Your country...

[GenSeneca]

Keep in mind that I've posted this in the lounge.. This is meant to be a more lighthearted discussion than those in other sections of the forum.

My Country:

I want to live in a Capitalist society, where relationships are based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, where the role of government is strictly limited to protecting individual rights, and where the weather is nice.

There would be just one law in this country: It is illegal to violate the rights of others.

This country would not use fiat money, rather, the national currency would be tied to the gold standard.

Taxes would be minimal and fair, the budget would be perpetually balanced by keeping spending less than minimum revenue, and 100% of all surplus revenue would be invested as principle into a soveriegn wealth fund.

As that wealth fund accrues interest, each taxpayer would vote on how they would like their share of the money to be earmarked. They could add it back into the principle to accelerate national earnings, they could put it towards public works projects, they could simply choose to take their share of the money as an interest payment (tax free), or any combination of those, but there would be a near infinite number of options available.

--------------

What would your country look like?

 

[Gipper]

Keep in mind that I've posted this in the lounge.. This is meant to be a more lighthearted discussion than those in other sections of the forum.

My Country:

I want to live in a Capitalist society, where relationships are based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange, where the role of government is strictly limited to protecting individual rights, and where the weather is nice.

There would be just one law in this country: It is illegal to violate the rights of others.

This country would not use fiat money, rather, the national currency would be tied to the gold standard.

Taxes would be minimal and fair, the budget would be perpetually balanced by keeping spending less than minimum revenue, and 100% of all surplus revenue would be invested as principle into a soveriegn wealth fund.

As that wealth fund accrues interest, each taxpayer would vote on how they would like their share of the money to be earmarked. They could add it back into the principle to accelerate national earnings, they could put it towards public works projects, they could simply choose to take their share of the money as an interest payment (tax free), or any combination of those, but there would be a near infinite number of options available.

--------------

What would your country look like?

I could live with that. But, the problem is how you define "rights." Libs think they have all sorts of rights including the right to health care, home ownership, animal rights, Mother Earth rights, the right to murder babies, and the right of their dog to sh*t on my yard, etc.........

If rights come from God, that is a problem for libs because to them God does not exist. They see their rights as coming from a big omnipresent elitist government run by elitist liberals.

So, I think it best we go back to following the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders. What's wrong with that?

 

[dogtowner]

Not bad at all. I can see some potential for abuse regarding how the surplus is managed b ut its not near as prone to fraud as what we have today.

 

[GenSeneca]

I could live with that. But, the problem is how you define "rights."

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. - Ayn Rand, Man's Rights​

Libs think they have all sorts of rights including the right to health care, home ownership, animal rights, Mother Earth rights, the right to murder babies, and the right of their dog to sh*t on my yard, etc.........

Because they intentionally draw no distinction between a Right and a Legal Privilege. The former cannot be created or destroyed while latter of which can be created or destroyed through laws.

If rights come from God, that is a problem for libs because to them God does not exist.

As an Atheist I don't believe in the existence of God but that's not a problem for me, it's a problem for the person who wants to claim that my rights come from God. As I pointed out elsewhere, you cannot substantiate such claims so, it would serve you better to find an alternative way of explaining the source of our rights.

They see their rights as coming from a big omnipresent elitist government run by elitist liberals.

To be more fair, they believe "rights" come from government, from laws, and that means there is absolutely no limit on what can be considered a "right".

So, I think it best we go back to following the Constitution as it was intended by the Founders. What's wrong with that?

The problems are many. For one, the Constitution was written by men, so the Leftist sees this and says, "Well if those men were able to create rights out of thin air, then these men should also be able to create new, and better, rights by simply writing them into laws."

Secondly, while we probably agree on original intent, the Leftists have a very Progressive view of what the founders meant. For example, we recognize that the general welfare was meant to mean just that, the general welfare of the United States, not social welfare for a certain segment of the population of the United States.

Additionally, we also recognize that the general welfare clause was limited to only those specific actions outlined in the enumerated powers while the Leftist sees only the words "General Welfare" and interprets it as meaning "Government is free to do anything it damn well pleases, so long as a majority of people agree."

 

[GenSeneca]

Not bad at all. I can see some potential for abuse regarding how the surplus is managed b ut its not near as prone to fraud as what we have today.

Expand on that thought if you're willing to do so... I would like the opportunity to refine my ideas.

 

[dogtowner]

Expand on that thought if you're willing to do so... I would like the opportunity to refine my ideas.

I'll try. You propose

100% of all surplus revenue would be invested as principle into a sovereign wealth fund.

Assuming that this does not mean lots of mattresses stuffed with cash somewhere, where does it go ?

You could try the disaster that was legislated for Social Security but you're far to knowledgeable for that so then where ? Some one will benefit from this investment even if its just the country buying gold or some other commodity. Imagine the pressure to steer that cash in ones direction. Lots of potential for bad things in my opinion. Look at the scams involving the current administration and Big Solar or Lincoln's selling the country down the river on canals and railroads that never delivered the dividends promised. I believe one of the main functions of government is to steer tax dollars to the pockets of your benefactors.

Not saying its impossible to solve just going on what you've presented and not trying to read your mind.

 

[GenSeneca]

Assuming that this does not mean lots of mattresses stuffed with cash somewhere, where does it go ?

Ahh... I see where you're going with this and you made some valid points about the temptation to influence the investments of funds.

I was thinking along the lines of the Alaska Permanent Fund:

Though the payouts have varied from the smallest ($331.29 per person in 1984) and the largest ($3,269.00 per person in 2008 when a one-time $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate was added to the dividend amount), they usually vary between $600 and $1,500 ($900 and $1,800 when adjusted for 2005 dollars). Although the principal or corpus of the Fund is constitutionally protected, income earned by the Fund, like nearly all State income, is constitutionally defined as general fund money (subject to legislative appropriation for any purpose ... but, in practical political terms, the public tolerates spending Fund income mostly only for 'inflation-proofing' and for paying dividends).​

What would you suggest to minimize, or eliminate the possibility of, the concerns you had about such a wealth fund?

I think breaking it into multiple chunks and allocating the sums to private wealth fund managers, with the highest track records, would greatly reduce the possibility of political fraud. It would also diversify the funds holdings more so than if it were all managed by the same firm. What do you think?

 

[dogtowner]

Ahh... I see where you're going with this and you made some valid points about the temptation to influence the investments of funds.

I was thinking along the lines of the Alaska Permanent Fund:

Though the payouts have varied from the smallest ($331.29 per person in 1984) and the largest ($3,269.00 per person in 2008 when a one-time $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate was added to the dividend amount), they usually vary between $600 and $1,500 ($900 and $1,800 when adjusted for 2005 dollars). Although the principal or corpus of the Fund is constitutionally protected, income earned by the Fund, like nearly all State income, is constitutionally defined as general fund money (subject to legislative appropriation for any purpose ... but, in practical political terms, the public tolerates spending Fund income mostly only for 'inflation-proofing' and for paying dividends).​

What would you suggest to minimize, or eliminate the possibility of, the concerns you had about such a wealth fund?

I think breaking it into multiple chunks and allocating the sums to private wealth fund managers, with the highest track records, would greatly reduce the possibility of political fraud. It would also diversify the funds holdings more so than if it were all managed by the same firm. What do you think?

I'm all for the rebates (Alaska style).

The rest is the crux of the matter. Certainly spread across multiple managers and in equal amounts. Highest track record seems good but can be manipulated. I'd suggest strict terms that require that firms roll in and out in reasonable time frames. And be sure to mitigate bias for or against the size of the firm by using percentage of return for example.

 

[Gipper]

I think we can agree that if the judiciary had done it's job of protecting the original intent of the Constitution, we would not be where we are today. Progressives have infected everything including the judiciary resulting in the mess we have today.

The Constitution was written by men, but it's intent was to limit the power of government and not grant rights to citizens. Our rights do not come from the Constitution, the Constitution merely protects our inalienable rights.