Downright Shocking.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Monday, October 17, 2016 12:40
VIEWED: 11201
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

ANTHONYT

Monday, March 19, 2007 3:52 PM

Hello,

Well, that's interesting. I'm sure that private entities would come up with schemes to provide a variety of social services.

But let me start with basic things that are concrete and that I can put my hands on and wrap my mind around.

With no tax, how is an aircraft carrier built, outfitted, crewed, and operated?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Monday, March 19, 2007 4:24 PM

Poor sod. He's living in some kind of fantasy-land. While I agree that the Federal government should be scaled back, there ARE things that ONLY a fedral government can do. For example, one state is sucking up all the water out of a river or belching pollution. Who do the downstream/wind states appeal to? One state pays poverty wages with no unemployment benefits, creating undereducated economic refugees in neighboring states. And who defends the borders? Who maintains sovereign rights over coastal waters? Who represents the USA interests vis a vis China, or with nations who strip-mine the open seas? Who can (hopefully) represent the population against multinationals?

It's a complex world, which gets more complex as it gets more and more crowded. States - and nations - no longer live in isolation from each other, separated by impasssble seas or miles of wilderness. Ron Paul doesn't seem to be proposing a viable alternate because wishing you were living 200 years ago just doesn't work.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:34 PM

Frem- waiting for you not to be nice. Hope you come out swinging.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 19, 2007 5:35 PM

dang it! dbl!

HERO

Monday, March 19, 2007 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism

Your forgetting the plot to set off a nuclear bomb in New York last year.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

H

STORYMARK

Monday, March 19, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh, you mean the ones that in the history of their entire existance have not prevented a single act of terrorism

Your forgetting the plot to set off a nuclear bomb in New York last year.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

H

And the plot to destroy LA with a fleet of alien squid from Neptune.

What plot, says you?

Exactly.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

FLETCH2

Monday, March 19, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

With no tax, how is an aircraft carrier built, outfitted, crewed, and operated?

--Anthony

Well of course they'll "steal" your tax money to pay for the defence of THEIR property, what were you thinking. There will be army's and border guards and cops with some taxes to pay for them, because they believe in those things and as such want you to pay for them too. Of course the things they don't believe the government should do -- ie the things they dont want to pay for will be axed.

I love Ron Paul, they should set up a foundation to clone the man, but the institutions set up to run a country of eigthteenth century gentlemen farmers and plantation owners won't cut it in the modern world. The Federal Government is too big and too free with other people's money, that's a long way from saying that no Federal government is a better option.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 19, 2007 9:27 PM

Quote:
While I agree that the Federal government should be scaled back, there ARE things that ONLY a fedral government can do.

Of course there are, that's why it's there - it's just out of control and someone needs to take the wheel, and soon.

Several of the things you mention fall under interstate commerce, which is one of the enumerated powers of the FedGov for the exact reason you state.

No one is saying abolishment, we're talking about hacking off a tremendous level of usurpation of authority and resources that needs to be addressed immediately if not sooner.

Border defense is in fact what the national guard was intended for, to some degree that's a state issue, but economically it's also an issue that affects interstate commerce as well - and our immigration policies are well overdue for a significant overhaul.

Coastal water issues are handled by respectively, the Coast Guard and the Navy, and Naval operations are also specifically enumerated to the Feds via Congress.

Article I, Sections 8,9,10 of the Constitution specifically provide for most of the issues you mentioned.

As well, international relations are also specifically Enumerated to the Executive, as per Article II, Section 2, requiring Congressional Approval of such in the number of two thirds of the present members.

I think you've misunderstood his position a bit, Siggy... they have both the means and authority to do the part of the job that is theirs, no one is saying we should remove that - what's being said is that they need to be LIMITED to that, and not given a blank check to chase every wild hair that suits their fancy with our money and resources.

And as for the aircraft carrier, why exactly do we need such a thing to defend our turf ? it's an offensive strike weapon, primarily.
If we put it back in our pants and redesigned our armed forces to defend our country instead of being an imperial war machine, we could cut a hell of a lot of that budget, and put much of it where it BELONGS, that being the after-action support of the young men and women who've served.

Our countries habit of crapping on the vets while denying them the needful medical care and resources we promised them is downright shameful.

If one feels we need an Aircraft carrier for national defense, then one tells our elected representatives that we want one, they vote on it, then vote on what funds they will appropriate for one, and then contract it via their responsibility as enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

We have a system in place for this, apparently not well understood, so lemme add a link here to clarify matters.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Ron's not proposing Anarchy here, he's calling for the FedGov to properly perform it's intended function.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

THEKNIGHT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:56 AM

Thank you Frem. I guess I wasn't getting my point across as well as I thought, I was handling the domestic care issue part, but assumed that people would realize that the federal government would handle the powers that were enumerated within the constitution. I should have been more clear. You helped out with that. State Department would still exist to deal with international relations, Defence Department would still exist, just much more scaled back version that is more suited to modern warfare, ie wars amongst the people. There would still bea government, it would still do its job, just do the job that that piece of paper says it should, not what it thinks it can get away with.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:00 AM

Quote:
"And as for the aircraft carrier, why exactly do we need such a thing to defend our turf ? it's an offensive strike weapon, primarily.
If we put it back in our pants and redesigned our armed forces to defend our country instead of being an imperial war machine, we could cut a hell of a lot of that budget, and put much of it where it BELONGS, that being the after-action support of the young men and women who've served.

Our countries habit of crapping on the vets while denying them the needful medical care and resources we promised them is downright shameful.

If one feels we need an Aircraft carrier for national defense, then one tells our elected representatives that we want one, they vote on it, then vote on what funds they will appropriate for one, and then contract it via their responsibility as enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

We have a system in place for this, apparently not well understood, so lemme add a link here to clarify matters.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Ron's not proposing Anarchy here, he's calling for the FedGov to properly perform it's intended function.

-Frem

Hello,

I agree that an aircraft carrier is a 'projection of power' offensive weapon. In fact, that's pretty much what the whole Navy is. However, projecting power is sometimes needed for defensive purposes. (You may not agree. That's okay.)

But now, here's where I'm confused:

We decide we need a navy, including aircraft carriers, for national defense. Our leaders hear our plea. They vote on what funds they will appropriate for our Navy. Then... Well, don't they then tax us to get money for the Navy we wanted? And any other programs we cry out for?

I feel that I'm missing something rather obvious, but I can't figure out what it is.

How does a Federal government get the money it needs without taxing us for it?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE