Thanks pal!

I hear that like the so -called 16th Amendment like the so called 17 th Amendment ,that neither of them had been RATIFIED and so both are actually nonexistent(Marbury vs. Madison)(FRAUDS)I guess in the beginning people voted for the Representatives of each State once every 2 years, so then the Representatives for each State picked the Senators for that State(one of the reasons we are a REPUBLIC)Now the representatives being more of them and being closer in relationship to the people in each locality are more accountable to the people that way, and have to give an accounting to the people sooner ,at least every 2 years.( MY personal opinion,elections should be real often, maybe once a year. No career politicians, more accountable that way or put them out sooner.)Now we are getting away from our REPUBLIC with the so called 17 th Amendment, going to democracy ,which is mob rule (two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner)(Socialism is next step) But under the republic the REPRESENTATIVES pick the SENATORS. People only pick the Representatives, that is why they are called REPRESENTATIVES. We need to get back to the Constitution and stop the MOB RULE(no LAW)

smo.... What do you mean the so-called 16th and 17th Amendments were never ratified? They were ratified somewhere between 1910 and 1916.

I am not being sarcastic, but you need to take courses in Civics and/or Political Science, because what you post in the threads doesn't make any sense. Where are you getting all your information? Are you making it up to be controversial, because I cannot imagine anyone believing the nonsense you are posting.

I didn't even read the rest of your post .... no point to it.

Sat 02/02/08 05:05 AM
Re-Legalize Freedom Ron Paul 2008

"JUST COME HOME" Ron Paul 2008

Jokes Over Bring Back the Constitution

Win A Free Country Vote Ron Paul In the Primaries Offer Expires May 2008

Ron Paul/ Get a Free Country AND Your Money Back

Who Owns YOUR Candidate? opensecrets.org

We All Support the Troops/ Who Do the Troops Support?

STOP Corporate Welfare & Political Corruption RonPaul2008

Straight Talk Not Double Talk RonPaul2008

An Honest Paulitician

Democrats For Ron Paul

Washington Needs a Dr. Not a Lawyer RonPaul2008.com

Vote Like the Constitution Matters Ron Paul

Protect Our Borders Not Iraq's

History Will Remember 2008 As the Year The People Saved America RonPaul2008.com

JOIN US RonPaul.Meetup.com

Time to get this back on track.

write in never expires

and third party is an option

have you even tried the new coiled florecent lights that screw into the existing sockets. I have those in my home and those are bright as He*ll. The bar style lights that need the balast setup are dim yes but they never said that you had to use them. just as long as it is a florecent. There not as expensive when as the standard bulbs when you consider how much longer they last and how much power they save. (Im speaking from expierince) With standard bulbs I was changing bulbs every couple of months but now since I changed to all florescents I havent changed a bulb in at least six months. This one is a good thing in my opinion. This is not ment to offend just my point of view from my ecperinces.

The ony 'post' I am going to make is that I am NOT going to comment.

What do you want people to say? You have received some intelligent comments and you do not like it.????

Lindyy

The point of "Back on track" was that I had no added anything to this thread in a while.

Yes, I have used the modern screw in type. AKA Compact Florecent Lamp or "CFL". As I stated in the original posting, they are dim until they warm up. And the real point was, although they are an alternative, they are not good enough to be mandated. Couple that with the fact they are dangerous is broken, I do not want them in my house. Most of all, I do not want the government telling me what kind of light bulb I "have" to use.

There is however a much better technology on the market,LED Lamps, but as yet are quite expensive. The price will come down as more and more people catch on to these. They last longer, are not toxic, they bright the moment you turn them on and best of all, the work with dimmer switches.

http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/index.aspx

"when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Bejamin Franklin has now seen the horror of the very warning issued from his heart.

Why must we continue to ignore that this republic is neither its own definition nor its own intended device?

It has been bludgeoned into unrecognition by laws upon laws upon neglect of purpose.

Such is the rebelliousness of a civil society built on rebellion from tyranny and religious infringement that only serves to inhibit liberty.

The irony is profound.

The current tax code has over 5.5 billion words, countless forms and instructions, and is too complex for the average taxpayer to comprehend. As a result, businesses and individuals face huge burdens of time and money to comply with the tax code; in 2001, Americans spent 6.4 billion hours filling out tax forms for the government.

If everyone including all companies paid a flat 15% tax on all income, no deductions it would be fair and equal for everyone. Think how easy the tax form would be to fill out.

Name, Last:
First:
Middle:
SSN:
Total Income:
X by .15:
Total Tax Due:
Signature:

This would also end politicians playing rich against poor, corporations against the mass's, class warfare and rhetoric and maybe, just maybe let us get on with dealing with the serious issues of the day.

You think gas prices are high now, take a look at this story....

Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas

A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.

"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.

While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.

as long as you keep playing with a two party system that looks more and more like a single party that caters to big business, the American People continue to have no real representation in government and no one gives a damn about them, certainly not the "elected" politicians that pander to who ever offers them more money and more power......

Okay.the ED and votagria jokes were funny as 'ell.

Junta - Good post, thank you.

yep once again ****ing the workingman

Interesting reading for anyone that actually pays taxes.

The Forgotten Man- Amity Shales
http://www.amityshlaes.com/

Top 16 Government Attacks

1. Protectionist Trade Policy

Capitalism is based on a system of free exchange, on free trade. Under this system, people voluntarily engage in trade because it is mutually beneficial. That is, trade is a positive-sum game, not a zero-sum game, as anti-globalization activists would like us to believe, because if it were not, one or both parties would have no reason to trade in the first place. Thus, under a true free-market system, no one can tell you what to produce, how to produce it, whom you can trade with, how much you may pay your workers, or how much you may sell. These are all determined by the "invisible hand" of the laws of supply and demand.

Now enter the government. When the government is given power over trade laws, trade is no longer influenced merely by voluntary action, but by the force of those in power, who are themselves influenced by special interests. Through tariffs and quotas and anti-dumping laws, the government protects certain industries, companies, or even powerful individuals. This is all done at the expense of the consumer, who has to pay higher prices for inferior goods because the government has thwarted competition, either by increasing the costs of doing business (tariffs) or by outright prohibiting it (quotas, anti-dumping laws).

2. Antitrust Policy

One of the most egregious examples of government meddling in business and free trade is that of antitrust policy. There is this myth that there was a golden era of "trustbusting" under President Theodore Roosevelt, during which industrial raiders guilty of exploiting the poor for their own profit were brought to justice and conglomerates were broken up so that competition could once again thrive. The truth is that the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914, like future antitrust laws, were special-interest laws, not public-interest laws. The "landmark" antitrust cases, Standard Oil, Alcoa, and now, perhaps, Microsoft, have all been brought under false pretenses.

It should come as no surprise that 90 percent of antitrust cases are brought not by wronged consumer groups or a benevolent government bent on public service, but rather by firms that are losing market share to their more successful competitors. As in other areas where government exercises its power and influence, things (usually money) are taken from the most productive members of society and redistributed to whichever groups or individuals are favored by those in power at the time.

Monopoly is not a thing to be feared or broken up in a free market. Firms that obtain "monopoly power" have done so because they were the most successful at providing the goods and services that consumers need at the best quality and the best prices. They, too, started out as small firms once. This "power" is not immune to market forces, however, and wherever an opportunity to better serve consumers exists (i.e., wherever there is a chance to make money), other firms will jump in and try to eat away at that market share. Where monopoly is protected by government, however, through burdensome licensing or regulation, or through franchise agreements that completely prohibit other firms from competing, there truly is no chance for full competition, and little incentive for protected firms to innovate. Thus, the only harmful monopoly is a government monopoly.

3. Tax System (Double taxation / capital gains taxes)

We all know how convoluted our tax structure is. It is said that a simple law is a good law, because everyone can understand it and abide by it. But who knows how many laws each of us may be "breaking" (they are, after all, subject to IRS "interpretation") by filling out our tax forms every year? What's worse is that some of our assets are taxed twice.

First, companies are taxed on their revenues. Then, those net profits that are distributed as dividends are taxed again. Likewise, capital gains from stock market transactions are taxed on the individual shareholder, even though the additional earnings (or other increases in the value of the company) have already been assessed at the corporate level. This is not merely a case of taxing everyone the same to pay for government services, it is a case of milking productive companies and risk-taking investors in order to give money to public agencies that will not create one dollar of wealth, or to the least productive members of society, so that they will not have to earn their keep on their own.

4. Medicare / Medicaid

Health care and health insurance are usually very important services that most everyone may benefit from at some point in his life - but that does not mean that there is an unalienable right to having health care or health insurance! In 2001, Medicare made up $237.9 billion of the federal budget, Medicaid $129.4 billion. Together, they comprise nearly 20 percent of federal outlays. Far from providing affordable health care to the masses, government regulations have done nothing but stifle innovation in medical industries and increase the costs of providing health care, leading to higher prices for consumers. So not only do you have to pay more tax dollars to subsidize unwed teenage mothers, drug and alcohol addicts, or other victims of the week, but you have to pay even more of your dollars to get coverage of your own.

People react to incentives. When you provide something for "free" (even when it is with other people's money) or subsidize something, the recipients are going to use more of whatever you are providing. This is no less true for health care. In countries that have socialized health care, people see doctors for things they would not have seen them for and seek more expensive treatments than they would have if they had had to pay directly for it out of their own pockets. The results: ever-increasing costs of health care and long waiting lists to see doctors and undergo surgeries. Thus, those with the most urgent need for health care either die during the waiting process or come to more capitalist countries, such as the United States.

5. Social Security

The government can no better manage the retirement plans of 270 million Americans than it can their health care plans. Yet, through a Ponzi scheme established in the days of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the young are taxed to pay for the retirement of the old. This is paid through a tax of between 7.5 and 15 percent. I give a range here because 7.5 percent is paid by you, the employee, and 7.5 percent is paid by your employer. In the absence of your employer's 7.5 percent "contribution," he would have higher profits and some of that money would be going into your pocket in the form of higher wages. (This would vary by industry and firm.)

When the Social Security Act was passed in 1935, people became eligible for benefits at 65 years of age. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 67 years. Even Roosevelt claimed that it was to be a program primarily for widows and orphans - and a temporary one at that. In 2001, Social Security spending totaled $429.4 billion, making up roughly one-quarter of a nearly $2 trillion budget.

It should be pointed out that there are no retirement accounts under the current system. The Social Security Trust Fund is not a fund that divides up money into the accounts of those paying into the system. Furthermore, the government uses accounting tricks so that Congress can routinely raid the Social Security coffers whenever it needs a little extra spending money. The accounting tactics used by Enron and Worldcom are nothing compared to those used by the federal government. You see, since intra-governmental agency transfers are not recorded as debt by the government, Congress can take $100 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund and it will be counted as a "transfer," not a debt. Never mind that $100 billion has nevertheless been taxed and spent, and will need to be replaced somehow to restore the Fund to its prior levels.

People were able to survive somehow without the federal government providing them with retirement benefits before Social Security, and they can survive - even thrive - without it today.

6. Accounting Practices

If you think that the Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing accounting scandals are examples of serious fraud and deception, you ain't seen nothing yet! The truth is, the federal government cooks the books in ways that would be inconceivable in the private sector. If government was held to the same Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as private sector firms, all of our elected officials and bureaucrats would be in prison - which might not be such a bad thing. It is time we held them to more reasonable standards.

Social Security is one of the most blatant examples of government bookkeeping fraud. Politicians would like us to believe that Social Security taxes go into the Social Security trust fund, which is used to pay our retirement pensions in the future, but this is not true. Trust fund money is used to buy government bonds, which reduces the national debt and disguises the deficit. The disguise works like this: trust fund money has been used to buy bonds, so the trust fund now has a deficit. However, Congress has defined "debt" in such a way that money owed from one government agency to another is not considered debt. The money must come from somewhere sometime, though, and we, the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill in the end. (For more on this see the article "America's Biggest Crook" by economist and syndicated columnist Walter Williams.)

Government debt figures are always grossly understated. Though the national debt numbers quoted by politicians and administration officials typically fall into the $3.5 trillion to $6 trillion range, the actual figure is a whopping $33 trillion.

Other tricks include setting up "off-budget" programs, including Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, and Sallie Mae. Then there is all the money that cannot be accounted for in the first place.

We will not be able to check the size and growth of government until we can see where our tax dollars are going - and how they are being wasted. While the accounting exploits of the private sector are checked by a legal system that punishes fraud, there is no such restraint on the government. There is a need for greater ethical standards and accounting reform - in the government.

7. Use and Abuse of Eminent Domain

For there to be economic growth and a just social order, there must be a strong sense of property rights. Without the protection of private property, exchange cannot effectively take place, for the state could expropriate property at any time, making it impossible for people to guarantee the production and delivery of goods and services. Without property, a person cannot build, cannot acquire, cannot produce more. He does not have his own money to save, spend, or invest, and he does not have his own house to live where and how he pleases. In effect, he is a slave.

Though the Founding Fathers took many measures to make sure that private property would be protected as well as possible, a loophole exists in the form of the "just compensation" provision of the Fifth Amendment ("… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.") This provision was supposed to ensure that property was taken only in the most pressing of needs or emergencies, and that those from whom property was taken were made whole by monetary compensation. In practice, however, it has been used by governments of all levels to take property for purposes that range from designating national parklands to building schools to granting contracts for car dealerships and minimalls.

Furthermore, the whole notion of "just compensation" is a myth. When property is condemned, the owner is forced to sell it to the government at whatever appraisal value the government deems, opening the door to gross corruption and injustice. People are often forced to sell their own property for pennies on the dollar because it is not worth the litigation costs to go up against the government.

Eminent domain powers have always been prone to abuse and injustice. They are so damaging to capitalism because they strike at the core of the free-market system, at private property rights. If these rights are to be preserved, eminent domain has got to go, even though it will take a constitutional amendment to do it.

8. Price Controls

Few things make economic conditions worse than when government tries to control the operations of the market. Artificial controls on supply and demand are just that - artificial. When government tries to prevent things from being produced that there is a demand for, a black market appears. Since engaging in such activity is by definition illegal, business is risky, leading to higher prices, and often dangerous, since methods other than use of the legal system must be used to enforce contracts. (Take a look at the illegal drug trade, for instance.)

Government has nevertheless frequently resorted to price controls in attempts to enforce its socially engineered plans. But, as any reputable economist will tell you, price controls create shortages. Let's look at the example of rent control. Government prevents landlords from charging higher than a certain price for rent, supposedly so that poor people can afford housing. This price cap, or ceiling, is lower than the market price of rental housing; otherwise, even legislators would see no point in imposing them. But not only poor people like lower prices! So now there are more people seeking rental housing than there are apartments at the new (artificially low) price. This eliminates the incentives of landlords to keep their properties clean and offer certain amenities, since they no longer have to outcompete rivals. It also means that there will be discrimination since landlords cannot "discriminate" based on price anymore and must resort to other means to choosing some tenants over others. Finally, for the lucky few that do get their apartments at the rent-controlled price, this is a good deal. But many more people, including poor people, will not be able to get housing as a result. This type of economic meddling clearly constitutes an attack on capitalism.

9. Minimum Wage Laws

Government tinkering with the forces of economics extends not only to controlling the prices at which firms can sell things, but also to controlling the prices that business owners pay to their workers in wages. Minimum wage laws are simply price controls in another form. Instead of setting a maximum price at which sellers can sell, there is a minimum price that businesses must pay to employees, but the effect is still the same - shortages. In this case, wage price controls cause employment shortages. Employers must pay higher prices to employees than their labor would otherwise be worth. This increases the costs of doing business to employers, eating into profits and leaving less money for hiring new labor.

As with the rent control example above, those whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage, but who get jobs anyway, will benefit. However, since employers are hiring fewer workers, many equally or more qualified people will not be able to get jobs. What's worse, the law prohibits them from competing with others looking for jobs by offering to work for less than the minimum wage. This interferes with the individual's freedom to contract, which is every bit as important in negotiating one's employment contract as it is for negotiating contracts for goods and services.

10. Farm Subsidies

We've all heard of the supposed plight of farmers and of the need to provide them with subsidies so that the family farm can stay in business. This rationale contains two fallacies. First, neither the farming industry nor any other important industry is in danger of failure. There are millions and millions of people in America and around the world and they all need to eat, so there is no shortage of demand for food products. The only farms being "protected" are those that are the least efficient and the least productive, and thus are failing only because other farms are doing their jobs better.

Second, most subsidy dollars are not really going to small family farms, but to large corporate farming companies that have a strong lobbying presence on Capitol Hill. But do we really need to subsidize Ted Turner's buffalo ranches? Never doubt the strength of an entrenched lobby, though. After the Republican revolution of the 1994 elections, we were promised that farm subsidies would be abolished. After making some reductions, however, Congress gave in to the farming lobby and passed, with George W. Bush's approval, a plan to increase farm subsidies $180 billion over ten years, a $73.5 billion increase over existing programs. So farm subsidies are just more wasted money and special interest redistribution. Left to its own forces, the free market will allow farmers (and businessmen) to utilize the resources available to them, produce their goods, and sell those goods according to their value to consumers.

11. OSHA Regulations

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was created during the Nixon administration under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Its stated mission is "to save lives, prevent injuries, and protect the health of America's workers." In reality, it is a busybody agency that causes businesses to waste billions of dollars per year in regulatory compliance costs for its 4,000-plus regulations. These red tape costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Not only are such regulations wasteful, they are unnecessary and often even counterproductive. Seat belt laws, for example, may have reduced fatalities when they were introduced, but they increased the total number of accidents taking place and the number of serious accidents involving motorcycles. Why? Because people felt safer and started driving more aggressively. The problem with these types of laws, and all laws that meddle with capitalism, is that they fail to realize that people respond to incentives and will change their behavior when the laws change.

12. EPA Regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done more to damage the environment through command-and-control tactics than unregulated business ever could have done. It is endorsed by irrational environmental activists, and its decisions are "justified" by junk science. Then again, where politics is involved, it is not truth, but appearance and influence, which matter.

The best protection against environmental pollution is a return to emphasis on common law property rights. When someone owns something, he makes sure to take care of it - especially if he is using it to make money. When the government owns something, no one has an incentive to take care of it because it does not "belong" to anyone. Under a property rights system, if you pollute the stream and it damages my property, you have wronged me and I can sue you. Setting maximum levels of soot concentration or carbon dioxide production, however, has no significant effect on the environment and actually diminishes the quality of life by wasting billions of dollars of wealth in the process.

13. Americans With Disabilities Act Regulations / Abuse

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) has impinged on business decisions varying from architectural design to hiring and promotion decisions, and has invited widespread fraud. Rather than allow businesses to decide how to accommodate their handicapped customers, if they have or likely will have any, the government has mandated that all buildings must be designed with wheelchair ramps and parking lots must contain special handicapped-only spaces located conveniently near building entrances. This, once again, leads to lower profits for businesses, which, in turn, leads to lower wages for employees and higher prices for consumers.

Because of the ADA, employers may not even question job applicants about a broad range of "disabilities" that may include forgetfulness, drug or alcohol problems, reading proficiency, violent tendencies, or even sanity! Furthermore, the level of accommodation that must be provided to the disabled means that dealing with disabled people exposes firms to potentially costly litigation, so businesses have decided, rationally, to minimize their risk by not hiring disabled people to begin with. So after the noble law was passed, unemployment for authentically disabled people is higher than it was when the law was passed in 1990. In a free economy devoid of government regulation, people will be able to find work where they are most valuable. This includes the disabled, who would be recognized as assets to their employers instead of liabilities. The ADA represents an affront to the freedom of contract and should be seen for what it is - a political tool to exploit productive firms for the special interests of yet another favored group.

14. Misguided Tort Laws

The United States has tragically moved from a system of common law - established law that is based on customs, precedent, and principles of protecting the rights of individuals and their property from intrusions by other individuals or the state - to a system of civil law, which is created by legislators and rulers.

"The two systems of law began at opposite ends of the legal spectrum. The Common Law was developed by the common people and was imposed on the rulers of the country. The civil law was developed by the rulers and imposed on the people." (Neil C. Chamelin and Kenneth R. Evans, Criminal Law For Policemen, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976)

The shift to civil law has necessarily led to the politicization of the law, in which decisions are reached primarily through emotional pleas instead of rational arguments. The most telling examples of this are in the areas of product liability and malpractice law. Juries now typically award millions - even billions - of dollars in punitive damages because they are encouraged by prosecutors to "send a message" to the company that made the cup of hot coffee that a woman spilled on herself, or to the doctor who was unsuccessful at attempting a risky medical procedure. This is not justice. In the case of product liability, it rewards careless or stupid behavior. Such medical malpractice decisions merely raise the cost of health care (since doctors' insurance premiums go up and are then passed on to patients) and stifle the incentive of doctors to perform risky, but potentially life-saving, measures.

Another problem is that plaintiffs have nothing to lose by suing. As a result, the courts are flooded every year with groundless cases. A "loser pays" provision, which would require the loser of a lawsuit to pay the attorney fees of the winner, would force potential plaintiffs to take costs into account and only bring cases that have legitimate legal merit. Individuals or businesses facing bogus suits that might otherwise have settled to avoid even higher legal costs would then be permitted to have their day in court and justice would be served.

15. Inflationary Monetary Policy

Governments have a tendency to grow and grow. But how do they pay for all the social programs they put into place, especially when taxpayer dollars are not enough to cover the bill? When you have a monopoly on the production and management of money, the answer is simple: you print more. This paper, or "fiat," money is backed only by the promise of the government, however. In addition, now there is more money chasing fewer goods, so the dollar you held before the central bank increased the money supply is now worth less, and there you have inflation. This leads people to save less and buy more goods today, since money will be worth less in the future than it is today. Furthermore, as economists of the Austrian school of thought have predicted, monetary tinkering by the central bank (the Federal Reserve here in the United States) leads to boom-and-bust cycles as the economy must adjust from artificially-created levels back to its "natural" levels. Thus, inflationary monetary policies are just one more means by which government reduces your wealth.

By contrast, under a specie standard (gold would most likely become the medium of exchange, but this would be determined by supply and demand in the free market), government must restrain its spending or else it will lose real value as its gold stock depletes. A gold standard would necessitate government accountability and eliminate the arbitrary decisions of the Fed that manipulate the value of money. I, for one, would much rather place my trust in the laws of supply and demand than on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.

16. Public Education

In a free society, the government has no place in providing educational services, for there is a clear conflict of interest whenever the state gets involved in education. How many people who depend on the government for their paychecks are going to be critical of the government and encourage their pupils to question its activities? No wonder the culture of dependency and political correctness has continued to grow year after year.

Education, like health care, is important, but it is not a right. Those who provide education are providing a service, and education should be treated like any other service. If you want your kitchen remodeled, you do your research, figure out what type of appliances, cabinets, and flooring you want, compare prices, and have the job done by the contractor that best meets your requirements. You do not nationalize all kitchen contractors, force them to remodel all kitchens the same way, and pay them with other people's money.

A fully privatized educational system would allow choice. If you think it is best for your kid to have a background in music, send him to an arts school. If you think he would be better off with computer skills, send him to a technical school. If you don't like the fact that your child's school is distributing condoms to students, take your business somewhere else. If you think your child is being indoctrinated, not educated, go somewhere else. Parents should have the freedom to choose how their children will be raised and taught. These options would exist in a true capitalist society because businesses will emerge to satisfy such demands wherever there is a market, wherever there is money to be made.

Moreover, competition among schools for student enrollment dollars would lead to increased services and a higher quality of education. For those that think that this is unfair because the poor would not be able to afford education for their children, consider that not all education would be the same. There are BMWs and there are Hyundais. Some would be more expensive and some would be cheaper. But unlike cars, students represent an investment to schools. The best and brightest graduates increase a school's reputation, which brings in more business and more profits. Thus, there would be scholarships to help defray the cost of education, not to mention all the tax dollars that people could save instead of pouring them into the current bureaucracy.

The most important thing to remember is this: in a capitalist society, ability is recognized sooner or later, and hard work and a positive attitude will be handsomely rewarded. With the freedom to live and achieve, take pride in your work and there is no limit to the success you can attain.

hmmm

need to go to a flat sales tax

that way everyone pays their share

but they do not want that it would mean their buddy's would pay more

if go to sales tax you would only be taxed on what you buy
thus the rich buy more than broke

but yet the broke would still pay some

no tax on the most basic items say like generics

and any car priced under 7500$

ya don't need the best but if you upgrade above the lowest level
ya pay the tax

thus everyone pays their fair share