libertarian paradise bill

[thequietkid10]

Suppose you could sign a bill that would set up a libertarian paradise, abolish the Fed, legalize gold as legal tender, slash the military budget by 90%, abolish all federal welfare and extra spending, and Social Security for anyone under the age of 55.

The catch is, it all goes away...tomorrow, school lunches, welfare, food stamps, housing assistant, social security disability, and social security income ect ect. No transition period, no time to react.

So what's left is debt payments, previous contracts, some money to get the troops home and pay them until there time is up, and some money for those who have paid into social security all their lives.

Would you sign that bill or would you reject it in favor of a more gradual progression?

[Drex]

Gradual because there is to many leechers

[pcosmar]

Sign it.


The catch is, it all goes away...tomorrow, school lunches, welfare, food stamps, housing assistant, social security disability, and social security income ect ect. No transition period, no time to react.
It would be no worse than the coming economic collapse when all money is totally worthless and all that goes away anyway.

[Occam's Banana]

WTH??

Just how is it that I have such wonderful powers that I can magically dispel terrible policies ... but can't "hocus-pocus" my way out of the consequences of dispelling them?

I mean, what is the point of presenting such an absurd scenario? What can possibly be learned from any response to such ridiculous nonsense?

:confused::confused::confused:

[TheTexan]

I'd sign it yesterday if I could

[KCIndy]

If you could flap your arms real hard and make yourself travel at escape velocity and if you could hold your breath for a real long time, would you fly to Mars or Venus?

Well, come on, which is it??

[mczerone]

If we make this as realistic as possible, I wouldn't "flip the switch."

There would be too much upset about the valuable things lost that the govt currently has a monopoly on. I'd much prefer a "free competition/tax credit scheme" to allow competing agencies to start taking over regulation, charity, and public goods before the govt stops poorly providing those things.

I would not want "liberty" to be blamed for the massive disruption that would result.

I advocate for getting to a point where we could pass this bill with minimal destruction, but in our current state it would be more harmful for freedom than just allowing the govt to sink itself.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'll sign it twice. In blood.

[The Free Hornet]

Suppose you could sign a bill that would set up a libertarian paradise, abolish the Fed, legalize gold as legal tender, slash the military budget by 90%, abolish all federal welfare and extra spending, and Social Security for anyone under the age of 55.

The catch is, it all goes away...tomorrow, school lunches, welfare, food stamps, housing assistant, social security disability, and social security income ect ect. No transition period, no time to react.

So what's left is debt payments, previous contracts, some money to get the troops home and pay them until there time is up, and some money for those who have paid into social security all their lives.

Would you sign that bill or would you reject it in favor of a more gradual progression?

And just to piss off the libtards can we call it New Somalia? :)

In seriousness, this would be great, a small land mass would suffice (with a port). The oft discussed state of Jefferson would be great.

You are wrong about the "catch". The oppressors care nothing for school lunches, food stamps, social security, et cetera. They care about control. This is why when initiatives like Seasteading or the Free State Project are brought up, they are dismissed with violent rhetoric, threats of Somalia-like conditions, and visions of Dickensian dystopia. They would be the biggest obstacle - those who see us as our betters and want to rule every detail of our lives. The goal of one-world government is creating no escape.


Edit: I may have mistaken the OP as wanting to set up in a limited area. Whether a land mass the size of Hong Kong or the entire US, I am 100% on board!

[flynn]

You just need an amendment to power in the constitution to let individual opt out of laws that they think infringe on what they do as long as there is no coercion involve. Furthermore, probably be safe to keep a very rigid rule on ownership and property rights being supreme to the state.

[FindLiberty]

Sign it. Make transition plans to re-boot the US Constitution with the 1st ten
amendments A.S.A.P. Burn the other laws. Cut gov by 98%
It's just a dream solution, right?


So what's left is debt payments, previous contracts, some money
to get the troops home and pay them until there time is up, and some
money for those who have paid into social security all their lives.


What debt? (the money was printed out of thin air, not borrowed... WTF?)
Social security, gov pensions, market investment: (Most are lies, schemes and scams.)
It all goes into default, so prior contracts are worth zip. It's not a rosy picture!

USD is nearing worthless. How will troops with guns (but no money) obtain gas to get home?
Whadda' ya' think?
Better question is, What are they going to do to survive AFTER they do get back home?)
Look to world history for answers. It's not a rosy picture!

Situation gets worse every day. It's gonna' happen at some point anyhow, so get it over
with before we hit bottom. (Bottom would be detention camps, mass executions, civil unrest
by grossly undereducated masses, food panic and some new "Hitler" savior w/more gov plans.)

Ron Paul talks about easing sound money back into the system, following the constitution
and repealing unconstitutional laws. I think a lot of education would be needed before
a magic 100% cut-over switch is flipped. Others suggesting that "we" reduce gov growth by
.0001% over 30 years is no solution/plan at all, it's a lie and another status quo joke.

The mess we are in is no joke either. I'm afraid the Empire will just grow until it
collapses, all on it's own.

[enoch150]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZCypUOH8js


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed6Yr81jZ6g

Can't argue with Snake.

[FindLiberty]

Can't argue with Snake.

THE NAME'S P-L-I-S-S-K-E-N !!!

[FrankRep]

Suppose you could sign a bill that would set up a libertarian paradise, abolish the Fed, legalize gold as legal tender, slash the military budget by 90%, abolish all federal welfare and extra spending, and Social Security for anyone under the age of 55.
....

Would you sign that bill or would you reject it in favor of a more gradual progression?


The people would riot in the streets the next day. Not gonna happen.

[hazek]

Suppose you could sign a bill that would set up a libertarian paradise, abolish the Fed, legalize gold as legal tender, slash the military budget by 90%, abolish all federal welfare and extra spending, and Social Security for anyone under the age of 55.

The catch is, it all goes away...tomorrow, school lunches, welfare, food stamps, housing assistant, social security disability, and social security income ect ect. No transition period, no time to react.

So what's left is debt payments, previous contracts, some money to get the troops home and pay them until there time is up, and some money for those who have paid into social security all their lives.

Would you sign that bill or would you reject it in favor of a more gradual progression?

I would but I'd add this:

Everything the government stole and now owns, without exception, gets marked to market and issued an ownership share per dollars worth. These shares then get distributed to debt holders, government employees and all tax payers with which they can then go and claim anything they want of what the government owns. Teachers could claim their classrooms, LEOs could claim their stations and cars, doctors could claim their clinics, judges their courtrooms, ect ect

End goal? Transfer every single thing to private ownership. This way the blow to those made dependent on government spending could be minimized if not completely eliminated and we can simply close down the government and never look back.

Problem solved.

[Raudsarw]

I absolutely would. The highest political value of a libertarian is liberty. If you reject liberty, you're valuing something else more.

[FrankRep]

I absolutely would. The highest political value of a libertarian is liberty. If you reject liberty, you're valuing something else more.

How will you stop the riots in the streets when people demand their free stuff?

[pcosmar]

The people would riot in the streets the next day. Not gonna happen.

So,, That will sort some out.

[FrankRep]

So,, That will sort some out.

I don't think I want to live in your blood-in-the-streets libertarian fantasy.

[pcosmar]

I don't think I want to live in your blood-in-the-streets libertarian fantasy.
First,
It is not my fantasy.
Secondly,
You probably wouldn't.
and Third
that phase would be over pretty quickly and folks could rebuild.

[FrankRep]

... that phase would be over pretty quickly and folks could rebuild.

People will demand something be done to stop the violence and that's how dictators get on power.
Read about how Napoleon got in power.

History is your friend.

[pcosmar]

People will demand something be done to stop the violence and that's how dictators get on power.
Read about how Napoleon got in power.

History is your friend.

Rothschild backing.
Same as our government.

[Xhin]

I'd prefer to do it gradually, but if I got that kind of opportunity, I wouldn't pass it up.

[FrankRep]

Rothschild backing.
Same as our government.

There's more to the story.

Napoleon restored order in France after the "Libertarian" French Revolution. The people demanded it.

[FrankRep]

I'd prefer to do it gradually, but if I got that kind of opportunity, I wouldn't pass it up.

Yes, that's the key. Incrementalism.