Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tax reform????

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 8:09:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What is the best way to have tax reform?

Explain your method and how it would work?

I like a http://www.fairtax.org... , a fair tax system.
This website explains it, so what do you like?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 9:33:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Inb4 Ragnar's user fees.

there, just saved myself from having to repeat myself for no good reason.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 9:36:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 8:09:40 AM, comoncents wrote:
What is the best way to have tax reform?

Abolish it.

Explain your method and how it would work?

No one would pay taxes. Except state beneficiaries, perhaps.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:19:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would have everyone pay a certain percent of what they make. Such as 35% or something like that. Perhaps more perhaps less but that is what I would do.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:21:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 12:19:36 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I would have everyone pay a certain percent of what they make. Such as 35% or something like that. Perhaps more perhaps less but that is what I would do.

Like a progressive income tax? I'm in favour of that too.
Tamikajones
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:21:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 12:19:36 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I would have everyone pay a certain percent of what they make. Such as 35% or something like that. Perhaps more perhaps less but that is what I would do.

Good plan bro
: At 4/21/2010 5:49:24 PM, banker wrote:
: Mirza at least no one is misunderstanding santa...!!
:
:Hitler had sexual issues just like muhammud..!!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:25:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 12:21:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/13/2010 12:19:36 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I would have everyone pay a certain percent of what they make. Such as 35% or something like that. Perhaps more perhaps less but that is what I would do.

Like a progressive income tax?

I'm pretty sure everyone paying A (singular) certain percent is a flat tax, which is by definition not progressive. A progressive tax would be more along the lines of "some people pay a given percent, and other people pay a different percent. Depending on whether they are ebil rich people."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 12:27:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 12:25:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/13/2010 12:21:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/13/2010 12:19:36 PM, Kahvan wrote:
I would have everyone pay a certain percent of what they make. Such as 35% or something like that. Perhaps more perhaps less but that is what I would do.

Like a progressive income tax?

I'm pretty sure everyone paying A (singular) certain percent is a flat tax, which is by definition not progressive. A progressive tax would be more along the lines of "some people pay a given percent, and other people pay a different percent. Depending on whether they are ebil rich people."

Oh, I must have misread what he wrote. I know the difference. >.>
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 8:01:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
so lets say if you make below x amount of money you pay 35% tax rate if you make between x and z amount of money you pay 38% and if you make above y you pay 40%

I don't like that. I think it would be easier and better if everyone simply paid something like 40% tax rate. It would make the whole tax system smoother and be fair to everyone.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:11:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Incidentally it also makes it harder to hide subsidies for some of the rich in a massive complex tax code.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:17:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No income tax, ideally taxes should be levied when the government provides a service or requires compensation.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:19:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 8:01:53 AM, Kahvan wrote:
so lets say if you make below x amount of money you pay 35% tax rate if you make between x and z amount of money you pay 38% and if you make above y you pay 40%

I don't like that. I think it would be easier and better if everyone simply paid something like 40% tax rate. It would make the whole tax system smoother and be fair to everyone.

More like 1%.
40% is disgustingly extortionate.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:22:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I highly doubt you'll get any worthwhile government for 1% of your income. These things cost money. The transition to user fees will make matters cheaper in the long run, because services once subjected to the economic pressure of "people don't have to buy if they don't need" will be made more efficient, but there are limits.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:25:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 9:22:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I highly doubt you'll get any worthwhile government for 1% of your income. These things cost money. The transition to user fees will make matters cheaper in the long run, because services once subjected to the economic pressure of "people don't have to buy if they don't need" will be made more efficient, but there are limits.

My word man... what sort of libertarian are you?!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:41:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 9:25:26 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 9:22:44 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I highly doubt you'll get any worthwhile government for 1% of your income. These things cost money. The transition to user fees will make matters cheaper in the long run, because services once subjected to the economic pressure of "people don't have to buy if they don't need" will be made more efficient, but there are limits.

My word man... what sort of libertarian are you?!

What's unlibertarian about recognizing that you get what you pay for?

You don't get a decent house for 1% of your income, or food, etc. Unless you're really rich of course, but then you typically tend to just buy better food and a better house. Government has even more production costs than those, therefore, if you want to continue to receive its services, expect to pay, even after taxes are abolished. If you want to go without, feel free, but don't go blaming the government for the natural consequences of going without any more than you can blame a landlord you refused to pay for the lack of a roof over your head or the grocery store you refused to pay for the hunger in your belly.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:45:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At least be consistent in your ideology, you are normally that.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 9:50:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 9:45:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At least be consistent in your ideology, you are normally that.

What am I being inconsistent about?

I'm lost here, someone throw me a bone?
Services have costs-- you need to pay for them or stop receiving them, unless you find a willing donor. When have I ever said otherwise? Where in libertarianism does it say or imply you can wave a magic wand and get the services of government at a cost magically far below the cost of production? Far as I can tell it merely says you need to provide the option to not pay-- and consequently go without government services.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:02:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So you have not argued outsourcing pretty much all Government services to the private sector?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:12:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 10:02:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you have not argued outsourcing pretty much all Government services to the private sector?

No, not "outsourcing." Some things government should have nothing to do with-- i.e. the welfare state stuff-- and that's a source of savings, but not on the level of "goes to one percent." Roads it can continue to build for tolls, or not-- it doesn't really matter. but the essence of what government IS-- police, courts, military-- stay-- and even if you contracted them out to private companies, that wouldn't magically change the cost of producing them all that much. You still wouldn't be getting all those services for 1 percent of your income.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:21:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 10:12:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:02:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you have not argued outsourcing pretty much all Government services to the private sector?

No, not "outsourcing." Some things government should have nothing to do with-- i.e. the welfare state stuff

Why shouldn't the government have anything to do with the welfare state? Is that because you oppose the welfare state, or feel it could be handled by charity or even the private sector?

-- and that's a source of savings, but not on the level of "goes to one percent." Roads it can continue to build for tolls, or not-- it doesn't really matter. but the essence of what government IS-- police, courts, military-- stay-- and even if you contracted them out to private companies, that wouldn't magically change the cost of producing them all that much. You still wouldn't be getting all those services for 1 percent of your income.

Well the 1% was random yes, for clarity do you think the police, courts, military etc should be private sector?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:25:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 10:12:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You still wouldn't be getting all those services for 1 percent of your income.

PS: That was not the issue, obviously to use 'vital' services you must pay n% taxes and n% to purchase them from the private sector.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:35:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 10:21:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:12:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:02:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you have not argued outsourcing pretty much all Government services to the private sector?

No, not "outsourcing." Some things government should have nothing to do with-- i.e. the welfare state stuff

Why shouldn't the government have anything to do with the welfare state?
Because there is no way it can get voluntary funding for welfare in a reliable manner, and getting it in an unreliable manner (like a charity) threatens the more important functions of a government.


-- and that's a source of savings, but not on the level of "goes to one percent." Roads it can continue to build for tolls, or not-- it doesn't really matter. but the essence of what government IS-- police, courts, military-- stay-- and even if you contracted them out to private companies, that wouldn't magically change the cost of producing them all that much. You still wouldn't be getting all those services for 1 percent of your income.

Well the 1% was random yes, for clarity do you think the police, courts, military etc should be private sector?
Depends how you define "private sector." They are handled by the government, but a lot of people would call a government funded by user fees a private company. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:40:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And yes, I'm personally mildly opposed to most charities that mimic functions of welfare, but as long as they stay away from the state I don't support stopping them
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:49:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 10:35:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:21:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:12:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:02:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you have not argued outsourcing pretty much all Government services to the private sector?

No, not "outsourcing." Some things government should have nothing to do with-- i.e. the welfare state stuff

Why shouldn't the government have anything to do with the welfare state?
Because there is no way it can get voluntary funding for welfare in a reliable manner, and getting it in an unreliable manner (like a charity) threatens the more important functions of a government.

So the government should have a full divorce from social welfare?



-- and that's a source of savings, but not on the level of "goes to one percent." Roads it can continue to build for tolls, or not-- it doesn't really matter. but the essence of what government IS-- police, courts, military-- stay-- and even if you contracted them out to private companies, that wouldn't magically change the cost of producing them all that much. You still wouldn't be getting all those services for 1 percent of your income.

Well the 1% was random yes, for clarity do you think the police, courts, military etc should be private sector?
Depends how you define "private sector." They are handled by the government, but a lot of people would call a government funded by user fees a private company. :)

Hmmm...
Government services funded by involuntary taxes
or
Government services funded by voluntary user fees?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 10:54:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 10:49:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:35:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:21:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:12:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:02:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you have not argued outsourcing pretty much all Government services to the private sector?

No, not "outsourcing." Some things government should have nothing to do with-- i.e. the welfare state stuff

Why shouldn't the government have anything to do with the welfare state?
Because there is no way it can get voluntary funding for welfare in a reliable manner, and getting it in an unreliable manner (like a charity) threatens the more important functions of a government.

So the government should have a full divorce from social welfare?
Yes. No AFDC, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid, etc.




-- and that's a source of savings, but not on the level of "goes to one percent." Roads it can continue to build for tolls, or not-- it doesn't really matter. but the essence of what government IS-- police, courts, military-- stay-- and even if you contracted them out to private companies, that wouldn't magically change the cost of producing them all that much. You still wouldn't be getting all those services for 1 percent of your income.

Well the 1% was random yes, for clarity do you think the police, courts, military etc should be private sector?
Depends how you define "private sector." They are handled by the government, but a lot of people would call a government funded by user fees a private company. :)

Hmmm...
Government services funded by involuntary taxes
or
Government services funded by voluntary user fees?
I thought I answered this, but in bold is the answer again.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 11:16:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 10:54:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:49:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:35:27 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:21:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:12:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 10:02:32 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So you have not argued outsourcing pretty much all Government services to the private sector?

No, not "outsourcing." Some things government should have nothing to do with-- i.e. the welfare state stuff

Why shouldn't the government have anything to do with the welfare state?
Because there is no way it can get voluntary funding for welfare in a reliable manner, and getting it in an unreliable manner (like a charity) threatens the more important functions of a government.

So the government should have a full divorce from social welfare?
Yes. No AFDC, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid, etc.




-- and that's a source of savings, but not on the level of "goes to one percent." Roads it can continue to build for tolls, or not-- it doesn't really matter. but the essence of what government IS-- police, courts, military-- stay-- and even if you contracted them out to private companies, that wouldn't magically change the cost of producing them all that much. You still wouldn't be getting all those services for 1 percent of your income.

Well the 1% was random yes, for clarity do you think the police, courts, military etc should be private sector?
Depends how you define "private sector." They are handled by the government, but a lot of people would call a government funded by user fees a private company. :)

Hmmm...
Government services funded by involuntary taxes
or
Government services funded by voluntary user fees?
I thought I answered this, but in bold is the answer again.

Well in that case the Government will be both the government and a private corporation.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 11:20:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well in that case the Government will be both the government and a private corporation.
Very well then. In that case, there is no "public sector" by the way you choose to define the terms-- enjoy Ragnarcorp brand government :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 11:23:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 11:20:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Well in that case the Government will be both the government and a private corporation.
Very well then. In that case, there is no "public sector" by the way you choose to define the terms-- enjoy Ragnarcorp brand government :P

Would you allow full competition, even of Government services... courts police etc?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 11:34:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 11:23:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 11:20:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Well in that case the Government will be both the government and a private corporation.
Very well then. In that case, there is no "public sector" by the way you choose to define the terms-- enjoy Ragnarcorp brand government :P

Would you allow full competition, even of Government services... courts police etc?

Would I allow a farmer to compete with me by growing crops on my land?

Jurisdiction is not ownership of the land itself, but it is nevertheless a form of scarce property by nature. It is impossible for two courts to both have their rulings enforced in the same matter consistently, because they can rule differently, and the only possible result of such a thing is war. Police and the military are both subordinate to a court and thus suffer the same logic. I'm a minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist, the government must alas be a monopoly, the only competition can be other governments ruling other jurisdictions that people can emigrate to.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2010 11:41:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/14/2010 11:34:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2010 11:23:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/14/2010 11:20:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Well in that case the Government will be both the government and a private corporation.
Very well then. In that case, there is no "public sector" by the way you choose to define the terms-- enjoy Ragnarcorp brand government :P

Would you allow full competition, even of Government services... courts police etc?

Would I allow a farmer to compete with me by growing crops on my land?

Jurisdiction is not ownership of the land itself, but it is nevertheless a form of scarce property by nature. It is impossible for two courts to both have their rulings enforced in the same matter consistently, because they can rule differently, and the only possible result of such a thing is war. Police and the military are both subordinate to a court and thus suffer the same logic. I'm a minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist, the government must alas be a monopoly, the only competition can be other governments ruling other jurisdictions that people can emigrate to.

This is where R_R disappears from the intelligent category for me.
(I'm an AnCap :D)
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?