaire alike would pay the same.
The reason I am against the income tax is because it rests on the presumption that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do. No thanks. The revenue raised from the fair tax could still pay for roads, military, and police.
I don't believe that government is evil by nature. I do believe that some government is necessary especially in the areas of defense and national security and immigration.
If we were all enlightened perhaps...but we don't even trust our neighbors so how can we really trust that the big things will get done.
Like I said, infrastructure can still be maintained through the fair tax system. Income tax is not the only source of revenue for government. It doesn't have to rely on charity alone.
I find it interesting that you have very little trust in individual people to get things done. According to you, human goodness and charity are not things to be relied upon. But what might I ask is our government made of then? Is it not the same unenlightened people whom you claim cannot be relied upon?
Who is going to provide for the disabled? How is health care going to be provided for the poor? Who will fix the roads? What about programs for children in school? Transportation for those who do not have cars? Maintaining the fire department? And on and on and on.
I believe in the principles of anarchism for small groups who are willing to take responsibility, but it is dangerous to be libertarian on a larger scale.
You have to understand. I'm not for doing away with the federal government or the state government. I do believe though that the more things that can be effectively privatized and put under control of local communities, the better off they are.
And as for transportation, my own city of Cleveland has shown that government run transportation flat-out sucks. I believe a competitive transportation market would do the city a little good.
Once again, the elimination of the income tax does not mean less revenue. If people were able to keep all that money in their pockets that is annually stolen from them, they would in turn invest it into the economy.
Help out in what regards? There seems to be no shortage of people willing to donate to charitable institutions like breast cancer or poverty or AIDS. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government having to play Robinhood and steal peoples' money and redistribute it to people who need it more. You don't give people enough credit.
We most certainly do.
PRICELESS, Brigid!
Just imagine a whole generation of nothing but Libertarians. How very boring!
Even a generation of nothing but anarchists would be more poetic. It might indeed be scary and chaotic, but at least there'd be lots of people doing the right things for the right reasons.
I'm a bit of a lone wolf at my school. There are very few others who even have an interest in politics. And the ones that do are left of center for the most part save my one immigrant friend.
It's rather ironic considering that my school is a Catholic school and many of the values it espouses are of a morally traditional/conservative stock. Despite my lack of religious convictions, I guess I still hold a bit of a special place in my heart for the faith of my childhood.
You raise an interesting and important point, KoB. The depoliticisation of the young has worried me for some time but it is nothing new, I fear. Periods when students engage vigourously in political action tend to be followed by periods of conformity and passivity. In the UK we certainly experienced this just before I went up to university (1963). I recall a conversation with Maurice Bowra of Wadham who told me of his despair, seven years earlier, during the Suez Crisis, when his students took the attitude that "the government knows best".
On the other hand, I think that viewing the world as a whole, we must conclude that student activism is still alive and well - just not in the UK/US.It is in our countries of "Anglo-Saxon" culture that the student body has become apathetic and ovine (sheeplike). No such problem in the Arab world, you notice.
I've come to this post late, but have read over the previous comments with some interest. For me, Buddhism doesn't so much point me to the left or right but rather reminds me always to try to approach each problem fresh and not to get stuck in ideologies. I think that much (most?) of the suffering in the world comes from people who begin to believe in a particular viewpoint to a degree that it clouds their ability to see how things actually are. I've seen folks on the right and left fall into this trap. I look forward to the election in the fall because both Obama and McCain are a little more unpredictable and free thinking than the usual crowd, and are willing to think creatively about problems in ways that cross party lines. It should be an interesting election!
Ben
Hey, if your Republican buddies would get off their asses and tax corporations which by the way what paid for the founding of this country we could slack on trade tax which is what the income tax really is. I'm for stopping the trade tax labor traded for wages is trade, and is not cosidered corporate tax.
That means slap everyone who derieves income from corporations IE. hedge funds, equity funds, stock market windfall taxes and the like should be hit a full measure. Why because they are allowed to flurish in a free enterprise sytem in which they are indebted to and protected by.
Ballocks to the corporate giveaways. The ilk that think all this stuff we have is free is full of dung, and should expatriate like all the other thieves who raped and ran off to panama or somewhere in south america.
I keep waffling on this, but I may end up voting for Obama over McCain. At least I know what Obama is. McCain is too unknown for me.
Palzang
I'm curious. In what specific way do you think Republicans are corrupt? It's a common stereotype, but I just don't see it pervading the party outside of the few bad eggs like Abramhoff and others. It just seems strange that the party that is most in favor of limited government would be corrupt.
I'm certainly a purist in the sense that I believe in the absolute separation of government and business. I dislike when the government bails out corporations. (Bear Stearns anyone?)
As a good, local example though, recently, the thieves that run the show around Cleveland (our honorable county commissioners) approved of a sales tax increase without voter approval. This tax hike went to funding a private corporation's project in setting up one of their new big buildings that will supposedly "give a boost" to the economy. (This is a lie of course)
You can't come up with a much better definition of corporatism (Mussolini's synonym for fascism). To think that this country started its revolution over an issue similar to this. "No taxation without representation."