Ayn, Neal and the world around me...

[dover]

Then there is no reason to try. Move with the masses, stubble off the cliff following the next closest lemming. Why even try to discuss if it is set in stone.

 

We have placed no penalty on lack of common sense, there certainly was one long ago.

 

We have fostered and protected thought otherwise.

 

Yes, ideas have been around for thousands of years and as we become educated and question, i.e. go outside the "common sense" realm we have learned more and changed. It is just in this concept of reaching that we have gotten farther then our fore fathers.

 

--

 

It was not common sense for slavery, it was economically viable. It was the strong over the weak. In this case the strong Europeans over the weak African nations.

 

It was not common sense to restrict voting privileges, (not rights), as a more educated and involved citizen was sought by the states. This thought still has merit. Even as Cheetah demonstrated with an implied "right" to have children.

 

Abuse has always been abuse. Spanking? Strict rules? Have they been proven wrong? Is this like man made global warming? Done, over, proven, move on?

 

Buying slabbed bronze into a pressing frenzy at escalating prices? I agree on that. But we did have that internet stock feeding frenzy in the late 90's where that very smart people feel into the pool.

--

 

The earth used to be flat.

 

The universe used to orbit the earth.

 

God use to deliver fire.

 

We can learn, we can change. We can be what we want.

 

None of which removes the concept that if someone takes care of you and never removes that tether, you will never have a need to do so. Some brave and great few will, but the populace as a whole will not.

 

Is that what is best? Is that the best thing to do? Or is it just the easiest?

 

 

[dover]

The Federal/progressive level don't want local conservatives teaching their ideals to their children just like conservatives don't want liberals teaching their ideals to children. At least people are talking about education.

 

Choice. Vouchers. Charter. Local choice.

 

But ultimately, parents who care and understand will make sure their children learn while those that can't be bothered won't. The cycle won't be broken because I don't think if can be broken. Some people are born to lead, both in beneficial and harmful ways, and some people are born to follow. Leaders succeed as long as they have followers. Followers succeed only if their leader has a good plan.

 

Parents that care.

 

 

Of course we could have a "common sense" argument about what caring means.

 

Perhaps we should ensure and foster more of this "parenting" rather than set systems that refrain and hamper from such family structures. Rather than put in place life lines that punish unions and reward single households, we should foster ones that reward, or for my intent, not penalize.

 

We find the time to visit the dentist twice a year, perhaps we could visit the school 4 times a year.

 

So much to talk about, so little freedom to do so.

 

[cheetah]

I don't have any problems with charter schools. The local choice issue, though, is still a matter of one ideology trying to triumph over the other. I live in one of the most conservative counties in America and wouldn't want to participate if the 'locals' had the ultimate say in what happened.

 

I also don't really follow the belief that government makes or breaks families. People marry and divorce for their own personal reasons. Women have freedoms they never had 50 years ago and men no longer depend on women to have a successful home life. People have more opportunities to live a life that is enjoyable as opposed to one that isn't. If that includes getting divorced and living singly, more power to the people. I know my divorce had nothing to do with the government (though my child custody arrangement did).

[dover]

Our children are in a charter school. Our taxes follow them to that school. The teachers and the school have harder guidlines and more evaluations of the staff and school than the "public" schools. Otherwise they are the same (tongue in cheek).

 

The school voucher program that started in DC and is on the chopping block will be a great example of choice and success. They are going to go back to keeping children in failing schools and move away from parents being able to choose, voucher, where to send their children.

 

The statistics on graduation I have seen have been quite enlightening. Since its begining, the graduation rate increased for those who choose to go eleswhere with their voucher. With its ending, they will be told to go back to where the D.E. tells them. DC proves, to me, that it is not more money that is needed.

 

This is a voting favor to a group of workers by the administration, unless I can find other reasons to understand why something successful, helping children, will be removed. I will be looking for that insight as it unfolds.

 

Tax code, welfare and other entitlements punish the combining of household income, thus putting at a penalty the likes of union among people. It fosters and rewards the single mother over the married couple.

 

I would think those issues do not affect you or I and hence we marry and divorce on other grounds and codes.

 

It is the slow gradual encroachment that goes unoticed. Nothing fast, nothing quickly doen; slow and deliberate removals of liberty under the guise of care and protection. I dare say I could easily define slavery in modern day America, just no physical signs of chains on anyone's feet.

 

Who is John Galt?

 

 

 

 

[cheetah]

I think the loss of 'liberties' is really just a function of population density. It is very easy to have personal liberties and freedoms on the frontier, but much more difficult in a place like New York City. One person's liberty in the wide open spaces comes in conflict with someone's else's liberty in a dense urban area. It is the inevitable cliche of 'your right to swing you fist stops before you hit my nose.' When you choose to live in a society, you choose to either accommodate others at the lose of some of your personal freedoms or you choose to be in conflict with those around you by stating your rights are more important than their rights. Some government regulations seek to find this accommodation, others seek to choose the winners and losers. Some are made just to screw with society's equilibrium because it benefits the politician.

[dover]

I cannot agree. Based on your baseline, the more people we have the more we will be slaves. I do not think that is what you meant but it will be no fun if we agree nicely and move on.

 

Yes to live amongst others, we must all sacrafice a certain amount of Liberty. I do not believe I am free to play my car radio as loud as possible when driving with other cars and people. Check. I am free to do so, however, the loud pronouncement of my liberty would infringe upon anothers right to silence.

 

But by the same accord, the loss of liberty based on a growing population I cannot agree with. Liberty, Life and Happiness are absolutes or at least they should be. Now I will make an analogy and please I in no way suggest you have propssed this, just what came to mind.

 

The arguement goes like this: if a woman wears suggestive clothing and walks in a bad part of town, she is asking to be raped. While it may not be a smart thing to do, it might not be advisable but in fact it should still be illegal for her to be raped. Her rights to her own person still out weigh the rights of someone else to remove them. Be it on the frontier or in the city, rights or unalienable liberty are, or should be, paramount to a free society.

 

Or, because I live in a population, the government has every right to tax my property above and beyond resonable recourse so that they can see fit to grant it to another citizen as they see fit. Even legislated theft is wrong.

 

To expand, no city or governing body can grant something to one citizen without taking it from another. The city, State or Fed produce nothing, they have no income other than when they levy a tax on my labor. My rights to my property are infringed by this suppossed entitlement to another citizen. I may fully enter into submission and acceptance be it in a room of 2 or a city of 10,000,000 but no one save the individual can grant another citizen something without a theft occurring. It may be legal theft, but it is theft none the less.

 

 

[cheetah]

All my property taxes are levied for fire, EMS, and school. As I'd prefer for my house not to burn and to have reliable 911, I'm okay with that. The city I work in taxes my wages for fire, EMS, school, and the mental health and mental retardation board. The MHD may be considered a tax on my wages that benefits another but it caps at $75 a year and is used for people who don't have many other options so I am okay with that, too.

 

The business I own pays a yearly registration fee that supports the local city government. I think there new 'city center' is an abomination buy if it bothered me so much I couldn't stand it, I would eat the $10k it would cost me to move and relocate to an unincorporated portion of the county.

 

As far as state and federal taxes, they go to support some programs I approve of and some that I do not. I would prefer that I got to pick and choose which ones I paid into but my 1040 has never given me a menu to choose from. Only a final dollar amount and a place to sign.

 

As a business owner, I get to cover half of each employee's Medicare and FICA along with 100% of my own payments. I slap get to cover 85% of their medical insurance and 100% of my own. All of this gets wrapped up into a biweekly payroll.

 

Yet when I tally it all up, I don't end up feeling enslaved to anyone except my clients' and employees' demand for a good work product and a satisfactory work environment. The taxes Zi pay on profits are lower than they were 15 years ago. I admit that the slavery argument rings hollow to me but I understand it is important to some other folks. I just can't find a place in my existence where it has any traction.

 

Sorry for any typos or gibberish, I did this from my phone.

[dover]

You ask a good question, I hope to provide a good answer.

[dover]

All my property taxes are levied for fire, EMS, and school. As I'd prefer for my house not to burn and to have reliable 911, I'm okay with that. The city I work in taxes my wages for fire, EMS, school, and the mental health and mental retardation board. The MHD may be considered a tax on my wages that benefits another but it caps at $75 a year and is used for people who don't have many other options so I am okay with that, too.

 

The business I own pays a yearly registration fee that supports the local city government. I think there new 'city center' is an abomination buy if it bothered me so much I couldn't stand it, I would eat the $10k it would cost me to move and relocate to an unincorporated portion of the county.

 

As far as state and federal taxes, they go to support some programs I approve of and some that I do not. I would prefer that I got to pick and choose which ones I paid into but my 1040 has never given me a menu to choose from. Only a final dollar amount and a place to sign.

 

As a business owner, I get to cover half of each employee's Medicare and FICA along with 100% of my own payments. I slap get to cover 85% of their medical insurance and 100% of my own. All of this gets wrapped up into a biweekly payroll.

 

Yet when I tally it all up, I don't end up feeling enslaved to anyone except my clients' and employees' demand for a good work product and a satisfactory work environment. The taxes Zi pay on profits are lower than they were 15 years ago. I admit that the slavery argument rings hollow to me but I understand it is important to some other folks. I just can't find a place in my existence where it has any traction.

 

Sorry for any typos or gibberish, I did this from my phone.

 

The first time I read your post, I laughed. You telling me everything seems okay to you amused me to no end. I had to go away and think for a while. My wife caught me thinking so long she had to ask what was on my mind. It was good; we had a nice talk about things as I see them.

 

Not sure where to begin but I’ll do my best. I did have to re-read your post several times. I think in the end what you mean is that as far as you can see, you don’t feel like you pay too much so basically you are curious as to what has me so angry. You might wonder what all those Tea party people and all those screaming about taxes and government are really talking about.

 

I laughed because you sound like (not are) one of the rich Hollywood elites (or Buffett), deep in cash beyond their dreams telling me to embrace the ever growing tangles, laws and entitlements brought to us by Uncle Sam. “It is fair.” “It is the shared community.” I have no idea of your wealth; I can guess based on your registry but really have no idea. But then I looked at it harder. You ask a good an honest question. I’ll do my best for an honest answer.

 

On the idea that everything seems okay?

 

Loyalists wandered Boston wondering what all the fuss was about over these taxes from the King. Why is everyone so upset? The upper class had plenty of money, even after the taxes levied.

 

The Romans wondered how they could not rule fore ever. They were the biggest, the greatest, best the world had ever seen. How could it go wrong?

 

I am sure there were, and still are, people in Greece saying to themselves everything is good. Why can’t we just go back to what we were doing? Did not seem that bad?

 

Let us just say that each person’s liberty line, the amount they are willing to give away, is different. Mine is closer to my chest than yours seems to be. You would be a happy citizen, sought after by those in charge.

 

Now, thanks to our ridiculous, outdated and progressive tax code now over 82,000 pages, I do not pay a high Federal income tax. Those child tax credits work pretty well.

 

[side bar: Do you ever wonder why people that rent instead of own are forced to subsidize my house? You ever wonder why people that do not want kids are forced to subsidize mine. Further, my disgust with social engineering by the elected elite is paramount to my anger and directly reflects my concern with the erosion of the Constitution. If you are a good citizen and buy a house and have kids, the Government will reward you by penalizing other citizens. This goes directly against equality.]

 

But, my biggest anger is not that I do pay taxes; it is what happens to that money after it is withheld from my check. They do things with it far outside my level of comfort. The distribution is far beyond what I see fit and far beyond what I feel the initial structure of this country’s Constitution enabled. I tend to be hardline. Even if it actually went to total goodness and rainbows, I feel it is outside the intent of the Framers and it is outside the ability for man, elected man, to determine without the error and failure that comes with being human and in need of power.

 

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary,” comes to mind.

 

We are moving towards a tax basis that is approaching 50% of the tax paying citizens will pay no Federal income tax, none. I am constantly told by one side of the fence that we are all in it together, we all pay in. Well, the IRS data does not support this collective drum beating. Half of the tax payers will support the other half. Again, I do not care even if it were ideal; when this is allowed to happen it erodes the country’s best interest and intent of its founding. How can you with any interest vote in any way other than increasing your entitlement check, even at the anguish of the country? It bears false witness to being able to vote and its best intention of voting for what is best. Voting under this condition amounts to voting for as much as I can take. Get enough votes and the rest of us are held hostage.

 

The waste. Over 60% is just money moved around; moved from one tax payer to another. I do not believe in elected charity. I do not believe it is the elected official’s mandate to move my money from me and grant to another as if they were capable of choosing my charity. I think we are slowly killing the minds of the citizen, the will, and the ideals that built this great nation. I know you and Joe will write this off and tell me it always was and it always will be. First you will tell me nothing changes and then you will tell me we have learned and changed. I can’t keep up with which it is, but the slow erosion of the family, the work ethic, respect, the individual spirit is taking us down a path I do not see as a good one. Why should my children have less food, less clothing so that I may support other children? Forced, I will add.

 

I am for the most part a Libertarian. I do tend off at times into the realm of the Right, but find myself back home more often than not. My list of grievances is long and severe at the items I find detestable in the treatment of people by our elected. Our liberties are slowly eroded over time in the constant beat of “for the greater good”, for the good of all, for the fairness of the situation. Just because you are not bothered does not mean it is not going on.

Here is my case in a nut shell.

 

The Government cannot grant any such entitlement, food stamps, SS, healthcare, medi-care, housing, emergency room care, school lunches, contraception, any and everything. It does not have the income on its own. It cannot grant a citizen a right or a grant without generating that income from another citizen. The list goes on, but since the depression, the list has grown and gotten ever larger where one citizen must surrender some of their property, labor and liberty to grant it to another. You cannot give healthcare to someone without getting it from someone. This being said, the powers they have to do so are limited and few, as laid out so long ago. They have run away with this power and are heading in the wrong direction, one which will not do the country well in the end. We may yet all be equal, but being equal in the food lines, the wages, and the property is not what I call a good thing.

 

When will it end? Someone steals from a store, I pay for that. Someone defaults on their house, gets their loan modified and I pay for that. Someone gets food stamps to buy their food or liquor or trades them for cash, I pay for that. 99 weeks of unemployment, so much that people get to decide if they really need to take a job or not, I pay for that. People here illegally go to the emergency room for care, don’t pay, I pay for that. Strong armed courts play games with bankruptcy of auto makers, pay favors to groups of workers at the expense of the bond holder, and I pay for that. Too big to fail banks get bailed out, I pay for that. Of course, I paid for it going in (funding of Fannie and Freddie); I pay for it in declining house revenue. I pay for the bailouts, mortgage write downs, evictions and new loans. I pay for it all. College loan write downs? College loans period? I pay for that. Infinite liability public sector pension funds after 20 years of service? Yep, that’s me too.

 

I could go on for quite some time. My life is good, my family is great, and my job pays well. I cannot see how it continues at the pace we are moving. I guess I can sit back and hope I just don’t see it that way. Adding over a trillion dollars a year to the debt, increasing spending is no way to run a business or a government.

 

Everything seems okay? Yep, fine and dandy right up to the point of collapse.

[dover]

Now that I am done with that...

 

 

[cheetah]

If it is any consolation, I have made everything I have earned the old fashioned way. I paid my way through school, paid off my student loans on time, worked hard at my job while learning everything I could about business then started my own company with my ex-wife using my own business model which is unique in my industry. When I got divorced, I paid the full value of my company to my ex just so I could keep it open and keep my people employed. Bought her half of the house from her and pay the maximum rate of child support while still having my daughters half the time. I've been hit with the alternative minimum tax every year for the last six so my tax rate isn't a freebie. I don't really consider myself an elite though when the political name-calling begins, I invariably get lumped into that class by folks who prefer a broad brush when it comes to painting the other side as the enemy. I make too much to understand how the little guy feels but am not selfish enough to be the greedy that everyone loves to hate.

 

While I'm disappointing that you find my world view worth a bit of laughter, it comes from someone who has spent considerable time in Central America and learned a lot about how different cultures operate. I do enough historical research as part of my job to understand the economic issues that plagued this country for for two centuries. My mother grew up with a tenant farmer father farming cotton during the depression and didn't have electricity till she was 15 and moved to the city. All of that has helped shape the way I see the world.

 

My job deals with environmental permitting and I get the opportunity to work with people that run the political spectrum. I work for companies that will do everything in their power to comply with every regulation and I work with companies who till leave no stone unturned in an effort to extract every last penny out of a project, whether that is at my expense or at the law's expense. I know plenty of folks who resent anyone mandating what they do, whether it is with their money, their property, their family, their job, or their religion. Conversely, I know plenty of others who are more team oriented and will pitch in any time they see something they think needs fixing or someone who needs help. Then there are people like me who learn the rules and play the game within the guidelines. I voice my opinion and place my vote, but in the end, the majority rule applies and I sit back and accept that.

 

I find so many on the right and left are entirely too dogmatic in their views. To them, there is one right way and no other. My life has shown me that there are multiple ways to succeed and multiple ways to fail. Strict adherence to a single philosophy, whether unvarnished communism or market-based capitalism seems to lead to failure since it never accounts for the fact that sizable segments of humanity do not see political reality in the same light. No one will be satisfied living in a world where the other worldview dominates.

 

Ultimately, both sides make assumptions that people can be trusted. The left feels people in government will make the right choices and can be trusted to make regulations that are sensible and fair to all. The right feels that people in business will make the right choices or be punished in the market place by well-informed consumers. Neither side accounts for the folks who will bend any rule and break any law to get what they want at the expense of anyone and everyone else. Market-based capitalism assumes an unlimited job market and an unlimited selection of goods. But people don't have the opportunity to move freely between jobs. They can't choose to go to a different market when there is only one market in town. They end up having to play by the rules of the people with the power and those people take full advantage of the naivete of both the left and the right who think their system is the one that will make it right.

 

People have the right to determine where their money goes and they have the right to be protected from people who will take advantage of them. Neither government acting alone, nor the marketplace acting without regulation, are going to provide a level playing field for anyone. The powerful and the power-hungry will always find was to take advantage of the situation. To me, it takes a responsive government that recognizes what regulation is necessary but allows people and business the freedom of self determination.

 

Laughable as it may be, that is my view in a nutshell. It's not gleaned from a text book or some political talking head, just from my own experience and beliefs.

[dover]

 

People have the right to determine where their money goes and they have the right to be protected from people who will take advantage of them. Neither government acting alone, nor the marketplace acting without regulation, are going to provide a level playing field for anyone. The powerful and the power-hungry will always find was to take advantage of the situation. To me, it takes a responsive government that recognizes what regulation is necessary but allows people and business the freedom of self determination.

 

 

Correct in every way.

 

My company sells into 42 countries. I talk to many people in all kinds of situations and different kinds of of government control. My current experience comes from traveling and talking to them.

 

Before, I came from a racing background. Every car achieves its speed through different methods, no one way is the correct. They vary based on driver, chassis, motor and set-up. Many different solutions to the same problem; how to go fast around a track.

 

The differences are small per lap, but when added over 60 laps they appear quite large. Take this to life and use years instead of laps.

 

Gently regulated capitalism with a well controled and limited central government (our wonderful Constitution) in the long run has proved to be The most effective way to ensure Life, Liberty and Happiness. It does this with allowing for the most personal freedom and Liberty to the person, or group or community. There are examples that show success, but they are isolated and limited in size and scope. It is not the only way, it is simply the best way.

 

Don't fret too much about my humor. You struggle to understand why I worry we are falling apart as a country. I laugh because you seem to feel nothing is wrong. This statement is a gross exageration of both views, understand that.

 

I have no concern about how you made your money, I learned long ago not to count any one's money but my own (one of my driver's taught me that). Life is really not a race with anyone but with one's self.

 

Right or left, does not matter. I examine each issue for its own merit to what it does or does not do to ensure the principles of this country's foundings. Does the issue or legislation protect or detract from an individuals Liberty? That is always my own question.

 

I have issues with both sides.

 

 

[Doc Joe]

I pay a fortune in taxes as a high W2 earner yet I don't feel my liberty being taken away from me.

 

I don't get police men trying to shake me down at checkpoints, I don't get locked up because of my opinions, I can travel across county, state and country lines with a minimum of documentation, I can practice no religion without being beaten, I can vote for who I want and if I don't like any of them I can run for office. I can access pretty much all areas of the internet. If I am accused of a crime I can have representation and appeals. I can read what books I like. If I think a law is unfair I can petition to have it changed. If I fall on hard times there will be a degree of help available - I pay money to live in this society.To me these are the freedoms/liberties that matter.

[dover]

 

World's Finest #258

Publisher: DC

Era: Bronze Age

Issue: 258

Grade: 9.8

Page Quality: White

Graded by: CGC

Census: Single Highest Grade

 

68 Page Giant, Superman/Batman, Hawkman, Shazam, Green Arrow & Black Lightning Stories 9/79 N.Adams Wraparound cover Garcia-Lopez R.Buckler D.Newton Art |

 

 

Price: $125.00

 

 

 

Sale Pending

 

[dover]

I pay a fortune in taxes as a high W2 earner yet I don't feel my liberty being taken away from me.

 

I don't get police men trying to shake me down at checkpoints, I don't get locked up because of my opinions, I can travel across county, state and country lines with a minimum of documentation, I can practice no religion without being beaten, I can vote for who I want and if I don't like any of them I can run for office. I can access pretty much all areas of the internet. If I am accused of a crime I can have representation and appeals. I can read what books I like. If I think a law is unfair I can petition to have it changed. If I fall on hard times there will be a degree of help available - I pay money to live in this society.To me these are the freedoms/liberties that matter.

 

Okay. No need to worry. Carry on.

 

 

[dover]

It's all good. I pay my taxes, I live free and good. No problems at all.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html#

 

 

[Doc Joe]

It's all good. I pay my taxes, I live free and good. No problems at all.

 

I knew you would come around

 

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html#

 

 

 

ummmmm....on second thoughts

[dover]

http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/mill/liberty.html

 

On Liberty (1859), of the most important documents of political liberalism, appeared in the same year that Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published. On Liberty is a rational justification of the freedom of the individual in opposition to the claims of the state to impose unlimited control and is thus a defence of the rights of the individual against the state. This work contained Mill's principle that only self-protection can justify either the state's tampering with the liberty of the individual or any personal interference with another's freedom -- particularly with respect to freedom of thought and discussion.

 

The only part of conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part, which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

 

In this essay Mill also warns of a second danger to liberty, which democracies are prone to, namely, the tyranny of the majority. In a representative democracy, if you can control the majority, then you can control everyone.

 

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant -- society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it -- its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. [p.7]

 

The aim was to thus limit the amount of power the ruler should have to exercise over the community and this limitation was what he meant by liberty. Attempted in two ways, first by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty by the ruler to infringe, and which if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable. Second was the establishment of constitutional checks, by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposedly representative of its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power. The ruling power in most European countries was compelled, more or less, to submit to the first of these modes of limitations. However, it was not so with the second. To attain this, thus became the principal object of the lovers of liberty everywhere.

 

However came a time in the progress of human affairs, when men stopped thinking that it was natural for their governors should be an independent power. It seemed much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure. In that way alone, it seemed they had complete security over the powers of government. This new demand for elected and temporary rulers became the prominent object of the exertions of the popular party and superseded the previous efforts to limit the power of rulers. It was now demanded that the rulers should be identified with the people, that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation. The nation did not need to be protected against its own will.

 

However, a democratic republic came to occupy a large portion of the earth's surface, making itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations. Now, such phrases as "self-government," and "the power of the people over themselves," do not reflect reality. The "people" who wield the power are not always the same people as those over whom it is exercised, and the "self-government" spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. Moreover, the will of the people means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people. The majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority consequently may desire to oppress the minority within their number and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power. Therefore the limitation of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community.

 

"The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." [p.13]

 

Bibliography and Web Resources

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts.

 

[dover]

It's all good. I pay my taxes, I live free and good. No problems at all.

 

I knew you would come around

 

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html#

 

 

 

ummmmm....on second thoughts

 

Liberty's surrender in Germany took the form of the SS. It does not have to be so revealing, so open and transparent. It can be simple and hidden.

 

The devaluation of the dollar. The debt which we all surrender our labor to without question. The Department of Education that has zero Constitutional grounds to hold sway conducting teachings as they see fit. The forced subsidizing of our neighbor, our farmers, our charity abroad. Why must I take food from my children so that a farmer in Idaho can be granted money to feed a group of people in Africa? Under what guise was this deemed for our greater good? Ever read a report on the destruction of a people, a community by the dumping of "free" food and goods? Ever seen the reports on inflation in those countries that are "given" aid and those that have refused it? Ever try to practice farming when food falls from the sky?

 

Why do I have to subsidize a Chevy Volt? What about my Honda?

 

Why did my bank, BB&T have to be penalized so that the failures could be propped up?

 

Liberty is a measure of freedom, but do not confuse its true nature with just the physical removal of freedom. Having less of what you produce to the forced theft of a Government so that a greater good, defined by elected officals, can be put forth and paid for.

 

Buying votes is not a worthy charity. It is not a worthy way to use my property and that of my children.

 

[dover]

No loss of Liberty here.....

 

U.S. Tax code.

 

What we find is that the tax code really didn't explode in complexity until World War II, which we observe in the large jump from being just 504 pages in length in 1939 to 8,200 pages in 1945, the final year of the war. Since then, we find that the number of pages in the U.S. federal tax code have grown at a near-steady exponential rate of 3.28% per year, which as of 2010, means that the U.S. tax code has ballooned to be 71,684 pages in length!

 

 

I am sure every page does nothing but enforce and redefine individual Liberty and Freedom.

 

Nothing to worry about here.