Taxation, and Social Contracts.

I have stated in the past that taxes are inherently a form of theft, and social contracts are a bunch of bullshit. After thinking on it further, I was wrong.

Let's start with taxes. If you are an anarchist, you believe all government is bad, and all taxation is theft (you cannot run a government without some form of taxation). Many people believe libertarians are anarchists. Some are. Most aren't. I am not; I believe government has a legitimate function; to protect your rights from others, and protect others' rights from you.

The place where taxation becomes theft is when it involves taking your money for the purpose of giving to others. What's the difference, you ask?

Well, first you have to understand what I mean by rights. We have come to associate "rights" with "needs" or even "desires" as in "I have a right to food, shelter, basic medical care, TV, affordable transportation, etc." These are needs, or desires. I do not believe on any respect that they are rights. All rights are freedoms *from* something, not something being given to you for free.

You have a right not to have your things stolen.
You have a right not to be forced into slavery.
You have a right not to be cheated or lied to in business.

I could go on, but these are rights to *not* have things done to you. And that is what government should be there to do. Defense of the borders? Good role. Policing the streets? Good role. A system of courts to administer justice, and jails to house the lawbreakers? Good role. These are all legitimate. And they require taxes.

So no, I don't think taxation is inherently theft. But when it comes to government providing goods and services, then yes. I think it is always theft. Every time. And any government program which involves providing goods and services is funded by theft.

Are all government programs bad things? By no means. I love the space program. I drive on our highways. That doesn't change the fact that I believe they are illegitimate, funded by theft, and should never have been administered by the government. I also believe that the free market (were we to have one) would provide much, much better.

Even the government programs that you love, that I love, if they provide goods or services - even these the most statist among us would admit are hopelessly inefficient, bloated, and poorly run. Government by its very nature is wasteful, since it spends money not its own, generally on people not its own. There is no and can be no incentive to provide efficiently.

So what percentage of our taxes is theft? I don't know; I'd have to
A) analyze our budget exceedingly closely, and
B) trust that the numbers provided are accurate
and neither of those seems like a winning use of my time. But on a guess, I'd say probably 95% of our tax dollars are theft, taking money from one person, then giving it to somebody else, after taking a cut.

When the mob does that, it's despicable. When the government does that, it's somehow supposed to be better. Not in my opinion.

But just because taxes are generally theft, or usually theft, or almost always theft, doesn't mean it's ALWAYS theft, or even inherently so. Where the money is used makes a difference in legitimacy.

So, that takes us to social contracts.

Now, here it's a matter of terminology. Most people use "social contract" to mean something that is accepted by society, and is considered okay because of majority rule. I reject that. The majority is usually wrong. And when I find myself in the majority of almost anything, it makes me immediately question whether I know enough to have a valid opinion.

People will use the term "social contract" to signify a vague thing that allows them to get whatever they want, or feel is just. Nowhere do they have a copy of this social contract. Nowhere can they define this social contract. But they'll use it to push for Universal Health Care, Gun Control, Prayer in Schools, banning Gay Marriage, or any other pet cause they believe either has a majority behind it, or that they believe is a moral imperative.

Again, I reject this. If you cannot show me a contract that I have agreed to live by, it does not exist. If there is nothing spelled out in black and white that I have agreed to, it does not exist.

So what social contract do I believe in? For there is one. I have agreed to it. I have sworn to uphold it. I have studied it extensively. I think it is one of the finest contracts ever devised. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. By living in this country, I agree to live by its constitution. It is not vague. It does not permit the fickle wind of public opinion to change its fundamental principles.

If this country were to return to the social contract signed on September 17, 1787, we would once again take our place as the champions of freedom that we once were. We could return to the prosperity that freedom brings. And we would be freed of most of the theft that our government currently engages in.

The Limits of Power

I've been trying to mostly avoid the political issues, as they can get somewhat tiresome. But I just read an excellent essay by Anthony Gregory titled "Obama, Bush, and the limits of Power," and thought it worth passing along.

Two key paragraphs:

Constitutions alone cannot limit government. The overwhelming bulk of what the federal government is engaged in, from imperial wars to drug prohibition, from Social Security to Medicare, is unauthorized by the Constitution, and yet they persist. What matters ultimately is the Constitution in the hearts and minds of the people. So long as the American public supports unconstitutional actions, such actions will commence. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, as Jefferson noted. The Constitution spells out great limits on the government, but without the support of the people, the document loses its teeth.

and

...given the stark similarities between both political parties, at least in their leadership, as well as the nature of government itself, it will not do for folks to condemn Obama as Big Brother and a would-be dictator while simultaneously defending torture, more war, and the Bush administration; nor does it make sense to oppose Bush and all he stood for while virulently backing Obama, who's brandishing Bush's executive power grabs, continuing his foreign policy, bailing out the same financial interests and seeking to control more areas of our lives. Can a reorientation of the American public, along more coherent ideological lines, be achieved? If ever there was a time for us to make our case, now is it.

It is not a Republican vs. Democrat problem. It is not a Right vs. Left problem. It is a freedom vs. government power issue. It seems like more and more are waking up to this reality... But it is too early to see whether enough are coming to terms with this to make a difference.

In Defense of Sonia Sotomayor...

Words I thought I'd never say.

Yeah, I am opposed to pretty much everything Sonia Sotomayor stands for. But she's caught some flack from conservative circles for her lack of defense of the 2nd amendment, specifically saying that she doesn't think it keeps individual states from creating their own laws that restrict the rights of gun owners.

She's right.

The constitution was always intended to be a restriction on the role of federal government, NOT state. The idea of the founding fathers was that the states would be sovereign, and members of a voluntary union. This was considered clear until the Civil War, when Lincoln decided to eliminate the voluntary nature of that union. And yes, if you disagree, be prepared to have some documentation, because I can provide plenty on my side. No? Okay, just scoff. Ignorance is bliss like that.

After Lincoln, there started to appear more and more amendments to the constitution asserting the role of the now sovereign federal government over the subjugated and subordinate state.

But this doesn't relate to the 2nd amendment. It was specifically aimed at the federal government. You can read the words of the people who wrote it - it was clear as day in its purpose to them, and should be to us. And strangely, it seems like it was clear as day to Justice Sotomayor.

Now if only she'd get around to reading the 10th amendment... *sigh*

Bob Basso as Thomas Paine

And so it starts...

Actually, it didn't start here. But it's starting to become apparent. The government is beginning to become more blatant in its excesses - civil, not just fiscal. If you can watch this and still believe that we live in a free country... If you can watch this and believe we do not live in a police state... I do not know what to say to you.



As Anthony Gregory at the Campaign for Liberty put it,

The Act's defenders denied it was ever abused (although the first man imprisoned under it was an innocent man punished despite his judge not thinking he deserved the sentence). Now the Act is being turned against ordinary Americans, and even teenage homeschoolers:

This latest outrage just demonstrates why government can never be trusted with any powers that compromise its constitutional limits. Even if you somehow trust the administration currently in power, that can change every four or eight years.

A Century of Bipartisan Tyranny

Over at Campaign for Liberty, Tom Mullen has written an incredible essay on the destructive nature of "bipartisanship." It is worth a careful read, no matter your stance on politics.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

"Americans are tired of partisan bickering. They are looking for their representatives in Washington to put partisanship aside and get to the work of the American people."

Statements like this have become a mantra over the past few decades. Like Democracy, "Bipartisanship" is now held up as an ideal and an end in and of itself. It would seem that no matter how ludicrous or destructive a policy might be, it must be just and beneficial if both major political parties agree that it should be law.

And a personal favorite:

The seminal moment was, of course, the bloodless coup of 1913. During the first year of the Wilson administration, the federal government established the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, and passed the 17th Amendment. All of these changes were indicative of the change of philosophy in Washington about the role of government. No longer was the government's purpose to secure individual rights, as the Declaration of Independence said it was. Instead, the role of government was now to achieve societal goals of social and economic equality and a world safe for democracy -- all at the expense of individual rights.

[emphasis added]

Of course, the author believes that Americans will rise up and kick out those who perpetuate this debacle. I am not so optimistic - it seems to me that most Americans happily welcome their new overlords, as long as they are promised free stuff (Health Care! Higher Wages! Less Work! Better Retirement! All for free!). It doesn't matter that the government has never, will never, and can never fulfill these promises. People don't want equal rights - they want equal results. And whoever promises those - those will be who gets elected.

However, I love being proven wrong in my pessimism, and maybe this will turn out to be one of those times! But I'm not holding my breath.

Tolkien and Today

I know, I know. I go on these spurts where I don't write for awhile.

This blog is not so much about me, as it is about how I perceive the world around me. A minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one.

You see, lately I haven't liked what I've been seeing.

Personally, my life is going really, really well. I love where I work. I love where I live. I love what I do. My life is good. But my country...

My country is sick, and it's dying. All that I love and hold dear about America is either dead, or in its last feeble gasps. HG Wells once said that civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. I fear education has lost the race.

So it's been hard to write. Hard to say what I've been thinking. I try to find wry amusement in it, but it's getting harder to find a reason to smile about where we are, and where we're headed.

Every few years I re-read JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" and each time I find wonders anew. The sword and sorcery tale I loved as a kid takes on new depths and meaning every time. I recently did this (I was sick for a couple of days). And there was something about it chewing at me. Something that I couldn't quite place. And today it hit me.

The true reason I love this tale is because it's about right and wrong. It's about why you fight evil.

Lord of the Rings is not a fun time, where the good guys always win and never fall. It's not a tale where the hero always makes the right choices, and knows what to do at every turn. It's a story of people trying to do the right thing, trying to fight evil as best they can. The darkness is winning. Defeat for good is all but inevitable, and yet they fight on. Some out of despair, some clinging to hope, but still they fight on. For one simple reason: Evil must be fought.

There is no good character in the story that honestly expects to win over evil (except some of the more foolish side characters, perhaps). They expect to lose. And at the end of the story, it's not truly a happy ending. Things are not the same, can never return to the way they were. But they fight on, regardless, because Evil must be fought.

Evil is with us today. It does not take the form of Wraiths and Goblins, but Ignorance and Self-Centeredness. Every evil is perpetuated in the name of good, by people who either know no better, or are so wrapped up in themselves they feel superior to all others, enough so to inflict their choices upon us all. Evil takes the form of one more government program funded by stealing from citizens. Evil takes the form of one more right, one more liberty stolen away from us in the name of security. Evil takes the form of every person dedicated to bending others to their will by force. This is the Evil of Osama Bin Laden, but it is also the Evil of George W. Bush. And Evil must be fought.

Our congress looks set to pass a bill that has less than 7% approval, a bill certain to destroy the dollar faster than anything ever attempted. If this happens, there is nobody left who can say with any degree of legitimacy that our government has a shred of "of the people, by the people, and for the people" left in it. Our wonderful News Media gleefully reported at noon that this socialist nightmare of a bill was all but certain to be passed.

Our President ignores the Constitution.
Our Congress ignores the Constitution.
Our Judicial branch "interprets" the Constitution. Which is to say, ignores it whenever convenient.

We are tearing away the last vestiges of Republic, ironically at the very moment that our Empire is about to collapse.

And everybody is giving up. I know many people that do not want to know how bad it is, because they don't want to acknowledge where we are, and where we're headed. I was on the verge of giving up, myself. I can't win this fight. I can't change our government. If there is a person out there with the connections, the charisma, and the opportunity to make a difference - that person is not me.

But I am today reminded - Evil must be fought. Not because you expect to win. Not because you expect to change the world. But because it is what good men do. For every good man that fails, one, or two, or ten thousand are inspired to try again.

I fear we have lost our country. Lost it to greed, and ignorance, and self-centeredness. But I will fight for it. Because Evil must be fought.

So I will still call upon the congressmen who don't listen to me. I will vote for people I respect, who won't be allowed to win. I will write blogs in the hopes of having even one person wake up and tear off the veil that has been put over their eyes. And if none of this bears any fruit, I will have fought Evil. Because that is what good men do.

The Bill of Rights Blackout

Go ahead, waste your vote!

I mean it, go ahead and waste your vote. Chances are that if you vote, you're about to completely throw it away.

Now, I don't mean this in my usual sense of "do the same thing over and over again and hope for a different result this time," or wondering why you think either major party is going to have candidates that do a bit of what they promise.

No, I mean this in a more pragmatic sense. Most of you live in states that are heavily favored one way or the other. Very few people (comparatively speaking) live in states that are "swing states," or ones where the public is not going to vote for one candidate by wide margins, due to the party bias of the majority there.

What does this mean to you? Say you live in Texas, and the year is 2000. The state is going to vote for George Bush. He will win the state, and therefore win the Electoral College votes for that state. End of story. If you vote for George Bush, you are throwing away your vote (unless you support him so overwhelmingly that you want that margin to be even higher). If you vote for Al Gore, you are throwing away your vote (unless you support him so overwhelmingly you just want that margin to be slimmer). But if you are like the majority of people, voting what you consider "the lesser of two evils" just to avoid the candidate you think is going to ruin the country... You're just throwing your vote away.

However, if you vote for a different party, you are making a protest. You are using your vote to say "I will not play this game so long as it remains rigged." You are saying "I will not support a false dichotomy which gives me no real choice." And if enough people realize this, then two things are likely to happen.

1) A lot more states will become "swing states," with voters actually getting more power
and
2) As third parties get higher percentages of the vote, the two major parties might be forced to actually listen to their constituents, as they realize their monopoly on power is slipping.

Two other possibilities that are less likely, but still entertaining,
1) People wake up to the idiocy unworkable nature of the two-party system, and we get a multi-party system that can actually restrain the rampant acceleration of government power
or
2) The government admits that everything is scripted, and just like professional wrestling, everybody enjoys the show a lot more when nobody is pretending it's real.

Anyway, due to the electoral college, you're most likely going to waste your vote. So think about that, before you try to convince me I'm wasting mine!

Jester

If not now, when?

Many of you are not libertarians.

Many of you are not political.

Many of you don't believe that we're headed for a crisis.

Many of you are going to vote for Obama or McCain, because anything else is a "wasted vote."

Still, watch this video. Even if you don't support Bob Barr, think about what this is really saying.

A Handout for Statists: by Stefan Molyneux

Note: this is not by me, it's by Stefan Molyneux. But upon reading it, I felt it should be posted as often as possible, as many sites as possible.

A Handout for Statists

"In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to those who argue that government is voluntary, if I don’t like it I can leave, taxation is not violence, etc.

I thought this might also be of use to you, because life is short.

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong – except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail – where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays “protection” money to, can it be really argued that he is making a “free” choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands – but will be forced to marry one of them – can she said to be really “choosing” marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a “social contract,” that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a “social contract.” Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a “contract,” then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it “charity.”

Statist: But I accept the social contract – and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract – and I have never agreed to a “social contract” of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a “social contract” that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood – and say that if people continue to live in “my” neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is “the government” not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others – a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose “the government,” do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point – you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master’s wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No – however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now – you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes – and your taxes are not extracted from you through force – then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I’m a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not – but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it – and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something – and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I’m certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools."

To all you Patriots; DON'T VOTE!

Okay, my headline is perhaps a bit misleading. Voting is important, and a great deal of what should be deciding the direction of this country. But here's my issue; most people believe it their patriotic duty to vote, regardless of their knowledge of politics, of history, of economics, even of what issues are at stake.

I've said it before, but let me say it again. Voting does NOT equal freedom. The right to vote does NOT mean you live in a free country. In most dictatorships, the citizens are given the right to vote; the ruling party merely decides ahead of time who you will be allowed to vote for. Anyone with a touch of cynicism will have a hard time finding that different from our current system. Anyone without a touch of cynicism is either inhaling some really exotic drugs, or not yet old enough to write their name in cursive letters.

The right to vote does NOT in any shape, form, or fashion mean that you are free. Contrary to what you have been told (or are likely to tell me), in the history of this country, very few people died to give you the right to vote. Many thousands died to give you freedom, a freedom most people are actively throwing away with every ballot cast. You CAN vote for freedom. But most people do not. Most don't even know how. (I'll give you a hint - it's not by voting for the candidate who promises you the most free stuff, or even for this guy, though at least he's honest)

Most people have a decided lack of interest in politics. I more than understand this; I sympathize, perhaps even admire this. I can't break away, myself. But at times, I sure wish I could. But yet these same people believe they have a patriotic obligation to vote. In essence, they are actively participating in a system they neither understand nor wish to be engaged in.

Voting is not an inalienable right, nor was it ever intended to be. But we have pushed ever harder for universal suffrage as a means to promote... Something or other. Fairness, I guess. But competence is more fundamental to true progress than this false sense of equality. You wouldn't say the best way to solve the medical crisis would be to declare everybody a doctor, would you? Admittedly, it would make prescriptions really fun. In medicine, you want a certain level of competence. And yet, isn't deciding the fate of a country as important as being a doctor?

Most people base their vote on feelings, party lines, and the oratory of the candidates. This is about as effective as betting on BasketBall Teams based on who has the best smiles in the starting line-up.

I think rather than making it easier to vote, we ought to make it much, much harder. Yes, this would mean far fewer votes would be cast. But it would also mean only the competent people who actually care would be making these decisions. Open to anyone, but you have to pass the following tests:

1. Speak English - I hate the English language, but it is the primary language of this country, and should remain so. If you can't read it, learn to.
2. Know basic economic principles - if you've never studied Austrian Economics, you might be suckered in by the governmental sleight-of-hand approach increasingly used for the last seventy years or so. And chances are you were taught the Keynesian Bullshit in college.
3. Know the voting record of every candidate you vote for. Don't know what Barack Obama voted for? (hint - he voted to fund the Iraq war every time it came up) That should be a problem. If the candidate is an incumbent, it should have say, 10 major votes that he/she cast in the last term. If you get 8 of 10 right, your vote for him/her counts. Otherwise, you're effectively voting in the best haircut, which is not really the best method. Well, not always.
4. Have read the Constitution. If you don't know what's in it, and what is most certainly not, then you have no real basis for knowing whether the president is doing his job (he's not), or whether congress is doing their jobs (they're not), or whether the government has grown beyond its intended scope (think Rosie O'Donnell in a size 2 dress).
5. Know some basic history. If you don't know shit about the Roman Empire (watching "Gladiator" doesn't count!), if you can't name any founding fathers not appearing on our currency, if you don't know why we fought the civil war (not about slavery), why we got into WWI and WWII, why Korea and Vietnam and Iraq I and II were unconstitutional, if you don't know what the Federal Reserve is or does... You really should be looking these things up before you vote.

Is this really too much to ask? I know, most of you will say it is. Relax. I'm not in charge. And if I were, I would totally go with a dictatorship anyway. Rather than appeal to intelligence, decency, and freedom, I'd probably have a different platform, largely based on eliminating Reality TV.