"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain
In an all too frequent political discussion on Facebook, this time with Brian Gaddie, one of my unashamed far left liberal friends, he kindly pointed out that he appreciated Congressman Ron Paul's opposition to torture. This prompted a quick thought I've had about rights. And, really, a lot of this discussion must ultimately rest on the nature of our rights as sentient, self-aware beings who value life with each of us being the legitimate owners of our own selves who take positive action to support or enhance that life.
There is an excellent write up at The Objective Standard regarding the nature of rights that I highly recommend reading, especially since it offers up a theory that does not depend on the existence of God. This is important, because if God cannot be proven than your rights cannot be proven if you solely rest the existence of them on its existence.
But, back to the point. Certainly, nobody in the United States would support kidnapping someone off the street, failing to give them due process, failing to find them guilty in any kind of trial but instead just sticking them in a secret room and torturing them just in case they might know something useful. This would be such a vast violation of rights and the character of who are SUPPOSED to be as a nation.
But, it did prompt me to post my comment from Brian's thread on a broader topic of the nature of our rights and why I think the typical Conservative has an intellectual dilemma that they either must resolve by becoming more authoritarian and deciding that we only have the rights our respective governments grant to us OR that all human beings have rights that come about by way of our existence as sentient, self-aware beings.
Brian - regarding torture. Conservatives have an intellectual dilemma that they must resolve.
Most Conservatives would argue that our rights come from our creator (God, the creative force of the universe or whatever mechanism by which we are sentient, self-aware beings). This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as a founding principle of our country. That we have rights (life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) that nobody, not even government - except as compensation for a harm done to another - can take away.
BUT THEN, in the same breath, they would suggest that immigrants, accused terrorists or other people not born here don't have the same rights.
This is intellectually inconsistent. Either our rights come from the creator OR they come from government by nature of which borders we are unlucky enough to be born between.
They must decide. And I appreciate Ron Paul consistently showing intellectual honesty in all matters, including torture as I very much appreciate you pointing out.
A lot of traditional pro-intervention conservatives and even some liberals don't seem to have much of a problem with America's foreign policy. Non-interventionist conservatives, libertarians, many liberals, Ron and Rand Paul supporters and others like to point out the problems and repercussions, including what the CIA calls "blowback", that result from having a highly intrusive foreign policy that seeks to promote U.S. hegemony in parts of the globe.
I started to write a piece that focused on our Middle East interventions and finally realized on the third page that I was probably writing a chapter to a potential future book, not a BLOG post. So, let me put it in this perspective and I'm speaking mostly to (supposedly) small government conservatives.
In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected, secular (non religious) government of Iran and replaced that government with a dictator (ref: Operation Ajax). Ultimately, this boiled down to helping British oil interests (the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, today we know it as British Petroleum).
After his failed assassination attempt on Qasim in Iraq (1959), Saddam Hussein became an asset of the CIA and the Ba'ath party was helped to power with the support of the CIA and British MI6.
In the late 70s it is widely believed that the Carter administration turned against the Shah of Iran (whom we had helped to power) because of human rights concerns and this helped his overthrow by the religious (Muslim) conservatives.
In the 1980s the U.S. assisted, funded or otherwise supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war in which hundreds of thousands of Arabs died. All as part of a strategy to keep both sides weak and unable to develop into stronger nations less likely to be subject to the desires and designs of the West.
We fought a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We can glamorize it all we want with movies like "Charlie Wilson's War", but at the end of the day the Middle East was used repeatedly as a way to play tug of war with the Soviets without actually having to fight them.
The U.S. supports, funds and arms - nearly without question - the state of Israel which a One World Government organization carved out of Palestine and gave to what was then the minority population there. I know how much conservatives love the United Nations and one world government organizations!
The U.S. has a long standing policy of supporting the ruling royal family in Saudi Arabia. This is a country where women cannot vote or drive, where a woman may be killed or harshly punished for being raped and where they still practice amputation as a punishment against criminals. Nary a word is spoken by our government about this. We maintain friendly relations with this country while invading or manipulating the regimes in others in the name of "freedom" or "democracy".
We help fund the military dictatorship in Pakistan.
In the past couple of years the U.S. demanded that Swiss banks turn over their records related to U.S. account holders. Some foreign banks are starting to cease doing business in the U.S. because they, like many of us, don't want to deal with our Internal Revenue Service.
Certainly, all of these sorts of things for which I highlight only a very, very small handful examples cost us lots of money. Especially when we end up sending our brave and honorable soldiers to war to clean up the messes that the upper-class ivy league twits at the CIA get us into. Not sure how one can be "fiscally conservative" and support constant meddling in the affairs of other nations or never-ending states of warfare; but, I digress.
This is my question.
The traditional conservative line is frequently that they want the United States Government to stay out of their lives and their wallets. Does it ever occur to them that the rest of the world wants this too?
Addendum: 2016
After decades of military intervention and proxy war battles in the Middle East we have seen an increased rise in radicalized, violence-prone terrorists either encouraged by, trained, recruited or otherwise supported and weaponized by people with social, economic or religious goals. It is far to easier to recruit people to a violent cause when all they've known their whole life is violence from bombs being dropped on their countries, foreign military troops occupying their cities and villages and when essentially not having been allowed to become more enlightened from a social, economic and technological growth.
Both Iran and Saudi Arabia want to be the leading power in the Middle East. Religious zealots seek to bring about a one-world government under Islamic Sharia Law. The existence of Israel and how it came to be in the modern world continues to be a contentious point among many of the people in that part of the world. We have an entire generation of people growing up overseas with deep resentment of the West for our military interventions and political meddling in their part of the world - interventions that came with soldiers and bombs and meddling that often meant massive and reckless destabilization leading to power vacuums that warlords and terrorist organizations were quick to fill.
While the roots of many of our woes continue to be meddling, intervention and favoritism shown in that region of the world, it is quite possible that today we are now dealing with something that needs to be dealt with differently than than we might have a decade or two ago.
Somebody sent me a message on Facebook today (feel free to look me up and friend me) asking what "Panarchy" was. Panarchy is an idea that I've become very interested in because it is a concept that provides for open competition between systems of government and taxation. As we all know, when there is no competition for a product that service may be lousy and the price can be high, where else are you going to go?
In the case of government, that is exactly how it is too, "Where else are you going to go?". There also seems to be a lot of confusion, mostly due to misuse of the word, in the media over what "anarchy" is. Below is a slightly edited copy of my very brief and hastily typed response to the Panarchy question and their concern they had about anything that sounds anarchistic.
Anarchy is just a state where each person lives free to interact voluntarily with all others. All things would be private including police and legal systems with open competition and mediation and private third party intermediaries and other mechanisms between them to ensure justice and the protection of each person's natural rights. Anarchy should NOT be confused with "chaos" or "violence" even though those in the media who do not understand the nuance in word selection may try to substitute one for the other. While anarchy may mean no government, it does not mean those functions are not performed or handled in other ways.
Panarchy is an idea that basically allows for open competition between government systems and you would voluntarily align yourself, perhaps contractually, with the one that suits your needs, preferences and values.
Most government systems are basically nothing more than a monopoly on violence, force and theft within the imaginary lines drawn on maps by men. Imagine if a government system you belonged to started charging too much for the services they provide, or started providing services you don't need so you voluntarily de-affiliate and become a citizen of a different system without having to relocate geographically. That way socialists can be (broke) socialists, communists can be communists and free market capitalists can be just that and the different groups need not bother each other with their polices. So long as basic natural and contractual rights and obligations are enforced each system could operate under a very small legal framework with each sub-system augmenting as necessary for their needs.
The overlying mechanism that would make this work and one that I think still makes me prefer panarchy or minarchy instead of anarchy is the idea of that basic legal framework for the protection of individual natural rights. Nobody, not even elected officials or their minions, would be allowed to steal or oppress people without them first having agreed to such by their voluntary association.
Hope this helps. It's an idea that needs more attention and the advent of technology probably makes it more plausible today. There are a lot of potential complications, for example, a company might have to be authorized to do business with citizens of each or any particular system and might be subject to different kinds of restrictions within each population group; but, this is no different than companies doing business in different countries or jurisdictions. Even state laws and regulations vary.
Even if not at the individual level, which is preferable, different cities or towns might opt-in to a specific system of governance. There are lots of things that would need to be examined, and certainly the idea of people or groups of people having those kinds of options scares the heck out of big government apologists of the status quo variety who lack imagination; but, otherwise, you're stuck unless you want to pick up and move, emigrate to another country, potentially lose your voting rights, unseat your family or your career.
Basically, getting rid of government having a monopoly. Competition, like in everything else, would ensure better service and lower prices (taxes are the price way for our government - we know what happens when there is no competition). I've not really considered this idea fully from a practical perspective; but, I think it warrants some thought. But, I caution that when coming up with roadblocks, objections or complications to stop and really think through whatever the issue is and ask, "hmmmm... how might that work in this kind of environment?", "what kind of cooperation between groups would be needed?" and "could it be any worse than what we have now?"
I had a good back and forth discussion with one of our Indiana Tea Party Patriots today.
Our good patriot friend said:
I mean the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the natural rights bestowed upon us by God, our Creator. I believe our country does not/cannot give us rights..they are from God.
But then in a subsequent message added:
My concern is not to give terrorists the same constitutional rights that citizens have.
So, understanding that the debate over the current Guantanamo prisoners is terse and heated, I still waded in to the water a bit as I perceived a bit of circular logic here. I don't propose that true enemy combatants in a war should be granted the same privileges non combatant citizens enjoy; however, it did spark a train of thought related to the source of our rights and who has them. It occurred to me that there is a trap in the debate about the prisoners and whether or not they have rights. If you believe rights come from government and can be taken away, then you have to believe that the prisoners have no rights. If you believe we all are endowed with natural rights and that government does not grant them, then you have to accept that even prisoners accused of terrorism have a right to due process and fair treatment.
E-mail is never a great place for debate and for busy people the responses can often be quick, not well thought through or riddled with typos, but here is what I responded with:
Do people have rights guaranteed by the creator or not? If the rights come from, as you state, God (or whatever creative force one subscribes to) and not from our Constitution then do these people have rights or not? (I'm not taking a position either way - just confused by the circular logic).
I would argue that anyone has a right to face their accuser, be presented with evidence, given a fair and speedy trial and then either required to provide compensation/restitution for their crimes or set free. I would also be curious as to how many people we have in Gitmo who were captured just, as far as they were concerned, defending their country and were not really "terrorists". I don't trust anything the government tells us about anything or anyone anymore.
You can't invade a country and then accuse everyone who fights back of being a "terrorist". Most of the problem we have with modern terrorism is that these folks feel they are fighting back against U.S. hegemony. Unfortunately, they cross an unforgivable line when they target innocent people and private interests. Again, a lot of terrorism's roots lay in the response to actions most Americans are not even aware happened 'on their behalf'. The foreign foot soldiers may not know this, but their leaders and those that manipulate are keenly aware of their political and economic goals.
We fell right into their trap by spending trillions on these wars overseas that have contributed to tanking our economy and weakening our nation. They knew they couldn't win a military victory, but they knew they might get us economically eventually. They saw us do it to the U.S.S.R.
In all fairness, entitlements are ultimately the bill that we will not be able to pay; but, in an already weakened and debt ridden state tacking an extra couple (or few) trillion for war just isn't helpful. We should always be wary of the economic warfare, not just the physical warfare fought by troops and machinery.
Regardless of disagreements, it is oftentimes in conversations like these where thoughts, opinions, policies and approaches are forged. A far better source of belief, understanding and rationale than just parroting whatever the favorite partisan hack of the day is saying on the boob tube.
In the current debate over health care reform I believe both of the typical sides (left/right, liberal/conservative, statist/statist-lite) are completely missing the mark.
Wednesday night, at the Indianapolis North Side Libertarian MeetUp, I heard the story of a young man who said that repair of his broken arm cost around $4,500. He said when he went to the emergency room they couldn't tell him what treatment would cost. Interestingly, I also was recently looking at a procedure and the surgeon had no idea what the total cost would be, he couldn't tell me. Huh?
Anyway, broken arm guy ended up at a med check place and after some questioning indicated that, including getting a couple of different casts over the healing cycle, he spent no more than 3 or 4 hours with an actual physician and did not require anesthesia.
Let's put this in perspective of other vocations.
A well paid Telecommunications or IT Consultant might make $120 to $220 an hour depending on what they are doing and whether it is 'after hours' work. It would not be unusual for a lawyer to charge $200, $230 or for an experienced partner or specialist (but perhaps not Johnny Cochran or Mark Garagos) up in the $300 or $400 an hour range. So, let's just use $250 an hour as a fair figure.
Four hours of time = $1,000 + materials (orthopedic cast, an x-ray).
So, maybe, worst case this should have cost less than $1,500 and maybe very close to $1,000 even ... CERTAINLY not $4,500.
Now, we know that since Medicare/Medicaid underpay physicians for services so much that it drives up costs on the rest of us by at least fifteen percent and potentially up to one third and that over reliance on "prepaid healthcare" separates consumers from the actual cost of each unit use of services. We also know that a high default rate on (far too high) medical expenses shifts the burden of those bills to those who do not default. We also know that the AMA has leveraged a lot of government protectionism of physician services into the marketplace which limits supply, specialization, innovation and other things that could drive changes in the industry or increase the supply of doctors.
So, when we talk about health care "reform" can we please talk about it outside the scope of just having somebody else (like the government) pay for everything and instead focus on why it costs $7,000 to lay in a hospital bed for two days with a kidney stone (arguably not a good use of the bed) or $4,000 to put a cast on a broken arm? How about $6,000 for an out patient procedure to fix an umbilical hernia? I'll bet, physicians or hospitals who declined to accept insurance or government payments for services could easily drop their costs down to $2,000 or $3,000 for the stone (including the MRI and the IV bags of fluid) and $1,000 or less for the arm.
The point is, libertarians and conservatives are not opposed to health care "reform". But, as is typical in arguments with more left leaning big government folks we just have a much better grasp of the root of the problem and the economics of it rather than just not caring and begging for our woefully inept government to come sweep the problem under the rug.
The following information is from the "Tax Revolt 2009" web site. An event is also planned in Indianapolis, Indiana for March 25, 2009 that is being dubbed The "Revolt at the State House." Voters and taxpayers are expected to speak out against various abuses, insider dealings and lack of property tax reform after massive increases in 2007. There is an increasing tone of outrage around the country and while the masses may not jump on board, the tireless efforts of those that demand the rule of law, fairness, accountability, transparency and competency in their government will increasingly draw attention.
Regarding the California Event:
The Revolution is now! Tax Revolt 2009 is here! Politicians in Sacramento and Washington have plundered California and the nation. It is time for taxpayers to rise up and take back your state and your nation.
News! Attend Saturday’s Tax Revolt Rally!
Attend Saturday’s Tax Revolt Rally!
Spread the word (print out and distribute the flyer to your friends and neighbors)!
Recall Arnold Schwarznegger Recall Jeff Miller Recall Jim Silva Hold Sacramento Accountable
Sacramento has betrayed taxpayers by passing the largest state tax increase in the nation’s history. Californians pay the highest income and sales taxes in the nation - while we suffer job losses, pay cuts, and dwindling 401k’s. Hold Sacramento accountable.
Hold Republicans and Democrats Accountable
State spending has grown 40 percent in the past five years because of deal-making and political corruption by special interests. Lawmakers of both parties are not protecting taxpayers because lawmakers put their power, prestige, and lifestyles first. Hold Republicans and Democrats accountable.
---
And don't forget to visit The Liberty File for your daily dose of liberty impacting news and information.
In addition to the previously mentioned Walker, Delph, Kruse and Stutzman the following have all been added: Boots, Buck, Holdman, Leising, Nugent, Paul, Steele, Waltz, Waterman, Young.
This sort of measure would always be difficult to support and pass and that is even more so in an environment where massive government (anti)stimulus billions are being offered to the states. It will prove difficult to pass a resolution that tells the out-of-control Federal Government to 'back off' while at the same time having your Governor accept billions of federal dollars.
To step up and put their name on this kind of legislation shows their commitment to the form of government (a Democratic Republic) and the limitations that were placed upon the Federal representation of that in our founding documents. As for this author (using the term loosely), I appreciate their bold commitment to make a statement.
Although it was made public late last week, the text of SCR 37 which would propose, if passed, to reassert Indiana's rights under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was posted on-line today.
Despite early suspicions that Senator Mike Delph (29th District) might join Senator Greg Walker (41st) and Senator Dennis Kruse (14th) on introducing the resolution, it appears that Senator Marlin Stutzman (13th) completed the trio.
It has been referred to the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.
This resolution is very similar to ones introduced in somewhere around twenty different states including Arizona, Oklahoma and New Hampshire. Oklahoma's resolution was introduced last year and passed their state house 98-2 before getting stalled out in their senate. This year, the resolution passed 83 to 13. New Hampshire's HCR 6 has thus far been considered to have the strongest language, many suggesting it was close to a threat to secede if the Federal Government encroached any further. HCR 6 was defeated in a committee 11 to 7 but still goes to a full vote.
Text of the Indiana Resolution follows:
Introduced Version
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. _____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED RESOLUTION
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.
WALKER , STUTZMAN, KRUSE
, read first time and referred to Committee on
Introduced
First Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2009)
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. _____
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.
Whereas , The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people ”;
Whereas , The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;
Whereas , Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America 's most valuable contributions to political science;
Whereas , James Madison, “the father of the Constitution, ” said, “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people ”;
Whereas , Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate ” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government ”;
Whereas , Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments. ” He believed that “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 ”;
Whereas , The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;
Whereas , Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government;
Whereas , Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas , The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
Whereas , A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly
of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:
SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal g overnment to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.
SECTION 3: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.
-----
Don't forget to check daily at The Liberty File for regularly updated news and information related to the economy and your freedom.
There is a move affoot by the Mayor to increase restrictions on panhandling. I like the Mayor quite a bit, but am going to offer a dissenting opinion on this topic. I'll start by referencing the Indianapolis Star article and then the Indiana Barrister BLOG of my good friend and local radio radio show host and reporter of all things politic Abdul Hakim-Shabazz of Abdul in the Morning on WXNT 1430 AM (6 AM till 10 AM each weekday morning).
These are my thoughts posted to Abdul's Comments Section. I would hope the Mayor and City County Council would take them into consideration. The premise here is that just because a bunch of people desire it or think it sounds like a good idea, does it make not make it okay to violate someone else's rights.
This is not much different in principle than holding a position on freedom of speech that says, "I may disagree completely with what you say, but I will defend [perhaps even unto death] your right to say it."
I am going to agree completely with Patriot Paul and Shorebreak here. Those disagreeing maybe need to consider the nuance in what is being said.
I completely support the right of any individual to be out in public marketing their desire to get paid for nothing. I completely support people opting to give directly to charities that support worthy individuals and causes and often have safeguards or qualifications to make sure the money is put to proper use.
To the extent that anyone impedes someones progress or harasses someone though, then they have violated the rights of another individual and that should be actionable as a legitimate role of “the state” is to protect the rights of individuals (from violation by others, including the state [a collection of 'others']).
Obviously, the issue here is that there is money to be made doing this so it is a profitable endeavor [especially given the, presumably, tax 'unreported' status of the earnings]. This income being unreported, also means they likely are qualifying for government assistance/welfare programs as well.
Several things fix this problem right away. (A) don’t give them money and (B) tax consumption instead of income and (C) enforce any existing laws, especially repeat offenses, when they impede the progress of individuals or cause some other problem and (D) scale back the welfare state. Item B would reduce the benefit to operating outside of the mainstream economy. Remember $15 an hour tax free is like making $20 or $25 fully taxable.
States or cities with better (or longer lasting) welfare benefits can become a magnet for people working the system [which not everyone is doing - but some]. Reduce the strength of the magnet and the pull to other places becomes greater.
I hate being bothered by panhandlers as well, but to the extent they do not violate my rights I can make no argument against their activities. One thought, perhaps, is a law barring someone self-employed in the panhandling business from receiving welfare benefits… that might be easier to get behind.
And, regarding a comment regarding frequency of panhandler interaction at gas stations:
Melyssa, when you go out in public it can be argued that you consent to encountering other people. Other people, however, have no right to accost you, impede your progress or intimidate someone.
…
A gas station owner (or its empowered management) has a right to request someone leave their property. The state has no right to dictate who that property may or may not allow there so long as no one’s rights are being violated.
So, private land owners obviously have a right to restrict who does or doesn't come on their property or what activities those people undertake. The Government; however, must respect everyone's rights equally including the right to use of public places.
Just quit making panhandling a profitable endeavor and it will no longer be so. There are lots of worthy charities and other organizations that help people in need. I'll start by mentioning Wheeler Men's Mission reachable at (317) 687-6795 and various women's shelters throughout the state (click for list). Don't hesitate to share this idea with your friends and colleagues or to even make any panhandlers aware that you contribute to these organizations instead of directly to individuals.
(this is a slightly edited copy of a second recent BLOG comment I made in response to someone at Bilerico.com, a web site that primarily geared towards the LGBT community that was started in Indianapolis. Bil Browning, the founder, and I probably don't agree on lots of things politically, but he is a good guy and has had great success with his site which covers an eclectic range of topics.)
Before I start, it is important that everyone set aside their political bias and the rhetoric that gets thrown about as the two incumbent parties attempt to plunder on behalf of their own constituencies. Let's just logically look at things.
The United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (Japan's is higher). When we think about taxes being a "price" that is paid for government services, setting aside whether or not government SHOULD be doing everything it does, if the price moves beyond a certain threshold (overcoming the frictional barriers of moving) then those activities will be conducted in a place where the price is lower. While people will be quick to demonize this behavior, everybody benefits from lower prices which means they can expend dollars on other economic activity that they might otherwise not.
Also, we must consider where the taxes paid by corporations come from and what they do with their profits. The price of each item we buy contains a portion of the taxes that corporation will pay. When we talk about increasing taxes on corporations we are saying increase the cost of the things we buy OR decrease their profits (many don't have profits [GM, FORD, Chrysler, most airlines it seems .. why can't our own companies make any money in America? Another long discussion to have.])
Leftover profits, if the company is public, go to their shareholders or to grow the business. For most publicly traded companies those shareholders include institutional holders like mutual funds, pension plans and other retirement vehicles. So, when these companies make money and they distribute dividends, A LOT of those dividends end up in people's retirement accounts (including police and school teacher pension funds). The value of those holdings also rises and falls based on earnings.
The next fact we must examine is that the total value of our government debt (current and future existing obligations) now surpasses (a) the value of EVERYTHING our country owns and (b) the earnings ALL OF US will make for the next 8 to 10 years. You can jack tax rates all you want, our elected officials have already bankrupted us and will now attempt to "inflate" their way out of the mess. Inflation of course hurts the poor the most as those at the top of the food chain get the benefit of the inflation (increase in the money supply without a commensurate increase in wealth or production) before the economy adjusts price levels upward to compensate for the devalued currency.
Besides, "The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half of all federal individual income taxes—50.8 percent—are paid by the five percent of taxpayers who earn the most." (Tax Foundation)
Considering that infrastructure is not a very big tax item, these people (arguably) utilize the big budget line items of government the least which means we are basically transferring (plundering) from one group to another and we must remind ourselves that the Law is primarily purposed with avoiding plunder (Bastiat), not being a tool for such purpose as it largely is today.
I would argue that without the tax reductions of JFK and Reagan we might not have made it as far as we have. Unfortunately, under Reagan the necessary reduction in government bloat and expense didn't occur and our deficit exploded and has continued to (especially when intellectually honest and removing any current Social Security surplus from the numbers that politicians like to spin).
It is important that people not just parrot the rhetoric of the political class. Keep in mind that most of them are just parroting and haven't really thought for themselves.
(below is the first of two comments I made on another BLOG regarding the status of our economy)
Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve, a private central banking system, our economy has been entirely based on a house of cards.
Our government, regardless of the party in power, has refused to acknowledge that our IOU based economy can't go on forever. Artificial manipulation of interest rates, inflation of the money supply, massive deficit spending (by both parties but Bush has been particularly bad) and manipulation of people and businesses via tax policy (taxing savings, investment and production instead of consumption) have created the mess we're in, but this is really just a continuation of the stock market bubble. The bubble was just moved from the stock market to real estate.
Then the government makes things worse by mandating that banks not use as much discretion against people who are less likely to pay (Community Reinvestment Act 1977, 1995) and via Government Sponsored Entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) who, because of their state sponsored status, were able to grow well beyond what a true free market competitive system would have allowed (the risk they held would have been spread amongst hundreds or more companies with varying levels of risk tolerance).
"Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing."
We've proven over the past 100 years that Keynesian Economics doesn't work (Krugman is basically a Keynesian) and that the Austrians were probably correct. If anyone is really interested in this but doesn't want to get bored to tears by it, pick up a copy of Economics in One Lesson and Road to Serfdom. Especially important since schools have mostly taught Keynesianism and the "echo chamber" effect is so great.
Think about this. The total value of bail out money and loan guarantees is now over $46,000 per U.S. Household. $46,000?!! China now holds 10% of our country's debt obligations (they just surpassed Japan). This is nuts but shows how much of our supposed prosperity of the past 30 years was borrowed.
And the real debt number right is over $53 trillion. Google "IOUSA" or look for the 30-minute bit on YouTube to learn just how screwed we all are.
Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals or groups.
If one person has no right to murder, enslave or steal from any other person than no organization of individuals or other group has the right to murder, enslave or steal from other individuals or groups.
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter - by peaceful or revolutionary means - into the making of the laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of the two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
When you hear Libertarians speak, do they intend to "share" the plunder or eliminate it? Are libertarians power hungry political cronies attempting to partake in the great profitable endeavor that is elected office or are they running for office to fight for the restoration of personal freedoms and end the plunder by the political classes?
And when you think of "plunder" think not just of your tax bills and special favors doled out to interest groups and contributors, but things like the $46,000 per American Household in bailouts and loan guarantees that have been doled out thus far. That's right. $46,000 per family in more debt hoisted upon the shoulders of our children and children's children in order to try and fix an economy that government largely broke to begin with.
End the plunder.
UPDATE: Some measures say the number is now $65,000 per American household. Regardless, it's a big number.
(this started out going down one path and ended up letting me get a few things out of my system - it's basically a rant and it's probably not the last).
I take a lot of on-line polls. A lot of people do I think because our opinions are so darn important after all. One of the polls I took today was about Guns in St. Louis. And this question struck me as missing at least one important answer:
Which of the following conditions do you think is the most important cause of gun violence in the US?
The availability of guns The way children are raised The influence of TV, movies, video games, or the Internet Anger
Availability? Nah, even if outlawed people would own them in violation of the law. I mean, drug dealers still deal drugs, people still speed on the highway, cheat on their taxes, drive without a safety harness on, buy alcohol for underage drinkers.. all illegal. So we know that just making something illegal will not make it go away.
The way children are raised. While I'll admit this is probably a contributing factor, it's not the core reason I don't think. There will always be children that raised either improperly, or who just plain grow up to be bad seeds despite the best efforts of their loving, well educated parents.
The influence of TV, movies, video games or the Internet. Again, perhaps something else that influences people to some degree. But let's face it, watching Han Solo shoot Stormtroopers or Dirty Harry blow away bad guys did not turn me into some mass crazed killer. Congress destroying the financial soundness of our country or the Federal Tax Code might yet do it, but not popular culture.
Anger. Well, yeah, usually somebody got mad or at least had their ego bruised to shoot somebody. I love Chris Rock's skit about high priced bullets. The premise being that if you saw someone laying bleeding in the street you knew they made someone REALLY mad to make them put thousands of dollars of bullets in them. The answer that was immediately missing to me was drug prohibition. Now I know this can be an unpopular topic, and it's not one I tend to spend much time focusing on; BUT, how many people are shot, killed, beat up, intimidated or who knows what else over territorial distribution rights for drugs. High priced, profitable drugs because the government eliminates most legal, natural competition through legislation thus creating a risk-based profit incentive to get in the drug business? Remember Al Capone? You wouldn't even know that name if not for alcohol prohibition prior to repeal.
How much more harm is done by failed war on drugs than is done by the drugs themselves? Yes, drugs destroy families, careers, savings but so do the the IRS, DEA, ATF and other organizations from time to time. What would happen to the distribution network and the price of pot for example if it was no longer an illegal plant (a plant! if you're religious that would be a plant, placed here by God) that got destroyed on sight by officials of the government? The price would fall out of the bottom if everybody could just grow their own, don't you think? I mean, really, if they want to destroy plants I have some pesky dandilions every year they can pull up and burn - bet they won't stand so close to THAT fire though.
What about those frogs that people can lick to get high? Are government officials going to purposely hunt and destroy them out of existence? I'll bet the Endangered Species folks would have something to say about that. Where are the Endangered Plantlife folks? I guess trees are too big to fail but not smaller plantlife?
And I don't have a horse in that race, it all just seems silly, wasteful and ineffective to me.
So anyway, back to the polls. I especially get miffed when asked in a poll things like:
Who did you support for president? (o) Barack Obama (o) John McCain
... huh ... I didn't know I only had two options (I know most people thought so). I didn't support either of the media promoted, status quo, statist candidates who (neither one) knows jack about economics.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the news article that points out that if we'd listened to Ron Paul's economic advice years (if not decades) ago we probably could have avoided the big mess we're in now. Make fun of him all you want, he's been right about almost everything but he does lack that certain "American Idol" popularity contest attraction that we now hire our leaders based on. Instead of loud proclamations that, "oh, sorry, yeah he was right" they just have had him on the cable news channels a few times each week whereas BEFORE the election they wouldn't promote him at all.
For me, by the way, economics is probably the most important thing these guys need to understand, mostly so they know to stay out of the market and the economy since all they can do is screw it up, misallocate resources, create bubbles, destroy the value of currency or otherwise frustrate legitimate economic progress.
(AND NOW WE LEAVE THE TRACKS COMPLETELY)
What is it going to take to get everyone mad enough? I think there is a large but silent minority of people, afraid to do much "outside the box", if you will, that are mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore. Are you tired of the nonsense, overspending, trade deficits, wrecked economies, endless warfare (not one declared since World War II I don't think?)? Are you tired of your spouse having to work just to cover your tax liability, tired of having to earn $2.00 just to put $1.00 in the bank and then having the FED devalue that remaining dollar by 3 to 5% (or more) each year or tired of bickering about same-sex marriage or other issues that shouldn't have anything to do with the government, at least not Federally, while our country goes down the tubes. Are you fed up with politicians like Barnie Frank or John McCain standing up and saying "everything is okay" when in fact, things are totally NOT okay? What is it going to take? Do we sit idly by while the promise of America evaporates away from our Children (current our future)?
I think like many, I'm searching for the answers here as well. There is no place left on the planet for those who want to live free in a capitalist, free market society to go live. Heck, even this place wasn't really ours for the taking, but something has to change. As a friend of mine recently pointed out, BLOG posts and Internet jockey activities aren't going to get it done. I would add that writing books won't do it either and apparently producing DVDs doesn't do it. Do we need a prime-time special for two hours and all the networks? Wonder what that would cost?
The problem is we all have jobs, careers and two-income families. Can't quite put the plow up for the day and venture to D.C. for a few days to give Congress a piece of our mind without asking for time off, finding baby-sitters or who knows what else. Of course, if we wouldn't endlessly centralize stuff in D.C., in complete violation of our Constitution, we could make shorter trips down to our statehouses or county government centers to make our voices heard.
For starters, I invite everyone to visit and sign up for The Campaign for Liberty or to support Atlas!Liberty. I'm not sure what passes for pitchforks and torches these days, but I'm open to suggestions on that angle as well. First, though, in the immortal words of Howard Beale, if you're not already, "You've GOT TO GET MAD." And if you aren't going to get Mad then you're probably part of the problem and need to stay out of the way (and the voting booth). Go watch the scaled down version of I.O.U.S.A at YouTube, mad yet? $53 trillion reasons to be ... and counting.
