Is that written in the minarchists handbook, or is that something left up to the individual minarchist to decide? I think your idea of the government getting the fuck out of 130 countries abroad with 700+ military bases and turning to protecting our rights to liberty, property, safety is just a matter of the government doing what it's supposed to. I don't think there should be a name for that other than "doing your fucking job". It really does infuriate me when I see this massive controlling entity that was set up to aide us. The fact that we can't do anything about it infuriates me even more.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
A minarchist is focusing more on shrinking government so it's not in 130 countries abroad with 700+ military bases. That's what's important.

After that is resolved, then maybe we can talk about our massive nanny state. Even still, things like police forces and fire departments and public education (no matter how abhorrent) will be last on the list of things we want to get rid of. And we certainly wouldn't do it by force.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
So what would a minarchists view on public Education, Law-enforcement (which in their case would be the anti-agression patrol), and other public services that can pretty much be considered government programs?

A minarchist is focusing more on shrinking government so it's not in 130 countries abroad with 700+ military bases. That's what's important.

After that is resolved, then maybe we can talk about our massive nanny state. Even still, things like police forces and fire departments and public education (no matter how abhorrent) will be last on the list of things we want to get rid of. And we certainly wouldn't do it by force.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
So what would a minarchists view on public Education, Law-enforcement (which in their case would be the anti-agression patrol), and other public services that can pretty much be considered government programs?

Cutting wasteful spending and avoiding harmful foreign entanglements. I wish so-called conservatives and libertarians had the same goals in mind,

I'd love the US to 'get out' of Isreal, Korea, Europe, and a lot of places. A constant military presence all over the world is an outdated paradigm. With modern technology we don't need large military bases dotting the planet. Build the strong military at home & let everyone else run their own affairs.

Problem is the world keeps begging us to 'step in' (ironically, Europe most of all). They LOVE us having a strong military because they consider it to be 'their' military be default. They don't have to maintain a large defense, because we're doing it for them. I say it is long overdue for Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and all the other EU powers to step up and take care of thier own military needs.

But realistically for Isreal, what is the alternative? It is pretty much a given that if the US walks away there would be a horrific bloodbath. The US both (A) provides at least a modicum of a brake on Isreal and (B) prevents the Arab world from booting up Holocaust 2.0 tomorrow. Let's be frank. Europe is neither inclined or capable of halting Muslim aggression if it flares up badly in Isreal or anywhere else. Europe relies on the US to do its dirty work. It isn't an ideal solution, but the US presence is currently about the only real 'stabilizing' influence in that region. Are we prepared to accept the consequences and implications of ending that?

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:I thought that common knowledge was no felony can be sent to arbitration.
Rapes in Iraq are not crimes in the US, so, you can't follow that chain of responsibility. As far as I'm aware Iraq provided full criminal immunity to contractors at the time, so it wasn't even a crime in Iraq.


It depends on the circumstances. I for example was born overseas on a US military base within another country. However as my father was in the US military, and I was born on a US base (legally considered US soil), then I am a natural born citizen, as if I was born within the border of the USA in any state. US diplomatic compounds are also considered US soil. As a result anyone on such grounds are subject to US law. When they step beyond those grounds, especially in wartime... they are in the employ of the US military and are bound by the same laws which govern the troops. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. This isn't the first time crimes have been prosecuted in US court that took place overseas.

With the same logic, a crime committed on the high seas beyond the borders of the US or any nation would not be prosecutable. This is not the case. The are a lot of complexities involved of course, but i can guarantee a gang rape or murder spree won't go unpunished in such a blatant rape case as this.

Why the Republicans are fighting it? Lobbying money. KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater (conveniently renamed for those with memory issues) may think they are immune from the law. Lawmakers may have told them they are immune. But that does not make it so.

A high ranking official may get away with it. But a bunch of raping low-levels will face a judge. The public won't allow for it.

I really do question what we've learned in school. I think it's national indoctrination, that's why I dislike the public school system so much. That, and my education was sub par, and I was not the sharpest tool in the shed at 18 because of it. I've done better as an autodidactic which has also lead me to understand what I learned in school was not so much a lie but a cherry-picking of information devised for social engineering and thinly veiled as unbiased education. Regardless, I don't think any of my classes properly explained Capitalism to me, nor the free market, nor fiat currency, Corporatism, the Federal Reserve, etc. etc. etc. They didn't teach me a lot of things except how to be dumb and be a cog.

I get it. I don't tow the lines. But, you seem to want to lump me in with anti-abortionists (I refuse to call them by any euphemism), creationists, anti-immigrationists, homophobes and racists. Seriously? All of that is antithetical to my positions and those of Libertarians. In fact, if California was a Libertarian state, I bet gays would no longer be secondhand citizens like they are in the blue state. Democrat civil liberties fail.

What's so wrong with personal liberty, DFT? What's wrong with giving the individual a right to be captain of his own destiny? Why shouldn't we honor self-reliance over dependency? Why do you feel people are too stupid and incompetent to live with freedom? I believe you veil elitism under the banner of democracy. Most people do who believe they know what's best for everyone instead of allowing the individual to choose. When your direct democracy leads to bad legislation and tyranny you will pretend it wasn't democracy, but a lack of it; and therefore it's a selective democracy where the pro-Democratic voices should be heard, but dissenters should not. To me your party sounds a lot like the other party.

Also, I understand your fears of Corporations. I, too, am anti-Corporatist and I certainly don't trust them. They wouldn't exist if government didn't allow them to. In fact, it used to take an act of Congress to create a Corporation; now it all has to do with how much money you have. And it's government regulation that allows them to monopolize the markets by squeezing out the small business owners. Corporations, like government, hate competition, and most regulation is set up to protect Corporate interests, not ours. I've given a great example of this here in the 5th and 6th paragraph and show how a protective government bureaucracy like the EPA is only used to further the Corporate agenda, not protect us. That's your government regulatory system failing... again.

I could ask you the same question about being a Democrat that you asked me about being Libertarian. Seriously, if you were part of the Green Party or a Marxist I'd probably have more respect for your position. But a Democrat? Sure I can see how you agree with some of their positions, but all of them? Hell, most of them? The continuation of the unconstitutional war? More troops sent to Afghanistan? No mention from your party on closing the 700+ military bases in 130 countries overseas. And, what about the Patriot Act? Your party isn't moving to repeal it, only modify it. Your party is a sham. And the fact that you can't see how similar your party is to the Republican Party is very amusing but mostly frustrating. Pot, meet kettle.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday

-Without some of the corporate welfare that went on, our recession would have been a full blown recession similar to the one that hit china under the same circumstances.

-Without gov barriers on free international trade we'd be screwed because american products cost are high to very high compared to international slave labor crap

-If people controlled their own retirement they simply wouldn't do it OR they'd end up losing ALL their money (as opposed to MOST of their money) in a financial meltdown like the current recession

-Private charity would probably only happen if you read a chapter of the gospel in exchange for a ham sandwich

-And a cut of 50% of government spending is simply naive

There's no proof of any of this. 1) There's no proof the bailouts helped the recession, and it was manipulation of markets that lead to the recession in the first place.

2) With Social Security, the government's version of the Ponzi Scheme, you are essentially saying people are too irresponsible and stupid to live with freedom and self-reliance. And everyone, even if they choose not to save, should be guaranteed a payout when they retire.

3) Private charity happens all the time. Even in hospitals, there are charity wings. People are very generous. But, less want to give when there's a safety net already in place and they're taxed so heavily as it is.

4) Cutting taxes by 50% is not nearly enough. Abolishing the income tax completely would only cut the Federal income by 1/3. Think about that. Why do they need so much money to operate? Is it to pay for those 700+ hegemonic military bases in 130 countries overseas? Yeah, we couldn't do without those.

You want to name the tower after the reason why they attacked America? Funny, the "US military bases on Musilm holy ground, and other foreign policy policies Tower" just doesn't have a good ring to it.


And lol @ "We don't run out of burning buildings, we run into them!" I know he was trying to say: save people, but it was funny when he said it. Holy crap a burning building, lets run into it! =D

>> ^volumptuous:
Every time I walk down the street, I always think how much more practical it would be if I had to pay to use the sidewalk, since you know, that mean ol government pays for it.


When the government pays for the sidewalks, you are paying for them. You're also paying for the war in Iraq and the 700 military bases in over 130 countries. How's that working out for you?

You're right. That's way more practical.

He is so right! If America withdrew her military bases in Europe, the bad guys (aliens?) would instantly conquer the entire continent. Hundreds of billions of dollars well spent, in my opinion.

I've lived here 32 years. I know of one black guy where I work (I am sure there are more), and I met one black guy in college back in the early 90's. I do not recall the last time I saw a black person in Wasilla. I know if you go to the military bases you will see a higher percentage.

Dag has more of his brain cells left from the 80's.... maybe he can give the report from our high school days.

^I agree we should decrease military spending in a big, big way. We have over 700 military bases in 130 countries worldwide. I don't see any reason for us to have a military base in any foreign country, so imagine the money we could save by closing them all.

I disagree, however, with the idea of spending that money elsewhere. We're in a recession, and we all need to keep more of our money - we don't need to spend more.

>> ^rougy:

The free market didn't do this to the economy, my sweet prince. We've been over this a million times. It wasn't lack of regulation but rather government intervention in the market that helped to lead to this terrible economic disaster.

Even then, it's not all the fault of government intervention in the marketplace. Oh no. That spendthrift war in Iraq has hurt us greatly, as well. You want to know the first step in fixing our economy? We end the wars abroad and start closing down military bases:

"According to the Defense Department's annual 'Base Structure Report' for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories." cite

That's a lot of money. Imagine closing down those 702 bases abroad? And, do we really need 6,000 bases in our 50 states? But, then again, if we starting closing down those bases then we'd be taking away jobs from soldiers, and I'm sure you liberal-hearted pro-laborers would be offended by that, right?

Going through and stiking out what I disagree with, it seems we only disagree on one thing: the means in which to change taxation. We both agree it should be changed, and we both agree we want smaller government and less spending. I only happen to favor a dynamic tax rate because 1. it ends the IRS 2. it massively simplifies taxation 3. it makes deficit spending impossible 4. it provides strong political motivation for smaller budgets (voters get to watch their tax rates rise *instantly* if the budget grows). Of the reasons I favor the dynamic tax rate, it appears you would agree with most of them.

When speaking of the gas tax, I too, think it should be taxed but not as a sales tax, as "emission compensation" because when burned, it creates pollution which affects others.

>> ^volumptuous:
• Enact a balanced-budget amendment
• End both the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan
• Close almost all US military bases outside of this country
• Cut-off financing the Israeli military forces
• Repeal all federal drug laws
• Slash the defense budget by half
• Kill Bush's tax-cuts
• A supermajority requirement to cut corporate tax rates
• End the tax-exemptions of all churches and religious centers
• Enact a gradated tax code, poorer pay less, rich pay most.
• Enact a real inheritance tax on any amount over $100,000.00
• End all subsidies to corporate farms
• Add $0.50 sales tax per gallon of gasoline. Use 1/2 to subsidize urban transit projects
• Enact tough and bold legislation to charge proper fees for use of US broadcast airwaves

I'm not the smartest economist around, and I haven't even graduated high school, but all this shit seems simple to me.

1. enact a dynamic flat tax which changes annually and is calculated as rate = (federal budget / national income). when the budget goes up, taxes go up...immediately. when the budget goes down, taxes go down...immediately. no more tax deductions, no more IRS, no more arguments over tax cuts, no more "deficits" or "surpluses". no more sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. etc. etc.

2. Withdraw from all 742 military bases, and all occupied countries and illegal wars, saving $600 billion a year. write a check to all American's for $2,000 along with an apology.

3. take the $1.5 trillion spent on healthcare every year and write a $5,000 check to every American to use in purchasing a private healthcare plan. So the average husband and wife would get $10,000 a year to spend on healthcare for their family.

4. invoke civil and criminal suits against those parties responsible for the housing bubble, and the latest bailout, reclaim the $900 billion bailout and write a check to every American for $3,000. include a list of names of those indicted in the letter, along with an apology for failing to catch them sooner.

5. restore this country to a rule of law. Demonstrate this commitment by hanging a 100 foot replica of the Declaration of Independence in front of the white house, and mailing a letter-sized copy to every American. Publicly indict the congressmen, senators, public officials, police officers, and government employees who have failed to uphold their oath to the constitution. Give them 100 hours of community service at the local homeless shelter as a warning.

6. Issue a public statement on national television that this country was built with hard work and personal responsibility...not governmental assistance. Our commitment from freedom is what differentiates us from the other nations of the world, and we will strive to lead by example, not by force. There will be no governmental bailouts, no public works projects, no illegal wars. The government is here to protect you and your family, and provide you the freedom to succeed in whatever endeavors you choose.

• Enact a balanced-budget amendment
• End both the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan
• Close almost all US military bases outside of this country
• Cut-off financing the Israeli military forces
• Repeal all federal drug laws
• Slash the defense budget by half
• Kill Bush's tax-cuts
• A supermajority requirement to cut corporate tax rates
• End the tax-exemptions of all churches and religious centers
• Enact a gradated tax code, poorer pay less, rich pay most.
• Enact a real inheritance tax on any amount over $100,000.00
• End all subsidies to corporate farms
• Add $0.50 sales tax per gallon of gasoline. Use 1/2 to subsidize urban transit projects
• Enact tough and bold legislation to charge proper fees for use of US broadcast airwaves



I'm not the smartest economist around, and I haven't even graduated high school, but all this shit seems simple to me.