16 Reasons to Fear and Loathe Mitt Romney

Print Friendly

A good primer:

The following are 16 reasons why Mitt Romney would be a really, really bad president….

#1 Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress. Mitt Romney says that he would repeal Obamacare, but the reality is that Romneycare was what Obamacare was based on. In fact, a recent MSNBC article brought to light some new information about the relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare….

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney continues to defend Romneycare, but the reality is that it really is a total nightmare for Massachusetts. The following is how one bloggersummarized some of the key points of Romneycare….

• Punitive To Individuals. Everyone must buy health insurance or face tax penalties equal to 50% of cost of standard policy.
• Hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on free hospital care were converted into subsidies to help the needy buy insurance.
• A health insurance “exchange” was established to help connect the uninsured with private health plans at more affordable rates.
• Health plans can offer consumers higher deductibles and more restrictive physician and hospital networks in order to lower costs.
• Punitive to Businesses with 11 or more workers that do not offer insurance must pay a $295 per employee fee.
• Established payment policy advisory board; one Board member must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization represented.
• Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for copay of $50.

So what have been the results of Romneycare in Massachusetts? According to the Daily Caller, health care costs and health insurance premiums have gone up dramatically in Massachusetts….

Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

All of that certainly sounds a whole lot like Obamacare.

Unfortunately, the other Republican candidates have not taken advantage of this weakness. According to one brand new poll, 6 times as many Republicans view Romneycare unfavorably as view it favorably. This is something that the other candidates should be jumping on big time.

#2 During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. The following is an excerpt from a CBS News article….

Mitt Romney’s Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney’s efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million

The same article also notes that Romney jacked up “fees and fines” on Massachusetts taxpayers substantially….

Romney and lawmakers also approved hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines during his four years in office.

Many in the Massachusetts business community were quite disgusted with Romney by the end of his tenure. Peter Nicholas, the chairman of Boston Science Corporation, says that “tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.”

#3 Government spending in Massachusetts increased significantly under Mitt Romney. An advocate of smaller government he most definitely is not.

This was especially true for the last two budgets passed under Romney. In fiscal year 2006, government spending in Massachusetts increased by 7.6 percent. In fiscal year 2007, government spending in Massachusetts increased by a whopping10.2 percent.

#4 It turns out that Mitt Romney is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming. In fact, Al Gore recently praised on Mitt Romney on his blog. In a post entitled “Good for Mitt Romney — though we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis“, Al Gore lavished the following praise on the former Massachusetts governor….

“While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party”

Not only that, it is also very important to remember that while Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts became the very first state to pass a law to regulate carbon emissions.

#5 If Mitt Romney becomes president, we may actually have “cap and trade” shoved down our throats. While campaigning for president in 2007, Mitt Romney said that he would support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme for the entire world….

“I support Cap-and-Trade on a global basis but not the USA going alone. I want to do it with other nations involved and on a global scale.”

#6 Mitt Romney had a horrible record of creating jobs while governor of Massachusetts. According to Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends, only one state in the entire country was worse at creating jobs while Romney was in office….

“During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.”

#7 Mitt Romney was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wall Street bailouts. When the time comes for more Wall Street bailouts it seems almost certain that Mitt Romney will bail them out again.

#8 If Romney becomes president, get ready for a flood of liberal judges. While he was governor of Massachusetts, there were actually significantly more Democrats among his judicial appointments than there were Republicans.

#9 Mitt Romney is incredibly soft on illegal immigration. Back in 2007, Mitt Romney made the following statement….

“But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here”

#10 While he was governor, Mitt Romney received advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the man who is now the top science adviser to Barack Obama. His name is John P. Holdren, and he has some very, very disturbing ideas. For example, he once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

So if this is the kind of person that Mitt Romney relied on for “scientific advice” while he was governor, what kind of people would Romney bring in to his administration once he is president?

#11 Mitt Romney has been a huge supporter of gun control laws. When he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he made the following statement….

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts- I support them…I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.”

#12 Mitt Romney once claimed that he was more “pro-choice” than Ted Kennedy, but now he claims that he is pro-life. In a recent article for WorldNetDaily, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt explained why so many voters are still skeptical….

This year he’s the only major Republican presidential candidate who has yet to sign the Susan B. Anthony List pledge to defend life and defund Planned Parenthood nationwide. Candidates Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum all signed the pledge, although it should be noted Herman Cain supports everything in the pledge except the Fetal Pain Act. (Cain is not fully pro-life, either.) And who can forget Mitt’s famous 2002 campaign debate bragging repeatedly that he’s more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy?

#13 During this campaign season, Mitt Romney has stated that he only supportspartnership agreements for gay couples and not gay marriage, but what Romney actually did while governor of Massachusetts suggests otherwise. In the WorldNetDaily article referenced above, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt detailed how Mitt Romney aggressively implemented gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts….

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided in 2003 to recognize homosexual “marriage,” ignoring the voters and the Constitution, the court admitted it did not have power to issue licenses or force participation by justices of the peace to solemnize the weddings. But as governor, Romney didn’t wait for the legislature to act, he just ordered the marriage licenses and weddings to go forward, all by himself. Earlier this month, Romney said in New Hampshire, “What I would support [nationwide] is letting people who are of the same gender form – if you will – partnership agreements.”

#14 As late as 2007, Mitt Romney was a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. The following is what romneyexposed.com says about this organization….

They often work in conjunction with the pro-abortion group, Republicans for Choice, and the Republican homosexual group, the Log Cabin Club. They also opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and set up a 527 campaign committee that received funding from far left funder George Soros.

#15 According to the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney has raised more money from lobbyists than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

So if Mitt Romney becomes president, who do you think he is going to listen to – the American people or the lobbyists?

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

#16 Mitt Romney is a big time Wall Street insider. It is estimated that Romney has a personal fortune of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and Wall Street money is being absolutely showered on his campaign.

In a recent article entitled “The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election“, I detailed how numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Mitt Romney is getting far more money from the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks than all of the other Republican candidates combined. The following is an excerpt from that article that shows how much money employees of those banks (and their wives) have been giving to Romney so far this year….

*****

Goldman Sachs

Mitt Romney: $352,200
Barack Obama: $49,124
Tim Pawlenty: $25,000
Jon Huntsman: $6,750
Rick Perry: $5,500
Ron Paul: $2,500

Morgan Stanley

Mitt Romney: $184,800
Tim Pawlenty: $41,715
Barack Obama: $28,225
Rick Perry: $20,750
Jon Huntsman: $9,750
Newt Gingrich: $1,000
Ron Paul: $1,000
Herman Cain: $500

Bank of America

Mitt Romney: $112,500
Barack Obama: $46,699
Tim Pawlenty: $12,750
Jon Huntsman: $4,250
Ron Paul: $3,451
Rick Perry: $2,600
Thad McCotter: $2,000
Herman Cain: $750
Michele Bachmann: $500
Newt Gingrich: $250

JPMorgan Chase

Mitt Romney: $107,250
Barack Obama: $38,039
Rick Perry: $27,050
Tim Pawlenty: $16,750
Jon Huntsman: $7,500
Ron Paul: $5,451

Citigroup

Mitt Romney: $56,550
Barack Obama: $36,887
Tim Pawlenty: $5,300
Rick Perry: $3,000
Herman Cain: $1,465
Michele Bachmann: $1,000
Ron Paul: $702

As you can see, no other Republican candidate even comes close to Romney at any of these big Wall Street banks.

In fact, of the candidates that are left in the Republican race, Mitt Romney has raised 13 times as much Wall Street money as anyone else has.

The following are the overall donation numbers from employees of the big Wall Street banks and their wives….

Mitt Romney: $813,300
Barack Obama: $198,874
Tim Pawlenty: $101,515
Rick Perry: $58,900
Jon Huntsman: $28,250
Ron Paul: $13,104
Herman Cain: $2,715
Michelle Bachmann: $1,500
Newt Gingrich: $1,250

These numbers paint a very disturbing picture. Even though Romney’s poll numbers are in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of this year and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates combined.

*****

It is quite obvious that the “establishment” is in love with Mitt Romney.

But if the American people elect Mitt Romney, they will get someone who believes in big spending, big government, bank bailouts, health care mandates, climate change legislation, liberal judges, gun control laws, amnesty for illegal aliens and making things as comfortable for the fatcats on Wall Street as possible.

Yes, Barack Obama has been absolutely horrible, but the answer is most definitely not Mitt Romney.

Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare.

But so would four years of Mitt Romney.

America deserves better than the “lesser of two evils”.

Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have been sending incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.

Right now it looks like the Republican Party is going to nominate yet another establishment “politician” in 2012.

Hopefully people will wake up to the truth about Mitt Romney while there is still time

Share Button

eric

Author of "Automotive Atrocities" and "Road Hogs" (MBI). Currently living amongst the Edentulites in rural SW Virginia. 

  122 comments for “16 Reasons to Fear and Loathe Mitt Romney

  1. Tor Munkov
    September 23, 2012 at 4:03 am

    Oven Mitt will be terrible. How is it no Mormon remembers the Utah wars and mass kidnapping of their children until they got into compliance with the Christian Mafia.
    Two of these things are not in conflict with the libertarian platform but may have wide support among the liberty minded.

    Immigration. Any policy of the LP has to be in compliance with reality. There are millions of low skilled jobs to be filled. If I want to hire Mexicans to put llantas on my coche why does anyone else get a say in the matter. Prohibitions never work. If you allow work and travel prohibition protocols you open the flood gates to drug and weapon prohibitions. You have to stand unwaveringly on your pricipals in every instance without fail.

    Abortion. The LP position hear is that government has no role to playThe medical profession does not benefit from a bunch of busybodies. It is a private matter best left to private enterprise and consumer choice and decision making. Here again abortion prohibition failed and will continue to fail if we resurrect it.

    Jesse Venturas first words after being elected were these. I am here to provoke you out of your apathy. It is not my job to make you feel comfortable. I feel the same and would go much further to end soldier worship and state education among others Jesse supports.

    Most on this blog appear to be Gary Johnson type libertarians. They want less tax. Less govt spending. Like him they are selfmade men who demand selfreliance and personal fitness and responsibility.

    I have no issues with this interim step and see you all as allies.

    I’m approaching the issue from the big picture. It takes 4 leaves to have cloverism. 4 blades on the swastika to have fascism. By compleletely nullifying all attempts at prohibition big govt ends up becomes less leviathan.

    The 4 leaves are; 1. Total war.2. CEntral bank counterfeit fiat destroys private property and industry. 3. Prohibition to mitigate collapse and force compliance of herd. 4. Socialist collective projects to make things better after the collapse.
    Prohibition seems to be the simplest to thwart. THIS WAY PEOPLE RETREAT IN TO LESS PRODUCTIVE VICE INSTEAD OF WORKING TO KEEP THE BEAST OF STATE STRONG AND HEALTHY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

    • September 23, 2012 at 9:15 am

      Not that this (s)election matters in any meaningful way whatsoever – but Mittens is the Bob Doooooole of 2012.

      • Tor Munkov
        September 23, 2012 at 10:18 am

        Bob Dole appreciates you remembering Bob Dooole. Go ethanol. Bob Dole approves this message. Bob Dole.

        I’m going to go with Gary J if I end up having togo to the emerald city to pick a wizard. He vetoed 200 new bills of slavery more than the other 49 governors of the time did combined.

        I miss Bob Dole a little. At least he was a puppet master you could laugh at .

        • September 23, 2012 at 10:36 am

          Me too.

          If Gary J or RP are not on the ballot, I will simply skip that part of the process and vote on local stuff only.

          If I gave a shit about the presidential (s)election – that is, if I thought it would make a difference which front man is ultimately (s)elected – I’d be outraged at the Republican Party for putting forth another obvious non-starter.

          By putting forth Mittens, the GOP has done for the Democrats what Bob Doooooooooole did for Slick Willie.

          Not that it matters. We will get:

          More invasive, unaccountable government.
          More inflated currency.
          More war; more police state tyranny.
          More and higher taxes.
          More diminishments of our civil liberties.

          Irrespective of who “wins” – we lose.

  2. doncooper
    November 7, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    Bottom line: if I am forced by someone with guns and/or a gang to do ANYTHING I do not want to do, then my rights are being violated. You’ve committed a crime. Period. That’s the end of the discussion.

    Now someone will say there are bad people so we need laws. NO! Because your laws directed at the “bad people” also penalize, restrain, and cost me which – see first paragragh – violates my rights. You’ve committed a crime. Period. That’s the end of the discussion.

    As for the logic of it: any logical argument assumes rational thinkers. So, if one believes that the majority of Americans are irrational, then this whole discussion is a waste of time. The society is doomed with or w/o a gov. If you believe that the majority of the people are rational – which I believe they are – then logic can be applied and when and if the irrational ones perform irrational acts and violate my rights then they have to answer for their actions.

    Anyone believing they have some right to tell me or anyone else what to do directly or indirectly via laws and gov are simply acting childish like the bullies on the playground at school. Their thinking is selfish, immoral and criminal. Anyone advocating even “a little” gov falls into this category – see second paragraph.

    Also, not advocating gov doesn’t mean that I have a different model to replace it. I don’t, nor does anyone, but why does anyone feel we need one? That’s just that same old “safety blanket” mentality: we can’t get rid of the current abusive system until we have another (potentially) abusive system in place.

    Just let it go. Neighborhoods can do their own thing. Communities, social organizations, who knows, but we don’t need to know. This preoccupation with “planning” and “coordinating” at the national level of 300 million will never,ever work. It’s ridiculous to even discuss.

    Does anyone really believe that if all forms of gov disappeared tomorrow that everyone would be spinning around in circles not knowing what to do? Ugh!

    What’s so frustrating is that the gov doesn’t keep a single person safe, yet we’re discussing how unsafe we’d be w/o gov when we’re already there!

    • November 7, 2011 at 8:46 pm

      I like this model (no, I think this model could possibly work) on the small-scale community level, provided (and to me, this is key) the other communities out there are peopled by like-minded individuals and none of them metastacizes into an armed gang led by a psychopath (or just an ordinary military thug-type) because then, the peaceful, voluntarist community is doomed.

      Let’s say you, me, Boothe, Methyl and the rest of us figured out a way to build a starship and traveled to a distant – and empty of people – Earth-like planet. We’d do fabulously without organized government.

      But how about here – and now?

      Given the realities of millions of people who do not share our ethics – some of those millions organized into the Great Gangs we refer to as nation-states – how do you envision “no government” coming together, or surviving once it does?

      To be clear: I love the idea of no government. But I have a hard time conceiving it in actual everyday reality, given people, given the world etc.

  3. Gary
    November 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    This article perhaps has some facts, some stretches, and some selected misinformation. I am personally leaning for a non-politician, Herman Cain. I realize the sexual harrassment allegations, but I also know the “get a quick lump sum” crowd that wants to distort facts in this “PC” world we have. I am not convinced Cain is guilty, and I? realize companies payout settlements to avoid costs, public coverage, and embarrassment. The investigation proved the accusation “baseless” on the one woman, and it would seem the other is “waiting” for the best offer to go public….all laughable. I will say this for sure…..I will vote for ANY candidate BEFORE Obama again!!! Cain would be a good choice due his business experience, and he is a refreshing “CHANGE” for the “good old boy’s” club!! (Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun!!)

    • doncooper
      November 6, 2011 at 4:09 pm

      Herman Cain is not a “non-politician”. He was head of the Kansas City Federal Reserve. Doesn’t get much more political than that. Plus he’s a very successful businessman. Businessmen don’t invest their time and money w/o expecting a return on their investment. Government should not be an investment in anything but protecting our rights.

      Cain is nothing more than the GOP negro to go up against the DEM negro. That’s it. Nothing of any substance, nothing of any value, and his economics are nothing but more of the same.

      • November 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm

        Agree completely – and, further: It’s a way for ethno-masochistic GOP whites to (sigh, so tired of this crap) show how much they luuuuuuuuuuuv “diversity” and aren’t “racist” ….

        • doncooper
          November 7, 2011 at 8:22 pm

          Correct! And of course picking a candidate based on the color of his skin to prove you are not racist, is a racist decision, which makes you racist.

          Like shooting fish in a barrel.

  4. doncooper
    November 4, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    A common comment I get when I talk about anarchy is: if you want to live in an anarchist society, why don’t you go live in Somalia. Look how well anarchy worked there.

    What a dumb analogy. If Somalian society is a gang society, if in the absense of a gov, everyone is of the mentality that they can use guns to steal and kill people then what is creating a gov out of these people going to solve? You’ll have a gov full of these same people so you’ve just made the problem 10x worse because you’ve centralized it, empowered it and legitamized it. Bravo.

    That’s why the whole concept of a gov is illogical. If you have a society that has a moral majority, then the moral majority will control society and weed out the immoral minority as they make themselves known. No need for gov. If you have an immoral majority then the gov will be immoral. Don’t dare have a gov.

    • November 4, 2011 at 6:26 pm

      True – but (again) the problem is human nature. It takes a combination of native intelligence, a philosophical bent, the ability to think conceptually – and a developed sense of empathy – to arrive at a state we might call “Needs no Government.” How many people living today might be so described? Perhaps 10 percent of the population of the US. Maybe 20 percent. Maybe. Not more. What of the teeming masses of not-so-enlightened?

      And even then, “Needs no Government” would only be true as regards outright criminality – theft, intimidation, actual physical assault. What about (as examples) protection of intellectual property? Civil disputes? Contract enforcement? In real life, some kind of objective standards have to be in place – and objectively mediated to the extent such is possible – or society is chaotic. And a chaotic society can never be a free society, let alone a peaceful one.

      The key is defining the essentials: That the sole legitimate purpose of government is restraint (punishment) of moral wrong – which amounts to, non-defensive violence. Beyond this, government may not transgress. Codify it, but far more important, teach the concept, especially to the young. The more morally enlightened a society becomes, the less the need for any government beyond simple mediation. I hope that day comes, but in the meanwhile, I have no issue with restraining evil, laws to that effect – and enforcement of same. I see no moral issue with tariffs and excises – and voluntary support, where necessary – for such things.

      • Fritz
        November 4, 2011 at 7:09 pm

        American Arbitration Association in regards to conflict resolution.

        Take car accidents. Insurance hashes out the details, and comes out with a judgment of fault. Why would this not happen in a free society? Some people don’t want to pay up? So everybody pays up now? No, they get thrown in prison(at best), where they’re untouchable by the actual victim of their perpetration.

        • doncooper
          November 4, 2011 at 7:20 pm

          Excellent example. SOME people MIGHT do something bad at some point in the future so EVERYONE must be penalized now. WTF?

          Of course the next question is always: but what if the guilty party as decided by the arbitrator refuses to pay up? Well there are a few options here. Of course most will immediately think of the violent option. Forcing the guilty party at gun point, and yes that is an option, but what about the fact that that person will not be able to do business with anyone from that point on. That person is now considered a social risk and unless someone is willing to take that risk, good luck. Compare it to a credit score but on a social level. Let’s say he was a truck driver. Who’s going to hire him now? Let’s say he’s a taxi driver, cheauffer, or anything involving driving. Who’s going to deal with him knowing he’s immoral, untrusworthy and a financial risk?

          Now one might say: oh sure there are people that will still deal with him. And that may be true, and if so then that reflects society’s moral compass and if that’s how society is then that’s how society is. Creating a gov of those people won’t change that.

          Again, it’s a circular argument. You can’t create a moral gov of the people to “restrain the evil people” when the people are evil. What am I missing here?

          • Edward King
            November 4, 2011 at 10:27 pm

            Nothing as far as I am concerned. Evil men exist. They will always exist. Government can not be constrained. It never has even when it was explicitly made so. A stateless society is not a utopia. Human existence can never be. I am ok with that. This is what it means to be free.

            Governments murder, pillage, and enslave. None of the things that governments have been instituted to help resolve or alleviate have ever happened, and yet, people continue to place their unwavering faith in them. I have no faith in human kind. Period. Very little good can come from giving any man power over another. History has proven this correct time and time and time again. But it seems we are simply incapable of learning from the past. And so the same mistakes will continue to be made over and over and over again.

            Many express fear of what a society without the leviathan state would be like. Who would protect society? The answer is quite simple. I would. This fear presents an amazing profit opportunity, and I am here to tell you that I would be willing to provide this service to all who wanted it. For a small monthly fee, I would simply protect persons and property without telling you how to live.

            The service I would provide would be cheap, because I don’t have to patrol for drug users, prostitutes, gamblers, speeders, or any of the other litany of current “crimes”. Our mandate would be simple: To protect the persons and property of our clients. That’s it. If we fail to do our job to your satisfaction, replace us.

            Without a huge state apparatus soaking up countless resources, men and women could create collections for older men and women to be protected if they did not have the money to do so. Our company would also try to protect our clients from foreign invaders as well. After all, our mandate is to protect the life and property of our clients. Pretty simple stuff.

            We would lack a monopoly on violence, which easily and effectively prevents abuse. If we get out of hand, simply find another defense provider. Also, our incentives are completely different from those of the state. We get more clients when there is less crime. Less crime is proof positive of our effectiveness. The state soaks up more money and resources every time it fails. Crime goes up, they hire more police. Education fails, they raise property taxes to hire more teachers or build better facilities. There is no incentive for the state to resolve conflict or solve a given problem.

            There can be no perfect solution when living among humans. But there is a better solution. I, and many others who think like me would be willing to offer these solutions and do so profitably.

  5. doncooper
    November 4, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    No such thing as a necessary evil. If it’s an evil then it’s an evil. There can’t be a “good evil”. Aren’t those two words antonyms?

    No such thing as a “peace officer” either, nor do we need them. The idea of “cops” protecting us is absurd. What will you do when you are in a life threatening situation? Ask the criminal to give you a second so you can call 911? The only plausable solution to personal security is take personal measures for your security: be armed and trained in the proper safety and use of the firearm. Car and home security systems. Neighborhood watches. Watch dog. Go out in groups in well lit places Etc… Pretty much common sense.

    As it is the gov tries to keep us unarmed so they can make the case that we need them.

    As for courts: what you really mean is conflict resolution. That can be handled through legal contracts, community associations, arbitration etc… The gov is nothing more than a small group of people taken from a larger group of people who tell the larger group of people what to do. And if you believe there are bad people in our society then there will be bad people in the gov. How does that solve the problem? It makes no sense. Why wouldn’t the larger group of people simply make their own local decisions about what they want to do?

    The one and only possible case I can think of for any sort of gov service on a national level is defense but even then I don’t believe it has to be a standing army. Reservists can drill once a month and two weeks over the summer and if we are ever actually attacked then they are prepared to “defend” the country. That’s it.

    There is NO perfect solution, so that’s not an option. So let’s work backwards. What do we know? We know more gov is not the answer. So what to try next? How about less gov?

    Of course there are bad people, but certainly you don’t believe that gov and laws and law enforcement keep us safe from them. So why must we be forced to pay for them? Bad people are as bad people do and again, the only efficient, moral, just and sustainable (imperfect) solution is for individuals and families and communities to take responsibility for their security.

    • November 4, 2011 at 6:16 pm

      I’m with Boothe (and George Washington) on this one. I don’t think it’s evil to have a mechanism for restraining evil – other than each of us “settling it” as we see fit, defining justice as we see fit. (It would in real life amount to “the advantage of the stronger,” as the ancient Greeks put it.)

      Boothe makes a persuasive case, too, that if government is limited to restraining evil (that is, first use of force) then its cost will be minimal and probably can be paid for via the duties and excise taxes he mentions.

      Broadly speaking, I believe anarchists (and some Libertarians) sometimes make the mistake of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good…. in this context, so long as people are imperfect (not everyone is moral, or – to be brutally honest – intellectually capable of understanding morality) then the sort of limited government discussed above is essential, if there is to be liberty – that is, if we are to have the freedom to do other things besides sleep with one eye open, our hand on our gun, trying to stay alive and protect what possessions we have.

      • Fritz
        November 4, 2011 at 7:06 pm

        Of course George Washington liked the government. He used it to monopolize the whiskey industry as emperor. Which would would have brought great wealth had he not died.

        • Slade
          November 6, 2011 at 3:18 pm

          Sounds like you’ve been drinking some of that whiskey, Fritz. Washington was the very opposite of “emperor” and he had no monopoly on distilled spirits.

      • doncooper
        November 4, 2011 at 7:09 pm

        Didn’t you say that if you’re doing 80 and a cop (government) tries to pull you over, you’ll try to get away and usually do?

        When you do that aren’t you “settling it” as you see fit? Aren’t you defining justice as you see fit at that moment? Telling the gov that you don’t agree with it? So why do you get to do that while at the same time arguing that others need to pay for a gov to tell them what to do when you don’t listen to them yourself? Because gov laws, regulations, enforcement, taxation and everything that you seem to feel “restrains” evil also restrains me! What right do you believe you have to do that?

        Also, if you feel you have the right to “settle it” as you see fit then you can’t deprive others from that same right and if their way of “settling it” is more violent then so be it. Otherwise, you’re doing nothing more than trying to play the role of gov and impose your sense of morality on others.

        I also think that the fear you seem to have of a society w/o government could be refered to in your vernacular as “psuedo-clover” couldn’t it? You’ve never lived in such a society so the only reason you fear it is because it’s unknown to you. You won’t even consider its merits because of that, even though it’s something you have absolutely no experience with.

        • dom
          November 4, 2011 at 7:25 pm

          Wrong!

          “Also, if you feel you have the right to “settle it” as you see fit then you can’t deprive others from that same right and if their way of “settling it” is more violent then so be it.”

          Outrunning a speeding ticket and beating the shit out someone are completely different.

          • doncooper
            November 4, 2011 at 7:35 pm

            Of course they are different dom, but if by his actions, Eric believes he has some right to “settle it” as he sees fit ( that is to say: however he decides at that moment ) then he can’t deny anyone else that same right. If he does then that means he believes he occupies some special role in society that the rest of us don’t. That’s called a government.

            And that’s my point: he’s arguing in favor of gov to “restrain evil” and not let people “settle it” as they see fit and at the same time arguing that he has the right to “settle it” on the street as he sees fit.

            • November 4, 2011 at 7:55 pm

              No… Don, you misunderstand: I would never take it upon myself to force you or anyone else to pay a tax. I would hope you’d agree that it makes sense to support a system of laws to deal with bad actors – whether via voluntary individual contributions or tariffs, as the Founders intended.

            • November 4, 2011 at 8:16 pm

              I don’t see the logic of this statement.

              I was talking about evading an administrative law – “speeding” – in an instance where I had caused no harm to anyone. That is not the same thing as evading a cop (or law) against murder, theft, etc.

          • Fritz
            November 4, 2011 at 8:02 pm

            Sales taxes and tariffs put a price on enterprise. That makes it no longer free.
            If it’s a voluntary contribution, why is it attached to anything? Moreover, what if the sellers and business owners refuse to collect said taxes?

            • November 4, 2011 at 8:12 pm

              Tariffs are a tool to deal with labor arbitrage with unfree societies – China, for example. It is oxymoronic to state that one can have free trade with an unfree society – and (absent tariffs) ruinous to the free enterprise of a free society.

            • November 4, 2011 at 8:14 pm

              On voluntary “fee for use” –

              An example that comes to mind would be fire/EMS response. If you wish to have such protection in the event you need it, you pay a subscription. If you do not wish the protection, then you simply decline the subscription – accepting that if there is a fire or you need EMS, it will be up to you to deal with it.

          • Fritz
            November 4, 2011 at 8:18 pm

            Ok, we don’t agree on economics. The Austrian school debunks trade disparity with other nations. But still, what happens if nobody collects? Throw them in prison? Or employ 24/7 stasi grid tax collection?

            Voluntary use fee is our argument! We agree there, I think? Only that it need not be government run, perhaps? I’m unsure.

            • November 4, 2011 at 8:41 pm

              Trade with other nations – between free nations – is desirable; some people/areas are naturally better able (or more efficiently able) to make “x” than we – and the reverse – and so on. Quid pro quo – win, win.

              But it is not cool – let alone moral – to permit an authoritarian (or worse) regime to export the products of slave labor to a free society, for the benefit of themselves or amoral businessmen exploiting the slave labor. (As is what has happened over the past 20 years, after the government granted “Most Favored Nation” status to authoritarian states such as China.)

              Hence, tariffs – which discourage slave trading by increasing the cost of the slave labor-produced item to an amount equivalent (or more) to what it would have cost to produce in a free society, thereby eliminating the economic incentive to exploit slave labor.

              Consider: If I snatch a group of women, lock them in my basement and force them to weave sweaters for me, then sell the sweaters for a third less than the sweaters sold by my competitors – who use voluntary workers whom they must pay the going rate/competitive wage (else the workers will leave and work for the competition)…. this is not “free trade.” It is human exploitation of the worst sort – and it’s right to impose tariffs (as a start) on those who practice it.

          • BrentP
            November 4, 2011 at 10:37 pm

            Under poor working conditions quality suffers. Productivity suffers. Henry Ford established higher pay and an 8 hour day not out of the goodness of his heart but his attempt to maximize productivity.

            China’s big advantage comes from the monetary system. Eliminate that and China won’t be so attractive. If the dollar were stable and strong americans would not have their income undermined.

            Americans expect Y to cost X. To maintain that, production goes to China under the current monetary system in the face of the fed’s money creation.

        • November 4, 2011 at 8:22 pm

          “I also think that the fear you seem to have of a society w/o government could be refered to in your vernacular as “psuedo-clover” couldn’t it? You’ve never lived in such a society so the only reason you fear it is because it’s unknown to you. You won’t even consider its merits because of that, even though it’s something you have absolutely no experience with”

          The problem is there’s no example of an anarchic society in history (that I am aware of) that was even peaceful – let alone free. It is unknown to anyone – and thus a utopian ideal – and in my opinion, one based on a faulty reckoning of human nature (and human capacities).

          I doubt we’re going to agree on this one, but let’s keep in mind that (I think) we’re in agreement on most things – and on the same team

          I doubt either of us would be unhappy in a constitutionally limited republic, such as we once had – or regard it as overbearing or unjust.

          • Boothe
            November 4, 2011 at 11:39 pm

            Wow, this is a fantastic thread Eric. Don and Fritz are very stimulating to say the least. Thanks guys! Eric, I have to agree with your assessment of pure anarchy. I am a more or less a Panarchist: I believe we should all be able to choose the form of government we want individually or at least have enough different state governments so you can move to an area that is more in keeping with your personal ideology.

            Even though the concept of security and arbitration through private insurance companies appeals to me, that still doesn’t resolve the nasty little issue of nerve gas, hydrogen bombs and God knows what they haven’t told us about. So we’re going to continue to need a navy and air force for the foreseeable future even if we return to a citizens’ militia (which I heavily favor).

            Don, it’s not that I have reason to believe that the vast majority of people are psycho, evil or stupid; they’re not. Many (most?) are just misinformed, in no small part due to a “free” (you get what you pay for) public education and controlled venues of propaganda masquerading as news outlets.

            But all it takes to overthrow a country (or take it over from the inside) is a tireless minority working with a single minded purpose. These people also have the advantage of no conscience, over those of us that could live together responsibly in harmony. So we’re dealing with people that value power more than peaceful coexistence or even human life. We can’t base our outlook on them by what’s in our own heart.

            Don, you’ve brought up the issue of logic more than once. Logic is great for understanding things that work on a yes/no digital basis. Unfortunately, humans are emotional and consequently unpredictable and irrational. This is the very reason that centralized controls always fail. You are quite right; we do have tyranny in this country and it is approaching police state status. But in order to dismantle this, we will have to start at the state and local levels and work on cutting off Leviathan’s food supply through the existing system.

            You, Fritz and I aren’t going to be able to dismantle the existing system no matter how bad we want to or how hard we try. The vast majority (the sea of people) don’t want us to and the very wealthy and powerful (altered by wearing the ring of power figuratively) will not let us. We have to approach this by educating the masses in Liberty as Dr. Paul does. We are in fact doing that right now. Only then will we see meaningful and positive change.

      • methylamine
        November 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm

        Eric I agree, don’t let the perfect (anarchism) be the enemy of the good (minarchism).

        I argue these points only with other libertarians, but try not to let these arguments bleed into public brawls; that’s what kills libertarianism so often.

        That said: I think most peoples’ conception of anarchism as “sleeping with one eye open and a hand on your gun” is totally overblown.

        If we replace all the government “services” responsible for protecting our freedom and enforcing contracts–i.e. courts and cops–with private entities, i.e. arbitration and private security–it would be no different than today’s world…except for the not sucking part, that is.

  6. doncooper
    November 4, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    I disagree on the sales tax. Having to pay a tax to eat or clothe oneself or shelter oneself is nothing more than getting the gov’s permission to do those things, thereby making those things a privilege which they are not.

    If someone is selling food, or clothing or shelter and we agree on a price for those things, then he has every right to do with his private property as he wishes and trade with me and I have every right to do with my money what I want and trade with him. If our trade is precluded due to a gov sales tax than that is a clear violation of our rights to do with our private property what we wish.

    Any and ALL taxation is theft. If what the gov does is really so valuable then why don’t they compete on the market and try and sell their goods and services like everyone else? What are they so afraid of that they must forcibly take other people’s money?

    Why pay a fuel sales tax? Which roads are my tax dollar going to pay for? What if I don’t use those roads? Why am I being forced to pay for them? Why not make all roads toll roads and charge a market price for usage? How simple is that?

    Roads are a great example of the “tragedy of the commons”. If the roads were privatized and charged a market price to use they would be in much better shape, traffic would flow more efficiently since the owners would want to maximize profits.

    Also, with taxation, the gov has absolutely NO incentive to use that money efficiently. Like with any mugger, money that costs you nothing to obtain, has very little value to you. Just ask my ex-wife. She spends my money like it grows on trees, and for the gov, it does!

    • mithrandir
      November 4, 2011 at 3:22 pm

      Tolls are not an efficient way to pay for roads. A tax on motor fuels is a more efficient manner to pay for roads with less overhead.

      I consider the tax (that I pay) on motor fuels to be used for paying the roads that I use.

      I think that the people need to pay for the running of their government. So I do not consider ALL taxes to be theft. A sales tax is preferable (to me) to an income tax for paying the running of government. People need to decide what they want their government to do then how to pay for their government. I prefer a smaller government that can be operated with less resources/money.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Free market for roads does not make sense for me. If I want to go from Philadelphia to New York City, I can not build a road to compete with other people (road builders).

      Geographically, there are few (or one) direct road between places. Once the road is built, it is difficult (and often impractical) to build another road to serve the same purpose.
      The path of a road is chosen and then it is built.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      If the scope of government was limited to its original duties, I think it would be possible to operate the government on less money/resources than the current level of funding.

      (sales tax, duties, tariffs, user fees, transaction fees on stock trading, etc. with out the need for income taxes)

      Regarding incentive to be more frugal with their funds, I agree that government has little incentive to spend the public’s money efficiently.

      • doncooper
        November 4, 2011 at 4:54 pm

        A tax on motor fuels also taxes those that use motor fuels for things other than driving cars on roads, like farm equipment and power generators to name a couple. Again, the ONLY way to ensure that money taken from someone is used in a way that benefits that someone is for that someone to pay for what they use. That’s why markets are such great allocators of resources and ANY gov is not.

        The fact that you “consider” it ok, does not speak for everyone nor do you have a right to give your consent to take other people’s money. That type of mindset is exactly the gov’s mindset and they abuse it. Once you give them that kind of authority they will always abuse, that’s why the only way to keep them from abusing it is to not give it to them at all. That’s why I don’t give my child a slice of cake and not the whole cake: because w/o adult supervision he will eat the whole cake.

      • doncooper
        November 4, 2011 at 5:00 pm

        I meant to include this link. A friend of mine, Walter Block, has written extensively on the privatization of roads. Give it a look when you have time.

        http://mises.org/daily/3416

        I also HIGHLY reccommend his book: Defending the Undefendable. It’s in PDF format somewhere on the Internet if you can find it. Absolutely great read.

        http://mises.org/store/Defending-the-Undefendable-P136.aspx

        • mithrandir
          November 4, 2011 at 5:31 pm

          Thanks for the book title. I’ll take a look when I have a moment.

          It should be an interesting read.

          • doncooper
            November 4, 2011 at 7:29 pm

            It may change your mind about a lot of things that right now, before you read it, you know for sure, without a doubt. But after reading it you’ll be like: holy shit, slander and liable laws are immoral and unjust. Great read.

      • methylamine
        November 6, 2011 at 8:30 pm

        mithrandir, I respectfully disagree and recommend to you an excellent book by one of the shining stars in the anarcho-capitalist side of libertarianism, Walter Block:
        click here for an Amazon link to Block’s book.

        Let’s all start with common ground before we start arguing amongst ourselves. Libertarians do themselves a terrible disservice by debating anarcho, vs. minarcho, vs. syndicalism, vs. etc etc endlessly.

        I think all types of libertarian can agree that individual liberty is the goal–how we achieve it we can argue finely AFTER we’ve fought off the current tyranny!

        • November 6, 2011 at 8:36 pm

          “Libertarians do themselves a terrible disservice by debating anarcho, vs. minarcho, vs. syndicalism, vs. etc etc endlessly.

          I think all types of libertarian can agree that individual liberty is the goal–how we achieve it we can argue finely AFTER we’ve fought off the current tyranny!”

          Amen to that!

          When I was discussing this with Don the other day, I mentioned that I think he and I (and the rest of us here) would be ecstatic to live in a constitutional republic, along the lines of what existed circa 1787-1861. Perfect? Hell no! But orders of magnitude superior to what we have to live with now.

          Heck, I’d be very happy with America circa 1960 – which if we could travel back in time would seem like a Libertarian-anarcho paradise in comparison with today!

      • JC Allen
        November 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm

        For USA Guv 2.0…an amendment or two…

        “An annual flat tax of $500 per citizen shall be paid to the federal government the day before election day, not at the furthest date from it.”

        “Each citizen will allocate their entire tax amount to the department and agency they want to fund. That will be the department’s annual budget, no more, no less. Any non-allocated funds will be placed in escrow and used to reduce the following year’s flat tax for all citizens.”

        Got any more?

        • methylamine
          November 7, 2011 at 8:06 pm

          Beautiful.

          And curse that rat-bastard turncoat gold-hating Milton Friedman for inventing income tax withholding!

        • doncooper
          November 7, 2011 at 8:15 pm

          Yea, gov relinquishes its monopoly on all it does, and competes in the market with others and we’ll see how much value they offer. If they go out of business, then they should and their resources should be allocated to productive endeavors.

          Again, it’s like we’re discussing how to “tweak” gov to make it “better”. It doesn’t exist! Gov is an armed gang of theives that provides no value whatsoever to anyone except itself and those in bed with it.

    • Boothe
      November 4, 2011 at 3:27 pm

      Here are some of my observations Don. Although a blanket sales tax on everything sold at retail would be more difficult to avoid than the income (or more accurately the wage withholding taxes), it does at least fall evenly on everyone. So that would make it a more fair and equitable form of government theft (the lesser of two evils yet remaining evil I grant you). This is why we should be relying on the Constitutional remedy of imposts, execises, duties and tariffs. Which would work if the federal government were chained down within the limits originally envisioned by Madison and Jefferson, et al.

      First and foremost, three quarters of this list (excluding excises) would fall almost exclusively on foreign interests, thereby imposing the cost of our common defense and essential functions of government on others. This would free up domestic capital for internal market use. Small businesses would thrive, price and quality competition would be fierce and you and I (the Joe Average consumer) would benefit in myriad ways. The federal government being restricted to only its essential and lawful functions would no longer be a source of so much misery worldwide. So why don’t we do this? After all its logical, humane, efficient and fair.

      We have been too busy living our lives, not wanting to be bothered with politics and more concerned with our leisure time activities than our long term well being as a nation. This lack of concern has turned into a form of pessimism for most Amerikans; “There’s nothing I can do about.” (shrug) So while we (and our predecessors) were busy mending fences, digging coal, pouring concrete, fishing, going to the ball game and playing PacMan the wealthy elitists stole the country out from under us. Just as Jude 1:4 describes what happened in the church, evil men “crept in unawares” and subverted the truth, so too has this same ilk infiltrated and disemboweled our Constitutional Republic. We are now ruled by evil psychopaths and they are not interested in changing any of this. It would not benefit them in any way to do so.

      Your last paragraph describes the extent to which this has spread; from the Courthouse to the White House! Your ex-wife (and mine) prove that the state no longer recognizes our rights and redistibutes our wealth, to someone who hates us, through the “family court” system. Since it’s not her money, she really does think it “grows on trees”. And she doesn’t even have to exert the effort of picking from your orchard, the state makes you do it for her! But take solace in the “fact” that they are doing it “for the children”.

      Fortunately, in the long run, this corrupt and decaying system is doomed to failure. Unfortunately we can’t predict with any certainty what will arise from its rubble and ashes. So now is the time to awaken as many people as you can to the truth, establish a toe-hold at the local and state levels and be ready to step up and lead when the opportunity presents itself.

      • Gil
        November 4, 2011 at 5:01 pm

        Saying you can avoid sales taxes by not buying stuff is little different from saying you can avoid the income tax by quitting your job for a spell and take a holiday.

    • November 4, 2011 at 4:32 pm

      You’re right in principle; I can’t argue the point. But the other side of the coin is: How do we fund the things that are probably “necessary evils” – such as courts, peace officers and national defense?

      The dilemma is this (as I see it; looking forward to your thoughts): While some of us – like the people here (excepting Clover) – could live in peaceful cooperation, working things out on a voluntary basis, etc. – the reality is that “out there” in the world, there are people (lots of them) who do not share our moral/ethical views, everyone from outright criminals to the Clover types who think it’s ok to maul our rights provided it is voted on first and so on. How do we restrain such people or deal with them after they commit some form of aggression? I don’t see it as viable that we can handle this as individuals, without some sort of objective, dare I say institutional method for doing so… how does an older, physically frail person prevent a younger thug from just taking his stuff? How do neighbors come to an understanding over, say, a dispute about property lines?

      Ideally, I think if we actually could restore a constitutionally limited form of government, most people (me at least) would willingly pay for the maintenance of courts/legal system and national defense. If government were strictly limited to these arguably legitimate and necessary things, the tax burden would be negligible, a fraction of what most of us currently pay – probably no more than 5 percent of what we currently pay. And it would not be taken from income or from property taxes, as now, but via taxes that are not compulsory, as mentioned before. Not on food and essentials, but on other things – to be defined. Or maybe on tariffs. I dunno.

      Maybe I’m not getting it; maybe I am off the reservation… but until someone can articulate a better way, I am with the “reluctant founders,” like Jefferson, who believed that a constitutionally limited government was necessary to secure liberty.

      The anarchist position is interesting, but unless we figure out a way to change the minds (and hearts) of the millions who who are neither Libertarians nor anarchists – quite the opposite, in fact – I see no other way…

      • Gil
        November 4, 2011 at 5:07 pm

        Why are any things the domain of the government? What if aa poor little lady needs life-saving treatment but can’t afford it? Libertarians would no problems saying “you have to rely on charity but don’t you dare use the government to steal my money to pay for your operation”. Hence why can’t people worry about their own personal defence? Let them pay their own way and either mete out their own justice or hire people to do it for them? Why should they have the right to socialise their crime problems onto you?

        • doncooper
          November 4, 2011 at 6:43 pm

          Healthcare, like the environment, has been politicized when in fact it’s no different than any other economic good and in fact, not even the most important economic good. A person can go for years and never need health care, but they can’t go two weeks without food, water, clothing and shelter. Should the gov provide everyone with those things then? Should those that pay for their own food be forced to pay for food for others because without them you will definitely be in need of health care. Again, just a ridiculous argument.

          Using that kind of perverted reasoning, the gov could make the case that in order to bring health care costs down they are socializing ALL food, housing, clothing and shelter. They could call it “preventitive” measures in the war on health care costs.

          So yes, everyone is responsible for their own food, clothing, shelter, water, health care, transportation, recreation etc… I learned that as a child, I don’t get what’s not to get. To force anyone to pay for any of those things for anyone else is theft.

          Again I ask: is it ok for the mugger to steal your money as long as he promises to use it for food or clothing or shelter or water? Because ANY gov program is nothing more than your money being taken from you and a “promise” that it will be used for your benefit.

          How can anyone know what benefits me better than me? Again, maybe I’m off the reservation and off the planet but who can possibly even attempt to make sense of that?

      • Boothe
        November 4, 2011 at 5:45 pm

        Eric I think doncooper misses the fact that there are a certain percentage of psychopaths amongst us. They will always try to take advantage of whatever system is place, since they have no conscience or internal moral compass. True anarchy would be like Disney World to them. When the 6 percent that are truly pernicious enlist the assistance of the 27 that will go along with them for a slice of the pie, we will have tyranny followed by democide, slavery and privation. A quick study of history proves this time after time.

        As much as I like the theoretical concept of no government, every man for himself is as bad as or worse than pure democracy. George Washington was right when he pointed out that government like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. I still have to side with you; some form of rudimentary government is necessary as a back fire to keep the whole social forest from burning. This is why I keep the water hose handy and limit the size of any brush pile I plan on lighting. It’s a whole lot easier to keep both government and fire at a manageable size to begin with, than it is to try to get either one under control as it takes your yard, your house and ultimately your life.

        What’s really bad is we’ve let our fire spread to the neighbors’ yards and they’re pissed. So you can bet that if somehow we ended up with no government in Amerika, those of us that were left alive as servants after the invasion had better learn to speak Chinese, Russian or Arabic.

        The gist of it is that we need to take back our local and state governments first, and then stop the fuel flow to the federal fire. County and city government (places like NY and Chicago excluded) are like camp fires, state governments relate to bonfires and the federal government is a wildfire burning up a third of the world! Which of these can any thinking person really believe we have a chance of getting under control first?

        • doncooper
          November 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm

          “we will have tyranny”

          What do you think we have now with gov? What did this gov go to war against Britain for? A quick study of history proves this as well.

          You assume either an immoral majority or the ability of the immoral minority to “turn” the moral majority which means they are not in fact moral. In either case, if you form a gov of these people then you’ll have an immoral gov that now will have the power, the authority, the money and other resources to abuse, exploit and enslave you, which is EXACTLY where we are today.

          You fail to see that a gov is just a collection of people that reflects society. They poses no magical powers. No divine economic skills or knowledge. They have no money of their own. Everything a gov has comes from the private sector, so why not leave it in the private sector to begin with and allow those resources to be used by the owners for productive purposes?

          Not to mention: I’m a grown man. I don’t need to be “governed” by anyone. If the gov disappeared tomorrow, I’d still get up in the morning, go to work and respect everyone’s rights the same way I do today. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t most? Of course they would.

          Also, when someone doesn’t advocate gov provided healthcare, that doesn’t mean they don’t advocate healthcare. Again, that’s public school talking. It’s not “every man for himself”. It’s “every man taking responsibility for himself while respecting the rights of others”. Something I used to think represented America but which now I find has been supplanted with a new generation of socialists – many from my generation – who believe that the gov should provide for us from craddle to grave.

          I don’t believe that the entire argument about gov is about security. That’s public school talking yet again. The boogeyman is around every corner so we need the gov to protect us.

          The gov can’t and never has protected you. Did they prevent 9/11? With the FBI, NSA, CIA and other “intelligence” agencies with budgets in excess of $200 billion? Nope. Is there always going to be a cop on the spot when you need one? Nope. Do the cops even succeed in solving the crime afterwards if you survive? Nope. Do laws deter people from committing crimes? Nope – the U.S. has more people incarcerated than any other western country.

          The whole concept is illogical, perverted, abusive, criminal and tyranical.

        • November 4, 2011 at 6:33 pm

          He’s an idealist – and I sympathize with his point of view… and believe it would work, perhaps, if we had a society composed of people like Don and you and me and Brent – etc. But as you note, we also have psychopaths out there – and plenty of outright dumb people ready to do their bidding, too.

          I try not to make the error of demanding utopia – or nothing. A constitutionally limited republic would be a wonderful thing, flaws and all. It would take care of 95 percent of our problems and answer almost all our prayers. I’d happily accept the piddly 5 percent that’s not perfect; it would be a small price to pay. Moreover, it makes our arguments less pie-in-the-sky, more realistic – which I think serves our cause very well indeed.

          • doncooper
            November 4, 2011 at 6:55 pm

            It’s not ideal or utopia at all. I’ve said that I realize there is no perfect solution. So what is the best solution? Best in terms of justice, efficiency ( why would we want to waste scarce resources? ) and morality?

            Again, if you believe that there are plenty of psychopaths and dumb people in society then you will have a gov with plenty of psychopaths and dumb people and given that any rule of law is just a piece of paper then those psychopaths and dummies will be abusive, tyranical, and oppressive as they are now. Tear it down and it will just become abusive, tyranical and oppressive all over again. How many times must we bang our heads against the wall before we realize that shit hurts?

            “A constitutionally limited republic would be a wonderful thing”. Would it? Look around you. Aren’t you the one complaining about how abusive the current constitutional republic is?

            A lot of people are like that. They say: the idea is not the problem, it’s the implementation so let’s just try yet another way of doing it. Until of course you wind up right back at the same place again.

            Why? Because ALL gov taxation is theft, ALL gov’s are abusive, corrupt, inefficient, fraudulent, wasteful and wrong.

            I know the truth is scary. People complain about the gov and then are afraid of living w/o it. I don’t get it.

            • November 4, 2011 at 8:07 pm

              Not necessarily. Or would you say the early American government could fairly be characterized as “a gov with plenty of psychopaths and dumb people”?

              I would not say it – or the men running it – was perfect or even close. But it was orders of magnitude superior to any other government – or society – that ever existed, that I am aware of. Agree or not?

              It worked pretty well, too, until 1861. It took a generation for the old ideas to whither and for a new crop of unscrupulous thugs (Lincoln, et al) to kick the edifice over.

              I fear that’s the best we can hope for – a mostly free society, for as long as the ideas that animate it have general currency and are generally accepted.

          • Fritz
            November 4, 2011 at 7:02 pm

            Any flaws that exist in (other) people, will be amplified by giving them absolute monopoly power over everything.

            Moreover, we had a constitutional republic. It DIDN’T work, specifically because it was unsustainable. The government was given ever power it needed to expand.

            • November 4, 2011 at 8:02 pm

              “Moreover, we had a constitutional republic. It DIDN’T work, specifically because it was unsustainable. The government was given ever power it needed to expand.”

              All true – no argument here.

              But again, the perfect can be the enemy of the good. Our once very free country (though of course not 100 percent free) became gradually less free as time passed, as opportunistic politicians (using short-sighted/amoral/stupid people as their cudgel) chipped away at it. The problem is that we will likely always be plagued by opportunistic politicians using short-sighted/amoral/stupid people as their cudgel. Right?

              So, the choice seems to me to be: Either we acknowledge the unfortunate truths about human nature, generally speaking – and accept a minimalist government, for however long it can be maintained – or we accept the certainty of tyranny that will result from anarchy, in which (see point above in re human nature) everything will devolve to rule by the stronger – individual or mob led by some individuals – with no brake on either other than appeals to moral sense and goodwill.

          • Fritz
            November 4, 2011 at 8:11 pm

            Well, gradually as in, starting with the very first president. It never worked. See? That’s the circular argument, though. You admit that a minimal government becomes a tyranny. So, isn’t it the utopian vision that it remains limited?

            We don’t agree that tyranny would rise from anarchy. Commerce wouldn’t stop, and people would be willing to pay for private defense. They do now. And they would be free to voluntarily defend themselves, not possible now due to a myriad of laws.

            But even still, the psychopaths pursue power, they always have. Power that would not exist without the state. Child molesters go to the CPS, TSA and schools, murderers join the army and blackwater, etc, etc. If those things were private, more discretion would be involved in their hire and they would be accountable to customers.

            And of course, a state is a monopoly on justice. What happens when they won’t protect against the gangs? And they don’t. What happens when the gangster seek and hold power? Which they do. In this regard, removal of the state at least gives you a fighting chance.

            Look at the old west, the towns came together in their own best interest. All the army did was kill people and seize property.

          • methylamine
            November 7, 2011 at 7:32 pm

            I agree with doncooper–and mix it with Boothe’s argument to use against Boothe’s argument.

            If you give a group of people monopoly power over the use of violence and coercion, they will abuse it. It NEVER fails, as history so amply demonstrates. We had a good run here; arguably it ended in 1861, almost certainly in 1913, and absolutely without question in 2001. But it’s done, and it was the best attempt yet…R.I.P. American Republic.

            Anarchism does not depend on everyone being an educated libertarian, Boothe. In fact it’s no different than today’s system, in that
            a) many if not most people behave like idiots
            b) 2-6% of people are sociopaths

            But under anarchism, the sociopaths do not have a government with a monopoly on violence to take over; the damage they can do is limited to what they can muster with their own means, or in a company/security agency. They’re confined once again to being individual criminals; there is no massive machinery for them to hijack and turn to tyranny and democide.

            But give them that machinery again, and Hey Presto–end up where we are today.

            The REAL problem is government, or more specifically the giving to a group of initially ordinary people a monopoly on violence and coercion. It will be a small matter of time before the sociopaths take over.

            By totally decentralizing power, how would it be Disney Land to them? That’s the very issue with government, THAT’S the sociopath Disney Land…all those foolish sheeple turning a blind eye to the malfeasance of government, to the complete contradiction of granting an entity rights which you as an individual do not have–the right to rob, kidnap, lie, cheat, and murder.

            Under anarchism, Boobus Americanus will sharpen up considerably; it will become expensive to behave stupidly. Many will continue to behave stupidly; how is it worse under anarchy? And people like us will thrive. Sociopaths will do what they always do, try to accrue more power–futilely.

          • methylamine
            November 7, 2011 at 7:47 pm

            @Eric:

            Or would you say the early American government could fairly be characterized as “a gov with plenty of psychopaths and dumb people”?

            Precisely! But look what those very same men DID once they had the reigns of power:
            * Washington used force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, which was provoked by Hamilton’s policies

            * Thomas Jefferson–a libertarian hero–used the loathsome Alien and Sedition Acts against his political opponents

            And so forth. Power truly corrupts, even the highest-minded…and just wait ’till the sociopaths get the reins!

            So Eric and other minarchists–if we were put in power, would we behave as Washington, Jefferson, et al and forget our principles? Likely.

            The solution?

            Remove power, period.

  7. honestann
    November 4, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Any of the following would finish off the USSA for good:
    Obama
    Romney
    Bachman
    Santorum
    Gengrich
    Cain

    Cain in particular is very scary! It is bad enough that the federal reserve funds and largely controls the federal government of the USSA. As a former federal reserve goon, he would essentially give the federal reserve absolute, complete and total control over the federal government of the USSA.

    The only hope for the individuals in the USSA today is a peaceful revolution by electing RonPaul, or a shooting war revolution against the predators-that-be and predator-class.

  8. BrentP
    November 3, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    I like to make a difference between the “wealthy” and the “rich”. For instance, Oprah Winfrey is rich, David Rockefeller is wealthy. The guy in the next neighborhood over with the bigger house and the nicer cars is rich, George Soros is wealthy. What’s the difference? Political access. The wealthy are the ruling class and by and large they don’t pay taxes. Why? They have foundations and trusts and other set ups that cost more than we make in a decade to establish that prevent them from having tax liabilities. The rich, well they are mostly like us, but with more money.

    Most of the boobus can’t figure out the difference between these two. So they accept this BS argument that those who make more money benefit more from the “society” which they wrongly equate with “government”. That is they figure the rich got the way they are because they have friends in the right places. And some do, there are no absolutes, especially in a politically oriented society. And that’s what boobus sees in his daily life. He doesn’t understand people like the Rockefellers and how they operate. He does see how the connected contractor that lives five blocks away gets all the city paving contracts from his childhood friend the mayor.

    So Boobus is all for taxing the rich. Because the rich had an unfair advantage… (he never thinks to remove the system of unfair advantage he just tries to turn it to his own advantage, per Bastiat)

    The wealthy like the income tax. It keeps other people from becoming wealthy. So they get the poor to attack the rich and they rule over everything.

    It’s all so simple and manipulative. And it’s not going to change any time soon because this is now a society of plunder, not production.

  9. doncooper
    November 3, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    I had a former cop tell me just yesterday that at one point he had applied to the L.A.P.D. and I asked him why. He said because he wanted to work south-central L.A. and really challenge himself. In other words: his desire to be a cop had NOTHING to do with protecting, serving, helping anything. Nothing noble at all. It was all about him. Luckily he got rejected b/c he would have been a dangerous person to give a deadly weapon to. If there hadn’t been a “challenge” for him, then no doubt he would have created a challenge for himself to the detriment of someone else.

    I think it takes a certain warped psyche to even be a cop. You walk around all day with deadly weapons – why? – and I don’t care if you are Officer fucking Friendly, if you write traffic citations you are conscientiously choosing to steal other peoples money for driving down the street – leaglized highway robbery – which means you are a crook. If you walk around with deadly weapons, that means you are willing to use them. And who gets to decide if you use them? You? Your partner? And if you make a mistake and kill somebody? Oops?

    I think only the smallest of people, lowliest of egos and most warped people in our society even consider being a cop.

    • November 3, 2011 at 4:41 pm

      I tend to agree – especially nowadays, because the system is so warped and there are so many victimless “crimes” on the books… Just today, as an example, I passed three cops running radar (one on a bike) in a distance of less than three miles on the highway spur near us – a notorious speed trap with a ridiculous limit of 55 MPH …. as if there weren’t, you know, criminals to be dealt with.

      • Boothe
        November 3, 2011 at 5:15 pm

        C’mon Eric. We both know it’s easier and safer to write tickets, taser the elderly and disarm law-abiding shopkeepers and homeowners, than it is to catch real criminals. After all, real criminals fight back and may even shoot at you! The last thing an overgrown schoolyard bully hyped up on doughnuts and other peoples dope wants is a bloody nose or extra ventilation.

        Besides which, taking real criminals into custody costs the system money. The county commissioner (or is that commisar?) “needs” that Crown Vic just like Dep. Billy Baddass needs that $1500 Leupold tactical scope. Yeah, our local cops actually slid one of those through past the town council. Makes you wonder how much the rifle itself cost. You’d probably have to write at least a dozen traffic tickets to cover that. Boyz and their toyz ya’know…

        So you can’t have the real criminals menacing Officer Doughnut and eating up county budget money. The nerve of you thinking our “public servants” should do their jobs! Next thing we’ll find out is that you actually expect the schools to teach kids critical thinking, how to read, write and calculate….

        • Don
          November 3, 2011 at 7:26 pm

          Coming home last night at midnight, there’s a cop parked in the middle of the road between the through lanes and the left turn lane. Lights off, black car, unlit highway. Just about as dangerous as it can get.

          I pass him and I notice he’s coming after me – I attract idiots. He turns his lights on, I continue for about a mile until I find a safe place to turn into and pull over.

          Having told the Rockingham, Va circuit court to kiss my ass when they convicted me of statutory reckless driving last summer, I figured my license must be suspended by now so this traffic stop was going to be a defining moment in my life, because I will not allow myself to be arrested – EVER – for doing nothing wrong. It’s nothing more than a criminal attempt to abduct me against my will and I will defend myself the same as I would against any stranger trying to abduct me against my will. Anything else would make no sense.

          Cop comes up, I roll down my window about an inch. First question: you been drinking? Response: silence
          Second qustion: you know you have a headlight out? Response: is that right?
          Third question: you got a license on you? Response: hand over license and wait.

          As I was waiting I was thinking if I had everything in my life in order in case I didn’t make it home in one piece and I do. I have my will, my money etc… and my ex-wife has all the instructions of what to do when this finally happens. So I’m waiting, taking a few deep breaths, keeping my cool and my wits about myself.

          Little Johnny-Law comes back and says: I wrote you a courtesy warning blah blah blah. Drive safe.

          Response: close window and leave. Live to fight another day.

          • Edward King
            November 3, 2011 at 7:43 pm

            You definitely have some balls. While I know that I will one day die by the hands of a tax feeder, I try to pick my battles. Unless I am asked to do something immoral, as opposed to following so administrative diktat, I do my best to come home alive.

          • November 3, 2011 at 7:45 pm

            I’m glad this turned out well.. it’s an object lesson, though: Never give them a reason to fuck with you, if you can possibly avoid it. Make sure your lights work, that your license plate is up to date and all the rest of it…

            Avoid, evade, game the system.

            Right now, it’s the best we can do.

            PS: On the “reckless driving” BS – I will always make a run for it if I have the bad luck to pass by a cop when I am running over 80. They put us in an impossible position: Pull over and get run over the coals over nothing more than a statutory “violation” – or risk going for it and probably getting away.

          • dom
            November 3, 2011 at 7:53 pm

            Dood, so you got pulled over with a suspended license and was able to just roll away? Reminds me of a time I was rolling on back roads in Northern Virginia farmland. I come upon a cop standing in the middle of the road (on foot) shooting his radar gun. I had to come to a complete stop because he would not move. I motioned with my arms WTF after I came to a stop. He then moved and I went on my way.

    • JC Allen
      November 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm

      Um…I’d call out to Mr. Armed Burglar, “You have three seconds to remove yourself from this property taking nothing with you but your life.”

      Then if necessary, I’d dial up Mr. Smith, Wesson, Glock, or Colt.

      Then I’d call 9-1-1 to clean up the mess because that’s all they can do…only the mess won’t be me or my family unlike an unarmed, unprepared clover.

      When seconds matter, cops are minutes away.

      • Slade
        November 6, 2011 at 3:26 pm

        Big talk is cheap. A professional criminal would have you on the floor and your wife would be calling for an
        ambulance instead of the police. Get real. Law enforcement officers are essential to our protection. That’s basic, even to low-IQ people.

        • JC Allen
          November 6, 2011 at 4:32 pm

          “Essential to our protection. That’s basic”

          Um, not quite…how many news reports are there about “heros/law enforcement stop crime in progress” vs. “armed individual repels aggression”?

          More often you read about law enforcement commiting or creating “crime” vs. studies showing Americans do use guns for self-defense as often as 2.5 million times a year.

          Big talk? Put your money where your mouth is…If your opinion is so “basic”…do a little test at your house & run an ad in your local paper…one week:

          “My house (address) has no firearms and will take no action against intruders other than to call the law between Nov. 7th and 13th”

          …then,

          “This house has firearms, knows how to use them, and will shoot any intruders between Nov. 14th and 20th”

          As you say “law enforcement” is so basic and essential, you have absolutely no problem doing this. Right? If so, which week will you and your wife sleep the soundest?

          It is precisely because the bulk of America still subscribes to week #2 that there are not as many home invasions. Though give you and the other Clovers another decade or two and the problem will be resolved.

          Under natural law, Professional Criminal & Law Enforcement, is redundant. Under Clover Law, natural laws of self-defense are outlawed in deference to the safety of the collective’s “heroes”.

          • dom
            November 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm

            I don’t think he’ll run the suggested ad! Nicely put

        • November 6, 2011 at 4:35 pm

          Really? Then how do you account for the literally thousands of successful defensive uses of firearms by private citizens in this country each year?

        • getch36
          March 5, 2012 at 1:24 am

          I must be a below low IQ person then……

    • November 6, 2011 at 4:38 pm

      Hey “sicko” – you’re outta here. This board is for reasoned debate, not infantile ad hominem attacks. Bye now.

  10. Ruth
    November 2, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Mitt Romney also would not sign the “National Right to Work Act”
    (H.R.2040/S.504) which would prohibit Compulsory Unionism and restrict “forced unionism” of job seekers.

  11. Andy
    November 2, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    As governor Mitt Romney gave the people of Massachusetts what they wanted. They wanted Health Care and all of the other programs that you criticize. Massachusetts is a liberal state and his programs were what the people wanted. After he left office the next governor changed parts of the Health Care program which ran the costs up. Romney has told us he is against Obama Care. Why do you keep bringing up his Health Care program. This is like beating a dead horse. As for the Christian Taliban, Bachman and Perry they are a joke. Cain’s 9-9-9 program is riduculous. The 9% Sales tax is the most regressive tax there is. It affects the poor, especially those people on Social Security pensions. And as far as a flat tax, the Super Rich are laughing and hope the people fall for it. Why shoud a person making a million dollars or more pay the same tax rate as a person making 40 or 50 thousand a year. The rich don’t create jobs. It is the small business man and entrepreneurs that create jobs. Mitt Romney is much better than all of those other yahoos.

    • November 2, 2011 at 9:23 pm

      You speak in the plural – as if you can package-deal every person and assume “they” were unanimous in their affirmation of being threatened with violence (under the mandate) if they did not pay money to a private insurance combine. The fact that Romney peddled this type of collectivism – not just in MA, by the way, but also nationally (he and his helpers advised Obama – this is pubic record) speaks volumes about his authoritarian bent and contempt for liberty and the Constitution. Now he wants to be president (Front Man), so it’s hardly beating a dead horse to bring the subject up. Right?

      I agree in re the rest of the GOP field – excepting Ron Paul, of course. The rest are, indeed a joke. Dangerous buffoons; but worst of all – statists.

      Just like Romney.

    • Ben Dover
      November 3, 2011 at 1:16 am

      A spirited defense of Romney from an Obama voter!

      It was banking deregulation via the repeal Glass-Steagall that caused the housing bubble and lead to our current depression. The bill was passed by a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic president. After the collapse, Obama and the Democrats had a supermajority and could have re-regulated the banks if they had wanted to, but they did nothing of substance. Both parties are owned by the bankers whose goal is to make every American into a debt slave.

      Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not owned by the bankers.

      • methylamine
        November 3, 2011 at 3:26 pm

        Ben–agreed, Ron Paul is the only candidate not owned by the banksters.

        And yes, Glass-Steagall would be good…but not the full answer.

        The banksters can still, with the flick of a pen, own the whole world–until you take away the power of fiat debt-money. Glass-Steagall may slow the decline, but ultimately it is debt-money that transfers the wealth of the world to the hands of the banksters.

        Real money, and COMPETITION in money. Let there be fifty currencies, and may the best one win; but never allow legal tender laws, and never, ever permit a central bank.

        It is, after all, one of the central tenets of the Marxist platform.

    • Edward King
      November 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm

      You’re kidding me right? How anyone can argue that a person should be penalized for making more money is the height of foolishness. I don’t believe in an income tax, let alone a graduated income tax. I also oppose all attempts to institute a flat tax. If taxation is to exist at all, it should be at the same price. Meaning all members of society pay the exact same price. This system seems to work just fine in the private sector where those who make more money aren’t asked for their income statement before making a purchase.

      In the private sector, whether rich or poor, people pay the same price for the same good or service. Does anyone believe that even if there was a flat tax of say 10%, that a person who makes $500k vs a person who makes $50k, isn’t paying more money in taxes. Does anyone believe that the person who makes $500k gets more benefits from the state for paying 10 times more in total tax dollars than the person making $50k. What happened to equality before the law? Equality is all well and good unless you happen to make more than some arbitrary amount. Then you become prey to the various statist who have contempt for the wealthy.

      What is it with statist and their love of government? Why people want to take money out of the hands of the productive and put it into the hands of the non-productive is beyond me.

      • November 3, 2011 at 7:02 pm

        Top drawer! I could not have done a better job summarizing the case myself.

        Like so many of today’s faux arguments over policy, the underlying premise is never stated. In the case of taxes, that premise is: Why should anyone be forcibly deprived of any of their rightful property, ever, so that it can given to some other person (or persons)? The rich don’t “owe” anyone anything beyond whatever contractual obligations they’ve agreed to (or to pay for any damages/harm they have caused). Same goes for everyone else, irrespective of your income. What you earn is not a means by which to determine what your “fair share” of being robbed is. (I especially despise that loathsome terminology, incidentally, as it tries to suggest the victim has received some asked-for product or service as opposed to simply being defrocked by force of his rightful property.)

        • Edward King
          November 3, 2011 at 7:27 pm

          Also, another thing that bothers me is that the poor contribute essentially nothing to the system as it is. The poor, on average, reap by far the most benefits from the current system than does anyone making six figures or more. Yet, even though the rich contribute far more to the system than do the poor, it is the rich who are demonized and always asked to contribute even more money, as if they were somehow a net drain to the state, and society as a whole.

          My goal here is not to marginalize the poor or laud the rich, but to simply point out that those whose incomes are seen as too great, by far pay more into the system than they get out. It is the poor by and large, who don’t pay their “fair share”.

          • Boothe
            November 3, 2011 at 9:03 pm

            The progressive income tax is a tool used by the elite to divide and conquer the rest of us. For example, you have two cows. Your neighbor has one cow. He calls the commissar and complains. Soldiers come, kill one of your cows and drag it away. You now hate your neighbor and won’t speak to him. The commissar eats steak for the next three months. Any questions?

          • Gil
            November 4, 2011 at 1:53 am

            The income tax “is really about control” is the stnadard Libertarian argument against anything government or non-Libertarians would do or thnking of doing. Hence Libertarians say “Environmentalism isn’t about the environment it’s about control. With that analogy it the same with government having control over law and order – it’s not about creating a peaceful society and administering justic but control, once government has control over creating laws and having the permission to enforce them then they’ll only make laws to enrich themselves. This is, of course, opposed to the Libertarian model where people only enforce genuine crimes against them by themselves on their own dime as well as hiring private agencies to help out. Because private individuals and businesses have limited funds they will seek the best methods for maximising justice per dollar spent therefore people won’t waste time and money on “victimless crime”.

            • November 4, 2011 at 9:53 am

              Clover, you really aren’t capable of making distinctions, are you? Laws enshrining the idea that using violence/dishonest means to obtain property (and punishing those who do so) vs. laws that force Jones to do what Smith wants him to (or take Smith’s property to give it to Jones).

              And you know what? I’ve noticed you’ve suddenly become more articulate – you even spell things correctly this time! Kind of like Nick…. Hmmmm.

          • Boothe
            November 4, 2011 at 3:57 am

            Gil, government IS about control; that’s what governing means, you silly clover. Worse than that, the power to tax is the power to destroy. That is why these United States originally ceded only a very limited set of powers to the federal government. The power to tax was limited to imposts, excises, duties and tariffs by the the Constitution.

            These taxes could easily be avoided by anyone that disagreed with them, or what they were being used to pay for, by free market choices. You simply did not buy imported or excised goods. Anyone could do this since there were no forms to fill out, no deductions, no forced record keeping, no penalties or tax lawyers. This style of taxation was in keeping with the concepts of individual liberty and equal protection under the law. This provided sufficient funds for limited government to carry out its legitimate functions, nothing more. The burden of taxation was born primarily by foreign businesses.

            The progressive income tax is antithetical to individual liberty and limited government. Karl Marx, as I’m sure you are already aware, was a strong proponent of a graduated income tax. The whole idea of the income tax is to punish the successful members of society and redirect their wealth to the rulers so they can distribute it “more fairly”. What ends up happening is the very wealthy set up foundations, trusts and other tax shelters to largely avoid it. The so called “poor” not only don’t pay in, but here in Amerika may even get back other people’s money in exchange for their vote.

            Here’s an example Gil. A couple of years ago I was standing in line in a store when the clerk told one of her coworkers she had received $8000 more back from her tax return than she’d paid. That happened to be about what I’d paid in federal taxes the previous year. When I expressed my displeasure to my wife she tried to justify it saying that this young woman was a minimum wage employee and this was just a way to help her and her family. I clarified my point by putting it in the perspective of this young woman holding a gun to our heads and making us withdraw the money from the bank and give to her. The fact that the government did it for her does not change the moral nature of the act.

            When I am being forced to hand over property I have earned with my own labor, under the threat of government force, I am being controlled. That is involuntary servitude Gil. Involuntary servitude is slavery Gil. It doesn’t matter if you are under the yoke for 3 months out of each year or all year long, you are still a slave when you have to hand over any portion of the fruits of your labor to someone that didn’t earn them.

            So I take your post to mean you see nothing wrong with slavery as long as it’s government sanctioned. According to you and your ilk Gil, government sanctioned slavery was what the American Civil War was fought to end. So here you are, almost 150 years after the war supposedly settled the involuntary servitude issue, telling me it’s okay to be under the yoke as long as the government holds the whip. There are some good courses on critical thinking available Gil. I suggest you take one.

          • Gil
            November 4, 2011 at 6:10 am

            By Libertarian definition one tax cannot be really different as it’s all theft, period. Why not avoid income tax avoiding excessive income? That’s what Warren Buffett then complains about having to pay less than his secretary. It’s the same basic argument. Such tariffs punish those who need to make money from international trade.

            • November 4, 2011 at 11:58 am

              Wrong – again!

              A sales tax is not personally intrusive, there is no legal requirement to pay it – and no criminal sanction for electing not to pay it. You simply choose not to purchase the item that is taxed. A good example that already exists being motor fuels taxes. If you wish to use the roads, you contribute to their building and upkeep via taxes you pay on the fuel to operate your vehicle that you use on those roads. But no one forces you to use the roads, or to own a vehicle, or to pay the tax. It’s a simple, effective and fair way to fund a legitimate “public good.” The rule of law – that is, peace officers and a system of courts to deal with crimes of violence and fraud, etc. – could be similarly funded. I suspect most people would happily contribute – that is, pay voluntarily – a nominal sum to have the foregoing, for their own selfish reasons.

              What you don’t notice, oh Clover, is that people resent the current taxes we have primarily because they are nothing more than asset transfers. Smith using the police power of the state to compel Jones at gunpoint to provide him with a material benefit.

      • Ean
        November 7, 2011 at 4:23 am

        Who is Eric?
        Whom is he supporting and why?
        Who’s behind Eric?

        • November 7, 2011 at 10:24 am

          My bio’s on the page.

          I agree with anyone who supports supports liberty.

          I guess my wife is behind me.

  12. Don
    November 2, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    I’m not voting for Romney because he looks like Mr. Fantastic from the fantastic four.

    • Boothe
      November 2, 2011 at 8:40 pm

      But Don, dontcha think that makes him look more “real”?

  13. Ben Dover
    November 2, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Mitt Romney is a RINO and is the true architect of Obamacare. He is bought and paid for by the financial industry. No way I would ever vote for him!

    • November 2, 2011 at 6:39 pm

      Yes – but I’d go further. Voting for any Republican (other than Ron Paul, who really isn’t one) won’t accomplish anything that voting for a Democrat wouldn’t also accomplish. If you want liberty – constitutional government – then the duopoly (Republicans/Democrats) has nothing for you. The GOP is the “wing” that emphasizes warfare over welfare – but both represent government and coercion and are the enemies of limited government and liberty.

      • richard
        November 2, 2011 at 8:41 pm

        I’m not sure most folks could handle a limited, constitutionally oriented government. Most of my rural friends where I live consider themselves patriots who always vote. ALL of them get a government check of some kind, usually for disability or SSI. For them the status quo is fine and dandy. I don’t talk politics over the back fence anymore. Probably healthier that way.

        • Boothe
          November 2, 2011 at 9:06 pm

          I was on a job in Columbia, Missouri a few years ago and talked to the hostess for the hotel restaurant one morning. Noticing her accent, I found out she was from the Ukraine. I asked her why she was over here working in a restaurant. She explained that she was sending money to her parents.

          They’d both held good jobs, retired and were drawing decent pensions before the Soviet Union collapsed. After the collapse their pensions amounted to about $25 a month. There was no way they could make it on that, so she came here because she couldn’t find a good enough job back home to support them. As inflation takes its toll and government continues to borrow us into oblivion, it’s only a matter of time before your (and my) rural friends are going find themselves in the same boat.

          Oh, they’ll still probably be getting a couple of grand a month, but it isn’t going to buy much. Just because the banksters and pols have managed to devalue the dollar 97% in under a hundred years doesn’t mean that they won’t devalue the remaining 3 cents by the same amount or more. When the economy reaches the SHTF point, civility won’t be far behind it. At that point, when someone shows up on your doorstep, and they’re not bringing you food, they are not your friend.

        • November 2, 2011 at 9:30 pm

          I hate to admit it, but I think you’re right… I saw the same thing at Tea Party rallies I attended two years ago. These people don’t get it; i.e., you can’t argue against any government transfer program – morally – if you support (or partake of) any government transfer program. Theft is theft – force is force. Period. You can’t have your cake (liberty, minimalist government) and eat it (expect it to be free, baked by someone else against their will and presented to you as a “gift’) too.

          What I have been wrasslin’ with for years is how to get away from the people who don’t get this – or don’t want to get it. For people like us (most of the people here, anyhow) who don’t want to live by force and violence but in mutually agreed voluntary cooperation, peacefully) to separate from those not like us, who do want to live by violence… it’s an ancient problem.

          Galt’s Gulch, anyone?

          • methylamine
            November 3, 2011 at 3:22 pm

            Google “American redoubt”–western Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, Montana, Wyoming.

            The Mercatus study creating a state-by-state freedom index–Freedom in the 50 States–ranks Idaho very highly.

            A number of like-minded people have moved there including the Rawlesians (SurvivalBlog) and Chuck Baldwin + clan–recall, he was the Constitutional Party prez candidate in 2008.

            I’m torn between that–where I’ll still be paying into a system that does unspeakable things with my money, I’ll still be culpable as an American when the world comes to reckon with what we’ve done, and where I’ll still be a subject of the Police State…versus just biting the bullet, learning Spanish, and expatriating my family.

            Certainly I think the economic and lifestyle opportunities for my children over the next ten years will be better outside the the Fourth Reich. I know I can *survive* it; but do I want to put them through that Soviet-style hell?

  14. Ron
    November 2, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Good info, Eric, thanks.

    • November 2, 2011 at 6:17 pm

      Thanks Ron – you bet!

  15. Kevin Beck
    November 2, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Let’s not forget that when he campaigned against Teddy (I can’t drive) Kennedy, his whole premise was based upon, “I’m not really a conservative; I just play one when I’m running against someone more liberal than me.” Not that I’m either myself, but he can’t even make up his mind on his opinion of himself!

    How much more evidence do the deniers need, to establish that we really just have two branches of the Demopublican Party, and that BOTH are opposed to liberty and freedom?

  16. John
    November 2, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Hey Stuart, I agree with Dave and Michael. Rather than calling people names and diverting the subject, how about addressing the ISSUES that were raised in this article?

  17. Michael
    November 2, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    You mean as in a rational thinking person like you Stuart? Yeah, you certainly didn’t tip your hand with your even tempered, fair and balance, rational response to the article. All it is saying is that he is more of the same kind of thinking that is working so well today. But we wouldn’t want to at least give some rational consideration to other points of view since they couldn’t possibly live up to the great results coming from the status quo today, huh? Lighten up Stuart and you might learn something along the way.

  18. dave roberts
    November 2, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    That’s interesting, stuart, but you haven’t said which of the 16 points is untrue.

  19. November 2, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    You know it’s idiots like you who still believe there is a difference between the dimocraps and repugnants that keeps this country divided and conquered. Both parties are sell outs to the same corporate interests. In fact, the republicans (that you obviously hate so much) should LOVE your boy Obama. He not only continued the Patriot Act but extended it to US citizens (that would be you). Obama led the charge into another war against one of the the strongest GDPs in Africa. Think we’re pulling out of Iraq? Only to leave a gang of bureaucrats and mercenaries to “patrol” the area. We got other countries to bomb. Don’t let the door hit you on your fat, intolerant ass on the way out. Oh and BTW, Ron Paul in 2012.

  20. stuart karu
    November 2, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Keep your right wing rantings to yourself. Without defending Romney, which I could easily do, he is at least a rational thinking candidate, unlike Mrs. Bachman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, etc. who are one dimensional, praise Jesus, morons. Moreover, who gives a crap what you think. Use your column for what you know instead of using it as a bully pulpit for more right wing rantings. You and your Atilla the Hun friends got us into this mess and now you defend yourselves by criticizing anyone who isn’t as dogmatic a conservative as you are. I didn’t sign up to have to listen to this crap!

    • methylamine
      November 2, 2011 at 3:37 pm

      I’ll try to respond to your well-reasoned and level-headed reply by countering with the kind of cerebral Kung-Fu you’ve been deprived of by the mainstream media.

      First off: please, by all means, defend your position. I’m sure we’d all benefit from a calm pro-and-con discussion of the ethically flexible Mr. Romney.

      Secondly, it’s inaccurate to the point of disingenuous to group the war-monger Bachman, the globalist truth-challenged Perry, and the highly principled Ron Paul together. And exactly *how* are they “praise Jesus morons”? The latter I will grant for Bachman/Perry. The former–well haven’t you noticed that EVERY candidate, ad nauseam, professes their deeply-held faith at some point to appeal to Boobus americanus…or, perhaps belonging to the genus, you’ve not noticed?

      Oh–I see. It becomes clearer on inspection; you’re drawing a distinction on the type of “praise Jesus” because Romney’s Jesus is Mormon-flavored, setting him apart from the other yahoos. Very clever! But you won’t fool me so easily; it’s turtles all the way down young man.

      I must point out another fallacy in your argument. You insist that Eric and the rest of us Atilla the Huns are right-wing, or gasp even worse “conservative”. Sir, I demand an apology! You have insulted me; I am not a conservative, and I will not take lightly the accusation. Retract immediately.

      No; I will not speak for the others though I’m certain they’d agree. I am neither left nor right! I have transcended that Hegelian dialectic, and you would do well to elevate yourself above that false dichotomy as well.

      The left/right paradigm is designed to set us against each other while eliminating TRUE debate. The two sides, represented by their respective parties, are in fact no different in their ultimate aims. Haven’t you noticed that nothing changes, the progress of bigger, more intrusive government simply slows down or speeds up? And it hardly matters which party is in control?

      Rise above left/right. Consider each matter separately, using your experience, knowledge, logic and reason.

      So for example: would you continue smearing me as a “conservative” knowing I support the full legalization of EVERY drug, without qualification? Or that I deny the State’s right to interfere or even oversee/license marriage, and therefore have no issue with gay marriage? And then how would you classify me knowing I support competing currencies and want a full gold and silver standard? How about my full support for gun rights without qualification–and I mean FULL gun rights, including full-auto, bazookas, and the like?

      I see. Hard to imagine a gay-loving married-with-children gun-toting car-rebuilding pro-drug anti-Fed anti-welfare anti-corporatist pro-free-market engineer, huh? If you insist on the left/right paradigm yes. If you believe in principles, it makes perfect sense.

      You see, believing in principles gives you the freedom to assess each issue logically, unconstrained by party loyalty. And ultimately, believing in LIBERTY puts you in the company of the finest philosophical minds of the modern era–Frédéric Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Friedrich Hayek, Étienne de La Boétie, Ludwig von Mises, Hans-Herman Hoppe, Murray Rothbard, Stephan Molyneaux…and dozens more.

      Believing in Statism puts you in frankly distasteful company: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Wilson, FDR, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.

      Is that really the company you want to keep?

      • richard
        November 2, 2011 at 4:07 pm

        Methylamine, well put. Ditto to Political Atheist. Stuart seems to be on the wrong site for his comment.

        • November 2, 2011 at 4:15 pm

          He’s welcome to post – provided it’s not just name-calling or gibberish. I have no problem with disagreement. I do have a problem with emoting …. one more “think about our children” and I am going to have to smash something….

      • Pissed off Marine
        November 2, 2011 at 10:16 pm

        Sounds like someone needs a “Time Out”!!
        You are finalising your rant by jumbling 10 former Presidents, Comunist, Radical Psychopaths with Mao, one of the best Stratagist known. You must be a Dumcrat and really believe that George W Bush caused all of the indebitness and joblisness we are facing today, Where have you been for the last 3 years. Obama has squandered and given away more dollar$ from the US Treasury than all the Criminals and thieves since the beginning of this country. Hids first act was a 1.4 Trillion $$$$$$$$$ stimulus bill he said will help this country after Bush screwed it up. Walah! Where did the money go?? No body knows! He has continued this with his lies and deceit to increase the debt to more than 15 Trillion $$$$$$. That is enough money to give every Citizen in the USA a great retirement for life.
        We need a President that is one of the people, a person we can trust and who will do the job he was elected to do, otherwords something that the American people are not acustomed to having in a Government Politicial.
        Herman Cain and Colonel West are the two candidated for this job, one is a Financial man and the other a Military man who is all American and for the Americans.
        It is time to clean up the Political Pool and get all the PIGS out of the water. Deport all illegals and Muslims close all the Alquida Training camps in the States and seal our borders. It is time to tke America back! God Bless America!!!!

        • November 2, 2011 at 11:24 pm

          Not a “Dumcrat,” PO’d Marine – just a dude who’s on to the con – who knows that it doesn’t make any difference which of the current candidates for Front Man wins the nomination or the office. The end result will be – more warfare, more welfare; more government – less freedom. Do you honestly believe otherwise?

          The Chimp – or AlGore. Grampy McSame – or Obama… it doesn’t make any more difference than whether Hulk Hogan “beats” Andre the Giant. It is a show, man.

          And it’s been rigged for years.

        • Boothe
          November 3, 2011 at 1:59 am

          Hey jarhead, Herman Cain is a Fed insider. You aren’t going to get any positive change from him. I don’t know about Col. West, but if he’s really all about America he’ll be about bringing all the troops home ASAP, not maintaining an empire that makes Rome and Britain look like a bunch of pikers combined.

          You need to cut yourself loose from Limpbaugh and Hannity, double-time it over to LewRockwell.com and start boning up on the truth. I was in the 1st SOW back when Jimmy “Horse Teeth” Carter was in office. I’ve missed paychecks because of government monkey business and been on “training exercises” where our aircraft were coming back to base with some damned realistic looking bullet holes. The powers that be are leading you down the primrose path for power, money and more power. If you get your legs shot out from under you, you’ll find our right quick how much use your leaders have for a broken toy.

          It’s time to wake up Marine and face reality. You took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution just like I did. Now I’m ordering you to go read it! Once you do, then compare what it says to what these elitist assholes actually have our brothers and sisters doing all over the world. You’ll find out you’re being used for things that are un-American as hell!

          As far as Mao being a brilliant strategist….WTF! If the elitists that own the U.S. government hadn’t pulled support for the Chinese Nationalists, Mao’s arrogant bad tempered atheist head would have been on a stake. Read your history and maybe you’ll find out that you leathernecks ought to be occupying D.C. not Afghanistan just about now. Sheesh, some people…..

          • BrentP
            November 3, 2011 at 5:10 am

            Every Marine should read the work of their most decorated, Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler

            WAR IS A RACKET.

            http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

            “WAR is a racket. It always has been.

            It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

            A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

            Guess who gets rich and who gets crippled and dead?

            • November 3, 2011 at 12:55 pm

              I’ve long believed that many – maybe most – people who volunteer for military service do so with good intentions, as they see it. God and country, etc. (The Germans and the Soviets and most common soldiers throughout history have probably believed likewise; its a result of their societal context and conditioning).

              Same with cops.

              There is something appealing- even noble – about volunteering to be the one to wade into a righteous fight against bad people (and bad countries).

              But, then there’s the reality of it.

              Of bombing and bayoneting people in foreign lands that never lifted a finger against you… of spending your days manning a radar gun and handing out pieces of payin’ paper to people who you know (if you’re honest) didn’t do anything to deserve it… while using your bright lights, your gun and your badge to scare the shit out of them and make them cringe before your authoritay….

              It’s sad and it’s evil and many other things, too.

          • Gil
            November 3, 2011 at 10:00 am

            Smedley was also the same guy who stopped businessmen from removing FDR from office before FDR has the chance to turn the U.S. into a Fascist state. Ooops.

            • November 3, 2011 at 10:22 am

              Right, Clover. But once again, you are package-dealing things. The elements that attempted to stage a coup were not free market Libertarians. They were right-wing corporatists – just like the Nazis’ and Mussolini’s Big Business backers, from Krupp to the FIAT group. Or today’s GOP, for that matter. So, you had liberty being assaulted by the two faces of the statist Janus: left-socialism (FDR) and right-corporate fascism.

              Your statement represents the false “left-right” paradigm vs. the liberty-coercion continuum that has been used to fool the masses for generations.

    • November 2, 2011 at 4:05 pm

      I’m endlessly amused by comments such as this. Me, a “right-wing” ranter! I’m as far being “right-wing” as you can get, amigo. I hate the state and regard it, at best, as a necessary evil in a few strictly limited and clearly defined areas of human life. And I oppose in principle ever initiating the use of force against anyone for any reason – which is why I loathe and oppose political thugs such as Mitt Romney, whose signature healthcare law became the model for Obamacare and which is a vicious assault on liberty.

      I look forward to your reply, if any.

      PS: I am not a Christian or even religious. Just FYI -

    • Boothe
      November 2, 2011 at 7:10 pm

      Let me weigh in as well “stuart”: you apparently haven’t spent as much time actually reading this site as you have out behind the barn with a shirtless picture of Mitt, huh? Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that your boy Mitt is “at least a rational thinking candidate”? His flip-flopping, elastic principles and glaringly obvious ties to the international banksters should clue you in that he’s nothing more than a policial hack and a whore.

      For the record, it is Mitt’s “Atilla the Hun” bankster friends who have been looting, pillaging and raping the American economy since (at least) 1913 that “got us into this mess”. I sincerely wish that those of us who post here actually had the power it would take to get “us into this mess”, because you can rest assured we’d use that power to get us out of it!

      Actually stuart you don’t “have to listen to this crap!” at all (aside from the fact that you were reading not listening). You can go emote elsewhere. I think Dancing With the Stars probably has a webpage more suited to your level of intellectual development.

      So tell us stuart what do you do for a living that makes you so afraid of true liberty? Are you a tax preparer? Do you do a little Medicare billing in the off season? Only someone that is utterly dependent on big government would be so eager to crawl under Uber Statist Romney’s desk as you seem to be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *