It occurred to me that much is happening in the big-picture-philosophy world that contributes to the stress of some people. (Could it relieve the stress of some?) I recently had a discussion with one such person about their attic and property taxes. Specifically, each reassessment brings a new discussion about a storage room in the attic. It seems that the building plans show an alternate room in the attic. The alternate room was not finished when the house was built, but plywood was put down so the area could be used for storage. I’m certain many of you have space in your attic where you store stuff, (for lack of a better term.)

The situation is that each time the property is reassessed, it is based on the generic building plans, purchased from one of those plan books you can get al Lowe’s, not the actual building constructed. It would seem that this is easier that way, for the reassesser. Each time, a trip to the local tax office, a short wait in line, and the explanation that the information is already in the file, resets the floor area which establishes the amount of tax owed.

For some reason, this stuck in my craw. I can’t seem to shake it.

The tax is based purely on the assumption that the more you own, the more you are able (and obligated) to pay, every year. There is an income/wealth test for property ownership. If you cannot afford the tax then you are obligated to sell the property to someone who can. This skews property ownership towards the ones who have and against the ones who have not. The haves must take some of wealth they already have to pay for the property they intend to keep. Those who have not, must earn enough to pay income taxes and use a portion of what is left to acquire property. Then they must earn enough to pay income taxes and still have enough left to pay the property taxes. A person of moderate means often cannot inherit property and afford to pay the inheritance tax, income tax on their moderate income, and have enough to pay the recurring property taxes. There is an income/wealth test for inheritance.

How is it that the government is somehow entitled to more tax money, based simply on the wall treatment of an attic room? There is no link between that room, and any service the government provides. There is no link to the function of government. But that is not unusual; there is no link between sales taxes and the use of those taxes. So it took me a while to figure out why I could not let this one go. My conclusion is that property taxes are immoral. I believe that all confiscatory taxes are immoral.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it is easy to say such, and just as easy to discount such with the argument that there are legitimate functions of government, and that they must be funded. Even so, this is my conclusion: Just as tyranny is the opposite of freedom, the taking of a portion of a person’s property, for the simple reason that it exists, is an infringement on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Bear with me, this sounds a little like a math proof. You know the ones we had to learn in high school geometry? Ok, so nearly all of you just clicked the delete key. Kudos to you.

For the rest of you, show me where my logic fails. The founding fathers wrote the constitution, in part, to protect the ownership of private property. They believed, as I do, that the ability to keep the fruits of one’s labor is the basis for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The short version, if a person raises crops, just enough to survive, and cannot keep them, that person will starve. If a person can just feed themselves and the government takes the smallest portion, that person starves. Today, if a person lives on their own land, their own property, and never leaves, takes no service from the public at large but stays on their property for their entire life, they would loose that property in the name of supporting the common good as defined by those collecting property taxes. Today, a person is not free to live of their own devices. Today, a person who raises enough food to support themselves, has to raise enough additional to sell at market to pay the property taxes or have the property confiscated to pay said taxes.

The break even condition is unsustainable for the individual. One must make enough extra, be wealthy enough, to support the programs deemed needed by the governing body (street sweeping, welcome centers, etc.) or become a ward of that body. In the example I have chosen, the person who owns enough land to feed themselves and never leaves the property or takes any service from anyone outside their property, must sell a portion of what they raise to pay the taxes, and then presumably sign up for food stamps to eat. This person would have to give up feeding themselves to support the program that would feed them. That is, of course if they could qualify for food stamps and own property. In theory, this person would have to sell a portion of the property to pay the taxes and each year, the ability to feed themselves would diminish and a portion would have to be sold to make up the difference. Eventually, the property would be gone, and the person would be a ward of the state. This additional burden on the state routinely requires increases in revenue, which makes it more unlikely that a have not could earn enough to own property.

I call this unsustainable because you must either create enough wealth in excess of what it takes to survive at the government manipulated standard of living and pay for your share of the care of those who do not, or be one of those who do not. In other words, you must either be an excessive wealth producer and support the programs of the government or be a wealth consumer and survive on those programs. You cannot survive in the middle, there can be no sustained middle class.

A person living by one’s own labor, burdening no one else, totally free from owing anyone, is in a downward spiral. They would owe a portion of their property to the government for the simple reason that they exist and own property. Someone in the past, who earned excess wealth, (more than enough to feed themselves), paid for that property with money which was taxed as income if it happened in the last 70 years. But if for any reason the excess wealth production slows enough, to less than roughly two times that needed to live, and if they ceased to produce excess wealth to be used for government programs, the government will confiscate said property and put it in the hands of someone who will. The government comes first.

This person could loose their property because the assessor classifies attic storage space as “livable” space which moves them from the just-barely-feeding-themselves and funding the government category to the soon-to-be-a-ward-of-the-state category. I could not show up on their door and insist that they support my social agenda with a portion of their property. If I showed up with an armed person and insisted at gunpoint, I would go to jail. If I organized a municipality and showed up with a uniformed tax official and insisted that they pay a portion of the official’s salary with their property, I gain the power to imprison that person and take their property. The taking of property to spend on causes not supported by the person who just had their property taken, does not become moral when more than half of us vote together to do so. Theft by proxy is still theft.

I ask this: Are you free? Can you live alone on your own property? Are you free to live your life regardless of the unrelated decisions of someone else? I suggest you are not free. You only own your own property, keep your own income, pursue happiness, so long as you are allowed to do so. Your property is only yours if you are producing tax revenue in which case the government will “allow” you to keep it.

Are we moving toward freedom or tyranny? Can you still sell it all and go bankrupt to pay for medical procedures to save yourself or a loved one? Will that freedom be lost because it is deemed “unfair” or the process too expensive for the single payer to pay? Tyranny is the opposite of freedom. Which is more moral, freedom or tyranny?

The Great American Experiment followed the sacrifice of, “lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor” in defense of an idea. The idea that individuals, free from the tyranny of central command and control, protected their individual interests better than any unrelated protector, no matter how kind, caring or otherwise motivated. The Great American Experiment was funded, fought, and died for on the promise that freedom led to higher standards of living for everyone, greater innovation in business, agriculture, and every other aspect of life for everyone it touched, successful and failing alike. The government would be as limited as possible, the people as free as possible.

Carl Marx, believed the antithesis of these ideas. Marxism suggests that such freedom, and the fact that some people would be immensely more successful than others under such freedom, hurts the average person. Marx believed that for some people to succeed, others must fail, that the size of the pie is fixed, and who gets large pieces and who goes hungry is mostly random, except that dishonest people predisposed to fraud will skew things to their advantage. The typical honest person will suffer under the abuse of the dishonest. People are better served, in his theory, when each produce according to their abilities, and a central authority distributes according to one’s need. The average is better served when everyone follows the plan.

Every society in human existence has either answered to a central authority like a king, or had some system whereby the people chose their governors. In early history, a king who fought for the position was best able to fight to defend his people from invaders and pillagers, or to invade and pillage neighbors. Most were still farmers and hunters. Later, when technology progressed to the point where people could produce more than they consumed, trading came on the scene with the evolution of the middle man (middleous homosapien). This relied on fair play and people were hunted down and killed for foul play. Knowing who could be trusted and a person’s reputation became valued knowledge. Middleous man evolved to make a living off of what they knew instead of what they could grow or hunt. This only happened because there was enough excess produced to support people who did not directly hunt or gather food, make clothing, or build shelter, and there was efficiency in producing a couple of commodities where the climate was best suited to it and trading them for goods that could be more efficiently produced elsewhere. (This is why we raise beef and corn here, and they raise sugar cane in the tropics). It was almost unregulated. The middle men got together and formed colleges, or congresses, (groups of like minded people to serve a common end). Being a member of such could encourage producers and buyers to deal with you. The members of such groups would promise better and better prices to producers, and better and better quality to the buyers. Some would temporarily make a better living by such promises than from what they knew. They promised more than their competing middle men, until they could no longer produce and the group collapsed. They were replaced.

This system was ultimately replaced by the selection of fair play representatives (governors) by consensus. This made the selection based more on the perception of the candidate’s abilities than on actual performance. (Sound familiar?) Sometimes the selection was fair; sometimes it was coerced and intimidated. Indeed, control of all societies has been and is by governments chosen by a range of methods, with violent seizure of power after surrender on one end of the scale, and free and frequent elections on the other.

I am only concerned with the violent seizure method in that it is no more or less likely an end to any society, regardless of where their system currently lies along the scale, and is therefore mostly unpredictable. Such systems arise when the people are not able or willing to withstand its takeover. My concern is with the other end where America selects its government. Every society in human existence who chose their governors based on promises of representation have ultimately fallen to wasteful spending. The cliché is that they fell when the electorate voted themselves larger shares of the stores of grain than they were motivated to produce when fed with free grain. It is another of human’s natures. Until the mid 1900’s, these happenings were part of common education.

These are well known facts. In the pre-American world, kings tried to motivate their subjects with a system of taxes and entitlements. Prior to America’s founding, it was generally believed that anarchy would ensue without divinely inspired and chosen leaders. Many cultures still believe that today. Our founders believed that no one is more or less divinely created than the next, and that anarchy ensues without a divinely inspired population. They conceived a system whereby people could correct tyranny by choice. They conceived, debated, and persuaded the acceptance of a system that limited the power of the government to only that which the people authorize it to have. They demanded limits on government which could not be changed by the government serving those limits. They knew that human nature would compel elected officials to promise ever increasing rations from the public stores, and that once government control got sufficiently complicated, one size-fits-all policies would be the only way to manage the complexity thereby limiting innovation and individual motivation. They believed that nearly every government activity must be controlled locally, or fail.

So here we are. We stand at the cross roads where intellect faces human nature. On the one hand, intellect can rightly lead us to the conclusion that perfect management of a well motivated populace, provided for in accordance with the needs of each, eliminates suffering caused by bad decisions made by the individual. Human nature can lead us to accept Marx’s arguments without challenging the assumptions inherent in them. Marx’s utopic theory requires that human nature be resisted by the managers so that corruption does not foul the system, and that human nature be resisted by the managed so that defense of individual best interest no interfere with the common good even when contrary to individual good. Human nature explains why corruption is so common in countries with Marxist leaning systems. The self interest of the briber is provided for by the indulgence of the self interest of the bribed. Innovation is only relevant when conceived by or recognized by the managers and no incentive exists outside of ego for the innovator or the observant manager. Likewise, human nature leads us to vote ourselves larger shares of the public stores on the promises that “they” will be sufficiently taxed and sufficiently tolerant of the taxes to continue to produce grain undeterred. Human nature leads some to believe this despite the evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, intellect can lead us to look for examples of both systems, socialist and free market, and determine which provides better conditions for the poor, or disadvantaged. Human nature would be to choose the best performing system.

Have we chosen the system whose theory stands up to rational debate when devoid of real world examples, or the system that has proven successful in practice despite being too complicated to fully explain every action rationally?

The choices, as I understand them are these: Recognize that we have the best medical system in the world BECAUSE the rich pay more than the poor, BECAUSE the rich have access to new treatment and technology before it is cheap enough for mass consumption; Recognize this it is this arrangement which makes medical care for the poor more available than it was a decade ago; Recognize that medical treatment of the poor is more available than it is in any other system in the world; Recognize that much of the medical treatment available to the world’s poor only exists as a result of the American medical system; Recognized that more treatments are available to the poor than would be if FDR had been successful in realizing socialized medicine; Recognize that a generation from now, the poor will have less access to as yet undiscovered treatments under socialized medicine than would be available if the rich continued to fund research and development; Recognize that socialism, Marxism, communism, statism, progressivism, liberalism, or however else you chose to label it, has led to the death of more people in the world than all other calamities combined; Recognize that because these systems rely on complete adherence to the common plan and surrender of the protection of individual defense of one’s best interest, violence and oppression are always used to control the population; Recognize that the wealth created by American entrepreneurs has funded the defense of most of the free world for two generations. Simply, choose to protect the rights of the individual to succeed or fail by one’s own decisions, unencumbered by agendas of social justice and wealth redistribution.

Or, choose the path chosen by every free society ever known. Choose the path dictated by emotion and human nature. Choose to bankrupt the country by trying to plan and provide an ever increasing array of goods and services, devised by a politically motivated committee that sets it own limits, provided to increasingly less motivated and demonized producers.

Will intellect win out over emotion? Am I wrong in my belief that I am on the side of intellect and not emotion? Is it arrogance that got us here in the first place, to believe that the human nature cycle of tyranny-escape-freedom-prosperity-guilt-entitlement-dependancy-tyranny can be short circuited without the pain of tyranny fresh in our minds? Are we destined to go down as the society arrogant enough to think that it manage all things for all people, just as the Romans did?

I hope not. I hope, that the success of the Great American Experiment thus far, can inspire us to not relinquish this prosperity and freedom in return for short term illusions of social justice. I hope that we recognize the success that took us from 13 colonies, too worthless to warrant the resources to control those colonies, to the most prosperous, powerful, free, and generous people in the world in less than 100 years. I hope that we collectively believe in our hearts, that the reason people immigrate here from every country in the world is freedom and opportunity and not a random coincidence. I hope that we as a country do not give in to the human nature that leads us to believe that our neighbors make poor choices at home, but perfect ones when electing officials, that these same neighbors make poor decisions at home, but perfect ones once in Washington DC.

I hope that we recognize that it is because of human nature, not despite it, that socialism and statism have always failed wherever they existed, and that free markets have succeeded everywhere they have existed. There is only so much motivation garnered from threats of fines and imprisonment, but the motivation of the hope for a better life is only limited by one’s imagination.

My original point was that is must be horrible to be a liberal/progressive/collectivist with things going so badly. Occasionally I comment about how they tend to eat each other when in charge. Part of the reason is that they each think that their own issue is the only important one but the principles they insist further their interests actually hinder the agenda of other liberal/progressive/collectivists. How is related to President Obama not qualifying as the antichrist? They are both explained by the idea behind the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self evident.”

When a self evident truth is up for debate, only the nuts out in left field argue against it. (Sorry, not leftist field, right field is just as good.) For instance, if the bill up for debate was to outlaw the murder of children for their milk money, this self evident truth would receive little opposition. The Democrats hold a dominant majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate, and the Presidency. If the Republicans commit to vote against everything, or if they agree to stay home, makes no difference. Why then has a health care law not passed? Why has it been changed from health care reform to health insurance reform? Why, has cap and trade not passed? Why has Gitmo not closed? Why are our troops still in Iraq? Because Republicans voted against these? No, if that were the case, the big health bill buy offs like the “Louisiana Purchase” and the Nebraska bribe would have been to holdout Republicans, not Democrats. Why would Democrats need to be paid to vote for a self evident truth of their own creation?

Also, what would motivate a Republican to vote against a self evident truth proposed by Democrats, especially in an election year when they could be held to account for voting against a self evident truth? Why would an uncaring, self serving Republican not be tempted to vote for the winning side if it was in keeping with their personal views on a particular issue and helped ease their re-election?

Simply, because they all know these are not self evident truths. The other self serving, political hack, Republicans love the idea that the Democrats will be held responsible for the consequences, all bad in the short run, no benefits until after the next presidential election. Some Democrats actually believe that there are great truths that are not self evident, stealthy truths which require higher education and enlightened understanding to be seen. These believe that it is worth going against the blind common people for the common good. Some political hack Democrats believe that it is always about political party and that these issues are not important to anyone, except in the context of political battle. All Democrats, regardless of motivation, voted for one of the healthcare versions except a few in the House who were “allowed” to vote against their version in hopes of protecting their seat in the upcoming November elections. Such allowances would not be needed for a self evident truth.

Of course, you could argue that universal mandated health insurance is a self evident truth. But, then you would have to ask yourself this: How big a looser would Democrats have to be to control the House, Senate, and White House, and not be able to pass a law furthering a self evident truth? How incompetent would the President need to be, for Americans to elect him in with a self described commanding mandate to pass such, with an unhindered, compliant Congress, and not get a bill to his desk.? How incompetent would he have to be to botch the debate so badly that Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat would fall to a Republican running on the platform of voting against the current bills? Universal insurance was Kennedy’s life’s work and he helped enact universal health insurance in Massachusetts. The voters knew their vote could spell the end of the issue Kennedy martyred himself for. Yet, they voted against the truth they are personally experienced in. (Kennedy could have resigned when he found out he was dying. This would have allowed a replacement to be appointed by the Governor to serve out the remainder of Kennedy’s term. This would have likely been the Governor appointed Democrat who did immediately replaced Kennedy. Instead, it was decided that Kennedy dying in office would garner sympathy for his cause. This shortened the appointment to 3 months until a special election could be held. – Self evident falsehood, or incompetence. You decide.)

Or, could it be a combination of the two?

Consider that the problems the liberal/progressive/collectivists are having stems from the largest shortcoming of their philosophy: all big decisions should be made in one central location by a few all-powerful clairvoyants. Chicago politics enjoyed some separation between campaign rhetoric, the rhetoric of sitting officials, and the actual votes on the actual laws before them. The liberal legislature passed the liberal agenda, watched only by a liberal electorate, only on issues still the local prerogative. President Obama was ill prepared by the only job he had ever really held. He is/was incompetent to stand questioned about the liberal agenda by non-liberals on the national stage. If the state and local acts were the major controlling factors in attracting or discouraging international business in Illinois instead of federal acts, President Obama would be more practiced. Discussions of competing with the Chinese for jobs when the Chinese employers do not pay for universal health insurance would have been more commonplace and he presumably would have had less trouble selling it to fellow Democrats without paying them off. In short, if the authority still resided with the states and their citizens, a U.S. President would not need to defend such policies to people in every individual state.

Is our President incapable of selling a truth that sells itself, to people of his own party who hold the same beliefs and agenda? Even without understanding the details, wouldn’t the truth be obvious?

Would you expect one or more of the 5 to show up the next day with a stuffed animal, because they did not like doing without? Do you think that some of the kids would offer their extra stuffed animal to classmates with none? I would. I would expect one or two of the 5 who simply forgot, or didn’t take the request seriously or whatever would remember the next day. That leaves 3 who did not bring a stuffed animal because they could not, for whatever reason. I would expect some with stuffed animals to share with those who do not have a stuffed animal. I have a son who routinely shares his most prized treats with others around him. Some of those with one stuffed animal would bring in another the next day, and some would do so specifically to share with their classmates.

Imagine however if the teacher felt sorry for the 5 students without a stuffed animal and assumed they did not bring one in because they did not have the opportunity at home. Imagine that she wants to keep from embarrassing those without stuffed animals by allowing them to play without a stuffed animal or to be at the mercy of the charity of those students with multiple stuffed animals. Imagine that with good intention, she collects the “extra” stuffed animals and distributes them to the students without one. Everyone has a stuffed animal. Perfect, right?

What happens the next day? What happens if this is continued indefinitely into the future?

Will the 2 forgetful students bring in a stuffed animal the next day, or the next? Perhaps, but is there more or less incentive for them to do so than if they had been left alone?

Are the students who had 2 or 3 stuffed animals, and had the “extra” collected more or less likely to bring their 2 or 3 again the next day, to have them collected and redistributed to someone else?

When there are fewer than 30 stuffed animals brought in, is it fair for those who brought one or more in to be the one without any, so that someone who did not bring one in can have one?

Does the student’s reason for no longer bringing in a stuffed animal matter to you when answering this question? For example, does it matter that one student who brought in multiple stuffed animals just days before, only brings in one, and another student does not bring one because she cannot? Would you take the one stuffed animal from the “stingy” student and give it to the one without any choice in the matter?

Would you expect a child to bring their best or favorite stuffed animal in if they saw another student play carelessly with stuffed animals that did not belong to them? Would they attempt to protect their favored stuffed animal from confiscation and damage by leaving it at home in favor of a less appreciated toy?

If the teacher attempted to make the stingy students (who stopped bringing in stuffed animals) feel bad, would they bring in lesser appreciated stuffed animals in larger quantities to keep the count up without risking the better stuffed animals?

Would those who lack the ability (as apposed to those who were forgetful or lazy) be better off in the original situation where everyone felt free to bring their best stuffed animals and share as they felt comfortable?

How does this thinly veiled commentary on free choice relate to current events?

The Associated Press did some homework recently: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-13/126320409066680.xml&storylist=washington et. al.

First, the jobs created were overstated. Imagine that, people competing for government grants painting a rosy picture about how well they had used the money. No surprise, I would expect any program with self reporting to have tremendous reported success.

Second, unemployment did not fair better in areas where a lot of stimulus money was spent relative to where none was spent. Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood disagreed and said there were tens of thousands of jobs created in construction with road and bridge money. After all, how could we spend $400,000 per stimulus job and not hire anyone? They can’t all be raises for current employees reported as jobs saved. Is someone lying or stretching the truth? Perhaps, but both could also be right. Consider this:

Start with the fact that government cannot create wealth; it cannot give anyone something without first confiscating it from someone else. So, where did the jobs come from? In terms of stimulus money, where did the $400,000 dollars come from? More importantly, how many people would your employer have to lay off, to pay up $400,000? After all, that is where the money comes from, the economy. So, we borrow (from the future economy) $400,000 per job, with interest, which will have to be paid back (likely in terms of jobs lost or not created) by that part of the economy left when the new notes come due. We recently borrowed $290 billion to pay the interest on the next few months of loans we already have. This was the raise in the borrowing limit to keep the notes from coming due, presumably until the health care bill can pass.

In addition, the economy has to pay the government to operate, pay people to print/collect/borrow the money, as the government does not create anything and cannot pay for itself. And, the economy must pay for those programs and non-operational expenses of the government, like national health care, should it pass.

So, imagine that you are a potential employer, especially one over seas. Are you more likely to hire people in America, or somewhere else? Keep in mine, an employer has to have the money to pay the employee before hiring and for a long enough time for them to pay for themselves. Are you more likely to bring your best-most-favoritest bear you built at Build-a-Bear to the American kindergarten to be confiscated, redistributed, and played with by careless Americans? Or are you more likely to take your bear to China/India/Ireland/Dubai or any of hundreds of more bear friendly countries?

The problem with socialism, shared prosperity, social justice, economic justice, or whatever statist-collectivist name you want to put on it, is that it demands that human nature be ignored. This type of system is only sustainable (let alone prosperous) if the teacher can go into each student’s house and force them to bring in their bears. In other words, if there is no private bear ownership, if there are no alternatives, if there are no liberties. Such systems are only sustainable at the point of the proverbial gun. Such systems are only enforced, not upheld by informed free people.

Consider how this fits in with the current discussion of the day, where you will be forced to buy a particular government specified health insurance from companies who are forced to provide it to you without considering pre-existing conditions, at a government determined “affordable” rate, payable to Doctors who have been forced to accept this amount. Plans better than the particular “minimum” plan determined by the government (ironically called Cadillac plans, a GM brand owned by the Fed) will be taxed for re-distribution, and Doctors who do not accept the minimum payment or charge cash or provide enough care to be in the top 10% by volume, will be penalized likewise.

Will the currently uninsured be better off with the eventual outcome, or at the mercy of the current system? Will those from other countries continue to bring their medical dollars here, or will they follow the foreign Doctors to the more bear friendly counties?

Taking resources out of the productive areas of the economy, via healthcare, energy, income, or any other taxes and mandates, to re-distribute to non-producing areas, wastes resources in the re-distribution effort, and scares producers from other countries from producing here. Job stimulation spending costs us jobs and re-distributive health care reform hinders the availability of health care. The “stingy” will always have theirs, here or in China. Those who cannot produce always suffer the worse equality-of-outcome from socialism than the outcome from equality-of-opportunity of the free market.