Government Revenue Structure

One hurtle which needs to be jumped in order to get the US government under control is to change the revenue structure. Right now,the money flows down; individuals pay the federal government and then they give the money to the states. That needs to be reversed in order to control spending and regulation. The states need to pay the federal government, and then the states will control the federal government instead of the backwards way it is now.

And likewise the states should be funded by the counties so the counties can control the states. If each individual county were responsible for funding the state they would be more active in policing the state budget. And this would give the local people more control on how funding is appropriated.

If a county with a large city wanted to have all kinds of social programs they could tax themselves to raise the money, and those areas that decide they don't want those programs wouldn't have to fund them.

The more localized the revenue structure the better it will fit the individuals and the more control it will give them.

Healthcare Is Not A Right

Rights are those things that are naturally born to an individual (property rights), or in some cases to protect those natural rights from being usurped unjustly (right to a fair trial). All natural rigths extend from the right of property, the ability to own one's own body and by extention those things created by or earned in trade from the use of that body. Without the right to own one's body, there is no right to free speech or free thought, because those are things derived from the body. The right to gun ownership extends from the right to collect more property through trade of either effort or property and to protect that property. And so on.

Other things which are not natural to the human condition, may be essential, but are not rights. This includes such things as food, healthcare, and even guns, yes you have the right to trade for these things, but not have them provided. The government cannot create rights, only protect those which are natural to the human condition.

Addendum: Some "rights" in the Bill of Rights extend from the fact that we the governed created the government and impose restrictions on it to secure our natural rights, this is the case with jury trials and the right to a lawyer. Healthcare does not fall into this either.

Can They Hear Us Now?

Yesterday; on September 12th 2009, Washington DC was flooded with people protesting against government expansion. Some were anti-Obama, some were anti-big government, some were pro-Bush, some were Republicans, some were Democrats, some were Libertarians, some were Independants. Some were protesting recent government expansion, some were protesting a long string of abuses. Some were young, some were old. But they were all fed up with Washington. I've seen some saying this was just this or that group, or this or that group shouldn't support it because this or that group was supporting it. This seems to be missing the point, whether or not all of any of one group's ideas are "correct" doesn't matter. What matters is that they are all fed up with big government. They may not agree on how small a government should be, or what that government should do, but they all think it should be smaller than it is.

This is where the focus should be, once we have shrunk the size of government, then we can have these discussions of what it should be doing, but for now, lets focus on the first step, shrinking the scope of power that Washington yeilds.

Estimates of the crowd size varies from 30,000-2 million. Capitol Hill Police are said to have estimated 1.2 million. I don't know which numbers are correct, but it was a lot of people; and they were joined by many more at Tea Parties across the country. Maybe some one in the monstrosity which calls itself a government took notice.

What Should These united states Be Like; In My Opinion

What does the government need to do?  

1. Build Raods

2. Provide For Defense

3. Provide Courts

4. Provide Police

5. Regulation to enforce advertising and Contracts (so you know that things are "as advertised")

6. Powers granted in the Constitution

Things which are optional but the governement should slowly stop handling:

These things should evenutually become private charities

1. A voluntary scholarship fund for children to attend charter type private schools

2. A voluntary medical assistance fund for the poor and disabled

3. A voluntary monetary assistance fund for the poor and disabled

4. A voluntary food assistance program for the poor and disabled

How it should all be funded:

1. taxes should be collected at local levels and dispursed up to state and national level

2. If an income tax is levied, no more than .oooooo3% flat tax (each person is only 1 of ~300,000,000)

3. flat rate tax on all consumption, whenever a product or service is bought

4. All the above voluntary programs should funded voluntarily, not with tax dollars

That is it; nothing more.  Now I know it will most likely never get this good during my life time, but we need to start shrinkning government, and maybe one day things can become close.

Property Tax

   As I stated in my last post; I think property tax is the worst of all the taxes.  Capitalism is supposed to be a voluntary system.  If you do not wish to make capitalist transactions, you should not be forced to.  However, paying a tax on land which one already owns means that after they acquired title to that land they are forced to participate in capitalism; in order to make the money to pay the taxes.

   If I were to give a good piece of land to a poor family, and on that land was everything they needed to live (food, water, lumber), they could not simply live off that land.  They would be forced to participate in capitalism to just pay the taxes.

   To take a voluntary system and force one to participate is a horrific thing.  The only taxes, if any, which should be levied, should be based on voluntary capitalist transactions.  Not on property already owned.

Political Office

   Recently several people have pushed me to run for a public office.   I do not want to be a politician. My entire political philosophy is built around the fact that I just want to be left alone.  What kind of world is it where for a man to be left alone he must thrust himself into the public light?

   In my considerations of these prompts I have thought about any chances I would have.  I know Republicans would back me on my small government stance, and Democrats would back me on my social freedom stance.  But I think both would reject me because of my overall stance.  Will a Republican vote for someone who thinks gay marriage should be legal?  Will a Democrat vote for someone who thinks welfare should be abolished?   I don't know; and the fact that I don't like people in general really makes me hesitate at having to deal with people so much.  

   If the government would permit it; I would become a hermit.  But even that is illegal I'm sure.  For one thing a hermit wouldn't have the means to pay property or any other tax (my hatred of property tax will be another post).

   So, I'm left confused.  If you read this blog, and have read any of my other blogs; please comment and let me know what you think I think I should do.

Jon

Marxy Marx

I thought this would be a good time to take another look at Karl Marx's ten steps to make a capitalist country into a socialist country, lets check off the ones already completed.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Getting there; although we still may own our land, it isn't really ours, what with the abuse of emminant domain going on and all the regulations and zoning requirements put on the land.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Check

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Getting there; with the "Death Tax"

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Well; we don't really have emmigrant issues or rebels, yet.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Check

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Getting there; the government now contorls the big three automakers, Amtrak and is giving money away to telecommunications in the new recovery act.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Well; with the state buying up everything, this could be happening, I'm not quite sure.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

It seems more like they don't want people to work at this stage, so as to get them on their side; this one probably isn't far off.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Check

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Check

Personal Vs Political

One thing I can't understand is why people can't seem to seperate their personal and political views.  To me it seems simple.  Political views have to be backed up by reason and logic; while personal views can be what ever crackpot idea you have.  I have a standard; the right to property, which all my political views have to live up to, so even if I personaly think something is right or wrong, if it does not uphold this standard then it does not become a political view.  There are many such instances, such as: Guns- politically I think they are a naccesity; but personaly I don't really like them (of course I like looking at them and learning about them and seeing them in movies, but I feel nervous around real guns) Religion- politically I think it has no place; personally I am very religious (although I don't believe in organized religion, I'm more of an independant study kind of guy) Sex- politically I could care less how someone enjoys their sexuality; personally I don't think sex belongs anywhere but a long term relationship. Money- politically I think it's a great thing, it makes the world go round, everyone should have as much as they can grab a hold of; personally I don't like big business and think people should only have what they need and share as much as they can.  Property- politically I don't care how much you have; personally I feel like too much property is a waste of space and would be fine in a one room shack (however I do like undeveloped land for recreation). Drugs- politically I think they should all be legalized and you only get into trouble if you harm someone (property of any kind) or come close to it; but personally I have not used an illegal substance for years and thier leagalization wouldn't affect me one or the other. Another thing is; politics is about people; personal views are about a person; singular.  In my personal and political views there is one thing in common, the golden rule "Treat others as you wish to be treated";  and to me that means leave me the fuck alone and let me live my life how I want to as long as I don't hurt you (or your property), and I'll do the same to you.

The Government and Race

I am of the opinion that the government has no business knowing what race a person is.  It should not matter whether a person is white, black, asian, Native American or any other race, it is no business of the government.  Yes; 40 or more years ago the government needed to step in to to stop such inane laws as the Jim Crow laws in the south, but what business is it of theirs anymore?  In my experience; government preference of one race over another has only worked to strain the burgening relationships.  I grew up and still live in an area with with many Native Americans; many of whom were my best friends, but what made me feel any ill will towards them what so ever was the fact that they got special treatment fromt the government that I as a white child was not afforded.   The same goes for African Americans; I have many friends and even relatives whom are African American, and I feel no ill will towards them(in fact I have gone to fistacuffs over people using derogatory frasing towards them), but the government pushing obsurd tolerance laws and constantly telling me how racist I am by the fact that I am white is the only cause I have to feel ill will towards them.  I think if the government just kept thier noses out of our business there would be no problems.  Not to mention the government mishandles everything and then blames thier mishandling on racism.  See for instance the Beurou of Indain Affairs in this John Stossel clip:

Constitutional Rights?

I'm getting fed up with the term "Constitutional Rights". Why? Because the term implies the Constitution gives you these rights, it doesn't. You have these rights by nature, the constitution simply says the government can't take them away. If they were granted by the constitution then by extension they are granted by the government. If they are granted by the government, then the government can take them away. They are not granted by anyone or anything, they implicit in human life; by right of being alive you have these rights. So please, don't say "It's my Constitutional Right", say, "It's My Right." No one can take your rights away unless you let them; so don't even let them think they can.

Addendum: The only entity granted anything by the constitution is the government, it is granted the power to mediate between us, not to rule over us.

Morning Constitutional

Today I want to talk about two Constitutional amendments I've been mulling over. The reason I say they should be Constitutional amendments and not laws is because it's too easy for the government to make loopholes in or not pass at all laws which restrict them. I am not a lawyer, so these are not worded as they would have to be to become amendments, but it's the idea that matters here. Too many politicians lie their way into office and stay there by lying about what they have done, and something needs to be done if we are to survive as a nation.


Amendment 28

Any Person running for public office or holding public office must be under oath of law at such time that they are proclaiming their goals, discussing the political record of themselves or their opponent.

-Basically I'm trying to say that anyone running for or in public office should be under oath and able to charged with perjury if they lie about their intentions, past record or their opponent. It would have to be worded as to allow for matters of national security and personal privacy, but the gist is if they lied they could be charged with a crime.

Amendment 29

No amendments to or clauses in a bill shall be unrelated to the intended outcome of the bill.

-Basically, I want an amendment that bans pork in bills. It is so stupid to have things shoved into bills that have nothing to do with them. And then the voting record is skewed, because a representative may vote against a bill because it has too much pork and then get lambasted for voting against the bill itself which may have originally been a good bill.