There will be tax tea parties in various U.S. cities on April 15 to protest taxes. This looks like an opportunity to pass out Austrian economics literature and possibly influence people. At the very least, you could protest taxes. See the link for more information.
http://taxdayteaparty.com/
We'll be protesting in Wilmington NC at the corner of College and Oleander 5-7pm on the 15th. It's time to make our voices heard, to send the message that we are organizing to vote them out of office, that we will not stand for the robbing of our money, our morals, and our liberty. We have our Austrian economic and Campaign for Liberty literature ready to hand out, we hope to educate as well as motivate. Please support your local Tax Day Tea Party, if you can't attend please at least pass the word.
"The financial problems faced by the USA cannot be solved by politicians. They can only be made worse by politicians" Bill Bonner
I just got back from the Cincinnati tea party. It was a cold, drizzly day, but we had at least 5,000 people there. It could have been much more. The march was really long, and it would have made impressive video from the air, but I didn't see any helicopter coverage. I've seen many, much smaller political rallies get tons of coverage in the past, so I hope Cincinnati's does too, but I didn't see hardly any press.There were very few counter-protesters, maybe 50 at most, and they tried to cause some problems by running through the crowd and into people, but a couple that actually ran into somebody got arrested. I'm willing to bet that the counter protesters get at least as much coverage as the main protest.I was very disappointed in the lack of black people. I only saw a couple of black protesters, but most of the counter-protesters were black. I'm sure any coverage will try to minimize the parties by focusing on race.The three speakers sucked in general and talked too long, but all three criticized Republicans as much as Democrats. I think that was staged though. When one speaker asked Democrats to raise their hands, I only saw 2 in the thousand or so people I could see at that time. When he asked about Republicans, about half that I could see raised their hands. This guy was hinting pretty heavily that the group should vote Libertarian, but he never said the word libertarian.The thing I liked least of all was the thousands of people reciting the pledge of allegiance like good little socialists. It makes my skin crawl when I see that. The pledge of allegiance sounds like a Nazi or Soviet loyalty oath to me, and that's because it was designed by a socialist to promote the socialist movement in the US. Yuk!But all in all, it was a pretty well organized and executed event.Dayton's is from 6 to 8 this evening.--I recently got home from the Dayton tea party. Not surprisingly, it had much in common with the Cincinnati tea party. The signs at both were great. Assuming I was right about 5,000 in Cincinnati (somebody told me that was in the middle of numerous estimates), the Dayton tea party had about 3,500 people. It was by far the most crowded I've seen Courthouse Square in three years excepting the Christmas tree lighting, which is nuts. Also the crowd in Dayton seemed more energetic, active and independent, and the speakers were better and shorter. That makes sense to me knowing the character of both Dayton and Cincinnati.One interesting point was Dayton's crowd was full of FairTax people. I assume that's because Boortz is on the air in Dayton but not Cincinnati. I saw only one FairTax sign in Cincinnati in the thousand or so people I was immersed in. I saw at least 30 FairTax signs in Dayton in the same thousand or so people.Apparently no counter-protesters showed up in Dayton. I didn't see one. Not one person I talked to after the event even saw one.I did see several, not a bunch, black people protesting with us in Dayton. The crowd could easily be painted white by the media because most protesters were white, but unlike in Cincinnati, that would be untrue. There were enough black protesters in Dayton to break that stereotype, imo.All that said, the Dayton event was after work while Cincinnati's was in the middle of lunch, so comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges.I wish I had taken a camera. 20-20 hindsight is worth what you pay for it.--Personally, I see the glass half full, but more I see it half empty. First, I'm not a ra-ra guy. I came to my conclusions about freedom through personal analysis and reason. Nobody convinced me to be a libertarian. I never attended a rally. I never had a libertarian role model. I never read about political theory including libertarianism. I became a libertarian through personal reflection, observation, experience and reason before I ever knew that libertarian thought or libertarians existed.So to me, these tea parties are passe. I'm glad to see many people have caught a whiff of the love of freedom I've been espousing since 1988. But these people don't feel it like I do. Despite all the rhetoric of limited government transcending political affiliation I heard today, this movement seems more a political convenience to most of the people I saw. Even my girlfriend was moved. For a couple hours. I doubt it will last to the 2010 elections, let alone over the long haul. Anybody who needs cheerleaders to incite them to care about freedom isn't a freedom lover.On the other hand, I'm ecstatic to see people who have for voted for big, bad government their entire lives suddenly rejecting it. I've written extensively in my blog about the need for conservatives to reject the Bush/Republican/big government policies of the past. I heard exactly that today. These tea partiers threw Bush and Republicans under the bus where they deserved to be for the last 12 years as quickly as they threw Obama and Democrats. That's an indisputably positive development.But as I sat in a downtown Dayton bar tonight and talked to a senior local Republican party machine official, he promised me that the local and national party would stand by my Republican representative Turner in 2010 despite his running just to the right of Nancy Pelosi. He promised me, while talking excitedly about change and reform and grassroots efforts, that nothing would change here. It was phenomenally disheartening because I can see every local Republican organization in America saying, "yay for change in all the other organizations except ours."So as excited as I am by the people today, I fully expect this movement to die a grotesque death on the vine come primary and election time and devolve into lesser of two evils politics as usual.
Once I heard the protests were being co opted, my interest in joining largely declined, especially since the party I would've gone to would've been in D.C.However, the weather was absolutely miserable today (cold, rainy & breezy), & I had gotten rid of old winter clothes ahead of time for summer, so I phoned it in anyway. I feel a bit bad, but I think I can make up for it with a summer in NH at some point.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
What do you mean by co-opted? Nobody tried to co-opt me. I'm jealous.
lostinwilderness: What do you mean by co-opted? Nobody tried to co-opt me. I'm jealous.
I meant various teaparties in various cities being hijacked by the Republicans, Neo-Cons, etc. via their own turnout's activity. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, it;s been pretty widespread on the internets by now. a general link for a bit of an overview: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/09/telling-tea-party-truth/Sadly, already I'm seeing the other idiots (Democrats) buying into the false rhetoric of Republicans & Neo-Cons, are now more or less decrying the Tea Party protests as more or less right-wing extremist activity. It's just very annoying that a good idea is being soured by partisan hacks, although to my knowledge, not every protest has been or is being hijacked. I will do my part & try to clear up any disinfo I encounter offline, though.
I knew my tea parties were going to be mostly Republicans. That didn't deter me, and as I pointed out, I was right.
But if Republicans are suddenly allies in the interest of freedom, however temporarily, that's a great thing, imo.
But as I've reflected more since I first posted, I'm moving further toward the glass being mostly empty. I mentioned I wasn't a ra-ra guy, and the more I think about both rallies, the more I think the ra-ra stuff is just the same old partisanship as ever. It's the Buckeyes versus the Wolverines.
It's easy to get caught up in rhetoric for a time and become hopeful, which drove me to see the half full glass for a short while, but when the rhetoric fades the substance shines through, words are meaningless and emotion-filled rallies are to incite the faithful, not to inspire reason. One comment that stands out was how Democrats had won in 2008 with better organization and more energy. The obvious implication was these tea parties were designed to promote a better conservative organization and conservative energy.
Still, temporary allies in the cause of freedom are better than no allies at all, and I'm happy I went, promoted the cause, and talked to a number of conservatives about the failures of conservatives in the last 20 years while promoting a libertarian point of view. I wish more libertarians had done the same. If nothing else, my girlfiend will be more receptive to voting for limited government in 2010. They say change begins at home. ;)
Nitroadict: Once I heard the protests were being co opted, my interest in joining largely declined, especially since the party I would've gone to would've been in D.C.
Once I heard the protests were being co opted, my interest in joining largely declined, especially since the party I would've gone to would've been in D.C.
I felt the same way, and didn't go to the DC gatherings in part for the same reason! I actually replied that I "wasn't very interested because it seemed run by Republicans", to one of the hardcore Democrats that I work with who asked about it (with a very "political" smirk asking the question, this was another indication that it was being co opted). I'm on a personal mission to see if I can convert some devoted economic authoritarians into defenders of freedom, but that's impossible if I lose credibility by looking partisan, hah. Is that wrong? heh
It's definitely challenging getting Democrats to be open minded about government destruction of economic freedom. There are just too many popular fallacies drilled into people's minds. I think it may be even harder to get them to come to their senses on this than getting Republicans to embrace consistency in social and foreign freedom.
Ansury: I'm on a personal mission to see if I can convert some devoted economic authoritarians into defenders of freedom, but that's impossible if I lose credibility by looking partisan, hah. Is that wrong? heh
I'm on a personal mission to see if I can convert some devoted economic authoritarians into defenders of freedom, but that's impossible if I lose credibility by looking partisan, hah. Is that wrong? heh
I'd say that hiding from opportunities to promote freedom is a mistake. Today was an unusual (unique?) opportunity when conservatives were promoting freedom themselves. I can't think of another opportunity in my politically aware lifetime in which conservatives were so open to the idea of freedom. Now is the time - today was the time - to make hay, imo.
Ansury: It's definitely challenging getting Democrats to be open minded about government destruction of economic freedom. There are just too many popular fallacies drilled into people's minds. I think it may be even harder to get them to come to their senses on this than getting Republicans to embrace consistency in social and foreign freedom.
It's not all about logical fallacies; this would assume far too much logic, in the first place. A lot of it is psychological (and into the realm of the emotional): The Democrats & Republicans just get too much of a rush from being part of their own Crowds to think beyond their own mystical assortments of arrogance (of their position), & ignorance (of other's positions). They are also highly prone to political amnesia, but I've found the best way to tackle political amnesia is not to enable it in conversation, which would probably mean dropping niceties, dancing around subjects, & being a bit "rude" (this is relative to how impenetrable their political bubble is). For example, when some leftists friends I know began to throw absurd questions regarding economics of Bush somehow being libertarian (yea, I laughed too), I threw it right back at them:"So, hows the economy going under Obama? He's got some pretty trusty people who worked on the inside with some of these companies being bailed-out, so obviously, we won't get screwed." (Populist appeal is actually very effective against Democrats, I find)or"Laugh all you want at the Republicans for supporting Bush, but you guys voted for the same type of candidate with Obama. By the time June roles around, you'll wonder who the hell is this guy who is: pro- ACTA treaty, pro- RIAA, pro-War (Afganistan, Pakistan, & maybe Somalia if he needs to make people think "Change" is coming by murdering a conflicted territory over some spare pirated DVD's sales), pro-wiretapping (but it's the democrat version, so this is cool, right?), etc. etc. Basically, he's already done a complete 180 & then some from his campaign, and you guys are scratching your heads, completly missing the difference between the "ought" of the campaign trail, and the "is" of reality brought on by the aqquistion of political power. Democrats & Republicans? You guys deserve each other" (an expanded version, I admit, but no less startling in conversation).
Solid Gold. That is how you talk to partisans effectively.
I went to the one in my city. It was a pretty good turnout... The numbers weren't in the thousands, but you have to remember that the number of people there isn't necessarily the number of people who hold those ideals. Some people simply couldn't make it. My dad, for instance, is a CPA, and was at work literally all day.
At the tea party I attended, it was pretty strongly emphasized over and over that it was not a republican meeting and it was not a democratic meeting, it was an American meeting.
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
When democrats, republicans, and picklicans (pick any other party and place here) start showing up at these kinds of events where "American" tones blast any partisan silliness, then I'll think this is getting serious. Other than that when's the next circus coming to town? gotta keep their hopes up with good ole' fashion amusement... merry-go-round anybody
I attended the Dayton one, and I can confirm it seemed co-opted. Contrary to the earlier poster who also attended the Dayton tea party, in my mind the 'fair' taxers dominated.
Then I read in the paper today that one of the speakers at a tea party in the South was Sean Hannity. Co-Opted? Yup.
Saw it on TV. Looked like republicans trying to reignite interest in the boring "FairTax" while using the crowd as an excuse to talk about other neocon crap.
Thats scary. Republicans organizing protests, to support a FairTax. So now (suprise suprise), conservatives will march in the streets begging the government to steal their money.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
"Now is the time - today was the time- to make hay..."
The line has been drawn. It is time for The Fight. We fight the Socialist now on all fronts as hard as we can or we loose; we loose it all. It is now the time our forefathers warned us of. Drop the squabbling over political parties, get out there and fight. Fight any way you can. The only way this fight will be won is to go out to places and events where your voice is different and MAKE IT HEARD, not stand back and criticize.
We will never be free of two party politics by not engaging ...
NOW IS THE TIME TO BE HEARD!
Cary Naramore: "Now is the time - today was the time- to make hay..." The line has been drawn. It is time for The Fight. We fight the Socialist now on all fronts as hard as we can or we loose; we loose it all. It is now the time our forefathers warned us of. Drop the squabbling over political parties, get out there and fight. Fight any way you can. The only way this fight will be won is to go out to places and events where your voice is different and MAKE IT HEARD, not stand back and criticize. We will never be free of two party politics by not engaging ... NOW IS THE TIME TO BE HEARD!
I hope you're not being exclusive here. For one, I'm engaged. What's an individual such as me have to do with the two parties? Isn't it funny how they're called "parties"... is it byob?
I understand the opposition to Fairtax, but we have to approach change realistically. Fairtax or even a flat tax would probably be immensely better than the theft and waste we have going on now, and they are certainly a step in the right direction. The only way to realistically end legal theft is to do it the same way it came about--progressively (no pun intended) and in stages.
I agree. Ignoring political reality isn't helpful. The FairTax would be a great political lever for reducing the size and scope of government because once the people experience the benefits of the FairTax versus our current tax code, they would be far more open to dramatic cuts in government. If you want to get to greatly reduced government and no taxes, you have to follow a path.
Heard by whom?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
wilderness: When democrats, republicans, and picklicans (pick any other party and place here) start showing up at these kinds of events where "American" tones blast any partisan silliness, then I'll think this is getting serious. Other than that when's the next circus coming to town? gotta keep their hopes up with good ole' fashion amusement... merry-go-round anybody
I think the way to make that homogeneous kind of crowd can only happen if you ALL show up. Just because the crowd will contain all kinds of people with whom you disagree on some other issues is no reason not to show up - with or without your signs - making yourselves take advantage of the opportunity to observe everything. Who's there, what kind of signs, what are people doing who don't have signs, etc.
Swelling the numbers is important. The main problem for the free-market supporters right now is that we are so splintered. Simply hanging out with our like-minded pals supporting the free market isn't enough to make it happen. We have to find a way to secure the free market and accept that we all have different ideas on other aspects of life. If only there were a law to govern human interaction. A law banning coercion...
Ansury: I understand the opposition to Fairtax, but we have to approach change realistically. Fairtax or even a flat tax would probably be immensely better than the theft and waste we have going on now, and they are certainly a step in the right direction.
I understand the opposition to Fairtax, but we have to approach change realistically. Fairtax or even a flat tax would probably be immensely better than the theft and waste we have going on now, and they are certainly a step in the right direction.
It's tragic there is such widespread tolerance of both the FairTax & FlatTaxamid libertarians, and they would be best to re-check their sympathies before the hijacked tea parties take advantage of their beliefs to get Neo-conservatism: 2012 (The Quadrilogy) rolling along. A good reddit comment thread:http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/89q2d/the_flat_tax_is_not_flat_and_the_fairtax_is_not/This comment stands out in particular:
sextusempiricus:Libertarians should not seek to be social engineers using the principles of capitalism to maximize utility output. All taxation is theft, and we should never advocate any taxation in any form. It is immoral to say, "Let's start mugging this slightly different group of people in this more effective way, so as to obviate worse muggings."
from: http://www.mises.org/story/3389The Flat Tax is an income tax. It is the tax-reform idea that has been around the longest. First proposed by economist Milton Friedman in 1962, the flat tax entered the mainstream through a 1981 Wall Street Journal article by Hoover Institution economists Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka called "A Proposal to Simplify Our Tax System." This article grew into a 1985 book published by the Hoover Institution Press called The Flat Tax. A second edition was published in 1995, and an "updated revised edition" in 2007 that can hardly be called either. Aside from this book, the Flat Tax gained national prominence when House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) pushed the idea of a Flat Tax after the Republicans gained control of Congress during the Clinton administration. A few bills based on the Hall-Rabushka plan were then introduced in Congress, but came to nothing. Other incarnations of the Flat Tax were pushed by both Democrats and Republicans. Another incarnation of the Flat Tax is that of former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. His 2005 book is called Flat Tax Revolution.Under a Flat Tax, everyone's income is taxed at the same rate (Forbes says 17 percent; Hall and Rabushka say 19 percent). And not only are there no tax brackets, there are generally no tax deductions other than personal and dependent allowances. Social Security and Medicare taxes would remain as they are now. The appeal of the Flat Tax is simplicity. You can do your taxes on a postcard-sized form says Forbes. Goodbye compliance costs.The problem with the Flat Tax is a simple one: the Flat Tax is not flat. And furthermore, no one actually pays 17 or 19 percent. In fact, taxpayers don't even pay the same percentage. The Flat Tax is actually a highly progressive tax. It is more progressive than our current system, and effectively has more tax brackets. Who said progressivity requires graduated tax rates? Under the Forbes plan, a family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,165 of income; a family of six would owe nothing until its income exceeded $65,930. And those figures are sure to have increased since they were first proposed back in 2005. But not only would many families pay no income tax, they still might get a refund anyway because the Forbes plan includes a refundable child credit and earned-income credit.If you want an example of a real flat tax, look no further than the 2.9 percent Medicare tax. Everyone pays 2.9 percent (split between employer and employee), on every dollar earned, no matter one's marital status, number of dependents, or income level. I am in favor of neither the tax nor Medicare, but if you are looking for a genuine flat tax, then the Medicare tax is your tax.
The Fairtax is a consumption tax. It is the most radical tax reform plan, bar none. It also has the most vocal and intolerant proponents. The FairTax is the brainchild of three businessmen concerned about the crippling effects on the economy of the current federal tax code. After adopting the name "FairTax" for their tax-reform plan, they formed Americans for Fair Taxation in 1997 and enlisted Representative John Linder (R-GA) to introduce FairTax legislation in Congress. Linder first sponsored the "Fair Tax Act" in the House in July of 1999, and has reintroduced a FairTax bill at the beginning of every term of Congress since then, including the current one.Although Linder's FairTax bill languishes in the House Committee on Ways and Means each time it is introduced, it has always had a number of cosponsors, including Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter — but not Ron Paul, the acknowledged taxpayers' best friend. It also has its share of supporters outside of Congress, including Mike Huckabee and Neal Boortz. The latter is the author, with Congressman Linder, of The FairTax Book, published in 2005. A paperback version of The FairTax Book was issued in 2006 with some notable changes to correct false statements made in the original hardcover release of the book. Boortz and Linder also published a sequel, FairTax: The Truth, Answering the Critics, just last year....The FairTax is a national retail sales tax of 30 percent on the final sale of all new goods and services. All new goods — from cars and houses to prescription drugs and food; and all services — from operations and funerals to rent and haircuts. Because it would replace the personal income tax, there would also no longer be withholding tax, capital-gains tax, the alternative-minimum tax, or taxes on interest and dividends. Even your gambling winnings would no longer be taxed. Of course, there would be no tax deductions either. The FairTax would likewise eliminate corporate income tax, estate tax, gift tax, unemployment tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. The appeal is obvious: no more complex tax code, no more taxes withheld from paychecks, no more 1040 forms, no more record keeping, no more compliance costs, no more IRS audits. And if that weren't enough, the FairTax also includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities.But for a plan that promises such a utopia, the problems with the FairTax are legion. The stated rate of the FairTax is too low to achieve the promised revenue neutrality. The amount by which it is claimed that prices would fall under a FairTax system has been grossly exaggerated. There is nothing to prevent an income tax from being reinstituted, giving us a two-headed hydra of an income tax and a consumption tax. And not only would state and local governments have to pay a national sales tax to the federal government, the federal government would have to pay sales taxes to itself on all its new purchases. Since I have already written extensively about the problems with the FairTax, I will stop with its problems here and focus on why the FairTax, like the Flat Tax, is not true to its name.So why is the FairTax not fair? Well, first of all, what's fair about a consumption tax? Why is it that people who rightly criticize the income tax are so quick to accept a national sales tax on consumption? The FairTax perpetuates the fallacy that the government has a right to confiscate a percentage of the value of each new good sold and every service rendered. This is no different than claiming that the government has a right to the portion of each American's income. As Murray Rothbard explained,The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.The FairTax is also not fair because of the rate. What is fair about the government taking a 30 percent cut on every transaction? I know the FairTaxers claim that the rate is only 23 percent, but when I buy an item for $1.00 and end up paying $1.30, the basic math I learned in elementary school tells me that I paid a tax rate of 30 percent. But regardless of whether the rate is 23 or 30 percent, why should the bloated, pork-laden leviathan we call the US government get anywhere near this much of our income? And finally, maintaining that the FairTax is a "fair" tax system, or one that is "fairer" than our current system, is highly subjective. Boortz himself even acknowledges this in his newest book on the FairTax: "Whether a tax system is 'fair' is a complicated economic and philosophical question, one that inevitably involves oversimplification and subjective judgment."
The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax.
I attended the Tea Party demonstration in our small city and talked with the prople there. There were about 100, and I'd guess 2/3 were from a much larger neighboring city. Of these 100 people 2/3 did not support Ron Paul and were happy with one of the 2 political party machines, most all Republicans, they just wanted lower taxes. There were no military. There were 2 retired policemen. The other 1/3 wanted more changes than lower taxes but they weren't sure how much more or what. A few thought the government would somehow attack them for just being there. Of those that had heard of ron Paul, most thought he was too counter-culture.
At the end of the day, I was amazed at how far I'd traveled from the main-stream. I was also rather depressed by realizing that nearly all of them had not moved.
lostinwilderness:I'd say that hiding from opportunities to promote freedom is a mistake. Today was an unusual (unique?) opportunity when conservatives were promoting freedom themselves. I can't think of another opportunity in my politically aware lifetime in which conservatives were so open to the idea of freedom. Now is the time - today was the time - to make hay, imo.
lostinwildernessis right. By hiding out from the 2 parties and wanting our own game we will never succeed. How many of you have watched the excellent DVD of John Adams. If not, run out and get it. It tells the story of the real rebellion, and a large number of things I hadn't realized.
1. The initial outbreaks of anger were not organized by anyone, and were more like criminal mobs striking out, committed by the far less educated. 2. After these outbreaks had continued for some time, the educated began to meet and talk. And subsequently agreed to provide some local military and political leadership. 3. It wasn't until a couple years later some ot these became really serious and began formal meeting for the Declaration of Independence and to provide serious, organized military leadership.
We are just at step 1. And we need to grow step 1 significantly. In 1774 these 'mobs' were local men meeting in bars, drinking a lot, talking loudly and riling each other up, resulting in local breakouts. So one way is to repeat this. Go to local bars and taverns, get all of them to drink a lot, and talk it up.
If this is not your style there's another way that I know works. Get some more Mises and Ron Paul literature (where do you get the Mises literature?) and in your own neighborhood, go door to door. Knock, meet and talk to the people, introduce yourself, get invited in if you can. Don't get into too much detail. I know this works because I've gotten friends together and elected 2 full complete sets of city councils. It takes time, evenings and weekends. But it works extremely well. Embrace the Republicans, Democrats and anyone else who will listed, and convert them.
The people I met at the rally had never really heard of Ron Paul and never talked to anyone who took other than the 2 parties seriously.
I also was surprised at the results of talking to several retired policemen and merchant marines that were there. They are serious, knowledgable and committed. Find them (they tend to live in one neighborhood). They'd be great early leaders.
However, in general, I was put in my place as it were. I really don't think anything at all is going to happen. Several people said to me "What can we do?" as if they were already slaves or thought they were, and had no power to act on their own initiative and no thoughts of their own. And they thought this was an adequate excuse for doing nothing. Really, I think we've already lost the battle.
cryptocode:Really, I think we've already lost the battle.
Then start a new one?
I'll still fight...
Give me liberty or give me death...
... literally.
cryptocode:At the end of the day, I was amazed at how far I'd traveled from the main-stream. I was also rather depressed by realizing that nearly all of them had not moved.
Word.
I catch myself getting into debates, where anarchy, free markets, rejecting the state/socialism all seems so simple and rational, but try explaining that to a layman who doesn't even know what a dollar is supposed to be, let alone Bastiat's Seen and Unseen.
If you ever saw that episode of Stargate where Jack O'Neill gets the ancient knowledge put in his head, and slowly stops being able to speak english, and then starts speaking another tongue, and randomly doing brilliant things that scare everyone else, that's what this feels like.
Like everyone is looking at me with pity because I'm nuts, but I'm looking at them with pity because they can't see that I am not nuts, and it's to their detriment that they don't get it.
</ramble>
To me this just looks like another example of people begging the government to give them some liberty and like the rest of them it's going to fail.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
quicksilver: There will be tax tea parties in various U.S. cities on April 15 to protest taxes. This looks like an opportunity to pass out Austrian economics literature and possibly influence people. At the very least, you could protest taxes. See the link for more information. http://taxdayteaparty.com/
In my opinion protesting taxes [or anything else] is a waste of my time, time that could be more productively invested in looking for possible ways , legal, quasi-legal or downright illegal to lower or eliminate some of my own taxes, regardless of what every one else has to pay. [Their taxes are their problem!]
Besides, joining political groups and protesting etc. etc. only draws attention and makes you a target- I say don't join groups, use that saved time to look for ways to lower/eliminate your own taxes that you are morally and psychologically comfortable with, and when you've found some- keep your mouth shut!
The only possible reasons that I can see for going to a tax protest would be for entertainment purposes, or perhaps to pick up hot babes, other than that, its a wash.
Don't join, don't organize, don't fight [perhaps learn the principles of the art of "fighting by not fighting" as Bruce Lee called it?], and keep that big trap of yours closed in public!
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Ansury: I understand the opposition to Fairtax, but we have to approach change realistically. Fairtax or even a flat tax would probably be immensely better than the theft and waste we have going on now, and they are certainly a step in the right direction. The only way to realistically end legal theft is to do it the same way it came about--progressively (no pun intended) and in stages.
"only way to realistically end legal theft" is to steal (fair tax)? So let's just shuffle this stuff around and relabel these taxes. It's like spring cleaning.
Stephanie Bond: wilderness: When democrats, republicans, and picklicans (pick any other party and place here) start showing up at these kinds of events where "American" tones blast any partisan silliness, then I'll think this is getting serious. Other than that when's the next circus coming to town? gotta keep their hopes up with good ole' fashion amusement... merry-go-round anybody I think the way to make that homogeneous kind of crowd can only happen if you ALL show up. Just because the crowd will contain all kinds of people with whom you disagree on some other issues is no reason not to show up - with or without your signs - making yourselves take advantage of the opportunity to observe everything. Who's there, what kind of signs, what are people doing who don't have signs, etc. Swelling the numbers is important. The main problem for the free-market supporters right now is that we are so splintered. Simply hanging out with our like-minded pals supporting the free market isn't enough to make it happen. We have to find a way to secure the free market and accept that we all have different ideas on other aspects of life. If only there were a law to govern human interaction. A law banning coercion...
I don't find it serious enough these "parties". I was at the first "endthefed". That is an easy straight shoot. just rid the fed. These tax parties are full of all kinds of distortions about what taxes are about and what each tax pays for. The tax movement does need to be reasonable for sure. Right now, even if I go or not, I was merely stating it's a movement that is far away from being reasonable and is rather silly and amusing - another hope getter, hope like Obama that is. Not that people that went are silly. Go, be there, provide reason. My wife and I were actually thinking about going, but something came up that day when it was here. Even if I went it would have been silly still. In other words this tax issue still has a ways to go. And I can see people compromising already. It's sad. Reshuffling and relabeling the boxes around doesn't get rid of what's in the boxes.
wilderness: "only way to realistically end legal theft" is to steal (fair tax)? So let's just shuffle this stuff around and relabel these taxes. It's like spring cleaning.
Spring cleaning is a good thing. Nobody said the FairTax was better than no taxes. But in order to get to where we should be, small government with no taxes, we have to build up the political confidence that dramatic reform will dramatically improve the lives of Americans. Adopting the FairTax would dramatically improve the economy and the lives of Americans, giving some leader the good will to perform dramatic cuts to government like ending NATO, abolishing the Fed, the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture and more.
lostinwilderness: wilderness: "only way to realistically end legal theft" is to steal (fair tax)? So let's just shuffle this stuff around and relabel these taxes. It's like spring cleaning. Spring cleaning is a good thing.
Spring cleaning is a good thing.
There was no dirt when income taxes were boxed. So where did all this dirt come from? Income tax started as a 1-2% tax on some people, then expanded to this current state. Dirt accumulates.
lostinwilderness: Nobody said the FairTax was better than no taxes. But in order to get to where we should be, small government with no taxes, we have to build up the political confidence that dramatic reform will dramatically improve the lives of Americans. Adopting the FairTax would dramatically improve the economy and the lives of Americans, giving some leader the good will to perform dramatic cuts to government like ending NATO, abolishing the Fed, the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture and more.
Nobody said the FairTax was better than no taxes. But in order to get to where we should be, small government with no taxes, we have to build up the political confidence that dramatic reform will dramatically improve the lives of Americans. Adopting the FairTax would dramatically improve the economy and the lives of Americans, giving some leader the good will to perform dramatic cuts to government like ending NATO, abolishing the Fed, the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture and more.
Who said these would be cut? Federal Reserve can always print money like they have for decades even though we've had an income tax. According to the Grace Report investigated when Ronald Reagan was President income tax just goes to paying off the interest of the debt anyways. So you cut back the debt, by cutting back spending, and then you don't even need an income tax to pay off the interest to the debt. The debt would shrink by simply cutting spending (also we would need an actual productive industry which the U.S. doesn't have much of one like it used to). So ridding the income tax isn't radical unless you think less spending and then no interest on debt left to pay is radical to you.
So why do we even need a fair tax? To pay off the interest of the debt? Moving boxes around and relabeling them. I read the article Nitroadict posted. I don't see taxes going down. I see them going up with the fair tax or staying the same. Since you advocate the fair tax, then provide evidence that it will actually decrease taxes. Unless you're just caught up in a new tax fad like the latest fashions from Paris Thoreau discussed Concordians were wrapped up in? If you have evidence, then at least your using something factual. But on principled grounds I'm against any tax. The State will just exploit it like everything else, which brings me back to what I first posted in this post. When the income tax first came about it was small and only some people had to pay it. Well of course the State expanded its taxation, but that's what State's do. Giving power to a criminal doesn't make sense.
wilderness:Who said these would be cut?
My biggest fear of the FairTax is that it would raise so much revenue that government would expand. That's one of the reasons Huckabee is so scary. He's a big-government conservative that would abuse the revenue generating power of the FairTax. That's why it would take a leader advocating the FairTax and dramatically reduced government to fix the system. The FairTax is a tool that we have to make sure works for smaller government.
So why do we even need a fair tax?
The political reality is we have big taxes, and we can't get rid of them by wishing them away and chatting in libertarian forums. We have to have a process to end them. We didn't get to this point overnight, and we can't get to severely limited government with no taxes overnight. The FairTax is the most powerful tool available to get that process started.
We've walked the Road to Serfdom. We have to walk back to freedom. We can't teleport there.
wilderness: Who said these would be cut?
Who said these would be cut?
lostinwilderness: My biggest fear of the FairTax is that it would raise so much revenue that government would expand. That's one of the reasons Huckabee is so scary. He's a big-government conservative that would abuse the revenue generating power of the FairTax. That's why it would take a leader advocating the FairTax and dramatically reduced government to fix the system. The FairTax is a tool that we have to make sure works for smaller government.
no doubts... but isn't this the so-called "conservative that never appeared" dilemma. But within the system it would take somebody of tremendous principles without a doubt.
wilderness: So why do we even need a fair tax?
lostinwilderness: The political reality is we have big taxes, and we can't get rid of them by wishing them away and chatting in libertarian forums. We have to have a process to end them. We didn't get to this point overnight, and we can't get to severely limited government with no taxes overnight. The FairTax is the most powerful tool available to get that process started. We've walked the Road to Serfdom. We have to walk back to freedom. We can't teleport there.
these aren't the facts I was looking for, this seems to be just another fad...
How does a libertarian get elected in the US?
lostinwilderness: How does a libertarian get elected in the US?
Short Answer: by not being a libertarian. Long Answer: The Statists I've talked too quite correctly point out that they would have far more respect for libertarianism if they weren't vying for political office at the national level. They point out that what would the point be in voting a libertarian into office, when supposedly, they're platform consists of getting rid of that office and/or cutting down the size of the office, in the first place? Despite what many libertarians piss & moan about the statists, they are not complete morons if they can understand the simple dichotomy of political libertarianism vs. libertarianism itself, & it's entirley understandable if this is one of the things that statist-voters rationalize in continually hating libertarians, vis-a-vis a perceived hypocrisy of their (our) own political philosophy. It's not unreasonable that Statist's see their philosophy as justified, minus the tribal warfare in politics of the 2 major parties, versus the seemingly dis-organized in-fighting of libertarians vs. libertarians vs. libertarians (in order: pro-state libertarians vs. minimal-state libertarians vs. anti-state libertarians), where little to nothing seems to "get done". Interestingly, when I brought up the case of a libertarian running for office on the state & local levels, the statist's murmur a little more approval, saying that especially on the local level, libertarians do & can matter, which brings about the a far more astute strategy than running for national office: microsecession. So, until nationally, we have a bunch of seceded states and/or city states, libertarians will most likely not win a national election of any kind (even under this hypothetical, there wouldn't be a national election, assuming that the various city states wouldn't be bound by a central state). Not likely in the short term, but the strategy is built on better foundations than the constant rationalizations of political libertarians to utilize the democratic utilitarian State, only with different people pulling (or attempting to destroy) certain levers. However, it is far more likely that a Populist could get nationally elected, if voting laws were ever reformed radically enough to let 3rd Parties be a competent political force. They could perhaps be more far more libertarian than anyone from the 2 parties, but the Populist rhetoric is almost as easily co-opted as the libertarian rhetoric is by Republicans, so it would be akin to playing with a different colored fire versus the Blue & Red fires of political tribalism that are the 2 major parties.
Our tea party was very small. About 100 people, but considering that the town I live in is very small (5000 people) we did pretty good. I live close to Memphis and probably should have gone there and supported with a larger group, but I felt better going with my own community.
We also got a lot of complaints about it being during the week so a lot of people couldn't come. Maybe the next time it will be done on the weekend and more people will be able to attend and there will be a much bigger showing.
Nitroadict: Using The State to minimize itself doesn't seem like it would be effective, especially on a national scale, imo.
What's your alternative?
lostinwilderness: Nitroadict: Using The State to minimize itself doesn't seem like it would be effective, especially on a national scale, imo. What's your alternative?
Sorry if I'm speaking out of place, but here's a good alternative. Use your mind and don't depend on somebody else. Not being rhetorical. My guess is if you thought the State actually thought events through you wouldn't have this desire to change it. But the State doesn't use reason. The State can't think for itself. Individuals can, but the State abhors individuals for individuals are totally counter to the State's total existence. We have all these desires and all this energy, now go and use it, instead of depending on somebody else. People need to realize they can act and think on their own. They do it everyday, but for some bizarre reason it seems some people don't realize they wake up and plan out their day without calling the State every hour to check in.