[Cobnat]

Well Slade said everything I might have said about dodging questions and how Nazis weren't the same as Socialists. I don't think anyone proposing Libertarianism has a really clear idea what it is to live as a retarded orphan, or an elderly sufferer of dementia, or so on, but the society they propose is one in which those people would die unassisted.

Well, concerning orphans, it is a worrisome problem. I guess orphanages could be privatized but government funded or rely on donations. As for the elderly and people who suffer from a mental illnesses, I am sure that their families could take care of them or send them to home of some sort.

Folks just like to say "Lower taxes and more money for corporations will mean that everyone is wealthy. Reagan tried to sell it as "trickle-down economics," and it was flawed then as well. Smaller businesses will not prosper in a country of WalMarts, lower taxes or not.

Family owned firms could survive. If their services are better then the other firms then they will prosper.

Parks would not exist. Long-term care would not exist. Companies would enforce overseas interests with military contributions. No one would enforce environmental restrictions on companies because no one would be investigating the effects of toxic output. I say no one because there would be no one with a budget for it. Right now such studies are state-funded, and your economy would cut that.

If everyone is paying 10% tax (including major businesses) then I am sure that they can afford good police investigators and a fair court system to try those who are accused.

I'm glad you're falling back and acknowledging that you can't be 100% Libertarian. What I don't understand is how you still assume that any society that is not 100% Libertarian must be a Welfare State with cradle-to-grave state support of the lazy and a weak weak economy. Why can you be less than 100% Libertarian yet promote 100% Libertarianism as though the only other alternative is absolute social failure? I think you're falling for the old lie that any sort of state management of people's money is weak, and altruistic, or religious, or anything other than good mangement. A well-run society can include social spending; in fact the very well-run society you live in is such a one.

The role of government is to weaken and control its citizens. Every country that has had a state controlled market with a strict social order has been driven into the ground. I’m not completely against all social spending, things such as pensions and a widowers salary are alright. I just believe that we need to limit social spending so we do not put a strain on the low-income earners and small businesses.

On to new business: how do you figure that the military would not be abused if it were run exclusivley by the public? Isn't your chief complaint that the military is being sent abroad against the will of the people? A public-run military is just as prone to abuse as a corporate one. In fact, an amusing tangent would arise were I to mention that there is these days no difference. But also: do you really believe that a smaller military would defend the US better?

Theoretically, a military should be controlled by the civilian government, this unfortunately has led to politicians waging their own wars instead generals. My idea is that if the funding for the army is cut to the point that it can only support officer training then it cannot wage foreign wars. And if gun laws are relaxed then if the country is invaded then the official army could quickly organize militia units to defend the nation.

That if the US were unable to invade foreign nations, not just that it chose not to, but that it were incapable of it, it would still be able to defend its international business interests? That it hold the political clout that it does? If you're saying that the US should only worry about its own borders, then fine, but without its international holdings, the economy woud collapse. And without a military to deter attack, it would lose those holdings.

The U.S economy would be able to survive without exploiting other nations. I am sure that without spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on military expeditions around the world, the U.S would be better off. And plenty of nations are surviving without exploiting other nations, since the U.S economic system is based on exploitation of foreign countries and its own citizens, it is doomed to fail.

[civilian_number_two]

Well, concerning orphans, it is a worrisome problem. I guess orphanages could be privatized but government funded or rely on donations. As for the elderly and people who suffer from a mental illnesses, I am sure that their families could take care of them or send them to home of some sort.

What about the folks who don't have families, or those whose families are too poor to support them? This goes for elderly as well as children. To give you a Capitalist template, consider the treatment of orphans during the English Industrial Revolution. Orphanages, privatised but government funded? Honestly, what's the difference? And donations? That's a shoddy way to run an economy.

Family owned firms could survive. If their services are better than the other firms then they will prosper.

How about if one megafirm threatens not to carry a company's product unless it sells it exclusively through them, and even then only if it reduces the quality of the product so that it may be sold for a greater profit to the megacompany? Capitalism has no mechanism for ensuring that the best product is made available for the best price; the story of the Tucker cars is a classic case, and the story of Rubbermaid and WalMart is a contemporary one. As for these family firms, they could make the best product ever, but they'd have to lease their property from some Monopoly. If the Monopoly felt threatened by their product, they'd have nowhere to sell it. You haven't read much about the formation of tyrannies and the anti-trust laws, have you?

If everyone is paying 10% tax (including major businesses) then I am sure that they can afford good police investigators and a fair court system to try those who are accused.

Police investigators were impotent as far as proving that lead accumulated toxicity in humans. Such a thing needs to be proven scientifically, in a lab. You've heard of economies of scale, I'm sure. Some advances and discoveries are impossible except on a grand scale, the sort of scale affordable only by giant corporations or by governments. The folks putting lead into gas weren't interested in taking it out, and so they didn't fund any studies. etc etc. What would the cops do? Ask complainants to pee in a cup, and then test the pee for lead?

The role of government is to weaken and control its citizens.

No it isn't.

Every country that has had a state controlled market with a strict social order has been driven into the ground.

Like the US, I suppose. You know there are state controls all oevr the place, right?

I’m not completely against all social spending, things such as pensions and a widowers salary are alright. I just believe that we need to limit social spending so we do not put a strain on the low-income earners and small businesses.

Agreed. But there are numerous ways to control social spending without getting rid of it altogether. You're talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The U.S economy would be able to survive without exploiting other nations. I am sure that without spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on military expeditions around the world, the U.S would be better off.

Why do you say you are sure of this? The US's history is based on foreign trade and Imperialism, but you're sure it would do just fine if it dropped that altogether? Please let me know of your sources.

And plenty of nations are surviving without exploiting other nations, since the U.S economic system is based on exploitation of foreign countries and its own citizens, it is doomed to fail.

Not nations as large and as prosperous as the US, no. None. And for all my rhetoric I'm not really talking about exploiting, I'm talking about having foreign operations at all. These are often in places where they are in danger of foreign military takeover. It is the existence, if not the actual presence of the US military that makes these operations possible.

Proponents of laissez-fair capitalism generally don't think about running a nation; they just figure get rid of government and everything will be fine on its own. This is pwing mainly to a distrust of government, which I appreciate, btu it inevitably leads to all sorts of after the fact backpeddling like the bit above about orphans and elderly, and loads more assumptions about things that have never been tested, like their free market model (conveniently established after the ruling elite has already been established) and the holy power of donation. When pressed for what would run society in a completely tax-free economy, Ayn Rand insisted it could be run entirely on donations and lotteries. Lotteries! The whole notion is half-assed.

[Cobnat]

civilian_number_two
What about the folks who don't have families, or those whose families are too poor to support them? This goes for elderly as well as children.

Cobnat
Well I am sure that there will be a wealthy businessman with a big heart, like Bill Gates. Those who do not have families will rely on donations. News keeps leaking out here in Australia about government owned/funded homes being a literal death factory for the unfortunate anyways, where the owners keep government funds and don’t spend anything on the mentally ill or enfeebled. So I have to say that it is probably best that it is not government funded at all and it really solely on donations. People arent as cold hearted as you think.

civilian_number_two
To give you a Capitalist template, consider the treatment of orphans during the English Industrial Revolution. Orphanages, privatised but government funded? Honestly, what's the difference? And donations? That's a shoddy way to run an economy.

Cobnat
We are talking about orphanages. Since most orphanages nowadays run on donations, it will not be a massive step.

civilian_number_two
How about if one megafirm threatens not to carry a company's product unless it sells it exclusively through them, and even then only if it reduces the quality of the product so that it may be sold for a greater profit to the megacompany? Capitalism has no mechanism for ensuring that the best product is made available for the best price; the story of the Tucker cars is a classic case, and the story of Rubbermaid and WalMart is a contemporary one.

Cobnat
We are taxed and our taxes are being used by the government to buy products from big companies. They tax small business over 40% tax (in any given western nation) while charge big businesses less then 5% or not at all. If you believe that this system is good then fine, keep believing it but I would rather choose a state in which family businesses could prosper rather then a state which is solely run by the rich.

civilian_number_two
As for these family firms, they could make the best product ever, but they'd have to lease their property from some Monopoly. If the Monopoly felt threatened by their product, they'd have nowhere to sell it.

Cobnat
I am talking about bakeries, import-export businesses and the like. Although if someone does make a product that is absolutely revolutionary then I am sure they will have no problem selling it, since the reason big companies get away with so much is because they are given immunity by the welfare state.

civilian_number_two
You haven't read much about the formation of tyrannies and the anti-trust laws, have you?

Cobnat
What do you suggest? Tight control on big business? Its not going to happen, they run the economy. Though if the taxes are lowered for low-income earners then at least they will have a chance at buying a house and car and paying it off in their lifetime.

civilian_number_two
Police investigators were impotent as far as proving that lead accumulated toxicity in humans. Such a thing needs to be proven scientifically, in a lab.

Cobnat
Well the labs would be owned by the police but if they aren’t I am sure that a person could start a business intended to help the police in this regard.

civilian_number_two
You've heard of economies of scale, I'm sure. Some advances and discoveries are impossible except on a grand scale, the sort of scale affordable only by giant corporations or by governments.

civilian_number_two
The folks putting lead into gas weren't interested in taking it out, and so they didn't fund any studies. etc etc. What would the cops do? Ask complainants to pee in a cup, and then test the pee for lead?

Cobnat
So what are you paying your taxes for if the police or so incompetent?

civilian_number_two
No it isn't.

Cobnat
Yes it is, how else could you explain the restrictions of freedoms in western nations these past 40 years?

civilian_number_two
Like the US, I suppose. You know there are state controls all oevr the place, right?
Agreed. But there are numerous ways to control social spending without getting rid of it altogether. You're talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Cobnat
I am not suggesting a revolution. Howard did that here with the Industrial Relations laws and fucked over everyone who didn’t have an individual contract. I am talking about a slow and steady (in other words a moderate) path towards more economic and social freedom.

civilian_number_two
Why do you say you are sure of this? The US's history is based on foreign trade and Imperialism, but you're sure it would do just fine if it dropped that altogether? Please let me know of your sources.

Cobnat
Nope. Please don’t misunderstand me, if the U.S disintegrates into smaller states because it cant help raping other nations, I wont lose sleep.

civilian_number_two
Not nations as large and as prosperous as the US, no. None. And for all my rhetoric I'm not really talking about exploiting, I'm talking about having foreign operations at all. These are often in places where they are in danger of foreign military takeover. It is the existence, if not the actual presence of the US military that makes these operations possible.

Cobnat
Is it really all that good that American companies are exporting jobs? They are exploiting people in poorer countries and at the same time not helping to hinder unemployment in their own country. This can only help the corporate ‘elites’.

civilian_number_two
Proponents of laissez-fair capitalism generally don't think about running a nation; they just figure get rid of government and everything will be fine on its own.

civilian_number_two
This is pwing mainly to a distrust of government, which I appreciate, btu it inevitably leads to all sorts of after the fact backpeddling like the bit above about orphans and elderly, and loads more assumptions about things that have never been tested, like their free market model (conveniently established after the ruling elite has already been established) and the holy power of donation.

Cobnat
Since most people would have a bigger wallet (since there would be less taxes) why wouldn’t they give money to the unfortunate?

civilian_number_two
When pressed for what would run society in a completely tax-free economy, Ayn Rand insisted it could be run entirely on donations and lotteries. Lotteries! The whole notion is half-assed.

Cobnat
I cant speak for Rand but I for one do not believe that a 100% libertarian country would work, what would work is one with minimum taxes and minimum involvement in the economy and society.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 26 September 2007 - 03:13 AM

[Slade]

Ok, Cobnat, so you expect that somehow, given all of the corruption of the government and large corporations, somehow letting all of the money into the hands of the wealthy elite (oh, and whatever table scraps the poor will get from your "less taxes" policy will somehow make the few people who can actually afford to support a nation if they think it will be profitable will suddenly become shining examples of altruism? This is when they own the military and police and can do whatever they like with their business without fears of big bad scary taxes or worrying about having laws enforced, mind you. People wouldn't give more to charity if they were taxed less. Prices would rise because people could afford the increases and businesses would want to take advantage of more profits, and people would just want to buy more stuff.

It looks like your "Welfare State" is nothing more than a shadowy blanket label that covers everything you don't like about the current government, regardless of what policy it is. And then you just throw in excuses against what it does because it is corrupt instead of treating its citizens wrongly with no consistency.

I agree that governments are corrupt and taxes are squandered, but this is not the problem of the system, it's the problem of the people in the system who are allowed to take advantage of it. The money would be in worse hands, were it only in the pockets of business owners, because it would be used even more often to protect the interests of said business owners without any checks from anything except other businesses looking out for themselves.

And I really just need to point out your absurd claim that because police don't make good unbiased scientists, Civ2 is wasting his tax money by supporting them via paying his taxes. And your silly leading questions trying to imply that Civ2 supports imperialism and economic outsourcing are transparent. At least stick to discussing things in context and with attention to their actual content.

[Cobnat]

Ok, Cobnat, so you expect that somehow, given all of the corruption of the government and large corporations, somehow letting all of the money into the hands of the wealthy elite (oh, and whatever table scraps the poor will get from your "less taxes" policy will somehow make the few people who can actually afford to support a nation if they think it will be profitable will suddenly become shining examples of altruism?

Your nearsightedness is worrisome, just how are corporations going to abuse the system like they are doing now if the laws are relaxed? I mean, for fucks sake, give me an alternative instead of dismissing everything I say as ‘greedy’ libertarian trash.

This is when they own the military and police and can do whatever they like with their business without fears of big bad scary taxes or worrying about having laws enforced, mind you.

The corporations would be able to enforce their rule onto the population because the population would be armed.

People wouldn't give more to charity if they were taxed less. Prices would rise because people could afford the increases and businesses would want to take advantage of more profits, and people would just want to buy more stuff.

What is the basis of your theory? People give to charity right now despite high taxes. Most human beings are not void of conscience.

It looks like your "Welfare State" is nothing more than a shadowy blanket label that covers everything you don't like about the current government, regardless of what policy it is. And then you just throw in excuses against what it does because it is corrupt instead of treating its citizens wrongly with no consistency.

Reread what I wrote. The system is abused and as a result many unfortunate people suffer needlessly.

I agree that governments are corrupt and taxes are squandered, but this is not the problem of the system, it's the problem of the people in the system who are allowed to take advantage of it.

If the system is able to be taken advantage of then someone will take advantage of it.

The money would be in worse hands, were it only in the pockets of business owners, because it would be used even more often to protect the interests of said business owners without any checks from anything except other businesses looking out for themselves.

THAT is exactly the system we have in place now. At least if the taxes were relaxed on the poor, they could have a chance. I mean what tax do large businesses pay despite the restricting tax code? Their lawyers find loopholes in the system and they end up paying virtually nothing.

And I really just need to point out your absurd claim that because police don't make good unbiased scientists, Civ2 is wasting his tax money by supporting them via paying his taxes. And your silly leading questions trying to imply that Civ2 supports imperialism and economic outsourcing are transparent. At least stick to discussing things in context and with attention to their actual content.

Perhaps you should calm down and reread the debate me and Civ2 had.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 26 September 2007 - 09:33 AM

[Jordan]

I agree that governments are corrupt and taxes are squandered, but this is not the problem of the system, it's the problem of the people in the system who are allowed to take advantage of it.

Well put, I think the current system is a good one. The corruption that lies in the system can't be filtered out with a new form of government, even the one you purposed Cobnat. Your gripes seem to be with the people in the government.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 26 September 2007 - 12:36 PM

[civilian_number_two]

What I like most about the Libertarian fantasy are these ideas:

That all business will have a better chance of thriving, and that "mom and pop" marketplaces will pop up everywhere. Meanwhile American culture is universal, American corporations re worldwide, and mom and pop stores in fact appear all over the place. With less control, I think all we'd have is lower wages (no minimum wage enforced by government), and a greater separation of class. There is historical precedent for this, and it was the reason for trade unionism in the first place (which the police initially resisted with violence at the behest of the corporations).

That without social control of property, there will still be parks.

That police can fund billion-dollar research facilities to determine the depletion of the ozone layer, or of fish stocks, or the causes and prevention of cancer. Or failing that that some private citizen will do so with zero government funding, as there is zero profit in proving the companies are wrong.

That a militia of well-armed civilians will ever be as effective as a National army. That was proven wrong time and again in the Classical era, and it is being proven right now in Iraq.

That charitable donations will care for the poor. Charitable donations exist now; most of them ceom from corporations who get tax refunds for making them. Remove that incentive, and also remove the government funding, and charity will revert to wht it was in the Middle Ages. Libertarians are never able to fess up and say that they don't care if orphands and retards, and especially the mentally deranged and the old, just die. the thing is, most well-minded and well-employed middle-class people are just a bad break away from failure. A social safety net has saved many; and this is a Society we've built. You want Anarchy, survival of the most violent and fit, then let's do away with country altogether. But don't think Charity on its own is enough to support the weak in a civilisation of this size. There is no precedent for that.

[Cobnat]

What I like most about the Libertarian fantasy are these ideas:
That all business will have a better chance of thriving, and that "mom and pop" marketplaces will pop up everywhere. Meanwhile American culture is universal, American corporations re worldwide, and mom and pop stores in fact appear all over the place. With less control, I think all we'd have is lower wages (no minimum wage enforced by government), and a greater separation of class. There is historical precedent for this, and it was the reason for trade unionism in the first place (which the police initially resisted with violence at the behest of the corporations).

The thing about Libertarian ideal is that we hope that those who are disenchanted about our way of life would form communities and live their own way. Like those communes in the U.S. As for the minimum wage: it is a system used to keep small businesses out of commission. The corporate ‘elites’ use this system to insure that if a smaller business is not making enough profit, they will not be able to pay their workers since there cannot go below a certain number. Also, the minimum wage is a system that should only be in place if a country has high taxes. Although if the workers are disenchanted then they could and should go on strike; if they are valued then the business would enforce its own minimum wage.

That without social control of property, there will still be parks.

If your just going to dismiss everything I write then fine.

That police can fund billion-dollar research facilities to determine the depletion of the ozone layer, or of fish stocks, or the causes and prevention of cancer.

People would pay for a cure for cancer and the guarantee of corporate espionage would mean that many companies would compete and thus drive the prices down. As for the depletion of the ozone: I am sure that companies would try other alternative fuels instead of sticking with fossil fuel and oil, especially considering how more expensive the latter has gotten.

Or failing that that some private citizen will do so with zero government funding, as there is zero profit in proving the companies are wrong.

The government would have plenty of money to fund the police, I mean, consider the lottery idea: If the government held a weekly lottery with the jackpot of 100,000 and sold the tickets at 7 dollars each, in a country of about 300,000,000 people, how much do you think the government would be able to gain on a weekly basis?

That a militia of well-armed civilians will ever be as effective as a National army. That was proven wrong time and again in the Classical era, and it is being proven right now in Iraq.

What are you basing that on? What about Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, the American Revolution and the countless partisan units in Europe that fought the Nazis?

That charitable donations will care for the poor. Charitable donations exist now; most of them ceom from corporations who get tax refunds for making them. Remove that incentive, and also remove the government funding, and charity will revert to wht it was in the Middle Ages. Libertarians are never able to fess up and say that they don't care if orphands and retards, and especially the mentally deranged and the old, just die. the thing is, most well-minded and well-employed middle-class people are just a bad break away from failure. A social safety net has saved many; and this is a Society we've built. You want Anarchy, survival of the most violent and fit, then let's do away with country altogether. But don't think Charity on its own is enough to support the weak in a civilisation of this size. There is no precedent for that.

Communities would come together to care for the disadvantaged. Just like they do now.

A social safety net has saved many; and this is a Society we've built. You want Anarchy, survival of the most violent and fit,

Isn’t that the system we have now? I know plenty of families who cant find jobs and are being payed around 250 dollars (a fortnight) by the government (in welfare payments) when their rents are around 150 dollars, are you telling me that the current system doesn’t screw the poor or disadvantaged? I also like to refer you to the government run orphanages in places like Iraq and Romania or the government controlled old folks homes run here in Australia.

then let's do away with country altogether.

Obviously you haven’t read a fucking word I have written. Libertarian means decentralization not centralization, this counts not only for the economy and society but also for culture and many other things I care not to mention right now.

Libertarians are never able to fess up and say that they don't care if orphands and retards, and especially the mentally deranged and the old, just die

I find that offensive. I donate to charity whenever I can and I don’t do it to get a tax refund either.

Well put, I think the current system is a good one. The corruption that lies in the system can't be filtered out with a new form of government, even the one you purposed Cobnat. Your gripes seem to be with the people in the government.

People will find a way to abuse the system through loopholes in the bureaucracy. People are going to screw the system so we might as well limit that system as much we can so those who do screw it get less of a boost then those who don’t.

[Cobnat]

<basic info about libertarianism>

http://www.impel.com...rtarianism.html

http://theadvocates....tarian-faq.html

[Spoon Poetic]

Oh yeah, that lottery thing works so well here in SC... *rolls eyes* In fact, a couple of the scholarships the lottery funds just passed this: The amount of funds you can receive from those scholarships (assuming you qualify for them with grades, etc) is now 25% higher... IF you are a certain major. Biology, Chemistry, Math - those types of majors. We art students, music students, hell, even people studying to become teachers - we all got gypped. Especially since this raise in scholarships is going to raise tuition.

And Cobnat, while you or I may donate to charities without any kind of pay off in the end, what little money we can give doesn't make a dent. Very few people that have the money to actually make a noticeable difference are actually kind enough to do it. It's sad, but generally true.

[Cobnat]

Oh yeah, that lottery thing works so well here in SC...

…South Carolina?

Oh yeah, that lottery thing works so well here in SC... *rolls eyes* In fact, a couple of the scholarships the lottery funds just passed this: The amount of funds you can receive from those scholarships (assuming you qualify for them with grades, etc) is now 25% higher... IF you are a certain major. Biology, Chemistry, Math - those types of majors. We art students, music students, hell, even people studying to become teachers - we all got gypped. Especially since this raise in scholarships is going to raise tuition.

Are you arguing about the way the funds are being raised or about the way they are being distributed?

And Cobnat, while you or I may donate to charities without any kind of pay off in the end, what little money we can give doesn't make a dent. Very few people that have the money to actually make a noticeable difference are actually kind enough to do it. It's sad, but generally true.

What about Bill Gates? He has donated half his net worth to charity. There are hundreds of philanthropists in the world and they are the ones keeping the orphanages from closing down or running out of resources.

[Spoon Poetic]

Bill Gates won't be around forever. To force people to depend on kindness is unkind in itself, because kindness may or may not be there - there is certainly no guarantee.

And about the lottery thing, I'm saying, just because there could be a lottery that doesn't solve the issues at hand. The money that goes into the lottery can be totally misappropriated. Also, with the odds being so low to win, people generally stop playing. Especially if the ticket costs a whopping 7 dollars, and the payout is only 100,000 (I'm going by your example here), and that's only IF you manage to be pulled - and the odds are either that you're not going to win, or that so few people are playing (so you might win) but it's not doing its job of funding.

[Cobnat]

Bill Gates won't be around forever. To force people to depend on kindness is unkind in itself, because kindness may or may not be there - there is certainly no guarantee.

The only thing that is a certainty is that nothing is a guarantee.

The current system depends heavily on donations anyway. At least this way people will have more money to donate. And if push comes to shove, I am sure that a few rock stars will take up the cause.

And about the lottery thing, I'm saying, just because there could be a lottery that doesn't solve the issues at hand. The money that goes into the lottery can be totally misappropriated.

So we can both agree that there should be less government involvement in the economy of the country?

Also, with the odds being so low to win, people generally stop playing. Especially if the ticket costs a whopping 7 dollars, and the payout is only 100,000 (I'm going by your example here), and that's only IF you manage to be pulled - and the odds are either that you're not going to win, or that so few people are playing (so you might win) but it's not doing its job of funding.

I’m not so sure about that. People will always put in money. Lottery tickets here in Australia cost much more then 7$ (I’m guessing because the Australian dollar is worth less then the American). Also, the jackpot should really depend on how many people live in the country.

[Spoon Poetic]

Just the SC jackpot alone is something like 23 mil at this point. 100,000 jackpot would never get players.

[civilian_number_two]

People would pay for a cure for cancer and the guarantee of corporate espionage would mean that many companies would compete and thus drive the prices down. As for the depletion of the ozone: I am sure that companies would try other alternative fuels instead of sticking with fossil fuel and oil, especially considering how more expensive the latter has gotten.

The companies now aren't developing alternatives. And I wasn't talking about fossil fuels. It was CFCs that depleted the Ozone layer (and will do for the next few decades whether we stop using them or not), and it was state-funded scientists that discovered that. Corporate scientists stopped research when they were in danger of corroborating what their opponents were finding. There is no profit in being a whistle blower unless there's somethign to back you up. Lacking any government science, we'll be back to the pollution of the Industrial Revolution. I know you doubt it, and so do a lot of theorists, but I'm describing the history, the checks and balances of a system that is actually in use right now. You are describing a theoretical model for which there is no example. You even suggest that the country ought to fall apart, break into smaller economies, etc, and that this would be better no matter what. Where are your historical examples?

What are you basing that on? What about Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, the American Revolution and the countless partisan units in Europe that fought the Nazis?

I'm not going to get into a military history argument here, but none of those is an example of a militia defeated a standing army.

Communities would come together to care for the disadvantaged. Just like they do now.

Yes. With help from the government. With no help from the government, you suggest that folks would just contribute exactly as much on their own, or possibly more. I doubt it, but I guess that doesn't matter to your argument. And the corporations, which contribute tons, do it for tax breaks, and they'd lose these breaks in your flat tax system. I promise you a lot of those folk would stop contributing and the poor would suffer.

There was some suggestion somewhere in all that about how the minimum wage was a plot to hurt the poor, that without a minimum wage folks would be able to negotiate thier own salaries, and that those salaries would be better. I don't know how you think that would work. If corporations are itching to pay people what they're worth, and if as you say the corporations pay less tax than their smaller competitors, then why do the corporations always suggest that the minimum wqage should be lowered? And when they can't lower it, why do they pay exactly minimum wage? Maybe I don't understand the suggestion made about minimum wage being devise to hurt the poor, but it seems counterintuitive since the corporations are happy to pay it and would love to pay less, despite not having as you say to pay very high taxes. I'm honestly confused by this.