The question is, “What should we do about the income taxes?” If we approach this issue with a rational code of ethics, the answer is clear: abolish them. Not only the income taxes, but our nation’s entire system of coercive taxation ought to be replaced with one of voluntary government funding if we are to ever truly live in a moral society.

Obviously this will not be achieved instantaneously – man has been taxed as long as there have been government/societal structures to tax him, ultimately culminating in Communism – the complete and consistent application of the principle that man’s property belongs, not to him, but to the state.

Instead, the move toward moral funding for moral governments (an entirely different issue) will achieved by gradual, piecemeal steps for two reasons: 1. there is currently no structure in our government to support such a move (plus the size of the government itself must first be drastically reduced) and 2. the immediate push for the abolition of all taxes would be counter-productive, as the philosophical culture is not ready to take such a leap between one extreme to another. Any attempt to cross a chasm that wide without first inching closer to the other side can only end in disaster and tyranny from chaos rather than liberty through reason.

To achieve a voluntarily-funded government, all the options on the poll (with the exceptions of those regarding an increase in taxes) ought to be explored, but in the correct order and while remembering the ultimate goal with some additional, intermittent steps as well.

First, the government’s ability to tax its citizens through inflation must end. Even if all the other taxes in this country were completely abnegated, so long as the Federal Reserve exists and so long as the government can use its mechanisms to print, devalue, and thereby steal money out of the savings of average Americans, we would still be taxed. It would just occur through secondary means (as it has done quietly for nearly a century). Reductions in government size, scope and spending should be simultaneously pursued with this and the other steps.

Second, the progressive income tax should cease to be progressive. Flatten the tax rates and abolish the loopholes (with lower taxes overall as spending cuts should permit). From this ground, advocates for liberty could push forward by arguing against a tax on one’s level of production altogether, opting instead for a tax on consumption. Is a tax on consumption any less coercive or economically distortive than a tax on productivity? No, but at least in this case, higher levels of productivity would not be met with higher levels of punition.

It should go without saying that an increase in consumption taxes should be met with a greater decrease in income taxes, but after the income taxes are abolished altogether (and preferably banned by a constitutional amendment), then individuals could begin to argue for the steady decrease of consumption taxes as a whole, and on stopping the taxation of specific items altogether.

Though the Fair Tax is still a tax and is therefore not “fair,” this structure should be pursued. It would give rise to the idea that taxes on items could be wholly abolished without the country falling apart (as many people believe would happen). As the Fair Tax begins to decrease, voluntary measures for funding should begin to appear and increase in scope until the Fair Tax is abolished altogether.

If all the steps between the Progressive income tax and the Fair Tax can be skipped, excluding the reductions in government, that would be excellent. However, the last step toward voluntary funding will be the most difficult – getting people to accept voluntary funding as a possibility.

There are various ways that this could be done, but while philosophers and economists discover them, I will simply list the two purported by 20^th Century novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand suggested that it could be possible for the government to obtain its funding through lotteries (as is done in the various education lotteries in the states, except for legitimate purposes of government) or through contract insurance. Contract insurance is the idea that, in order for a contract to be upheld in court, the parties pay a percentage of the transaction to the government. It serves the dual purpose of funding the government through the voluntary action of the parties to the contract and promoting honest business practices, as more honest businesses of individuals could potentially decide not to pay since they have earned one another’s trust.

In essence, a system of volitionally funded government is possible, and it ought to be pursued. The process will be long, and the results will seem small at first, but they are results all the same. The biggest mistake one can make is assuming that achieving liberty is solely a political struggle and not also a cultural one, thereby attempting to achieve that which is beyond the realm of possibility earlier than he should. It should, however, still be is ultimate goal. All the same, one thing must be remembered: capitalism is not the system of the past as liberals like to portray it. Capitalism is the system of the future.

____________________________________________

Brian Underwood is a contributing writer for The Mendenhall and a second-year student of history and political science at the University of Georgia.

At 19, I had found myself presiding over the KSU College Republicans, serving on the state board of the Georgia Association of College Republicans, being appointed a member of the Cherokee County Republican Party executive board, and traveling to D.C. for the first time to attend the College Republican National Convention.

Then I quit.

I’m not sure when I started despising politics or what exactly triggered my disgust towards the GOP, but I was full of discontent and had to get out.  I thought maybe it was the party, so I went to a few College Libertarians meetings.  After a couple of those I thought I’d blow my brains out if I heard the phrase “Campaign for Liberty” or the name “Ayn Rand” again.

Maybe I was just burned out. Maybe I just wanted to see if I was involved in politics because I wanted to or because it made my parent’s so happy and proud.  I just felt like I needed out, and I needed to try something else on my own.

I finished up the few political science classes I was taking that fall, then the next semester I registered for a couple of core classes and Phil 3303: ethics.  I was captivated by the class. I learned about Buddhism and Islam.  I discussed Kant and John Stuart Mill.  I realized there was a whole other realm of learning I had never experienced: philosophy.

That summer I took a world religions course.  I also happened to quit going to church at that time.  The following fall, I took two Peace Studies classes to complete my minor and also slaved away in a Nietzsche seminar.  I enjoyed everything that I was learning so much and I never much thought about politics.

Then the change happened.

It first started when I took the Peace Studies classes.  I had always been a pretty strong “support our troops” type of gal.  I suppose reading about war and conflict all the time made me feel hate towards the armed forces.  I studied Just War Theory and did not approve of it, either.

I later realized I had become an idealistic pacifist.  I was trying to justify in my mind the possibility of war never existing or being necessary by any means, but after fighting with all my friends about it for months, I finally had to admit to them (and myself) that sometimes war is a necessary evil.

Then, of course, there was a lapse in sanity when I started taking critical theory classes and ignored the whole “theory” aspect.  I read Marx, Althusser, and Gramsci all day, every day.  I was reading critical race and feminist theory.  I learned the ins and outs of Marxist theory and idolized it.  What equality?!  What fairness?!  It took me a semester and many verbal lashings and facebook chat attacks to finally say “what a crock!”

Once again I had found myself being unable to differentiate between ideals and utopian potential versus pragmatic solutions and the real world.  It took losing a few friends, losing my identity, and losing the respect of a lot of people I used to work with to make me realize I was not on the right track and that I should take a look at the way I was thinking from a non-emotional, logical standpoint.

So how did I make my return? Well, it ended up happening in a rather idiotic fashion.  I just quit going to the classes that I deemed a waste of my time.  That plan made my GPA nose-dive straight into the ground.  I had a choice to make – continue jeopardizing my grades and risk the success of my education or change.

My biggest change was to stop thinking in clichés.  I left the GOP with an idea of a Republican in my head that was one single profile: the gun-toting, bible-thumping pro-lifer.  I knew that wasn’t me.  I am wary about guns and do not own one myself.  I do attend a Christian church again, but I am not very active in the church.  I am pro-choice.

Meeting people my age that agree with me on some of these points has helped me accept that I am still a member of the GOP like others, but I simply have a slightly different viewpoint on specific issues. Who knew such a thing was allowed? It is possible to stand your ground in politics within the GOP even if your views differ from the person sitting right next to you (i.e., the current GOP debates – a whole slew of potential candidates bickering.) Not everyone is the same!

I registered for political science classes for the upcoming semester and I started working with College Republicans again.  The point is not to have everyone fit a unique ideological profile, but rather to work towards a common cause or goal.  Conservative spending, small government, and personal liberty is what I consider that common goal to be, and I will continue working for it now that I’ve finally figured it out.

The most important lesson I learned from my year and a half away from politics is that I missed it.  I want to be involved in politics.  It was not solely my parent’s interest; it was mine, too.  Turns out it’s my passion. I have learned that I want to be involved in the political process and I want to work towards changing America for the better.

So here I am, three semesters later and three semesters from graduation, trying to find my place in that big sea that is the Republican Party.  Maybe it’s with the College Republicans, or maybe it’s with my county party. Or maybe, just maybe, it does not matter.  Maybe I just need to work for what I believe in and do what I think is right for my country.

So, I’m gonna be honest, I didn’t watch the whole debate. I will add updates to the post if I watch the previous segments.

I tuned in during the last hour when every candidate (except Paul) was trying to out-hawk the other on foreign policy. It was a little disgusting.

John Huntsman – Who? By all means, let him debate, but what does he add? How is he different from anyone, besides being more center.

Ron Paul – He did well considering they ganged up on him on social issues and foreign policy.

Mitt Romney – MAAAAN, he’s boring. The Republican Party needs to change their image and move away from these soft-spoken, slick candidates with nothing but Reagan talking points.

Tim Pawlenty – I’m sorry, but I can’t take him seriously. He is way too rehearsed and does not stand out among the other candidates. Update: I just watched the clip where Bachmann attacks Pawlenty on his centre-left policy positions as governor of Minnesota. Instead of defending or talking his way around those attacks, he says the dumbest thing ever to Bachmann: You let Obama’s policies pass in Congress. She only makes up .002 percent of the members in Congress, but who’s counting.

Newt Gingrich – He sounds and looks like a professor; who doesn’t believe the stuff he says. I don’t trust him. Update: I did like his jab at Chris Wallace for the “gotcha” questions about his campaign. The candidates were doing a good enough job making sparks fly on their own. They didn’t need the Fox panel throwing punches out them to make them quiver.

Herman Cain – As always, says a lot without saying anything. Maybe that’s why the Tea Party likes him.

Michelle Bachmann – What the heck was wrong with her tonight? The only time she smiled was when they asked her that “women should be submissive to their husbands” question. At least she made some more Newsweek cover photo opportunities.

Rick Santorum – Two words can describe Santorum’s performance: annoyed and annoying. He was annoyed that he is not taken seriously and was annoying when he tried to out-Christian, out-hawk the other candidates. He was completely disrespectful to both Paul and Bachmann.

Gary Johnson – Wish he was there

View This Poll

View This Poll

View This Poll

So, it seems that Congress has struck a deal about the debt ceiling. Of course, we’re no where close to fixing our deficit or national debt, but hey, we’ll probably never be. Just one short term extension after another until default and bankruptcy. Fun times.

How did our readers feel about raising the debt ceiling?

When asked, “Should we raise the debt ceiling?” the votes were as follows:

1. No – 55%

2. Yes – 33%

3. I don’t know – 12%

Sample size – 33

In the special bonus poll, I asked “Should more states legalize gay marriage?”

1.  Yes – But the government should get out of marriage – 42%

2. Yes – A Constitutional Amendment should protect this right – 40%

3. No – it should be outlawed everywhere with a Constitutional Amendment – 13%

4. Yes – But it should remain with the states to decide – 2%

5. I don’t care – 2%

6. No – although states have the right to legalize it – 0%

7. No – There are enough states where it is legal – 0%

82% of voters support allowing gay marriage, but about half of them believe that the government should just get out of marriage all together. The other half believe that there should be a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to marry.

In my opinion, I believe the 9th amendment already protects this right.

Comments?

]]> http://theowlpundit.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/july-2011-poll-of-the-month-results/feed/ 0 thegerbreport Debt Ceiling http://theowlpundit.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/proceed-cautiously-through-philadelphia/ http://theowlpundit.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/proceed-cautiously-through-philadelphia/#comments Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:29:52 +0000 Justin Hayes http://theowlpundit.wordpress.com/?p=5265 ]]>

In the current national debt debate, there has been quite a bit of ruckus about amending the Constitution to add a Balanced Budget Amendment.  Amendments to the Constitution can originate in either house of Congress, receive two-thirds approval by both houses, and must be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Or Two-thirds of state legislatures – about 34 states – can vote to hold a Constitutional Convention to begin the amendment process. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution originated by means of a Convention process.

For one thing, it is too hard to get 34 states to vote to do the same thing. The House and Senate can barely agree on anything. How can we expect 34 state legislatures to act accordingly? Not to mention that if a convention were to take place, 38 states would have to vote to ratify the language of the amendment.

With our current political climate, this sort of cooperation sounds almost impossible.

But many, especially in Tea Party circles, see a Convention as the only way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to succeed.

But if one truly believes that a Balanced Budget Amendment or a similar addition to the Constitution is a good idea, would this convention process be the best route to take?

In attendance of the Philadelphia Convention, during which our current governing document was ratified, were men of great minds such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, George Mason, and Alexander Hamilton. These men were students of Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, Montesquieu and Thomas Hobbes.

Of course, they were also politicians and open to compromise – such as the Connecticut Compromise or the Three-Fifths Compromise – but they were also men of principle, guided by an overarching concern of man’s natural rights and liberty.

Can the same be said about our current politicians or Tea Party activists? The Tea Party claims to be echoing the principles of the founding fathers. Can they really be trusted to make changes in accordance to what the founders believed?

The Tea Party has yet to make a strong defense of capitalism or limited government or, for that matter, a strong repudiation of socialism. Socialism, to some, is not a bad word. Throwing the word around as your central argument against a particular policy does nothing to convince people otherwise.

Few people seriously examine the Federalist Papers or Locke’s Two Treatises on Government. Thus far, the content of Tea Party protest signs or speeches do not compare in depth or substance.

Do the Tea Party activists also not think that such a convention will open the door for progressives or other political enemies who want to have a say in how things are changed? I could imagine a scenario where the Second Amendment is repealed or revised in exchange for a balanced budget amendment.

If the Tea Party truly cared about preserving limited government, they would not support opening the floodgates to the whims of various factions, a warning one could take from Madison in Federalist 10.

The United States Constitution is by no means perfect, but it pales in comparison to the monstrosity that would arise by such a Constitutional Convention.

Many progressives are upset that social services are on the chopping block while we are “giving” billions in tax breaks to the wealthy. At the recent twitter town hall event, President Obama said, “The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.”

This statement is necessary to break down in order to understand the absurdity of the statist mindset. First, how is the debt ceiling being used as a gun? At whom is this gun pointed? It appears that the President is trying to say that the Republicans are using the debt ceiling as a tactical weapon for cutting the federal budget without raising taxes on the wealthy. Nothing can be done to the budget without Republican approval in the House.

But why didn’t the President say something similar to the statement above? Why did the President use language like “extract tax breaks” for the wealthy? Because he is trying to blind side you to what is really being extracted in all of this: you. The money you have earned is a product of your life and your effort and you have sole ownership of it.

Of course, this money has to be earned by your own effort or by voluntary exchange. It cannot be stolen or accumulated from immoral activities which require the initiation of physical force (like a hit-man, for instance). Money gained from a government entitlement program like Social Security or Medicare falls into a bit of a gray area; if you have paid FICA taxes your entire life, these programs could be considered a form of restitution.

Yet, if a thief has lost all of the property he has stolen from you and 4 other people, you cannot demand that the other victims compensate you for your losses. As these entitlement programs go broke, those who are beginning to receive benefits are having to take from the revenue stream of those currently paying taxes and future generations of taxpayers as the government borrows more and more money. This system cannot continue on a moral or financial basis, but we cannot fully blame those receiving the handouts.

What is of most concern, however, is the initial act of physical force against you and your property. All taxation is theft. When one forces a man to involuntarily give up his life, liberty or property, he is initiating an act of aggression. No one can argue that taxation is voluntary because the consequences for not paying your taxes include burdensome fines or even  jail – consequences which constitute coercion. When a mob boss says, “Do this, or else,” one does not call the task voluntary.

To say that Republicans are pointing a gun at the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks from the wealthy is completely absurd. The government is the one pointing a gun at the heads of the American people, forcing them to contribute more and more to the state as it grows. The government is not “giving” the wealthy more breaks because the government does not own their money. The wealthy own their money. The government is the one doing the extracting.

The wealthy do not work for anyone but themselves. To imply that the wealthy owe the American people more of their money is to imply that this group of individuals are slaves. Neither they nor anyone should not be forced to pay for insolvent entitlement programs, a failing public education system or unnecessary wars.

By using phrases like “extract tax breaks” from the wealthy, the President is trying to confuse you about the difference between the earned and unearned. The American people are entitled to retirement programs, public education and job programs. The wealthy are trying to influence Republicans to cut these programs so they can keep their tax breaks. This is the argument that the President is trying to make. For the President and statists like him, property is collectively owned by everyone, but some are allowed to keep more of what they make so that they can keep the economy moving.

For statists, the government does not operate at the expense of the people, the people operate at the expense of the government. Yet, this argument is self-defeating because government must initiate force against the people to exist. Do not let the Orwellian doublespeak of our politicians confuse you into believing that the American people are somehow “giving” tax breaks to the wealthy. The wealthy, the middle-class, and the poor are all being crushed while the state grows.

This month, we’ll be doing 2 polls about hot button issues:

Should more states, like New York, legalize gay marriage? Should we raise the debt ceiling?

Feel free to leave comments under the post if you want to expand on your answer!

And the winner is…

Ron Paul – 34%
Sarah Palin – 22%
Barack Obama – 13%
Herman Cain – 10%
Gary Johnson – 8%
Vern Wuensche – 3%
Probably Not Voting – 3%
Mitt Romney – 3%
John Huntsman – 2%
Michele Bachmann – 1%
John Bolton – 1%

Sample size – 115 votes

The following candidates received no votes:

Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Fred Karger, Tom Miller, Other

Interesting note: Sarah Palin had only one vote up until the last day of the poll…not bad, Palin fans…

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”

At a 2003 Townhall Meeting in Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum underwent a bout of scrutiny for this little gem. He defended his statements later in an AP interview, stating, “I have no problem with homosexuality… I have a problem with homosexual acts…acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.”

Rick Santorum is not a conservative Republican. His statements are not indicative of the current Republican mentality or platform; his statements display blatant disdain toward the homosexual lifestyle and wax homophobic. In a June 16 tweet, Mayor Bloomberg (New York City, independent) said, “The Republican party stands for personal liberty and freedom. Marriage equality is entirely consistent with that.”

I agree with Bloomberg’s sentiment – the Republican Party, should it work for what it stands rather than cater to conservative ideals that conflict with the party’s interest, should never have an issue regarding gay marriage opinion on a moral or ethical level, because a true conservative Republican would not want the government to be interfering in personal matters of either the church or the individual.

Because marriage is, traditionally, performed in the church, it should be the church that decides whether or not a couple is allowed to marry in accordance with the particular church’s view. This means, to get back to Santorum, that he has no business giving a social critique or his personal opinion regarding the activities that take place in a gay couple’s bedroom. His comments regarding gays are therefore not only unnecessary but also detrimental to the image and message of the Republican party.

If a closer look is taken at Santorum’s resume, we see that he is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an organization based in D.C. that, according to their mission statement, is “dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.” If this were truly the case, Santorum should be fired.

It is true that the Christian Bible frowns upon homosexuality. However, the EPPC says one of its main missions is to “forge alliances within their communities, and work together to promote a shared understanding of the common good.” Santorum seems to have found quite the crisis between mission and action. Likening a homosexual man’s bedroom activity to bestiality, incest, and bigamy is not the way to forge an alliance with the community – or in Santorum’s case, the voter base.

In a 2008 response to California’s Supreme Court ruling to allow gay marriage, Santorum said, “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too? Marriage is and always has been more than the acknowledgment of the love between two people.”

Marriage represents an idea greater than just love, so let’s argue both side of the spectrum, here. On the one hand, homosexual couples are not marring their best friend or brother – the desire for marriage comes from a deep-rooted, passionate love.

On the other side of the coin, most Republicans accept a traditional Christian definition of marriage and therefore cannot see marriage, as a function of the church, being granted to gay couples. Would the church, if left to its own devices, accept gay marriages? Most probably will not. However, it’s not the state that can dictate what the church recognizes as a legitimate marriage. In Santorum’s case, the desire to obtain a marriage is not within the appropriate ethical commentative scope of a man who wants to represent an entire nation.

As far as promoting the small-government/no government interference aspects of Republicanism, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Guerriero does it best when it comes to commentating on Santorum: “There is nothing conservative about allowing law enforcement officials to enter the home of any American and arrest them for simply being gay… Mainstream America is embracing tolerance and inclusion. I am appalled that a member of the United States Senate leadership would advocate dividing Americans with ugly hate filled rhetoric.” These comments were released after Santorum told AP reporters in 2005 that he supported Texas anti-sodomy laws, and their enforcement.

Santorum goes out of his way to make sure his scorn towards gays is well-known, forsaking the true meanings of conservatism in government and individual liberty, principles that the GOP candidate for President in 2012 should strive to uphold.

____________________________________________

Tori Wester is studying Political Science at Kennesaw State University. At 21 years of age, she has served as both Financial Secretary of the Georgia Association of College Republicans and Chairman of KSU College Republicans. Tori is currently working to reinstate the  Cherokee County Young Republicans.