Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The Party Of Slavery

Last night's radio show presented some interesting conversations as one of the guests wasn't vetted to the extent that we knew what to expect. Such instances make for good radio.

J.A. Myerson was a guest with Warner Todd Huston discussing the upcoming march in DC. You can read Myerson's take on the show here. What became evident in short order was not only Myserson not libertarian or even centrist, but left wing. What also became apparent is that the left, the democrats, are the party of slavery.

The reason behind this statement lies in the comment Myerson made about taxes. He said that a tax cut was a spending increase. The is the same diatribe spewed by the ersatz economist Thomas Friedman, who never missed an opportunity to promulgate the government separating money from it's citizens. The only was Myerson's comment might make sense is if it was if cutting spending was impossible. Clearly, it's an incorrect premise as cutting spending is completely possible. The problem is that politicians understand they can bribe us with our own money and their entrenchment, in their minds, depends on it.

The problem, as I have discussed here and here, is that people have become accustomed to government largesse and moreover, the solution to their problems. Here in lies the rub: There is consideration involved. there is no free lunch when a person is the object of largesse of any type. Ask any slave or indentured servant. In the case of taxes, it is capital, taken against our will, to be used for some alleged greater good. You can't opt out of it and if you try, you will be forced to by the barrel of a gun, meaning the full authority of the government through their agents, the police. In essence, taxation is slavery, indentured servitude, and theft. Free will has no traction in that place.

Further on in the conversation, Myerson also espouses the premise that a government option with healthcare is libertarian. This is also false. The government should not and cannot truly be a competitor in the free market, if there is one. The argument could be made that since the government regulates, the market isn't truly free, but that is another discussion. The government operates on funds taken from its citizens. This very action is not libertarian and therefore any "participation" by the government as an agent in the free market is a false one. The government does not earn, it takes and since it makes rules about trade, it can favor itself to be the winner in any market it wishes to dominate. This is not libertarian on any level.

What I did come away with is that Myerson was not the balanced reporter he says he is and that he is a left wing progressive as is our fabian socialist ersatz president Barry O. He also outlined that in his position theft and slavery work just fine for him. He offered no solution other than to imply that raising taxes was the only way to solve our current problem. Theft begets theft I guess.

What I didn't get to say was my solution to the problem at hand. One, I would do away with the IRS. I would institute either a 10% flax tax for corporations and individuals. No deductions. Everyone pays. The budget would based on 75-80% of the previous years pull. The problem with this is the moral issue of stealing money from citizens. It would however provide a more stable money flow. The other option would be to have a consumption tax of 10-12%, which is the one I favor. Both these scenarios would require the removal of all other federal taxes and no deductions. Two, I would cut the government budget 20% the first year and 10% each year for the following 3 years. These numbers are minimum. I would shoot for a 50% cut over 4 years. Every department would be hit, no exceptions. I would also forgo subsidies, foreign and domestic. If something is a good idea, it will stand on its own, and the private sector will fund it and/or the market support it. Necessity is the mother of invention, not tax dollars. And for the record, I am and was against TARP. Failures should be just that, failures. Nothing is learned from a safety net, no matter if it is an individual or a corporation.

Lastly, I was to say that I had a poor choice of words last night. I called Myerson a stupid idiot. This I am mistaken. He is not a stupid idiot, just mistaken and wrong. I am sure we would agree on some libertarian issues, but the role of government is one where I think we depart. The less government we have, the better off all of us will be.

Thank you for reading this blog.


Fredd said...

Trying to argue and win a point against liberals like Myerson is useless.

He's one of the enemy. You don't talk with them and get results, you must defeat them.

Defeating them, though, is much easier said than done, they are relentless and have no regard for the truth. With liberals, the end justifies any means whatsoever, and debating them is pointless, since they will not present an honest argument regardless of the opportunity to do so.

The Right Guy said...

No matter how he tries to marry libertarian with progressive ideology, it doesn't wash. His agenda requires the full weight and authority of the government, not private citizenry and enterprise. Usually when an idea or agenda requires the government to enforce on its people, it is a bad idea as it cannot float on its own. This November will be a refutation of the progressive ideal, of socialism and the left. That in and of itself is all the winning we need. Next up: Repeal obamacare.

Maggie Thornton said...

To say that government healthcare is Libertarian in nature is odd. Perhaps Myerson is one more that likes to slam it on the wall and hope it sticks, as it often does when Liberals are reading.

Excellent commentary.

The Right Guy said...

I wouldn't call him a liberal. I consider myself a classical liberal. He's a progressive, a fabian socialist. True liberals do not want government involved in their lives on almost any level. Instead, a progressive is actually a statist that believes progress comes through the power of the government. This is because their ideas do not have enough weight to be championed by the populace, so they need the authorty of the government to push their ideas. In time, people become enculturated and indoctrinated to their agenda and then they don't have to work so hard at it. One of the tenets of socialism is to destroy tradition and re-write history. We've already seen that. Act II is in the works. If you look at the last 80 years, you can see the result of the indoctrination and enculturation of the socialists. At one time, people were averse to government help and contro; How times have changed and in the wrong direction.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails