Patriotism Is Statism
Liberty By Logic ^ | 4/13/13 | Sal
Posted on Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:26:36 AM by LibertyByLogic
Righties might own the word Patriotism now, but if you haven’t noticed, the left has been trying to use it to condition you into thinking that giving them more tax revenue is the ultimate way to show your love of country.
Taxation is Robbery, Part 1 “It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede”- Frank Chodorov – Mises Daily
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as “that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects.” That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?
On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from “the nature of man,” thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the State the keystone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxation per se; the State’s taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the State is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.
The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the State is either a natural or a socially necessary institution.
Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postulate is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.
If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one’s labor, his right to existence is qualified.
by Charles A. Burris
Previously by Charles A. Burris: Hollywood Wars
The above two extremely wry, witty and acerbic lecture presentations by the late Doctor Eugen Weber demonstrate the intimate connection between the rise of compulsory schools and competitive sports as props in the enhancement of the power of the modern welfare-warfare State.
I have always viewed the modern State’s promotion of competitive sports (such as football, tennis, cricket, baseball, basketball, or soccer) as an insidious reintroduction of the ancient Roman concept of “bread and circuses,” a diversionary endeavor to manipulate the masses by enhancing their primal aggressive instincts with false loyalties or allegiances to manufactured idols and tribal teams.
Livingston about the legality of secession, be sure and check out the rest of the interview in today’s transcript, “What happens with secession in America, if it’s constitutionally done, a state, being a sovereign political society, has a convention of its people and they vote an ordinance of secession to withdraw the compact with the United States and to secede.
Of course, if they do that, then they have to deal with their share of the public debt and other obligations they incurred in the union. Once they’ve done that, they’ve seceded. The Supreme Court has no say over this. After all, they’re an independent country.
About | FlyoverPress.com ~ Explaining Liberty to Liberals, Democratic Socialists, Neo-Conservatives and Fascist Alike…
Neo-Conservatives and Fascist Alike
Albert J Nock summed it up with the title of his book, “Our Enemy the State.”
We believe that there is nothing the State does that a private property, natural law based, for profit society can not do better.
We take every possible opportunity to demean the State and point out its crimes and ineffeciencies. There is no shortage of material.
Here is a summary of what we are all about.
As a staunch Anarcho-Capitalist and editor of the libertarian on-line news magazine, FlyoverPress.com, I am frequently confronted with all manner of political views. Thus, I find myself having to repeatedly explain the fundamentals of libertarian philosophy. Essentially, I have written the same essay thousands of times. This paper is an attempt to summarize and consolidate those essays and thereby save myself a great deal of time in the future.
For most of my life I have searched for a set of principles by which to live—ethical principles that could be applied to any and all human interactions. I have always rejected “situational ethics” as my intuition told me that there is such a thing as an “objective” ethic. But it eluded me for many years, until I discovered libertarianism.
I wrote an article on Envy, Asians, and Tariffs. Almost as soon as it was published, I received this email.
I am a regular reader of your articles published on LewRockwell.com, and most of the time I agree with you. I consider myself a “conservative” Libertarian. That is, I believe in the capitalist and free market system, small government, less regulation and less government intrusion into our private lives – the same as a classic Libertarian. Where I part ways with your thinking is over the issue of tariffs. Tariffs are anathema, of course, to classical Libertarians, because tariffs violate their commitment to “free trade.” The problem with that position is that we don’t have free trade. Our manufacturers are required by government regulation to pay a minimum wage, to provide medical coverage, to limit the work day to 8 hours, to provide a myriad of other costly benefits to workers, and to permit unions to extort even more costly benefits out of the hapless factory owner, all of which drive prices up.
Anyone who has read my articles for the past several years knows I advocate the principles of Federalism and State Sovereignty. What is becoming a joke to me, though, is this demonstrably pep-rally doctrine that the States will and should dissolve the union because the federal government ignores the constitution—as if evident violations are new to our generation. What would be new, rather, is for people to address these constitutional problems in terms of practical political redress, not editorial hype and patriotic emotionalism.
No Sovereign Qualities
Reason and experience show, people will not dissolve deep-seated political ties except in the most unlivable conditions, and sometimes not even then. People would rather remain with what they know to stay relatively or seemingly secure than to uproot an entire political system and take the risks of what that implies.
Let us be frank: the States are not currently positioned to be independent from the union. Neither is there indication that they will be in the foreseeable future. For over 200 years, the States have formed their societies, governments, and economies with the understanding and presumption that their wealth, security, and stability depend on the other States and federal government.
States (North Dakota excluded) have not instituted even the most basic necessity of sovereign nations: a state bank. Neither has any State maintained a well-regulated militia for a “Free State”, another basic necessity to execute sovereignty. For all practical purposes, there is not one State treating itself as sovereign.
However, his description was hypothetical and purportedly unlikely. Madison paints a picture of what the union would look like under healthy conditions and then contrasts that with terminal conditions that would destroy the union. His portrayal is fascinating and worth applying today.In Federalist Paper 46, Madison discusses the happy and healthy situation where the Federal and State governments respect their constitutional boundaries.
Madison says, “[the federal government will] be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments”. Congress would be the “guardians of a common interest” and would not make “improper sacrifices…of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government”.