what would you do...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

as president of the USA?


try to eliminate taxes
cut everyone's taxes, as much as I can
veto all congressional spending/bills
if they override, use signing statements to water it down to nothing
cut military spending by 100%
abandon all military installations, allow the free market to absorb them
do away with social security, federal war on drugs, dept. of education, dept. of agriculture, everything lol
open borders
deregulations
fire all of the military personel
abandon nuke program
get rid of birth certificates
end FDIC, federal reserve, stop printing money
allow currency competition
allow people to opt in/out of the federal government organization
nomore laws for people that opt out of the organization, only if they violate a member individual, will we reserve the right to come to their aid
transition from a country to an organization
no need for states
preach voluntaryism, voluntary social interaction
abandon all infrastructure, infrastructure for organization will be on the land of members only, with their permission and in accordance with our organization's bylaws.
no longer a geographic location requirement to be a member [maybe]
all voluntary contributions or dues would be allocated organizational projects
members that violate bylaws lose their rights, it's similar to a nato member attacking another nato member. some penalty must be inflicted in order to teach the individual a lesson, if violations persists, then possibly death or otherwise.
there would probably be organization id cards. a completely voluntary way of verifying identitles would develop
eliminate welfare
eliminate corporate personhood

[LibertyEagle]

Since you say you'd veto all "congressional spending/bills", it sounds like a government would still exist. By saying "spending/bills" are you saying spending bills, or all bills period? I ask, because since you say you want to change from having a country to a corporation, it sounds a lot like you are advocating corporatism. Which, unchecked, leads to fascism. So what am I misunderstanding, if anything, Joseph?

You also say you'd open the borders, yet you don't say anything about getting rid of the free handouts to illegal aliens. So I'm wondering how you think that's going to work out? Because all those freebies cost money.

No need for states, eh? Just one big fascist partnership between government and corporations. Just dandy. :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Since you say you'd veto all "congressional spending/bills", it sounds like a government would still exist. By saying "spending/bills" are you saying spending bills, or all bills period? I ask, because since you say you want to change from having a country to a corporation, it sounds a lot like you are advocating corporatism. Which, unchecked, leads to fascism. So what am I misunderstanding, if anything, Joseph?

You also say you'd open the borders, yet you don't say anything about getting rid of the free handouts to illegal aliens. So I'm wondering how you think that's going to work out? Because all those freebies cost money.

No need for states, eh? Just one big fascist partnership between government and corporations. Just dandy. :rolleyes:

It does not need to be mention, but I'll add...

eliminate welfare. Spending exists in any organization :rolleyes:

Do organizations have states? It would be inefficient, and a violation of individual sovereignty.

Who said anything about corporations? We would also get rid of corporate personhood.

[forsmant]

The more governments the better. Hopefully leading to 6 billion autonomous governments.

[LibertyEagle]

Doing away with states and therefore states' rights and still keeping a centralized federal government does not seem like a winning proposition for liberty.

Nice edits to your original post, BTW. Keep on refining.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Doing away with states and therefore states' rights and still keeping a centralized federal government does not seem like a winning proposition for liberty.

There would be no centralized federal government. It would be an organization limited to the land of its individual members. States could still exist, but they go against voluntaryism, unless every state becomes a similar type of voluntary organizational structure.

This specific organization's role would be: protect members.

another organization could exist to maybe FIGHT STATISM. just an example. a voluntary anti-statist army heh

[LibertyEagle]

There would be no centralized federal government. It would be an organization limited to the land of its individual members. States could still exist, but they go against voluntaryism, unless every state becomes a similar type of voluntary organizational structure.

This specific organization's role would be: protect members.

another organization could exist to maybe FIGHT STATISM. just an example. a voluntary anti-statist army heh

So basically there could be competing organizations, right? Who would run these organizations and how would they be selected?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

So basically there could be competing organizations, right? Who would run these organizations and how would they be selected?

Not competing, no lol. You see the UN? NATO? WTO? Organizatons, right? How about bring everything down to the individual level? Doesn't mean any organization would exist, I was just providing a few examples.

A WTO could exist on the individual level... could help facilitate trade or commerce in general

a UN type of organization could exist on the individual level

That's voluntaryism. individual sovereignty

There's no set "structure" it would be up to the people that create them. Well, I want to start a voluntary military, will there be set guidelines? No. You just do it yourself.

But there will be a world outside of protective organizations. The Wild West. Peoplee would no doubt be armed in those type of environments. Well, we're not going to go backwards technologically, just an example of what I think would be the most likely out outcomes.

Individuals get to choose. Do I want to join this society? Do I want to join this organization? Do I want to live on my own in the wilderness and take care of my own protection? That's true freedom. That's the free market.

There could also be scientific organizations,,, endless possibilities

[LibertyEagle]

Okey dokey now, Joseph. :rolleyes:

[afmatt]

as president of the USA?


cut military spending by 100%
abandon all military installations, allow the free market to absorb them
fire all of the military personel



As a US military member I take offense to those three points and have a few questions for you.

What would your plan be for the 1.4 Million active duty personell you would put out of work?
What about the countless communities that would not exist but for a military base providing jobs for the area?
How would you plan on defending the US here at home? The National Guard? Or do you want to fire them as well?


You seem to be living in a dream world were you don't think that we need to be able to defend ourselves. And let me be clear - by defend ourselves I mean being strong at HOME to defend ourselves at HOME.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

As a US military member I take offense to those three points and have a few questions for you.

What would your plan be for the 1.4 Million active duty personell you would put out of work?
What about the countless communities that would not exist but for a military base providing jobs for the area?
How would you plan on defending the US here at home? The National Guard? Or do you want to fire them as well?


You seem to be living in a dream world were you don't think that we need to be able to defend ourselves. And let me be clear - by defend ourselves I mean being strong at HOME to defend ourselves at HOME.

1. they will be absorbed into the free market.

2. those communities are parasites.

3. defense? we'll have a voluntary military. the people will fight if they want to. a free market is more powerful than a standing statist army.

research the invisible hand

thanks!

[afmatt]

1. they will be absorbed into the free market.

2. those communities are parasites.

3. defense? we'll have a voluntary military. the people will fight if they want to. a free market is more powerful than a standing statist army.

research the invisible hand

thanks!

1. I can understand your position - however I think you'd start having some pretty serious problems when 1.4 million folks got absorbed into the free market - to say nothing of the lawsuits that would probably come out of it from say someone that had worked 19 years 8 months of his required 20 to get health care benefits and had the rug jerked out from under him.

2. Fair enough

3. Will a free market solution to defense defend us if Russia decided to come take us over? Yes we can fight as a volunteer force and I agree if we went to that model that anyone trying to fight with us would have a hard time on the ground. But what possible free market solution would there be to a (for example) 5th generation aircraft such as the S-37 http://www.enemyforces.com/aircraft/s37.htm dropping bombs on our capitol or groups of volunteer forces?

[SeanEdwards]

I'd appoint myself dictator for life, and hire Ghaddafi's security detail to keep me company.

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,1536193_1,00.jpg

[James Madison]

I'd appoint myself dictator for life, and hire Ghaddafi's security detail to keep me company.

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,1536193_1,00.jpg

I think we found the heir-apparent to Ron Paul's campaign. If the people on this board go ga-ga for some middle-aged governor then just imagine what would happen if we ran one of these beauties.

[Indy Vidual]

I think we found the heir-apparent to Ron Paul's campaign. If the people on this board go ga-ga for some middle-aged governor then just imagine what would happen if we ran one of these beauties.

44 is adult, not middle-aged

[newyearsrevolution08]

44 is adult, not middle-aged

If 80 is an average life then wouldn't 40's be the middle of it?

[UnReconstructed]

Government always creates boogiemen to scare us into thinking that we need a standing army. A standing army is a violation of the Constitution that you all worship. I am a veteran myself and I never, not even once, did anything to defend this country. I defended corporate interests in 5 campaigns: Operations Joint Endeavor, Joint Guardian, Desert Spring, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. I've been to war 3 times and did nothing to make America more secure. Vets need to get over this because we were used like tools and then discarded like yesterday's trash.

Joe, another excellent post!

[afmatt]

Government always creates boogiemen to scare us into thinking that we need a standing army. A standing army is a violation of the Constitution that you all worship. I am a veteran myself and I never, not even once, did anything to defend this country. I defended corporate interests in 5 campaigns: Operations Joint Endeavor, Joint Guardian, Desert Spring, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. I've been to war 3 times and did nothing to make America more secure. Vets need to get over this because we were used like tools and then discarded like yesterday's trash.

Joe, another excellent post!

Do we need a standing Army? No.
Should we have one? No
Do we need to keep developing certain capabilities (next gen defenses and aircraft) so that IF we were attacked at home we could answer in kind? Yes.

[LibertyEagle]

1. I can understand your position - however I think you'd start having some pretty serious problems when 1.4 million folks got absorbed into the free market - to say nothing of the lawsuits that would probably come out of it from say someone that had worked 19 years 8 months of his required 20 to get health care benefits and had the rug jerked out from under him.

It wouldn't happen overnight, Matt. But I do think that we could pare down our military quite a bit. I mean, you support Ron Paul and he wants to pull our troops out of foreign countries. Unfortunately, some of these people are going to have to lose their jobs. The good thing is, with their training, a whole lot of them should easily find jobs in the marketplace.

Just as is the case with Social Security, I don't believe we can turn our backs on those who served all these years and just fire them and thereby strip them of medical coverage. There will need to be some kind of transition for these folks, just like what Dr. Paul talked about for those currently getting, or close to getting, Social Security.

I also am not an advocate of getting rid of ALL of our military. I think it was Ron Paul's belief that we could defend this country well with a strong Navy. I'm not an expert on this, so I'll have to defer to someone else. Clearly, if we change our modus operandi to a defensive position, the requirements will change quite a bit.

[pacelli]

1. they will be absorbed into the free market.

2. those communities are parasites.

3. defense? we'll have a voluntary military. the people will fight if they want to. a free market is more powerful than a standing statist army.

research the invisible hand

thanks!

So just to be clear here, since you are pro-free market for the military, you support Blackwater?

[qaxn]

As President there isn't a tremendous amount one could do. I guess I'd neuter the executive agencies as much as reasonable and use the bully pulpit to advocate international socialism.

[afmatt]

It wouldn't happen overnight, Matt. But I do think that we could pare down our military quite a bit. I mean, you support Ron Paul and he wants to pull our troops out of foreign countries. Unfortunately, some of these people are going to have to lose their jobs. The good thing is, with their training, a whole lot of them should easily find jobs in the marketplace.

Just as is the case with Social Security, I don't believe we can turn our backs on those who served all these years and just fire them and thereby strip them of medical coverage. There will need to be some kind of transition for these folks, just like what Dr. Paul talked about for those currently getting, or close to getting, Social Security.

I also am not an advocate of getting rid of ALL of our military. I think it was Ron Paul's belief that we could defend this country well with a strong Navy. I'm not an expert on this, so I'll have to defer to someone else. Clearly, if we change our modus operandi to a defensive position, the requirements will change quite a bit.

Now see - THAT makes sense. Dropping military funding to 0 and firing everyone is what I had a problem with. Defensive based military with enough "bite" to defend us? Bring it on!

Oh - and don't close germany till I get to do a few years there ;) :p

[UnReconstructed]

So just to be clear here, since you are pro-free market for the military, you support Blackwater?

Blackwater is an example of a private security company. In a free market, they would not/could not be used in the capacity that they are currently operating in.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

1. Defense from invasion? From whom? Russia? The invasion will be very difficult. The US would no longer be a US, the lands formerly known as the US would conprise of voluntary organizations, societies, while much won't have any government at all, voluntary or otherwise. The way you combat statism is two-prong, education and war. If Russia invades? The propery owners would fight hard. We would have over 300,000,000 people fighting to keep their property. Russia cannot win. Capital? What capital? LOL. There would be no capital to bombard. Attacks would be simultaneous. Russians would be picked off, left and right, ther ewould also be private protection firms [anarcho-capitalist terminology] that will come to people's aid.

Losing doesn't mean you quit. It's an ongoing fight...

2. Do I support blackwater? I support their right to exist. I don't however, like much organizations that live entirely off of government contracts. It's corporatism imo.

3. The military personel that want their free money? Either one..

a. auction off state property

or

b. tough. the state is finished. get a job

[afmatt]

I'm all about diminishing the powers of the Federal Govt but it appears to me that you want free market taken to such an extreme that it would be close to anarchy.


1. So someone attacking us would not have any effect on us? Let them bomb several key components of telecommunications + power grid and see how you feel then. Oh and who exactly will be paying these private protection firms?

3. So sell state lands to pay us and then when cash runs out tell us tough luck find a job? Makes no sense to me...

Also - please explain how to me based on the Constitution you as the president could do this? Seems to me after some excessive veto-ing of bills to try and reach this end state that the two parties would unite against you and over-ride you, if not impeach you.