Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Socrates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I work for my dad, my income is taxed. If I don't work for him, but just wait and inherit the money, then I don't get taxed when I receive it. So, the answer to your question is that it doesn't matter how much tax the person paid before he transferred it to me. When I get income, I have to pay tax on it. (Unless I'm elitist and believe in special rights for being born into a privileged family.)
Originally posted by tpahl
Originally posted by ajwps
People tax is about 22% and the remainder is from those import and tariffs paid to the treasury every day. But with the federal income tax, our elected representatives can control the way we live, spend, live and most importantly vote. Who do we vote for, those who HAND OUT to those who vote for them.
Originally posted by tpahl
Originally posted by ajwps
Who is Badnarik?
Originally posted by tpahl [/B]
Thanks for asking!
Badnarik is the Libertarian Party Candidate for President. He is on the ballot in over half the states already and will likely be on them all by the end of the summer.
I doubt that a man named Banarik has the ability to get enough votes to get into 2004 presidential primary. The Libertarian party hasn't much chance of getting there.
But our friend Ralph Nader, Green Party, has name recognition and now is about to get all the necessary states to be a real problem for the Democrats.
see the following Congressional Report:
http://www.hillnews.com/campaign/051304_nader.aspx
George W. Bush can only lose the coming presidential race if he himself falters in the next several months. Not likely...
If the Libertarian party gets anywhere near the popularity of Al Sharpton, I will be greatly surprised.
Originally posted by ajwps
I doubt that a man named Banarik has the ability to get enough votes to get into 2004 presidential primary. The Libertarian party hasn't much chance of getting there.
But our friend Ralph Nader, Green Party, has name recognition and now is about to get all the necessary states to be a real problem for the Democrats.
George W. Bush can only lose the coming presidential race if he himself falters in the next several months. Not likely...
If the Libertarian party gets anywhere near the popularity of Al Sharpton, I will be greatly surprised.
Originally posted by tpahl
Originally posted by ajwps
The name is Badnarik (with a D) and he has already WON the presidential primary for his party in a very close race.
Badnarik, 49, of Austin, Texas, won 423 votes -- or 54 percent -- from delegates at the Libertarian Party's national convention in Atlanta on Sunday. Coming in second was movie producer Aaron Russo, followed by longtime radio talk host Gary Nolan. Whew, that was close alright. Your candidate could not carry more of his own party delegates but won by a close 54% of a whopping 423 Libertarian delegates.
You say you hear that Badnank is already on the ballot in 30 states. Where did you hear this news. It is not reported on the internet wire services as yet.
Oops is that your professional opinion. But George Bush has started the financial and job market back up higher than during the entire Clinton period. Even taking inflation rates into consideration.
George Bush has kept further attacks from our shores and has eliminated more than 2/3rds of every Al-Quida leader in the world. Your Libertarian is an isolationist and is stating that he is willing for them to attack us again.
Give site reference or link but omit your own personal wishes.
Originally posted by tpahl
Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
Libertarianism in theory and practice evinces a self-contradictory view of man. As a result, libertarians are largely ignored both by the political classes and by average citizens.
Most libertarians believe in some version of public choice theory, which suggests that government grows because state officials: 1) want more money, power, and prestige; and, 2) spread the costs and concentrate the benefits of government (except when targeting unpopular minorities). The latter insures that citizens will not oppose government, either because they are direct beneficiaries, or because the costs of organizing people to eliminate a particular program far exceed its cost to the individual. In short, libertarians largely accept the economic model of man as a rational maximizer of personal utility.
The libertarian model of social change, however, is to convince citizens (mostly by use of logic and data) why they should oppose big government. In other words, while their explanatory model assumes that most citizens are rational maximizers, their political model assumes that people can be talked out of their own self-interest.
I'm not saying this expectation is misplaced. The economic model of man doesn't do a good job of predicting things like the American Revolution, so we shouldn't let it constrain us from hoping citizens will rise up and return their government to its Constitutional boundaries. The inconsistent libertarian model of man, however, (and more importantly, the failure to recognize it) has two very costly consequences for the libertarian movement.
First, by portraying government officials as simple-minded vote and budget maximizers, it ensures a steady drumbeat of shrill attacks that demonize agencies and officials. As a result, the choir is entertained while key audiences are alienated. This is a recipe for ensuring perpetual work for libertarian essayists and think tank wonks. It is not an effective recipe for social change.
The second consequence of not recognizing the self-contradictory libertarian view of man is that it leads to the wrong kinds of messages. If it is true that most people believe it is not in their self-interest to oppose government programs, then appealing to them with logic and data is a losing proposition. If you have concluded that it isn't worth spending five dollars to buy a ten percent chance of saving one dollar, then I won't change your mind with a math lesson. But this is precisely what many libertarians do. They focus on the cost of government, its inefficiency, its abuses -- but their own model of human behavior posits that government grows because the majority of citizens believe that the costs of opposing it outweigh the likely benefits.
Libertarians also talk about the costs of inaction (the state will grow), but have virtually nothing to say about the benefits of acting, or, more specifically, about the probabilities of winning. Remember, the economic model implies that every potential actor adjusts the perceived benefit of action by the odds that his action will produce a desired outcome. This yields what economists call an "expectation." Well, the very model employed by libertarians posits that the expected cost of opposing the state exceeds the expected benefit. Until libertarians can show that the expected benefit of action makes it worthwhile, they will not, by their own logic, persuade significant numbers of citizens to adopt their agenda.
Unless, that is, they are willing to use a language other than logic (which defeats them by their own reasoning) or rights (which is either irrelevant or easily opposed by alternately contrived individual philosophies). To borrow a phrase, libertarians need a language of poetry, as opposed to a language of calculus. There are very few decent libertarian poets, however. Most of us with an interest in politics have been buttonholed by a pedantic libertarian overly eager to set us straight on how the bastard statists are persecuting pot smokers and tax dodgers. But how many of us have had a conversation with a libertarian who can describe the encroachment of the state in a way that makes the average citizen ready to pick up a pitchfork (and not as a handy means of self-defense in case the libertarian lecturing him comes completely unhinged)? Better yet, how many libertarians have painted a compelling picture of the libertarian society?
I'm sure some of you right now are thinking "Ayn Rand!" I could be wrong, but I believe you are out of touch with human beings. I know about the 1991 survey of readers which listed Atlas Shrugged as second only to the Bible in terms of influence. What most people forget is that all of the books after the Bible were, according to the Library of Congress, a distant second. (Unfortunately, there is no data I can find on how the sample was drawn, or what the actual responses were.) In any event, Rand's portrait of utopia is most compelling to healthy young people without children, and to old curmudgeons with an overly exaggerated sense of their ability to create value.
In short, libertarians do not know how to talk to normal people. They can talk to the tech-savvy, to the politically conscious who aspire to high incomes, and to students of history who are exceedingly well-grounded in a philosophy of rights. Unfortunately, some portion of the other 99% of society must be persuaded as well. To be fair, the Libertarian Party website has essays that sound much better than listening to the typical libertarian talk. But words not spoken often matter more, and even the well-designed Libertarian Party site makes little reference to things very important to people, like community and faith. Libertarianism in practice largely consists of a homogeneous group of people talking to one another about a narrow set of things that matter most to them (legalized drugs, lower taxes), and hoping that the rest of America will wake up and elect them to office.
Libertarians can fairly ask at this point for my alternative. What, in other words, should libertarians be saying? Additional problem, which is that libertarianism not only has no viable model for taking power, it also lacks a model for maintaining power.
