Agribusiness steps forward - without Monsanto
Really no downside here. Fewer chemicals mean lower costs for farmers and fewer health risks for consumers.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
In the early days of our nation, politics was discussed everywhere - including at the pulpit - and as a result voters were very knowledgeable and only a small minority weren't internally honest. In today's world, the number of educated individuals is a distinct minority, with many being swayed by the various cults of personality revolving around the various political candidates. What is worse is that the number of internally honest has also declined, meaning that the election to office of good policy makers has been less a result of being educated or principled than merely luck. And as the numbers of the uneducated and internally dishonest have risen, so have the numbers of bad politicians.
If you are in jail, on the dole, illegal, dead, in school, unemployed or homeless...not allowed to vote.
If you own a car and pay town, city or state taxes but do not pay income tax then you can only vote in towns, city's or the state...but not the federal government, ie, representatives or presidents.
One thought: the income tax should not be a factor in national elections because they were never a part of the original framework under the Constitution. The Federal Government was supposed to be funded by import tariffs. If we were to eliminate the personal and corporate income tax and go back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned, much of the power of the Federal Government would go with it. The power to tax is a control that should not be granted lightly, and the Sixteenth Amendment in my book was a bait-and-switch of the most pernicious kind.
Representative Lawrence (NY), clarified, "If I am not mistaken, the honorable mover of the plan viewed it as a temporary system particularly calculated to embrace the spring importations." He suggested one flat rate on all imports rather than enumerating each good with a separate tariff.
Mr. Fitzsimons (PA) responded, saying, "the proposed plan of revenue is viewed by [many] as a temporary system, to be continued only until proper materials are brought forward." He went on to comment that precisely because it was temporary and the rates would be individually enumerated, the House would be able to pass the bill more quickly. With each congressman representing the interest of a different industry, each man would be able to keep his own constituents satisfied by choosing the appropriate rate for their industry's tariff. Meanwhile, they could still pass a large tax to collect sufficient revenue. He cited the infant industry argument, suggesting they tax more luxury goods and then add several more items to the list of imports to be taxed.
The purpose of this first tariff was to passively tax a people who had just finished protesting the taxes of their mother country and were each burdened by a different state tax system. The goal was to receive sufficient revenue. The enumeration of the tariff on each good was used as a political expedient to get the tariff passed with the least opposition.
They understood the drawbacks of trade barriers from reading Adam Smith. But there seemed to be no other tax that most of the states would be willing to implement for the union. They called it temporary because they knew a permanent tax would have deeper consequences.
The Tariff Act of 1789 passed with rates ranging from 5% to 50%. The temporary tax did what it was intended to do. The United States collected 80 to 95% of its revenue from foreign imports. Few constituents complained.
Funds in the CAFR's is estimated to be enough to fund governments without taxing us.
http://cafr1.com/
The Founding Fathers were very much worried about getting dragged into European Wars. Thus a certain amount of protectionism and isolationism was supported by import tariffs. The other thought is that the tariff amounts were in fact a de facto trade control, allowing for Congress to control our relationships with other nations simply through the tariff policy. What is appealing to me about the tariff policy is that these can't get too high or they choke off business and imports many rely on, so there is a kind of a feedback loop in there to help regulate them. Additionally, by tying tax revenue to import tariffs, you necessarily must take into account the overall economy and its welfare, because if the tariffs become too onerous, the economy suffers and the tax revenue drops - and so does the ability of government to act.
Additionally, import tariffs are in effect a tax on foreigners, allowing maximum freedom for one's citizens. Probably one of the most pernicious effects of the income tax has been the chilling effects on free speech of religious organizations. For more than 100 years in our nation, the pulpit was the source of not only ideological sermons, but political activism and education. By "regulating" religion through the application of "tax-exempt" status, the left has effectively nullified a major educational institution which supported a historical approach to the Constitution. Paired with a takeover of the public school infrastructure, leftists then became free to teach revisionist approaches and to downplay the Constitution and its framework of natural rights.
Tell that to St. Abe Lincoln. He wanted high import taxes so much he created a war, murdered 400,000 American men, and permanently destroyed the liberty of all Americans. The the historians made him a saint just like St. Hillary. (Read The Real Lincoln for researched contemporary evidence.)
I found his research of the facts to be excellent in both The Real Lincoln and Hamilton's Curse. He states the case against Lincoln clearly using contemporary sources and analysis by other scholars who aren't blinded by the cult of St Lincoln.
Walter Williams agreed:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/03/w...
So did James Ostrowski at Mises Institute:
https://mises.org/library/dilorenzo-a...
One by Walter Williams is succinct.
The other is long and has taken me 1/2 an hour or more to go thru.
Agreed, the war was not to end slavery but to stop succession.
But, was there a major (if horrendously costly) upside, by-product?
Did the war end slavery?
Ostrowski answers my question, see the part following where he says,
* Slavery was ended but the slaves were not made free.*
So, yes, slavery was ended as a legal institution, but no one was better off
(except the northern oligopolies); most, who survived, black and white, were worse off.
For instance, in Starship Troopers only those who have worked in the Armed Forces were given an automatic right to vote, the logic being that their actions defense of their nation/world made them suitable caretakers. As pointed out by the author, however, this privilege extended to more than just those who served on the front lines, but to cooks and administrators, etc. - positions which were frequently sought after for the politically connected and their progeny specifically because they entitled little real sacrifice but still enabled the privilege of voting.
This was very similar to the notion of Ancient Rome, under which Roman Citizens could vote and the common person could become a Citizen through service (and survival) in the Roman Legions.
At the origins of our own nation, voting was originally restricted to land owners, which ostensibly ruled out voting by women - though it did serve to protect the interests of property owners!
But what is the true principle at play here? In my view, it is the notion of personal choice and personal responsibility. If I am willing to take full responsibility for my life and my decisions, I should be permitted to vote in pursuance of my life and my decisions. If I do not take full responsibility, then my participation in the voting process may be ethically and legitimately curtailed. Children living with their parents - having not established "full responsibility" would not be allowed to vote no matter their age - though one could make allowances for those who pay rent. Similarly, those whose subsistence came from the government could similarly be declared to be only partially responsible and therefore ineligible to vote.
What separates a looter from a producer? It isn't a matter of how much one produces, but simply that he produces more than he takes in exchange. A looter is one who takes more than he delivers in trade value. If a person is willing to take personal responsibility for their life, they assume the risks and responsibilities, costs and benefits that come with that maturity. But if they take more than they deliver, they are a dependent - not an in_dependent. And in my opinion, only _in_dependents should be allowed to vote.
As to government power, it is derived from the People (in a representative government), is it not? So there is no way to prevent idiots from voting to give power to Government without infringing on one's right to pursue his/her own course. If people vote to make themselves looters, they will then at the same time vote themselves OUT of the voting bloc, allowing subsequent votes to be held without their input. Eventually, either the entire system will break down or the producers will vote NOT to allow themselves to be exploited (see _Atlas Shrugged).
And while it's all nice to talk about a collapse, if it does happen it's going to take down everything for a long time - probably decades. There is a reason that Rand never included a follow-up book that included the final fall and the rebuilding. No one has any idea what it would look like or how many would survive the process due to looting, rioting, etc. Not a pretty picture.