TheAgitator.com
It Ain’t So, Joe
Thursday, September 18th, 2008Someone needs to give Joe Biden a history lesson on the original American “patriots,” and why they fought the Revolutionary War in the first place.
57 Responses to “It Ain’t So, Joe”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I seem to recall the phrase “taxation without representation.”
Last time I checked, the wealthy could still vote.
huh. a democrat calls for higher taxes, and tries to spin it as a moral duty. man! that hardly *ever* happens!
ah, well. i’m sure biden – as the 3rd most liberal senate – i’m sure his lust for your money is not shared by obama, who’s merely the *most liberal* member of the senate.
your social security number will never be used for identification purposes! income tax withholding will only be used until the war ends in 1945 or so! let freedom ring!
“Last time I checked, the wealthy could still vote.”
Vote? Heck, they can donate a lot more more to interest groups, lobbyists, and candidates than I can. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend the rich are somehow under-represented in politics.
I agree that the wealthier you become the more you should pay in taxes (by percentage).
My wife and I do well, economically. Both of us make over $80k a year, with me making quite a bit more. We’re not hurting for money. And, as Biden said, I consider it my duty to put more into the system that has helped me get where I am.
I was trained in the military to do the job I do today at no expense to me. It was all paid for by the taxpayer. My wife went to school on federal grants and federally insured loans. Even though we’re paying those back, she wouldn’t be able to have the job she does without her schooling and wouldn’t have been able to afford the schooling were it not for the federal government. We know we owe Uncle Sam. That’s why we have no problem with our taxes going up.
We don’t earn the $227K a year where we’d take a big hit under the Obama tax plan (yet), but we both agree that if we were to reach that point then taking the tax hit would only come with the territory. I know people are all “me, me, me” when it comes to money, but I don’t know one person who pulls in over $225K a year that can’t afford to pay $3-5K more in taxes. Not one!
The Iraq invasion will end up costing over a trillion dollars with all the final expenses, and the money has to come from somewhere. I have no problem asking for it from the people who pushed for it the hardest. Fact is, you can’t start expensive projects like that, then whine when the bills start coming in.
I want a stamp of the Presidents portrait on all my papers to show I have paid my tax, and would like to allow the cops in to my home whenever they please, so they can check my lawfulness.
Prior to the revolution that was a patriots duty.
During the revolution a patriots duty was to shoot tax assessors.
Since the revolution a patriots duty to be free of illegal taxation.
What does Biden want to do with your money? Donate it to charity? If it is the financially right thing to do, why can’t we go directly to these charities and donate? Why do we need to hire government workers (pronounced goons) to force us to do it?
Don’t say, because we won’t. The United States give more totally, and per-capita than any other country in the world, by a long shot.
In stead, we get crippled and coerced into donating when it is not financially responsible for us to do it.
Thanks, Uncle Sam, for putting me in the poor house.
Nando …
That may all be the case, but none of that gives the Government a right to my labor beyond paying off those loans that I have.
Do not spin this like some sort of “BUT LOOK WHAT WE GET” kind of argument.
Fuck this system, it does nothing but destroy those who make society work.
perhaps, though, just *maybe* biden and obama could propose a new way to show the innate superiority and wonderfulness and patriotism of the left. no no, hear me out. what they do, see, is to pass a law mandating 50% higher taxes **on registered democrats only**.
since paying more taxes is – by biden’s definition – a moral and patriotic duty – this would allow dems/leftists to both adhere to their stern, staunch ethical codes AND show the dimwitted, greedy, mouthbreathing republican proles what america is really all about.
they’d be setting a wonderful example for the well-meaning but ignorant non-leftists! charlie rangel and warren buffet would be so pleased! there’d be torchlight parades in liberal enclaves praising biden et al for giving them the chance to allow their beloved government to, as biden put it, “take their money and put it back in the pockets of middle-class people”!
the key word being “take”.
whattaya think?
I’m not spinning it. I believe that we need to pay back what we borrowed and give a little extra so that those that follow can have the same opportunities we had.
I’m not saying the government has a right to my labor (I’m not a slave or indentured servant), I just believe it’s fair for those who can afford it to pay more than those who need their money to be able to pay their daily bills, buy food, and save a little bit for retirement.
People don’t stop to think how bad a situation we’re going to be in when Social Security goes belly up and most people realize that they don’t have enough for retirement. It will be a huge burden on our economy and, hence, on those of us who did well; those people will drag the rich down with them (though the uber-rich probably won’t be hurt so much). Think of a society where 35-40% of it’s inhabitants are poor and then take a look at their economy. We all need to help each other do well or we’ll all fall, economically speaking.
Biden is a twit. It’s amazing to me that his schlock works at these events amazes me. The idea that the problem with the bloated federal government is that it isn’t big enough should be a laugh line, not an applause line. And, the idea that it’s somehow “patriotic” to fund this unconstitutional monstrosity is just perverse.
I believe the *actual* patriotic response to these increasingly popular notions is soon to be labled “Homegrown Terrorism”
Biden thinks that we should be proud to pay taxes.
Mmm, so lets see what government does with our taxes:
warrantless wiretapping *check
trillion dollar war *check
evisceration of civil liberties *check
wasteful spending *check
war on drugs *check
So, Senator, we are supposed to be proud to have paid, and still pay, for these things…..Oh, we are supposed to be proud only to pay for YOUR programs, which are only for the noblest of purposes, I’m sure. But Senator, how can we be sure that only the right people get into office?
Here’s an idea. How about we pay a lot less in taxes. That way, the bad Presidents wont have enought money to fund their stupid and wrong projects. Then, if someone with a good idea comes along, I will have more of my own money to spend on it. Surely, Senator, you are not saying that I cannot determine what is good and righs: am I not patriotic? Senator?
Nando, you already paid back Uncle Sam for your training by choosing to serve when you did and taking on the accompanying risks. You may feel that you got the better of that deal, but that was still the deal. You don’t owe extra taxes because of it.
Similarly, you wife will repay her loans and that sets straight her balance sheet with the government. Her grants may have been “free money” from the government, but she didn’t sign on to pay higher taxes as a stipulation for getting them. If she had, it would be a different situation.
(And, in reality, a big part of the reason college costs are unaffordable is exactly because of government student aid programs. It’s a dirty cycle that increases dependence on government programs.)
More importantly, regardless of any special benefits you think your family has gotten from your military training or your wife’s loans/grants, the proposed tax increases will also hit those who didn’t get special training or college funding from the government. That isn’t fair to them.
Meanwhile, the higher tax rates and predicted increase in tax revenue will encourage Congress and the President to spend more, while it is highly unlikely that the revenue increase will be as much as predicted. Higher rates encourage people to work harder at finding legal and illegal means of reducing their burden. And, worse, it will discourage people from being more productive at the margin, lowering overall growth.
And, the moral hazard of shifting more of the tax burden onto the wealthy is substantial. It creates a system where the people have little direct incentive to look critically at government spending because none of the expense falls on them. That results in more bloated programs where there is little benefit to people for the tax money spent on them, but few people care because they don’t see how it costs them anything. Eventually, people think they can vote themselves government benefits and send the tab to someone they’ll never meet. That’s a dangerous system.
so at what point are we allowed to conclude that biden (and obama, btw) are mush-mouthed idiots who cannot function without a teleprompter? who have, when forced to think unscripted thoughts on their feet in realtime, have proven themselves utterly incapable of doing so? whose handlers cringe whenever they improvise, because god only knows what kind of dipshittery they’re gonna spout?
doesn’t that *prove* they’re fuckin’ idiots? you know, like the *proofs of stupidity* we were told about when bush and quayle did it? or does it not count when the dumb guy is a democrat?
xyz123 — Every time I feel the least bit of sympathy for McCain or the GOP, I stumble upon one of your comments, and I’m cured.
Is Obama’s campaign paying you to make McCain supporters look so ignorant?
you know, like the *proofs of stupidity* we were told about when bush and quayle did it?
If you put up a list of really stupid things Obama has said, I’ll put up a list of really stupid things Bush has said, and we can compare the two. Or you could provide links to the videos of Obama being unable to think on his feet in realtime and I’ll do the same for Bush, and we can compare the two.
xyz123: You can conclude that see Obama incapable of speaking without a teleprompter. Fact is, he does it all the time, because he’s a good stump speaker. Also, the fact that he put together a team that defeated a Clinton shows he very capable without a teleprompter being present.
If he couldn’t, does that prove he’s “a fuckin’ idiot”? No, because public speaking skills are rather different from administrative skills. They help, but a boring but competent administrator is better than a glib idiot. That’s why I would prefer to see Newt as Pres rather than W, even though I don’t agree with either too much.
errata:
You can conclude that *when you* see Obama incapable of speaking without a teleprompter.
Oh, and xyz123, yesterday, you asked,
“what IS IT with your creepy, pathetic, sad little fixation on me?”
I thought about it and I think I figured it out. See, I spent many years working with emotionally and developmentally disabled children. I guess your posts remind me of them so much, I just instinctively feel the need to help.
balko, every time you show the least bit of sympathy for mccain/palin, i figure it’s just an act and won’t last long till you’re “cured”.
using your own words, here. when mccain runs an ad you think is scurrilous, you’re outraged! this is wrong!! you intone that the ad is “despicable”; “quite simply a *lie*”; and he should pull the ad “if he has any honor at all.” (9-10) when *the messiah* runs such an ad, well …. that’s a little different. those political rascals are at it again! then the ad is merely “patently unfair”. as far as questions about obama’s honor, and what course of action you recommend, you mildly muse that “it’ll be interesting to see if he pulls this ad. he should.” (9-17)
the same double standard exists here in the biden/obama examples of saying dumb things/inability to think on their feet. bush and quayle say dumb things, that makes them dumb profoundly stupid. borderline retarded. now, biden really IS a dumbshit. near the bottom of his class in college; childishly lying about that fact; plagiarizing speeches wholesale and then childishly lying about THAT; saying things that are known to be political suicide …if a republican did that, we’d hear all about it. rightfully so. should someone **dare** to suggest the same rule should apply to democrats, well…. that “cures” you.
aren’t libertarians supposed to be intellectually honest? not employ double standards? or is this election “too important for that”? why are tough questions ok and encouraged for mccain and palin, but not the other guys? why 25 posts on palin and troopergate and earmarks, but none on biden sitting on/voting on committees that regulate businesses that *his son lobbied for*? (interestingly, hunter gave that all up just a few days ago. i guess that wasn’t worthy of comment, huh?)
it’s a fact of life that – when it comes to personal freedoms -that republicans suck. but democrats suck worse. from reporting your income to uncle sam for his enjoyment to the ‘social security’ ponzi scheme to the outlawing of constitutionally-protected gun rights to being unable to develop your own land lest you disturb a mayfly, democrats led the way. taking freedoms to gain power is what they DO. think they don’t have new plans up their sleeve? think they wouldn’t like to capture 15% of the GNP under the guise of “helping people” with healthcare? etc?
lets boil it down: why would any freedom-promoting blog support the party far and away most likely to take even more of our freedoms? nobody on the web reports/attacks out-of-control cops like you do, which is why i started coming here. no one else even comes close. what the hell *happened* to you?
xyz123: Capital letters are your friend.
So Biden is finally (hah) revealed to be just as stupid as the Republican VP. Thanks, but I already knew that.
It still cracks me up that the “libertarians” responding to Radley’s post are slobbering all over themselves about Obama when there is not a SINGLE bit of evidence that his team cares a whit about Libertarian ideas. (at least Palin is serious when she talks about the 2nd A).
Yep, the economy might sink McCains chances. That would be ironic. A Democratic sponsored problem (the mortgage/credit crisis that is really behind ALL of this) will be used to derail the only chance to get a possibility of reform in this election.
The Clinton administration started this problem, Bush proposed an idea to prevent it in 2005 and McCain has warned of the problem. Obama, he’s the #2 recipient of largess from Fannie Mae.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/
What did Ayn Rand say? something like – “brother, you deserved it”. You think the economy has problems now, wait’ll that other economic genius gets hold of the Whitehouse. Look out!
What did Ayn Rand say? something like – “brother, you deserved it”.
I don’t know if she said this, but I sure hope she did. She died, after years of defending her heavy smoking habit, of lung cancer. Had she been able to admit to herself that smoking critics might have a point, she may have lived a few more years, and written a few more books.
“The Clinton administration started this problem” – Actually the problem goes all the way back to 1913, and the creation of fractional reserve banking.
scott,
I actually agree that concluding Obama is any better than McCain on liberty issues is wishful thinking. But, where did Radley’s post generate libertarians “slobbering all over themselves about Obama”? In this whole thread, I don’t see much in the way of people defending Obama’s policies, especially as regards liberty. There is one guy putting in a word for even more soak-the-rich taxation (which libertarians like myself criticized), and then who else? I guess I haven’t been reading closely enough…
But, on the chance that I haven’t seen much Obama worship because there’s not much there, it may be worth noting that criticizing McCain isn’t the same as endorsing Obama.
freedomfan,
i think if you look back thru the posts you’ll find a fair amount of “slobbering” over Obama.
but, fairly, my post is a little over the top because every time i “don’t endorse” McCain i get attacked as if i was claiming that he is faultless.
Mike,
my quote refers to Atlas Shrugged where i think the line is more like “brother, you ASKED for it” (its been awhile since i’ve read it and going thru 1000+ pages to find the actual line is not necessary). why you bring up her dying of lung cancer seems irrelevant, i’m not claiming she was a perfect being either.
and i think people who think Obama is the answer are “asking for it” and “are going to get it”. not that i think McCain/Palin is much better, but a chance of being somewhat better at least.
Far and away? Judging by the last few decades, I’d say they’re running neck-and-neck. Granted, the Republicans used to talk a better game, but they’ve even given up on that. (One benefit of an Obama presidency: Republicans would go back to talking about smaller government, federalism, fiscal conservatism, etc., and we could all point and laugh.)
“Someone needs to give Joe Biden a history lesson on the original American “patriots,” and why they fought the Revolutionary War in the first place.”
Mr. Balko, you criticized Sarah Palin, correctly, for being vague (WTF did you expect from her anyway?). I must, out of intellectual honesty, criticize you as well. You assert that Joe Biden is ignorant of American history, and he may very well be, but you neglect to inform us of your understanding of the motivations of the “patriots” leading up to and during the War of Independence. I’d like to read your concise take on it please.
In fairness, I’ll throw out my own suggestion that the rich colonists who owned land options in the territories opened by the French and Indian War were desperate to exploit these holdings and were being thwarted by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Thomas Paine the pamphleteer was just one such “interested party” among many.
There was nothing noble about the “American Revolution.” It was nothing of the sort — it was a turf war, a mafia family spat. Like all else in history, the official version was written by the winners, who put a sugarcoat on it with “sacred” documents like the Dec. of Ind., and ultimately the Constitution (after the Articles of Conf. proved not sufficient to protect the big money).
Nando wrote: “I’m not saying the government has a right to my labor (I’m not a slave or indentured servant), I just believe it’s fair for those who can afford it to pay more than those who need their money to be able to pay their daily bills, buy food, and save a little bit for retirement.”
“None are more hoplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
A tax is force. A donation is voluntary. The former is the root of evil, the latter the essence of charity. Hope that clears things up.
it’s a fact of life that – when it comes to personal freedoms -that republicans suck. but democrats suck worse.
You say this as if it’s objectively true and anyone who can’t see it is an idiot. Far left liberals say the opposite as if it’s objectively true and often treat those who disagree as if they were idiots.
The objective fact is: some Democrats are worse than some Republicans and vice versa. Picking and choosing who they are is difficult and can’t be effectively accomplished with ideological reflexes. The reason both parties are so awful is because, in large part, they are supported by people who only view the world with ideological reflexes.
There was nothing noble about the “American Revolution.” It was nothing of the sort — it was a turf war, a mafia family spat.
Though I don’t believe in romantic versions of the events of the time, the Bill of Rights makes me skeptical of your analogy.
How many of you here grew up in a poor household (and I mean under the poverty level poor)?
How many of you here had two working parents and STILL qualified for welfare?
How many of you here had a parent get hurt at work to the point where that parent couldn’t work any longer, almost died, and had to resort to Social Security disability payments (which weren’t much, about $233 a month)?
Well, I can say that I qualify for all three of the above. My family of four (mom, dad, and brother) had to live in the two back rooms in my grandmother’s house (two small rooms at that) for about 5 years when I was growing up. Both of my parents had to work to support us until my mother got injured on the job and had to apply for Social Security, which gave her about 1/2 of what she earned in her job (and she almost died due to the injury she sustained). We had to depend on welfare in order to be able to sustain ourselves (I grew up having to eat government cheese and powdered milk). I was lucky enough to be able to go to a Catholic school because of the generosity of the priests, who had been longtime family friends. Because of this, I was able to get ahead, go to college, and eventually go into the military.
I was able to become who I am thanks in most part to government and Catholic assistance. I also received grants in college, plus all the training in the Air Force.
I’m not arguing that I owe more BECAUSE I got these opportunities, I’m just saying that I came from nothing and beat the odds and if my contributions will help others do the same, then I’m all for it. This is why I’m not against government programs for the poor, like most libertarians are. I’m not against welfare or handouts by the government, like most libertarians are. I would not be who I am today without them. I do believe that some people abuse them and they should therefore not receive this help, but to say that increasing taxes on the rich to help those less fortunate is a bad idea flat out is wrong in my opinion.
By the way, I’m going for a –35 on this one, so help me out.
“Though I don’t believe in romantic versions of the events of the time, the Bill of Rights makes me skeptical of your analogy.”
Les, the Bill of Rights was tacked on to the Constitution as an afterthought, and some of the proponents of the Bill of Rights were nervous about its inclusion because they (rightly) believed it could be interpreted as an exhaustive list, thus the inclusion of the 9th and 10th amendments (and we know how much these are respected by the government — about as much as the others, sadly). They understood that if the Constitution were to be interpreted as a limiting document that all the words in the main body should be sufficient to delineate all government powers, like the famous Article I Sec. 8 list of Congressional powers, and a Bill of Rights would confuse the issue.
Whatever the case, the rationale behind the Constitution (which was a coup d’etat against the Articles of Confederation — the powers behind the Constitution exceeded their mandate in the Convention, it was only supposed to amend the Articles, not usurp them) was purely to protect the big money. Lysander Spooner had it dead-on when he wrote that either the Constitution got us where we are today or it was powerless to prevent it — and he wrote that in the mid-19th century!
Butler Shaffer once wrote one of the sharpest quips I have ever read (I paraphrase): “Scholars who carry around pocket versions of the Constitution in order to quote from lecterns remind me of dogs who carry their leashes in their mouths to their masters.”
Ouch.
“This is why I’m not against government programs for the poor, like most libertarians are.”
Not to be judgmental, but moral consistency requires that anyone with a moral compass be against ALL government programs.
You see, government is force. Government gets all its revenue by stealing on threat of death. It matters not a whit that the stolen money is then used for ostensibly charitable purposes. It’s still tainted.
A consistent moral position demands that charitable assistance be VOLUNTARY, in ALL cases.
This is an intellectual argument, but it is valid and sound, and it is not my own, but I arrived at the same conclusions after deep thought and so can anyone else.
#29 | Cynical In CA | September 19th, 2008 at 12:27 am
A tax is force. A donation is voluntary. The former is the root of evil, the latter the essence of charity. Hope that clears things up.
Cynical hit the nail right on the head.
I’m jumping into this discussion late, but on the original point– whether the wealthy should view higher taxes as patriotic, and whether this comports with the American Revolution– I’m reminded of the last line of the Declaration of Independence:
I don’t know, but that sounds a lot to me like wealthy men announcing that their liberty and common welfare was worth more than their individual financial security.
So, basically, you think that tax is theft? I think you’re way out in left field. You don’t have to pay taxes, you know that, right? You have to file, by law, but you are not required to pay. That your money is taken out by your employer is also a choice (you can file for the max number of dependents on your W4 and not get a penny taken out). Plus, if it really is as bad as you say, I don’t understand why you don’t move somewhere that doesn’t have tax laws (like the Brazilian Amazon or Antarctica).
Sometimes I forget I’m on a libertarian site ….
The only “slobbering” I’m doing WRT Obama is comparing his “Change we can believe in” with “To Serve Man”.
(Anyone over 35 should be able to get the reference)
very well written, cynical in ca. and exactly correct.
Cynical (I thought I was cynical),
While I agree with your larger points regarding the Constitution, I still think the Bill of Rights is a great guard against the mob and the government. Are you an anarchist?
You don’t have to pay taxes, you know that, right? You have to file, by law, but you are not required to pay.
Well, you do if you don’t want to be kidnapped and imprisoned. So, even though I’m not against all taxes, I can understand the point of view that they are a form of extortion.
Any taxes which are not used to fund goods that are distinctly and explicitly Public Goods (Goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludeable). Is theft.
Which essentially means a large part of our spending is theft to me. I’m willing to find the CIA, FBI, US military, and maybe a court system.
To hell with everything else.
Nando, it sounds like you would have been better off under a system with less government and more economic growth.
Les, I agree with Cynical regarding the Bill of Rights, mostly. It wasn’t exactly just tacked on, since, as I understand it, several states were resisting ratification without it. But, there was real concern, famously expressed by Hamilton in The Federalist No. 84 that the Bill of Rights would cause people to misunderstand the nature of the Constitution, which deliberately grants only certain powers to the government. He argued that, if you attach to that “can do” list a separate list of things the government cannot do, there will be a tendency over time to ignore the main list and assume that the government can do everything not prohibited in the “can’t do” list. While I have problems with Hamilton, he was exactly correct in this. Even though courts accept the fig leaf that legislation is Constitutionally legitimate because of (for example) the Commerce clause, the general public seems to have no idea that the federal government has any limits besides those imposed by the Bill of Rights.
To a certain extent for that reason, it is ironically all we have left, though it was never intended this way. Given the outrageously broad reading of the Commerce clause, the Necessary And Proper clause, etc., at this point the Bill of Rights is one of the few serious limits on government power.
freedomfan,
You and Cynical are making my head hurt, but in a good way! Thanks for that link. I’ll read it and then bother you with some more questions.
“So, basically, you think that tax is theft? I think you’re way out in left field. You don’t have to pay taxes, you know that, right? You have to file, by law, but you are not required to pay. That your money is taken out by your employer is also a choice (you can file for the max number of dependents on your W4 and not get a penny taken out). Plus, if it really is as bad as you say, I don’t understand why you don’t move somewhere that doesn’t have tax laws (like the Brazilian Amazon or Antarctica).”
Nando, I want to be as respectful of you as I possibly can. First, it doesn’t matter what I think, it is an object fact that tax is theft given the premise of individual self-ownership. Your argument that paying taxes is voluntary makes as much sense as saying that surrendering one’s money to an armed robber is voluntary — yes, I ultimately have control over whether I fork over the cash, but the opportunity costs of risking my life in the exchange outweigh me holding onto the cash.
It is easy for you to hide behind your belief that paying taxes is voluntary on the grounds that it is just and patriotic to do so. You will never test your theory about the allegedly voluntary nature of paying taxes. From your standpoint, it is thus an untestable hypothesis and by definition unscientific and irrational.
From my standpoint, I understand very clearly that failing to pay my taxes while living in society is the sucker bet of all sucker bets. If I am caught, I will pay heavy fines and most likely spend time in a cage. If I resist capture, I will be killed. Why is this difficult to understand? Are there not enough real-world examples of this happening?
As for the “America, love it or leave it” schtick, it is a tired, pathetic argument — the last refuge of the witless. Why don’t you leave? I was born here too. I don’t remember signing any contract giving someone the power of God over me, least of all you.
I am brimming with anticipation of your next logical arguments. I’m sure I’ll learn a lot. Sorry I couldn’t live up to my goal of being patient.
“Cynical (I thought I was cynical), while I agree with your larger points regarding the Constitution, I still think the Bill of Rights is a great guard against the mob and the government. Are you an anarchist?”
Les, I appreciate your estimation of me as more cynical than you. My message seems to be getting through. ;)
When discussing the Bill of Rights, the context has to be considered. It was a document appended to another document that was written by rich white businessmen, landowners and slaveowners. They only did it to try to protect themselves, they had no concern for any other class. That it now “applies” to all U.S. citizens is a matter of convenience — it gives “the people” the illusion of control. That’s the very essence of the Constitution — it usurped the “legitimate” authority of the Articles of Confederation, which granted a level of equality to poorer farmers and tradesman that was intolerable to the ruling class.
Now is as good a time as any to point out that I don’t view ANY government as legitimate, as all are founded on force. And, yes I thought it was clear by now, I am an anarchist. Or a radical individualist. Or an anti-statist. What’s in a name? I even gravitate all the way to pacifism in a purely intellectual sense (although I might reflexively defend myself or family if they came under attack, I hope never to be in that situation).
It is impossible to overstate that the Bill of Rights is conditional in the extreme. It has been said many times by many politicians that the Constitution (especiall the BoR) is not a “suicide pact.” As such, every single word in the Constitution is open to interpretation. By whom?
Time to read John Hasnas, “The Myth of the Rule of Law.”
“Which essentially means a large part of our spending is theft to me. I’m willing to find the CIA, FBI, US military, and maybe a court system.”
It’s OK to admit that it’s all theft. It doesn’t adversely affect your attachments to the aforemention government agencies as essential.
While anarchists are often called to the carpet to explain exactly how certain components of society would be provided without force, it is simple honesty that dictates the anarchist to admit the impossibility of foreknowledge. The anarchist is opposing at the fundamental level the idea of central planning.
It is interesting there there is a myth of the existence of a free market in America. There is and has never been such a thing. The state exists to control the economy. It is it’s lifeblood, as the state produces nothing of value, all it’s revenues are stolen at the point of a gun.
Some, like you, view national defense, the system of law, etc. as impossible to sustain without force. Perhaps. My belief, based on reading many arguments in defense of this belief, is that a truly free market can not only supply these services, but in an unimaginably superior way to force. The forceful method has been demonstrated for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of years. I guess reasonable people can disagree as to the relative success of force as the organizing principle of human interaction. R.J. Rummels documented hundreds of millions of state-sponsored deaths of individuals in the 20th century alone.
I am cynical for a reason. Anarchism will never get its day. It’s more than people being superstitious or stupid or afraid of change. I believe the human race is a species of near-perfect killers, the ultimate killing machine ever devised by nature. T-Rex can’t hold a candle to a human being — what T-Rex ever incinerated an entire city of 200,000 in less than one second? And by killers, I mean killers of ALL species. The war on bugs, the war on trees, the war on mass-produced farm animals. I understand that to pass judgment on these facts is to condemn myself too, and I know I must kill to live. But it is in search of truth that I think about these normally-suppressed ideas.
Man exists to control his environment. That is the great contribution of humans to evolution on Earth. This is such an important concept that the Hebrews in their Bible put it immediately after man’s creation by God.
It is when man made the natural logical leap to include his fellow men among the environmental factors to control, the state was born — and the state will only die with the human race itself.
So I try to make peace with all of this, and I appreciate having the outlet here for my whackjob ideas.
“… the Bill of Rights is one of the few serious limits on government power.”
I appreciate the corroboration, freedom fan. It is ironic that the original central banker wrote a defense of limited government. He was rich too, right? Probably just an apologist at best, and more likely a smokescreen.
If the BoR is one of the few serious limits on government power, then we are all in a world of hurt. It is a beggar dependent on the kindness of strangers.
There is no such thing as a normative subjective interpretation. Words are meaningless without interpretation. The question is: who does the interpreting?
The ruling class maintains its monopoly on interpretation with great jealousy, to use a Jeffersonian term.
Okay, that argument by Hamilton kind of blew my mind. Let me try to paraphrase and tell me if I’m in the ballpark.
It seems to me he’s saying: Since there’s nothing in the constitution that says the government can limit speech, the government can’t limit speech, period. By adding an amendment that says the government can’t limit speech, it gives people who want to limit speech ammunition, so they can say, “Well, that picture of a naked woman isn’t speech, so we can limit it.” Same with guns (“What’s a ‘militia?’”), search and seizure (“What’s ‘reasonable?’”), etc.
Am I getting it at all?
Also, Cynical, would you say this book you mention by Hasnas is a good starting point to understand your point of view, or is there something better? Preferably, for me, an illustrated children’s book?
And I really appreciate you explaining your philosophy here. It’s really fascinating. I’ve always considered myself an individualist, but what you’re saying really takes that thinking to another level.
Les, I think you have summarized Hamilton’s argument nicely. The danger in listing things that the government cannot do is that such a list can never be exhaustive, so it’s better just to list those things that it can do.
The 9th Amendment, whose logic is similar, makes sense in that context.
That was an attempt to address the concerns of those like Hamilton who worried that adding a list (enumeration) of rights of the people (the Bill of Rights) shouldn’t be taken to imply that those are the only ones the people have.
There is even more in the 10th Amendment
Which says, in short, if the Constitution didn’t give the federal government a power, then it doesn’t have it.
Many, like myself, think that Hamilton was right and we’ve come to a point where the government acts as though it has authority to restrict any individual’s actions, as long as they aren’t protected by the Bill of Rights. And, of course, it ignores that part of the Bill of Rights (the 9th & 10th Amendments) which expressly declare that is not the criterion for when the government can restrict your liberties (or encroach on the authority of the individual states). One seldom hears those Amendments invoked to keep the government from exercising power, although there is the occasional glimmer of hope, such as the Mukasey case in Santa Cruz.
…
Cynical, you have stronger claim to your namesake than I. I don’t recall reading that Hamilton was part of a sort of landed gentry as several of the founders were, though he is usually characterized as very smart and ambitious, so I would assume he had attained some financial success in life. I am pretty sure he did not inherit any real wealth at the start, though.
But he was a big government goon at the end. I think it’s entirely possible that Hamilton started out on the limited government side and did what so many who come to Washington do. He saw what could be done with government power and suddenly limited government didn’t seem like such an important principle. It happens today and I would bet that it happened back then, too. BTW, a very interesting account of this phenomenon in relation to modern politics (especially the “Class of ’94″ Republicans) is in (current Oklahoma Senator) Tom Coburn’s Breach of Trust. Despite my other issues with Coburn, I think he is worth reading on this.
Freedom, I think we are all tempted to believe that history began yesterday. Or the day before that. Thus, corruption is only a feature of the Bush Administration, or Clinton, or progressively further back, but heavens to Betsy! No way the Founders/Framers/Godheads who led the Perfect Glorious Pure American “Revolution” were corrupt! To think such thoughts puts the whole fairy tale at risk.
If the boy who truthfully exclamed “The emperor has no clothes!” were written about today, he would have been stoned to death.
The State as we experience it today came into existence with the agricultural revolution, the first time massive populations of humans could be induced to exist in one place. All of the present forms of the State coalesced at that time, just like the Milky Way Galaxy coalesced into its present form billions of years ago, but still mostly resembles its original form. Chief among these forms is the funnel of wealth from the bottom of the pyramid to the top at the point of the dominant weapon of the day.
That’s why the Pharoahs built pyramids. That’s why there’s a pyramid on the obverse of Federal Reserve notes. Talk about “in your face!”
Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, China, India, Greece, Rome, Aztlan, Inca, Spain, Britain, France, America. Empires never change. The State is perpetual. Hamilton is an atom on a speck of dust on a flea turd in history’s galaxy. It’s only our proximity to Hamilton as fellow atoms on a flea turd that skews perspective.
Les,
The “argument” was just how you described it. If a list of positive governmental powers was interpreted to be complete, then there was no need for a Bill of Rights. If it’s not in the main body of the Constitution, the government can’t do it. The logical flaw is the leap from an unlimited government, which is what every government must be or it ceases to exist, to a limited government, which negates government.
The only meaningful limit on government power is what the people who are oppressed by it are willing to subject themselves to. A people willing to suffer any oppression (and Jefferson wrote extensively on this subject) will tolerate any government outrage. It can be no other way. A written document is a nice reference for when one must be outraged, but it does not offer any shield or retaliatory power since the ruling class monopolizes its interpretation and restricts forms of “legitimate” protest to utter meaninglessness. Individuals must act, and in the absence of action, there will be unlimited oppression.
When I get to these foundational level concepts on discussion boards, I like to mention Hasnas because he writes so clearly and logically. He is a Georgetown Univ. law professor and, get ready for it — an anarchist. His writing is very accessible, the article I referenced is a brief 10 pages or so. He has written a few other interesting articles too.
For philosophy of individualism, google Delmar England and Roy A. Childs. Robert LeFevre is another good one. Butler Shaffer, while a hypocritical Ron Paul supporter, is a very entertaining writer on individualism and the chaos of central planning.
“I really appreciate you explaining your philosophy here. It’s really fascinating. I’ve always considered myself an individualist, but what you’re saying really takes that thinking to another level.”
I very much appreciate your openmindedness Les. I often feel that there’s no greater pariah than the anarchist, even more of a pariah than the atheist. Looks like I hit the daily double on that one. Lucky me. I’m glad you recognize the depth of the analysis — it is as close to root level as I have discovered to date. Keep firing away!
Thanks for the recommendations, Cynical. They should keep my brow furrowed for some time.
Cynical, in #52 you write:
You have also acknowledged that anarchism will never get “its day.” Why then “believe” in anarchism? If states are the inevitable consequence of the (certainly irreversible) agricultural revolution, isn’t saying that you are an anarchist sort of like claiming to be a hunter/gatherer– perhaps true, but only under a highly unlikely set of circumstances?
Ben, you nailed me — I am not a “lifestyle” anarchist. I came to my belief in anarchism long after I got married and had children. My obligations to my family and the seriousness with which I treat them take precedence over my political views. It leads to much cognitive dissonance in my life. It’s not easy. Perhaps someday when my duty to my family is less strict, I will spend more time outside of society and live more in line with radical individual principles — perhaps as a hunter/gatherer!
None of this, however, mitigates my subscription to the truth as I discover it. I have studied political systems, both statist and anti-statist, for years. I presently believe, and will continue to believe in the absence of contrary evidence, that anarchism or radical individualism is the only moral political position in human society.
Reasonable people can disagree as to the practicality of maintaining such beliefs. But I stand firm that human nature and the free will that resides in every human individual create base principles of existence — self ownership, action residing in the individual alone and not organizations, non-aggression, etc.
From these principles, anarchism logically flows. That it can never exist in human society as we know it (since the agr. rev. or even before) does not affect the truth. Concerned individuals should give these ideas deep thought and come to their own conclusions about how best to combat the state. I can write with all certainty that complying with the state, i.e. attempting to eradicate violence by using violence, is guaranteed to fail and has been demonstrated so throughout human history.
I believe in anarchism because it has been demonstrated to an advanced logical standard to be moral and consistent with core human attributes, and it is the only method by which state power can be diminished, as impossible as it seems today.
So, basically, you think that tax is theft? I think you’re way out in left field. You don’t have to pay taxes, you know that, right? You have to file, by law, but you are not required to pay. That your money is taken out by your employer is also a choice (you can file for the max number of dependents on your W4 and not get a penny taken out). Plus, if it really is as bad as you say, I don’t understand why you don’t move somewhere that doesn’t have tax laws (like the Brazilian Amazon or Antarctica).