Taxes are Tyranny

Our country was founded on a disdain for taxes. Sure, the rallying cry of the time wasn't against taxes themselves, but a much more reasonable "no taxation without representation". Well, we've got the representation today, and a whole lot more taxes to boot. Even after independence, George Washington himself had to come out to Pittsburgh to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. But that wasn't about whiskey, it was about taxes on whiskey. Why taxes?

Doesn't the whole situation seem a bit quaint in today's world? I mean really, does dressing up like Indians and throwing tea into Boston harbor because you're mad about taxes sound like a civilized thing to do? One gets the idea that when most folks look back they find the tax issues almost unseemly against the backdrop of higher ideals that this nation was founded on. When compared to concepts such as equality before the law and freedom of self defense, freedom from unreasonable taxation just doesn't sound quite as sweeping or high-minded, especially when confronted with all the "good" that our tithings to the church of government are supposed to be doing.

I vehemently disagree. My money is my freedom. Every dollar that is taken from me to be redistributed to somebody else is a dollar that I cannot use in my own pursuit of happiness. Every hundred dollars that is forcibly taken from me for social security is another four hundred dollars that I cannot receive from my own investments. Even typing this, I can see that some people think I'm being selfish... that this is just money-grubbing, and that I should want to help others. Well, a pox on you and yours (to use a quaint term). I'll donate my own time and money as I see fit, and I don't need you to do it for me, thank you very much. What I do with my money is live. I drive to work, I feed my family, I pay for my house, and I enjoy my life. Our constitution guarantees freedom of movement without restriction of the state or federal governments. Yet, if 40% of my money goes to taxes (and really, it's more than that), is that not restricting my movement? If I make $70,000 per year, but my real income without (all) taxes would be nearly $117,000, don't you think I might be able to use that additional $47,000 to pursue some happiness? Perhaps I'd use it to improve my family's situation, perhaps I'd use it to travel freely. I could use some of that additional money to promote the political ideas that I care about. I could invest in a business or perhaps start my own. I could buy a small airplane to free myself from the insecurity and humiliation of commercial aviation. I could lose it all in Vegas. Doesn't matter. The point is that no matter what I chose to do with that money, it would provide me with additional freedom.

Let me put this a different way: Let's say that you have a hankering to go watch your sister's college graduation. She's a smart kid who's going places, and you are very proud of her. Problem is that you live in New Mexico, but her graduation is in North Carolina. In the US today, What's more likely to prevent you from going, a heavy-handed government of jack-booted thugs asking for travel papers, or the money you don't have to travel because you just funded unemployment benefits for somebody you don't know in Minnesota? Is your barrier to travel the intrusive border crossing between New Mexico and Texas, or is it the money that you paid to subsidize already lucrative corn farming in Nebraska? The answer is that it doesn't matter. You still can't go, so it doesn't matter which method the government used to prevent you.

You spent at least 18 good years of your life learning how to be a productive citizen. Now you spend at least 40 hours a week applying yourself to whatever skill you think you are best suited to (and therefore most efficient at). The money you earn from that labor and investment is what you use to live your life. It is the conduit of your freedom, and every dollar that is stolen from you is a moment of your time and a limit on your horizon. Now let me say that there is a legitimate function of government and yes, even for taxes. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the federal government should be doing is supplying a military, conducting foreign policy, and settling interstate disputes. You know, pretty much what the constitution says it should do. Everything else is local, and even that should be limited to the absolutely necessary things that cannot be provided any other way. Welfare is not necessary. Unemployment insurance is not necessary. Payroll taxes are not necessary. When you vote, remember that every single dollar that is taken from you is another 10 miles that you cannot drive your car, that each time a politician says "the government needs to do" something he really means that you need to pay for something, and remember that no matter what you hear on television, the government really can do with less. Because if it can't, you will.

Doctors Gone Wild

This is just disgusting. Some group of doctors wants to start giving cholesterol medicine to kids as young as 8 years old. There's more wrong with that than just the side effects of an unnecessary life-long medication.

Little Freedoms: Happy Fourth!

On the 4th of July, we celebrate our freedom from England. It seems to me that this is a great time to address the Tyranny of self-oppression. That is the tendency even within a republic to continually restrict behavior when we see somebody else doing something that we don't like. Thomas Jefferson said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Would were it that simple. In modern times the patriots and tyrants are one in the same. If the enemy of our freedom was an easily identifiable outsider with evil aims and an obvious purpose, then no doubt we would all band together and defend to the death the big freedoms that we all hold so dear. Things become much more difficult when we oppress ourselves incrementally, day in and day out with small and often well meaning regulations of our daily lives. The battlefront against this assault on freedom doesn't involve blood or weapons, but a re-kindling of fervor for the real and tangible freedoms that we all forget to defend.

Which fireworks did you purchase this 4th of July? Bottle rockets? Roman Candles? How about those cool flying saucers that whistle and shoot up in the air before catching on fire? Probably none of the above, because they're all illegal. Are you building a house? You'll discover that you really don't have much say at all in where to build it or what it will look like. In most of the country, building codes, zoning laws, and CCR's now restrict nearly every aspect of your home, from the height and number of stories, to the building materials, what color you can paint it, and whether the doors open in our out. And then for your efforts, you'll pay around $30,000 for required impact fees, taxes, permits, and the services of "professionals" that you are required to solicit whether you need them or not. Our ancestors were picking off redcoats for taxing their morning tea, but we allow local authorities to determine elements that are very basic to how we live our daily lives. Do you ride a motorcycle? Chances are that the state you live in requires you to wear a helmet. Think about that... I'm not recommending riding without one - I personally think that's kinda stupid - but the only person you will potentially hurt by doing so is yourself. How is that anybody's business buy your own?

You can't buy apple cider any more because it all has to have the flavor pasteurized out of it. You can't get on an airline without taking your shoes off, because some moron from England didn't blow up a plane with his sneakers. You can't try an experimental medicine that may save your life. You kids can't ride a big-wheel without a helmet. You can't grade your land without a native plant preservation plan. You can't have a campfire on the beach. You can't camp where you want in a national park. You have to have corn in your gas. You can only water your grass on odd days. The government wants to set your thermostat. You are required to have a fence around your swimming pool. You need a permit to chop firewood. You can't sell beer on sundays. You can't distill. You can't smoke in a restaurant. A-ha!

I bet I got some of you on that one. You like smoke-free restaurants. How about a bar? How about a cigar shop? How about a personally owned business where the owner is the sole employee? This is where I make my point. I too enjoy smoke free bars and restaurants, but that is beside the point. Each and every one of the laws above was made to help somebody in some way, but each and every one of them also restricts somebody else. You may be irked by one that restricts something that you like to do, but then champion and cheer for one that restricts something that you don't like. Like smoking. The point is not to find what the majority of people want. That's not freedom. Freedom is when the majority of people agree that the right to do what you want - even if I don't like it - is what matters. All this without even mentioning the sanctity of private property. Even when a ban (such as smoking) makes reasonable sense on public property where people have to go, it does not stand the test of private rights on private land. So even if second hand smoke was proven to cause cancer (it isn't) at some ridiculously high rate (2 hours exposure doubles lung cancer rates for instance) people should choose whether or not to choose that risk. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned. The strength of freedom in a democracy comes only from our willingness to accept other people doing things that we don't approve of. Your freedoms end at the tip of my nose. Accepting that, and realizing how far we have slipped, is the key to maintaining a free society.

Demand from all political candidates a commitment to the medical tenet of "first do no harm". Every law, restriction, guideline and code should be looked at not with the question "is this good?" But with the question "is this right?" When any limit on freedom is considered, it must not merely be nice, it must be necessary. True maturity and strength in a leader is not found in the man that says what he will do for us, but in the man who runs openly on what he will not do for us. We are our own tyrants now. Enjoy your fourth of July, and remember on this day what real freedom is all about.

Really?

Really.
According to this link, the messiah picture above came along with an endorsement of Obama.

How do you solve a problem like John McCain?

If Senator Obama wins the election this November, we will have the most liberal president in the history of the country. A drastically, radically left wing president will have two heavily democratic majorities in congress, and plenty of empty judicial seats to fill. If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, maybe this will: If Senator McCain wins the election this november, we’ll not only have a left wing president with two houses of congress on his side, we’ll have that for the next 12 years.

The wholesale push from the mainstream media to get McCain nominated for the republican presidential nomination was a resounding success for them. By repeating over and over again that he was the only candidate that even had a chance at beating the Democrat nominee, they managed to secure the nomination for one of the only people that has a chance of losing. Really, I know that the common wisdom out there is that after 8 years of George Bush, the country is really tired of the right wing, and McCain is just moderate enough that he might have a chance. I don’t even accept the premise. Starting with George Bush being right wing. The man let Ted Kennedy write the education bill. He tried to push through an amnesty bill. Oh, and he signed McCain/Feingold. Sure, no president is perfect, and even if one was, I’m sure I’d still find a way to disagree with him, but to believe the labeling of Bush as “extreme right wing” is to throw away all critical assessment of the political spectrum. What he did was to pass exactly ONE substantial tax cut - which increased the total income of the federal government - and he defended the country when it was attacked. Those two things ought to be the bare minimum before a person is even considered for the nomination of either party. That they’re not is exactly why McCain has a chance to lose the election. Because the only conservatives that will vote for him will do so out of fear of Obama.

So about those 12 years... The next 4 years are going to be rough no matter who the next president is. The economy is wobbly, gas prices are astronomical, and we’re teetering on a victory in the middle east that may or may not be accepted as such by the electorate. If Obama becomes president those rough four years will become a disaster. In response to a weak economy, he’ll easily convince congress to increase taxes, and the economy will spiral faster. His solution to a gas price crunch caused by a lack of supply will be to punish those who supply it. Or maybe take things even further and effectively nationalize the industry through regulation and taxation. Either way, the situation will get worse, not better. Oh, and with Iraq on the verge of standing on its own two feet and joining the civilized world, and he’ll pull the carpet out from under them. Iran will likely invade. What do you think THAT will do to oil prices? What will THAT do to the economy? And don’t even get me started on social issues. The good news is that the backlash would be huge. A conservative leader would HAVE to arise from this mess, because conservative ideas will become inarguably true. (I must add here that I already think they’re completely self-evident, and I’m shocked every time some adult who apparently functions on his own in society tries to argue otherwise.) Epic, public failures have a way of changing even the votes of people who don’t really understand the argument, and this will happen in four years if Obama gets elected. The real question is: Can we afford that? How much will be given away in those four years? How much national sovereignty will we cede? How far will our economy slide, and how dependent will people be on the inevitably expanded federal government? In what state will our freedom really be? I don’t know for sure, but I know that it doesn’t look good. The end result will be a re-birth of conservatism. Leadership often develops to fill a vacuum, and we would certainly have that. I think the fear of being “right” would fall away and even some congressmen would start to think on their own.

What happens if McCain wins? Well, the next four years won’t be rosy, but they’ll be survivable. He’ll work with the Democrats and I won’t be happy about 75% of the judges appointed, but at least he won’t nominate Gloria Steinem. The economy will continue to slump, what with “obscene profits” of oil companies being a target of his, but at least he won’t try to nationalize them. Iraq will have a chance to turn out alright, though I hardly think he’ll be the one to sell the victory for what it is. So in the long run, that may turn out to be OK, too. Not great, but OK. In the meantime, the same vitriol we’ve heard from the left for the last 8 years would continue. The miserable economy would be the great depression. The energy crisis would be the result of Republican collusion with Big Oil, and dirty gutters in Iraq would be the obviously heinous result of continued right wing hatred for any people even a little bit swarthy in complexion. It would all be our fault for sending up another “right wing conservative” even though he bears no resemblance to one (if only...). So the conventional wisdom and evening news will rise together and declare that conservatism is dead. Our guy had his chance and blew it. Supermajorities in both houses of congress will grow even further, and with all the country’s problems blamed on the “Republican” (I have to use quotation marks to call him that), a Democrat will win the oval office in 2012. Any republican VP chosen by McCain for this election will be buried under the previous 12 years of combined bad press and bad ideas. No matter how conservative this man started out, he would be completely unable to champion his most valuable ideas, as he would be inevitably weakened by his term of vice-presidency with McCain. So the Democrat would serve for 8 years while masses of people believe that conservatism has been proven ineffective despite never having witnessed any of it at all.

Again, pretty bleak. With no conservative leadership in sight, neither option looks very good. I only see one opening. I think there is a way to have the 4 years of McCain (much less tragic than 4 years of Obama) and still prevent the murder of conservatism. I want John McCain to win the election, but I want Democrats to elect him. I want the lowest Presidential election turnout in history. I want it to be painfully, unavoidably obvious that conservatives DO NOT want to vote for him. It’s the only way to prevent “He was the only one who can win” from becoming the truth it never was. So if he’s elected by democrats, voting for his liberal ideas, then true conservatives (and hopefully Republicans) can disown his presidency. We didn’t want that, we’ll say. We wanted Thompson, or Romney, or even Newt Gingrich, but not John McCain. We’ll have a president that we can respect, and still survive to mount a defense of conservatism four years later.

It ain’t perfect, but it’s something.