What rights would you give up in exchange for lower taxes?

[Sri_Theo]

@Cisco

It sucks that, in our two-party system, we have to discuss this choice.

I want a party that’s low-tax, pro-gay, pro-gun, pro-military, anti-war, pro-science, and rabid in their defense of civil liberties. Try finding that on a ballot.

Sounds like the UK Liberal Democrats, except for the pro-gun bit because that’s not really an issue over here.

They’re also pretty sympathetic to soft drugs as well, if only we didn’t have FPTP.

[SteveG1]

@Oakminster

I object to surrendering any rights. Taxes should be low, government should be small and as minimally intrusive into private lives as possible. This is why I don’t particularly like either McCain or Obama.

I also agree with Oakminster. I don’t consider my rights as something to be bought or bartered away.

[Cisco]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

I don’t know…policies, maybe? Sound rational argument, perhaps? Persuasive consensus building?

Policies based on what? Sound rational argument based on what? Persuasive consensus building based on what?

OPINIONS. Views, judgments, or appraisals formed in the mind about a particular matter. Generally held views.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Cisco

Policies based on what? Sound rational argument based on what? Persuasive consensus building based on what?

OPINIONS. Views, judgments, or appraisals formed in the mind about a particular matter. Generally held views.

You’re way too smart, Cisco, to believe that the whole political world is just bullshit. “You want this, I want that, no reason, no thinking whatsoever involved. I can change my mind and want the opposite tomorrow, and never notice that I’ve changed my position because it’s all just emotional and based on visceral desires that are inexplicable.” I don’t believe that’s how you really think for an instant.

[Measure_for_Measure]

First of all, transportation infrastructure is a key engine of economic growth, which doesn’t mean there can’t be too little or too much of it.

Secondly, I’m not convinced that Cisco has put forth a viable plan to substantially shrink the size of the federal government. I’m not trying to pick on the guy, as that sentiment is pretty common.

Here’s an alternative framework: all governmental programs should be subject to strict cost/benefit tests. Or: Separating out government outlays into three, we should cap non-healthcare, non-military spending at x% of GDP, subject to #1, 2 and 3.

To be clear, I’m not advocating the preceding and again I don’t mean to jump all over Cisco. I’m just saying that moderate conservatives need to think harder about sensible methods of achieving efficient government for the citizen-shareholder.