Revenue Generation for Small Government

[Number19]

A fundamental principle of libertarian thought, for years, has been that individuals, and for the point of my discussion, business, may not inflict harm on their neighbors, and, again for the point of my discussion, what I have in mind is environmental harm.

What I am speaking about is a form of "cap and trade" restrictions which are currently under discussion in Washington politics. I don't see this as being totally inimical to our thinking.

If we accept the valid scientific position that introducing certain elements into the atmosphere will, over time, have a negative effect on the atmosphere, then it is certainly acceptable to our philosophy that the business doing the polluting should be held responsible for the action.

My opposition to "cap and trade" is that this will be run for the benefit of the government as a new source of income, particularly to fund medical reform.

But if the bureaucracy to oversee this was under the jurisdiction of the states and not the feds, and then if the monies collected were dispersed : Federal Government, 15%; State Governments 25%; County Governments 60%. I now begin to like this plan.

This has been presented in very broad strokes, but my thought is that this a very legitimate form of revenue for a limited government society and which gets its legitimacy through the court system and not through an imposition of the legislative branch, and the key is to get the moneys collected back down to the people at the smallest political division.

Thoughts?

[heavenlyboy34]

This is antithetical to the libertarian position that central planning inevitably fails. :p Plus, government "revenue" is just a euphamism for loot stolen from productive people by the government criminals. If interpreted strictly, there is no provision for an income tax in the Constitution. (I don't care for the 16th amendment for that reason) Only indirect taxes are truly Constitutional. It was a criminal act of congress that allow the creation of the IRS and the income tax.

[Number19]

Were you responding to my post? I don't find a single bit of sense in your words which applies to my words. I'll wait to see if anyone more rational has something to say before I correct your numerous fallacies.

[South Park Fan]

How about donations?

[Mordan]

i agree with you number19... too bad they are too many blind extremists here.

i think the best solution would be a worldwide carbon exchange where people buy the rights to polutte. There a fixed amount of accepted pollution and people buy it. period.
the money is used to enforce the worldwide carbon exchange law.

[sdczen]

What I am speaking about is a form of "cap and trade" restrictions which are currently under discussion in Washington politics. I don't see this as being totally inimical to our thinking.


Let me get this straight: You recommend a "Global Cap and Trade" restrictions and enforced by central governments around the world, whilst collecting taxes on productive areas of society? And this is Libertarian how?



If we accept the valid scientific position that introducing certain elements into the atmosphere will, over time, have a negative effect on the atmosphere, then it is certainly acceptable to our philosophy that the business doing the polluting should be held responsible for the action.

The "valid" scientific positions you mention are valid in who's eyes? There are just as many "experts & Scientists" that wholeheartedly disagree with man made CO2 causing warming effects. In fact all of the supposed pollutants are naturally occurring. If you outlaw carbon, you are essentially outlawing the basic building blocks of life itself. As we are carbon based lifeforms. All of our plant life lives and thrives on CO2, which in turn helps humans survive.

Polluting is wrong. However, speculating and theorizing over naturally occurring gasses that nobody can come close to proving one way or the other is actually harmful.



But if the bureaucracy to oversee this was under the jurisdiction of the states and not the feds, and then if the monies collected were dispersed : Federal Government, 15%; State Governments 25%; County Governments 60%. I now begin to like this plan.


Yes, because state governments are so much better :rolleyes: Most states can barely run a balanced budget with all the money they have now. Remember, all governments grow and destroy liberty. It's their very nature to do so. That's why government never shrinks.



This has been presented in very broad strokes, but my thought is that this a very legitimate form of revenue for a limited government society and which gets its legitimacy through the court system and not through an imposition of the legislative branch, and the key is to get the moneys collected back down to the people at the smallest political division.


This is not a legitimate form of revenue generation. It's another form of theft by the central power to usurp more control over people & business.

Also, state governments are just as corrupt as the Federal governments. If you live in a county that has a high level of revenue, it will be harvested by the state and redistributed to the well connected. Central planning doesn't work.

My last statement on this is: Cui bono (To whose benefit?) Follow the money on the global warming & cap and trade and you'll find quickly that it's blown drastically out of proportion. The level of money spent on proving global warming is staggering. Don't be fooled, this is a criminal act to gain more control. In any good investigation, you follow the money and see who is the biggest beneficiary.

[sdczen]

i agree with you number19... too bad they are too many blind extremists here.

i think the best solution would be a worldwide carbon exchange where people buy the rights to polutte. There a fixed amount of accepted pollution and people buy it. period.
the money is used to enforce the worldwide carbon exchange law.

Yes, that's all the world needs is "Carbon Derivatives" and a worldwide global warming SWAT team. No thanks.

Oh, by the way. I'm not blind and I'm not extreme. Now, stealing the worlds productive wealth by the end of a gun, for the sake of a half-assed theory that has limited traction in reality. Now, that sounds a bit extreme to me.

[TonySutton]

I think it would only be libertarian if the payments were made directly to each living person.