I've been thinking about this on and off for the past couple weeks. People who work for the government tend to get greater job security, better benefits and sometimes much higher pay than their counterparts might get in the private sector. Not to mention the fact that their salaries are paid for with stolen money.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assert that in order to steer people away from working for government (or to make sure the ones who want to work for the government aren't doing it just to parasitically siphon taxpayer dollars into their pockets) shouldn't government officials, especially congressmen and senators be taxed higher than anyone else?
They're always trying to take money away from successful businesses, from smart investors or from wealthy people when they die, wouldn't it be nice to see them have to pay a heavier fine for their "public service"?
I know this thread is heavy on rhetoric, but seriously, why should they be allowed to spend other people's money and then get to keep their own?
I would make pay cuts in response to a deficit which grow with the deficit as well as making seriouse ramifications for corruption.
The Late Andrew Ryan: I would make pay cuts in response to a deficit which grow with the deficit as well as making seriouse ramifications for corruption.
I like this idea too.
Is there a way to deincentivize the hunt for political power? Yes, the solution is to stop paying taxes and fees and take jail instead and to stop using Federal Reserve Notes.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Is there a way to deincentivize the hunt for political power? Yes, the solution is to stop paying taxes and fees and take jail instead and to stop using Federal Reserve Notes.
And you think it would only take 5% of the population doing this for it to work?
I don't advocate the use of violence, but this is some food for thought.
http://tinyurl.com/ykuh5m3
liberty student: I don't advocate the use of violence, but this is some food for thought. http://tinyurl.com/ykuh5m3
This makes me wanna play Assassin's Creed 2 again. Lol, just kidding.
But seriously, as tempting as it is to imagine simply eliminating evil people from government and wherever else, I'd be afraid of the precedent it would set. Not to mention the retaliation the government would take. Seems to me the first thing we'd get would be the police state lockdown.
So I dunno, but it's kinda fun to think about. Even though it's awful and violent.
Regardless of what is done, as long as they own a monopoly on the use of coercion they will just re-establish themselves at a later date. They have the legal right to use force against all without fear of competition.
How do we get around that?
Also, get rid of pensions for all public employees, particularly federal ones.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
filc: Regardless of what is done, as long as they own a monopoly on the use of coercion they will just re-establish themselves at a later date. They have the legal right to use force against all without fear of competition. How do we get around that?
Well, if there is legislation that takes away the reward of government work, couldn't that remove the reward for advocating coercion and non-competition?
Alternatively, the private sector would have to have a military force comparable in power to the US armed forces I suppose.
Wanderer: Also, get rid of pensions for all public employees, particularly federal ones.
Also a good idea.
bloomj31:shouldn't government officials, especially congressmen and senators be taxed higher than anyone else?
Anyway, you're asking if the system can correct itself. It is physically possible but the incentive structure just isn't there.
Snowflake: This will backfire. In Texas, our reps get paid the same as they did a hundred years ago; about a thousand dollars a year. This makes it so only a rich person can become president.Senators/Congressmen aren't loaded because they get paid sweet... Anyway, you're asking if the system can correct itself. It is physically possible but the incentive structure just isn't there.
This will backfire. In Texas, our reps get paid the same as they did a hundred years ago; about a thousand dollars a year. This makes it so only a rich person can become president.Senators/Congressmen aren't loaded because they get paid sweet...
1. What's wrong with a rich person becoming president? Shouldn't it matter whether they want to take other people's money or not?
2. What changes would have to be made to the incentive structure in order for the system to correct itself?
bloomj31:1. What's wrong with a rich person becoming president? Shouldn't it matter whether they want to take other people's money or not?
bloomj31:2. What changes would have to be made to the incentive structure in order for the system to correct itself?
Snowflake: In Texas, you get paid ~$1000/yr. This is not enough to live on. Its not just the incentive structure of America, its the incentive structure of government in general: It is a monopoly of supreme power in the land. Whichever group controls this power can use it to their own ends. Whether we suffer a tyranny of corporations or mob rule, it will serve the purposes of those who control it, and its owners have no incentive to share its powers.
In Texas, you get paid ~$1000/yr. This is not enough to live on.
Its not just the incentive structure of America, its the incentive structure of government in general: It is a monopoly of supreme power in the land. Whichever group controls this power can use it to their own ends. Whether we suffer a tyranny of corporations or mob rule, it will serve the purposes of those who control it, and its owners have no incentive to share its powers.
1. I see. You're saying that basically only people with money will be able to get elected. Which makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
2. You might be right. But I still think the rhetorical value of asking government officials to put themselves through the same nonsense they put everyone else through could have an effect on how the public views the government. They play spin games so can we.
bloomj31:Well, if there is legislation that takes away the reward of government work, couldn't that remove the reward for advocating coercion and non-competition?
Whats to keep the political powers that be from removing that legislation?
We institute a tradition where if there is a bad harvest the cabinet is killed in sacrificial offerings?
I am not sure steering people away from working for the government would be the answer to reducing "power seeking". In fact, by taxing away much of their income, you would likely only be left with people who are involved for the purpose of seeking "power".
You are right that if you actually want to deincentive the hunt for political power, you would want to reduce the rewards of the hunt, but the reward they recieve is not the relatively small income that comes with government positions (a charasmatic go getter like Barack Obama could easily earn more money in the private sector), it is the power itself.
So the real question is how reduce the political power politicians can hope to gain. And I don't think there is an easy answer to that question outside of radical reforms to the government itself.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
filc: Whats to keep the political powers that be from removing that legislation?
Outside of precedent? I suppose nothing.
Student: I am not sure steering people away from working for the government would be the answer to reducing "power seeking". In fact, by taxing away much of their income, you would likely only be left with people who are involved for the purpose of seeking "power". You are right that if you actually want to deincentive the hunt for political power, you would want to reduce the rewards of the hunt, but the reward they recieve is not the relatively small income that comes with government positions (a charasmatic go getter like Barack Obama could easily earn more money in the private sector), it is the power itself. So the real question is how reduce the political power politicians can hope to gain. And I don't think there is an easy answer to that question outside of radical reforms to the government itself.
Perhaps you're right. I've just been thinking to myself for the past few weeks "maybe they'd stop trying to control my economic activity if they knew what it was like to have theirs controlled as well."
But you make a good point, removing the monetary reward probably isn't enough. Removing the actual power of the government would be the true solution. And I'm totally in favor of doing that.
Marko: We institute a tradition where if there is a bad harvest the cabinet is killed in sacrificial offerings?
You get my vote!
bloomj31: Spideynw: Is there a way to deincentivize the hunt for political power? Yes, the solution is to stop paying taxes and fees and take jail instead and to stop using Federal Reserve Notes. And you think it would only take 5% of the population doing this for it to work?
Yes.
bloomj31: They play spin games so can we.
Spideynw: bloomj31: Spideynw: Is there a way to deincentivize the hunt for political power? Yes, the solution is to stop paying taxes and fees and take jail instead and to stop using Federal Reserve Notes. And you think it would only take 5% of the population doing this for it to work? Yes.
Do not get him started... hehe we had a long thread about this.
5% of the U.S. population would be about 15 million new people in jail (300 million x 0.05).
That is almost 2x the current prision population. That would be quite a heavy burden for the state to lug.
Student: 5% of the U.S. population would be about 15 million new people in jail (300 million x 0.05). That is almost 2x the current prision population. That would be quite a heavy burden for the state to lug.
And this would be for another thread...
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
I should say 5% of the adult population instead, so more like 200 million *.05 or 10 million people. And the current prison population is about 2 million (if my memory serves me). So even if you only look at the adult population, you are talking about not just twice as many people, but five times as many people. Not only that, but most people that are incarcerated are the poor. Imagine if the middle class and wealthy, who have more resources to defend themselves with (legally speaking) stopped obeying.
Spideynw:I should say 5% of the adult population instead, so more like 200 million *.05 or 10 million people.
Snowflake:Do not get him started... hehe we had a long thread about this.
Spidey, it's worth a shot. I like the plan. Do you still pay your taxes?
bloomj31: Spidey, it's worth a shot. I like the plan. Do you still pay your taxes?
I do, because my employer reports my wages to the government, and I have a daughter to be concerned about. If I had my own business, like Ian at freetalklive.com, who does not pay federal income taxes, I would not pay taxes either. Who knows, if we are able to move to New Hampshire, I might just quit paying up there, where I know I have support.
Snowflake: Spideynw:I should say 5% of the adult population instead, so more like 200 million *.05 or 10 million people. Snowflake:Do not get him started... hehe we had a long thread about this. ^really, once this got started, the speculation never stopped.
Really, if you have something pertinent to say, please say it. Otherwise, keep your thoughts to yourself. Apparently two people in this thread easily understood my ideas right away. If you don't, that is your problem. It didn't take five pages for them to understand (and apparently after five pages, you still don't).
I take it that you are for limited government, a minarchist right? This is what I am observing I think...
Well if that is the case, I believe spidey's plan is for establishing anarcho-capitalism, just pointing that out there.
Spideynw:Really, if you have something pertinent to say, please say it.
Spideynw: It didn't take five pages for them to understand (and apparently after five pages, you still don't).
Libertarian_for_Life: I take it that you are for limited government, a minarchist right? This is what I am observing I think... Well if that is the case, I believe spidey's plan is for establishing anarcho-capitalism, just pointing that out there.
Yes, I am a minarchist, but I really want to see an anarcho-capitalist experiment done to see what happens. If it works I'll switch to being an anarcho-capitalist.
bloomj31:I really want to see an anarcho-capitalist experiment done to see what happens.
Snowflake: I just got my copy of Anarchy and Law. Apparently Anarcho-Capitalism flourished in ancient ireland for a thousand years, with the voluntary provision of law and "national" defense. During this time, Ireland was the most advanced civilization on earth.
I just got my copy of Anarchy and Law. Apparently Anarcho-Capitalism flourished in ancient ireland for a thousand years, with the voluntary provision of law and "national" defense. During this time, Ireland was the most advanced civilization on earth.
That's terrific. I guess I should've been more specific. I meant I wanted to see an anarcho-capitalist system tried out now, in modern times.
Nothing to hunt for: hereditary monarch and stuff.
bloomj31:I meant I wanted to see an anarcho-capitalist system tried out now, in modern times.
Snowflake: :P The Internet. You have hackers and viruses = aggression, and anti-virus = private protection agencies. Note that consumers can get these kinds of protections for free (with add support), and that online banking and email have undertaken their own security initiatives, independent of the government.Could you imagine if there was an internet government? It would probably try to physically hunt down perpetrators :P
:P The Internet. You have hackers and viruses = aggression, and anti-virus = private protection agencies. Note that consumers can get these kinds of protections for free (with add support), and that online banking and email have undertaken their own security initiatives, independent of the government.Could you imagine if there was an internet government? It would probably try to physically hunt down perpetrators :P
Lol, I guess that's sort of true.
And it's only going to get better...
Why anarchy fails