charlie.simm

There have been lots of interesting government-related debates on WF lately but I didn't find a thread which deals with one of the most important questions we should be asking ourselves:

Are governments ALWAYS useless?

In other words, do you think that society would be better off without governments (a system similar to the one market capitalists recommend) or would things work better if we keep them around but limit their power/involvement?

My 2 cents: governments suck at almost everything but eliminating them from the equation altogether would be a mistake.

Why?

If I run a company that has let's say 40 employees, that company can be extremely dynamic/flexible. As soon as a market trend emerges, we can react faster than a huge-ass corporation because there's no corporate ladder involved. No board meetings, nothing.

That's an important advantage and as a small company, we can make size work in our favor.

On the other hand, huge-ass corporations can make size work in their favor as well under certain circumstances. For example, when negotiating with suppliers, they can receive better offers due to the fact that they have more money at their disposal.

I'm pretty sure all of us can agree that small companies as well as huge companies have a well-deserved role in the financial ecosystem.

"Ok, whatever. But what does this have to do with governments?!?"

In my opinion, a government is similar to the previously mentioned huge-ass corporation when it comes to one important aspect: in some cases, size can work in its favor.

Can the private sector find better solutions to most problems? Yep.

Can the private sector react faster in most cases? Yep.

But what about military-related stuff, for example?

Here's a question I hope you guys can help me with:

Aren't there a few exceptions which make keeping the government around worth it?

__________________

dmnEPC

Well the monthly Welfare checks sure seem to be "useful" the government is good for "taking care of us"

charlie.simm

OK, no more Welfare monies for lazy fucktards who refuse to work because milking the government is convenient, I think most WF members feel the same way.

But you didn't answer my question:

Aren't there a few exceptions which make keeping the government around worth it?

Or a slightly more elaborate question:

Do you think that society would be better off without governments or would things work better if we keep them around but limit their power/involvement?

__________________

dmnEPC

The thing is you can call it a government or a King, or Monarch or whatever you would like, but you will always have someone controlling the money and that controls the people. I would rather have a government that the I can "elect" or can recall, versus one that 1 family controls for generations.

Suspect Device

Government is just the most lucrative business in the world. I don't believe in governments, because at the end of the day, as any business - it is run by money. Who has the most money orders the music, government wise - big a$$ political sponsors.

And about wars - fuck, most governments start them and people end them. Fuck 'em.

Then again most people need some kind of "master", so a "democratic" government is best for them, IMO. But for people like you and me - self sufficient and "thinking" individuals, we don't need nobody to tell us what to do, and how to do it, it's common sense that we use.

"A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master."
George Washington

Kstanki2

There needs to be some form of organization/leadership, no one really wants anarchy. Yeah, so far governments haven't served their purpose correctly and end up fucking the citizens, but without them it would just be gangrape in the streets because most societies cant handle true freedom. Sad, but true. Human history consists of a minority of people fucking things up for everyone else, so it always shall be.

__________________

Kiopa_Matt

The sheer delusion of people on this board sometime amazes me...

I don't even care enough to write a post about it, but yeah, fuck governments. Let's just get rid of all of them, and we can all live in one huge lawless Somalia. That'd be grand! Then we'll be living in utopia...

I'll be the first to admit governments are massively bloated, have abused their powers, so on and so forth. But to say we don't need a government is ridiculously stupid.

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

Suspect Device

Kiopa,

Please, explain your opinion in more details.

Suspect Device

One point to add.

Government comes from word "Govern", so it means someone that governs something - a city, state, country and people.

In history there have been many Governors that govern people, just with different names - Kings, Pharaohs, Churches and now we have Governments.

Like now we look back at history and think:"WTF, how could churches and their leaders govern over people with their rules and principles", so will couple of generations in future look back at us, and think:"WTF How could people believe in that shit?"

Masters stay, but only their forms of control and name change. Like I said above, most of the society need some kind of "master", be it a government, religion or whatever. But only a handful of people can successfully live on with common sense. That's what I advertise - fuck "letter servants", and use pure common sense everyday.

And one more thing about anarchy. Isn't it interesting that most people associate anarchy with utter Somalia-like chaos? Nice anti-propaganda isn't it?

You can't describe "anarchy", same as you can't describe "punk". It is a state of mind, not some pre-made form or style. Anarchy in Somalia is different what it would look like in America, or Denmark

It is the people that control the form of Anarchy. If Somalia is what it is now, it is because people wanted it that way or were to weak to fight those who wanted it different. If Freetown Christiania is what it is, it is because people wanted it that way. It all comes down to people and ourselves.

clyde

Anarchy isn't viable as long as there are other governments waiting to invade yo ass.

__________________

Suspect Device

If there would be no people that believe the governments, there would be no governments lol. It is us - the people who, the government governs. If all together at once all the people of one government will "refuse" to be governed, what can the government do?

Without people's trust government is useless and powerless. No people that trust = no government.

That's why working together with others is so vital. Unite and win, or stay divided and fall.

But the "average Joe" hasn't even had a thought about it, and god forbid, actually started to do something. It is just too easy to live in the bubble. Wake up, go to work, come home, buy some shit, watch TV, repeat. Life without thinking and major action. Perfect.

Kiopa_Matt

Wanna bet? Shut down all publicly funded & subsidized services in LA for 72 hours. Law enforcement, fire department, ambulance, hospitals & public clinics, infrastructure for electric grid, sewer system, mass transit, highways, subsidized communication networks, and so on.

72 hours and LA would be a complete & total disaster. 6 weeks, it'd look pretty close to Somalia.

You guys railing on against government like this come off as a bunch of spoiled college kids, who completely take for granted everything society already has is place for you, as if all the "necessities" are just magically supposed to be there without any intervention.

I've been to probably over 30 countries, and have seen the contrast between big government, and almost no government at all. Gotta say, I'll stick with some government. Granted, many governments are currently bloated, and could definitely be taken down a notch or two.

And what's your big idea anyway? Get rid of your democratically elected government? Then what? You'll end up with a corporate dictator, and if you speak out against him, you'll end up in a 4x2 cell with no trial. Dumbass...

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

Suspect Device

Kiopa,

No need of personal insults.

And if you say you have been to so many countries, then I believe you have some outstanding life experience, just don't say you believe in this shit:

absolute

What Kiopa said x1000. Great post man, got nothing more to add. Sometimes I think these posters simply argue for the sake of it though. They have no idea what they're talking about, and just want to rage about something random.

And on that note - stop wasting time arguing with a troll. lol

Suspect Device

absolute,

Nobody is trolling, just different views. Learn to recognize.

JakeStratham

I think this is the wrong question to ask, Charlie.

How are you defining "better off?"

__________________
Kickass Threads: guerilla - $25 That Can Change Your Life

JarredLv

No government != Lawless Somali wasteland.
That said, I'll refer to Thomas Paine for my stance on government:

In reality we need very little government. We've become so desensitize to government intrusions that we fail to recall how truly overbearing it has become. Commerce Clause anyone? We leave it up to politicans to decide how our children should be educated, where we can buy milk, who we can marry, etc. All things we don't need the government for. Does anyone NEED government? No. But I want a small limited government subservient to the people to handle issues that an individual alone cannot...which we don't have.

__________________
- NO FAPPING POSSE -

The world is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tale to believe. In the end, religion will kill us all.

guerilla

Law comes from the market, not from government.

Government != Law.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

guerilla

I am in love with you.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

Kiopa_Matt

Then go move to Zimbabwe if you're so against the "government". Trust me, you won't receive much government interference over there. Might have some rival militias rolling by at 2am to rob, rape, and pillage you, but what the hell, at least it won't be the nasty government.

You'll probably only have sporadic electricity and running water, and on good days you'll be able to purchase gas from the station, but hey, at least the government won't be involved in your life.

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

guerilla

I'm not sure this follows.

But that wouldn't be the case in Victoria. Or Wichita. Or Reykjavik.

In order to logically prove your point, you can't use only exceptions.

Society as it is, is us. We are society. Whether there is a government or not, we create the rules, we create the culture and we create economic prosperity. Government is just an abstraction on top of a civil society.

So you would say a China or a USSR would be superior to a Switzerland or Monaco? Or East Germany was superior to West Germany?

Those are all big government examples.

What is so great about democracy? Hitler was elected democratically. The Soviet Unions had elections all the time.

There is a great essay by Etienne de la Boetie, called "The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude". Basically, government only exists by consent (deserved or not). That's why the Berlin Wall fell. That is why the USSR collapsed. When people stop believing in government, poof, it goes away.

And thus, some corporate dictator couldn't take control if he didn't have consent. In fact, corporations are created by government, so without them, there wouldn't even be corporate dictators like the blood thirsty Steve Jobs and the totalitarian Oprah Winfrey.

If you're right in your argument, there is no need to be so hostile. Surely it can't be good for business that you're posting here with your business names on your profile and being very hostile at the same time.

You either don't value your firms, you don't value your relationships and/or you don't value your public record. Or you can say you don't value people at Wickedfire, but if that is true, then why post here at all?

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

MSTeacher

__________________

guerilla

This is known as the love it or leave it argument. Basically, government represents me as a citizen, but if I disagree with government, then I have to leave rather than the government change.

Which then begs the question, does the government work for me, or is the government autonomous from me? You seem to think it is the latter.

If the government is autonomous from me, it no longer represents me. So then the question is, who does it represent?

My dear friend erect mentioned in another thread that libertarianism is not anarchism, but he is very wrong. Taking the concept of individual liberty to its logical extension, means I am always sovereign, because the minute I am not, I cease to exist as a political actor. And a society of sovereign individuals operating peacefully is not governed. It is coordinated by voluntary (market) interactions.

I'd love to have a polite debate on this with you. I suspect we have some common ground. But you'll have to do more than be angry and hostile. You'll have to articulate positions and then defend them logically (against contradiction).

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

jonas33h

I am a staunch believer in smaller government is better but no government would be retarded.... look at the chaos that ensued at the super dome after Hurricane Katrina you need to have a governing body to punish negative and disruptive behavior.

guerilla

The SuperDome was a government run operation during Katrina. If anything, that is an argument against government being able to handle emergencies. The Red Cross did a fantastic job, and that is a private agency.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

jonas33h

people comitted crimes because there was no one to enforce the law (lack of government ) not only did this happen in the super dome but in new orleans in general.

when people feel as if the government isn't watching they will act on their own set of rules. That doesn't prove your idea of a government-less society being superior. And my argument was not on providing aide to people because I agree charitable works are definitely in better hands with private organizations but to enforce laws and positive behavior you must have government.

lukep

^People who act evil when no one is looking are going to be the first to starve to death if you take away welfare and everyone they try to go steal from is armed.

__________________

JarredLv

There was no "lack of government" during Katrina. It was there, just grossly ineffective. Now if the people of New Orleans were in a society where people were autonomous and mentally prepared to defend themselves things would have been quite different.

__________________
- NO FAPPING POSSE -

The world is divided into armed camps ready to commit genocide just because we can't agree on whose fairy tale to believe. In the end, religion will kill us all.

jonas33h

^ a militia is still some form of government.....
the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

teck112

lol @ the tag

Moxie

The government version of LA has had years to develop. The fair comparison is whatever form LA would exist in now if it had evolved free of government.

There's no private fire department in LA because it can't compete with the "free" one. If all grocery stores were government run, then yes, it would also cause problems if they were shut down for 72 hours.

__________________

jonas33h

there is no free fire departments because the urgency to put a fire out for a poor person over a rich person would easily be decided by who has the larger wallet to pay for the service. a private company can't objectively put out fires or to not be tempted to pay a hobo to light someones house on fire...nah mean

Moxie

A glass company can pay a hobo to break windows. There are areas in the US served by private fire fighting companies, and also over half of firefighters are volunteers.

__________________

jacky8

LMAO how many of the arguing ones have actually punched someone even once? If a country was run by a private organization, it'd have to either be a dictatorship or a new structure we haven't yet seen. If you are fantasizing about the later, well, then you are just fantasizing. The argument of a private organization being better than government is not based upon any sound evidence.

That is the problem. People take the goodness around them for granted.

__________________

Moxie

Do you not consider dentists, Wonder Bread, Delta airlines, Taco Bell, plumbers, mechanics, and FedEx to be part of the country?

__________________

jonas33h

^ they are all seperate divisions of government, duh.

but for realz government is superior at restricting, but when it comes to setting budgets and spending and job creation and creating a better quality of life private sector is number.

That is also why we have the constitution that states what the government CAN NOT do. Because to be frank the government sucks at operating anything.

jacky8

What I said is still valid. All of these provide a specific product or service. They are just vendors (or affiliates?), like you and me.

btw unless I read the whole fine blueprint of the model that you believe can do better than the government, I can't say more. Even when you describe in detail, if you miss a single important feature, you will make the model appear unappealing. I doubt such a proven model even exists. It'd eventually be a dictatorship if it does.

Consider the case of military. It is kind of similar to a private organization when it takes over a nation. The military chief has his say over everything. As per your idea, just because it is a kind of disciplined private organization, it should be better than a democratically elected government. Now look what they have done in Myanmar and Pakistan, only to name a couple.

__________________

guerilla

Actually, the US Constitution states only what the federal government CAN do, and leaves the balance to the states.

Defense, law, arbitration, investigation, money, banking are all just specific products and services too.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

guerilla

I said this in another thread, but I will repeat it here. I live in a town of 15,000 people. I have seen one police car in 3 months, and our cop shop closes at 5:00 PM each day, and weekend and after hours police service has to be provided by the next city over.

No one where I live commits crimes because the police and government aren't around.

Maybe it has more to do with the culture of the people involved than with the amount of government. Maybe some people, in some circumstances are more likely to act responsibly without supervision.

I can't speak for you guys, but I don't intend to rob or rape anyone, government or not. Maybe you guys fear you would start raping people if there was no government around to stop you?

I never claimed it did. I just said that point you were making actually worked against your argument, because the US government was in-charge of N.O. and the levees. To say that things devolved under government, and then say that it would be the same with an absence of government seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Ok, you have asserted this, the question is, can you prove it?

Can you prove that we would all riot and pillage if there was no government around? If even 5% of us would not, then it means your assertion, cannot possibly be a fact.

And as far as the enforcement of laws, you don't need a government for that. Muslims enforce Sharia law, which is market law. It has nothing to do with government. In fact, merchant law (commercial law) is completely from the market.

Common law also originated among the people, not the government.

You could argue that government CAN enforce the law, but any of us could enforce the law. It's not some holy or divine doctrine. You don't need superpowers to catch a robber, or to get him to make restitution.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

lukep

WOW did you just out yourself as an Anti-Capitalist!

Dude, the criterion of who has the biggest wallet, or at least who can afford to pay, is EXACTLY what should decide who gets fire-fighting and frankly ALL other service.

That's called FAIRNESS.

If you think it's fair for freeloaders to enjoy the same benefits that I have to pay for then you're seriously part of the problem. (And yes, paying taxes is paying for firefighting service here in the socialist USA.)

I guess if that firehouse had no competition then it *could* happen... Luckily a FREE MARKET would give that firehouse competitors and they wouldn't have time to go around lighting fires... They'd have to be hustling to compete!

Your mind keeps outing you as someone who lives deep inside socialism.


@jacky8: Another way of looking at our "spoiled" attitude is that perhaps you just can't see how much you're being ROBBED of... but we can.

Things like Liberty and Freedom.

You only THINK you have them.

But you don't.

We see through that brainwashing.

__________________

jonas33h

Guerilla: the Constitution states what the government can't do and defers the rest to the states. by this I was directly thinking

First Amendment: government CAN NOT prohibit free speech.

Second: Government CAN NOT strip you of your guns.

Third: Prohibits soldiers from taking quarter in your home.

Fourth: Government CAN NOT search and seize without a warrant.

Fifth: Double Jeopardy... in otherwards government CAN NOT try you twice for the same crime

Sixth: quick and speedy trial.

Seventh: the right to trial by jury,

Eighth: Government CAN NOT impose excessive bail...

Nineth: Protects against federal infringement of unenumerated rights

Tenth: Defers the other rights to the states

"Actually, the US Constitution states only what the federal government CAN do, and leaves the balance to the states."-----Have you read the bill of rights ?

As for the Katrina thing-- let me give an alternative example: If I am out in the country and I start destroying public property chances are no one else will join-in in fear of being caught. But if a crowd at a Lakers game gets pissed off about losing a game and a large group of people start destroying property others will see this as an opportunity to steal, destroy, and do whatever else happens when a riot ensue because they sense less chances of police catching them.

Proof? I guess the proof is in the pudding all civilizations have some sort of order, even tribes in the amazon have some system of government? What is your proof that no government would create peace and prosperity?

Proof? where is your proof for you theories?

jonas33h

LUKEP: I was researching to argue against you only to agree with you instead. LOL i think that's twice now...FML. that's all I gotta say about fire departments.

kingofsp

__________________
W4 - Like Hуdra, but like way better.

guerilla

Those are amendments (the Bill of Rights), not the Constitution as originally drafted.

But they do.

But they do, and so on and so forth. The paper doesn't matter if the people don't hold their government accountable, and looking at the USG, ain't no one been holding them accountable to the Constitution.

Government exists by consent. Regardless what some old dudes wrote 200+ years ago, government will do whatever the people consent to. Tax, borrow, make war, violate rights, commit murder, steal etc.

As HL Mencken is famous for saying, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

The current USG is a reflection of the values of the American people. Because if it isn't, then logically, the government is not representing the people, and that begins to make my case that government doesn't work as intended.

I would say they have a system of order. Order != government. They aren't the same thing, although a public school education tries like hell to convince people to the contrary.

We (humanity) used to understand that private property was a "natural order". You own yourself, and I own myself. Somewhere along the line, we started to believe that you owned an opinion on how I used my land, and what I smoked, and what school my children went to, and I owned an opinion on how much money you should earn, who you could marry, and how much others can take from you.

Just simple logic. Logic is about resolving, or avoiding contradictions. Like 1 + 1 = 2 means that 1 + 1 can't be = 3.

The only way to have peace and prosperity (if those words are to mean anything substantive) is to allow people to interact freely and without aggression.

If you don't do what the government says with regards to raw milk, or marijuana, or a military draft, or paying your taxes, they get plenty aggressive with you. If your government is aggressive, how can it create peace? If your government takes your property from you, how can it create prosperity?

Again, it is just simple logic. 1 + 1 isn't 3.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

jonas33h

Again, it's simple logic if your system was so great then it would exist. Just like communism sounds good on paper but isn't possible.

I never said anything about government needing to intrude on people individual right's. government needs to exist as to not allow other's to trample on others individual right's.

Government is inevitable.... you start free then develop a system of checks and balances ( thought I would rephrase this so you don't manipulate my wording of "order") after certain events happen to prevent them from happening again all societies have gone through this stage.

You are truly a moron if you think man hasn't tried this since the dawn of time. But someone always comes along and fucks things up and then a government is established.

you have changed your stance from you don't need government to government isn't perfect (which it's not, again, your dumb if you think that was my argument).

Riddle me this padre, in a society without rules what would a society do with a man who murders one man? He breaks no rules since they do not exist and no punishment exist. Your logic is anything but.

jonas33h

I am done arguing and will leave you with these to quotes from Thomas Jefferson,

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."


good day. no hard feelings. just forum banter peace.

guerilla

Think about this. Really, really think about this.

If that was true, then we would already have the perfect system.

If that was true, then everything we don't know, can't exist.

If that was true, you have just invalidated evolution.

Just saying, it is a logical fallacy to confuse the absence of proof with proof of absence.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

guerilla

Think about this one too. You're saying government needs to exist to not allow the trampling of rights, but doesn't government trample rights?

If a state takes my land or my income, are you trampling on my rights?

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a moron. It is inappropriate, and I haven't treated you that way. You claim to be for a civil society, but you're not behaving with much civility when you attack me personally.

We don't need government. In order to make that point with people who assert without facts, I have to establish some facts, and so I look for common ground.

If you agree that government is broken, then maybe we can start to move towards asking if government has ever worked.

Who said I am for a society without rules? I already explained above that government is not the same as order, and law comes from the market, not the state.

You're making my argument with that quote.

You're the one claiming that we need a government to protect us from one murderer. TJ is saying that he would rather be exposed to such a risk than to compromise his liberty.

Also, TJ was pretty good on natural rights. No one has a right to commit aggression, including the government. The government has no "right" according to TJ to take your liberty (aka property) from you. Yet you probably support taxes, right? Well, taxes are enforced with aggression, not hugs and kisses.

Yeah, except calling me a moron and insinuating I may be dumb, you're a very polite debater.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

jonas33h

1. I don't support eminent domain so mute point. And if I could evade paying taxes knowing 100% i would not get caught I would. Taxes is as much a thief as Robin Hood(although i enjoy the story, the lesson conveyed is wrong).

2. Who said I am for a society without rules? I already explained above that government is not the same as order, and law comes from the market, not the state.

3. and if there is no state then who will enforce this "order''?

4. free speech....

5. The question is not has government worked (because it has not 100% but yes it works that why even without communication ancient history shows systems of government existing the world, one can only assume that each separate civilization concluded that government worked BEST.) but why has non-government failed.

6. you are blinded by his words of coarse I would rather take more liberty than freedom, but I find a great understanding of needing law and order (which is only provided by an establishment e.i: government) I'm libertarian dude hate taxes just thought I would repeat that because i fucking hate taxes.

7. you claimed i like taxes that's essentially calling me a moron, we're even now.

guerilla

I think you mean moot point.

So you believe taxes are theft. Good. You're nearly an anarchist now.

Property owners will enforce order over their property.

No idea what that means.

I think non-government has failed because many people are (purposefully or accidentally) ignorant, and the smartest members of society have figured out how to emotionally manipulate them while controlling education and the official histories.

Look at how reflexively I get attacked for supporting peace and prosperity! I am arguing for a society based on voluntary relationships and respect for property rights. It boggles my mind that anyone would argue against that, and yet here we are. Folks in this thread are insisting we need someone to boss us around and take our stuff, because that is supposedly the best society we can aim for.

But yes, the question is whether government has worked, and I am pleased to see you agree with me that it has not.

I'm not blinded by his words as much as I understand them, having been a big fan of Jefferson's at one time.

We can have law and order, but it has to come from the market. It cannot come from the fist, or it is not lawful or orderly at all.

How else will you fund your government? Every form of government income is a tax unless you want to run it on donations.

I had no idea you were anti-tax and pro-government, so it was no insult, and we're not even.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.