An interesting question was posed to me today about how we would finance a legitimate war (whether here or abroad). How would a purely Constitutional government under Ron Paul, after demolishing the IRS and other bogus taxes, legitimately fund such a war?
How to finance a legitimate war without taxes
- Thread starter jcl
- Start date
I did realize that wars were fought before an income tax and "war bonds" does ring a bell (off to the Wikipedian starting point), but as I stated in my post asking for history book recommendations, my knowledge of history sucks so I'm sure there are ideas, such as war bonds, that I have forgotten or not known about. So thanks for the reminder! 
Justin
Justin
It's very simple, and is a further a check on the power of governement.
-Governement has no money, nor should it.
-If government wants a war, then it must gather volunteers to fight (over 1,000,000 volunteered after Pearl Harbor was reported to be attacked). Thus, wars supported by the public have no shortage of volunteers, but are generally confined to situations in which we are attacked, which was the position of the Framers of the US Constitution anyway.
-To fund troops, government should similarly only have use of funds voluntarily donated by its citizens. Afterall, if volunteers are willing to face death by way of military service (which is historically abundant for just wars), then they will offer money as well. Moreover, economic support is historically far greater, as it includes those who do not or cannot do the actual fighting, but who would like to contribute nonetheless.
-Historically, wars have been paid for by government bonds, but it should be noted that this is not the best way (imo). Bonds are coercion becasue future taxes are used to repay these debts. Thus, while far better than printing money out of thin air to monetize the debt or borrowing from a foreign source, I believe all wars should be financed by voluntary contirbutions, just as we donate to Ron Paul's campaign voluntarily. Afterall, governments do not go to war, people do. If there is no funding for such, then I guarantee the people do not want the war. If they do believe the war is just, there would be no shortage of donations of time, energy, labor and money.
Note: A war hawk (or even a good faith patriot) can argue this ideology is naive, but remember, it guarantees unjust, illegal, UnConstititional, liberty-depriving, weath-robbing wars will not happen. Further, by removing debt from the equation (since all funding is by donation, rather than debt), the ONLY historic beneficiary of wars (e.g., creditors) are no longer beneficiaries. Perhaps there would then be fewer wars as those accountable for the costs of any given war would be the only ones who could possibly benefit rather than a third party who has an incentive to encourage strife and misery everywhere for his own personal gain. In addition, if funding for a just war is too small (a fear that historically has no basis), then governement can always resort to issuing bonds, as has been done before, but by doing so, it must be acknowledged that this creates an economic incentive for someone else to encourage war (generally someone who bears no costs associated with the war).
-Governement has no money, nor should it.
-If government wants a war, then it must gather volunteers to fight (over 1,000,000 volunteered after Pearl Harbor was reported to be attacked). Thus, wars supported by the public have no shortage of volunteers, but are generally confined to situations in which we are attacked, which was the position of the Framers of the US Constitution anyway.
-To fund troops, government should similarly only have use of funds voluntarily donated by its citizens. Afterall, if volunteers are willing to face death by way of military service (which is historically abundant for just wars), then they will offer money as well. Moreover, economic support is historically far greater, as it includes those who do not or cannot do the actual fighting, but who would like to contribute nonetheless.
-Historically, wars have been paid for by government bonds, but it should be noted that this is not the best way (imo). Bonds are coercion becasue future taxes are used to repay these debts. Thus, while far better than printing money out of thin air to monetize the debt or borrowing from a foreign source, I believe all wars should be financed by voluntary contirbutions, just as we donate to Ron Paul's campaign voluntarily. Afterall, governments do not go to war, people do. If there is no funding for such, then I guarantee the people do not want the war. If they do believe the war is just, there would be no shortage of donations of time, energy, labor and money.
Note: A war hawk (or even a good faith patriot) can argue this ideology is naive, but remember, it guarantees unjust, illegal, UnConstititional, liberty-depriving, weath-robbing wars will not happen. Further, by removing debt from the equation (since all funding is by donation, rather than debt), the ONLY historic beneficiary of wars (e.g., creditors) are no longer beneficiaries. Perhaps there would then be fewer wars as those accountable for the costs of any given war would be the only ones who could possibly benefit rather than a third party who has an incentive to encourage strife and misery everywhere for his own personal gain. In addition, if funding for a just war is too small (a fear that historically has no basis), then governement can always resort to issuing bonds, as has been done before, but by doing so, it must be acknowledged that this creates an economic incentive for someone else to encourage war (generally someone who bears no costs associated with the war).
Thomas Jefferson absolutely hated national debt, but even he said that good credit was required for times of war. The point is, if you keep your spending low and don't run up debts in peace times, you will be able to use your good credit in war times without damaging the long-term economic stability of the country.
Also, war bonds and maybe slight tax increases can be justified in times of war when all of the people are behind it.
Also, Jefferson talked about how in a system of small government, there would be much less war and any war fought would be absolutely necessary for defense and would presumably have the states get involved to help out with their credit.
Also, war bonds and maybe slight tax increases can be justified in times of war when all of the people are behind it.
Also, Jefferson talked about how in a system of small government, there would be much less war and any war fought would be absolutely necessary for defense and would presumably have the states get involved to help out with their credit.
Carole
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 5,035
The Revolutionary War offered land grants in new territories-what is now Tennessee and Kentucky. Acreage was determined by length of time and rank in service.
And I think later in history something was done in Illinois-some kind of land grants or buys. Maybe when railroads were coming along.
Perhaps someone here can explain that and enlighten us.
Sorry this is not how it was financed, rather how it paid the soldiers.
But didn't they also do Continental dollars to finance?
And I think later in history something was done in Illinois-some kind of land grants or buys. Maybe when railroads were coming along.
Perhaps someone here can explain that and enlighten us.
Sorry this is not how it was financed, rather how it paid the soldiers.
But didn't they also do Continental dollars to finance?
I've been thinking more on the question this afternoon and, while not fully formulated yet, I came to the same idea as your point about voluntary funding, rather than bonds. However, I can certainly then see people bringing up the Free Rider argument. I'll need to spend more time thinking on this, but I definitely think it's the right direction.
Simple. If by legitimate war you mean defensive war...We all pick up arms and shoot at the people in the other uniform.
Nice! You reminded me of Robin Williams in Good Morning, Vietnam:
Adrian Cronauer: [impersonating an Intelligence Officer] We've realized that we're having a very difficult time finding the enemy. It isn't easy to find a Vietnamese man named "Charlie." They're all named Nguyen, or Tran, or...
Adrian Cronauer: [as himself] Well, how are you going about it?
Adrian Cronauer: [as Intel Officer] Well, we walk up to someone and say, 'Are you the enemy? And, if they say yes, then we shoot them."
