Republicans have been enormously successful in convincing Americans of the biggest economic myth of modern times - that cutting taxes actually increases government revenue. It's counter-intuitive; Bush 41 called it voodoo economics until Ronald Reagan chose him as VP in 1980. But it's a message we want to believe. Heck, nobody wants to pay high taxes. But as patriots of a great nation, we suck it up and do our duty. Or, we did until Republicans convinced us we could live on our children's dime, like drinking all the beer we want and still losing weight and saving money.
Today we hear John McCain echo George Bush that the massive tax cuts of 2001 have grown our economy over the past seven years. But have they? How do those tax cuts explain the prosperity of the 1990s, a decade that saw the increase of 22 million American jobs and the first budget surplus since WWII, or how they caused average American income to increase over the 1990s but decrease since then?
So what does explain that 1990s prosperity? Well, an unprecedented economic event took place over the past fifteen years that nobody mentions, least of all Republicans. That event was the longest sustained period of extremely low interest rates in sixty years. Those stunningly low interest rates are what actually grew the economy in the ‘90s and what has kept the Bush tax cuts from totally destroying it since 2000. Low interest rates combined with a reasonable tax rate gave us budget surpluses and a thriving economy. The huge Bush tax cuts merely gave us massive budget deficits, adding to an enormous national debt that your grandchildren will be paying off.
Think about how the average person decides to make a major expenditure - a new car or a bigger house. What's the more important factor in your decision whether you can afford it: how much income tax you pay or whether you can get a loan at a reasonable rate? Does a small businessman, thinking about expanding, decide not do it because he'll have to pay income tax, or does his decision depend more on the interest rate and terms on his business loan? Tax is due only if he makes money; the loan payment is due no matter what. Would he say, "Oh, no. I'm not going to expand because I'll have to pay 30% of my profit in taxes."? I doubt it, most Republicans deep in their hearts probably doubt it, and if their leaders were honest, they would also doubt it. Yet John McCain professes to believe that Bush's enormous tax cuts will actually cause economic growth, and calls for making them permanent.
We heard the phony argument all last week during the Republican national convention. It was a phony argument when Ronald Reagan made it, it was a phony argument when George W. Bush made it and it's a phony argument when John McCain makes it. It will add to a national debt that could end up accomplishing what al Qaeda cannot: destroying the American economy.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 87
I care more about my children than that.
We can say "no" to that.
Look at the mortgage situation.
The rich are not putting their "savings" back in to grow the economy, the middle class is disappearing or being drowned in debt (in fairness, they should not be listening to a government that tells them to "buy"), and the ranks of the poor and working poor are skyrocketing.
Stephanie is right -- is this a family value?
So the middle class ends up losing all around.
As with all repugnicon policies it's all smoke and mirrors.
Ah kk the brilliance of duh.
calculated that by 2012 Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81% of all households, 95.5% of households with children.they would keep 5% more income on average or nearly $ 2200 a year while Mr McCain would give them an average of 3% or $ 1400. the richest 1% would pay an average $ 19000 more in taxes under Obama and see a tax cut of $ 125,000 under McCain.......is that helping the middle class at all? the McCain tax cut is more than the YEARLY SALARAY OF MOST AMERICANS!
And these days they build biodegradable McMansions ... so they won't even leave the landscape of Amercia the lovely legacy of classical stone mansions like the rotten Robber Barons of old did.
we've seen the job creation with tax cuts! 6.1% heck of a job indeed!
chanel J12 white ceramic watch 4500
3k diamond earings 280 000
4 strand pearl necklace 11-25000
shoes by Taryn rose 475
signal it sends.... priceless.....
We have a war to pay for, and baby boomers who haven't saved a dime for retirement (over 30%). Of course taxes will go up! Regressive taxes, progressive taxes (subject of this article), user fees, flat taxes like the alternative minimum tax, traffic congestion pricing, parking lots, fishing licenses, you name it, it's going up.
Well Peter, thank you for clearing that up! :)
chanel J12 white ceramic watch 4500
3k diamond earings 280 000
4 strand pearl necklace 11-25000
shoes by Taryn rose 475
signal it sends.... priceless..... "
No not quite, I would say all that money and still, something is still wrong with Cindy McCain's look. Maybe it's the hair.
It's not so much the value of the baubles, it's the hypocrisy. That Obama, he's such an elitist. Why, he even speaks eloquently.
You may not know Kay......there is a big difference between style and fashion....one requires NO money the other can be bought but not owned.
It's just a little Marie Antoinette don't you think that she's wearing an 8th house on her back?
hows it hangin?
louis a., Sep 6, 2008, 11:22pm EDT
I don't wear hats, hat hair.
What is with the wool shawls anyway?!
Gentry-Quote:
"Heck, nobody wants to pay high taxes. But as patriots of a great nation, we suck it up and do our duty."--End
Gentry, this statement is misguided on so very many levels that I barely know where to begin..you are confused about the most basic of economical facts.
Do we NOT pay Taxes in this Country? Forgive me, but; you FREAKING IDIOT!!! Are you aware of what Taxation is designed to accomplish? Are you mentally and sufficiently COMPETENT enough to understand that when SPENDING overtakes CONFISCATED REVENUES, there is then created a DEFICIT? ARE YOU AWARE OF THE fOUNDING FATHERS' POSITONS and PHILOSOPHIES on the issue of Taxation? Are you aware of the rate of Taxation 30 years ago? 20 Years ago? 15? 10??? Hmmmmm???
Look ALIVE, man! Wake UP, fool! By God, you idiots...
Confiscating hard-earned income at the point of a gun is, also, un-Constitutional.
I don't like her fashion sense either....it's a bit too.....tight in face if you know what i mean.....but the signal it sends is it doesn't matter what you all do, that you are loosing your homes....we don't care.........that's not a very good signal to send when you're talking bull about the poor little people.
No extra charge. I'm a "compassionate" conservative.
Louis, I am insulted that you would actually think I would allow hat hair!
Of course you don't grow an economy by taxing it. NO ONE HERE has said that, certainly not my post above. However, you DO maintain a great nation's infrastructure, including its human resources, by investing in it. That means spending money. Where does that money come from? Taxes. I said a REASONABLE level of tax is essential for keeping a great nation great.
My evidence presented above is against the nonsense theory proposed by Republicans that it was tax CUTS that caused any economic gain over the past 15 years. You, Kay, have set up a straw man (tax increases grow the economy) that you can then knock down. Just as tax increases don't grow an economy, neither do tax cuts.
The only point in your insulting rant above worthy of answer is: yes, I DO know what taxation is designed to accomplish. It is designed to provide for the common good. What pays soldiers, policemen, firemen? What pays for roads, meat inspectors? What pays for harbors so we can export our goods? TAXES pay for those things.
Keep on ranting, fool. You're making some very good points for ME.
The government does not have its own money. Whatever it spends must necessarily come out of us; one way or another. Whatever isn't taken from us directly, through open taxation, is taken from us indirectly, generally through a hidden tax known as "inflation." The hidden tax known as inflation is regressive, and insidious not just because of the fact it is hidden, but because it falls hardest on those who can afford it least.
And government spending financed through borrowing isn't merely "a tax on our children," so to speak. It does manifest itself via increased taxation in the future, as the interest payments will come due at some future date. But the expenditure is for current programs, or wars, or whatever; so the resources to underwrite those expenditures must be taken out of what is presently available; those expenditures must be deducted from the current "pie" of scarce resources; and as such, the people are still made that much poorer as a result.
Gary, your assertions throughout this thread imply that without a state apparatus to expropriate what we produce, and allocate it according to their own arbitrary discretion, then we would have no such thing as roads, ports, infrastructure, etc.
This would seem to suggest that oridnary people in general are too stupid to allocate resources to where they are most urgently needed; that entrepreneurs would not be able to figure out own their own that roads and bridges and electrical grids and sewers, etc., are highly demanded and necessary commodities. That if it were not for the superior race of beings known as politicians and bureaucrats, our society would be backward and dooomed to third-world status.
This flies in the face of everything we've learned about economic principles and the science of praxeology over the last three centuries.
If your assertions are true, then would it not stand to reason that socialism would result in the highest degree of prosperity, and the maximum satisfaction of the needs and wants of society, in the most efficient and productive manner; and that all the progress and advancement of civilization we've seen since the advent of capitalism, would have been non-existent?
You are correct that entrepreneurs would be able to figure out own their own that roads and bridges and electrical grids and sewers, etc., are highly demanded and necessary commodities. It is not a matter of intelligence, but of scale. On a local level, they could probably put together the funding required to accomplish the smaller of those projects.
But in order for a private corporation to raise the billions required to build a new interstate highway between Houston and Dallas would require a corporation so large that it would be a government in all but name. Then when recovery of its investment requires user fees instead of sharing the cost nationally, those fees would probably be too high to sustain.
A bilion dollar expansion of Los Angeles harbor benefits the country as a whole, not just LA residents.
Could private enterprise build and maintain the interlinked infrastructure required to allow American economy to fluorish? Perhaps. But it would most certainly not give Americans any sense of national pride and would probably lead to a far more fractured society than we have now. I doubt America could have ever developed without sharing the costs through taxation.
Private corporations must not only recover their investment, but must make a profit that government need not make. They do that through fees - taxes by another name. In one case the cost of the project is shared among many; not in the other.
Aw, poor Fredo! We feel for ya, buddy!
Not at all so. It would only require a business (or conglomeration of businesses) with the skill and the capacity to do so (we know these exist, because of the fact that highways do exist), and enough investors to underwrite the project.
"Then when recovery of its investment requires user fees instead of sharing the cost nationally, those fees would probably be too high to sustain."
Nonsense. This implies that owners of highways would price themselves out of business.
The price of user fees for private highways -- in a truly free and competitive market, that is -- would be determined in the same way as it is in all other relatively free and competitive markets; in such a way as to bring supply and demand, profits and costs, all into equilibrium.
It is one of the great benefits of free and competitve enterprise, that goods and services are priced rationally. The free-market price-and-profit system contains intrinsic guidelines for owners and entrepreneurs to price their goods and services according to current economic realities. This is why with state-owned commodities, there always seems to be a shortage, -- this is manifested on the highways via that bane of mechanized civilization, the traffic jam --, but commodities under a relatively free market tend to be produced in such a way as to bring the supply into equilibrium with present demand.
A free enterprise highway system would absolutely see an increase in user fees, at first. Before long, supply would be brought into equilibrium with the demand for highways (and bridges and tunnels, etc.) at the same time as fees would fall. This is the same as the process that transforms one-time "luxury goods" into household items (even in the worst of ghettos), e.g. cars, tv's, vcr's, microwaves, dvd players, cell-phones, pc's etc.
"But it would most certainly not give Americans any sense of national pride..."
What a load. Hows about we just go ahead and put the production and distribution of all foodstuffs, clothing, software, and automobiles in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, then? That ought to put our "sense of national pride" through the roof, eh?
Why wouldn't just having the best and most sophisticated system of highways (and fewest traffic jams per capita), put into place by free and voluntary enterprise, be enough for your sense of "national pride"?
Is it really essential to your sense of patriotism, that our highways be built using as much coercion and compulsory expropriation of wealth as possible?
"Private corporations must not only recover their investment, but must make a profit that government need not make."
Right; which is why state-owned commodities are always in a shortage, while relatively free markets meet shortages and bring supply into equilibrium with demand, utilizing the least amount of scarce resources possible (i.e. wasting less), in the quickest and most efficient manner possible.
In a free market, profits are a sign that the producer is satisfying the most urgent needs and desires of the consuming public, better than their competitors. It means they are utilizing scarce resources in a way in which the public is best served.
The state is the only institution that can coerce exchanges. The only way any enterprise can make profits without the voluntary cooperation of the public (that is, without serving the best interests of the public), is if they are the beneficiaries of state coercion (i.e., Haliburton, Blackwater, and Ken Lay and Enron!!!).
"They do that through fees - taxes by another name."
Oh Lord.
Are you telling me you cannot see the difference between the payment of a user fee, and the compulsory expropriation of a tax?
I want to be salesman in your neighborhood. Why bother with trying to convince you to voluntarily buy my product; it's apparently so much more beneficial to society if I just put a gun to your head, and threaten to imprison you and take your home if you don't give me your money in exchange for my product.
"And before you bring up coruption and government inefficiency, let me mention Enron's Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling."
Certainly; I'm glad you brought that up!
That is an excellent example of the corruption and inefficiency that will most always be manifest, whenever the state presumes to take ownership of a mass consumer commodity, and to control distribution and marketing of that commodity.
Thanks!
ALL ports will be in Mexico and Canada only! Another conspiracy theory? Do your homework - millions already budgeted and spent on the project (SPP) hidden under legislation we don't recognize. Ron Paul spoke about it on several occasions. The TTC (Trans Texas Corridor) was phase one. States line Arizona and Utah passed laws to stop it from passing through their states. So much for conspiracy theory! Texas FINALLY got it postponed - at least for a couple of years, which is a drop in the bucket of time compared to their ultimate goal. They are patient! Spain is borrowing money (yours and my tax dollars) from our Fed. govt. (our govt. will borrow from China) to build this highway and then the tolls go to Spain, with a nice profit, I might add, over and above the interest charged on borrowing our -er rather- China's money.
The NAFTA Superhighway will NOT be utilized by vacationers as it is a straight shot, FOUR football field wide, stealing millions of acres of farmland, for transportation of "stuff" - all "stuff" large and small. Railroads will be following the same path.
IF YOU THINK FUEL AND FOOD PRICES ARE HIGH NOW - Unemployment and loss of business - FOOD shortages - [use your brain and insert others here].
'ya ain't seen nuttin' yet!!!
Cite for me, if you are able, where I have introduced the subject of the genesis of a Soldiers' pay? The genesis of a Policemans' pay? The genesis of that of a Fireman? A Rubbish Collector? For "Roadways?" For Infrastructural needs?
You answer in the affirmative with regard to my query on the genesis and DESIGN of Taxation; and yet, you remain ignorant. You believe that Taxation was designed "for the common good;" with little understanding of its' meaning. You fail to understand the TRUTH about its genesis...to provide or construct that which cannot be provided or constructed efficiently, state for state.
You obfuscate merely for the sake of your own "righteousness." And, in your certainty, you assume that others remain ignorant, and are easily mis-led. You speak of what is "right" for America, but have no idea what She Truly is.
You've merely exposed yourself for the Communist thinker that you are.
The genesis of taxation is conquest and confiscation. Period. All the obfuscations and sophistries that have been expounded for millenia, in attempted justification of the institution, aside; what we know of as "taxation" began when roving bands of plunderers and warlords once realized that it was so much more profitable to remain amongst their conquered victims, to claim ownership of their lands, yet allow their victims to continue their lives and to expropriate from each of them a portion of what they produce; and thus was born what we know of today as the State.
It appears that you have stirred up a nest of libertarian wasps who think that unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism can solve all human problems. A glance at our deforested, polluted, depleted, bankrupt nation should be enough to refute that. I admire the entrepreneurial spirit of our capitalist society. It has propelled us to the pinnacle, the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen.
But the cracks are showing. FDR reined in the excesses of the Robber Barons, but the great wealth and determination of Corporate America has ground down FDR's controls. Reagan speeded the deregulation process, and Clinton didn't stop it. Now the controls are gone, and profits rule the world and to Hell with everything else...the American people, the economy, the environment...profits above all.
It's a recipe for disaster, and it is happening before our eyes. Run up the deficits, deplete everything, screw the environment...and leave the mess for our children and theirs to clean up. It's selfish, short-sighted and immoral. But it's capitalism, and the libertarians love it.
Thanks for showing up. These guys are pretty stirred up all right.
One speaks of a "state apparatus to expropriate what we produce, and allocate it according to their own arbitrary discretion"
Of course the federal government has inefficiencies, but to imply that every federal expenditure is made arbitrarily with no justification and against the will of the public is ridiculous. Americans vote, elect those who make those decision. And when a decision is made that the majority disagrees with, we vote for soemone else. Democracy gives us power to function as part of a great society. We don't agree with everything our government does, and we CERTAINLY don't agree with everything any private enterprise does. Or wait, maybe you do.
"Capitalism" is just the name given to the economic functionings of a free society. It is what happens naturally when people are free. A "free market" is just the natural and necessary corrolary of a free society.
It requires no positive coercion. The only coercion needed for a free, just, and prosperous economic system, is the same as the only coercion that is justified anywhere else; to defend equally the individual rights of all.
To "control" capitalism means to "control" people. That may be just fine with you authoritarian types, but I would take freedom anyday; even if it didn't result in the most uplifting and efficient economic system possible (which it does).
" A glance at our deforested, polluted, depleted, bankrupt nation should be enough to refute that."
Refute what? How can you attempt to refute the merits of free market capitalism, by pointing to the results of the interventionist system we've had for the last 100 years?
It would make a lot more sense for you to to say "capitalism is bad; see what it did?", if we actually had capitalism. What we have in America today is more akin to fascism than it is capitalism.
"I admire the entrepreneurial spirit of our capitalist society. It has propelled us to the pinnacle, the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen."
That is the only sentence you've written in this thread that is not riddled with confusion and fallacy.
America has been propelled to the pinnacle, due solely to the extent that we have had economic liberty. The more the state imposes positive interventions in our economic lives, the more there will be indirect and unintended consequences that disturb the natural tendency towards equilibrium of prices, costs, profits, wages and interest rates.
This is simply a fact of life, proven by practical experience as well as by economic theory.
"FDR reined in the excesses of the Robber Barons, but the great wealth and determination of Corporate America has ground down FDR's controls."
I would suggest making an effort to gain some understanding, before going about making painfully ignorant statements like that.
FDR created the corporate state. It is because of the regimented, bureaucratic state that FDR gave birth to, that we even have such "corporate excesses" as we do today.
I'll make the same offer to both of you, Bert and Gary, that I've made to a dozen others here at Gather before: send me your email address, and I'll purchase a copy of "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt at Mises.org for $11, and "gift" it to you (I'll pay for it, and send you an email where you just complete the order form with your mailing address).
Understanding is a great thing to have, and there's no better way to gain a working understanding of economic principles in so short a time, than by Hazlitt's masterpiece.
"Reagan speeded the deregulation process, and Clinton didn't stop it. Now the controls are gone, and profits rule the world and to Hell with everything else.."
I see you have the fallacious popular mythology down; but it has no basis in reality whatsoever. Reagan didn"t "deregulate" anything. Lots of things got reregulated, but thats about it. There is no sector of the economy that was owned or controlled by the government when Reagan took office, that wasn't still owned or controlled by the government when he left.
Trust me, the last thing that the corporate rent-seekers and hangers-on who plunder us today want, is real deregulation. They are able to plunder us solely because of the restrictions and obstacles to free entry and enterprise that are brought about by government intervention. The whole Enron/energy debacle in California seemed specifically crafted as a cynical ploy to discredit deregulation, but there never was any real deregulation involved. The only way to "deregulate" the energy industry would be for the government to relinquish ownership of the energy infrastructure. So long as the state owns it and arbitrarily controls production and distribution, there can be no "deregulation," no matter what they do. Allowing the privileged producers who are granted the contracts to set their own monopoly prices and their own production schedule, while disallowing competitive free enterprise, is a certain recipe for disaster everytime; but most certainly is not real "deregulation."
"Run up the deficits, deplete everything, screw the environment...and leave the mess for our children and theirs to clean up. It's selfish, short-sighted and immoral. But it's capitalism, and the libertarians love it."
What an utterly absurd and ridiculous statement. You couldn't be more cluelessly ignorant if you tried.
What the hell does running up deficits have to do with libertarianism, or capitalism for that matter? That would have everything to do with statism, my friend -- the idealogy that you love.
And capitalists don't "deplete everything;" that's just stupid. In fact, making any resource a market commodity under free enterprise is the best way to insure that it doesn't get depleted. Can you tell me the difference between a cow, and a polar bear?
And if you weren't so terribly ignorant, misinformed, or both, you would understand that libertarians advocate individual property rights; a system of which would in effect make polluters of the environment criminal trespassers.
"The problem is, the government at all levels is increasingly manipulated and controlled by those corporate interests"
But the real root of the problem is, that we have a system of government that is not limited solely to the equal protection of the individual rights of all, instead it assumes to intervene in all aspects of our private and economic lives, and thus it naturally follows that all sorts of interested groups will engage in rent-seeking behavior, attempting to gain special privileges and advantage, attempting to subvert natural market forces in order to stifle potential competition or unfairly burden existing competitors, etc.
The great Ludwig von Mises was spot-on when he wrote, almost sixty years ago: "Almost as a rule, capitalism is blamed for the undesirable consequences of anti-capitalist policies."
Truer words were never spoken.
Do you deny that there are other motives than profit that should determine the activities of a business? If left uncontrolled, should a corporation be concerned with anything but maximizing profit?
Yes, government "assumes to intervene in all aspects of our private and economic lives." I sincerely hope that it continues to do so, because unfettered, uncontrolled capitalism is a rapacious beast.
LINK
By business "seeking profit," what they are doing is seeking to satisfy the most urgent needs and desires of the consuming public, better and more cost-effectively than their competition. They profit by providing people with things they want or need; and by keeping costs down, they are doing this in the most efficient way they know how. they are attempting to the provide the things that the most people want or need, and doing so using the fewest scarce resources possible.
This is what we want; this is how the entire society is benefited most.
It is only when business interests attain special privileges via state intervention that they are "uncontrolled." Otherwise, they are compelled by sheer self-interest to serve the consuming public. Otherwise, they will not make a profit. In a free market, profits are sign that the business is serving society better than anyone else in their field.
If a corporation knowingly sells a product that harms people, than they should be prosecuted for criminal negligence, or worse (depending on the circumstances). If they pollute, they should be prosecuted for criminal trespass, as surely as they walked onto a persons property and placed their hazardous waste on it personally; or they should be prosecuted for assault, if their waste enters a persons body and causes illness or injury.
But this is just common sense, Common Law. It does not require positive coercive intervention. It falls squarely under the category of protecting the natural, intrinsic rights of all individuals equally.
"unfettered, uncontrolled capitalism is a rapacious beast."
If you want to have a serious discussion about economics, or the merits of particular economic ideas and principles, then go learn something first, and I'll oblige you.
If you'd rather make absurd statements and uninformed emotional outbursts, then be my guest; but I grow weary of debating people whose entire argumentation falls back on tired Marxist rhetoric and fallacies.
Proves again, we should not fear the "war on terror" - as I don't believe it exists - it is a scare tactic.
The comments here prove what we should fear, is the collective ignorant. Gather appears to be loaded with them. Worse yet, they don't care to read to comprehend and/or learn. They read just to object to their misguided ideas of the way they were trained, taught, and educated in our socialistic public schools.
freecapitalist.com for a great capitalistic and moral education.
"Otherwise, they [corporations] are compelled by sheer self-interest to serve the consuming public." Sure, Steve. To quote another of your comments above, "What a load."
You go on to say:
"If a corporation knowingly sells a product that harms people, than they should be prosecuted for criminal negligence, or worse (depending on the circumstances). If they pollute, they should be prosecuted for criminal trespass, as surely as they walked onto a persons property and placed their hazardous waste on it personally; or they should be prosecuted for assault, if their waste enters a persons body and causes illness or injury".
So, who is supposed to do that prosecution, gather the evidence, bring suit? To what authority is the case to be presented? Government regulators, inspectors and judges. Without them you don't have that smoothly functioning society, you have anarchy.
If a pharmaceutical company sells a drug to help pregnant mothers overcome morning sickness, knowing that it also causes some babies to be born with flippers instead of arms; if they sell a drug for one malady, knowing that it also causes heart attacks in some, who protects you and your family from that? The sheer self-interest of those corporations or a fully funded FDA, with federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges?
Collective ignorance, indeed.
Steve,
What these statements fail to recognize is the difference between short-term profit and long-term consequences of that profit. That is what I addressed in the linked article above which you obviously declined to read, or didn't understand.
Actually, I wrote two more recent articles on the subject of the failures of Capitalism. I will provide links for those. I'm sure you won't bother to read them either, but maybe other readers would like to see the dark side of your rosy view of Capitalism.
Some Thoughts on Capitalism and Human Nature
Some Thoughts on Capitalism and Human Nature - Part 2
I went to the first article you linked, last night. It begins, right off the bat, with a ridiculous straw man, and then goes on to showcase your lack of understanding of how a free economy works.
Adam Smith did not attribute his analysis to some "benevolent god." His use of the term "invisible hand" was a loose metaphor, describing how in the practical functioning of everyday production and exchange, the self-interest of the producer impels him to seek to serve the interests of the consumer. Nothing more.
Your fear of free enterprise depleting natural resources is baseless and founded on your lack of understanding.
As I stated eariler in this thread, the best way to insure that any resource is not depleted, is to allow it to be a commodity under free enterprise.
People who make building materials and paper and other products out of timber, are not well served by allowing the forests to be depleted, now are they? This may happen in backward, thord-world nations where the corrupt governments do not allow private ownership of the factors of production; but so long as those factors of production are owned by the people who stand to profit from them, you can be sure that every measure will be taken to preserve the maximum possible conservation of them.
I'll go and check out the other two articles you linked, and revisit the first one as well, and any questions or comments I have, I'll leave them there.
If you feel like reciprocating the gesture, here's a few relevant articles I've written here; any questions or comments you have, leave them there and I promise I'll address them:
The Tyranny of the Legal Tender Law
The Case for a 100% Gold Standard
Capitalism for the Ideologically Impaired
And one that's not particularly pertaining to economics, but nonetheless addresses subject matter relevant to this conversation, I invite both you and Gary to check out: Society are People, People is Us
I also discovered that the old "tech help" link is no longer. How do we alert Gather of such glitches?
You obviously have no understanding of the Tragedy of the Commons or you would not make such a ridiculous statement.
Geez, I guess I have to post yet another link to an article I wrote on that subject.
The Tragedy of the Commons
I think I made clear the fact that the only just and legitimate purpose of collective force -- of any group of people calling themselves "government" or by any other name, and of any system of compulsory rules bearing the title of "Law" -- is to defend equally the equal, natural and intrinsic rights of every individual.
This applies to the world of economics the same as it does anywhere else in society.
Yes, there should be police; yes, there should be attorneys who prosecute crimes; yes, there should be courts to settle disputes and adjudicate crimninal prosecutions; most importantly, there should always be independent, randomly selected juries to determine guilt or innocence in legal proceedings.
But the scope of government should be limited strictly to the defense and maintenance of individual rights; or else the coercive force of the state must, necessarily violate the rights of some, many or all. This is not a theory, it is a fact.
To say that arbitrary government intervention is acceptable or just, simply because the politicians are popularly elected, or because the apparent reasoning behind the measures are allegedly "for the common good," is the same as a tacit endorsement of Might Makes Right. Because an apparent larger amount of people are in favor of a given intervention than are opposed, or because an apparent larger number of people stand to benefit than to suffer, you believe it is right and proper to violate the natural rights of certain individuals on these grounds. It's the same principle as saying that two men are justified in using force to take money from a third, on the grounds that they need the money more than the rightful owner of it.
Your view on this subject is also founded on a fallacious application of the terms "regulation" or "to regulate."
As to the nature of this common fallacy, I'll let Lysander Spooner explain:
<<< But what is to be particularly noticed, is the fact that Marshall
gives to congress all this practically unlimited power over all "commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several States," solely on the
strength of a false definition of the verb "to regulate" He says that
"the power to regulate commerce" is the power "to-prescribe the rule
by which commerce is to be governed." This definition is an utterly false,
absurd, and atrocious one. It would give congress power arbitrarily to
control, obstruct, impede, derange, prohibit, and destroy commerce.
The verb " to regulate " does not, as Marshall asserts, imply the
exercise of any arbitrary control whatever over the thing
regulated; nor any power "to prescribe [arbitrarily] the rule, by
which" the thing regulated "is to be governed." On the contrary,
it comes from the Latin word, regula, a rule; and implies the
pre-existence of a rule, to which the thing regulated is made to
conform.
To regulate one's diet, for example, is not, on the one hand, to
starveone's self to emaciation, nor, on the other, to gorge one's
self with all sorts of indigestible and hurtful substances, in
disregard of the natural laws of health. But it supposes the
pre-existence of the natural laws of health, to which the diet is
made to conform.A clock is not "regulated," when it is made to
go, to stop, to go forwards, to go backwards, to go fast, to go
slow, at the mere will or caprice of the person who may have it
in hand. It is " regulated " only when it is made to conform to,
to mark truly, the diurnal revolutions of the earth. These
revolutions of the earth constitute the pre-existing rule, by
which alone aclock can be regulated.
A mariner's compass is not "regulated," when the needle is made
to move this way and that, at the will of an operator, without
reference to the north pole. But it is regulated when it is freed
from all disturbing influences, and suffered to point constantly
to the north, as it is its nature to do.
A locomotive is not "regulated," when it is made to go, to stop,
to go forwards, to go backwards, to go fast, to go slow, at the
mere will and caprice of the engineer, and without regard to
economy, utility, or safety. But it is regulated, when its motions
are made to conform to a pre-existing rule, that is made up
of economy, utility, and safety combined.
What this rule is, in the case of a locomotive, may not be known
with such scientific precision, as is the rule in the case of a clock,
or a mariner's compass; but it may be approximated with sufficient
accuracy for practical purposes.
The pre-existing rule, by which alone commerce can be "regulated,"
is a matter of science; and is already known, so far as the natural
principle of justice, in relation to contracts, is known. The natural
right of all men to makeall contracts whatsoever, that are naturally
and intrinsically just and lawful, furnishes the pre-existing rule, by
which alone commerce can be regulated.
And it is the only rule, to which congress have any constitutional
power to make commerce conform. When all commerce, that is
intrinsically just and lawful, is secured and protected, and all
commerce that is intrinsically unjust and unlawful, is prohibited,
then commerce is regulated, and not before.
This false definition of the verb " to regulate" has been used,
time out of mind, by knavish lawmakers and their courts, to
hide their violations of men's natural right to do their own
businesses in all such ways—that are naturally and
intrinsically just and lawful—as they may choose to do them in.
These lawmakers and courts dare not always deny, utterly and
plainly, men's right to do their own businesses in their own ways;
but they will assume to regulate" them; and in pretending simply
"to regulate" them, they contrive "to regulate" men out of all their
natural rights to do their own businesses in their own ways. >>>
-- Spooner, "A Letter to Grover Cleveland".
That's funny; it would appear that you are the one who doesn't understand "the Tragedy of the Commons"!
I'm going to venture a guess that you've never actually read The Wealth of Nations, have you?
I'll go even further out on the proverbial limb here, and guess that you've never taken the time to read and digest any treatise on economic principles.
(Qualifier: That socialist crank Keynes doesn't count; his entire "General Theory" has been thoroughly destroyed several times over by very competent professionals; also Naomi Klein, Thomas Frank, Thom Hartmann and Noam Chomsky are not economists.)
Suppose that a parcel of land is divided into one hundred lots,
identical in all qualities. Further, assume that there are one hundred
settlers who use the land in common. If someone takes one of the lots,
he has left ninety-nine lots for everyone else. Has he left "as much
and as good" for others? On one reading of the Proviso, he has not; by
removing one lot, everyone else has one fewer choice available.
The problem of satisfying the Proviso becomes even more severe
if one takes into account future generations. One must now leave as
much and as good for those who will come into existence. Schmidtz
finds it plausible to extend the Proviso in this way, although he does
not specify how many generations need to be considered.
Schmidtz seems on the surface to have painted himself into a
corner. He has presented a version of the Proviso which seems on its
face to rule out the initial acquisition of property; yet he wishes to
defend property acquisition. With a bold stroke, Schmidtz extricates
himself from the difficulty; the Proviso actually mandates the acqui-
sition of property. "Leaving goods in the commons fails to satisfy the
Proviso. In fact, leaving goods in the commons practically insures
their ruin" (p. 21, emphasis in original).
The argument Schmidtz deploys is straightforward. If land is
worked in common, then individuals have little incentive to conserve
resources. Persons do not bear the full cost of their actions; if, e.g.,
someone grazes cattle on common land in a wasteful manner, most of
the ensuing costs will be borne by others. The upshot will be what
Garrett Hardin has famously called a "tragedy of the commons." Since
property rights have not been established, the available resources
will quickly sink to nothing.
If so, Schmidtz ingeniously contends, the Proviso mandates es-
tablishment of a system of property rights. The erstwhile irremovable
bar to property rights has become their chief support. If it is objected
that individuals who arrive on the scene later than the original
appropriators can no longer themselves acquire unowned property,
Schmidtz has a ready response. The Proviso requires that future
generations have resources to use, not to appropriate. They are not
harmed by having to acquire property from others.
Please define what you consider to be the "equal, natural and intrinsic rights of every individual."
Does it include the regulation of businesses that, in their pursuit of profit, might infringe on or harm individuals? Or is the individual required in such cases to seek redress through the courts? Against corporations with essentially infinite legal and financial resources? Isn't it reasonable that government should act in such cases to LIMIT the actions of corporations BEFORE they cause harm, rather than force the individual, with his limited resources to take on corporations to obtain redress AFTER he is harmed?
I believe that this is a primary function of government...to protect individuals from harm by others...whether they are criminals...burglars or whatever...or corporations who pollute the water, the earth or the atmosphere. Further, I believe that government should take a "longer view" of the best interests of their constituents, and intervene, when necessary, to encourage actions that they feel are appropriate, even if they are not economically viable in the short term. Example: development of nonpolluting, renewable energy sources. I subscribe to an investment newsletter. The writer is a CAPITALIST! He has this to say about US energy policy:
I believe I do understand the Tragedy of the Commons, Steve, but I am learning that this is your method of debate...to declare that your opponent is ignorant. You have insulted me several times with this general attack. If your intent is to intimidate me, you are wasting your time. I suggest you stick to facts and logic, rather than opinions, and refrain from derogatory remarks.
You may be mistaking Smith's pointing out how liberty and prosperity are natural corrolaries; that the system of natural law respecting mankind's God-given rights also happens to be the system of the highest possible economic utility and abundance -- but this is not the same as believing that some benevolent deity is actively intervening in the economic affairs of mankind.
"Please define what you consider to be the "equal, natural and intrinsic rights of every individual."
It's common sense, really; once you're able to clear away all the clouds of collectivist nonsense from your head.
"Rights" are actually a negative concept. It would be impossible to ennumerate all of mankinds natural rights. The concept actually flows around what we are not justified in doing. No one is justified in initiating coercive action against the life, liberty, or property of others. We all have the right to be secure in our person, in the free and inoffensive use of our faculties, and in the free disposition of the fruits of our labor -- provided we do not infringe on what is the equal right of every other individual to be secure in these same things.
Since each of us has the right to use force only in defense of life, liberty, and property; then it follows that a group of individuals has the right to combine to provide for the constant, collective defense of life, liberty, and property. This is the origin of Law.
But the collective right of defense must not exceed the scope of the individual rights that comprise it. Otherwise, what you have is mob rule; the barbaric principle of "might makes right." If any given individual does not possess the rightful authority to do something, then neither does the state. When the state endeavors to do something that any given individual does not have the rightful authority to do, then it is no longer a "government of the people," it does not "derive it's just powers from the consent of the governed;" as "the governed" cannot consent to delegate power to a government that they themselves do not possess.
Thomas Jefferson stated it rather nicely, when he said:
"Of liberty I would say, it is unobstructed action according to the will of the individual. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to the will of the individual, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not say 'within limits drawn around us by the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual."
But Jefferson was using the term "the law" as an arbitrary concept, as if "the tyrant's will" could ever be considered anything but the tyrant's will.
I prefer to use the term "law" to in reference to the natural, immutable law of Justice; and simply "legislation" or "decree" when referring to the arbitrary commands of politicians and tyrants.
Re your newsletter excerpt; please note how the author points out that it is government intervention that is holding back the development of new energy technology, and not the market.
Government should not be "investing" in anything. You seem to hold this false notion that free enterprise only pursues a technology or method if it is "economically viable in the short term." If this were true, we wouldn't have nearly a quarter of all the magnificent technology and mehtods of production that we have today; including much of the life-saving technology that we take for granted today.
Speaking of taking things for granted; this is a common trait of anti-capitalist sentiment. People seem to forget (or to never even take notice) that it is precisely because of free enterprise, that even the poorest of the poor in our country enjoy a lifestyle infinitely better than the average person did in pre-capitalist times, or even in the backward third-world countries today (a common denominator of which would be tyrannical socialist governments who deny individual property rights and general economic freedom).
And this progress is due solely to the extent that people have been free to choose their own destiny; free to produce and exchange; free to save and invest; free to keep what they earn; free to enter into any field of industry they so choose.
99% of the undesirable aspects of our modern economic lives, can ultimately be traced back to government intervention beyond what is necessary to defend and maintain individual rights. And the popular response to these consequences are generally calls for ever more government intervention, which inevitably result in ever more unforeseen and undesirable consequences -- it's hardly ever the sentiment of the common man to repeal past interventionist schemes, it's always more of what ails us. And the politicians in power are happy to nurture this sentiment; and are perfectly obliged to assume greater power and control.
But it is the prevalence of this interventionism that creates so much of the evils that the anti-capitalist sentiment bemoans.
We have, and have had for many decades now, price controls; wage controls; artificially-manipulated interest rates that inevitably result in malinvestment and "boom-bust" business cycles; a monetary system that is owned and controlled by a macroeconomic central-planning agency called the Federal Reserve. All levels of government presume to be the arbiters of who is allowed to produce what or provide what service, instead of allowing consumers to decide (and this is thoroughly taken advantage of by the politically-favored and the unscrupulous); a third (or more) of most of our incomes are taken away by taxation, so that production is guided to a large degree not by what the free consuming public desires have produced, but by what politicians and bureaucrats want to have produced (bullets, missiles and bombs, etc -- things that destroy the overall wealth of society, not enhance it). A large portion of the land in this country is rendered unavailable for productive capacity (in essence, effecting an artificial scarcity), because the government has claimed ownership of it.
All of these interventions have consequences. Frederic Bastiat, in his 19th Century masterpiece "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen," taught us that the bad economist is the one who looks only at the direct, and immediate consequences of a given intervention; "he sees only what hits him in the eye." But the good economist is the one who looks deeper; he looks not only at the immediate consequences of a given intervention (such as a minimum wage law, or "rent control,"), but looks also for the long-term consequences; he looks not only at how the given intervention affects one group of people, but how it will affect everyone else.
This is precisely what alot of people fail to do, to see beyond "what hits them in the eye." There is cause and effect at work constantly; every government intervention carries consequences that branch out in every direction, and create unforeseen consequences further down the road. This is why our economy is such a mess today.
If we have had anything remotely resembling "uncontrolled, unfettered capitalism" in this country, then your statements would be worthwhile.
As it is, they are just so much emotionally-based blathering.
As to "declaring you ignorant," I apologize for being unduly harsh at times.
But I have always felt it prudent to learn about the things I care about; particularly before I go about making condemnations and such.
It's rather clear to me that you'd prefer to remain, well, ignorant about economic principles, yet reserve the right to criticize the ideas of others who have taken the time to learn.
"And this progress is due solely to the extent that people have been free to choose their own destiny".
That is democracy, not capitalism. As I said, it's the combination of the two that is potent. You might argue that capitalism flows from democracy, but not the other way round. Capitalism without democracy is fascism.
When you talk about rights, you have to distinguish between human beings and corporations, though there is considerable overlap.
Sadly Steve it is the "mommy and daddy" theory of government that dominates our mushy political landscape today. "please make it better" no matter what it takes, without regard to the consequences.
Well, I must say your ideas are interesting, Steve, even if they are at the edge of the political/economic map, or completely off it. I am curious to know how you would define yourself in the political spectrum from far-right to far-left. There are whiffs of anarchism in your statements, but anarchism is usually associated with the far-left. I just discovered in reading about anarchism that there is a wide range of beliefs under that umbrella. A found one, "anarcho-capitalist" that seems to fit you perfectly.
I would say that most people, not only in this country, but in the rest of the world would disagree with you on your basic notion that government should not do anything that an individual can't do. Taxation comes to mind as an obvious contradiction of that notion. Without taxation, government cannot function, so if that is really your belief, then you are an anarchist.
I think government should "invest" taxpayer dollars in programs that are perceived to be in the long term interest of its constituents when private enterprise, for whatever reason, fails to do so. Now, I do not claim that such programs are always wise and efficiently executed. Most human endeavors are far from perfect. But business, with its obsession with short-term profits and quarterly earnings reports, has completely different priorities. The current energy crisis is a perfect example of this, and the "government intervention" that you complain about is in support of business goals and against the public interest...e.g., oil depletion allowances.
The REAL government intervention we need is incentives and subsidies for renewable, nonpolluting energy sources and a massive effort aimed at conservation. For example, LED lighting is four times as efficient as incandescent, twice as efficient as fluorescent, but LED's are expensive. Depending on usage, it can take several years to save the initial cost differential, but it is clearly in the national interest to reduce electricity usage, and government should "intervene" to make it happen, and get rid of incandescent lights that waste 90% of the energy they consume.
Subsidies for fossil fuels should be abolished, of course. The government "intervention" that we have now is all orchestrated by oil, coal and natural gas interests. That is hardly the kind of intervention that is needed.
Capitalism does not flow from "democracy," and capitalism without "democracy" is not fascism.
Capitalism flows from people being able to freely produce and exchange according to theirt own will and discretion, and from property rights (the right to exercise absolute ownership and control over what one produces, earns, purchases, or otherwise rightfully acquires) being observed, respected and enforced under the Law.
In other words, capitalism is what naturally occurs when people are free.
Not only is "democracy" not a necessary prerequisite for capitalism, but capitalism isn't necessarily contingent upon the existence of any kind of state apparatus at all.
Moreover, democracy does not, ipso facto, exclude fascism. "Fascism" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive at all.
Fascism is just a variation of socialism. I suppose a more accurate way of putting it would be that "socialism" and "fascism" are just two variant manifestations of the root ideology of Collectivism. Fascism is characterized by a repudiation of "laissez faire" almost, or quite, as much as communism or more traditional variants of socialism are. The differences are purely superficial. Fascism retains the doctrine of total statism (the state as the ultimate true owner of all property and factors of production), just as socialism or communism does, except with fascism the control is exercised through nominally "private" entities; and there is generally the effort to maintain the mere apprearance of private ownership and enterprise. Mussolini himself called his conception of Fascism "the corporate state." The state exercises its economic planning through nominally private corporations.
In other words, the corporations in the fascist state undertake the same role that the bureaucracies do in the traditional socialist state.
Also, the popular mythology and rhetoric in the fascist state is different from that of the traditional socialist state. Under fascism, the society is bound together by a more militaristic and nationalist-oriented meme (the German political class was infinitely more honest than our own fascist political class today, when the Germans dubbed their system "National Socialism.) Under traditional socialism, the popular mythology is based on a more upon an egalitarian, "proletariat" meme.
In either society, those heretics who deviate too much from the current of the National Myth, are branded as traitors and enemies of their country.
Needless to say, America today has evolved rather thoroughly into a fascist nation. And this evolution has been 100% a phenomenon of collectivist statism; not one of the ideas of individualism, i.e. free markets, property rights, limited government, etc.
A more accurate syllogism (in relation to yours) would be that Democracy without a doctrine of intrinsic individual rights leads to tyranny.
Thanks (I guess) for the back-handed compliment.
Regarding your curiosity; I personally would say I'm apolitical, at least as far as the modern "political map" goes. In fact, I think the whole modern "left/right" spectrum (or "liberal"/"conservative", so-called) is bullshit. It's a false dichotomy.
The only real duality is between individualism and collectivism. I don't see the scale as going from left to right; to me it goes only up and down -- up being the ideology of individualism (all individuals possess equal, intrinsic, and inalienable rights), and down being the ideology of collectivism (individual rights are either non-existent, or may justifiably be sacrificed in the name of what amount to arbitrary conceptions of "the common good," or "national defense," or "national greatness," or "the general welfare" etc.).
I am an anarchist at heart. I don't believe that coercive monopolization is justified in anything; not in the institutions of law and defense, any more than it is in the institutions of religion or finance.
I suppose a more concise way of putting it would be, that I don't believe any goods or services should be provided at the barrel of a gun.
Police protection and armed defense, courts of law and prosecution attorneys, institutions of education, accreditation and "licensing," insurance and retirement planning, infrastructure, consumer protection, charity, currency, etc. etc. ad infinitum, could all be provided just as (and in most more so) efficiently and effectively, purely through voluntary contract and cooperation. There is never any justification for the coercive expropriation of wealth and compulsory transaction. If society needs or demands something, then there will be those who will provide the good or service through voluntary contract and exchange.
I'm sure you will call this naive and "utopian," but I see it the other way around. I find it naive and utopian to believe that an institution that exists solely through coercion, threats, confiscation, and redistributing wealth, could ever be counted upon to not become corrupt, tyrannical, and a serial mass violator of rights.
"I think government should "invest" taxpayer dollars in programs that are perceived to be in the long term interest of its constituents when private enterprise, for whatever reason, fails to do so."
If something is in the interests of society (long-term as well as short-term), and the members of society recognize this idea (be it a product or a service) as being in its best interest, then why in the world would people not be willing to invest in and perform this service voluntarily? Why would it require the state to come in and coercively compel people to "invest" (by taking their money by force, and investing it for them) and then choose (politically) who shall perform this service (or produce the good)?
I recognize that there things today that the government invests in and private enterprise does not; but what you perhaps do not realize is that, if the investment is really worthwhile, necessary, or generally demanded by the public, then private enterprise likely would have been investing in it, had it not been for the government crowding them out!
If the public school system collapsed overnight, do you really think that the quantity of schooling in this country would remain diminshed by that amount? Of course not! Private investors and entrepreneurs, recognizing the massive demand and shortage of schools, would immediately begin allocating resources of capital and labor toward where society would most demand it -- the production of schools! Indeed, the collapse of socialized schooling in this country would be a blessing; as private enterprise would offer such a variety of specialized educational programs and opportunities -- schools for different religions, schools for different cultures, orthodox schooling, unorthodox schooling -- we would instantly be able to recognize what was the root problem underlying much of the educational issues in this country: the collectivist concept of compulsory socialized schooling.
The point is, if society recognizes the value or utility of an idea, service, or product, then a free people can safely be counted on to provide it, voluntarily, on the market; and if property rights and general economic freedom are upheld, then it will be provided more efficiently and more affordably than under any other system.]
If some idea you have, of what constitutes "the long-term interest of society," is not being produced and traded on the market by free enterprise, then the reality is this: Society does not value that idea sufficiently enough to be willing to deflect the allocation of scarce resources away from other things being produced, in order to have whatever it is you are thinking needs to be produced.
If it is something specific you are thinking of (that should be done yet isn't being done by private enterprise), then perhaps you should organize your ideas, market it to investors, or by some other way accumulate the neccesary capital, and sell your idea on the market.
If you do go into business with it, and are unable to make a profit, then it is because society is not willing to pay a high enough price for it, to justify the scarce resources needed to produce it, being allocated to it.
"The American Form of Government"
POLITICAL SYSTEMS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&eurl=http://www.new.facebook.com/friends/
Why the hell would Wal-Mart have a "private army?" They're in the business of retail sales! Why would they waste their resources on paying an army?
And it's not "my" system. It's nature's system. It's the system where everyone's rights are equal; as we are born as equals, and endowed by nature with inailenable rights.
Your mind is trapped in the phony, fallacious paradigm that law and police protection absolutely must be provided by a compulsory monopoly. If you would take the time to read and learn enough about history, praxeology, and economics, you would probably come to the same realization that I and many others have: that statism is bullshit; its a system that is intrinsically morally bankrupt.
I am practical though; I realize that statism has literally been bred into so many generations, that it will likely take another three of four centuries of rampant war, economic upheaval, expploitation, corruption and tyranny, before civilization in general becomes enlightened enough to put the ideas of statism in the dustbin of history, where it belongs. The American "founding fathers" came close (Jefferson and Paine perhaps closer than any others), but ultimately they couldn't quite make it past the crucial phiosophical turn, and they ended up trying to compromise: the creation of a state, but with a constitution restricting it within explicit boundaries, so that Natural Law would be enforced, not subverted, by it.
But I recognize that mankind has been so universally indoctrinated into statism -- to the point where so many of us are plundered and insulted yet still insist on more and more of the same -- that I must make my peace with being a slave, and with my children being slaves, and try to get along the best I can for myself and my family.
Maybe my great, great grandchildren will see liberty; but for now, there's way too many people like yourself around, propping up the status quo.
Add these to your reading list, for a history lesson and background:
The Federalist Papers, Democracy in America, The 5,000 Year Leap, A Thomas Jefferson Education, Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Les Miserables, War and Peace, A Tale of Two Cities, The Spirit of the Laws, Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Second Treatise on Government, the writings of Shakespeare, The Wealth of Nations, The Prince, Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and hundreds of other classics.
I do know that strong families and communities are the backbone of all free nations and that you and I must do all in our power to build them.
Start now with A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching A Generation Of Leaders for the 21st Century by Oliver DeMille and apply the principles of Leadership Education in our own life and that of your children.
We MUST educate our children so they can be the leaders of tomorrow. Use this book to counter the mandatory public education of socialism. Have them question their teachers so they might teach other students to question and think at the same time. Have them read the recommended classics (age appropriate) so they may learn hard lessons w/o actually having to live through them.
If we understand the truth about our socialistic/fascist society with our tyrannical leaders, WE can be the difference and make a difference through education and re-education.
To me, I believe a reasonably intelligent person could set aside about 3 hrs. of their busy life, read Bastiat's "The Law" and Spooner's "No Treason, No. 6" and thereafter be forever free of their statist indoctrination.
(No Treason #6, Chapter 3):
It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:
Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.
It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to "support the government," it needs no further argument to show.