Not sure if this is the right place for these comments or not. I highlighted the areas of the document for my comments in red then deleted everything I agreed with and here are the sections that I feel need work. Overall I like it

Quote:

Federationists must respect personal autonomy and refuse to force others to pay for personal choice, irrespective of whether that choice was a positive one (e.g. the decision to use drugs or overeat) or a negative one (the choice to not buy medical insurance.)

Change positive choice to NOT to use drugs or overeat.

Quote:

There is no evidence to support this position; the person with a $100,000 house may and probably does have as many children consuming that resource as does the $1 million house's owner. Likewise, taxation predicated upon income is a declaration that one receives more value from government based on their earnings. History, however, shows that what actually happens is that the wealthy effectively buy government. Therefore, taxation should be predicated on the voluntary act of consumption.

This implies the root of our government corruption is property or income taxes on the wealthy. I wholly disagree with this. I believe the root cause is campaign funding. The use here of the rich buying government tied to taxes is better placed elsewhere. Probably expanded in another section that deals with the specific issue of buying government.

Quote:

Trade with nations that are effective equals can and should be on free and open terms. Exploitation is neither "free" or "fair." Nations that employ effective slave labor tactics (e.g. China), steal intellectual property or despoil the environment to obtain their "advantage" are not competing on a fair and free playing field. The proper response to these activities is tariffs recovering the difference for the US Treasury that is otherwise lost to these unfair trade practices..

I disagree with any tax in this area that does not put an American to work. If you tax say at 25% but it costs 50% import tax to put an American to work then all we have is a distribution of wealth, With the government picking winners and losers. It does not address loss of state revenue, only a revenue loss to the US Treasury. Heh, I will check the other parts of the forum to give full comment on this.

Bert, "positive choice" != positive outcome, but rather an election to do a thing (rather than to NOT do a thing.) It's correct as written.

Quote:

This implies the root of our government corruption is property or income taxes on the wealthy. I wholly disagree with this. I believe the root cause is campaign funding. The use here of the rich buying government tied to taxes is better placed elsewhere. Probably expanded in another section that deals with the specific issue of buying government.

No, it implies that if equal protection under the law is enforced (and IS the law, enforced or not) a rich man does not get more from the government than a poor man. In fact it's the opposite in the general sense if you include entitlements. If we count all men as equal, and the protection of their liberty interest as equal, then if there is to be a progressive tax system it must be predicated on voluntary action, so wealthy or poor you your taxation beyond the minimum to which all are exposed is voluntary. Thus, the call for taxation to be predicated on consumption (a voluntary act.)

Quote:

I disagree with any tax in this area that does not put an American to work. If you tax say at 25% but it costs 50% import tax to put an American to work then all we have is a distribution of wealth, With the government picking winners and losers. It does not address loss of state revenue, only a revenue loss to the US Treasury. Heh, I will check the other parts of the forum to give full comment on this.

"Free trade" that constitutes other nations putting together slave labor forces and permitting wanton pollution is not "free" at all. The exporting of our job base for the explicit purpose of exploiting slave labor and environmental laxity results in monstrous social spending expenses. Firms can choose to do this, but not to evade the costs; their attempt to evade the costs will be recaptured via tariffs.