Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[Will1]

I have heard the argument that Congress originally passed the amendment while it was basically inactive, but it really doesn't matter, especially in this case. An amendment approved by Congress must be ratified by 75% of the States. They had a chance to reject it. You will not undo ratification by stirring up controversy, saying that one or two states did not ratify. I can easily find that 38 states did.

Check the vote by the Kentucky Senate. I'd say that 22-9 against the amendment was a rejection rather than an acceptance of the 16th Amendment. Check the record of the Oklahoma legislature that shows that they rejected the 16th Amendment and substituted something else. To trust the Philanderer Knox's word that states accepted the amendment verbally is to trust Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler to rule. That makes the ratification of at least 3 states null and void. I find it really objectionable for the Secretary of State to be able to declare an Amendment to the Constitution ratified without proof that it was ratified by 3/4 (36 at the time Knox declared it ratified) something that what the government wants can be declared Constitutional when what the states voted on was NOT the exact wording and punctuation of the amendment that is being declared ratified. Of course federal judges are subject to the same sort of tyrantism that most people are who seek power over the people. Nothing the legislature of the states nor Congress can be declareed passed until both houses pass exactly the same wording and punctuuation as the other. However, hypocrites that we now have ruling us make an exception to give them more power when only 4 state legislatures passed the exact wording and punctuation that was submittted to them. The courts should have struck down the 16th Amendment as soon as the record of it's ratification was presented to them but they upheld the ratification because they are tyrants in the same catagory as Marx and Hitler, scoundrels who believe hat they have some sort of superior intellect to decide how people should be ruled. Therefore the 16th Amendment should be ruled invalid by the tyrants on the Supreme Court. I may not be as courageous a man as the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were but I'll certainly risk a few years in the prisons (practically country clubs thanks to the ACLU) of this country for the cause that they risked it all for.

I will happily be a fool who stays out of jail. Freedom is what you make of it. I accept the reality of the world I live in, legal or otherwise.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

Adams and the other 55 men who signed the Declaration of Independence put their necks in the noose to get us out from under the rule of the the tyrant, King George III, are probably rolling in their graves at the cowardie of people who now populate the land that they risked their lives to create.

We, the Tax Protesters, may not be enough now, but we are growing in number. We are not cowards like you!

[Mario F.]

We, the Tax Protesters, may not be enough now, but we are growing in number. We are not cowards like you!

And you are also great civil engineers who build roads, hospitals and libraries for free.

[Elkvis]

And you are also great civil engineers who build roads, hospitals and libraries for free.

Are you making the age-old argument that such things can only be built by government?

[phantomotap]

Are you making the age-old argument that such things can only be built by government?

O_o

Are you making the age-old argument that privately owned toll-roads, hospitals, and libraries are going to universally replace such government things?

Soma

[Will1]

And you are also great civil engineers who build roads, hospitals and libraries for free.

I gather you were trying to be sarcastic? Well you missed the point. The people with very large incomes don't pay taxes on much of it, they put most of it into tax exempt foundations. It would be nice to know how muxh money there is in tax exempt foundations in this country? They only have to spend 5% on philanthropic ventures which is a HELL of a lot less than the 35% they should pay in taxes according to the IRS code. Did you ever wonder why Tiger Woods and Bill Gates put so much money into their foundations? Well now you know. The 16th Amendment would have never reached the floors of Congress if they hadn't promised their rich benefactors that they would write this exemption into any tax law that they passed.

[Elkvis]

O_o

Are you making the age-old argument that privately owned toll-roads, hospitals, and libraries are going to universally replace such government things?

Soma

They certainly could. There is no reason to think that private enterprise could not or would not do these things. Clearly, it wouldn't be free, but at least patrons would know where their money is going, and could choose not to fund things that are inconsistent with their beliefs.

At the heart of libertarianism is the idea that all interactions between persons should be voluntary. Someone mentioned taxes being voluntary. In the US, taxes are not voluntary. The law mandates that a portion of a person's pay be withheld, and any excess be refunded at the end of the tax year. The problem I have with that is that the government has control of that money (specifically, the excess), and it is relatively easy for them to find a reason not to refund it at the end of the year. We can be thankful that they haven't done that yet. I suspect that they use it as a control mechanism to keep the masses from revolting under the heavy tax burden that they carry.

What I find most frustrating about people who are opposed to libertarianism (not saying that you are), is that they insist that libertarians have concrete solutions for every possible problem and scenario that might arise. At the same time, those same people are comfortable with an ever-expanding government, and are satisfied with nothing more than promises and flowery speech from that same government. The root of this, I think, stems from the fact that libertarians are typically of the caliber that do not make promises which they cannot know with certainty that they can keep. On the other hand, your typical statist politician of the D or R persuasion will happily make any promise necessary to get elected, even if they know with certainty that they cannot possibly keep that promise. People are generally gullible and stupid, and prefer promises and flowery speech over honesty coupled with a small degree of acknowledged uncertainty.

[Will1]

Are you making the age-old argument that privately owned toll-roads, hospitals, and libraries are going to universally replace such government things?

Funny you should mention privately owned things. Long before the federal government built the interstate highway system, the railroads were built and operated by private businesses. All of the hospitals in this country were built by private money except the VA hospitals but if you're not a military veteran you can't get into a VA hospital. As for libraries, they were almost universally built by local governments rather than the federal government. The government didn't do that! Oh pardon me, Obama says private entrepreneurs didn't do that. If private entreprenuers didn't do it, who in Hell did?

I have no problem with local or even state governments doing things. If I don't want to participate I can move to another town or state. The problem that we have in this nation is not local or state government overreach, it's federal overreach. In that context, I agree with Ronald Reagan.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison

[Elkvis]

I agree with Ronald Reagan.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison

I'm confused. Do you agree with Reagan or Madison?

[Mario F.]

They certainly could. There is no reason to think that private enterprise could not or would not do these things. Clearly, it wouldn't be free, but at least patrons would know where their money is going, and could choose not to fund things that are inconsistent with their beliefs.

So you don't want to pay taxes, but you'll pay a privately owned company to drive in their road. Exactly what are you against? Taxes or simply the idea of a government?

Also, what do you prefer?
a) A Government building roads and hospitals on public money because it's their responsibility and people demand it.
b) A large privately owned company building roads and hospitals because they decided to do it and no one can force them to do it. Especially on some distant forgotten county.

I see freedom very differently than you.

[phantomotap]

What I find most frustrating about people who are opposed to libertarianism (not saying that you are), is that they insist that libertarians have concrete solutions for every possible problem and scenario that might arise.

O_o

I said "universally" not "where financially responsible" or "where good public relations".

I want you to do me a favor. Think how much money the United States, and other, governments waste on financially irresponsible endeavors. Image just how much private entities could do with that? You got that? Billions of dollars to solve problems however you like, right? Are you imaging those funds for me? Good. Now add hungry investors to your visions. Still with me, yeah? Now, do you repair and repave a four mile stretch of road which is only used by four families? No. You don't. That isn't in any conceivably way a sound investment. The potential for toll is trivial. The implied workforce and income is just too small. You'd be dismissed for such a ridiculous waste of money without a plan for expansion/recouping already active. The support of the extremely diminished, the fringe, with such complex and expensive machinery is financial suicide.

Look, I don't care about your politics. I don't care about your "beliefs". I don't care about your religion, race, sex, sexuality, or gender identity. I also don't care for paying taxes, but you'll always find me on the side of taxes as much as I personally find them painful. You'll always have cynical bastards like me around causing "Tax Protesters"--as Will1 names--problems because I know good and well that people are not going support the fringe even as well as done by governments out of the goodness of mankind. I don't like taxation, but I am for taxation all the same. Forcing a lot of people to give a little is wrong in so many ways, but forcing a lot of people to give a little is at least an interim solution which has that if otherwise for nothing.

(Also, I don't care if you don't want to support the fringe. Again, I'm cynical by default; someone not wanting to support the fringe is nothing I don't assume so anyone offering that isn't telling me anything I don't already assume.)

[Edit]
I poorly worded "You talk about liberals claiming to have answers?".

That would have better been "You talk about the argument that liberals claim to have answers?" or similar.
[/Edit]

With all of that out of the way, let me tell you the real problem. You talk about liberals claiming to have answers? I don't have but one, and it is do extremely simple as to be self-evident. People are so afraid of change, holding to the current, that we take decades to move beyond crappy ideas. Look at your political promises from all directions: most are some flavor of "We will keep things the same." or "We will return to the good old days.". Nonsense. Idiocy. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, or jeffersonians and whigs. To me, all a bunch of nuts too afraid to try an idea on and admit it was wrong when it goes pear.

Soma

[Elkvis]

So you don't want to pay taxes, but you'll pay a privately owned company to drive in their road. Exactly what are you against? Taxes or simply the idea of a government?

I'm against compulsory payment for services I cannot be reasonably expected to use. I'd happily pay for a toll road, and I currently pay for medical insurance without argument. As a rather obvious example, I get no benefit from money and/or supplies sent to Israel, which are then used to attack Hamas, and "incidentally" kill Palestinian civilians. Why should I pay taxes if they're going to spend my money on that nonsense?

a) A Government building roads and hospitals on public money because it's their responsibility and people demand it.

The demands of the masses are not the only factor. I do not believe that it is government's responsibility to care for me when I'm sick, and the (in)efficiency with which they do everything is staggering.

b) A large privately owned company building roads and hospitals because they decided to do it and no one can force them to do it. Especially on some distant forgotten county.

At least in this scenario, I can be sure that my money isn't being spent on layer after layer of government bureaucracy. When the service provider answers directly to the service consumer, that is when the best service is provided. Instead, at least in the US, if there is a pothole in the road, I can't just go to the company that won the government contract to build the road and ask them to fix it. I have to go to a city or county board meeting, add the item to an agenda, wait 6-8 weeks for it to be heard in the open forum, and then they vote on whether to fix the pothole. Only then does the process of fixing the pothole begin. Next there is funding, possible contracting of additional services from the construction companies, oversight, inspection, and finally the actual repair of the road. This whole process could take up to a year, depending on the area.

This is a bit of an extreme example, but it is not unrealistic.

If the road were private, a simple call to the company that maintains the road could have it fixed in a day or two.

I see freedom very differently than you.

Real freedom is the state in which all interactions between persons is voluntary.

[Mario F.]

If the road were private, a simple call to the company that maintains the road could have it fixed in a day or two.

Or cover it up with sand and pretend for a few months that it never existed until someone notices, like the Playstation Network hack of 2011.

EDIT: I also noticed you dodged the problem of private investment in low population areas,

[phantomotap]

[Edit]Already silly emails; I'm out.[/Edit]

Soma

[Will1]

i'm confused. Do you agree with reagan or madison?

both!

[Elkvis]

both!

I found it a bit odd that you said you agree with Reagan, and then quote Madison.