[geeks] Taxes

[Phil Stracchino]

Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> 
>> These days, I'm not certain going without a standing military is
>> wholly feasible.  The level of training and inventory required is too
>> high to be entirely replaced by a part-time volunteer militia.
> 
> I think a lot of that depends on how insistent we are upon irritating
> the rest of the planet.  When is the last time we had a direct military
> strike on our country?  We don't even know when the last attempt was,
> and the reason we're given is "national security".  Conveniently enough,
> we don't even need military enemies anymore; the government can just
> dangle the T-word and say we're at threat level tangerine/carrot and how
> we need to be worried about the next "credible hint" from an
> "unidentified source" about a "nonspecific target" of the next "probable
> attack".

Very true.  And indeed, the given reason why the US should not maintain 
a standing army is that it "encourages foreign military adventures", and 
is thus harmful to liberty.

> Imagine if, instead of one of the world's largest standing armies with
> bases in every corner of the globe (the sun never sets on America's
> military empire?), the US had locally-organized militias who received
> standardized training (and group buying power for munitions) from the
> Department of Defense.  Without being involved in everyone's business
> outside our borders (making long-term enemies and allies solely for the
> duration that we offer protection), we wouldn't have to pay the
> admittedly meager salaries of however many enlisted soldiers we have.
> We'd have people truly interested in protecting their -homes- and
> -communities- and ready to organize in the event that an immediate need
> for an active national defense developed.

Indeed.  On that score, I think there's something to be said for the 
Swiss model.

>> However, it COULD probably be replaced by that volunteer militia plus
>> a highly trained core rapid-response force ... such as, say, the
>> United States Marine Corps.
> 
> Exactly, but getting there will take a very severe change in our foreign
> policy--that change centered around recognizing the sovereignty of other
> nations to the degree that we would like ours to be respected.

Aye, and there's the rub.  And the present government and its corporate 
cronies have an enormous vested interest in maintaining the status quo 
(and in proceeding further down the same path).

>> Something like the Fair Tax would be an excellent first step, not
>> least because every time a citizen bought something, they would be
>> reminded of how much of each dollar they just spent is consumed by the
>> government.
> 
> No it wouldn't.  The Fair Tax explicitly demands that it be an
> "internal" tax.  That is, it's not some amount "plus VAT", it's just
> some amount, with that amount having the tax already figured in.  As
> things are right now, every American merely need only look at his
> paystub to see how much national government he is buying.

How many people scrutinize their paystubs line by line?  And even those 
that do mostly get to do it only once or twice a month.

> I keep hearing people say things to that extent.  "If only $foo would
> happen, people would see just how wasteful/expensive/expansive/etc the
> federal government is!"  Anyone in need of one more example or indicator
> thereof is likely already too dim to see that next one.
> 
> To be perfectly clear: we are subject to a national government that is
> evil, wrong and bad.  It uses evil means (theft, force) to do wrong
> things badly.

No argument there.


-- 
   Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
   alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
          Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                  It's not the years, it's the mileage.