That's what former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says about Obama. Referring to Obama's proposed budget, he said, "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but a Union of American Socialist Republics is being born."
Michael Hiltzik quoted Huckabee in his March 4th column for the LA Times that discusses the widespread Republican criticism of Obama's budget. Huckabee was only one of many Right Wing politicians and think tanks that have accused Obama of attempting to "redistribute" wealth from the rich to the poor.
Hiltzik provides some interesting statistics that demonstrate that redistribution has been taking place for some time, but in the other direction...from the poor and the middle class to the rich.
"In 1979, the top 1% of U.S. households earned eight times as much as the middle 20% and 23 times as much as the bottom fifth; by 2005, the Congressional Budget Office found, the upper crust touched 21 times as much as the middle class and 70 times as much as the bottom. Adjusting for inflation, the average American worker made 16% less in 2004 than in the 1970s, according to economist Benjamin M. Friedman."
Redistribution indeed!
Is it "redistribution" to restore tax brackets for the wealthy top earners to the levels they were before the Bush tax cuts? That seems more like the correction of an error.
Republicans claim that raising taxes on the wealthy will make them unwilling to work as hard or invest their money. That sounds suspiciously like the long-discredited "Trickle Down Theory" of Arthur Laffer from the bad old days of Reaganomics. Make the rich richer, and they will voluntarily, through their own generosity and altruism, let some of their increased wealth "trickle down" to the rest of us. Sounds good...if you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Hiltzik quotes economist Friedman again on the destructive effects of wide income disparity: "...the period from 1953 to 1973, when median family income doubled, was one of great social progress, encompassing the civil rights movement and President Johnson's Great Society program. Over the following decades, however, stagnating incomes for most Americans brought "a fraying of the U.S. social fabric," Friedman wrote. Public opinion turned sharply against immigration, affirmative action and welfare, with attacks on the latter program displaying "a vindictive spirit that was highly uncharacteristic of the United States in the postwar era."
The "following decades" that Friedman refers to began with the Reagan Presidency.
Furthermore, Republicans claim that high government spending will reduce growth, but Hiltzik contends that there is no historical data supporting that. Most economists agree that, without a lot of government spending right now, the US economy is headed into the trash can.
What the Republican criticism comes down to is this: They don't want any money spent on populist causes...those favored by Democrats...things like tax cuts for the workers, infrastructure spending, extended unemployment benefits, and universal healthcare. Instead, they favor even MORE tax cuts for the wealthy! How that fixes the economy is a good question...unless you are a fervent believer in those ancient Reaganomics.
But there is another agenda at work here. If Obama's recovery plan is successful, and the economy recovers, Republicans are going to have a very tough time in the 2010 mid-term elections, and an even tougher time in 2012. They are staring political disaster in the face, and their only hope is: Obama's plan must fail!
When you look at it that way, all the criticism of "pork," and the accusations of socialist or communist tendencies start to make more sense. The Republicans are desperate! Their party is decimated, political power diminished, they have no credible plan of their own to offer as an alternative...except tax cuts for the rich. They must try to undermine and weaken the Democrats' plan, but they must be careful not to be perceived as the "no" party, opposing all attempts to initiate a recovery. If that should happen their efforts to torpedo the recovery would become transparent, and they could end up being blamed for the continuing economic problems.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 63
We are devolving as a society when this kind of tripe is taken as legitimate political dialogue and leadership.
I must say, I don't listen to TV personalities that indulge in behavior that would have gotten me expelled from grade school.
Geoff Nunberg reviewed the history of the "socialist/communist" charge last October.
These people with their inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric are building fear and undermining the confidence of the country, thereby subtly boycotting working together toward a solution. They would rather "be right" and have the country lose than give up an idea for the well-being of the country.
In a conversation I had with my financial analyst this past week, he asked how things were going at the Sedgebrook Retirement Community residence where I moved last August. I answered, "I have never been in a group of people like those living or working at Sedgebrook. Everyone--the staff and residents--are so universally friendly, cheerful, supportive, and upbeat. As one staff member told me when I commented on this to her, 'It's contagious."' My financial analyst replied, "Well, we need to transport a bunch of you to Wall Street to dispel the no confidence viewpoint that has developed and keeping the country from going forward."
Yes, there has been a great deal of regressive wealth redistribution happening in this country for decades. But that doesn't mean that progressive wealth redistribution is any better. Regressive wealth redistribution isn't wrong because its regressive, its wrong because its compulsory wealth redistribution.
Another word for it would be plunder. Plunder is wrong no matter who is the victim and who is the beneficiary. Its wrong because its a flagrant violation of the rights of individuals to the fruits of their own labor.
Certainly, Huckabee and McCain and Boehner, et al, are a bunch of hypocrites, and disingenuous to boot. Obviously none of them really have a problem with the concept of compulsory redistribution of wealth, as none of them have ever even seen fit to mention the insidious plunder that 99% of Americans are subject to that is more commonly known as "inflation." To my knowledge, there is only one solitary member of the entire federal government who has taken action to address -- let alone acknowledged -- the massive covert plunder mechanism known as "central banking."
Tax cuts do not amount to wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution is effected by confiscation and re-allocation; not by the lack thereof. You can say that taxing one group at a higher rate than another is unfair, but it is not a de facto proof of the lesser-taxed group having wealth "redistributed" to them. It only means that proportionately less is being taken from them; not necessarily that they are the ones receiving what has been expropriated.
I fully recognize that there has been a great deal of regressive wealth redistribution in this country; but tax cuts are not the means by which it occurs. It is done through government compulsory exchange mechanisms, such as the Military-Industrial Complex (and Pharma-Industrial Complex, etc.), subsidies, and primarily through manipulation of money and credit -- those closest to the mouth of the Federal Reserve money-spigot, so to speak, receive the purchasing power that is lost by ordinary Americans when inflation diminishes the value of our wages and savings. The purchasing power we lose due to inflation, does not merely evaporate into the ether; it is re-allocated to the first people to receive and spend the inflationary money and credit, generally entrenched Wall st. interests and of course politically-connected corporations.
But combating regressive plunder by establishing progressive plunder is not a way to bring about greater general prosperity and a greater social harmony. Abolishing plunder is the way to do that; but of course that is the one option never considered by any of the so-called "leaders" in Washington DC. That would require far more altruism and enlightenment than could be found amongst such a gang of thieves and murderers as people the halls of the Capitol.
Your point is...nobody should pay taxes, because taxes are "plunder?"
So progressive or regressive doesn't matter...taxes are still plunder.
That is my interpretation of your comments. Please correct me if I misinterpreted.
Abolisihing "plunder" will bring about greater general prosperity, you say.
Please explain how you do that without "plunder," aka taxes.
Nobody likes to pay taxes. And our political system...maybe ALL political systems...are mainly concerned with allocating the tax burden. People in power try to shift the tax burden to those who are not in power. Tax revenues are used to accomplish some good things and some bad things. My question for you is...if nobody pays taxes, how do we do the good things? I won't give you a list of those good things. I'll let you think about it. I challenge you to prove that NO good things are done with taxes. If you can prove that, then we should throw away the Constitution, disband national, state and local governements and let the people run things from their homes.
Um, Duh? I didn't realize this was something that was questioned, and we are quickly losing the middle class.
I beloieve in both of them, and I still think Reaganomics is crap.
You think that's SUBTLE?
They would rather "be right" and have the country lose than give up an idea for the well-being of the country.-Verie
You got it one girlie!
Is this really what we want to become? Redistribution of wealth is happing at an unheard of pace. Ever work for a poor person? NO because they cant afford the businesses that HIRE PEOPLE. Why increase the corporate tax rate higher than the highest in the world?? Does that sound like it is a good idea?
Smaller government, lower taxes, increased states rights. It will happen or there will be a revolution in 10 years. Everyone is already seeing how expensive and impotent this stimulus and bail out has become. GREAT JOB GUYS...give billions to GM and they are still going to go bankrupt. Oh, and the federalization of banks that George Washington said would be the end of democracy if that were to happen.
All the liberals say... come on... call George Washington an idiot... :P whatever.
~M
I cannot tell you how much I agree with you. My husband, a partner and I own an investment management firm. We deal with a lot of outside financial advisors (fee-based, not commission-based) who call in daily to just talk about the situation with their clients. They want to do the best thing for them, they want to help them understand that we have been in situations in the country like this before and it is cyclical, they don't want them to panic and pull their money out at a loss and stuff it in their mattresses. But, without fail, we all agree that the media and the GOP are creating an inordinate amount of panic based on false info and preying on people's fears...and this is causing people to do things that are quite honestly very detrimental to themselves. All based on this fear.
My MIL called last night. She is a retired teacher/widow and every year volunteers with AARP to help people do their taxes. A woman in a wheel chair met with her yesterday and was complaining about the country going to pot, Obama being a communist, how she pulled all her money out of the market and stuck it in a bank, etc. etc. All she wanted to know from my MIL was how much she was getting back from her taxes this year.
My MIL looked over her paperwork for a long time and told her she had bad news - she owed a lot of money to the government. The woman was stunned as my MIL explained that what the woman had done was pull all her assets out of a number of IRA accounts - and all that money was being taxed as full, early distributions. The woman had NOT rolled it over to an IRA at her bank, just into her savings acc't. My MIL asked if the woman's financial advisor had told her about this before she did it. The woman said that 'they were all crooks' and she demanded the money be taken out.
This is the kind of thing that results from all these lies, misinformation, fear-mongering, and dirty politics. Innocent people are being hurt. And it's a crime, really.
How do you think Baby Bush and Darth Cheney got SO MUCH support for the Iraq war?
We don't need to know that stuff. There is a lot of other information that we DO need to know about national and world events, but those are often ignored to make room for the blood and guts.
Socialism: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.
Communism: You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk.
Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.
Bureaucracy: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.
Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Democracy: You have two cows. Government taxes force you to sell them in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government.
Capitalism rocks. Socialism doesnt work. Unfortunately we will have to re-learn what history has already taught us.
~M
Taking property from people using the threat of force is plunder, yes. Taking money from one group of people, and redistributing to others, is wealth redistribution; even if it goes by the name of "taxation."
"My question for you is...if nobody pays taxes, how do we do the good things?"
Well my question for you is, if the things you have in mind are really "good things," then why do you assume that people need to be coerced into buying them?
"I challenge you to prove that NO good things are done with taxes."
Whatever "good things" you may have in mind," I challenge you to prove that those things would not have come about, or would not have been done better, if government hadn't effected compulsory transactions to bring them about (and likely exerted absolute control over the industry, granting some politically-favored firm or corporation monopoly or cartel privileges, or else establishing a government monopoly and outlawing competition).
Do you think we wouldn't have roads and schools if government didn't monopolize those industries and coercively expropriate the funding for them?
Do you think that ordinary people are just inert matter, requiring of motivation and direction by the political class? or worse; that human beings are somehow inherently geared toward self-destruction, and but for the benevolent grace of a superior species called politicians and bureaucrats, we would all be relegated to raising up generations of backward illiterates, that we wouldn't be able to figure out how to build infrastructure on our own (and provide them the same way that any and every good or service can and should be provided; on voluntary, contractual terms).
I am not opposed to social cooperation. I am just opposed to hegemomic relationships.
If you and however many other people want to form an organization, call it "government" or whatever, and pay out half of your earned income to a group of individuals and subject yourself to their arbitrary rule, where you and others can live life as though it were a constant rat-race between power-brokering groups all aiming to control the coercive apparatus of the state, so that you can direct it toward plundering and imposing arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on all the other groups, then thats fine. Its your life.
But you and all the others who choose to do that have no right coercively compelling me or anyone else who does not voluntary wish to, to play along with your statist games. I do not wish to purchase the services of your "government;" and neither you nor anyone else has any legitimate right to compel me, or anyone else who does not choose to, to do so.
There are no goods or services that should be provided at the barrel of a gun. Only sociopaths shoot people to build roads and schools.
Courts of law, police protection, education, infrastructure; all of these things are only legitimately provided that same way anything else is legitimately provided; on mutually-voluntary, contractual terms.
Just because your life-long tacit acceptance of statist indoctrination renders you unable to fathom the existence of a free society, doesn't mean that a free society would not function, thrive and prosper (free of the chronic social injustice and economic dislocation which are a veritable trademark of statism); and it certainly doesn't make the moral argument in favor of human liberty somehow a "utopian" or "impractical" one.
Not quite. More like you have two cows, then the state informs you that they are claiming ownership of your cows (under the rubric of "public ownership," of course), and because of their goodness and benevolence, they will allow you to retain physical possession of half the milk and meat those cows produce, but since the cows are really their property, they will be taking the other half so as redistribute according to their own whim and discretion (as well as to support themselves, of course).
Sharing and cooperation is not what marks socialism. Violent abolition of markets and property rights is what socialism is marked by. People generously and voluntarily sharing the fruits of their labor with others is a staple of a free society. Peoples property being taken under the threat of force and arbitrarily redistributed is not tantamount to "sharing."
Compulsory charity is no charity at all.
~M
If the former, then why not abolish the Constitution and all government...federal, state and local. Do I think we would have an Interstate Highway System if we did that? NO.
Do I think we would have high tech defense weapons? I doubt it very much. Would private individuals voluntarily pony up the money to build 100 million dollar fighters?
If you agree that we need such things, then without taxation, how would you go about raising the money to develop and produce them? You ask, "...if the things you have in mind are really "good things," then why do you assume that people need to be coerced into buying them?"
Some people might see the need. Others would not. Do you really think that everybody would willingly and voluntarily pony up their share of the funds? What happens if a lot of people refuse? It's all voluntary, right, so the "refuseniks" get a free ride.
Or...as soon as you say that pressure is applied to make them contribute, then that is "taxation" and "plunder," right? Whether it is imposed by government or by an informal group of fellow citizens, what's the difference?
I think it is very likely that we would NOT have roads and schools if contributions to build them were entirely voluntary. This would have been especially true a hundred years ago when the nation was largely agrarian and many people saw little benefit to schooling.
Rural electrification...another example of a system that would probably never have been built without government intervention.
Well, that's a really dramatic and inflammatory statement, but hardly descriptive of what happens to people who refuse to pay taxes. We don't take them out and shoot them, Steve. But they are certainly prosecuted, and their possessions are confiscated, if necessary to pay their bills.
Look, I would love it if human nature were universally altruistic...that everybody would say, "Just tell me how much money you need to build roads and bridges and schools and weapons to protect us, and I will VOLUNTARILY give you what you ask."
But who is the "who" in the previous question? Who will organize these programs, build the factories and provide the infrastructure? Private individuals and corporations? They will make these commitments based on...what? Who decides who gets the contract, and how much it should cost? Starts to sound like government to me. Somebody has to be in charge of things, Steve. That's how human enterprise works. As soon as you make everything voluntary, nobody is in charge, and the whole thing breaks down.
Ever since there has been a gathering people in society there has been cooperation, forced if necessary. Taxation is merely a means of supporting the whole society, those who reap and sow, those who gather and sell. You cannot name ANY condition of mankind at ANY time in history that did not involve distribution of wealth. There have been governments where wealth was sequestered in monarchy or some artificial heirarchy but never for long. Eventually the playing field is leveled either thru law or revolution.
The American system of Democratic Republic works. Sometimes slowly and unevenly but eventually we achieve distribution of wealth. The difference is that in days past the oligarghs decorated the city gates with their rotting heads. Today they guest on FOX news. Whether that is an improvement is open to debate.
Fire Stations. Before we had socialized fire stations we had competitive ones. Buildings, even entire cities would burn to the ground because of different stations vying and fighting to be the one to get to put the fire out.
BUT since then, the federal government has kept encroaching state rights which is unconstitutional. The Federal Government has pushed, and over reached, the limits of it’s authority. The Constitution does not allow for gun control, of any kind, by the federal, or state governments. Providing social security, welfare for individuals, or corporations, and medical care, are not functions of the federal government. There isn’t any restrictions, in the Constitution, that would bar the individual states from taking up these issues. These are issues that should be determined by the individual states. The Department of Education, Department of Energy, the EPA, and so on, are not functions of the federal government. There is no right to an abortion in the United States Constitution,that is a state issue. It is past time that the individual states reassert their constitutional authority. Unfunded federal mandates are bankrupting the states.
The states of Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Washington, have introduced resolutions to reclaim their 9th and 10th Amendment rights. Analysts expect the states of Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, and Pennsylvania to follow.
Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers that help write the constitution said it best, "I hope the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments. This balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them."
Government is out of control. They will find it surprising when the states take it back!
~M
You take, as do the average Federalist misinterpretors, Hamilton's words out of context. I assume you know that. Hamilton was a leading early advocate of a strong Federal government as was his mentor, George Washington. Quote Jefferson instead, his early works because after he became Pres he extended and stretched his Federal authority. (Read the Core Of Discovery debate.)
During the last nation-wide economic crisis of this magnitude, (the Depression) the same idiot arguments were made by Republicans in defense of the same policies that caused the same effects the Democrats had to clean up. You never seem to learn.
Our beloved president, that you so adore, does not represent everyone. Only the left is represented by him and your statement above about me proves it.
The same idiot arguments in the Great Depression, huh? Do you realize that the moron economists that Obama has guiding him, in June 2008 - 43% didnt believe there was a chance of a recession? IT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR 6 MONTHS...
Democrats helped to get us here bud. You cant blame all of this on Bush. That would be ignorant. Taking from the rich to give to the poor has an inevitable flaw...the rich run out of money. It is a retarded idea to take away from those that make the economy.
90% of our economy is from small businesses where the owners make 250K a year. Why would it be a good idea to hammer them? Also, who ever thought it was a good idea to RAISE taxes during a recession?
~M
I guess by "the left" you mean everybody to the left of you...which is probably about 90% of the voters in the United States.
Bush took from the poor and middle class and gave to the rich. We can see the results of that. If Obama reverses some of that, I have no fear that the rich will run out of money.
Actually, the VAST majority of people will see a tax cut. Only the rich...the ones who benefitted from their crony George Bush in the White House, and the tax cuts he gave them to repay them for their massive financial support of his campaign, will see a tax increase. That is just to rectify a gross "redistribution" of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich perpetrated by Bush. So the tax increases just correct an error. Look at it that way, Michael and you will feel much better, I am sure.
Barack Obama was elected to correct the most serious
cases of voter judgment error in American history.
You cannot expect the eight years of criminal rule
we just experienced to be washed out overnight.
But, gas prices are reasonable again. That's a
start, and certainly, that would never have
happened had McCain been elected.
Bert, I think 90% is a bit generous. I'd put it between 96-98%.
Thanks, Bert. Having trouble keeping up but I'm here, I read, I agree with you, and I thank you.
Now, if you were getting a tax brake that meant you were keeping more and getting more back then you should, and someone said, "Now you have to be fair" how would YOU respond? Let me use children as an example:
A new parent discovers that if his child throws a fit and he says, "If you stop I'll give you a piece of candy, cake, or a toy" the child stops. Hey, that worked really well, the parent keeps doing this. Then, one day the parent realizes the child is throwing a trantrum constantly. The child has now learned to "work the system", child knows that if he throws a fit he gets a reward. Eventually, the parent catches on and the next time a child throws a fit, he doesn't reward the child. So, the child continues with the fit until they are blue in the face and fall asleep from exhaustion. Then the parent actually starts to punish the child when he throws a tantrum. This continues to happen until the child figures out that throwing a fit doesn't get him a prize anymore, and in fact gets him in trouble. So he stops throwing the fit and starts to do good things to get the reward.
Same thing here. The "wealthy" got 8 years of rewards for bad behavior. Now, the rewards have stopped comming, soon the punishment will start. For the moment they are still doing the bad behavior to get the reward. IE trashing the pres, gloomdaying the stock market, etc. One day they are going to accept the fact that they have to play fair, or they get in trouble for misbehaving.
I don't expect the wealthy power brokers in the country to "accept" what Obama is trying to do at all. They are already working on ways to undermine and discredit him. It took them fifty years do undo the regulations and safeguards put in place by FDR. Safeguards that would have prevented...or at least reduced the severity of...the current meltdown. But during those fifty years, they NEVER gave up, never let up in their relentless attacks on Social Security, progressive income tax and regulation of financial institutions.
They struck out...so far...on Social Security, but they won big-time on capital gains taxes, nearly flat income taxes, and they got banks deregulated so completely that they could run them like casinos...which they did.
at least the player has a chance to win. To win the game as
played, the player has to walk on his last domino, take the
loss, and pocket the profits he has pyramided on the way up.
(I should call it, his "equity," right?) Also, when the casino loses
a play, they continue to play. In this bit of fraud, it is game over
when the numbers come up.
No, I would be more comfortable with "greedy pigs and their
agents thereof." You know, we inherited a set of ethics to
specifically lending to homeowners. Business loans give Porky
a little more latitude, but home lending always carried with it
a "sacred trust." That is, until about Ronald Reagan's time.
Part of the sacred trust was to not lend beyond the means of
the borrower, a certain percent of income, it was. Another rule
forbid speculation in housing; you know, artificially driving up
prices by creating a boom, after, of course, substantial positions
in the neighborhood had already been taken. Anyway, most all
the rules the banks have been breaking are all part of European
Common Law, and have been. The concept of sacred trust
derives from the idea that stable society is built on the foundation
of homes; hopefully, happy homes, not just pieces on the game board.
Let's not let the Republicans off too easy on this one, though the
game was eagerly participated in by both parties; but, during a war,
parties have been known to flood the economy with credit, any way
they can, to help make things look good while the budget is tanking.
I'm not evading your question. I'm pointing out that just because something is good, and just because government may happen to do it, doesn't mean that the given thing would not be done in the absence of government. If it really is a good thing, then it stands to reason that it would not require empowering a group of individuals to exercise a monopoly on coercion to have them compel people to do it (and pay for it to be done).
I am not opposed to laws. I am very much in favor of laws. But I view "law" as something deriving solely from the fact that individuals have rights; I do not see law as something that is "made" or unmade by humans, because rights are not something that is created by humans to be bestowed upon other humans. Rights are intrinsic to each individual, and each individual has equal rights. That is the sole basis of justice; the fact that each individual has equal rights. Rights are not created by human authorities called "legislators" and generously granted to others. If they were, then they wouldn't be *rights*, they would be *privileges*. Do you see the difference? Do you believe that humans have rights? or do you believe that we only have those privileges which are granted us by whoever controls the most firepower?
" Either you don't think government can do ANY good things, or you are reluctant to be trapped into defining them, because you would have to concede that government DOES do good things."
You're missing the point. By all accounts, Ted Bundy did lots of "good things." Apparently, he was considered by his peers to be an all-around great friend and neighbor. But it would have taken a special sort of juror to excuse his brutal, sadistic string of murders because he so happened to have done some "good things" also.
Really, its not even an accurate metaphor, because its likely that there were some "good things" that Te3d bundy did, that would not have been done if Ted Bundy were not around to do them. But this is not the case with government. Anything that government does which is truly good and necessary, would still be done in the absence of government. If people want to have integrated social cooperation, then it is necessary to have laws. Thus, courts of law and rights-protection agencies would still be established, even if the people were enlightened enough to realize that there is no need to give one group of people a coercive monopoly on law and protection in order to have laws and protection.
Pro Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a type of fallacy; not a valid line of argumentation. You can't say "laws, schools, and roads exist; government exercises a coercive monopoly on laws, schools and roads; therefore, government is necessary to have laws, schools and roads." It just doesn't hold water.
"If the former, then why not abolish the Constitution and all government...federal, state and local. Do I think we would have an Interstate Highway System if we did that? NO."
By all means. The Constitution is just a 230 year old piece of paper; it has no real authority or obligation. If it ever did, it was only between the men who signed and agreed to "uphold and support" it at that time. No contract can be said to be binding upon anyone outside of those who voluntarily agreed to enter into it (signed and sealed); and it certainly cannot be said to be binding upon the posterity of even those. What kind of absurd leap of logic could even attempt to presume otherwise?
At any rate, what is your basis for thinking that we wouldn't have an integrated highway system if there was no U.S. federal government? You really must believe that ordinary humans are just idle dolts, and that it is only through the spark provided by the superior politicians and bureaucrat that we are even able to know what is in our best interests to do, let alone actual set out to do it. Is that the case?
I must say, that even without the wonderous blessing of the superior political class that we have had, I still think that people would have liked to be able to go from point A to point B, still would have been able to invent cars and trucks, and still would have figured out how to build highways and integrate them. Its a stretch, I know; but I think we could have managed.
"Would private individuals voluntarily pony up the money to build 100 million dollar fighters?"
Absolutely. Why not? If it were the case that $100 million fighters were needed, then some enterprising entrepreneur would build them, and offer his services on the market. If people recognized that the services of the $100 million fighter were necessary for survival, then do you really think people would not pony up?
You assume that people need to be coerced into doing whats in their own best interests. Why?
"What happens if a lot of people refuse? It's all voluntary, right, so the "refuseniks" get a free ride."
All of a sudden you're against people benefitting at the expense of others?
The people who see the need, and agree to pay for the services of the owners and operators of the jet fighters, are surely capable of devising their own way to deal with the "refuseniks," without having to resort to initiatory aggression against person or property.
But let me ask; suppose every government body in the U.S. collapsed tomorrow (God willing). Suppose also that it was learned that a foreign nation-state military was planning on invading the geographical-region-formerly-known-as-the-United-States, and depriving all of us of our newfound freedom. Northrop Grumman offered to hire former Air Force and Navy pilots to fly their jets and defend the people of the region from imminent statist tyranny (assuming also that it would even be necessary to "hire" them, that they would even ask to be paid). Would you agree to pay Northrop Grumman for this service? Do you think most of the people you know would? What makes you assume that it would be necessary to threaten force and expropriation in order to get enough people to do so?
Do you really think that free people are incapable of doing what is in their best interests to do, on their own volition?
"Or...as soon as you say that pressure is applied to make them contribute, then that is "taxation" and "plunder," right? Whether it is imposed by government or by an informal group of fellow citizens, what's the difference?"
Wrong. Taxation is not extracted by "applying pressure," it is done through brute force. There are forms of "applying pressure" that do not include the use of initiatory aggression. A threat of boycott or "blacklisting" may be sufficient to "apply pressure" to get people to get with the program. It is only plunder if property is taken by force from those who rightfully own it, and retained by or redistributed to those who do not.
You ask "what's the difference?" The difference is initiated violence against person or property. Coercive force is only ever justified in defense of person or property.
If enough people cannot be made to voluntarily contribute to their own survival, then what can be said of those people, other than that they freely chose to submit to their own destruction?
Why is it that you do not trust individuals to do what is in the best interests of society on their own free accord, but you do trust them to elect a group of individuals to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on the whole of society?
This must be the paradox of "democracy." We assume that people are either too stupid or innately self-destructive to be entrusted with liberty, but then once the question of electing a group of select individuals to impose their will and discretion on the entire society arises, then the people are oh-so-wise; the electoral process is a "sacred trust" and the wisdom of the "common man" is infallible.
"I think it is very likely that we would NOT have roads and schools if contributions to build them were entirely voluntary."
I'm not suggesting that people should be asked to offer charitable contributions in order to build roads and schools. I'm suggesting that the funding for them should be come the same way funding for any other product or service comes from: people provide and offer the product or service at the market price, and the people who wish to benefit from it pay for it.
Not to say that there wouldn't (or shouldn't) be organizations that collect funds through charitable giving in order to pay for families who want to send their kids to school but can't afford it, though.
"Rural electrification...another example of a system that would probably never have been built without government intervention."
Thats your opinion; by no means valid as anything but. But even if you're right, then what your point? If that were the case, then it would be because no one in rural areas wanted to benefit from electricity (at least not enough to pay for it). Who the hell are you to impose it upon them?
If the people in rural areas wanted electricity -- and electricity was provided on the free market, instead of being strictly controlled by government bureaucracy, as it has since virtually the very beginning here in the U.S. -- then the electricity providers would have run their lines to rural areas. Why do you assume that it would have required coercion in order to force business firms to bring their supply to meet the market demand?
"Well, that's a really dramatic and inflammatory statement, but hardly descriptive of what happens to people who refuse to pay taxes."
Oh? I think its a rather concise description. But in lieu of my own decidedly inferior skills of expression, I will defer to one of the great masters...
"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." ~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason no. VI, The Constitution of No Authority
Nah, you are still evading the issue on my question. Does government do good things that justify the collection of taxes? You say you believe in "laws" but not, apparently, in laws that require all citizens to contribute to the function of government. From this, I can only conclude that you do not believe in government at all.
Ah, this is interesting. Please elaborate on how the people who voluntarily pay for a jet fighter that protects EVERYBODY would go about "devising their own way to deal with 'refuseniks,'..."
If there is coercion involved, how is that different from government taxation?
You are splitting hairs. Coercion is coercion. Boycotts, blacklisting...that's coercion that is just as much brute force as a tax law.
And yes, I really doubt that Northrop Grumman would build aircraft to defend the country if nobody would pay them for it...nor do I believe that fighter pilots would volunteer to spend years of their life in training with no compensation for themselves or their families.
You are making up a utopian world where people instinctively do what is best for society as a whole, without any overseeing organization. It wouldn't work, and it won't happen because that is not how human endeavors work.
Would we have gone to the Moon if a government agency, prodded by a visionary President hadn't organized and funded the effort? Maybe you don't think that was a worthwhile effort, but I do...and a lot of other people do too.
I remember now, Steve. You are a (self-described, I believe) anarchist.
A very smart one, I might add.
There is no "altruism" about it. It's called a market; maybe you've heard of it. It's how the computer that you're presently sitting at came into being. It's how the car in your driveway got there. The shelter you reside in.
You don't get the milk in your refrigerator because the farmers and factory workers are "altruistic," and their livelihood does not come about because you are.
It's called production and exchange.
Look, there are two ways humans can attain sustenance. The first is self-sufficiency; we each produce everything we and our families need to consume to survive (and only consume that which we ourselves produce). This way is tough, because everyone spends pretty much all of their waking hours laboring to produce just the things needed to eke out a bare subsistence.
The second is social cooperation through the division of labor. In fact, it is only because division of labor and specialization are more productive, and everyone who participates benefits from it, and that human reason is capable of ascertaining this fact, that social cooperation even exists at all.
In this, people produce not for the sake of direct consumption, but rather to exchange what they produce for the goods and services produced by others (who do the same). This way is far more produictive, both because it allows for specialization (everyone can choose a line of production which they have a relative advantage in, and also the fact of specialization means that peopl are able to become highly skilled at specific lines production), and because of cooperation.
Think of all the cooperation that goes into just making the computer you are sitting at. Probably hundreds of thousands of people whom you have never met, and most of whom have never met each other, all had a hand in bringing that computer to your desk. And this amazing cooperative effort came about through everyone who was involved in it voluntarily acting in their own best interests. It was not an altruistic, philanthropic effort; it was simply integrated production and exchange. In other words, the market. Most people enever stop to think of how absolutely amazing it is; people just sort of take it for granted, as if there is some nameless group of people out there who have some solemn duty to make sure that the shelves at the grocery store stay stocked for their own convenience.
And what is it that guides and direct this seemingly chaotic set of circumstances, these millions of people all working and cooperating with one another, uncoerced and without any singlular central-planning agent directing everything from a political ivory tower? It's free market price system. It is the social function of the market price structure and the profit/loss test of the market, to channel the allocation of productive resources in such a way as to apportion the relative output of countless various items and services in accordance with the most urgent needs and demands of society. When the market price structure and the profit/loss test of the market are permitted to function freely, absent political sabotage (including that of a state-sanctioned central banking cartel), then the result will be that all of the productive resources of society will be put to work producing the things which are most urgently demanded by all the individuals in society, in proportion to their relative importance.
If this were the case, then you could argue with the results, you could say that you think more of this should be produced, and not as much of that; but neither you or anyone else has any right using initiatory coercion to compel or restrict others so that the results would be more convenient or aesthetically pleasing to you.
As I said on another thread around here recently: Certainly everyone can profess to be in favor of freedom. The question is are they willing to extend freedom to others as well?
You have to face the fact that you've grown accustomed to thinking like a tyrant. You have your own subjective ideas of what you think society should be like, and you strive to control the coercive apparatus of the state so that force may be used to mold society into something more convenient or pleasing to you.
Just because in your mind you think that more people ought to be doing this, and nobody ought to be doing that, doesn't mean that anyone else has any solemn obligation to submit to your arbitrary whim. If you think something ought to be done, and the person or property of others would not be violated in the process, then by all means go ahead and do it. But neither you nor anyone else has any rightful authority to use force to subject others to your own arbitrary will and discretion.
If you believe that you do, then I think it only fair that you furnish some sort of proof of your own superiority, and of the inferiority of others, which would render us with some sort of binding obligation to submit to arbitrary restrictions and compulsions you would like to impose.
I agree with the bulk of what you are saying here, most especially the fallacious nature of the "general mindset" that has come to be seen as inviolate gospel truth, that government is somehow doing, what it controls or regulates. That politicians and bureaucrats are necessary to make things happen. They're not, though they may be useful for making things happen more smoothly or consistently.
I really think the "founding fathers" understood this quite well, and the "federation" of states, was intended to be a way of having some general cooperation and coordination among fairly independent States, composed in turn of somewhat independent counties, and so on down to communities. Over time, this has mutated into a top-down sort of delegation of power over populations, much like a "mob" run syndicate or "protection racket", with territorial franchises and "authorized" dealers and distributors.
I think government IS necessary, however, and this hits on why;
"Do you really think that free people are incapable of doing what is in their best interests to do, on their own volition?"
The answer is no, and that's the problem. Some bully is bound to figure out that if they get a bunch of like-minded creeps to co-operate with them, they can take what productive folks have gathered, for their own. And, over time, the bully boys will fight it out for the choicest prey and hunting grounds, and you will end up with force based ruler-ship anyway. The Ghengis Kans will come, if the Al Capones don't stop them, so to speak.
Sure, in the conceptual sense, we have rights, but in the physical sense, we have lures . . . if we exercise those rights, to make a good life for ourselves and those we live alongside. The KEY is, to make government a servant class (as in; public servants ; ) and not a ruling class (as in; leaders ; )
We have bought into the government as leaders charade, and our "leaders" went right ahead and led us, to make them crowns . . .
I think the folks you're trying to explain this stuff to, can't grasp the possibility that it didn't have to be this way. That we didn't have to be led by government at all, but simply fell for a series of clever cons.
Now that we are the winners of the survival competition with other animals, we need to develop new "instincts," and I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Our present economic predicament is an example of what happens when greed and human nature control events, because it came about specifically BECAUSE government regulation was relaxed.
As to me being a "tyrant," only to the extent that I have been raised and taught to believe in government as a generally (but not always) benevolent manager of human affairs, so I believe in, and abide by the rules defined in the Constitution, and I expect other citizens of my nation to do the same. If that makes me a tyrant, then, I plead guilty.
I believe our government is a "criminal" conspiracy at this point. I believe we are being ruled, and not ruling ourselves. The recent financial collapse is a fine example of how the government enabled the pillaging of vast wealth, and the fact that they intend to do nothing about that immense crime, nor oodles of others they were complicit in, demonstrates they are "on the take", to me.
The IDEA of a Constitutional Republic was a good one, I think, but the reality is little more than Al Capone gone national now.
Nonsense. There is no "hairsplitting," and I find it astonishing that someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself cannot see the difference.
Do you seriously consider boycotting as "brute force"? Please tell me that you are not unable to see the difference between free people voluntarily agreeing to refrain from doing business with or otherwise associating with a given individual, organization or firm; and the use of physical force, or the threat thereof, as a means of expropriation or compulsion.
If you can't see the difference, then any conversation with you about human rights or the proper scope of the law is indeed pointless.
" I really doubt that Northrop Grumman would build aircraft to defend the country if nobody would pay them for it...nor do I believe that fighter pilots would volunteer to spend years of their life in training with no compensation for themselves or their families."
And so what if you're right? If thats the case, then I guess Northrop Grumman would have to find a new line of production.
If conditions changed, and suddenly people saw the need to hire fighter pilots to protect us from military invasion, then those with the know-how would find it worthwhile to produce and operate fighter jets again.
"You are making up a utopian world where people instinctively do what is best for society as a whole, without any overseeing organization."
Ah, I knew the cheap, vacuous "utopian" taunts were bound to come sooner or later.
You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said. It is not by some mysterious "instinct" that people labor to produce the items and services which are most urgently demanded by others; unless you want to consider the basic human desire to better their own conditions as a mysterious "instinct."
People do so because they are able to first discern which goods and services are most highly demanded by others at a given time, the production of which would bring about the highest price on the market. If people are offering a lot of money for a given service, then the people willing and capable of producing or providing that good or service will direct their efforts towards meeting that demand. The very fact of doing so will bring about an alleviation of scarcity -- the given good or service would only have been in such a high demand (to bring in a high price on the market) if it were scarce relative to the amount of people (and the degree of urgency which those people desired the given product). With this alleviation of scarcity, the price will begin to decline; the market price structure functioning to meet the most urgent needs of society. This process is exactly how one-time "luxury goods" become household items, even in the poorest neighborhoods; TV's, cars, DVD players, PC's, cell phones, etc. etc..
There is no mysterious cosmic force at work; there is no need to consider such things as altruism and philanthropy. When people are free -- when the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion is directed solely to the protection of persons and property, among all individuals equally -- then you can safely trust that whenever there is a demand for some item or service, and the value society has collectively placed on the factors required to produce it is not greater than the thing to be produced, then individuals will allocate those factors to producing it. If you can think of something that you think society would benefit from, and no one has yet begun producing it, then the appropriate course of action is to go into business; not to lobby politicians to coercively extract funds from people in order that you can see the money spent on whatever would be more pleasing to yourself, as opposed to how the people who labored to earn the money would have preferred to see it spent.
I'M NOT DESCRIBING ANY "ALTRUISM"!!! "Informed" or otherwise. I'm not a utopian jackass. I am perfectly cognizant of the inherent flaws of human nature.
I guess the difference between me and you is that I see these inherent flaws of human nature as good reason not to entrust a group of human beings with the authority to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on the whole of society.
"However, left to our own devices, without some overseeing entity (ignoring the God issue for the moment) I think a total lack of government would be...anarchy and it wouldn't be pretty."
Yeah, thank goodness that we have the superior species Homo Politicus and Homo Bureaucratus around to keep the rest of mere humans in order, or else we'd really be screwed.
was in with the Southern preachers, so I might have
guessed. To think, Huckabee was a GOP front runner.
No chance north of the Mason Dixon line, though;
not with that Gomer Pyle act.
I still say that I see no basic difference between a community boycotting an individual to force him to pay TAXES (yes, that's what they are) and a more formal process of prosecution, fines and/or imprisonment. The actions in both cases are approved by his fellow citizens, whether by the formal court process and the rule of law, or by the informal "vigilante" process, because the boycott or other punitive actions taken by private citizens are vigilante actions. Those people are taking the law into their own hands.
The end result is the same, though, and I don't see why YOU can't see that. An individual is coerced into paying taxes. And that's what you say is bad. Or did I misunderstand again?
I wrote this article because I am interested in how Obama and his administration tackle the horrendous problems before them, and how the opposition is attempting to influence events to their own advantage.
I am not interested in discussing the relative merits of alternative forms of government (or non-government) any further, but I certainly have no objection if others wish to continue it.
It's a good thing you're not interested in discussing this any further; my head might explode.
"I wrote this article because I am interested in how Obama and his administration tackle the horrendous problems before them, and how the opposition is attempting to influence events to their own advantage."
Here's how Obama et al are going to tackle the problems: increasing statism. How have we got into this mess? Increasing statism. What's Obama's "opposition" all about? Increasing statism. No matter which half of the entrenched political party duopoly is "in power," we're always going to get the same thing: more plunder, more oppression, more of other people using the brute force of the state to subjugate the rest of us and to partake in the property of others; more government goons prying into our personal life, reading our mail and computer correspendence and listening to our phone calls (the FBI can now spy on you through your cell phone even when you are not talking on it, did you know that?); more of the fruits of your labor being siphoned away to pay for mass subjugation and murder in foreign countries (funny how in the week of Obama's "first ___ as President," nobody mentioned Obama's first murder, when women and children in Afghanistan were killed by a Predator strike that he ordered); and of course always more economic interventionism, always established in attempts to combat the ill effects of previous economic interventions, but which are always presented to the gullible, economically-illiterate American public as the ill effects of "free market capitalism."
"The Ghengis Kans will come, if the Al Capones don't stop them, so to speak."
But the problem is that -- as history has shown, quite decisively -- the Al Capone's always decide that they aren't satisfied being Al Capone, and they become Ghengis Khans.
It's my belief that the purpose of law is to protect everyone from Ghengis Khan and Al Capone.
Its not that I don't believe in the concept of law; quite the contrary. I just don't believe that its necessary that we grant any one specified group of people (whether democratically elected or not) a monopoly on the institutions of law and justice.
And if any number of people so choose, we are all perfectly free to start some organization, fill it with high-sounding office titles like "Senator" and "President," and agree amongst ourselves that we will abide by the decrees issued by those so chosen to fill those offices. But any of us who decide to do this have no rightful authority to coercively compel anyone to participate in our "government," to pay its "taxes" and obey its arbitrary decress, who is not inclined to do so.
The only thing that any of us have any right to use coercive force in doing, is in defending persons and property from initiatory force or fraud.
So long as the people in a society can keep that fact in mind, then it would be possible that we could have a state and have liberty at the same time. Otherwise, if is held that the state is supreme, and that all individuals are to be considered inferior and subjects to the state (as opposed to the state being subject to the individuals), then we will always end up with something pretty much like what you see all around you today -- at best.
I've read all of Thomas Paine's published work, I've read alot of Thomas Jefferson's writing, and believe me I find much of it to be great stuff. There's alot of what I consider to be really great stuff in the Brutus Essays. But for all the enlightenment and insight that men like Paine and Jefferson and Sam Adams possessed, I think they were ultimately unable to think far enough outside the conventional box to be able to carry their philosophy to its logical conclusion. Not to take anything away from them; frankly the fact that they were able to come to the conclusions that they did is pretty amazing, considering the level of access to books and philosophy and such in that day.
But nonetheless, I think they just took for granted the notion that a monopolist state in necessary at all. I think they just tacitly assumed that if they were to have laws -- which of course are necessary for liberty -- then they would have to entrust the institution of law to monopolist state entities. They were overly optimistic as well, in believing that the Constitution they established could possibly be a sufficient device for insuring that the state apparatus they created would not grow into a tyranny, and one even worse than the monarchical despotism they had just thrown off.
All that said, the Constitution itself, as far as it goes, is not a bad one; apart from the tacit approval of black slavery, that is.
The way I see it, if I am going to be considered somehow bound to a 230 year old contract that I never agreed to and certainly never signed, so that I am considered obligated to financially support and obey the "government" which is also party to the contract, then it surely should not be too much to ask that the "government" abide by the guidelines clearly set out for it, in plain language, within the contract itself; at least those parts of the contract which expressly and explicitly forbid the government to violate the intrinsic rights of individuals.
Is that too much to ask?
forth that people who were not living at the time the U. S.
Constitution was signed are under no obligation to be
bound by it, Steve Bachman wrote in a previous post,
reprinted here:
"By all means. The Constitution is just a 230 year old piece of paper; it has no real authority or obligation. If it ever did, it was only between the men who signed and agreed to "uphold and support" it at that time. No contract can be said to be binding upon anyone outside of those who voluntarily agreed to enter into it (signed and sealed); and it certainly cannot be said to be binding upon the posterity of even those. What kind of absurd leap of logic could even attempt to presume otherwise?"
Steve, strange as it may seem, this could be the reason American school children
recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. Maybe the revolt can take place
during Spring break.
You can bet if the tables were reversed and McCain had won, they would be spending plenty to revive the economy, and defending it as a good "investment."