Dirt poor?

[Radar]

That's nice. You go tell the fairies how Federal Reserve is illegal and if everyone stops printing money the world will exist in perfect economic peace and I'll go back to working in the real world with real money on real markets and all the complexities involved in doing so.

You wish it was a fairy tale. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 gives ONLY the U.S. Government the legal authority to make money and in Section 10, clause 1 the Constitution even goes further to prevent the states or anyone else from making money.

And I'll go on agreeing with those Nobel Prize winning economists who agree with what I'm saying and who would laugh at you.

Article 1 Section Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Section 10 - Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

One final question, mostly out of morbid curiosity, do you actually think there is no different between macro and micro economics?

Fundamentally, all economics are the same.

Radar himself states this:
“Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits” Whatever the government does with this money, almost none of it is going to the needy disabled and charities are NOT taking up the slack.

The government taking so much there isn't enough left over to "take up the slack". With government gone and not taking the vast majority of money for charity, there wouldn't be any slack. And even when Americans are forced to work two jobs...one to pay the taxes...and the other to pay the bills, they still give generously to charities in America and abroad.

Radar is espousing Libertarian beliefs with all the sunny innocence of a child. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a moment that Americans would take up the slack by an onslaught of charitable giving if their tax burden was taken away

I am not espousing beliefs, I'm espousing facts. You are free to be a pessimist all you like. But nobody's needs regardless of how badly off they are, entitle them to rob others and no amount of rationalization will turn income taxes into anything but theft and slavery. Do you think because you are handicapped, you are entitled to rob others?

For another, under libertarian anarchy people would remain largely uneducated about these and other issues. There would be no public libraries or school systems.

That's laughable. First off with very few exceptions, libertarians are not anarchists. They advocate a small government that does only what it is allowed to do in the Constitution and nothing else. Smaller government = more freedom. Second, we'd have superior school systems that even poor families could attend, and privately owned libraries that were available to the public or public libraries that are funded locally instead of federally.

The wealthy would give their children a good education. Everyone else would home school their children or forget about the whole thing entirely. On top of that, people would be too busy arming themselves to the teeth without police or fire protection. The disabled would be the last thing they thought about.

Put down the crack pipe before you burn your lip. You start off by saying the wealthy would have a good education and the poor would be home schooled. Home-schooled kids perform better than those educated in private and in public schools. Watch the national spelling bee, geography bee, etc. so even if your false world were true, those who were home schooled would have a good education. But the truth is we'd have more schools with better teachers that even the poorest family could attend because they would be cheaper, and because companies would choose to use their tax money to send kids to school instead of sending it to the government. All kids of all income levels would have access to a far better education than the failed and worthless system currently in place, but kids wouldn't be COMPELLED to go by force. Libertarians certainly support anyone's right to home school their children without government oversight.

And the most ludicrous statement you've made is the one painting a post apocalyptic frenzy of people running through stores grabbing guns to defend themselves against the onslaught of marauding bandits. What a crock of shit. Apparently you think before the invention of income taxes we didn't have roads, libraries, a post office, police, or firefighters and the streets were full of people who would shoot you just as soon as look at you. But in reality (something you don't seem to know much about) crime was far lower before income taxes, education was better, and people had more freedom. For the record, I have no problem with people buying as many guns of any type they choose with any kind of ammo.

Your attempts to paint a libertarian America as a lawless America won't fly here chief so try selling that shit to someone else.

Radar advocates an end to all government services because he resents paying taxes.

No, I advocate an end to all unconstitutional government programs because they are illegal, and they are funded with stolen money. It's theft. You seem to think there is something wrong with someone resenting a person who is robbing them at the point of a gun. Your values are completely out of whack. You think the thief should be respected instead of resented, and there is something wrong with the person who dislikes being robbed or seeing others be robbed.

Your type are hilarious. You attempt to rationalize your desire to rob others. You think that if someone is against the government educating people poorly with stolen money, they are against people getting an education. You think if someone is against the government helping out the needy, they are against charity. I suppose you think if someone is against the government using stolen money to feed people, they are against eating.

This is the real world, not some utopia.

That's funny coming from you. Libertarians are the only people who don't believe in utopia. Libertarians are the only one offering real solutions that work in the real world right now. Not some fantasy where people are happy to be robbed and the government is actually helping people.

OK now, go ahead and attack me. I may respond or I may not. I’m feeling very tired.

I haven't attacked you, I've responded to your offensive diatribe promoting theft and attacked your warped value system….ok, I attacked you a little bit, but you deserved it. But it's ok, go ahead and continue your martyr bit. You're so good at it.

So let's say, instead, the charities won't give you money directly, but they'll pay your landlord directly. What's to stop the landlord from collecting multiple times and giving kickbacks to the person living there?

What's to stop someone from taking a chainsaw to every baby they see on the street? A conscience. But some might be unscroupulous. Do you think there aren't people who get away with that kind of stuff right now using the current system?

So where does that leave Elspode's son? He would have to rely on someone providing him with all his goods-and-services directly, since in theory there's no advantage to having them duplicated. Ok, so effectively, he'd have to live in a "home" where everything would be taken care of for him.

As far as I am concerned, charities are there to help people help themselves. I would imagine she would have to provide some things for her son. And what makes you think businesses and people with lots of money since they aren't being robbed anymore won't give to a charity that does medical research, and builds large homes where parents can live with their kids like the Ronald McDonald house charities?

A lot of folks would consider it degrading, both being lumped in with people with all sorts of disabilities, as well as giving up so much independence when they really only need a little help.

A person would be free to approach as many charities as they like if they think they could get more assistance in living the lifestyle they wanted, but help wouldn't and shouldn't be guaranteed because nothing entitles you to charity.

Don't even sweat it. The world he's taking about won't even begin to happen in our lifetimes anyway.

The America I'm talking about was a reality for more than 100 years and it will be again.