Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Buy 1/4, get 1/4 free.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                 

No taxes

No more taxes for you!
  (+3, -9)(+3, -9)
(+3, -9)
  [vote for,
against]

Ok, so what happens is that we run the Goverment like PBS, if you like what you see call in and donate $20 (or more if you really like what you see or have cash to throw away). Taxes will be outlawed so the goverment will have to make do with what it's got (much like PBS). AND better yet, since the populace is no elevated to the level of lobbyist then it dilutes their power (well, a bit anyway) thus giving people a better say in democracy....

Of course the goverment could just go broke and collapse but every nation has the governement it deserves...

Actually this is a fairly lame idea, I don't even think I'll vote for it myself

davros42, Sep 15 2000

(?) Libertarianism makes you stupid http://www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html
Standard responses to standard libertarian nonsense. [Aristotle, Oct 04 2004]

[link]






       Get a Libertarian elected president and you might end up getting rid of income taxes...
PotatoStew, Sep 16 2000
  

       And the moon might be made of swiss cheese...
Scott_D, Sep 16 2000
  

       Is that "the populace is now elevated to the level of lobbyist," or "the populace is not elevated to the level of lobbyist"? I suspect you meant the former, but it's really the latter, as transaction costs (e.g., getting organized enough to have an impact) will be exorbitant.   

       In addition, even if this did work, it would mean two things. The first is that what political power the poor have will vanish. The second is that programs that greatly benefit a small group at the slight expense of others (like special education) will probably die off. It's possible that various interests could form coalitions, but I suspect that the transaction costs involved would be too high to make this optimal.
bookworm, Sep 16 2000
  

       bookworm: The poor themselves have no real political power as it is. The real power rests with people and agencies which take money from the wealthy and give some of it to the poor, while pocketing a substantial portion for themselves.   

       A thief who steals $100 and gives $50 to a poor man has still stolen $100, not $50.
supercat, Oct 28 2000
  

       "Public good." "Tragedy of the commons." Taxes aren't accidental. "Property is theft."   

       (#include <std.radical.libertarian.flamewar>)
egnor, Oct 28 2000
  

       Hmmm, I like the <#include> convention. May plagiarize that in the future. Perhaps I could build a Web site that has a large catalog of standard arguments on standard stuff (taxes, abortion, etc.), and folks could just use an SSI to include the argument in their response.   

       Okay, so this is really off topic . . .
bristolz, Oct 29 2000
  

       [bristolz], I don't think SSI works across sites, but even backing the existing human-interpreted convention with a real site is a cool idea, so I've registered <stdarg.com>. If you want to talk about moderating this / setting things up together (or want to talk me out of it, since it's really your idea...), send me email.
jutta, Nov 01 2000
  

       >>Ah, but if the thief has the US Army to back him up, then he's not a thief, but your IRS agent<<   

       Ok, as a member of <i>your</i> military, I have to call you on the offensiveness of this statement. I realize it was a joke (I'm not too uptight to recognize jokes) but too many people ascribe hideous motives to the military and/or military members. Remember, we're all people just like you, we just happen to work for the government.
rwhamann, Nov 14 2000
  

       Was it a joke? If the government didn't have the machinery of the State (police, army, law etc) to back it up, how many people would pay up?
DrBob, Nov 14 2000
  

       I'm not denying that there is an element of force available to the government. All I'm saying is that the US Military is not it. Despite Hollywood's fascination with the totalitarian fascist colonel who despises American freedoms, most military members are rather libertarian in nature and would refuse to use force for domestic law enforcement. Sorry, this is a question I have to respond forcefully to, given the current nature of the media's representation of us.
rwhamann, Nov 15 2000
  

       The difference is that the Mob is not elected.   

       It's true (as you point out) that not all governments are elected. In fact, in some areas at some times, the Mafia has in fact served many governmental functions (in the absence of an effective "real" government).   

       The deal seems to be that there must always be *some* big powerful meanie who rules by force. (If none exists, someone fills the vacuum.) Given that, we try to make the big meanie as benign as we possibly can.   

       So, sure, the government is the Mob. But it's *our* Mob!
egnor, Nov 15 2000
  

       "We'll continue with the 5th inning of Game 5 of the World Series as soon as we reach the $4 billion mark. Call now with your contributions"
Zimmy, May 29 2003
  

       "Act now and Haliburton will match your pledge dollar for dollar."
Worldgineer, May 29 2003
  

       a_passmoore: By "giving them a taste of their own medicine" I hope you're not announcing plans to do anything explosive to a federal building ...
Aristotle, May 29 2003
  

       //Theft schemft.//

If you can't spell it, you shouldn't use it. ;o)
DrBob, Jul 29 2008
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle