If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Maybe we are addressing it wrong. If we don't all agree (for some large fraction of "all") that something should be part of the government, maybe it shouldn't be part of the government.
I can't think of a single government function that is supported by "all" (for absolutely any reasonable fraction of "all") of the American people. Social Security? Gone. Medicare? Nixed. NASA, FDA, FCC, Department of Transportation? Won't stand a chance.
I am an anarchist. It used to say so in my slashdot profile, but I'm finding that slashdot has changed so much that I can't figure out how to view those profiles any more.
I make no secret of the fact I'm an anarchist, and I see no more shame in it than being a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent. It's my political point of view, just like anyone else has their political point of view.
I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard. I
I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard.
That's not quite what I said.
I said you'd need to not think very hard to not see any drawbacks or potential pitfalls to what you suggested. It's the kind of statement that usually would be followed by a facetious, "What could possibly go wrong?"
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
Well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Too bad government isn't voluntary, or t
Re:Easy enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone thinks some of government should be cut.
No one agrees on what that some should be.
That's the entire problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't come up with any reason why that's a bad idea, you're either not thinking very hard or you're an anarchist.
If I were a betting man, I'd lay money on it being both.
Re: (Score:2)
I am an anarchist. It used to say so in my slashdot profile, but I'm finding that slashdot has changed so much that I can't figure out how to view those profiles any more.
I make no secret of the fact I'm an anarchist, and I see no more shame in it than being a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent. It's my political point of view, just like anyone else has their political point of view.
I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard. I
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard.
That's not quite what I said.
I said you'd need to not think very hard to not see any drawbacks or potential pitfalls to what you suggested. It's the kind of statement that usually would be followed by a facetious, "What could possibly go wrong?"