"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin." ~ Mark Twain
Keep the Home Fires Burning
Column by Paul Hein.
Exclusive to STR
As the economy collapses, and civilization disintegrates, increasing numbers of people are becoming aware of the corrupt, vicious, and arrogantly stupid nature of government—especially the federal government--and its role in the dissolution.
But wait! Do we really want to believe that government is the problem? Keep in mind that there is no such physical entity as government. It is a label, nothing more, and a diversion. What we call “government,” or the “state,” is people: actual living, breathing human beings, working for an organization which they idealize as “government,” because it sounds so much more important and respectable than “gang.”
Whether it is the gang in Washington, or the local gang, there is always an impressive “constitution” that purports to be its charter, its reason for existing. For example, the federal gang justifies its existence by claiming to protect your right to life, liberty, and property. In actual operation, however, the gang members present an imminent threat to your life, liberty, and property greater than that presented by any other gang. In recent years, however, I’ve come to realize that local gangs are no better, despite their being closer to the people, and, therefore, presumably more responsive to their needs and demands.
I accept that there must be a certain amount of rhetorical boilerplate in constitutions, so I am not surprised to read, in my state’s constitution, the following: “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.” The next section is a little more specific: “…all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry--to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.” To cap the climax: “…the people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to…alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness….” Wow!
I take it as virtual proof that nobody reads the constitution, including those that swear to adhere to it, that such language remains. How can members of the gang raise their hands and swear allegiance to a document that declares them a failure if they fail to secure a person’s right to the “gains of their own industry,” while simultaneously claiming a right to those gains, achieved as income, or property? Has any member of a government gang ever provided a victim with substantial evidence that the gang has a greater claim upon the victim’s property than the victim himself? Certainly, if you knocked on someone’s door and said you had come to collect some money or property because you were, by your own decree, entitled to it, you would risk exposing yourself as a madman. If you persisted, you would be arrested and taken away. But when you make such a claim as a member of a “government” gang, you fully expect to be taken seriously, and, perhaps even more remarkably, you are!
The reason, of course, is “the law”! Oh, so sacrosanct and precious! It is by virtue of the “law” that the gang takes the property of others, and considers itself justified in doing so. But the “law” is just the demands of the gang put down on paper, along with some feel-good sentiments as we’ve quoted above, about securing the rights of the people, providing for the public good, etc. In plain fact, the reason the gang can “lawfully” take what is yours is--because they say they can. If you doubt it, just ask them. They all agreed, according to a process of their own devising, that it was utterly right and proper for them to claim as theirs what you (foolishly!) thought was yours!
But they say they can only take what is yours for a limited purpose: “Taxes may be levied and collected for public purposes only….” (That’s in the state Constitution.) We aren’t given a definition of “public purposes,” but it’s safe to assume that such purposes must be included in the state’s spending. Yet year after year, my state has, according to its own Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) revenues that exceed expenditures by approximately $2 billion. I’m not a businessman, but isn’t an excess of revenue over expenditure called PROFIT? Is the Revenue Department (which, incidentally, is listed in Dun & Bradstreet) in business to make a profit? It’s interesting, by the way, that what the state takes in is “revenue.” What you take in is “income,” which, though never defined, is considered—mistakenly--by the state to be taxable. Well, you’re not a member of the gang.
If you bought a refrigerator from Acme Corp., and it broke down after a few months, and you bought another one from Acme Corp. and it broke down after a few months, and you bought still another one from Acme Corp. which also broke down after a few months, I am pretty sure you’d think twice about buying any more refrigerators from Acme Corp. Now the gang that runs my state--and I’m pretty sure your state is similar--admits, in plain English, that it fails in its primary purpose if it does not secure for you the gains of your own industry. It fails year after year, decade after decade. Moreover, the same gang assures you, again in plain language, of your right to replace them when you deem it necessary for your safety and happiness!
So the obvious question is: Just how much allegiance do you owe to an organization that, by its own admission, repeatedly fails to accomplish its purpose? Why should you pay it any attention at all? Remember, by its own declaration, sworn to by all its members, you have the right to replace it!
So, when? All in favor of abolishing their form of government--gang rule--raise their hands. You have nothing to lose but your chains, padded and comfortable though they may be.