1Declaration: Free Markets, Free People, Free Minds

Well the title says it all. Today the FairTax article is the featured article on Wikipedia today. If you are not aware of what the FairTax is I encourage you to take a look at it.

Briefly, the FairTax is a proposal that would eliminate all corporate taxes which stifle economic and job growth, payroll taxes (MediCare, Security, and etc.), death taxes, gift taxes, and more that occupies over 95,000 pages of rules and regulations. The current tax system stifles hard work, saving, investing, places an average of 22% embeded tax rate in the average consumer product (remember that corporations do not pay taxes we do, every tax that is put on a corporation gets passed on to the consumer in this embeded tax rate), and keeps monies out of the US market due to penalizing forms of taxation.

Unlike the income tax, the FairTax is a true tax on wealth. The FairTax would insititute a 23% tax rate on all final sales of new goods and services. This sounds like alot but remember that you would now be receiving your full paycheck every pay period which on average would increase the size of your paycheck by 25%. The FairTax encourages fiscal responsibility. Since there is no penalty for making sound financial investments you can save until your heart is content with no tax burden.

Some of you may point out that it is a regressive tax. Well the FairTax has taken care of this by instituting a monthly prebate for taxes that would be incurred on spending up to the poverty line (family size and state of residence is taken into account) and adjusted for inflation yearly (for actual numbers on the prebate click here). The prebate would be sent to every citizen of the US. The prebate means that those who do not spend above the poverty level will not be taxed. Those who spend at twice the poverty level will pay a rate of 11.5% and so on. The more you spend the more you pay. Once again the FairTax encourages fiscal responsibility by decreasing tax rate on more responsible spending thanks to the prebate.

Best of All

The FairTax would eliminate the IRS, tax audits, investigations into your private matters by the US government (something the founders originally envisioned in the Constitution until the income tax amendment was added - 16th Amendment), eliminate the costly process (time and monetary) of tax preparation each year, and get rid of April 15th for good. You would never have to stand in line for hours at the post office again and all the confusing tax forms would be relegated to distant memories of governmental abuse and oppresion.

For more on the FairTax visit my series on the FairTax from March, April, and May of 2008.

For more information and how you can help the FairTax passed aside from visiting Wikipedia you can visit FairTax.org. Then become a citizen co-sponser at JohnLinder.com.

Make your Declaration and let your representatives know that you want them to support the FairTax.

Ludwig von Mises was born on September 29, 1881 in Austria. He was an Austrian economist and philosopher in addition to being one of the main intellectuals of the start of the modern libertarian movement. He was forced to flee Austria due to his Jewish heritage and eventuall found himself in New York City as a visiting professor at New York University until 1969 and dies 4 years later in 1973. Today he has an economic institute dedicated to his memory and the free market principles he proposed. I encourage you to visit the Ludwig von Mises Institute's website to find out more.

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
--Ludwig von Mises

Liberals, fascists, communists, and more generally statists, (note: I will refer to this whole group as the left in the remainder of this post), for all they are worth seem to reject the idea that the government that serves best that serves least. This is the opposite of Libertarians and for the most part conservatives who are a bit hypocritical in my view on their idea of smaller government as they fall into government intervention due to the moral weakness of men. Liberals are a bit confused as well in their policies that create bigger government.

The left believes that people upon their own free will and choice cannot achieve in lifeso government must fill those deficiencies with government programs. Those who have achieved some measure of success are generally viewed upon as statistical anomalies that have achieved their status through deceptive practices and greed. To be fair many conservatives believe in government intervention to force what they deem morally straight decisions because people left to their own devices will engage in morally weak decisions like gay marriage, abortion, drug use and the like.

In turn since all success or proper choice is a mere statistical anomaly under the pretenses that people if left to their own devices will not be able to sustain themselves either partially or fully because man is fallible or lacking moral strength to engage in wholesome activities or choices then government must intervene.

Questionable Logic

If man is fallible and unable to make personal moral decisions then how is the government able to make such decisions? If success is a statistical anomaly how can government achieve success for the collective? These are the questions that must be asked when a politician of the left or socially conservative right tell you that government must intervene.

These questions derive from the logic that government is not made up of demigods or noble men. Instead government is controlled by fallible men and woman with questionable moral judgment. This idea does not seem to be accepted by the groups who push for more governmental control but the logic is irrefutable.

Examples can be made all over the world. In an attempt to get health care for all countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, and many others in Europe have adopted nationalized health care systems. The systems have largely been a failure delivering lower quality health care to individuals, governmental bureaucracies deciding if individuals should receive treatment, and thousands of canceled surgeries each month. The People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国) ruled with an iron fist for decades from the Communist takeover in 1949 by Mao Zedong (毛泽东）and the country by in large achieved equality of society but with the end result being poverty and suffering (note that these are the results of socialism when attempting to create a more equal society) until Deng Xiaoping (邓小平）took office became the leader in 1978. Deng realized that a government controlled economy had failed because it could not compete or produce goods in an economically viable fashion. Deng instituted changes that resulted in a capitalist based economy with less governmental control and privatized industry encouraged. Today China has the fastest growing economy in the world with yearly growth rates from 8-11% for the past 20+ years.

Look at another Communist country Cuba. This can be summed up by the quote on my homepage by Paul Harvey. "They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"

It is quite clear that the best way for government to uplift society and the economy is too step out. More regulations do not mean more equality. More regulations does not mean more Liberty. More government intervention does not make up for the fallibility or moral weakness of man. Why? Government is an invention of the fallible and morally weak man.

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
--Ludwig von Mises

Libertarian Presidential nominee Bob Barr offers fierce criticism to Barack Obama's forced public service proposal. I for one could not agree more.

'Americans are among the most generous people on the planet and excel at serving one another,' says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. 'Unfortunately, Sen. Barack Obama wants to turn service into a government requirement' by forcing middle, high school, and college students to work in federally approved jobs. 'But service must be an outgrowth of the heart to be life-changing for both parties. It isn’t possible to mandate generosity or coerce compassion,' Barr explains.

Public service is not strictly a formal function that can be done by only serving state or federal government. Service is about helping your fellow man and clearly Americans have done just that. Americans in the past year donated over $300 billion to help with numerous causes from international to domestic aid. Service does not end with monetary donations with millions of man hours each year put into volunteer organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, countless numbers of soup kitchens, and numerous religious organizations. Need I remind you of thousands of Americans helping those devastated by Hurricane Katrina and Rita including myself.

This country faces numerous other problems that cannot be fixed by forced governmental service. A Social Security system being bankrupted, out of control government spending, unconstitutional power grabs from the states, dwindling civil liberties, and welfare programs that hinder the poor from bringing themselves out of poverty. Not to mention a flawed income tax system that keeps the corrupt in power, puts American products at a disadvantage in the global market place, penalizes hard work and saving, encourages debt spending, and gives special interests a special voice that needs to be completely replaced with the Fair Tax.

Other problems are just as serious including a declining US dollar, high energy costs because of governmental regulation, declining public education at the hands of the teachers union, the NEA, and bloated, unconstitutional Department of Education, and the federal governments general disregard for the Constitution. The list can go on and on. Forced governmental service will be another governmental power grab that strips individual choice and Liberties. "'Washington politicians should not be telling schools across America how many hours their students should work, and in what kinds of jobs,' says Barr. 'The Founders displayed great genius when the framed the Constitution, because they limited the federal government to national problems while preserving state and local authority over such issues as education, including youth service.'"

Barr concludes:

Everyone agrees that service is a wonderful gift from those with much to those with little. But we should not sacrifice the great value of voluntary service by turning it into a government requirement.

The desire to serve others cannot be forced. It must come from the heart and soul of an individual. Compulsory service will only breed contempt and distrust for the government that mandates it. Americans are the most generous and service minded people in the world. A government mandate requiring service is an insult to those that have freely and willingly dedicated their life, time, or money in service of their fellow man or woman.

To read the rest of the article check out Barr's Blog: Bob Barr 2008 Blog » Blog Archive » Barr criticizes Obama’s national service proposal

When I mention the term global warming what first comes to your mind? You probably fall into two camps. 1) Some of you are thinking that Al Gore is a demigod and that global warming is the most dangerous threat to world civilization today. 2) The rest of you, myself included, have significant doubts or even speak out against anthropologically caused global warming.

Which group you fall into does not really matter because the global warming alarmism is not about saving the planet by the leaders who are pushing the agenda. The movement is solely about the acquisition of power, wealth, and to change the fundamental principles of the American way of life. I am not talking about transitioning towards renewable energies but instead about changing the fundamental principles of American society namely a greater movement towards government controlled society for the benefit of the collective.

As an avid follower and researcher of Chinese politics one cannot help but notice the similarities between the Chinese Cultural Revolution starting in May of 1966. The Cultural Revolution was started by Mao Zedong (毛泽东）in an effort to throw off the final elements of bourgouis oppression to complete the revolutionary class struggle. The effort was actaully a movement to sure up his support against the growing power of rivals Deng Xiaoping （邓小平）and Liu Shaoqi (刘少奇).

In much the same way the environmentalists like Chairman Mao have created a warlike environment and spread fear in order to achieve their goals of greater socialism and government control. By creating this warlike environment these people have created a situation that those who speak out against their movement by spreading sound scientific findings to dispute the rhetoric of environmentalists and liberals more generally. This has been a tactic of the left for nearly a centuy.

In order to create a socialistic or fascistic society liberals have been forced to create a hostile environment that will mobilize society to take action because individuals who do not feel threatened will do not easily succomb to these political whims. President Woodrow Wilson jailed over 200,000 US citizens, political prisoners, who questioned our involvement in World War I. FDR used WWII to bring in a new brand of socialism that was known as the New Deal that we still suffer from today (Jonah Goldberg has a great chapter in his book, Liberal Fasicsm about this subject). President LBJ established a god like history of JFK to create a war like environment to move foward his own desires for more power with his Great Society plan, once again which has proven to be a failed program that has increased the national debt and not resolved the social problems that it was imagined to.

Al Gore has continued this legacy and has become a mulitmillionare virtually overnight by spreading fear. He has created an environment where people can no longer speak freely without the possibility of being ostracized without their political or scientific career being in jeopardy. This seems remarably similar to Wilson's jailing of political dissidents who questioned our involvement in World War I.

Global warming is not about solving environmental problems that are still highly debated in the academic sphere. Instead it is about acruing more power for the government at the hands of the individuals and groups that spread the rhetoric to regulate society and strip individual liberties. This movement is largely sponsored by the fascistic left and of the "progressive" right in an attempt to further regulate society into a movement for the collective and solidify their hold on power.

I would like to introduce you to the most disastrous and dangerous greenhouse gas: dihydrogen monoxide. This greenhouse causes over 99.9% of global warming and is the most produced greenhouse gas in the world. This dangerous compound should be outlawed because of its significant negative effects towards the propagation of global warming. If we do not act now, disaster is sure to come.

Well if you haven't figured it out yet, dihydrogen monoxide is H2O or water. Watch these two well known comedians, Penn and Teller, as they send an associate of theirs out to get signatures on a petition to ban this substance. The most comedic part of this video is the associate getting signatures from people drinking the substance they are trying to ban.

Now onto the video:



What does this video tell us?

1. Americans are not well educated. This is already well documented that our public school system is desperately lacking as American students fall far behind other countries in testing. If these people do not understand water, does that not scare you that these people can vote?
   
2. Americans are gullible and don't question. If you make yourself into an authority and spread fear you can make almost any American believe you without question (i.e. Al Gore and his global warming alarmism - note that he barely squeaked by earth science in college). And we wonder why people are sending their money to that Nigerian General that keeps sending me emails?
3. Americans don't think. For those who think the majority of Americans think before they act or speak, they don't and this petition is proof. With some simple cognitive processes people could save themselves a lot of humiliation like those who added their names to this petition while drinking the same substance they were petitioning to get rid of.

I find all of this not that surprising considering the popularity of "hope" and "change" Barack Obama. He states nothing but due to his eloquent oratory a large segment of Americans have not bothered to become educated on the issues, have not questioned his motives, and have not thought about the side affects of his policies. He is not a new politician and his policies and actions are proof of that. Windfall profit tax, tried and failed (Carter administration). Nationalized health care (look at the problems in Canada and Great Britain). He presents himself as a post-racial leader but he falls back into racial tendencies of common Democratic political candidates with his comments.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.--Ayn Rand

Modern US politics is all about pandering to certain groups based on different demographics whether they be Christians, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, women, men, fathers, mothers, and the list can go on from there. The idea behind this pandering is making these groups feel like they are victims of some social injustice, some rightly and some wrongly, and then make promises to fix the alleged injustice that has occurred or is occurring against them to garner their support in an upcoming election. In no way am I saying that any or all of these groups do not suffer some sort of discrimination for other individuals or groups, just simply making a point about modern US politics.

Often times politicians will even play one group off of another to gain the favor of another demographic. Care to take a guess? Give up, well I am talking about class warfare, blaming the rich for the problems of the poor. This is the most heinous and dangerous form of political positioning and pandering today in contemporary American politics.

The tactic of making victims of certain groups is a tool that is most often used by the left in this country and to a lesser extent Republicans. In either case it is wrong. But the one commonality between the pandering to specific demographic groups is the neglecting of individuals in society.

Individuals are the smallest minority in the world as every person is unique. But individuals are the most neglected minority in the United States. Lets take a brief look at some of the policies of this country.

1. Tax System: Individuals who work hard, work two or three jobs, and have success are persecuted by higher tax rates. I am not in favor of a regressive form of taxation and those who have the ability to pay should pay but taxing productivity, hardwork and success is counterproductive which is the reason I favor the Fair Tax. Politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised the poor higher taxes on those individuals who have success for the purposes of redistributing income. With the FairTax politicians will no longer be able to do this.
   
2. Nationalized Health Care: Once again instead of favoring policies that will remove regulations that push the cost of health insurance out of reach of many Americans, many politicians favor punishing individuals who have achieved success through higher taxes for the purpose of buying the votes of the uninsured. They have made these people believe they are victims of corporate greed instead of governmental over-regulation.
3. Affirmative Action: This is a policy that I believe to be totally backward in thinking. How are you ever going to solve a problem like racial or sexual discrimination if you continually focus on those characteristics? Instead of promoting individual achievement and inspiring the individuals of these groups to take a stand to overcome, politicians continually make victims of these groups. Individuals who have achieved success such as Clarence Thomas, Jessie Lee Peterson, and the like who do not buy into the constant victimization of these groups are then ostracized for their positions. If this is not a clear demonstration of discrimination against individuals I do not know what else will convince you.

Individuals are constantly discriminated against. Individual choice is often refused by the argument of immorality. Drug use, abortion, the definition of marriage, and the like all fall into this category. While many including myself may not agree with every choice of individuals these are not the business of government.

I eagerly await the day when a politician comes forward and stops making victims of certain groups like Democrats and Republicans, but I more eagerly await the day when politicians adopt policies that do not hinder individual Liberty by punishing success or limiting what they may deem immoral that does not affect the rights of others. This is why I am a Libertarian.

People are victims of their own accord through poor decision making, laziness, or following leaders who place them into this category. Individuals have the ability to overcome anything through sound decisions, hard work, dedication to success, and by standing up for themselves.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.--Ayn Rand