samerica

Michael: As bad as prisons might be, do you have any suggestions as to how we can temporarily or permanently separate wrong-doers from the rest of society (short of executing them?) House arrest with ankle bracelets? I don't think so. Sam

If the country's too big for this approach then maybe it'd be a motivation for some secessions. ;-) Sam

As I said, "Talking to people isn't what's objectionable." If it is merely talking then Senator Bomb won't entertain Joe more than Jill if there is no quid pro quo. I've never suggested that lobbying should be prohibited and I would oppose it. My proposal is centered on a way to fund the government without taxation and be replaced by voluntary donations. It doesn't go beyond that into revamping the political system. Sam

Expenditures could only come out of the More fund. If it becomes depleted because of apathy then the fund would be closed and either the donations to the Less fund could be returned to the donors entirely or give the donors the option of re-allocating them. It would be inconceivable that the Defense Fund or the Justice Fund would ever be depleted. I suppose that if a person were to say, "I'll donate a battleship to the Defense (More) Fund if you will name it after me" that somehow it should be accommodated. :-) But, yes, I think that naming a structure or whatever after a patriot or public benefactor is entirely appropriate. The politician sponsoring it would suffer the public wrath if it were inappropriate. Sam

Francisco: We should make the distinction in 'lobbying' of 'talking to people' and 'donating' to a representative or campaign. 'Talking to people' isn't what is objectionable. It's the presumed 'access' that big money has in Washington. The lobbyists get paid an enormous amount of money according to their talents as persuaders and con men and it's a contest between one side and the other to out-con the other. It doesn't result in the position of the most merit that wins. More insidiously, lobbyists (frequently representing unions) can promise a certain number of votes that can be delivered to a representative if they can take their side. (Watch 'Game of Thrones' for just that scenario.) I concede your point about Right to Work. Darrell: We're pretty much on the same page but I don't see why 'cycles' should come into it. Individuals should be able to make contributions at any time and have them publicly available virtually instantly. Any huge contribution by an individual (no corporations) to a More Fund, for instance, would be known and if it were contrary to the views of the majority of citizens they could counter by collective contributions to the Less Fund. This is an argument for donors being connected to either a More, or Less Fund. An argument against that would be that 'it's no one's business what my politics are.' How would contributors build monuments to themselves? The politicians would be in control of how the funds were to be spent. How could George Soros get a monument built to himself? Maybe he should just do it himself like Trump built the Trump Towers. Maybe he could get an airport named after him if he donated the funds for the airport. Sam

Darrell: Yeah, that's what I said. Francisco: Lobbying is almost always done behind closed doors with the big money of special interest groups and is contrary to my opinion that the 'influence' on government decisions should be proportional to the amount of money contributed by individuals. In re-reading my response I can see how you came to the conclusion that you stated. If I was of that opinion I should be treated as a troll. Of course they shouldn't and I provided an example of citizens electing Aldermen to represent them. Each and every citizen doesn't get his views executed by the mayor. I'm not aware of any unions not requiring dues for membership. I've been a member of two unions. Sam

Brant: Stockholders elect the Board of Directors, who represent their interests, in the same way you and I elect our Aldermen. Sam

Good points which I am not going to defend too strongly, as they aren't central to my proposal. However, lets look at the motives as to why a corporation might want to donate to a charity. It might do it as public relations or advertising play to make it's products acceptable to their clients or to the public at large in order to forestall regulations. An example would be a tobacco company donating to cancer research. On the surface that action seems to be benign but in fact it is a form of lobbying and influencing government regulations, whereas my proposal argues that all the influencing of government should come from the opinions (donations) of individuals. I think there could be confusion over corporations donating to charities vs. donating to government. Government is not a charity when government is defined as protecting individual rights. Using the word 'donation' just refers to it being voluntary rather than coerced. And why shouldn't all corporate decisions be held hostage to a single stockholder? Because the stockholders voluntarily bought into an enterprise that is democratically run — at least according to each stockholder's stake. This is in contrast to a union where, if someone is capable and trained as a pipefitter, for instance, if he is to be able to make a living, he is forced into joining a union. Sam

The following was posted on the Rebirth of Reason forum and I think it is relevant to the current topic here. The resultant discussion wasn't heated but there were no outright dismissals of the proposal. I believe that this complies with all of the values of Objectivism and, indeed, Libertarianism. A Proposal to Completely Eliminate Federal Income Tax by Paul Hibbert In order to make my case consider the purest and cleanest conditions — the more general case can be expanded later. Libertarians will generally agree that the only legitimate form of government is one that protects individual rights, that is: a system of justice, including courts of law, police, judges and prisons, and defense of the nation from invasion and imminent threat. Therefore, for the time being, consider just those two branches: Justice and Defense. Two funds for each of those branches will be set up, the “More” Fund and the “Less” Fund. Donors can make contributions to the ”More” Fund of Justice or the “Less” Fund of Justice and the corresponding ones of Defense. Contributions to a More Fund stay in that fund but they also cause an equal amount in the Less Fund to be transferred to the More Fund. Similarly, contributions to a Less Fund stay in that fund but they also cause an equal amount in the More Fund to be transferred to the Less Fund. Thus, for instance, if a donor wishes that there be more federal money spent on justice he will get his wish, with double benefits, and vice-versa. The operating budget for a program is the surplus of the More relative to the Less fund. Note that this process is equally fair if one is a progressive or a conservative. Money that resides in a Less fund acts as a reserve for future necessities, emergency, or as a savings account for things that the government (in less enlightened times) would have borrowed or floated bonds for. For instance, if in world affairs war clouds appeared in an otherwise peaceful climate, public opinion would cause large donations to be made to the More Defense fund, thus making even larger amounts of money immediately available by drawing money from the Less fund and transferring it to the More fund. If this principle was applied at the municipal level and there was a program to build an ice arena, for example, donors might initially react negatively and donate to the Less fund. As time goes on they might say, “Yes, we have the money and it’s a good addition to the community” and donate to the More fund thus releasing money from the Less fund. The ethic would be, “If you want it … save for it.” Norms for donations would spring up quickly with pundits, analysts, commentators, bloggers, politicians, and the media providing opinions and facts to the citizens. If a fund were to be judged under-funded or over-funded the donations would react accordingly. Thus there would be a dynamic, real time reflection of the wishes of the electorate. Donors could make their contributions whenever they wished. If, in the happy event that the funds were judged over-funded, donors would refrain from contributing anything. Withdrawals from the surplus to fund ongoing operations would deplete the More fund until the program was judged under-funded. It would be naïve to think that this could be accomplished without some other motivation on the part of the donors, and that motivation is that their donations would be of public record. Only the amount of their donation would be revealed (unless they requested otherwise) so that their political position could be respected. Charities routinely publish a list of their donors classified as to the amount of the gift and for good reason — the donors are proud to be recognized for their generosity and it encourages further donations. My own opinion is that there shouldn’t be any sense of “duty” associated with donating and that donors should be just doing what they “want” to do. There would be many free-loaders but there are many at the present time: the underground economy with cash transactions, criminals not reporting drug money, loopholes, off-shore income, and on and on. Furthermore, only about one third of the population pays any federal income tax at all. A whole industry exists devoted to minimizing or avoiding federal income tax. Think of what this does to the mentality of those participating in this endeavor. It fosters antagonism towards government even among those most inclined to view government as a benevolent agency and they still take advantage of every loophole, subsidy, grant, incentive, deferment and concession that the government provides in its programs of social engineering, the result of which transfers the tax burden to others who are not as adroit. In my opinion, donating would become a source of pride that one’s friends and neighbors could appreciate rather than it being a duty. Undoubtedly there would be some “discrimination” against those who don’t contribute in the sense that those who donate appropriately will naturally tend to associate and do business with those who do. I don’t think that corporations or businesses should be allowed to contribute, as employees and stockholders might not hold the same views as the entity and they shouldn’t have to contribute to programs with which they may disagree. This is similar to unions forcing members to contribute to programs that they are opposed to. Imagine, just imagine, what this would do for both the economy and ethos of the nation. No longer would there be any, I mean any income tax with its stultifying burden on the citizens. Perhaps a million or more smart, well-meaning people could be freed up from trying to do the best they can within the system and instead allocate capital and resources where they can best be used — for the good of everyone. Currently, every business decision has to consider the tax implications and this distorts all the signals that the free market depends on. The IRS could be relegated to a tiny fraction of its size with its only duties being to ensure that the donations get funneled to the right bucket and to keep an on-line ledger of all the donors and their amounts so that the data are available to anyone at the touch of an iPad. Of course fraud might be a problem so the identity of donors would have to be protected. The examples of Justice and Defense are just that but the principle of publicly visible donations could be applied to other (less legitimate, in my view) functions of government such as social policy, environment, consumer protection, and so on. Surely, one can visualize the complex interactions affecting the funds as donors react to the changing “market” forces. Some donors might put all their contribution into the More Social Policy Fund, for instance, and others the Less but what will result would be a dynamically stable system that reflects the mood and aspirations of the citizens as to the direction the country should go. In this sense the government would be under control of the citizens rather than the opposite, as it seems to be now. If you believe that a civilized country can’t exist without coercion and that taxation is moral even though it is coercive then you are stuck and can’t move forward. You are reduced to being a pragmatist believing that the present system works — kinda, sorta. Without ideals to provide a framework for all your beliefs then you are inevitably confronted with all kinds of contradictions. The perpetual, vicious fighting between political parties regarding who should be taxed, and by how much, that fosters class warfare would completely disappear with those decisions being made automatically by each citizen when he votes with his pocketbook. Citizens would tend to take more interest in current events and they would feel, justifiably, that government is responsive to their opinions and needs. So, no matter whether you’re a progressive or conservative the benefits of a publicly open donation system of funding government should be apparent. In spite of my arguments you might still regard this scheme as impractical, pie-in-the-sky utopianism but nevertheless it’s my contribution to what I think is a means of leaving this world in a better state than when I was brought into it. In my mind, this proposal could release the repressed energy and usher in a whole new era of pride and prosperity to the USA that could rival the industrial revolution. That’s my position and I’m stickin’ to it.