David Hillary wrote:
>
> The govt can get revenue from gaming because it regulates and
> monopolises and taxes the industry, and believe me gaming taxes are not
> voluntary!
Well, there's still these book makers in town doing a *big* business.
There's The Gold Casino on line. There are gambling options besides
the government of Massachusetts' games. Plus some take a week off
from work to go to Las Vegas. I've talked to some of them. It's
a choice they make knowing they are voluntarily supporting the
government that's giving them a royal screwing. They don't care as
they don't have *hope of getting* ahead, the cost of government
being so high in the US. They play government games,
private games *and* go to Las Vegas. Russia and the other countries
that made up the former USSR are a great example. They're still
great examples.
No body is being threatened with violence for not playing a
government game. Same goes for whale tails on your license
plate. Same goes for importing. The government would not be
threatening somebody for not importing. Importing would be
a voluntary act.
> By contrast national/state lotteries, personalised and special number
> plates, seinorarge revenues and similar 'non-tax' revenues are trivial
> by comparison, and inadequate to fund a defence force (commonly 1-4% of
> GDP), a police force (0.5% GDP), jails (0.5% GDP), core government
> services (1% GDP), conservation and similar functions.
Mostly *real* crime (immoral acts, not illegal acts which mostly
are a joke) is an economic event. If the world was mostly a highly
free market you could cut the above percentages down a lot. A
government does very little that the private sector can't do,
including police. Private police forces in the US is a growth
industry. Governmet police can not be sued for *not* protecting
your life and property because that's not their legal abligation
in the US. Some large percentage of national defense in the US
is private interprise already. On top of that, some huge amount
of US military activity has nothing to do with national defense.
> > "Elizabeth I Queen of England (reigned 1558 - 1603).
> > When she ascended to the throne, Elizabeth inherited numerous debts.
> > Her genius was in the method she chose to raise revenue to pay those
> > debts, which was unique in tax policy: she made taxation voluntary!
> > Her words: "To tax and to be loved is not given to man. I will end
> > as I began with my subjects, with love." Within 15 years she had a
> > surplus, and was loved deeply."
> > - from Victor Sperandeo's dedication of his book
> > 'Trader Vic II - Principles of Professional Speculation'
>
> nice quote of someone's opinion, but a poor argument.
I'll go so far as to say that it's not even an argument.
Just a statement of fact. What I have to do now is find
out just how Elizabeth did it.
Good arguments, David.
Best,
Bob
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
