The efficient/less costly method would be to set meal times, of course.
Tough for them. What about people who like to smoke dope today? How do you accommodate them?
So the federal government can indeed handle some things well, then right?
What of the sarcastic snide remarks about how “the feds know better than the locals what’s good for them” then? Still stand by that attitude?
Clearly you admit that at least in some cases the evil federal government does know what’s good for you, right?
Otherwise, why trust the feds to do anything right? I’m just trying to square your hatred of federal government with your admission that it indeed can and does handle at least some things better than individual local governments.
I just don’t see how both of these thoughts can exist in the same brain at the same time without being able to see the contradiction.
Yeah, my reference to there being “no way” to replace the income tax was meant in this spirit – people just could not agree on what the new system should be, and that means income taxes aren’t going away until there’s agreement on how to replace it.
It would probably be easier to add a VAT tax or a property tax (or whatever) on top of the income tax, rather than get rid of the income tax and suddenly shift to some new revenue structure.
I didn’t say “well”. I said there are powers that are inherently macro, thus belong to the federal government. Whether they are doing that stuff “well” is a matter of opinion.
By what criteria do you sort government powers into macro and local? I don’t mean you should list which ones are which, I mean, how do you know which power belongs in which category?
Just as soon as we have only local businesses, too. For if we admit that non-local businesses (e.g. multi-state corporations or multinationals) can fare better than local ones, we should similarly admit that non-local (e.g. federal) government can fare better than local government, as these two things—government and business—are merely two different tools of social organization directed at solving problems (and sometimes creating them, one should admit). I am not prepared to state unequivocally that non-local businesses must exist in all possible economies, but if we’re going to have them, then their rights and obligations must be defined and defended, and this necessarily requires non-locality of governance, as far as I can tell.
Let me answer your question before I dive into the “libertarians are stupid” dogpile.
The businesses that left America didn’t leave because of taxes, they left because of expenses and regulations. We simply can’t compete on labor costs. Noone is going to leave China for America because we get rid of the income tax. Income taxes are levied on profits and you simply cannot profitably compete with China in these areas. And we are not about to get rid of the regulations that make China easier to to operate in. We are not about to put profit above worker safety or monetize the value of individual lives.
We can’t get our businesses and industry back. We have to build new ones (who will also move to low cost jurisdictions after a while). We have to constantly inovate to justify the humongous gap between our standard of living and the standard of living in the rest of the world (that or become colonial era imperialists).
Do you actually think about what you say? The problem with conservatives generally and libertarians in particular is that they think they have a monopoly on good ideas. Democracy does not work well for anyone who thinks that only their ideas are any good.
It might reduce the standard of living enough that apple will manufacture its iPhones here and export them to China.
Pffft. You socialist!
Well, he never actually signed the social contract, it was thrust upon him.
And you think that extortion increases or decreases without the FBI and IRS putting guys like Capone and Gotti in jail?
Now you think democracy works all of a sudden?
Local government is (generally speaking) more corrupt, more wasteful and subjected to more fraud than the federal government.
“Local is better” really only applies to fruits and vegetables and real estate investments.
Right because there is no tragedy of the commons if we let localities formulate environmental laws. I can dump all my waste in the river and let it flow down to you. I can belch mercury and cyanide out of my smokestacks and send it downwind to you.
Of course we should write teh commerce clause and the welfare clause out of teh cosntitution because they didn’t really mean that part of the constitution. Can I pick and choose the parts of the constitution I want to ignore? Can I focus on my favorite parts to the exclusion of the rest?
We didn’t have roads or a standing army or much of a navy for that matter. We also didn’t have entitlements and a department of homeland security.
What we call “the government” outside of entitlements and military/security spending is 10-15% of the budget.
First of all Keynesian stimulus depends largely on deficit spending. Sure there is a bit of efficiency that you get from taxing and spending if the taxing and spending is particularly well executed but thats a toos up at best. Most of the stimulative effect of keyemsian stimulus comes from deficit spending. Injecting money into the economy without taking it back out in the form of taxes. If you spend $100 in keymesian stimulus and increase taxes by $100, you rally aren’t goign to get very much done. You have to spend borrowed money to soak up all that slack in supply.
In many cases do and in almost every case the federal government knows what is better for the nation as a whole than a single state does.
Isn’t the regulation of interstate commernce and providing for the general welfare also somewhere in the constitution or do we read those out because they are inconvenient to your ideology?
Are you saying that there is some developed country somewhere that depends on a sales tax without an income tax?
Yeah on average, maybe but we would end up collecting the taxes from different people.
Yeah, like the regulation of interstate commerce.
Who defines what is inherently macro? Are you sure that if Madison came back today he’d be quite as rigid as you are? The Founders knew how to compromise, they accepted the need for amendments, and they were still alive (to put it ,mildly) when the Supreme Court started interpreting. It seems an act of faith on your part that they would ignore changed circumstances and stick to strict construction, but they were people who risked their lives on changing things due to changed circumstances.
Note: manufacturing, measured by the value of manufactured goods created, is higher than ever in America. Our manufacturing sector hasn’t collapsed. What has collapsed are manufacturing jobs. We still make all kinds of things, but a factory that 50 years ago might employ 1000 people today might employ 50. It is also true that our manufacturing sector has grown at very low rates compared to the service sector. But it has still grown in absolute terms even though it’s a smaller percentage of our economy.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
What do you mean when you say “inherently macro”?
Foreign policy is inherently a power of the federal government, not of my local county council. Settling disputes in trading between states is inherently a power of the federal government, not my city’s mayor. Making common currency is inherently a power of the federal government, not my state assembly’s. Hope this makes it clearer.
I was more looking for an explanation of the “inherent” part of the term. One that doesn’t rely on the Constitution, since presumably your explanation of the inherently macro nature of those powers would justify their presence in the Constitution to begin with.
Is equal protection under the law an inherently macro function? Is it a function of the federal government to ensure that all citizens are treated basically equivalently by the law no matter where they happen to be residing? If you are going to say those who do not like it can move, consider those who might be in various places for reasons of business.
Out of curiosity, do you believe the post office should be privatized?
“Foreign policy”. Meaning dealing, as a country, with those outside the country. As a country - inherently federal power.
Regulating trade disputes between states has to be done by someone outside of the states. Inherently federal power.
The military is an extension of foreign policy - see Foreign Policy above.
Common currency - again, inherently macro, country-wide, and has to be done by federal government.
What’s not clear about it?
Not without a constitutional amendment.
No amendment would be necessary; Congress has the constitutional power to run a government postal service, but not any constitutional obligation to do so. (Whether they could privatize the Army raises a closer question.)
That’s cool.
Oh, but what about privatizing post roads? Does that require a constitutional amendment?