The Rockwell Rule

When it comes to taxes, the Rockwell rule is the right approach: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? That is the issue. Changing to a flat tax, a national sales tax, a value added tax, a consumed income tax, or, as was recently proposed in Chronicles magazine by David Hartman, the chairman of the board of directors of The Rockford Institute, a business transfer tax, is useless if it doesn't reduce or eliminate the taxes that feed the federal leviathan's multi-trillion dollar spending orgy.

(from misis.org)

The Fair Tax

I have been do much thinking on the fair tax lately. As someone who comes from an anti-statist point of view, naturally I am skeptical of anything called a "fair tax." I just don't see how this idea proposed by Rep. John Linder, R-Ga, would actually help to increase personal liberty. This idea merely changes the way in which the government is funded. If passed, the fair tax would still extract just as much money from the American people as the current progressive income tax does, albeit in a much different way.

The only good thing I can ascertain from this proposed idea of a national retail sales tax is that it would seem to reward savers and punish spendors. As I consider myself more of a saver than a spendor, I get a little bit excited about that idea. Those of us who don't spend as much may realize more personal prosperity. I like the idea of being able to have more control over the taxes that I pay to the imperial federal government of the United States.

So what is not to like about this grand plan that probably has a snow ball's chance of passing through congress? It does nothing to address the size and scope of the federal government. It will do nothing to shrink the overbloated, spending machine that enslaves us all.

In short, lobbying for this so-called "fair tax" is a waist of time and energy. Those who care about liberty in our lifetime should concentrate their efforts on fighting statism, not cozying up to it and making friends.

We should fight any form of tax that will take the property of the productive class to fund the federal government. If the federal government were operating on a truly constitutional basis, it would only require the funds provided by small tariffs and excise taxes. It would not need to seize monies from wages, sales transactions, or estates of recently deceased Americans.

As Walter Williams has said, "taxation is a slightly less offensive form of slavery." We need to abolish the federal income tax and the IRS, and replace them with NOTHING if we are to achieve true liberty.

The Constitution Draws Breath?

Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.

Walter Williams

(from Townhall)

Err on the Side of Life?

Let me begin by saying that I feel for the Schindler and Schiavo families for the loss that they have suffered and I pay them my full respects.

During these past two weeks I have heard President Bush say that since there are so many disputed facts of the Schiavo case, that if we are going to err, that we should err on the side of life. Every time I hear that speech replayed in the news, or when someone of the media quotes that statement, I can't help but think back to the President's decision to take us to war with Iraq based on U.S. intelligence reports that Iraq had stock piles of WMDs. The reason I am thinking of this is because the second biggest news item of today, ironically happens to be a new report claiming that U.S. intelligence information about Iraq's WMDs were DEAD WRONG. I wonder if Mr. Bush is lying in bed tonight wondering why he did not err on the side of life, and give the weapons inspectors more time to search for Iraq's alleged WMDs before he took our nation to war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Time to Draw the Line

I think it is time for libertarians to draw the line between what we stand for and what the conservative movement in this country now stands for. As far as I am concerned the GOP has lost all credibility with any ties to limited government and individual liberty. They are now completely and devotedly attached in a romantic love affair with the welfare-warfare state. They have made their peace with big government central planning, whether through faith based initiatives at home or central planning abroad via the military industrial complex. This generation of conservatives a.k.a. the Bushites see government as tantamount to God, incapable of any feat, no rock immovable, and no mission too impossible. The limited government conservatives of the nineties have checked out, not in the physical, but in the mental. They are suffering from Bushitis. Our great leader, Saint George who is capable of doing no wrong, has cast some sort of spell that has blanketed the red states of the country. Well probably not a spell, but more of a satisfaction of carpe diem. Many conservatives were so elated to see Clinton leave the Whitehouse and one of "their guys" enter that they would have cheered no matter what policies he set forth. Bush has seized both the post 9-11 attitudes of the public at large, and the conservative, it's our turn now, mob in order to whip the masses into warfare fervor. As Lew Rockwell has put it:

Behind the rhetoric you find the iron fist of the state, forcing conformism and regimentation. Bush-style fascism has created a kind of cult of personality too, in which the public is led to believe through hints and nudges that the president has a direct line to God. More than any president in my living memory, he peppers his speeches with personal pronouns: "I will defend America."

It is time for libertarians to declare our differences with the conservative movement. We oppose the massive central state, and more importantly we oppose the welfare-warfare state. We favor personal liberty, private property, unrestricted commercial trade, and peace. Do not forget that last element. To be for peace is to be opposed to war. The GOP is the war party when war is the means to their desired ends. These days the conservative movement has myriad excuses to continue dragging this country though more wars. They speak of spreading democracy throughout the world and fighting Islamic-terrorism. They don't speak of the reality, which is spreading democracy at the point of a gun. No. Not just at the point of a gun, but at the firing of a gun towards other fellow human beings who have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. The snuffing out of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives, none of whom had anything to do with 9-11 is the obvious example. They further instilled a dangerous precedent with preemptive war. The precedent which many would argue had already been set. The late, great Murray Rothbard often spoke of the concept of perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Libertarians are lately finding themselves in odd agreement with the most unlikely of adversaries when it comes to the issues of peace. We should not shy away from this, but cheer on those who will stand with us in opposition to Bush fascism. I for one never thought I would support Michael Moore on any issue he might bring up, but I found myself last year cheering his expose of congress's passage of the Patriot Act without even reading it in his documentary Fahrenheit 911. Conservative friends of mine were surprised that I even went to see one of his movies. I of-course told them that although I almost always disagree with Moore's positions, he was right to question the government's motives during this post 9-11 power grab of our rights and liberties.

This is a call to arms among my fellow libertarians to distinguish your positions from those of conservatives. Continue to speak out against government atrocities at home and abroad. Don't give in to statist schemes that sound like steps in the right direction, but in reality would do virtually nothing to increase liberty and decrease statism. The so-called "Fair Tax" is still exactly that, a tax. The mere shuffling around of how the property is seized does nothing to legitimize the high levels taxation in any way. And a tax, to paraphrase revered columnists and economist Walter Williams, is nothing more than legalized theft. To quote Lew Rockwell again:

Libertarians have traditionally provided the side dishes that call for petty deregulatory measures and tax cuts. This really must stop.

The goal of libertarians should be to fight statism on all levels and on all fronts with no compromises. The hard work and dedication will one day pay off.

What is Socialism?

Dadahead has posed a question to libertarians.

The GOP has made it clear: they stand against the right to privacy, to reproductive choice, to sexual autonomy. Is it really worth the tax cuts, libertarians? Is it really worth the rolling-back of regulations on big business? How long will libertarians continue to say to themselves, paraphrasing Krusty the Clown:

Well, the GOP is dedicated to eradicating civil liberties, destroying a 200+ year tradition of secular government, and imposing biblical law, but man ... I'm aching for that upper-class tax cut!

The dialogue has now shifted to a debate on socialism. My thoughts below are from my last comment on dada's blog and reflect my thoughts on socialism and who owns the means of production in this country:

I understand there are many different view points as to what is and is not socialism. But with the amount of government intervention taking place on the market today, I ask who does own the means of production. Who owns the water supply in most cities and towns? Who owned the steel mills in the U.S. during the Korean War? Answer: the U.S. government. Thankfully the Supreme Court rightfully put the brakes on that madness and returned them to private hands soon after. But that is neither here nor there. The time honored common law idea of ownership is defined by what an individual or entity can or can not do with his or her property. With that in mind, who issues you the deed to your home or business? If you stop paying your property taxes (read: rent) to the government (read: landlord) what happens? You will be asked to pay or to leave. If you choose neither, men with guns will come remove you from your property. Who owns the means of production in this country?

As for Social Security

As for Social Security, the crisis is not that the government can't continue to fix it, i.e. raise the age of eligibility, lower benefits, increase the social security tax, etc. The crisis is that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. A system that would be illegal if any private company attempted to set up and administer the way the government administers social security. Don't get me wrong. I am no Bush apologist, but something must be done to give people better returns on their investment. Something must be done to allow people to pass their wealth on to their own families when they die. Something must be done to relieve the burden on all the young black men who will pay into the scheme all their lives and then sadly not reach the age of eligibility, thus not being able to realize any return for their selves or their families, since statistically a majority of black males die before the age of elligibility. Social Security is nothing more than 15 cents out of every dollar you earn being stolen from you and given to someone else. Social Security does not need to be fixed it needs to be abolished if there is to be any hope for real liberty and prosperity in the future.

Terri Schiavo

protestors 

Everyone is talking about Terri Schiavo today so I suppose I will weigh in my two cents here. The most important thing I think we all can take from this situation is what we would want our significant other to do with us, should we find ourselves in a persistent vegetative state. I have told mine that I would want to pass on from this life and on to the next stage with as little stalling and unnecessary pain and suffering as possible. It is probably important that this decision be in writing so as to avoid the current predicament the Schiavo's find them selves in today. Michael Schiavo claims his wife told him that she would not want to be left in such a state.


Michael Schiavo 

IN RELATED NEWS

I happened to catch an MSNBC news story this morning which showcased a woman who had been taking care of her daughter in a similar condition for I think about 30 years now. When the reporter asked this woman if she thought it was okay for the government to intervene, as has been the case for Terry Schiavo, she said of-course not. She proclaimed something about freedom and a free country and that no one has the right to tell her what to do. She went on to say that this should be a family decision. Of-course she is right. It is a sad truth that the "family" as we know it has been little by little replaced by the state. As has we have seen in this case with the Republicans trying to politicize this issue in attempting to subpoena Terry Schiavo to testify befor congress in order to keep her alive.

Only In America

Only in America.....do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so
well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking
creatures'.

Caller roasts Sean Hannity

I was listening to the Sean Hannity show the other night on my way home from work and was quite pleased at the dialogue for once. I believe it was during the final hour that Sean was allowing only callers who wanted to criticize him on the air. One caller had just finished making his second point when Sean told the caller to give him the final blow. My ears perked up when the caller mentioned Abraham Lincoln. The man on the phone reminded Sean that he always speaks of the Republican party as being the party of Lincoln. He went on to say that he read Lincoln's presidential debate and pointed out that Lincoln was in no way concerned with freeing the slaves. That he only cared about putting economic strains on the South so as to stop them from seceding from the union. Sean mumbled a few things in response about some book that has information about Lincoln that may or may not be true. The caller reiterated to Sean that Lincoln himself proclaimed in his presidential debate that he cared not about freeing the slaves. Sean of-course dumped the call shortly after that last statement and took the next caller.

I wish that an ensuing dialoge over the great King Lincoln would have or even could have followed. But I was happy in the sense that at least for a few seconds Sean's 10 million listeners were exposed to some truth about honest Abe and his wreckless, destructive presidency. I was also happy that one of the biggest Republican party establishment apologists was made to look bad for statements about his party. It is nice to see that for the first time in history many of the misconceptions about Lincoln are being unraveled and that the public might know the truth.

As Charley Reese has put it, "Washington and Jefferson created the Republic; Lincoln destroyed it." Let us never forget that. Lincoln played a prominent role in crushing the capitalist experiment and we must not let a so-called great American such as Sean Hannity do any more damage.

The Sorters

...But, when all is said and done, the truth about race and IQ means a lot more to liberals and to neocons than it does to paleos. For the liberals and neocons, being statist to the core, are obliged to seize control of resources and to alloocate them somehow among the various groups of the population. Liberals-neocons are "sorters," they aim to sort people out, to subsidize here, to control and restrict there. So, to the neocon or liberal power elite, ethnic or racial science is a big thing because it tells these sorters who exactly they should control, who they should restrict and limit. Should they use taxpayer funds to subsidize the "disadvantaged" or geniuses? Which is more socially productive, which dysgenic?...

(from The Irrepressible Rothbard)

Until You Host Again

Jay Severan, I salute you! I don't have anything particularly important to comment on tonight, save for the end of Jay Severan's guest hosting of the Neal Boortz radio show this week. I will miss hearing what I have come to think of as a breath of fresh air on the radio. It simply does not happen enough that another libertarian voice has the attention of an audience of a few million strong. I was especially thrilled today when I heard him espousing his view of being opposed to the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. I love it when the large population of mostly right wing talk radio listeners are made aware of rational arguments against the President's dangerous and destructive occupation of Iraq. It is especially nice when the opposition view comes from someone who they feel is on their side, and not someone coming from a pure leftist point of view. This way many right conservatives might actually think about thier own postions and analyze the merits of those postions. Rock on Jay. Until you host again.

The Nation and the State

While the State is a pernicious and coercive collectivist concept, the "nation" may be and generally is voluntary. The nation properly refers, not to the State, but to the entire web of culture, values, traditions, religion, and language in which the individuals of a society are raised. It is almost embarrassingly banal to emphasize that point, but apparently many libertarians aggressively overlook the obvious. let us never forget the great libertarian Randolph Bourne's analysis of the crucial distinction between "the nation" (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and "the State" (the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians), and of his important conclusion that one may be a true patriot of one's nation or country while- and even for that very reason- opposing the State that rules over it.

(from The Irrepressible Rothbard)

Freedom and Coercion

Freedom is the absence of government coercion

~ Dr. Ron Paul

Every time congress passes a new law no matter how seemingly noble or necessary liberty is restricted as a result. Everytime the federal government strikes down the consitution and violates the 4th Amendment freedom is eroded at its core. Do airport security screeners (read: federal agents) rummaging through your personal belongings in your bags come to mind anyone? That's why the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. To limit the power of the government so that it won't be dangerous to the preexisting natural rights of the people. The word preexisting is important here. Natural rights are something we are born with. The government does not give me the right to free speech, or the right not to have my home searched against my will. Those rights were given to me by my Creator when I was born into this world. The government was instituted to protect those rights, nothing more. When I think of the U.S. government the way it exists today I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson stating, "government, big enough to give you everything you need, strong enough to take away everything you have."

Obviously most American's aren't ready for a third party just yet, or they would have voted for the libertarian party presidential candidate in much larger numbers in 2004. I happen to believe that the road to freedom is going to be won through the spread of ideas. So spread the good news of what freedom really has to offer. It offers a world of liberty and peace unknown to the current generation of Americans who have been living in a state of siege under the big government Bush administration.

Deadly Force

It occurred to me tonight that so many Americans still have absolutely no concept that government is backed up by deadly force. The government funds all of its activities through taxes. Taxes are not paid voluntarily by the people that fund the government. That money must be taken in the form of taxes. If the money that funds the government was paid voluntarily by the people then it would be called donations not taxes.

Now back to the deadly force part. This occurred to me when I was discussing the campaigning of politicians with a friend the other day. I told my friend that when a political candidate asks you for their vote, they are in fact asking you for the authority to use deadly force over the people to accomplish their goals. My friend laughed when I said the words deadly force. I asked my friend why they would laugh and explained that I was not joking. I don't know why most people just don't seem to understand the difference between the private sector, which is the voluntary sector and the public sector, which is the government sector, or the coercive sector.

I further explained to my friend that when a car dealership for example sells cars it must persuade people to come give it money in exchange for a car. By contrast when the government wants to build a new road or create some new program, you do not have the ability to say, "no thanks, I don't think I'm going to pay for that." See what happens when you stop paying your property taxes for a while. Eventually an agent from the IRS will contact you either by phone or in person giving you deadlines as to when you need to have your back taxes paid. If you do not pay by the deadline then the government will take your house from you. If you refuse to leave your property then the guns come out. Men with guns will come forcefully remove you from your property. If you attempt to resist the invaders you will be shot and killed. This is no joke and it does happen in America.

Hardball

Tonight I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews who was discussing President Bush's so called privatization of social security plan. The guests were of-course two partisan political hacks, one from the right and the other from the left. The leftist fellow was of-course arguing that to allow workers to take a small portion of the burdensome 15 percent social security tax and to invest that privately in the stock market would be disastrous for our elderly people, but most of all dangerous for "society." My favorite point came when host Chris Matthews, and I must give him props for this question, asked the democrat to consider a hypothetical scenario. The question asked was whether or not the democrat would have, given the opportunity at the age of eighteen to twenty something, kept his social security tax in the current system only to receive a 3 percent return at best, or invest a portion in a stock market fund where over his working life he might average as much a 10 to 15 percent. His response started off by stating that if he only cared about himself, then of-course he would have invested privately. He then went on to scare the older generation again and mutter famous leftist mantras about the good of society.

The point here is this, leftists have zero respect for THE INDIVIDUAL. And when I speak of leftists I am speaking of 99.9 percent of politicians, republicans included. The new right is only right by name. They are very left according to historical standards. The politicians love to talk in terms of groups i.e.: blacks, women, minorities, upper class, lower class, white collar, blue collar, etc. The worst nightmare of the left would be for individuals to storm Washington demanding their lost individual rights back. The politicians have taken those rights and turned them over to the collective i.e.: social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, corporate welfare, etc. The politicians need for those various groups to be dependent on the state for their every desire. That is how they can ensure their reelection year after year after year. The reason the politicians classify people into groups is because groups are easier to control and lead than individuals. What the left, and 98 percent of the new right for that matter, fail to realize is that the more freedom individuals have to look out for themselves, the more prosperous most people will become. One important aspect about the new right is that they pay lip service to individual rights and smaller government during election season, but they never walk the walk once elected. As the dominant party in Washington they hardly talk of shrinking the size of government any more. Which goes to prove one point. They will say what they need to say to get elected, but once in power they will use that power to pursue their hidden agendas.

When people are free to pursue their own free will and do something that they do best, the division of labor is most balanced and resources are allocated in the best manner possible. Free will creates prosperity. That is how the U.S. became the most prosperous nation in the world. The government was very weak and small in the beginning of our history and it allowed people to conduct their lives in a manner consistent with their own beliefs and values.

Is the president's plan for social security good for the advancement of liberty? It appears to be a step in the right direction, but if it passes it will probably end up causing more destruction than prosperity simply because the government will be administering it. In order for people to be able to retire with true 10 to 15 percent gains on their investment the government needs to get out of the retirement business and leave free will alone to run its course. I simply can't see how, given its track record, the government can fix this broken, fraudulant program called social security. The government can't elliminate poverty no matter how much money it dumps on that issue in its massive war on poverty that gets bigger every year. The government can't stop illegal drugs from coming into this country no matter how much money it dumps into that wortlhess war it has created costing more than just millions of dollars per year, but also the loss of thousands of innocent lives per year due to gang disputes over drug turf.

Will some people invest poorly and not have a nest egg to retire on. Yes, some will make foolish mistakes. However, if government did not take so much from the productive individuals, charities and non-profits would easily be able to fill the needs of the few who found themselves in dire straits. Americans are already the most generous people probably in the history of the planet. If the average American did not have almost half of his income seized by the government each year, he would be free to help out his family members, friends, or neighbors in a time of need, or donate to his church or favorite charity in a way he has never been able to do before. That is the kind of America I am optomistic I will see in my lifetime.

Who or What is he?

If he didn’t know that his plan to "liberate" people who hadn’t asked to be liberated, to bring democracy to people who hadn’t asked for democracy, would lead to the deaths of thousands of people, he is not only incompetent and unfit to hold office, he is surely psychopathic and needs to be incarcerated.

Only a psychopath would stand in the midst of thousands of security guards and speak of "the force of human freedom."

Only a man so insulated from the real world by palace sycophants, by little Napoleons filled with utopian fantasies, and by callous, ambitious schemers to whom the lives of others mean nothing – only a man so insulated could possibly speak of "the expansion of freedom in all the world."
Only a man with no link to reality could start a war that destroys lives and families and then say, "Every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth."

Only a snake oil salesman can rain missiles and bombs on other countries and then say that no "human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Only a man divorced from human reason can imprison people – possibly for life – without due process of law and then say that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

Only a liar can proclaim that he will decide which countries must be remade and then say, "No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."

Only a devious schemer can announce a goal of "ending tyranny in our world" while he is imposing a new tyranny in his own country – our country.
So you tell me: what kind of a President do we have?
And what has he given us other than wars, fear, and a state of siege?

-Harry Browne

Label for my beer coming this summer 2005! 

Beautiful Maui 

Deep sea fishing in Maui.