[EugenicHegemony] Income Tax debate advice

[Plekhanov]

I enjoy discussing alternatives to a better freer society.

You don’t discuss, you cut and paste reams of crap and hide behind your own monumental wall of ignorance when your hopelessly ideological ideas are subjected to scrutiny.

[EugenicHegemony]

What do you mean, 'someone taking over the economy'? Yes, I mean free market, free trade, no tariffs, no manipulation of supply and demand, pure unencumbered competition to set prices. I laid out a 17 point plan, and they were just some ideas. Yet, all here flamed me for everysingle one of them. I never claimed to have all the answers or even any of them. I enjoy discussing alternatives to a better freer society.

So now you are suggesting a market completly freed of any influence?

I'm no history expert, just a hobbyist, but I recall this period, roughly around the end of the 19th century, where we invented the term robber barons. Those were men who took advantange of the fact there were Zero laws regarding the economy and manipulated it into complete dominance.

Now I'm fairly certine the same would happen today, we would all love an ideal economy, but since humans arn't ideal, no economy will ever be completly free to be manipulated.

A free economy, will allways be manipulated to the utter gain of the most ruthless business manegers, now, more then ever.


It's like that old saying "Democracy is the worst system of government except for all others that have been tried." We've tried other systems, we've tried a de-regulated system(U.S 19th century), we've tried communisim(USSR, North Korea, Cuba for example), we've tried nearly every economic system ever proposed. What humanity has slowly, collectively discovered, is that while Capitalisim is at best, a working solution, there is nothing better.

When Capitalism decays it devolves into fascism. Corporate welfare at the expense of the citizenry is a prime example. Technology and science is the last frontier, and once they take that as their own it will the end. Orwell, here we come.

I see people being able to use any system they please, and I see no reason why not. We are so far advanced and so many more options are available to us now that were not in the 1800s. We have evolved as a species, and can manage our own lives if given the chance to do so. There will always need to be limited regulation, and I know this. I just what the government to remove itself from our economy, and also want them to relinquish control of the military as they just use it as their personal profit war demolition crew. Have you ever read "War is a Racket"?

[Surlethe]

That's the core of it, really. Your laughable position is based only on the blatherings of other loonies like you, and in an arena where you must provide solid, reliable evidence and sound logical reasoning, you're revealed for the worthless sack of shit you are, unable to hold your position.

<EugenicHarmony> A worthless sack of shit, if we broaden the meaning of "worthless sack of shit" to actually mean "brilliant economic genius"</EugenicHarmony>

Whoops, channeling the troll there for a second.

[Keevan_Colton]

All you've done is post your opinion and not refute any of it.

There's nothing to refute. The vast majority of what you've posted are Appeals to Authority; your own or someone else's. None of it has been backed by solid, logical arguments, but this is unsurprising: Your position is so completely untenable that you can't actually hold it without changing the meaning of words. Which, by the way, you can't do.

That's the core of it, really. Your laughable position is based only on the blatherings of other loonies like you, and in an arena where you must provide solid, reliable evidence and sound logical reasoning, you're revealed for the worthless sack of shit you are, unable to hold your position.

Have you had a look at the third section of his shit up there, the last guy totally disagrees with everything Mr. GoodCaseForEugenics has posted...

[EugenicHegemony]

I enjoy discussing alternatives to a better freer society.

You don’t discuss, you cut and paste reams of crap and hide behind your own monumental wall of ignorance when your hopelessly ideological ideas are subjected to scrutiny.

Scrutiny? Only blatant flaming. Not one idea out of the 17 did anyone even give a chance or bother to add their own. All you all wanted to do was degrade me and run any ideas I had into the mud , mummy said there would be days like this...she also said it had something to do with the crack she was taking while pregnant...I dont really understand what she meant...

[Edi]

*Read thread. Marvels at the "Bury Thy Opponents Under An Enormous Mountain of Copy-And-Paste Bullshit" 'debating' tactic used by the flamebait of the hour. Goes to launder toga and practice the appropriate thumb gesture.*

Unfortunately you might not get a chance to do more than practice. At the rate this particular troll is racking up violations, including insta-ban ones, I'll be surprised if he lasts long enough to be dragged in front of the Senate.

Edi

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Everything negative you have mentioned above, we already have in the U.S..

Thanks for the one-liner, shit-for-brains.

Let's see:

Routine panics and depressions: Nope. The worst we've had in the last seven or eight decades are recessions . . . none of which were nearly as profound as the one which struck the Dustbowl-era United States. The market also loses no more than a couple percentage points of its value when everybody decides to sell. That's not a panic. A panic is what happens when the market swings downward so abruptly that people make runs on the banks and hoard cash under their mattresses

Massive currency speculation: Umm, no. The currency barely loses or gains more than a few percentage points of it's average value. A certain amount of regulation is absolutely essential to prevent runaway inflation or contraction.

And I don't see anyone here taking up a hard-scrabble strictly-local agrarian existence, other than a mere handful of aging hippies living in communes in northern California. You also don't see sweatshops here either. Yes, rank-and-file blue-collar that still works here can bitch and moan about the benefits, or lack thereof . . . but, thanks to labor laws and a modest level of control, they actually have the ability to redress their grievances. Either by legal action, unionizing and going on strike, or working somewhere else. None of these choices would be available to them if all controls evaporated overnight. And while it is arguable that corporations here just shuffle their sweatshops offshore, the investment in the third-world nations ultimately helps their standard-of-life, when combined with a reasonably sane local government.

[EugenicHegemony]

That's the core of it, really. Your laughable position is based only on the blatherings of other loonies like you, and in an arena where you must provide solid, reliable evidence and sound logical reasoning, you're revealed for the worthless sack of shit you are, unable to hold your position.

<EugenicHarmony> A worthless sack of shit, if we broaden the meaning of "worthless sack of shit" to actually mean "brilliant economic genius"</EugenicHarmony>

Whoops, channeling the troll there for a second.

That broadened meaning of nationalized is not diametrically opposed at all, and very relevant to today's economy it is after all the economy of a nation...nation -> nationalized, see perfectly logical and not at all bullshit. That absurd condescending of mine does show any remark was entirely justified,and it wasn't very inventive either.

[Plekhanov]

We are so far advanced and so many more options are available to us now that were not in the 1800s. We have evolved as a species

The belief that "We have evolved as a species" since the 19th century is just so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

[SirNitram]

That broadened meaning of nationalized is not diametrically opposed at all, and very relevant to today's economy. That absurd condescending remark was ,and it wasn't very inventive either.

The 'broadened' meaning of nationalized is more correctly identified as 'Being a lying twat', and as for condescending? Get used to it. Your entire life will be like this, if you ever get off the computer.

[Ace Pace]

*stares* *keeps staring* I do not have the words to explain myself, You arn't answering my questions or discussing, each time I post you just post your standard message at me. Its not a discussion, its a wall.

When Capitalism decays it devolves into fascism. Corporate welfare at the expense of the citizenry is a prime example. Technology and science is the last frontier, and once they take that as their own it will the end. Orwell, here we come.


I see people being able to use any system they please, and I see no reason why not. We are so far advanced and so many more options are available to us now that were not in the 1800s. We have evolved as a species, and can manage our own lives if given the chance to do so. There will always need to be limited regulation, and I know this.

Please, while I agree with you(and I suspect several others would) that today capitalisim is taken to extream, but we take the oppisate conclusion, the issue is not wether its facisim or not. The issue is... *runs into english language barrier* What kind of solution are you offering, in ONE sentence. What you are suggesting, as in any system we please, I've tried to show you, is insanity.

You cannot have one dealer in the market giving away things freely to those who need them(communisim), another demanding service, a third expecting money, while the producers(who also have to live off their produce) get what? What is to stop one maker from deciding to rob all the rest and take over? What you are suggesting is an unworkable system...without regulation of what is possible and not.

We havn't evolved as a species, forget the fact even social evolution takes decades, look at what we have now as shining examples of human specimens. We have monsters and tyrants and we have useless parasites, we, have not evolved(regardless of its meaning), everytime we are givin the choice, most people choose the worst for themselves.

I just what the government to remove itself from our economy, and also want them to relinquish control of the military as they just use it as their personal profit war demolition crew.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying, you are saying the goverment should not handle the military, when one of its key jobs as the goverment is defense of the citizens? What do you suggest? An independent military? That leads into military control of the country as they hold the guns. Disestablishment of the military? Hello nearest country who wants to invade.

I'm afraid I really don't understand this latest post, on every level, and I'm here, not flaming, trying to understand.

[Plekhanov]

11)Wholly cut off government from our economy.

There will always need to be limited regulation

So who is going to provide this regulation if the government is “Wholly cut off government from our economy”?

[EugenicHegemony]

Everything negative you have mentioned above, we already have in the U.S..

Thanks for the one-liner, shit-for-brains.

Let's see:

Routine panics and depressions: Nope. The worst we've had in the last seven or eight decades are recessions . . . none of which were nearly as profound as the one which struck the Dustbowl-era United States. The market also loses no more than a couple percentage points of its value when everybody decides to sell. That's not a panic. A panic is what happens when the market swings downward so abruptly that people make runs on the banks and hoard cash under their mattresses

Massive currency speculation: Umm, no. The currency barely loses or gains more than a few percentage points of it's average value. A certain amount of regulation is absolutely essential to prevent runaway inflation or contraction.

And I don't see anyone here taking up a hard-scrabble strictly-local agrarian existence, other than a mere handful of aging hippies living in communes in northern California. You also don't see sweatshops here either. Yes, rank-and-file blue-collar that still works here can bitch and moan about the benefits, or lack thereof . . . but, thanks to labor laws and a modest level of control, they actually have the ability to redress their grievances. Either by legal action, unionizing and going on strike, or working somewhere else. None of these choices would be available to them if all controls evaporated overnight. And while it is arguable that corporations here just shuffle their sweatshops offshore, the investment in the third-world nations ultimately helps their standard-of-life, when combined with a reasonably sane local government.

Routine panics and depressions: Nope.

No, we're just bankrupt and the citizenry have to pay it all off while the government runs up all the debt they please. Real estate is in the shitter in case you haven't noticed.

Massive currency speculation:

Right, and our currency is loaned at interest. Interest free currency is what we need. Oil is worth more than the U.S. dollar. Are inflation is what it is because of the FED.

None of these choices would be available to them if all controls evaporated overnight.

Not over night, it wouldn't be a seamless transition and it would take some time. It would happen naturally.

And while it is arguable that corporations here just shuffle their sweatshops offshore, the investment in the third-world nations ultimately helps their standard-of-life, when combined with a reasonably sane local government.

I have no problem with outsourcing. It just needs to be denationalized. An extension of U.S. the free market.

[Ace Pace]

No, we're just bankrupt and the citizenry have to pay it all off while the government runs up all the debt they please. Real estate is in the shitter in case you haven't noticed.

Ah, in this case, I know something specific, Real Estate prices are at their all time highs and while it is stagnating, its as a result of over 15 years of rampent speculation at the real estate market, caused by...consumers.

I have no problem with outsourcing. It just needs to be denationalized. An extension of U.S. the free market.

Again, in the interest of me understanding you, could you please rephrase? Are you implying that corporate outsourcing is somehow connected to nations?

[Keevan_Colton]

I hadnt realized outsourcing was a government policy...

[Plekhanov]

Right, and our currency is loaned at interest. Interest free currency is what we need. Oil is worth more than the U.S. dollar. Are inflation is what it is because of the FED.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are just repeating buzz phrases you don’t comprehend

“Oil is worth more than the U.S. dollar” indeed

[EugenicHegemony]

*stares* *keeps staring* I do not have the words to explain myself, You arn't answering my questions or discussing, each time I post you just post your standard message at me. Its not a discussion, its a wall.

When Capitalism decays it devolves into fascism. Corporate welfare at the expense of the citizenry is a prime example. Technology and science is the last frontier, and once they take that as their own it will the end. Orwell, here we come.


I see people being able to use any system they please, and I see no reason why not. We are so far advanced and so many more options are available to us now that were not in the 1800s. We have evolved as a species, and can manage our own lives if given the chance to do so. There will always need to be limited regulation, and I know this.

Please, while I agree with you(and I suspect several others would) that today capitalisim is taken to extream, but we take the oppisate conclusion, the issue is not wether its facisim or not. The issue is... *runs into english language barrier* What kind of solution are you offering, in ONE sentence. What you are suggesting, as in any system we please, I've tried to show you, is insanity.

You cannot have one dealer in the market giving away things freely to those who need them(communisim), another demanding service, a third expecting money, while the producers(who also have to live off their produce) get what? What is to stop one maker from deciding to rob all the rest and take over? What you are suggesting is an unworkable system...without regulation of what is possible and not.

We havn't evolved as a species, forget the fact even social evolution takes decades, look at what we have now as shining examples of human specimens. We have monsters and tyrants and we have useless parasites, we, have not evolved(regardless of its meaning), everytime we are givin the choice, most people choose the worst for themselves.

I just what the government to remove itself from our economy, and also want them to relinquish control of the military as they just use it as their personal profit war demolition crew.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying, you are saying the goverment should not handle the military, when one of its key jobs as the goverment is defense of the citizens? What do you suggest? An independent military? That leads into military control of the country as they hold the guns. Disestablishment of the military? Hello nearest country who wants to invade.

I'm afraid I really don't understand this latest post, on every level, and I'm here, not flaming, trying to understand.

Please, while I agree with you(and I suspect several others would) that today capitalisim is taken to extream, but we take the oppisate conclusion, the issue is not wether its facisim or not. The issue is... *runs into english language barrier* What kind of solution are you offering, in ONE sentence. What you are suggesting, as in any system we please, I've tried to show you, is insanity.

I don't see at as convoluted and confusing as that. I look at that definition below and see how it pertains to present day America, and the UK. I now see it marching into Central Asia under the U.S. flag.

tr.v. na·tion·al·ized, na·tion·al·iz·ing, na·tion·al·iz·es
To convert from private to governmental ownership and control: nationalize the steel industry.
To make national in character, scope, or notoriety: “His high profile on such issues as abortion... has already begun to nationalize his image" (Kenneth L. Woodward).
To render distinctively national: characteristics and issues that have tended to nationalize American political life.

This is how I look at it and you can tell me what you think.

1)If you're a Socialist: The workers own the means of production and distribution, in your/their socialized institution/business.

2)If you're a Communist: Publicly Commune your capital with like minded people for collective institutions. Be it: schooling, police, health care, welfare, work, or anything they feel like (willingly) collectivizing.

Keyword=willingly

3)If you're a Capitalist: Well, you get the idea. We'll stick with our privatized property owning way of life. We can have private police forces that are run like any competitive business or fire departments, where if we dont pay up we have a fire...oops...forget that part of history. We could even decide to pay protection money into the communist police force and use their services.

In a free market no economic system is nationalized, and you're *free* to use any system you please and *free* to be beaten up and left in the gutter for dead too, which is an important and much underrated freedom.

That's what I feel it means to be free. I don't know if any of this could work, and I don't like the alternative we have now.

We havn't evolved as a species, forget the fact even social evolution takes decades, look at what we have now as shining examples of human specimens. We have monsters and tyrants and we have useless parasites, we, have not evolved(regardless of its meaning), everytime we are givin the choice, most people choose the worst for themselves.

Right, that's another reason I wanted to abolish lobbying. Cutoff their outlet for greed and power. If they can't exert their will or be bribed to pass legislation that friendly to their corporatist interest's, don't you think we'll be better off?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying, you are saying the government should not handle the military, when one of its key jobs as the government is defense of the citizens? What do you suggest? An independent military? That leads into military control of the country as they hold the guns. Disestablishment of the military? Hello nearest country who wants to invade.

I'm afraid I really don't understand this latest post, on every level, and I'm here, not flaming, trying to understand.

Having the military back in each states hands. Making it mandatory for a national plebiscite for foreign war. If they want to use our enlisted kids to fight in some far off land then we vote on it. If they want to use their CIA?FBI or any other murder crew than have at it. If a country has declared war on us then we can let the military defend our boarders. Or we can continue to allow them to use the military as their personal demolition crew with reckless abandon. I'm just trying to think of alternatives.

[Keevan_Colton]

Right, and our currency is loaned at interest. Interest free currency is what we need. Oil is worth more than the U.S. dollar. Are inflation is what it is because of the FED.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are just repeating buzz phrases you don’t comprehend

“Oil is worth more than the U.S. dollar” indeed

It's hardly suprising that he's just repeating stuff...he didnt even really read half the shit he posted. It actually laid out that an uncontrolled free market is likely to lead to fascism rather than the other way around and includes the gem of a phrase:

Most Western liberal democracies are currently held in the thrall of what some call market fundamentalism. Few nowadays question the flawed assumption that state intervention in the marketplace is inherently bad.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Routine panics and depressions: Nope.

No, we're just bankrupt and the citizenry have to pay it all off while the government runs up all the debt they please. Real estate is in the shitter in case you haven't noticed.

The current state of real-estate is the fault of the consumer.

Massive currency speculation:

Right, and our currency is loaned at interest. Interest free currency is what we need. Oil is worth more than the U.S. dollar. Are inflation is what it is because of the FED.

Yes, currency is generated by interest earned on loans. However, some growth of the economy is desirable. A fixed pool of currency will generate stagnation of the economy, not prosperity.

None of these choices would be available to them if all controls evaporated overnight.

Not over night, it wouldn't be a seamless transition and it would take some time. It would happen naturally.

Only in the mastubatory fantasy of anarchists who bitch about the market as it is, in spite of benefiting from it. In the real world, things would go straight to hell in a handbasket.

And while it is arguable that corporations here just shuffle their sweatshops offshore, the investment in the third-world nations ultimately helps their standard-of-life, when combined with a reasonably sane local government.

I have no problem with outsourcing. It just needs to be denationalized. An extension of U.S. the free market.

The fuck? I wasn't aware of the United States law that dictates that labor must be outsourced to foreign countries.

[Ace Pace]

Please, we were having a nice discussion, you confounded me.

I don't see at as convoluted and confusing as that. I look at that definition below and see how it pertains to present day America, and the UK. I now see it marching into Central Asia under the U.S. flag.

tr.v. na·tion·al·ized, na·tion·al·iz·ing, na·tion·al·iz·es
To convert from private to governmental ownership and control: nationalize the steel industry.
To make national in character, scope, or notoriety: “His high profile on such issues as abortion... has already begun to nationalize his image" (Kenneth L. Woodward).
To render distinctively national: characteristics and issues that have tended to nationalize American political life.

This is how I look at it and you can tell me what you think.

1)If you're a Socialist: The workers own the means of production and distribution, in your/their socialized institution/business.

2)If you're a Communist: Publicly Commune your capital with like minded people for collective institutions. Be it: schooling, police, health care, welfare, work, or anything they feel like (willingly) collectivizing.

Up to this point, excepting your defintion of nationalised, I'm fine with you. You belive socialisim means everyone owns their workplace. And Communisim means.. uh, I don't understand but lets drop it. This is leading nowhere.

3)If you're a Capitalist: Well, you get the idea. We'll stick with our privatized property owning way of life. We can have private police forces that are run like any competitive business or fire departments, where if we dont pay up we have a fire...oops...forget that part of history. We could even decide to pay protection money into the communist police force and use their services.

Do you have any idea of what capitalsim today actully is aside from your examples?
We currently do not have private police forces, we might have pressure and corrupt police officers but paid officers? I'm not sure where you live, but no where I've been to has it been like this. This is just... I'm trying to re-read this paragraph, trying to understand it and unfortunatly it just goes against everything I see.

In a free market no economic system is nationalized, and you're *free* to use any system you please and *free* to be beaten up and left in the gutter for dead too, which is an important and much underrated freedom.

That's what I feel it means to be free. I don't know if any of this could work, and I don't like the alternative we have now.

Anarchy. Anarchy, long have I waited to see you say this.

You do realise the inner problem with Anarchy? On one hand you claim humanity has 'evolved' to be better, to make our own choices, on the other hand you are telling me anarchy is a viable system. Guess what, we didn't gain the ability to get man on the moon or to build things thinner then a human hair by living in fear of being killed just because its a free economy. Anarchy is a system that does not work, its proven all over Africa, when you let the person with the most force gain control, you're effectively throwing away everything.

We havn't evolved as a species, forget the fact even social evolution takes decades, look at what we have now as shining examples of human specimens. We have monsters and tyrants and we have useless parasites, we, have not evolved(regardless of its meaning), everytime we are givin the choice, most people choose the worst for themselves.

Right, that's another reason I wanted to abolish lobbying. Cutoff their outlet for greed and power. If they can't exert their will or be bribed to pass legislation that friendly to their corporatist interest's, don't you think we'll be better off?

Be careful what you wish for. Lobbying rose out of the NEED for people to communicate with their chosen representatives and to make themselves heard. Lobbying is the only way anyone can affect his representative outside of voting.

And corporations don't have to use the lobbying method, they mostly don't. You are just proposing closing off another avenue of democracy.

But this is all a fucking red herrng from the main point

Having the military back in each states hands. Making it mandatory for a national plebiscite for foreign war. If they want to use our enlisted kids to fight in some far off land then we vote on it. If they want to use their CIA?FBI or any other murder crew than have at it. If a country has declared war on us then we can let the military defend our boarders. Or we can continue to allow them to use the military as their personal demolition crew with reckless abandon. I'm just trying to think of alternatives.

Military in state hands can easily lead to Civil war and state seperation. I won't even bother going down this road, its been trode upon allready by millions.

When a president decides(in case of the U.S), to go fight a war, he is supposed to go through congress(Which represents the people, don't even go into referendum territory), unfortunatly, you are trying to tie President Bush's decisions as a matter of course. Suprise, its an exception.

CIA, FBI murder crews? I'm going to leave this for someone else, because its just completly off the base I'm going to imagine you said Mossad.

Just to add a touch of Military and international realisim, a country which attempts to defend itself peice meal(since thats what state militarys are), is a nation begging to be conquoured, military defense is complex overall thing, if you want, we can detour to state militaries.


Honestly, I don't see where you are going with half your points, basicly lay out, in one paragraph, why you think your completly free economy will work, with no exceptions.

[Son of the Suns]

EugenicHegemony has decided to dare a moderator to ban him.

So in keeping with SD.Net tradition, he shall....





NARFAL THE GARTHOK!!

[Ace Pace]

I'm dissapointed in him, I was hoping for more fun. But the mods have chosen.

ANOTHER TROLL TO THE FIRE!

[Son of the Suns]

Usually we let it go until said troll is foaming at the mouth, however I never can resist the ban hammer when someone actually dares us to use it. I believe his exact words were

Spike it bitch. Ban me, see if I care

[Ace Pace]

Can this be moved to parting shots, so he can see this?

[The Dark]

Argh! the income tax thread got moved while I was replying to it. In here it goes (someone move it there, pretty please with sugar on top?)

1)Strict adherence to the Constitution; otherwise it becomes onerous and government become our master. It's in place more to keep government on a leash with the citizenry holding it; more than it is for the actually citizenry.

Strict adherence, eh? As far as I can tell, the only thing w'ere not doing currently is interpreting portions of the Bill of Rights totally literally (oh, noes, we don't actually have organized militias) and giving the executive more power than he's authorized to have.

2)Abolish the electoral college: ending district voting blocks and ending gerrymandering. (One person one vote)

If you had studied history, you would understand there was a reason the electoral college was formed. It does give relatively more voting power to the small states, but it also serves as a safeguard to prevent their interests from being totally irrelevant. Given how much of a hellhole portions of New Jersey have become due to the pollution of unregulated industry, I don't want to see what would happen if the small states suddenly had an essentially non-existent voice in the political process (besides the possibility of secession, given that the original threat was to not ratify the Constitution without the electoral college in place). You've now violated your own first precept once.

3)Install IRV or some derivative. (Majority rule no more plurality voting.

IRV is not monotonic (meaning a vote for you can actually be a bad thing). Somewhere between 1-5% of IRV elections end up with the most voted-for candidate losing the election. Additionally, in an election similar to the California gubernatorial recall election, it would have taken roughly 67 times as much counting to determine the winner as it actually did. It took 38 days to certify the election under the current system. It could have taken 8 years under IRV, or a hell of a lot more expense in elections workers. IRV also tends to exaggerate two-party domination, as the easier-to-elect candidates tend to be pushed to the top and bottom of voters' lists, while harder-to-elect candidates, even if better liked, are placed in the middle, which is an unelectable position.

4)End compulsory public schooling. (They condition and breed future labour)

Oh, goody, so instead we'll have illiterate ignoramuses. Mandatory public schooling was installed because in order to survive in an industralized society's economy, some standard of education must be met. Additionally, public schooling is often included in state constitutions, meaning that ending mandatory public schooling would require the Federal government to intrude into states' rights. You've now violated your own first precept twice.

5)Install term limits. (Congress has become a lifestyle which we as a working people make possible, nothing more; then that must end. As of now, congress has a 99% incumbency rate. They are royalty, and term limits will end that reign)

There were 63 new Congress members for the 108th Congress. There are 535 members. That suggests a no higher than 88% incumbency rate. That's still high, admittedly, but these are people with job experience who tend to appear to act to the benefit of their constituents. Term limits would mean constantly rotating untrained, inexperienced persons into the office, and would essentially transfer even more power to the executive branch.

6)Decentralize governmental power. (Jefferson's idea, and a real conservative. There are none left in government today)

This isn't an idea. It's a goal.

7)Abolish Supreme Courts. (They're: appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land; therefore it's absurd. As of now the more capital you have the better chance of getting appeals and a never ending process ensues. 1-2 appeal limit with no more than a year bewteen appeals .No USSC to dictate the outcome. A jury of your peers is all we need)

Considering how little my peers understand about the law and legal procedure, I don't want a jury of my peers. I have friends and relatives who are lawyers, and it's not a simple occupation. Additionally, the cost of legal representation is intolerable for low-income persons. Without government-mandated Public Defenders, many poor people would have no legal representation at all. Oh, and the Supreme Court is mandated under the Constitution. You've now violated your first precept three times.

Denationalize our economy. (Free unencumbered markets. Use any system you please: Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. If you are a fascist, then you're out of luck. They've forced a command economy on the workers of America, while giving themselves and their special interests a free anarchic market)

Ah, so the markets may be "free", as long as one uses a system you like. Here's a concept: a free, unencumbered market leads to extreme economic destabilization and radical swings between boom and bust. It tends to lead to high unemployment, businesses going bankrupt due to inability to earn profits during booms and inability to cover fixed costs during busts, and a general economic collapse.

Dismantle the Welfare State. (Enough said)

No, not nearly enough said. Again, this is a fucking goal, not an idea. What constitutes a "welfare state"?

9)Decriminalize drugs. (First the Welfare state must be abolished or we will all continue to pay)

Well, at least the part not in parentheses makes sense. I can agree with decriminalizing some of the less dangerous drugs, since their health risks are really no worse than the current crop of legal drugs.

10)Abolish lobbying. (They have become closed society guilds with government for the elite)

As much as I would like for this to happen, the truth is that under American law, corporations are considered legal entities, with the rights and responsibilities thereof. To do this, that law would have to be changed, which could very easily lead to corporations no longer being legally responsible for their actions, but rather the workers being responsible for mistakes. In the case of the Firestone fiasco, that would've meant lawsuits against assembly line workers in (IIRC) Mexico.

11)Wholly cut off government from our economy. (End protectionism)

Not possible without the complete abolition of government. Additionally, trade between the states and trade between the states and foreign nations is controlled by the government as per the Constitution. You've now violated your first precept four times.

12)Make it illegal for government to commingle with any private entities and vice versa. (All subsidization will end).

So, how will the government maintain the public roads? How will utilities be run? Lad, you need to think through the logical consequences of your decisions. Between 11 and 12, you've essentially destroyed all roads, power lines, and water utilities. Congratulations, you've killed America.

13)Denationalize Globalization.

OK, this one I can't even address because it makes no fucking sense.

14)Abolish all Central Banks. (Ending the governmental monopoly on: prices, rents, wages, salaries, capital, inflation, deflation, interest rates, stock market just to name a few. That is our lifeblood and it's not capitalism; it's more like nationalized communism)

False, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, and false. Prices, rents, wages, and salaries are all controlled within the market. Capital is determined by the willingness of companies to invest in the future, which is determined *gasp* by the market. Inflation and deflation at most can be influenced by the Federal Reserve's actions, but they are in no way controlled by it. Seeing as how interest rates are based on inflation or deflation, reread my last sentence again. The stock markets (plural, nimrod) are privately owned and operated organizations.

15)Abolish income tax (It's a war tax. It was used for the Spanish American war, civil war, WWI just to name a few. One year prior to WWI. Does 1+1=2 for any of you)

The income tax is the only current way of maintaining a non-regressive tax structure on disposable and discretionary income. And if you really want to abolish the Spanish American war tax, it's the 3% tax on your phone bill you get every month, not an income tax. By the way, an income tax was also passed in 1894, but was struck down in 1895 (before the SA War). The next one was the Constitutional Amendment of 1909, which was finally ratified in 1913. If they were preparing for World War I, they quite a while to do it, seeing as how the amendment was five years prior to Franz Ferdinand's assassination and eight years prior to direct American involvement. Oh, and you've violated your first precept a fifth time. Getting to be quite a habit.

16)National plebiscite for foreign war; unless a country is preparing to invade our soil with: tanks, battleships, planes, and infantry. (Irregulars and guerrillas need to be taken with counter intelligence and world police; not exclusive to the U.S. and not their responsibility alone. Large military action is counterproductive to defeating them. If this government wants to use their CIA/FBI or any other murder than have at it. If they want to kill enlisted kids for personal corporatist profit; then they will need to ask the American people first).

So the mob should determine when we go to war? Given the man in the street's lack of military understanding and ability to be easily influenced, this is extremely dangerous. It also violates the Constitution's clause that only Congress may declare war. You've violated your first precept a sixth time.

17)Open policy. (A potential enemy will know we (all) know: what they're up to, where they are, what they're doing, and where they're going; therefore they have no place to hide)

Within six months we'd lose a lot of our scarce HUMINT resources, since knowing what we know would give opponents the ability to figure out how we know it, and eliminate our agents. This idea is irresponsible, immaturely thought out, and just plain fucking stupid.