Subject:
|
Re: Can Harry Browne do it?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:10:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
329 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> I've gotta look this up to be sure, because I couldn't believe my ears, but I
> thought that Browne said there was no federal income tax before something like
> 1913.
Yup. It was quite a national argument too. The proponents of a federal income
tax eventually got it passed by assuring (though not writing it into law) the
skeptics that it could never go over something like 3% of income.
> If I heard that correctly and it's true, it means that there are people
> alive today whose parents didn't ever have to pay any federal income tax.
I never thought about that aspect, but the little things in history are really
interesting. My wife and I just finished reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder
"Little House" books to my son and each other and the references to how schools
were run, the attitudes toward debt (bad!), the interaction with native
americans, how little something could be and be a major treat (like an orange),
etc. are really cool.
> probably already learned this in high school but federal income taxes are such
> a huge part of life that it's sometimes tough to imagine life without them.
Yeah, but it's a sweet sweet dream.
> BTW, is the LP against bloated state government (I would imagine so) or
> mainly against bloated national government?
Yeah. My stance is that the more that can be done privately, the better. And
the more that can be done locally, the better. I have no use for the national
government, but neighborhood and town governments may have a place. There are
(of course) a wide variety of what people aligned as Libertarians actually
believe. I'm about as radical as you'll find here, I think. I'd prefer
privately produced law where everything is contractual and based on the root
premise that you are born with control of your body and that you _can_ own some
things.
> > No, the votes won't be enough. It still takes huge gobs of money that you
> > can only get by being taken generally seriously and representing special
> > interests.
>
> What about the non-presidential seats up for grabs?
Libertarians get some of those. Which is good, since that's where real work
gets done anyway. But the earn a bad name with the public too because when a
libertarian sherif is elected and then refuses to arrest, pursue, prosecute,
etc. drug users/dealers, the people get pissed off.
> I imagine those must cost a lot of money as well.
I think it varries. I understand some local campaigns run on less than $1000.
> How many of the ~1400 LP candidates currently running
> in this coming election are expected to win?
Good question. Anyone else out there know these kind of projections? I would
guess around 1%, but I'm really just pulling that out of my butt.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Can Harry Browne do it?
|
| (...) I think 1% is low but not by much. The LP has said that it has had between 200 and 400 officeholders nationally. Many of them were elected in smaller elections (not the national general election) or appointed. I am guessing too. One thing that (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Can Harry Browne do it?
|
| (...) I've gotta look this up to be sure, because I couldn't believe my ears, but I thought that Browne said there was no federal income tax before something like 1913. If I heard that correctly and it's true, it means that there are people alive (...) (24 years ago, 5-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
