We're in violent agreement... see my post just below in response to CG...
:)

I agree with that.

You can teach a Parasite about Objective thinking, but you can't make them live it <g>.

Not the way I envision it. The budget would max out based on the tax revenues two years in arrears and it would be tied to a provision that made ALL spending expire after two years and force re-authorization. Debt retirement would remain the first item on the list, but everything else would be up to Congress. The biggest problem with the status quo is that we continue to spend more than we bring in. That has to stop - and soon.

Also, the economy actually brings in more tax revenue when taxes are low, allowing business to thrive. This has been shown several times in the past 50 years and is highlighted by our current economic policy's disastrous outcomes. High tax rates create lower effective tax revenues - not higher.

I agree that it is the spending portion of the equation that is the main problem. IMO, however, the problem is that there are no limits on what the government can want to spend. They need to be constrained. If you have other ideas on how to accomplish this, I'm open to suggestions.

Robert; One of my favorite quotes is:
Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self -delusion— in the long run, these are the only people who count. —Robert A. Heinlein

But that trait apparently isn't a negative to the race since it hasn't been evolved out of our gene make-up, so it may not be something that can be' matured' out. But what can happen is that Objective thinking can be brought to the fore again as something very like it was in the Founding Principles. Were our government not handing out goodies, those that don't or can't think and become producers would have no choice but to do so.

You're talking "ideal", I said, that because we are too immature (aka not ideal) we can't have those things. IF (big if) we were all of one-mind, one philosophical belief, then I agree with you completely.

Because we (as a whole) do not invest in things like desalination research. we can't have unlimited fresh water, and because we don't do that, we do have a finite supply of fresh water, and because we have a finite supply of fresh water - it limits the amount of food we can grow, and people we can hydrate, which means people starve because we produce more children then we can responsibly provide for and when people starve, they will kill for food which leads to property wars.

As for job limits, sorry, there is a limit. If I can produce everything I need with the aid of no one else, and if I'm the only one with that means to do that, and if the rest of the population does not have the means to provide for themselves, then they are in a world of hurt. In your "ideal" world, these people would learn another skill and continue on. But, that isn't what happens. Once again, that was my point, a mature, responsible society, adapts. Ours doesn't, it looks to assign blame to someone else, and demand the gov't pays them.
If a person won't find another means to support themselves, and the gov't can't give them a job, then they are surplus population (aka parasite, we provide for them, and they do nothing in return.)
I'm not anti-humanist, I do believe that your population should not grow faster then the ecosystem that's needed to support it. If it can't, then Darwinism takes over. Nature as to stay in balance.

While we bicker of petty things (gay marriage, abortion right, etc), while we still have wars, while we still have to care for the irresponsible masses, WE are to immature (as a species).
You, me, kHalling, et.al. are pretty amazing - the bulk of the population - not so much.
That was my point. When ALL of us, willingly pull our own weight, when we all "swear by our lives...", then WE are mature enough.

Indeed there is a place for a government; it's called the landfill. Seems you've never thought about not being Ruled.

... and people deny my observations of "the dumbing-down of America"? That's just another example.

As I've said, I'm in the process of poisoning my grandson's mind by asking 'silly questions' for him to ponder, like "When the Government Spends Money, Where Did That Money Come From?"

Even at 14, he can understand the real answer...

the change came under Roosevelt. But Milton Friedman worked on it-payroll taxes. The 16th did not repeal the 4th and 5th and 1st Amendments, but that's how it is interpreted.

"You'd fill in dollar- or percentage-numbers to allocate your "fair" tax dollars to any and all 'eligible programs'"
I had the same thought. One important thing is for people to know it's their money. Right now some people get a tax refund and feel like it's some gov't program to send them on a vacation. They don't realize that it's a little slice of the hundreds of dollars they pay every paycheck.

We are gaddamned amazing!

That doesn't sound like the same person who built Microsoft out of his garage and was busted by the government for anti trust violations. He's lost his way. He swallowed the blue pill somewhere along the line.

I remember when Bill Gates said that 64K ought to be enough for anyone.

IBM had no idea of the impact of the Internet and how that would empower individuals and PC's.

I got your first two paragraphs and stopped reading the rest. This idea that the Gulch is One World or collective in intent or operation and that "We" have not evolved enough or that WE are too immature is nonsense. More than that it's anti-human and anti-life. Who the Hell decides that WE're evolved or mature enough to accomplish anything. We are who and what we are and we've accomplished amazing things. Humans can expect to live into the 70's and 80's, poverty is essentially eliminated in the US because of the Free Market, we've actually left the planet, we continue to learn about and understand the Universe around us and it's impact on us, and we still have individuals that want to be free and left alone. We're gaddamned amazing!!

A couple points, Robert...
re: you didn't replicate 'and add to the mess.'
> neither have I, but neither one of us spawned an offspring who might develop or promote 'solutions to the mess, either.' ... although I AM working on my step-grandson to try to create that kind of thinking in him...

re: those [displaced] workers become parasites...
> ah, many of them discover skills that ARE marketable. If they don't, 'carrying them' might not be an optimal long-term solution, either... how about helping them discover or develop their 'untapped skills'?

re: There are 'only so many jobs'...
> you're kidding, right? Over the long term of history, the numbers don't support that assertion at all!

re: there is a finite amount of fresh water...
> um, only because we haven't figured out a cost-effective way to MAKE fresh water out of the unbelievable amount of UN-fresh seawater that IS available all around the world.

...... for now...
Thanks for posing your points!

When Buffett assumes room temperature, most of his billions will be left to Gates' foundation. Imagine the power this small group will wield to promote Gates' agenda. BTW. Note Buffett will avoid paying most potential inheritance tax in stark contrast to his pontificating that the rich should pay higher taxes.

I think Pareto nailed it... if something is Really Good, it ends up owning about 80% of the market in its class.

Note the probably tens or hundreds of thousands of 'killer apps' available for smartphones... how many own anywhere near that kind of market share? Most are crap.

Possibly unfortunately, he has a bigger bully pulpit and probably more 'followers.'

Just another cult, imnsho...

If you think I was in disagreement with your comment, I apologize for not being clearer in the transmission or for you in misinterpreting... :)

Yes! MAJOR difference between intelligence, knowledge, experience, wisdom and the like...

Intelligence can help interpret experience 'into' knowledge and MAYBE extract wisdom from that, but it's a complex path with no guarantees of success or, imnsho, correlation.

:)

I have no doubt I didn't explain myself well - balance between being thorough and not going into a diatribe :-)
Mature in the sense that we accept responsibility for our actions, we don't steal from our neighbors, we respect others property - I guess that's the 10 commandments.
What's the role of govt - To resolve disputes (domestic and property, and provide for the common welfare (I really mean "common", not the individual) Infrastructure, security, schools, etc.
Where do we disagree on things - Property disputes for example, divorce (divide it in half, whose idea of half?), roadway (eminent domain - take someone's land from them) - these can lead to violence, or war.
How do you have property rights and ownership without disputes? I don't know. I don't know if you can - resolve that and you'll have world peace.
We need gov't to keep us from killing each other because we can't play nice together.

As for population. I did my part, I did not replicate so I did not add to the mess. :-)
Feeding more is not the problem. As our ability to produce more with less workers, those workers become displaced, and become the parasites we reject. Your word, "carrying", if they don't/can't work WE have to carry them. Fewer Producers providing for more Parasites. There are only so many jobs. And not all the land is habitable, further, there is a finite amount of fresh water, those are limiting factors to "carrying load"

By limiting the population you're less likely to crowd other peoples property and step on their toes and piss them off, and you assure there are more jobs then people thus reduces the parasite population (you'll still have slackers -that's another thing).

Not sure I agree that there are any less starving as a percentage of the population. Especially since WE are CARRYING them. If this population was providing that much for themselves you'd be right, but the fact is, the United States produces 25% of the food for the rest of the world (or it did, that stat might be a few years old), which means if we only produced what we needed, a good portion of the world would die.

We're talking about, if everyone grew their own food, or paid for some one else to grow it for them, and did not rely on someone else (aka the gov't) to simply give it to them. That is how you find the true carrying capacity.

Not sure if the helped, but that's where I was heading.

ok this comment is making my head hurt. I'll take on two concepts which need some premises checked.
1."but it doesn't change the fact that WE are too immature as a species to achieve that ideal." I don't know if this comes from an original sin POV or simply Man cannot have perfect knowledge. Wherever you see a proper govt that protects property rights, you see people being productive, "mature" as it were. It is when we let govt over-reach its proper purpose and economic freedoms are reduced, you find all of this "immaturity" as you define it.
2. "The other option is, maintain the world population to under 500Million (see Georgia Stones)" that is an anti-human statement. If you want to reduce the overall population, let's start with you-for the cause ya know. :) There is no rational basis for limiting the world population. In the last 50 years, the number of people has continued to expand, but the number of people living on the edge of starvation has continued to decline. Earth's "carrying capacity" is not static. Go back to the 1800s where almost everyone lived on the edge of starvation and the population was significantly (10x) lower. The evidence does not support your point of view.

Isn't Galt's Gulch not a one world (community) government? A group of people of one mind or common belief (even if that common belief is individualism)?
"We" have not evolved enough to achieve that. WE can demand change, and demand it now, but it doesn't change the fact that WE are too immature as a species to achieve that ideal.

Instead of asking Billy Boy how to achieve that, ask, How would John Galt do it?

One World gov't can't work if the gov't is so big that the voice of the people can't be heard - ie, all power at the top, no local gov't.
It can only work if people assume responsibility for their own lives and don't have interference from gov't to entangle their lives. That then begs the question, if people just went about their lives, in a responsible manner, what would be the purpose of such a government? Build infrastructure?? It wouldn't be war, because we'd be responsible, respectful people and not step on others toes.

Property rights are probably the biggest problem in the world. I need land to live on, to grow food, and feel secure, and there's someone that wants to take it from me. Everything can be reduced to that. Perhaps that is what Agenda21 addresses. If all land is public land, for growing public food, then you've address problem one, food security. Now I just need "my space" to feel personally secure. I suppose 1200 sqft in a high rise apartment building would do.
I'm by no means advocating that, only pondering the origins of such a concept.

The other option is, maintain the world population to under 500Million (see Georgia Stones). But, that's probably what Armageddon will do which appears to be knocking on our door if Zippy keeps ignoring the threat. Then again, that could be Galt's societal collapse we've been waiting for. Just Saying. :-)

I guess the difference to me is intelligence (raw computing power) and wisdom (the ability to make good long-term decisions). There are a lot of people with intelligence, but few with wisdom, because wisdom can only come when built upon lasting principles. Principles based on aggregation of power - like what Bill used to create his Microsoft Empire - are short-term principles and fly contrary to wisdom.

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1a...