By Tom Rhodes, 11/17/2012
A New Hampshire buddy of mine constantly refers to people who moved from Massachusetts to New Hampshire as “MassHoles.” Hating how they left Massachusetts because of the taxes, but then vote to install the same failed programs in New Hampshire. Their motto “Live Free or Die” no longer represents the sentiments of the people of New Hampshire. To pay for all these government “services” New Hampshire has had to raise its taxes to absurd levels. His property taxes have gone from a few hundred dollars a year to nearly $10,000 and because of it he’s had to put it up for sale, and is thus now a Florida Resident.
In Florida we have a saying, “We Don’t Care How You Did It In New York!” That phrase has been augmented with, “Just because you messed up your way of life up north, doesn’t give you the right to move down here and mess up ours.” And “If you don’t like the way things are here, go back to where you came from.” I often lament people moving from up north, to get away from oppressive liberal governments, they cry for the very big state government that chased them out of their state. Michigan is a prime example, now a ghost of what it was, but the people who moved from there, wanted more government than Florida traditionally had, and voted for it. Now unless you’re homesteaded and in the same house for decades, Florida Property taxes looks like Yankee property taxes.
This phenomenon is remarkably consistent. Just ask the natives of Colorado Springs what the influx of Californians has done to their state. People who prefer big government in their place of origin will continue to prefer big government at the place they move. We see it all over the USA.
Now this is not just a local US phenomenon. People who come from places with big government, and who like big government services are going to act like people. They will think short term and in concrete terms, but not look in depth at the causes. People leave an area because of oppressive taxes, bad business environment, more jobs else ware, etc. They don’t relate the massive amounts of services provided by the government that they loved with the reasons why they left. What people want is a regions wealth generously distributed by a benign and caring big government, they fail to realize the very wealth they want to a piece of, was created by people keeping more of what they earned a small government with limited services and powers that takes less of what people earn.
This contradiction is generally invisible, just as many people fail to save when they are young and fail to be prepared for old age. Back to Aesop’s Fable, The Ant and the Grasshopper. We’ve always had Grasshoppers in the USA who failed to make wise life decisions. Lucky we’ve generally had many more Ants, and the Grasshoppers haven’t been plentiful enough to eat all the resources. We can see what happens in the USA when the Ants move and the Grasshoppers are left to run things; Detroit. Once Detroit was the crown jewel of industrialized society, now a city in ruins that cannot support itself.
What makes us think that we can allow the influx of massive numbers of people from other countries and maintain our original paradigm for government? Just like MassHoles changed New Hampshire, and Yankees have so changed Florida it’s not considered “southern” anymore. We cannot absorb massive numbers of people from other cultures and maintain our culture. The demographics or our country have changed. The values of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and wrote our Constitution, are no longer the values of the USA. Davy Crocket’s, “Not Your’s to Give” is a story/speech to which a majority of our country can no longer relate.
America as it was is dead. Not a pessimistic observation, just reality, now we need to learn to deal with it.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Third World View of Government
By Tom Rhodes, 11/16/2012
America has become the largest third world country in the world and will cease to be a super power in about a generation. Think about how third world people treat and use their government. Government is a group of ruling elite who tax them and nominally supply some resources. Voting for more guys who promise to pay more to people from taxes makes sense. Bribing government officials to avoid taxes and get favored status is common. The third world person uses government trying to get all he can from government while paying as little as he can to government, even resorting to bribes etc. Laws are avoided or ignored as they are not applied equally, and a bribe to avoid punishment is cheaper than the taxes. So buy low, sell high, and pay off the government goon to stay in business. This is how the third world works. This is how many of our big cities work, can you say "drug war."
I was an advocate for all individuals being responsible for themselves, and the government not providing "charity." That's a principled but failed position. Since you will not get out of absurdly high taxes, find a way to milk the government for all you can, so that you at least get a portion of those taxes back. Get a legal divorce, your wife may be eligible for food stamps, and other federal aid. Bribe a doctor to say she's disabled. Work for cash wherever you can, etc. If you play it right you spouse could get upwards of $30K in benefits. So what if you're paying alimony, it's a tax right off, and your spouse pays a lower tax rate being that is her only income. It may be possible to play the system and get all your tax dollars back.
Normally this would be a morally reprehensible position, but since our government has removed God from everything else, and no longer considers the Creator the source of our rights, and no longer considers equal treatment under the law to be righteous, you are no longer under a moral obligation to play by the old rules. To survive you must milk the system. Corporations have been doing it for years, it's now time for every other individual to find a way to milk the system for all he can. 47% of us receive more from the government than they pay in. It's time for the rest of us to figure out how to get some of that free money.
Let's face it tens of millions of people who used to work are no longer "employed." The number of people receiving government disability payments has skyrocketed. I don't believe the percentage of disabled people has increased relative to population, just the percentage of people scamming the system to get disability payments from the government. Since we have allowed massive amounts of third world immigration to the USA, we are seeing Third World Treatment of government, "Scam it for all you can as the government is not your friend." Elect those who will give you the most, and find a way to avoid paying taxes. Work for cash if you're at the low end, hide your money off shore if you're at the high end. It's time for the Middle Class to start dipping it's paws into the government coffers. Find a way to scam the government, they are taking through a variety of taxes nearly half of what you make, don't feel guilty about cheating Uncle Sam, he's been fleecing you for years, and has promised to fleece you more.
Obviously voting and "democracy" are not the way to limit and maintain a limited government. We do have a way and the third world immigrants to the USA have shown us the way. The way to limit our government is to cripple it, let's face it; you're "entitled."
America has become the largest third world country in the world and will cease to be a super power in about a generation. Think about how third world people treat and use their government. Government is a group of ruling elite who tax them and nominally supply some resources. Voting for more guys who promise to pay more to people from taxes makes sense. Bribing government officials to avoid taxes and get favored status is common. The third world person uses government trying to get all he can from government while paying as little as he can to government, even resorting to bribes etc. Laws are avoided or ignored as they are not applied equally, and a bribe to avoid punishment is cheaper than the taxes. So buy low, sell high, and pay off the government goon to stay in business. This is how the third world works. This is how many of our big cities work, can you say "drug war."
I was an advocate for all individuals being responsible for themselves, and the government not providing "charity." That's a principled but failed position. Since you will not get out of absurdly high taxes, find a way to milk the government for all you can, so that you at least get a portion of those taxes back. Get a legal divorce, your wife may be eligible for food stamps, and other federal aid. Bribe a doctor to say she's disabled. Work for cash wherever you can, etc. If you play it right you spouse could get upwards of $30K in benefits. So what if you're paying alimony, it's a tax right off, and your spouse pays a lower tax rate being that is her only income. It may be possible to play the system and get all your tax dollars back.
Normally this would be a morally reprehensible position, but since our government has removed God from everything else, and no longer considers the Creator the source of our rights, and no longer considers equal treatment under the law to be righteous, you are no longer under a moral obligation to play by the old rules. To survive you must milk the system. Corporations have been doing it for years, it's now time for every other individual to find a way to milk the system for all he can. 47% of us receive more from the government than they pay in. It's time for the rest of us to figure out how to get some of that free money.
Let's face it tens of millions of people who used to work are no longer "employed." The number of people receiving government disability payments has skyrocketed. I don't believe the percentage of disabled people has increased relative to population, just the percentage of people scamming the system to get disability payments from the government. Since we have allowed massive amounts of third world immigration to the USA, we are seeing Third World Treatment of government, "Scam it for all you can as the government is not your friend." Elect those who will give you the most, and find a way to avoid paying taxes. Work for cash if you're at the low end, hide your money off shore if you're at the high end. It's time for the Middle Class to start dipping it's paws into the government coffers. Find a way to scam the government, they are taking through a variety of taxes nearly half of what you make, don't feel guilty about cheating Uncle Sam, he's been fleecing you for years, and has promised to fleece you more.
Obviously voting and "democracy" are not the way to limit and maintain a limited government. We do have a way and the third world immigrants to the USA have shown us the way. The way to limit our government is to cripple it, let's face it; you're "entitled."
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Secession, a U.N. Delema
By Tom Rhodes, 11/14/2012
Wow! One week after the election and more than 675,000 people in all 50 states have petitioned the White House to secede from the Union. These United States are no longer “united.” This is enough to trigger promised reviews by the Obama administration. More importantly is it enough to trigger U.N. action.
UN Resolution 1514 (XV) - Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, pretty much recognizes the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence. The UN is aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace. The UN claims to have an important role in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The UN affirms that that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.
The UN declares that it is convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory.
The UN has declared that all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
What in the presence of hundreds of thousands of people’s call for freedom and independence from an oppressive government is the UN going to do?
Will they support the people, or the statist Washington-Wall Street Cabal?
Wow! One week after the election and more than 675,000 people in all 50 states have petitioned the White House to secede from the Union. These United States are no longer “united.” This is enough to trigger promised reviews by the Obama administration. More importantly is it enough to trigger U.N. action.
UN Resolution 1514 (XV) - Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, pretty much recognizes the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence. The UN is aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace. The UN claims to have an important role in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The UN affirms that that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.
The UN declares that it is convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory.
The UN has declared that all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
What in the presence of hundreds of thousands of people’s call for freedom and independence from an oppressive government is the UN going to do?
Will they support the people, or the statist Washington-Wall Street Cabal?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Shush - You Can’t Say That.
By Tom Rhodes, 11/14/2012
A fellow and prominent libertarian noted that he got the point I was making in a previous article but that my arguments were weakened because it was “misogynistic.” Saying that I was implying; “a tendency of women to want greater government involvement in our lives,” and this implication made my entire point less valid. His assertion is politically correct but intellectually dishonest, and illustrates the effect of Political Correctness on discussions in our country, even in the LP. Right now if any man makes any comment on the difference in the sexes and how they behave, even when such comments are historically and observably factual, is considered misogynistic if it doesn’t favor the female. But if something is said, like noting the propensity of men to take risks compared to women, and the adverse effects some risky behaviors have on society, nobody says that such an argument appeals to Misandry and is thus less valid. I find it interesting that this double standard is palpable even among supposedly rational libertarians.
Make no bones about it, what I meant in that previous discussion was an overt direct observation that women in their private lives and historically in their US voting patterns, when given a choice, choose security offered by some authority or person in power over liberty and the accompanying risks. Women have shown that they are far more willing to support use the force by the government to limit liberty not based on any individuals abuse of a right, but on the possibility that a right might be abused. The feel it’s better that everybody’s freedom and liberty are restricted because some individual at some future time might misbehave. Yes this is a stereo type, but that doesn’t make it false. The stereotype that says men lack emotional empathy does not apply to all men, but it is not false for men as a group compared to women.
There is evolutionary evidence for these differences. From an evolutionary and historic perspective the burden of child bearing, nursing, etc. puts women in the unenviable position of requiring somebody to provide for her and her offspring during this period where she is venerable and less physically able to provide for herself. Historically women have needed to sacrifice their individual liberty to a provider and protector, be it a working man, or now the government. Modern technology has mitigated much of the rationale for these decisions, but the evolutionary wiring and disposition is much slower to change, so the attitudes and actions are yet to adjust to differing circumstances and will take many generations to do so.
The problem is that on a historic level Liberty and Freedom for massive amounts of a population is a relatively new and short lived phenomenon, and has yet to prove to be historically sustainable. Factually it is relatively easy to prove that protecting individual’s natural rights, applying the rule of law equally, and allowing people to live with the results of their life choices will provide the highest standard of living for the most people in a society; but emotionally the fact that this system allows some people to suffer for their bad life choices or even bad luck is not palatable to women as a group.
We see this in the socialized feminine idea that a hospital by law must treat anybody in an emergency regardless of ability to pay. Individuals having insurance and a more competitive less monopolized health care industry, would be a higher priorities for our society and individuals would voluntarily make better decisions if they experienced the or witnessed the result of somebody who failed to acquire insurance was allowed to die, it’s a harsh but effective lesson. In the nanny state those lessons never need to be learned. This is not a calloused or heartless position, but a principled rational position that would lead to more people not less being responsible, and voluntary charities being able to cope with the fewer people in actual need of charity.
It is not to say that only women or all women think this way; massive numbers of males, raised without strong father figures, have adopted this line of thought because it is all they’ve been exposed to. There is a biblical/libertarian doctrine that is emotionally bothersome to most women. The idea that; “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” It can be seen in Aesop's fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper. The wisdom of this is lost because as a society we’ve adopted the idea that just because the Grasshopper made poor life choices doesn’t mean he should suffer, the Ant is so rich he can afford to feed the Grasshopper. In fact it isn’t “fair” that the Ant has massive food supplies while the Grasshopper has none. This is an emotional and primarily feminine response to seeing suffering. They would rather sacrifice their and everybody else’s property rights so that they don’t have to experience the emotional turmoil of seeing others suffer. The consequences of this can be seen in the history of our first colonists, most of whom died of starvation, because they discarded the wisdom of 2 Thessalonians 3:10. We learned this lesson the hard way at Plymouth Rock.
As you know the historical norm for mankind has been for most of humanity to live in poverty with a few people in power living in relative luxury. We are seeing a condition where those in power or seeking power are taking advantage of the fact that women as a rule think with emotions over logic. Marx, and those promoting socialism and communism saw this as an essential tool and woman’s suffrage was among the first things enacted when they came to power.
The overregulation of our lives is often referred to as the “Nanny State” not the “Daddy State.” That stereotype is not invalid. If you’re willing to look at history with an open mind, you will see the steady decline of libertarian ideas and policies in the USA is directly related to woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in politics. One of the often voiced fears of woman’s suffrage was that the influence of the woman’s vote would lead to outlawing liquor and instill prohibition; they were right.
John Lott has demonstrated a strong correlative link between women's suffrage and increased per capita state expenditures. The average increase in voter turnouts of 26 and 33 percent that occurred 25 and 45 years after the enactment of women's suffrage in a US state mirror the 24 and 31 percent increases in state spending over the same periods of time. He also concluded: "The two consistent results were: allowing female suffrage resulted in a more liberal tilt in congressional voting for both houses, and the extent of that shift was mirrored by the increase in turnout due to female suffrage. The effects are quite large." Click Here for details.
Although this is a politically incorrect observation, it’s clear that the timeline of our countries move towards the Nanny State parallels woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in US politics. The fact is if we look at our rights we see that since women received the "right" to vote the results is a massive loss of everybody’s other rights:
1. The right to life is under siege, not just for the unborn, but for disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already. In many parts of the country you can’t even eat what you want (but these restrictions are for your own good)
3. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
4. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
5. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
6. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
7. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an "enemy combatant" by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
8. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family "courts", the tax "courts" and the immigration "courts", none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
9. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 8.
10. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.
“We The People” was an insult to the Ruling Class. People wanting power have been working over 200 years to re-concentrate control in the USA. Because women think emotionally more than rationally, this has been and is a tool, through “democratic” processes, to remove individual property and other rights for our own good. I’m not saying there is any grand conspiracy to re-establish centralized power, but just playing on women’s emotions is an effective tool that those seeking power or already in power, effectively use; thus the slow march to tyranny is enabled by women’s suffrage and political participation. The need for a husband has been replaced by government, thus fewer marriages and women vote increasingly to give more power to government not individuals, as this makes them more secure and less dependent upon any individual. When you value security over liberty, you will lose liberty. This is a historic fact, and so is the fact that in general women value their security over their liberty.
This article will be attacked on emotional not rational grounds, women, and feminized men will respond emotionally and not look at it rationally. It will not be effective in changing the attitudes of feminine thinkers as this is a dialectic article. Feminine thinkers respond to and are generally convinced by rhetoric not dialectic discussions. This is evidenced by the feminine response to further restrict gun rights after a heinous crime like the mass murder in Aurora Colorado, ignoring the less emotional but thousands of times more frequent use of firearms by people to stop crime without even firing a shot, rational cost benefit analysis was not and is not used in looking at firearms. To Feminine thinkers it is more important to “feel” safe, than to have the responsibility for their own self protection. This places the burden of protection on their provider not themselves, hence they want to grant their provider more power. More people that assume and grant the government the role of provider and protector, the less freedom everybody will have. Thus we see the slow march towards tyranny in the USA directly parallels women’s suffrage and their increased power in politics.
A fellow and prominent libertarian noted that he got the point I was making in a previous article but that my arguments were weakened because it was “misogynistic.” Saying that I was implying; “a tendency of women to want greater government involvement in our lives,” and this implication made my entire point less valid. His assertion is politically correct but intellectually dishonest, and illustrates the effect of Political Correctness on discussions in our country, even in the LP. Right now if any man makes any comment on the difference in the sexes and how they behave, even when such comments are historically and observably factual, is considered misogynistic if it doesn’t favor the female. But if something is said, like noting the propensity of men to take risks compared to women, and the adverse effects some risky behaviors have on society, nobody says that such an argument appeals to Misandry and is thus less valid. I find it interesting that this double standard is palpable even among supposedly rational libertarians.
Make no bones about it, what I meant in that previous discussion was an overt direct observation that women in their private lives and historically in their US voting patterns, when given a choice, choose security offered by some authority or person in power over liberty and the accompanying risks. Women have shown that they are far more willing to support use the force by the government to limit liberty not based on any individuals abuse of a right, but on the possibility that a right might be abused. The feel it’s better that everybody’s freedom and liberty are restricted because some individual at some future time might misbehave. Yes this is a stereo type, but that doesn’t make it false. The stereotype that says men lack emotional empathy does not apply to all men, but it is not false for men as a group compared to women.
There is evolutionary evidence for these differences. From an evolutionary and historic perspective the burden of child bearing, nursing, etc. puts women in the unenviable position of requiring somebody to provide for her and her offspring during this period where she is venerable and less physically able to provide for herself. Historically women have needed to sacrifice their individual liberty to a provider and protector, be it a working man, or now the government. Modern technology has mitigated much of the rationale for these decisions, but the evolutionary wiring and disposition is much slower to change, so the attitudes and actions are yet to adjust to differing circumstances and will take many generations to do so.
The problem is that on a historic level Liberty and Freedom for massive amounts of a population is a relatively new and short lived phenomenon, and has yet to prove to be historically sustainable. Factually it is relatively easy to prove that protecting individual’s natural rights, applying the rule of law equally, and allowing people to live with the results of their life choices will provide the highest standard of living for the most people in a society; but emotionally the fact that this system allows some people to suffer for their bad life choices or even bad luck is not palatable to women as a group.
We see this in the socialized feminine idea that a hospital by law must treat anybody in an emergency regardless of ability to pay. Individuals having insurance and a more competitive less monopolized health care industry, would be a higher priorities for our society and individuals would voluntarily make better decisions if they experienced the or witnessed the result of somebody who failed to acquire insurance was allowed to die, it’s a harsh but effective lesson. In the nanny state those lessons never need to be learned. This is not a calloused or heartless position, but a principled rational position that would lead to more people not less being responsible, and voluntary charities being able to cope with the fewer people in actual need of charity.
It is not to say that only women or all women think this way; massive numbers of males, raised without strong father figures, have adopted this line of thought because it is all they’ve been exposed to. There is a biblical/libertarian doctrine that is emotionally bothersome to most women. The idea that; “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” It can be seen in Aesop's fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper. The wisdom of this is lost because as a society we’ve adopted the idea that just because the Grasshopper made poor life choices doesn’t mean he should suffer, the Ant is so rich he can afford to feed the Grasshopper. In fact it isn’t “fair” that the Ant has massive food supplies while the Grasshopper has none. This is an emotional and primarily feminine response to seeing suffering. They would rather sacrifice their and everybody else’s property rights so that they don’t have to experience the emotional turmoil of seeing others suffer. The consequences of this can be seen in the history of our first colonists, most of whom died of starvation, because they discarded the wisdom of 2 Thessalonians 3:10. We learned this lesson the hard way at Plymouth Rock.
As you know the historical norm for mankind has been for most of humanity to live in poverty with a few people in power living in relative luxury. We are seeing a condition where those in power or seeking power are taking advantage of the fact that women as a rule think with emotions over logic. Marx, and those promoting socialism and communism saw this as an essential tool and woman’s suffrage was among the first things enacted when they came to power.
The overregulation of our lives is often referred to as the “Nanny State” not the “Daddy State.” That stereotype is not invalid. If you’re willing to look at history with an open mind, you will see the steady decline of libertarian ideas and policies in the USA is directly related to woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in politics. One of the often voiced fears of woman’s suffrage was that the influence of the woman’s vote would lead to outlawing liquor and instill prohibition; they were right.
John Lott has demonstrated a strong correlative link between women's suffrage and increased per capita state expenditures. The average increase in voter turnouts of 26 and 33 percent that occurred 25 and 45 years after the enactment of women's suffrage in a US state mirror the 24 and 31 percent increases in state spending over the same periods of time. He also concluded: "The two consistent results were: allowing female suffrage resulted in a more liberal tilt in congressional voting for both houses, and the extent of that shift was mirrored by the increase in turnout due to female suffrage. The effects are quite large." Click Here for details.
Although this is a politically incorrect observation, it’s clear that the timeline of our countries move towards the Nanny State parallels woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in US politics. The fact is if we look at our rights we see that since women received the "right" to vote the results is a massive loss of everybody’s other rights:
1. The right to life is under siege, not just for the unborn, but for disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already. In many parts of the country you can’t even eat what you want (but these restrictions are for your own good)
3. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
4. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
5. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
6. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
7. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an "enemy combatant" by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
8. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family "courts", the tax "courts" and the immigration "courts", none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
9. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 8.
10. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.
“We The People” was an insult to the Ruling Class. People wanting power have been working over 200 years to re-concentrate control in the USA. Because women think emotionally more than rationally, this has been and is a tool, through “democratic” processes, to remove individual property and other rights for our own good. I’m not saying there is any grand conspiracy to re-establish centralized power, but just playing on women’s emotions is an effective tool that those seeking power or already in power, effectively use; thus the slow march to tyranny is enabled by women’s suffrage and political participation. The need for a husband has been replaced by government, thus fewer marriages and women vote increasingly to give more power to government not individuals, as this makes them more secure and less dependent upon any individual. When you value security over liberty, you will lose liberty. This is a historic fact, and so is the fact that in general women value their security over their liberty.
This article will be attacked on emotional not rational grounds, women, and feminized men will respond emotionally and not look at it rationally. It will not be effective in changing the attitudes of feminine thinkers as this is a dialectic article. Feminine thinkers respond to and are generally convinced by rhetoric not dialectic discussions. This is evidenced by the feminine response to further restrict gun rights after a heinous crime like the mass murder in Aurora Colorado, ignoring the less emotional but thousands of times more frequent use of firearms by people to stop crime without even firing a shot, rational cost benefit analysis was not and is not used in looking at firearms. To Feminine thinkers it is more important to “feel” safe, than to have the responsibility for their own self protection. This places the burden of protection on their provider not themselves, hence they want to grant their provider more power. More people that assume and grant the government the role of provider and protector, the less freedom everybody will have. Thus we see the slow march towards tyranny in the USA directly parallels women’s suffrage and their increased power in politics.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Demographics tell the story
By Tom Rhodes, 11/8/2012
It’s over; the USA as it was constituted is dead. The demographics are such that they prove the old adage about democracies; once the People learn they can vote largess from the treasury it’s over. Meaningful discussion on the free market and personal accountability are going to be fruitless. Those moochers living off the government are not interested, especially in facts.
This is a near insoluble problem. Communications must be two ways; moochers and liberals have zero interest in that type of communicating for the most part. They have adopted a predominantly female propensity for resorting to name calling, ad hominem attacks, or silence because they have no interest in any conversation or communications in which their assertions are questioned. They have no interest in changing their lives, and treat interlocutors the way a mommy treats a petulant child. Children must know that mommy’s word is divine law, and not to be challenged, and mommy has no obligation to explain herself.
It is more than a little amusing to see the credulous expression on a moocher/liberal’s face when the factual truth of their statements is challenged. Just challenge a liberal or moocher and watch the name calling begin. Communications about the fact that government spending and borrowing are unsustainable, and the fact that increased taxes will not result in more government revenue but instead a decrease in productivity, because punishing the greatest producers for producing more has, and always will, result in them working less not more. If extraordinary effort cannot return extraordinary results, nobody will put in the extra effort.
We saw blue tarps over roofs for well over a year after Ivan, Roofs were repaired fast after Andrew; why? After Andrew, massive numbers of people rushed to South Florida to help, bringing tools and materials, sleeping in tents and working 20 hours a day. People put in a Herculean effort because the rewards were great. You don’t see massive numbers of people trying to get to Staten Island to help, why? Because the law now says that you cannot charge more after a storm than before. The anti-gouging laws, mean that extraordinary effort cannot be rewarded with extraordinary rewards, so you don’t see extraordinary effort. Free Markets can and would better allocate resources after a disaster than the government.
History shows repeated failure of democratic or totalitarian wealth redistribution. But today our demographics are more about feelings than facts. Because the thought of people suffering because they, or worse yet their parents, made bad choices is not palatable to the feminized moocher liberal, any and all historic evidence can and is ignored. This can be seen in the voting patterns this year, look at the voting pattern those who thought health care was more important than the deficit. The reality is that with an increased deficit, we won’t be able to afford health care. This simple fact, is meaningless to the typical feminized moocher liberal, who feel that they have a right to force others to work for their health care.
Based on Tuesday’s results, we’re screwed. I know a business owner who is closing his business, not because it’s not making money, but because it will be making a lot less, the owner has enough to live out his days without working and can literally pay zero income taxes (is money is in tax free bonds, gold, and off shore accts). This 50-ish millionaire will be legible for food stamps, etc. within the next few months, and his employees are all going to be job hunting. This is reality of Atlas Shrugged in today’s USA. A producer with no debt is deciding to stop participating because the government tax and regulatory burden on his small business means he will be working just to provide jobs for others with minimal or no reward for his efforts, risk, and investment. He has enough to provide a very high standard of living for himself and his wife and kid for the rest of their lives just about anywhere in the world, even if his money doesn’t earn him a dime.
The feminized liberal moochers will say he’s being selfish, they are going to try to find a way to take/tax his wealth which he already paid vast amounts of taxes. The idea of private property, which includes money, and people having the right to private property, and the protection of private property, is the basis for and reason why the USA became the wealthiest most generous nation the world ever saw. The rejection of this idea, and the mommy inspired idea of everybody getting and equal share of everything regardless effort is the downfall of our country. The idea that competition is bad, and that all kids should get a trophy, not just the winners, or the idea that nobody should feel bad because they didn’t do as good; the idea that has resulted in no more valedictorians in most of our high schools; is the idea and change in our demographics that has killed this once great nation.
Our labor force, from factories to the corner office, were made of high school graduates who valued individual effort, today the country has changed, graduation and SAT scores are at all time lows, and those who do graduate don’t have the basic skills necessary to compete in today’s modern workplace. How are we going to replace the retiring baby boomers who were generally self sufficient products of intact traditional families and a work ethic based on a religious duty to do your best, with today’s liberate, irreverent, ambitionless, entitled barbarian.
The demographics of this election make it clear; we are no longer a self-governing, self-reliant people. Those of us who are no longer have sufficient numbers to effect change and control of our government. So we will see the end of our great nation. Atlas will shrug, and is shrugging. All those of us who know based on historic and scientific fact that the path to prosperity and happiness for the most people in a society is liberty and limited government; no longer have the numbers to make a difference, and rational discussion about the subject will not be tolerated by the majority. The Patriot act, drone killing of US citizens, restrictions on jury trials, etc. all show that we’ve already lost the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Watch for the speech codes of our universities to become the law of the land. Watch for government control of the internet. Watch for increased limits on individual rights to keep and bear arms.
The Russian analysis, by Igor Nikolaevich Panarin, that predicted the breakup of the US was only wrong in its timing, not in the outcome.
It’s over; the USA as it was constituted is dead. The demographics are such that they prove the old adage about democracies; once the People learn they can vote largess from the treasury it’s over. Meaningful discussion on the free market and personal accountability are going to be fruitless. Those moochers living off the government are not interested, especially in facts.
This is a near insoluble problem. Communications must be two ways; moochers and liberals have zero interest in that type of communicating for the most part. They have adopted a predominantly female propensity for resorting to name calling, ad hominem attacks, or silence because they have no interest in any conversation or communications in which their assertions are questioned. They have no interest in changing their lives, and treat interlocutors the way a mommy treats a petulant child. Children must know that mommy’s word is divine law, and not to be challenged, and mommy has no obligation to explain herself.
It is more than a little amusing to see the credulous expression on a moocher/liberal’s face when the factual truth of their statements is challenged. Just challenge a liberal or moocher and watch the name calling begin. Communications about the fact that government spending and borrowing are unsustainable, and the fact that increased taxes will not result in more government revenue but instead a decrease in productivity, because punishing the greatest producers for producing more has, and always will, result in them working less not more. If extraordinary effort cannot return extraordinary results, nobody will put in the extra effort.
We saw blue tarps over roofs for well over a year after Ivan, Roofs were repaired fast after Andrew; why? After Andrew, massive numbers of people rushed to South Florida to help, bringing tools and materials, sleeping in tents and working 20 hours a day. People put in a Herculean effort because the rewards were great. You don’t see massive numbers of people trying to get to Staten Island to help, why? Because the law now says that you cannot charge more after a storm than before. The anti-gouging laws, mean that extraordinary effort cannot be rewarded with extraordinary rewards, so you don’t see extraordinary effort. Free Markets can and would better allocate resources after a disaster than the government.
History shows repeated failure of democratic or totalitarian wealth redistribution. But today our demographics are more about feelings than facts. Because the thought of people suffering because they, or worse yet their parents, made bad choices is not palatable to the feminized moocher liberal, any and all historic evidence can and is ignored. This can be seen in the voting patterns this year, look at the voting pattern those who thought health care was more important than the deficit. The reality is that with an increased deficit, we won’t be able to afford health care. This simple fact, is meaningless to the typical feminized moocher liberal, who feel that they have a right to force others to work for their health care.
Based on Tuesday’s results, we’re screwed. I know a business owner who is closing his business, not because it’s not making money, but because it will be making a lot less, the owner has enough to live out his days without working and can literally pay zero income taxes (is money is in tax free bonds, gold, and off shore accts). This 50-ish millionaire will be legible for food stamps, etc. within the next few months, and his employees are all going to be job hunting. This is reality of Atlas Shrugged in today’s USA. A producer with no debt is deciding to stop participating because the government tax and regulatory burden on his small business means he will be working just to provide jobs for others with minimal or no reward for his efforts, risk, and investment. He has enough to provide a very high standard of living for himself and his wife and kid for the rest of their lives just about anywhere in the world, even if his money doesn’t earn him a dime.
The feminized liberal moochers will say he’s being selfish, they are going to try to find a way to take/tax his wealth which he already paid vast amounts of taxes. The idea of private property, which includes money, and people having the right to private property, and the protection of private property, is the basis for and reason why the USA became the wealthiest most generous nation the world ever saw. The rejection of this idea, and the mommy inspired idea of everybody getting and equal share of everything regardless effort is the downfall of our country. The idea that competition is bad, and that all kids should get a trophy, not just the winners, or the idea that nobody should feel bad because they didn’t do as good; the idea that has resulted in no more valedictorians in most of our high schools; is the idea and change in our demographics that has killed this once great nation.
Our labor force, from factories to the corner office, were made of high school graduates who valued individual effort, today the country has changed, graduation and SAT scores are at all time lows, and those who do graduate don’t have the basic skills necessary to compete in today’s modern workplace. How are we going to replace the retiring baby boomers who were generally self sufficient products of intact traditional families and a work ethic based on a religious duty to do your best, with today’s liberate, irreverent, ambitionless, entitled barbarian.
The demographics of this election make it clear; we are no longer a self-governing, self-reliant people. Those of us who are no longer have sufficient numbers to effect change and control of our government. So we will see the end of our great nation. Atlas will shrug, and is shrugging. All those of us who know based on historic and scientific fact that the path to prosperity and happiness for the most people in a society is liberty and limited government; no longer have the numbers to make a difference, and rational discussion about the subject will not be tolerated by the majority. The Patriot act, drone killing of US citizens, restrictions on jury trials, etc. all show that we’ve already lost the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Watch for the speech codes of our universities to become the law of the land. Watch for government control of the internet. Watch for increased limits on individual rights to keep and bear arms.
The Russian analysis, by Igor Nikolaevich Panarin, that predicted the breakup of the US was only wrong in its timing, not in the outcome.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Unprincipled Stand of LPF
By Tom Rhodes, Chairman LPF Platform Committee, 11/5/2012
The LPF’s stand on the proposed Florida Constitution amendments is clearly unprincipled and against our own party’s platform. The State Government Section of our platform (1.4 ) clearly states: We support Equality under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Each person has the same inalienable rights. It is the States duty to protect those rights for each individual equally.
Platform Section VI. TAXES reads as follows:
The official published position of the LPF on Florida’s constitutional amendments includes:
Although these positions are in the spirit of the Platform position to reduce/eliminate property taxes, they clearly violates the for more principled and repeated positions and themes of the LPF Tax favoritism should be illegal and condemnation any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification.
All of those amendments apply unequal treatment under the law, and reward certain groups preferential treatment under the law. In no way can these positions be considered to be principled libertarian positions.
The LPF official positions only establish that special rights and privileges for some is acceptable. “The LPF believes that the property tax should be eliminated entirely rather than bit by bit to certain groups, however, the LPF supports continued reduction in the property tax burden of Floridians as we continue to work towards total elimination.” The official position recognizes that this is an unprincipled position, and does nothing to explain why in any of these instances unequal treatment under the law should be accepted, the idea that some people getting less taxes while working on all people having less taxes undermines the very principles of liberty our country was founded.
Since none of those amendments promote or even recognize the desire to eliminate property taxes, and all promote tax favoritism, how can we say Tax Favoritism Should Be Illegal and tell voters to vote Yes, on constitutional amendments that promote tax favoritism?
Calling ourselves the “Party of Principle” then telling people to vote for unequal treatment under the law is not only contradictory, but clearly unprincipled.
The LPF’s stand on the proposed Florida Constitution amendments is clearly unprincipled and against our own party’s platform. The State Government Section of our platform (1.4 ) clearly states: We support Equality under the Law, and condemn any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification. Each person has the same inalienable rights. It is the States duty to protect those rights for each individual equally.
Platform Section VI. TAXES reads as follows:
1. The legislature should find more voluntary means of supporting state services, such as lotteries and user fees.
2. Taxation of privately owned real property should be eliminated. In effect, it makes the state the owner of all lands by forcing individuals to pay rent to the state or forfeit their title.
3. The personal property tax on Florida businesses should be repealed.
4. Tax favoritism should be illegal. Abatements, subsidies, credits, or other incentives to businesses based on geographical area, job creation, or any other criteria deny equal protection under the law.
5. Sales tax on used merchandise that is resold results in double taxation and should be eliminated.
6. Adding sales tax to products already subject to specific state taxes, such as gasoline and cigarettes, should be ended. This practice results in double taxation, as consumers are paying a tax on a tax.
7. We oppose any sales or use tax on the Internet.
The official published position of the LPF on Florida’s constitutional amendments includes:
2) Veterans Disabled Due To Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount - This amendment would expand a special homestead property exemption to include combat disabled veterans who were not Florida residents when they entered the military. The discount would be based on a percentage equal to that of the veteran’s permanent, service-related disability. (Read full text)
LPF Recommendation: YES
The LPF's position is that taxation of privately owned real property should be eliminated entirely. In effect, it makes the state the owner of all lands by forcing individuals to pay rent to the state or forfeit their title. While the LPF maintains that all laws should be applied equally rather than the laws being designed to selectively benefit or harm certain groups, in this instance the opportunity to reduce the tax burden imposed by the state is a step in the right direction towards total elimination of the property tax. A reduction in collected property taxes, even though directed at a certain group, will result in limiting the size and scope of government which will benefit all individual Floridians. The LPF will continue to work to reduce the property tax with the ultimate goal of complete elimination.
...
4) Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction For Nonhomestead Assessment Increases; Delay Of Scheduled Repeal - This amendment would prevent increases in the assessed value of homestead properties and some non-homestead properties when the market values for those properties decrease. It also would reduce the annual growth assessment cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. In addition, it would provide first-time homesteaders with an additional exemption equal to 50% of the home’s market value. However, that exemption would drop to zero after five years. (Read full text)
LPF Recommendation: YES
While this amendment is not perfect by any means, it will have the effect of reducing real property taxes, or at least slow the rate of tax increase, for most residential and commercial property owners in Florida.
...
9) Homestead Property Tax Exemption For Surviving Spouse Of Military Veteran Or First Responder -This amendment would give a homestead property tax exemption to the surviving spouse of a military veteran or first responder killed in the line of duty. The provision would authorize the Legislature to totally or partially exempt a surviving spouse’s homestead property from being taxed.
LPF Recommendation: YES
For the same reasons stated in support of Amendment 2, the LPF recommends a "YES" vote on Amendment 9 in order to continue to reduce the property tax burden on Floridians resulting in a less taxes collected by the state and a limiting of the size and scope of government. The LPF will continue to work to reduce the property tax for all Floridians with the ultimate goal of complete elimination.
...
11) Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency On Property; Equal To Assessed Value - This amendment would authorize the Legislature to let counties and municipalities grant an additional homestead tax exemption for low-income seniors. The exemption would be equal to the assessed value of a homestead property, if: its market value is less than $250,000; the owner has maintained permanent residence there for at least 25 years; the owner is at least 65; and the owner has a low household income under law.
LPF Recommendation: YES
This amendment is slightly different than Amendments 2 and 9 because it only authorizes the Legislature to allow (rather than mandate) counties and municipalities to grant additional homestead exemptions to low-income seniors who meet certain conditions. The most efficient and accountable form of government is that which is most easily accessible by the people, the smallest, and closest to home. This amendment will result in a grant of additional authority to our counties and municipalities. By placing this decision into the hands of our local governments the citizens of Florida will have a greater ability to express their opinions to their local elected officials through petition and via the ballot box. The LPF believes that the property tax should be eliminated entirely rather than bit by bit to certain groups, however, the LPF supports continued reduction in the property tax burden of Floridians as we continue to work towards total elimination.
Although these positions are in the spirit of the Platform position to reduce/eliminate property taxes, they clearly violates the for more principled and repeated positions and themes of the LPF Tax favoritism should be illegal and condemnation any law that either rewards or punishes any individual based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any other group identification.
All of those amendments apply unequal treatment under the law, and reward certain groups preferential treatment under the law. In no way can these positions be considered to be principled libertarian positions.
The LPF official positions only establish that special rights and privileges for some is acceptable. “The LPF believes that the property tax should be eliminated entirely rather than bit by bit to certain groups, however, the LPF supports continued reduction in the property tax burden of Floridians as we continue to work towards total elimination.” The official position recognizes that this is an unprincipled position, and does nothing to explain why in any of these instances unequal treatment under the law should be accepted, the idea that some people getting less taxes while working on all people having less taxes undermines the very principles of liberty our country was founded.
Since none of those amendments promote or even recognize the desire to eliminate property taxes, and all promote tax favoritism, how can we say Tax Favoritism Should Be Illegal and tell voters to vote Yes, on constitutional amendments that promote tax favoritism?
Calling ourselves the “Party of Principle” then telling people to vote for unequal treatment under the law is not only contradictory, but clearly unprincipled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
