welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)

[MaC]

an example of each to clarify

option 1.Someone who doesn't have a job and gets money from the state to live on.
option 2.A business that gets a subsidy from the government from taxes
option 3.As written into the BCRA: the $75 million that Democrats and Republicans get from taxes to run Presidential campaigns

Personally I'm against all in principle, but option 3 is by far the worst.

[MaC]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

But John, by eliminating political welfare we could elect more third parties that would do away with corporate welfare.

[MaC]

True-it wouldn't mean automatic offices for LP members, but it would definitely increase the likelihood by a great deal.

[MaC]

Depends on what you mean by welfare. Is Medicare/Medicaid included under that label? If so that would make individual welfare by far the biggest financially.

Medicare is not a direct allowance for the unemployed, so no.

[MaC]

True-it wouldn't mean automatic offices for LP members, but it would definitely increase the likelihood by a great deal.

I really doubt it - like I said it doesn't even come close to the top five factors that keep us out. Ballot access laws, the plurality voting system('wasted vote syndrome' resulting from this), extremisim of the party, ect. are far bigger. All it would result in is a little less funding for certain Dems and Reps, but all in all it wouldn't increase our coffers any.

While I'll agree that the first two you mentioned are other important issues, I disagree-the LP recently revised it's platform to make things more palatable for the spineless moderates-so getting them to vote for us shouldn't be an issue anymore.  Political welfare I would call a crime though-nobody should have to coercibly pay for politicians they don't support.  George W Bush only had 30% of America voting for him in 2004, but 100% of the taxpayers had to support him.  I disagree with the same applying to business, although I'd say businesses can do more to help the population than politicians can.

[MaC]

While I'll agree that the first two you mentioned are other important issues, I disagree-the LP recently revised it's platform to make things more palatable for the spineless moderates-so getting them to vote for us shouldn't be an issue anymore.

First off thank you for bringing up another issue with your 'spineless moderates' comment - there's more than one kind of extremism in the LP. The purist mentality. The purist wants a pure LP, one that doesn't cater to most people. For some god forsaken reason they still think they'll get things done. And those purists still have the attitude that anyone who isn't a gung-ho libertarian attitude is a damn socialist and that they aren't welcome in our party. Do you honestly think we're going to get people to vote for us with that kind of exclusionist attitude?

Have you ever considered for a moment that maybe those 'spineless' moderates have legitimate reasons for being moderates? That they thought out their positions? I'm guessing the answer is no based on your prejudiced comments. If you can't get over that holier-than-thou attitude, then perhaps you should at least not insult prospective voters. Nobody likes dealing with jerks.

As far as the platform goes, the reforms are a step in the right direction, but the party is still not pragmatic enough to start winning. The platform was gutted - it doesn't take stances on many of today's issues. It needs to offer solutions. Not bats**t crazy solutions either - practical ones that more than just hardcore libertarians can agree with. Again, if you think only a single step is going to solve our problems you are delusional.

kinda did that to annoy you and see if you'd fly off the handle-so I was right in that theory

Either way, can you agree that this shouldn't be a problem getting people to sign-up with the LP now that we've moderated?

Better yet-now this is a great opportunity to prove your theory right-if LP membership actually has a significant increase then and moderate libertarians start getting elected as a result, I'll apologize for everything I've said about moderate libertarians.

[MaC]

Us ivory towers were part of the party first

[MaC]

Dibble I have to ask you-how far do we need to go?  To the point we're not even libertarians?  The public hears the same crap from Democrats and Republicans every year, so we at least have to say a few things to stick out.  And David S is right-we really aren't hardcore.  Many of the fundamental things that people know is constitutional are things we defend.  The fact is that most people don't realize the severity of the problems enough so that it would get them to vote for another party. 
Still, the 'wasted vote syndrome' is the worst part of it all.  Badnarik gave a great example to counter it:  "If you were on a sinking ship like the Titanic, would you wait around on that ship until a majority of the people started fleeing or would you be the first to find a lifepreserver and an escape boat?"

[MaC]

now, you accuse me of being extreme, but I think the voting system would probably change after the schools are all privatised.  People like 'one candidate, one vote' and I couldn't see libertarians still getting elected with that kinda system because we don't have as much money to advertise as the two parties-the reason: political welfare.

[MaC]

And sure, the stuff above isn't crazy.  But I recall the time that the Libertarian Party tried to argue that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was slavery.  That's the sort of stuff people find crazy.  The Libertarian Party seems to be in total denial that it supports or has supported anything that the general public would be unable to stomach, which is I think its major problem.  Far too many Libertarians think that they just need people to know who they are and then they'll get elected everywhere.

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.  However, I would like you to find out for me whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly constitutionally ratified.  On that basis alone we should protest it.

[MaC]

I only post relevant things on the internet like Latoya Jackson and "getting three feet of air"

well, ok if you say so.

[MaC]

I've argued that the income tax is slavery, but I'm an ideologue.  Hell I even changed avatar because I don't want people associating veiws as extreme as mine with the party.  However, I would like you to find out for me whether the 16th Amendment was ever properly constitutionally ratified.  On that basis alone we should protest it.

The only arguments that I could find against the 16th amendment being properly ratified are ones that contend punctuation, spelling, and capitalization was not consistent among the various ratified versions and one that contends that Ohio was not a state until 1953 because it never officially proclaim such.

All of these seem like ridiculously weak arguments that reek of deciding on a conclusion and then looking for evidence.

Punctuation, spelling and capitalization are important.  Such a minor detail can totally change the meaning of a statute, and it's a legitimate complaint that if the amendement passed in one state and is not worded exactly how it is in congress, then it shouldn't be passed because the state didn't pass the same thing.

"Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below)."
Which is a good argument.  I've a friend who doesn't pay income tax on the basis that it's not the same thing-he works for wages and not an income.

"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."
Even though we didn't have all 50 states back then, I'm sure four states is less than the required amount needed to ratify.

I would make the argument that it goes against the thirteenth amendment, that involuntary servitude can be involuntary if the state takes money directly from a worker.  Did the worker voluntarily work for that part of his check?

[MaC]

"Another argument made by tax protesters is that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be interpreted as applying to wages. Others have claimed that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them (see below)."
Which is a good argument.  I've a friend who doesn't pay income tax on the basis that it's not the same thing-he works for wages and not an income.

in‧come
–noun
   1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

...how is money made through a job not income?  You provide an employer services.  They give you money for it.  That's income by the most fundamental definition of the word.

wage
n.

   1. Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

It's called an income tax and not a wage tax.  If they wanted to keep taking money from my labor like they do every week, it should be called a wage tax.  An income tax by definition would be one where they tax any properties I own and investments I make.  Otherwise they should have named it a 'wage tax'.

"Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void."
Even though we didn't have all 50 states back then, I'm sure four states is less than the required amount needed to ratify.

This is the same argument as above regarding spelling and whatnot, as far as I can tell.

Not isn't not, you just can't think of any argument against the fact only four states ratified it, so you pass it off as 'obviously silly'.

I would make the argument that it goes against the thirteenth amendment, that involuntary servitude can be involuntary if the state takes money directly from a worker.  Did the worker voluntarily work for that part of his check?

That argument is fine until you realize that the sixteenth amendment is part of the Constitution.  The Constitution cannot be unconstitutional by definition.  It's the Constitution.  Whatever is in the Constitution defines what is constitutional.  It's up to the interpreter to make an interpretation of the Constitution that renders it consistent, and the only such interpretation is one in which an income tax is not considered involuntary servitude.  There is no clause in the Constitution that states "whenever two amendments conflict, the one ratified at a later date is void" (which is a damn good thing in my opinion, given how much the courts would probably go to town throwing out amendments left and right if it did).

Sadly, you are right that it is constitutional as the constitution cannot be unconstitutional.  However it is contradictory in it's nature and should be thrown out as a result.  Some amendments do need throwing out.  The Bill of Rights was the biggest safeguard to our freedoms in guaranteeing negative rights.  However I don't approve many of the later amendments that give positive rights nor give government explicit permission.

[MaC]

Face it... the reason most people don't vote Libertarian, or Green, or Constitution is because they are extreme parties with extreme stances that are only serious on a handful of issues and they simply don't appeal to most Americans.

No, that's wrong the reason most people don't vote for a third party is because they think it's a wasted vote.