From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 14:34:11 PST

In <4JAN199315292555@zeus.tamu.edu>:

>In article <1993Jan4.163611.21601@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>|
>|Don't get me wrong here.  I'm pro-choice for society but personally pro-life.
>|I dislike abortion and my wife dislikes abortion.  And I *really* don't want
>|to support abortion.  But I have no problem with pro-choicers who fund
>|clinics themselves (i.e. "putting their money where their mouth is") in order
>|to let poor women gain access to abortion. I guess I'm just consistently pro-
>|choice on *everything*.  Sigh...

>In the end, this may be the only way to go.  Since it is possible
>that anything taught in a public school may conflict with someone else's
>religion (even curricula such as the fundamentals), dismantling the
>public school system may be the only way to keep government from
>religiously interfering with people.

>But then, if the legislation of values amounts to religious
>imposition, then we will end up dismantling government since all
>legislation is made with the intent of providing a service that is
>deemed valuable by someone.  Others will disagree as to its value or
>appropriateness, and we'll have to put an end to government once and for
>all.

If only that were feasible and practical!  There are too many legitimate
needs for government for that to work--even I as a Libertarian realize that.
Yet at the same time, the current system requires all people to pay for all
things.  Many of these things are unconstitutional in that to some people,
they are a violation of various freedoms.

The best compromise I can think of here is to create a mechanism by which all
taxpayers can choose where they want their money spent.  The money that they
have available to allocate is listed on a tax return, and they choose from
many (hundreds?) of choices--including defense, abortion funding, social
programs, environmental protection, deficit reduction, education and so on.

Let's say that I finish my 1992 1040, and it shows that my wife and I paid
$6,500 in federal income taxes (a rough estimate).  Now I can allocate that
$6,500 as I see fit.  That way I can choose among programs and goals which
I find acceptable.  No devout Christians have to fund Planned Parenthood and
no Arab-Americans have to pay for Israeli aid.  In short, although the govern-
ment requires you to pay taxes, you can now pay them as you desire.  Let the
Greenpeacers spend all of their taxes on environmental stuff and let the
hawkish people spend all of their money on defense spending.  Isn't that a
nice way to see what the taxpayers *really* want?  Hmmm...$200 for this, $500
for that, $400 for this...

I'm not sure that this is practical either, but it looks nice in theory.  Many
people will complain that this will give the rich disproportionately large
influence in the federal budget, but whose money was it?  And also, publicly
held corporations would have their tax allocations done by their shareholders.
That would prevent only the well-heeled CEO from screwing the poor.  Plenty
of shareholders are activists in arenas like the environment, AIDS, the home-
less and so on.  Anyone who is in a pension plan or owns a few shares in a
mutual fund are shareholders, too!

Is there any other way we can continue to let government fund everything it
currently does in a way that will not violate Constitutional rights?  We can
have the abortion mills getting their check from Washington, while I can
sleep with a clear conscience knowing that I didn't support them...

Of course, then people can claim that their religion does not allow them to
pay taxes...good grief!  When will it end?!


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Hoping for a Libertarian run for Congress in '94
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh