Tax the Rich!

I get the argument behind the idea. The rich can afford taxes more than the poor. Of course, I think taxation is theft. I think it's a legalized form of slavery. If I'm taxed on 10% of my income I'm a slave for 1/10 of the work year. If I work 10 hours per day, I'm a slave for an hour. But slavery is slavery even if only for a mere moment...is it not?
So, what if I make $80,000 per year and my neighbor makes $100,000. Let's say for simplicity's sake, I don't get taxed (don't want to screw up the math). Let's say my neighbor has to pay 20%. Well, looks like we're on equal footing, right? He had to go to college longer, and probably a better one, so he's not getting a very good payoff.
Then my other neighbor makes $130,000. What if after taxes he makes "only" $75,000. You know, he can afford it.
So a simple question I have to ask: Why should I bust my butt to work hard and make a lot of money when I may make a little bit than a guy who doesn't work as hard and didn't have as good of an education?
Taxing the rich a lot kills ambition.

A Frenchman Tells the Truth

Not that I'm calling the French liars or anything. I mean, just look at the blog address!
Today on Fareed Zakaria: GPS (a very good show, from the few episodes and segments I've seen), the host interviewed a Frenchman and a German. The former said Barack Obama was an idealist and a realist, while the neocons are extreme idealists. Then he said Barack was a mixture of a neocon and Kissinger.
Take it from a man with a clear head, a rational man. Obama is no Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (though I disagree with him on Darfur), or Cynthia McKinney. He's just going to start more wars that are more directly linked to the "war on terror" and genocide
Watch out Pakistan! Watch out Iran!
Turns out that entire nations are terrorist nations if they don't do enough in the eyes of the leviathan. And never mind about possible civil wars if moderates start attacking extremists. The legionaries will come to the rescue!
Yep, we should just kill the people instead of the source, mainly the American Hegemony.
I mean, I think you'd be pretty ticked off if someone decided to stay in your back yard or porch and threatened to shoot you if you tried to get them out, right?
Didn't the colonials have a revolution because the redcoats tried to have sleepovers?

Huckabee quote

Found this quote on the LRC blog:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism;

If classic Republicanism is conservatism, wouldn't liberalism be the exact opposite and therefore the biggest threat?

it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says 'look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government.'

Wrong, eliminating government is anarchism, which is usually a part of Libertarianism. There's also Minarchism which says that the state is a necessary evil. Is there "social liberalism" in the movement? Yes, but there's also those of us who believe the federal government shouldn't legislate morals. Economic conservatism is a cornerstone of classic Republicanism, just as it was for the Bourbon Democrats.

If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it.

I never read anything by a libertarian that said "so be it" about this. We always say that the free market will take care of this. The only reason there's not a low-priced medical plan is because of government. To statists, this seems like a paradox. Think of it in terms of a rock in a sea. The water, or the markets, go around it. Without the rock (government), the water would flow right by. This is what libertarians believe.
And it doesn't even have to be the markets proper. Charities could spring up.

If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.'

Again, free markets would take care of this. Public schools have some of the best tools and facilities for students, yet (at least in NY), they fail miserably. If a provider does not provide a service well, they go out of business. When the government fails, they throw more money at it.

Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message.

*phew* Glad to know I'm not an American! I think an adventure is in order to find out what exactly I am.

It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people.

Truth, we're collectivists. Err, they, I forgot, I'm not an American.

That's not historic Republicanism.

More truth, historical Republicanism (I'm going way back) is neoconservative and protectionist at best and murderous at worst

Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be.

The government interfering in people's private lives means that there's not as little as there can be.

But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

Whoa, hey, holy excise taxes Huckman!

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ...

Not nearly as much as keeping the social structure up.

police on the streets,

Think we already have that. Oh, wait, you mean to keep the social structure. Wait, if the social structure falls, I think that means the police failed. Woops.

prison beds,

If we end the drug war, we won't need so many. Wait, if we do, somehow the social structure will collapse. Hm, I'm starting to see a pattern that statism bring more and more.

court costs,

Again, end the drug war. Also, stop ticketing people for not wearing seatbelts. Oh, right, seatbelts are going to lead to the collapse of the social structure.

alcohol abuse centers,

If the social structure collapses, there will be alcoholism? Or does alcoholism lead to the collapse of the social structre? Either way, more statism!

domestic violence shelters,

So, if we get our way, there will be more domestic violence? I just can't wrap my head around that logic...

all are very expensive.

Ya don't say?

What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say 'yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff.'

It is quite expensive. Again, the markets would come in at the very least.

But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community.

I dunno, it seems that private charity is better. You feel better giving money instead of having it taken, right? I'm sure most libertarians would support private charities and enterprises. Heck, maybe even most people. But if they don't want to, what does that say about using their tax dollars to? Well, that would be stealing. Stealing is a sin, isn't it Revvie?

You can take the cops off the streets

Not a bad idea. They aren't on my streets. They seem to look for trouble whenever I see them elsewhere.

and just quit funding prison beds.

Not a bad idea either. Private prisons would be far more accountable.

Are your neighborhoods safer?

If yes, no need for cops. If no, the neighbors will band together and form a neighborhood watch.

Is it a better place to live?

Without having to worry about being tasered? heck yes.

The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before."

I bet!

I think most minarchists would support a small, efficient (government and efficient?) force. Cut the drug war, no need for the DEA or all those funky militarized gagets. Will people lose jobs? Sure, but they'll find employment elsewhere. In the meanwhile, we'll have more money.

P.S. Nice not so secret shot at Ron Paul.

Things Which are Seen and Things Which are Unseen: Excise Tax

I will applaud John McCain for getting rid of the tax on gas for the summer. Would it be nicer to get rid of it altogether? You bet, but I'm for any tax cut as long as taxes on others aren't raised to compensate for it.
You bet Hillary Clinton's plan is going to eventually include a compensation to save the highway projects (or whatever they're crying about losing). I have a sick feeling that taxes on tobacco are going to be raised. Think about it. They won't suffer any monetary loss and it might encourage people to quit since they can't afford it anymore.
Let's apply Bastiat's great essay in this hypothetical case. The things that are seen are slightly lower fuel costs and a decrease in smoking. We see jobs being lost and infrastructure collapse.
Certainly collapsing bridges are tragedies. Of course it's incredibly regrettable that so many people are going to be out of work.
What is unseen though? Non-driving smokers are going to "subsidize" drivers. The infrastructure can be saved by cutting elsewhere. With fewer people on the government's payroll, the tax payers may get more money which they can use to buy goods with.
Does that seem uncaring? Sure, but they can surely get new jobs with private contractors. If they were sub-par workers, why should the taxpayers' money go to pay them? Can I not say that it seems like the objector is the uncaring one? With more taxes, wouldn't that mean less money would go to the micro economy?
Of course, the mainstream certainly does not remember Bastiat since they consider the crazed hyperinflationists at the Federal Reserve great economists.
I certainly do not claim to be a good one (I'm just a lowly armchair economist), but if Hillary Clinton actually cuts taxes, I'm sure she'll increase them elsewhere. And of course, Boobus will celebrate because she says she's for the working man even though the unseen things hurt them even more than they claim free markets do.