It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Optional Big Government

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
People are supposed to have unalienable rights, including the right to property. A right on par with life itself. But our government (sworn servants) tells us to pay a tax for that right or they will destroy the right (take our property). Taxes are still always paid by the people. No matter if it is a tariff, excise, etc, they will always be paid by the labor of the people. This is easy to prove, just remove all the people out of any company, llc, county, or state and see, no taxes will be paid. But people get to choose where they spend their money, say as it is supposed be, the people are to control their purse strings and have a direct and immediate effect upon their servants in government. This was destroyed as our servants were brainwashed into thinking that they are the sovereign power in the country, and not the people. The servants have been persuaded to walk in the footsteps of Satan, and take their creators sovereign seat and position. We are to have a republic (individual rights), not a democracy (winner rule). We are to have a optional government.




posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: craterman

Thank you.
Allodial Title factors into any government reboot I would design.

Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land. Historically, much of land was uninhabited and could therefore be held "in allodium".[1] In the modern developed world, true allodial title is only possible for nation state governments.[1] Although the word "allodial" has been used in the context of private ownership in a few states of the United States, this ownership is still restricted by governmental authority; the word 'allodial' in these cases describes land with fewer but still significant governmental restrictions. en.wikipedia.org...


Although my talking about reworking the Constitution in the slightest drives a lot of people MAD, how I would go about it would follow the guidance of Mike Badnarik:

Love that guy. I'd ave have to bring him in on the design process. Have talked to him on the phone a couple times he's GOOD PEOPLE.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
What a lot of the more socialist minded people, whom I would expect to go nuts over such a base concept, is that via Allodial Title they'd be far more free to design their own little utopia colonies.

There's actually a lot of good ideas out there. None of that stuff can really work on the large scale of course without ENFORCEMENT. But I say if people want to buy out property together and go homestead their own little utopian vision, have their own little worlds, then I say more power to them. Our monolithic system not only prevents that kind of thing, but its more and more as devastating to the lot of us on par with when utopia's go bad (USSR etc).

The ideals of Micronations are something I fancy a whole lot. But none of them not one single form outside of the Internet is even near possible. Downright illegal.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
This is just me thinking out loud. What would be wrong with optional big government?

The infrastructure and the ability to help would be there, but you could choose with your tax dollars what to opt in to. You would still pay the going tax rate (hopefully lower though) but choose what your tax dollars go to.

Don't support a planned use for your tax dollars? Don't check that box on your tax forms when you fill them out.

I understand the need to sometimes legislate equality, such as civil rights in the 50's and 60's, and women and gay rights today. It seems that would have to be agreed on before we could institute something like this. I have faith there'd be enough rich benefactors to keep things like planned parenthood in business.

I'm not saying this is what we need to do or that this is even a good plan, I'm just wondering about everyone's ideas on it. Good or bad.

What do you think?


The problem with this type of system, is that people check the boxes that are most like them. The people who need food stamps for example, pay very little in taxes (certainly not enough to fund the program). How does a program they need ever get funded when those with the money would rather vote for subsidies for their industries? Outside of the farm lobby, few wealthy people would check that box. The same goes for rental assistance, or disability coverage, or any other sort of safety net program. People will only fund the ones helping them at that moment, but those types of programs require others to assist.

In short, the needy never have the advocates they need, when things are voluntary.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

We never said outlaw propaganda. And under my vision free speech will be paramount therefore everyone can make all the noise they need about making sure people are properly motivated to do the right thing.

All the bitching I have worth doing over the 'SJW' trends these days, this system could be perfect as fine all the fat cats wanna guilt trip and outrage everybody over all the downtrodden and all that? Okay. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. Say if someone is net worth over maybe one million, or make $250,000 a year, or something along these lines, then make their social programs allocations public in their official 'do-gooder page'. If they pay into social programs or not then people can see it. Everyone that does will get to virtue signal, and everyone that doesn't wont be able to tell anybody else what they should or shouldnt be all about. I'm also compelled to transfer this over to say environmentalists, because some of the worst energy etc consumers on the planet are the same ones always telling everybody to use less this and less that.

But aside from stuff like that, privacy AND free speech are the real goals along side everybody not get screwed paying out absurd numbers for waste on top of crap they dont support and all that.

One way to look at it is even if you sacrificed privacy on the entire bulk of your do-gooder kit, for all the rest compared to the monolithic arbitrary authoritarian system we've been trapped under it'd still be worth it.

Plenty of kinks to sort out sure, but this is fresh design material while all the kinks are mere technical challenges. YOu get all the right minds involved and such technical challenges would become irrelevant, while everybody could come out satisfied in the end. With the tech we already have, and the right attention, foresight, will, and then the prosperity it could be worked to ensure, it could be worked out where most everyone could work out their own little bubble that is like their own personal utopia. But its all out of the box, and getting people to think outside of it is tough, yet when its in all news ways we might be on to something....

Something has got to give, and what I do know for sure is lobbyists, politicians, and political parties no matter how much you clean up the system they're all still going to always be a problem and always become swamp muck. In todays day with ever increasing efficiency. Consensual Taxation is the best I could ever figure out to make irrelevant all of that.

What we need is a people that dont want to be led. But for that we need a system that enables it. And Consensual Taxation is the only such enabler I've managed to envision. I'm open to other suggestions....
edit on 20-12-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: underwerks
This is just me thinking out loud. What would be wrong with optional big government?

The infrastructure and the ability to help would be there, but you could choose with your tax dollars what to opt in to. You would still pay the going tax rate (hopefully lower though) but choose what your tax dollars go to.

Don't support a planned use for your tax dollars? Don't check that box on your tax forms when you fill them out.

I understand the need to sometimes legislate equality, such as civil rights in the 50's and 60's, and women and gay rights today. It seems that would have to be agreed on before we could institute something like this. I have faith there'd be enough rich benefactors to keep things like planned parenthood in business.

I'm not saying this is what we need to do or that this is even a good plan, I'm just wondering about everyone's ideas on it. Good or bad.

What do you think?


The problem with this type of system, is that people check the boxes that are most like them. The people who need food stamps for example, pay very little in taxes (certainly not enough to fund the program). How does a program they need ever get funded when those with the money would rather vote for subsidies for their industries? Outside of the farm lobby, few wealthy people would check that box. The same goes for rental assistance, or disability coverage, or any other sort of safety net program. People will only fund the ones helping them at that moment, but those types of programs require others to assist.

In short, the needy never have the advocates they need, when things are voluntary.

I think that things like that would have to be agreed upon by everyone before we could institute something like this.

As I said in the OP, I understand the need to sometimes legislate equality. I don't like it or the fact that we're at a point in history where it still has to be done, but that's current reality. I may be looking a little further down the road than what society is capable of at the moment.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join