885
886

Imagine that... (i.imgur.com)

chabanaisFortis est veritas が 投稿

全 193 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]chunkosauruswrexlibertarian party 152ポイント153ポイント  (59子コメント)

We didn't have the interstate system which is probably the single greatest achievement of the federal government, and would probably be the hardest for a private party to accomplish due to crossing so many state lines.

[–]HippeHoppe 57ポイント58ポイント  (11子コメント)

1) There are a lot of criticisms within economic and sociological literature of the interstate highway system. The interstate highway system has had a lot of less-than-obvious negative consequences:

1A) The interstate highway system was a massive subsidy for long and short distance automotive travel (as opposed to mass transit) and for urban sprawl+suburbanization which was dependent on that automotive travel. As a consequence, mass transit is far less competitive in a free market, and this is arguably responsible for a pretty significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding global warming.

1B) The decentralization of cities (as a result of the suburbanization which the interstate highway system encouraged) is economically inefficient - it diffuses and decreases overall economic activity over a large area (cities are far more economically vibrant than the same sum of people scattered across suburbs due to commerce being very clustered together and therefore better able to interact in spontaneous ways).

1C) Suburbanization occurred for historically racist ways (facilitated by racist federal housing policy and welfare policy which favored whites - e.g., federal regulations on real estate pricing/redlining/housing insurance, racist local authorities responsible for the distribution of New Deal subsidies, etc.) and had racist consequences (the functional segregation of urban blacks from suburban whites).

2) The Federal government is obviously not necessary for interstate commerce or infrastructure, because we see these sorts of projects occurring now/in the past without federal oversight. The state is only necessary to remove barriers to investment across state lines, as in the case of the federal government preventing individual states from constructing barriers to interstate commerce. Perhaps, provided we need a state in the first place, this is an argument for the federal government intervening to prevent barriers to interstate commerce (this is also a big assumption, because opening up markets rarely - historically - requires some 'high secular power' to intervene; the market has come up with creative ways of opening up markets in the past), but it definitely isn't an argument as to why the federal government needs to be actively involved in investing in these projects.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 32ポイント33ポイント  (6子コメント)

Actually, one of the main reasons the Articles of Confederation were abandoned and the Constitution was adopted was to create a more powerful central government that could oversee interstate commerce. Thomas Jefferson built one of the first federal highways while he was president, the Cumberland Road.

[–]HippeHoppe 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I didn't argue that the Federal Government wasn't salubrious or historically used to promote interstate commerce (by overcoming barriers to interstate investment), only that it isn't necessary nor, even if we stipulate that it is necessary, that the scope of this necessity covers investment as well as jurisdictional issues.

Even if we assume that the Federal Government may be necessary to overcome state barriers to interstate trade (say, Indiana refuses to allow a rail line from Ohio to Illinois to pass through its borders, so the Federal Government mandates it accedes to the construction), it doesn't follow that the Federal Government requires every power, only a jurisdictional power to override state objections (as in the rail line example, the Feds were necessary to eliminate a barrier to trade - Indiana's refusing the rail line access -, but they are not necessary to promote the investment itself - it's a private rail line). So this argument really only justifies granting the federal government jurisdictional primacy over the states (not a legal scholar, but I think many strict constitutionalists would argue that this is the original intent of the Commerce Clause).

Now, I don't even think that this is practically necessary, though I might be willing to concede that it's better than the alternative (though even this is debatable). We could live in a world where companies negotiate with states on a case-by-case basis for interstate commerce approval rather than turning to the Feds to mandate state assent. This may seem overly complicated, but, in many cases, this is how international trade works, and how long-distance trade has been historically handled, and how trade in the market works (people negotiate on deals on a case-by-case basis based on compromise). There are definitely counter-arguments to this position, but we'd also have to consider the secondary advantages of such a system (the possibility of Federal misuse of the jurisdictional authority afforded it by the commerce clause).

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

The people at the time felt it WAS necessary. Thus they abandoned the articles of confederation and adopted the Constitution.

[–]HippeHoppe 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

1) Some people felt it was necessary.

2) It's unclear why some people thinking something was necessary in the past means that it ever really was necessary or continues to be today. People at the time also thought slavery was necessary. This is just a huge appeal to authority.

3) The interstate highway system was not established by the same people who wrote the Constitution.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party -5ポイント-4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, some people that lived through it versus a reddit keyboard cowboy. I'm sure there are other ways to address these concerns. There are always are.

[–]HippeHoppe 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm honestly not sure what you said here.

[–]ninjaluvrlibertarian party 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

One too many ares...

[–]baddox 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps it won't go over well here, but don't forget the environmental impact of the massive subsidy on automobile travel and freight.

Oh, and then there's the absolutely ludicrous number of deaths on US roads. There is no way anything even close to that number of deaths would be remotely accepted if it wasn't the government managing the roads.

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]ohchristworld 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

But you also have to remember that the population explosion necessitated and continues to necessitate urban sprawl. You can't just keep the same population in the same space and expect it to work just so everything stays a little more green. Different strokes for different folks. And yes, race did play a part. But there are plenty people of multiple races now living in suburbia so your argument is a struggle there too. You're correct in every point you made, but it doesn't mean you're right.

[–]HippeHoppe 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This simply isn't true: rising populations do put pressure on housing and raise real estate prices to be sure, but if urban sprawl were really more desirable than the alternative, we would have seen - ceteris peribus - transportation infrastructure capable of supporting it without state intervention. State intervention was necessary because this was not the case: because it is far cheaper to adopt a type of urban development than suburban sprawl. If the state had not set up the infrastructure to support suburbanization (and had not provided the incentives and material support - through federal housing and insurance regulations - for the mass exodus of whites to the suburbs), we almost certainly would not have seen American cities form the same way we have.

I don't expect that the alternative would only have been "vertical" development upward (not every American city would style itself after Hong Kong or Tokyo), but cities would definitely be more densely populated in general, and they would probably be more separated/distinct, connected by different forms of mass transit (so we wouldn't see the sort of consistent, suburban 'spread' over large areas).

[–]rshorning 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

It should also be pointed out that the interstate highway system was built with a consumption tax, specifically the fuel tax on gasoline and Diesel fuel. Some other money was used too, but very little of it came from income taxes.

I'm not saying that taxes of any kind are a good thing, but at least with a consumption tax you can avoid consuming and never have to pay that tax. Grow your own food, make your own bio-Diesel fuel, and other ways to get around paying those kind of taxes if you are determined or simply disagree with them. Furthermore, a consumption tax doesn't require any sort of complicated end of the year tax filings except for the retailer, which is also something that can be done on a single sheet of paper even for that retailer and certainly doesn't need a CPA to figure out.

You definitely don't need to have big brother tracking individuals and keeping track of all sorts of private information that most people really want to keep private and especially want to keep from prying government bureaucrats.

[–]Muggzy999[🍰] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

And, space. Government was about 50 years ahead of private industry on that one. Private industry is just starting to get into space, government's already on mars.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, there is that whole, amateur rocketeers are terrorists problem.

[–]iopq 11ポイント12ポイント  (8子コメント)

It's hard for a private company to accomplish because of crossing imaginary state lines? Good thing we can fix that with a federal government. Now we just need a world government to fix things crossing government lines.

[–]chunkosauruswrexlibertarian party 12ポイント13ポイント  (7子コメント)

If you like States having their own individuality and be more self-governing it would make an interstate difficult because each state would have did current regulations for their roads, which would make Logistics a nightmare

[–]Warnings 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're on reddit. Do you expect anyone here to be rational enough to see that every ideology has areas where on a practical level it's tenets break down?

It's like Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. Each works inside the right context and scope but become less applicable when the context and scope are wrong. There is no time or place when one ideology can answer all woes with perfect efficacy.

[–]joe9439 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Because states can't cooperate and work things out right?

[–]electricalnoise 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

They already don't. Why would anything change about that?

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Holy fuck are you unaware of the world before 1970.

[–]electricalnoise -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Holy fuck we're living in 2015. Get over yourself.

[–]TheSouthernCross 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you only taken interstates across borders? Lol, you're being an alarmist.

[–]elebrinminarchist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

They do anyways. Speed limits and traffic laws are all over the place, even on the interstate. Source: just finished a cross-country road trip.

[–]ADH-Kydex 12ポイント13ポイント  (22子コメント)

Schools also sucked hard core. I know people like to bunch about the current state of education, but it sure beats a one room schoolhouse writing bible verses on a slate.

[–]elebrinminarchist 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

When we had one room schoolhouses with writing bible verses on a slate we had the best education system around, for the sorts of students they were servicing. To say that a small community school run as a business couldn't have a modern curriculum and use modern tech is pretty disingenuous.

[–]MelodyMyst 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a very interesting essay in Robert heinleins book "expanded Universe" in it he detail what the curriculum his father learned, then what he himself learned, then what was being taught at the time he wrote it.

What his father had to learn to graduate would cause today's students to commit suicide.

[–]ADH-Kydex 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The point OP is making was that the country managed fine before an income tax in several areas. However. We have a vastly different country now than we did then. We have more land and what, tripple the population? There are a lot of kids out there to educate. What worked in the past won't work today, even with modern curriculum.

I think a small community school would be fantastic, lots of great things about the approach. But they won't be able to serve the majority of students. If you think education is expensive now, hire tripple the amount of teachers, administrators, janitors, and and support staff if we go to smaller schools as the norm.

[–]D742 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good luck with that AP Chem.

[–]elebrinminarchist 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Know what? The vast majority of chemistry and physics happens with pen and paper, in a notebook. It's mathematics under a different name. You don't need so much as a single beaker to learn it. I say this as someone who went through AP chemistry and AP physics before getting a degree in a science field.

[–]joe9439 8ポイント9ポイント  (10子コメント)

Every private school I'm aware of in my town is at least 1000% better than public schools.

[–]ADH-Kydex 23ポイント24ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's a lot of percents. My guess is that number would be quite a bit lower if private schools had the brunt of the educational load in the country. It's easy to excel when you have about 10% of the students, the ones with parents who value education and have the extra money to pay for a private school.

Apples and oranges.

[–]rshorning 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I have a whole lot of experience with charter schools, and in my view every charter school is doing as well as the best of the regular public schools in my area or better. Part of their success is due to the fact they are smaller schools, but none of those charter schools turn students away or do any sort of discrimination based upon income, race, or even geographic location (other than simply being in the same county as the other schools).

About the only real difference you might see is that the parents at charter schools care about the schools themselves, and that the teachers themselves know that it is a cut throat competition for attracting students into those schools, where getting good students matters.

The really bad students (major discipline problems or with criminal histories) all attend alternate schools anyway, so I think comparing charter schools to conventional public schools is a direct apples to apples comparison, other than pointing out where I live the regular public schools have a better advantage of more money due to the fact they have independent taxation authority that the charter schools don't have.

I know not all charter schools function the same way they do where I live (which is Utah), but the freedom to say "this school sucks, I'm taking my kid somewhere else" definitely has its advantages and even is cleaning up the local conventional public schools as well.

[–]ADH-Kydex 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I worked in an alternative school, districts were very hesitant to place students outside the district unless they had very serious issues. Lots of kids with behavioral issues stay in public school because it is cheaper, and in many cases the district doesn't want to risk due process by not providing the least restrictive environment possible.

[–]Gametista 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not sure why you were downvoted for your thoughts here, was interesting to me, thank you.

[–]rshorning 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are a whole bunch of people, mainly teachers' unions and people associated with the educational establishment, that really hate charter schools. I think it is partly because these teachers really don't want to be in a genuine marketplace of ideas where parents and students can be choosy about what school their kids attend. In right to work states, often those charter schools don't have anybody in the teachers' unions either.

Why large numbers of hardcore unionist liberals are hanging around on the Libertarian discussion pages is something that might be interesting to find out though.

[–]AndrewGasparfriedmanite 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I went to a private school that was, at least by test scores, typically the number one school in the state. But I think to attribute that purely to the power of the free market might be a little unfair. My impression was that parents who were willing to pay tuition above and beyond their taxes were typically more invested in their child's education, which is more likely what produced that result. Correlation more than causation. The same students probably would do just as well in a public school.

My guess, though, would be that a private system would be more efficient, at least as far as expenditures per student goes, without a change in quality. Plus you'd get a wider variety of quality allowing more choices on the part of parents as to how their children are educated.

[–]polyethylene2 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

And every private school I'm aware of in my home town sucked compared to the public high school. We need more information than that.

[–]D742 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

You need to move. Obviously you live around a bunch of people who don't care about knowledge, critical thinking and education. You pick your friends, but you are also to a degree responsible for picking your neighbors.

The public school in my town produced 6 med school admissions from the class that the local private school put up a billboard bragging about their 1. Not to mention the engineers, math majors, computer science majors and the young lady who is playing in a major European Symphony Orchestra.

Now if you have moved to a location that has low school taxes, and now find that the schools suck, then that is a choice that you made.

[–]joe9439 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not saying our public schools suck. I'm saying that in most cases our private schools are better than public schools. I think that if just about anyone had a choice they would send their children to private schools. That choice is taken away from people when taxes are levied.

[–]D742 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I had that choice. I moved to a location that valued education.

As a bonus I got some pretty good and interesting neighbors. And my kids got some impressive role models.

[–]E7ernalDecline to State -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Have you seen public schools today? They still suck. They just waste more money.

[–]ADH-Kydex 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yep, wife is a teacher is a good district.

They exist and no they are not as rare as you might believe.

[–]illuminutcase 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also public schools educate everyone. Private schools educate mostly wealthy kids, and whether you like it or not, that plays a huge part in education. Kids growing up in poverty tend to not be very good students, they also tend to not go to private schools. The same thing goes for kids with pretty much any poor family structure.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Primarily because only the wealthy can afford to pay double tuition as we force them to now.

[–]E7ernalDecline to State -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I went to one of the best public highschools in the nation. They still suck.

[–]HippeHoppe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really true - during the 19th century, private schooling provided for the majority of education in the United States (out-servicing public schools in the relevant case studies). Moreover, the introduction of public schools in the United States actually did not increase total educational access over time, but displaced the private school share of the market (over a 24 year period, from 1826 until 1850 during which the Horace Mann public school system was instituted, overall educational access in Boston remained 45.4%, though the share provided by private schools declined). Most of the motivation for displacing private schools was rooted in a desire to instill "civic virtue" in Americans, and fear of the subversive nature of private (particularly Catholic, particularly Jesuit) education, with modern progressive themes of increased educational attainment being a convenient ex post facto explanation imputed onto an original prejudicial justification. Public schooling in the United States emerged largely as a form of Calvinist, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant indoctrination campaign, and it was generally quite ineffective and expensive.

[–]qemist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Didn't stop them building railways.

[–]joe9439 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

It did have toll roads which are better because they are billed based on use rather than socialized.

[–]D742 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

And may I introduce you to the scandal that is the Pennsylvania Turnpike...

http://topics.pennlive.com/tag/turnpike%20scandal/index.html

[–]joe9439 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

May I introduce to the concept called taking a different road.

[–]TotesMessenger 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]chunkosauruswrexlibertarian party 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol saying the government got one thing right makes me a statist. We wouldn't have seen the growth in commerce and reduction in prices without the interstate system making trucking easy and efficient.

[–]dcman00000Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No we did, it just wasn't the highway system.

The federal government has been in control of a national roads system since the creation of the constitution.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If the military didn't want/need a way to move a bunch of equipments, we wouldn't have it now.

[–]One_Winged_RookI Don't Vote -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

the interstate highway act was inspired by nazis

edit: /s

[–]se3k1ngarbitrageIndependent Thinker 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

So what?

[–]ksheep 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just another case of Reductio ad Hitlerum, totally normal Reddit behavior.

[–]therob91 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I bet Nazis slept sometimes too, and ate food. All these fucking little Hitlers running around still being alive, assholes.

[–]The_Yar 22ポイント23ポイント  (41子コメント)

We also had all of these things before we had an immigration policy, too.

[–]joe9439 19ポイント20ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think any libertarian is for totally open immigration provided that it occurs in an environment of a total lack of welfare.

[–]The_Yar -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well no one has to be "totally" anything. But the bogey-man fear of immigrants exploiting welfare has yet to materialize as any real concern.

[–]joe9439 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you have a bunch of free money in an extremely rich country and a bunch of people in places like Africa who are struggling to get by and have food to eat then it's a natural conclusion that poor people are going to migrate to the area of free money.

[–]The_Yar -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, all those poor people in Africa are going to hop on the next plane, First Class.

Your view of this is naive. Only the ambitious risk-takers of the world make the decision to migrate for a chance at better life. When they get here, they work the crappiest jobs and fight our wars for us. It is that alone that keeps this country American generation after generation.

[–]joe9439 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good! They won't miss the welfare when we get rid of it all then!

[–]The_Yar 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably not. It's not why they're here.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, capital L libertarians (members of the party) have had open borders as a platform plank since they were founded.

[–]The_Yar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah and I am on board with that.

[–]Reddeadinsider 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Um. Yes it has.

[–]Mann_Coulter 33ポイント34ポイント  (16子コメント)

Are you implying that other methods of taxation didn't exist before 1913?

[–]lemonpartyracism is collectivism 16ポイント17ポイント  (14子コメント)

Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I

[–]guitar_vigilante 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

To be fair, we now understand that Tariffs are a pretty terrible method of taxation because they tend to heavily inhibit international trade. I'm not saying the income tax is great, but if the alternative is more tariffs, I'll stick with the income tax.

Consumption taxes are where its at.

[–]RunRunDie 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

Consumption taxes disproportionately punish the poor.

[–]Cole7rain 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No they don't, the poor don't buy new houses and new cars (or at least they didn't before the government started subsidizing them). A proper consumption tax would also have exemptions for basic unprocessed food stuffs and medicinal products.

[–]guitar_vigilante -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Only if you do it wrong.

[–]RunRunDie 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

How do you mean?

[–]guitar_vigilante 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Check out the Fair Tax. It's a consumption tax that offers periodic rebates to people who are under a certain income level that helps to balance out the regressive nature of a pure consumption tax.

[–]Galgus 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually everyone would get the prebate, meant to nullify the consumption tax past a certain level of income, and thus spending.

[–]chalbersmaFlairitarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If taking X amount of dollars hurts the poor more than the rich it follows that giving Y amount of dollars will help the poor more than the rich. The regressive nature of fixed transfer payments goes both ways.

[–]The_Finglonger 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

How much of the federal budget is paid for by tariffs now? Is it still sizable?

[–]yunk3r 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

Raising Tariffs would not be a good idea. Free trade is great for the economy, and if we increase them it could cause the economy to go into a huge recession. One thing that made the great depression so bad was the fact that every government increased its tariffs in an attempt to keep money in the country.

[–]joe9439 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

AKA China mode

[–]TheSouthernCross -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not great for the economy. Fucking China is taking all our jobs.

[–]chalbersmaFlairitarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is pretty great for the economy. And yes we've lost some jobs but we've gained more than we've lost in aggregate.

[–]drainhed 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

~1% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#/media/File:US-Tariffs.svg

[–]therob91 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually the exact opposite. This post is meant to show people that governments can do things without an income tax.

[–]BattlestarPotemkinanti-FUD 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shit post Sunday.

[–]beeker629 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

They didn't give billions to corporations in hand outs either

[–]forefatherrabbiVote Gary Johnson 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

They did give money and land. The railroads where huge recipients of federal handouts.

[–]tigrn914 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's completely untrue.

[–]somegetitObama 2016 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

First, it's a little misleading because there were other form of taxes back then.

Second, if we want to have a real discussion over this statement, we should ask: can the government function today without income tax? After making all reasonable cuts in the budget, what's the maximum income tax needed to maintain the government and is it zero? Also, why should the income tax be 0% and not, for example, corporate tax or capital gain tax?

If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul in one of his books offered an analysis in which removing the income tax (and still relying on other taxes) will set the government back to 1994 budget, which is perfectly acceptable (to him).

[–]speccy2fence-sitter 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well said. Income taxes aren't as good compared to other revenue-raising, and that's the reason to minimise/eliminate it, not irrelevant factoids like OP's image macro.

[–]Reddeadinsider 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

We couldn't fund the government? That's bad?

[–]aerovado 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let's open the books on the government spending to cut out allllllll the waste and I don't know have the spending accounted for. The unnecessary layers of jobs, unnecessary studies like “Why Lesbians Are Obese,” corporate handouts, funding foreign governments, etc.

[–]therob91 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

O christ 1994 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDRENNNN!!!!

[–]Sympathy_for_the_FO 47ポイント48ポイント  (3子コメント)

Because the world in 1913 is exactly the same as it is in 2015. Stupid post.

[–]Somedamnusername 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was going to say, apparently we facebook spam now

[–]H-TownTrill -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah. And some of this stuff was accomplished with slaves, so...

[–]cajunrevenge 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except we still have slaves, we just call them prisoners now.

[–]gawaine73 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

All of this was funded through tariffs.

[–]kirkisartistCamacho2016! 7ポイント8ポイント  (12子コメント)

No we didn't have those things in the way we have those things today.

We had a few ivy league universities for those born into money. The common folk were functionally illiterate.

We had dirt trails for horse and buggy, but not millions of miles of pavement from sea to shining sea. All of the bridges had tolls so massive they instigated the civil war. Same goes for railroads.

Our military was just some rough necks with cannons and permission to rape and pillage indigenous people. It's not like we had an airforce and nuclear submarines in geo-strategic positions to protect foreign interests for our multinational corporations.

The industrial revolution changed everything from the way we travel, to the way we fight wars, to our education and our labor standards.

[–]therob91 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

We were also a country of farmers. We have a lot more money now. And with that there is a lot more commerce and taxes that would come from the other taxes that existed then and still exist. To say you think we needed more money in the government is one thing, to say we need an income tax is another. COMPLETELY removing the income tax would bring us to 90s levels of spending. O GOD NO, NOT THE NINETIES! I was pretty young then but I'm pretty sure I remember paved roads all over the place.

[–]kirkisartistCamacho2016! 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Income taxes were higher in the 90's.

[–]therob91 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

My favorite color is green.

[–]kirkisartistCamacho2016! 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Let me guess, you're pro-February too.

[–]therob91 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

NO, FUCK FEBRUARY!

You made a random statement so I did too. I dont know where this conversation is going lol, Im just here for the ride.

[–]kirkisartistCamacho2016! 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only solution is for Hillary to choose Bill as her running mate, so he can murder her and take back the oval office. Then we can eliminate february from the calender once and for all. You might just see a price drop on labor intensive primary colors like green.

[–]guitar_vigilante 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You aren't seriously contending that bridge tolls instigated the Civil War are you?

This comment is so wrong in so many ways.

[–]kirkisartistCamacho2016! -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just the argument I've heard from southerners that claimed it wasn't about slavery. I say there's a grain of truth behind every hustle.

[–]TheRealLilSebastian -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Our military was just some rough necks with cannons and permission to rape and pillage indigenous people.

Today its the same thing just with bigger cannons.

[–]kirkisartistCamacho2016! 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. Ask any US veteran how much they looted from Iraq or how many women they raped. They may have been fighting for oil in Iraq, but they're not getting that oil revenue.

[–]aerovado 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The indigenous weren't exactly warm and cuddly.

[–]NotANinja 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

People rarely are when you walk up to them and tell them to get off the land they've lived on their whole life because you just bought it from somebody they've never even heard of.

[–]therob91 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The funny thing is that rich people have property, investments, etc to get capital gains and such. Poor people basically just have their income. An income tax is necessarily aimed at the poor and middle.

[–]TheRealLilSebastian 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

Wtf is up in this thread. Never seen so many so called libertarians defend taxation before.

[–]forefatherrabbiVote Gary Johnson 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think people are trying to be intellectually honest. Taxes can never fully go away. The income tax could be eliminated, but replaces with what, even if only a fraction of the income. People are calling out that then and now are different and tariffs from the 1800s might not be the best way forward.

I am actually super happy that people are relating to the question and debating it.

[–]newnym 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Taxes could never fully go away? I think I've heard this argument before. It went something like:

bbbut who will pick the cotton?

[–]Cole7rain 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No taxes = no government, I think you're looking for /r/anarchism

[–]Jason_OT -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The difference between ancap and libertarianism is being in touch with reality.

[–]motchmaster 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

criticizing this meme /= defending taxation.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is quite a bit of people in this thread specifically claiming that taxation did not exist prior to the income tax and we would be in a mad max dystopia if we used consumption taxes.

[–]tron_fucking_harkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

yea wtf, if we shrunk the size of the federal government to what it should be we really wouldnt need income taxes.

[–]Soylent_Gringofriedmanite 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

IIRC, Income Tax was supposed to go away 5 years or so after the end of the war it was intended to fund. Or that's the way it was sold to the people at the time.

[–]illuminutcase 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yes, we should get rid of the income tax and start having "roads" like they had in 1913

[–]chalbersmaFlairitarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In fairness that road would be perfectly travelable in a lighter buggy as was quite common when that road was build (probably 30 years or more in the past). You can attribute bad roads in 1913 with governments (mainly local and state because of the times) not being able to fully keep up with the technology of transportation.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

What percentage of the population had cars?

Muh roads!

[–]aerovado -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because all roads looked like the above in 1913. There are roads that look like that today in the country.

[–]illuminutcase 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is this your way of saying the roads are just as bad now as they were in 1913?

[–]aerovado 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

No it is my way of saying your example isn't the best. There are roads that should be dirt roads and roads that should be paved. I love the dirt roads in my area, they are country roads. The road system wouldn't collapse without income tax.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The roads were not paid for with income tax. Income tax is far from the only form of taxation. One can find consumption taxation to be morally acceptable while finding taxing a man's labor to morally repugnant - what is so fucking hard to understand about that?

[–]taylortyler 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What I want to know is how the 16th was passed without Americans overthrowing the government to prevent it from happening.

[–]billiarddaddy -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is pure bullshit.

[–]cp5184 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

All based on the nonaggression principle!

[–]RyanGBaker -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

But did it have government cheese?