They wouldn't be "opt out" exemptions, the gov is set and limited. They would be things people choose to do above, beyond and separate from the gov.ruckman101 wrote:All of the "opt out" exemptions. Septic tank and well owners, local roads only, federal taxes but not for war (I'd be on that list), all the "sovereign citizen" exceptions, child labor, the abortion camps, the "english language only" groups, all the social agenda items get real sticky, racists, all the different religions, bicyclists, etc etc etc., toxic waste management.
While faith in the honesty, integrity, respect, and common sense logic of our brothers and sisters on this planet is admirable, history notes it is also very naive. Again, an ideal. Humanity has been entangled in violence as long as there has been humanity, as evidenced by flesh shredding cuspid teeth still in our mouths.
While I am optimistic about resolving the consequences of global warming, I'm not as optimistic that my fellow humans behavior can change at the level needed to realize your vision of an ideal limited government. Weiner comes to mind.
neal
Septic Tank and Well owners.
They pay to install, upkeep and run those systems they own that are on their property. Someone else is on a system provided by the community. In this county there is the Counties water system. People who use it get a usage bill. I do not know if some money for it comes from a general tax or not, but that would end. Only those who use it would pay. So nothing additional here, except if property taxes contributed to such a system that would end. Might I add how unjust that sounds to tax someone for county water who doesn't use it and they also have to pay for there well and septic out of their own pocket.
Someone only wanting to use local roads.
Currently local and interstate are funded from different sources anyway.
This gets a bit trickie partly due to the fact that we have roads in already that were done via the unconstitutional method. This is maybe one of the few useful things our elected officials could work on. I would assume interstates is on what is called public land, actually might be federal, which federal shouldn't own anything in a Libertarian system.(I think), if they do that is us again, public. Seems to me the upkeep would have to paid for by those who use it. So this would be an additional thing set up, but we'd be doing away with so many government agencies we'd still be way ahead. But either way, if you use it you pay, if you don't, you don't pay.
Other roads put in privately would not be a gov thing.
Not for WAR
The military would only be for defense. So none of our money goes to war. If some one thought something was needed in a country like Iraq or Lybia, they are free to go, and who ever wants to fund such an adventure could do it. But it wouldn't be a gov thing, it wouldn't be our military.
all the "sovereign citizen" exceptions, child labor, the abortion camps, the "english language only" groups, all the social agenda items get real sticky, racists, all the different religions, bicyclists, etc etc etc
I'm not sure why that would add anything to a limited Libertarian form of gov. The gov doesn't or wouldn't dictate in these matters.
Let me make sure we are talking about the same thing, A gov set up to protect my rights to be King of my property.(self and what I own).
Racist? What needs to be done for that? Some guy hates blacks, he still can't hurt or kill one. That be violating one of the basics few things the gov is set up for. Oh, do you mean if for example some guy owns an auto repair shop and he hates blacks and doesn't want to hire one? Well, he owns the shop, that is what he can choose to do. I'd look at him as an idiot and would do what I could to give my money elsewhere. But no laws for that.
Religion? They can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.