I’m usually not one to spin the dial on my commute. It’s a rarity for me to not have new music or an audiobook to soothe my senses while I’m driving. This week I wasn’t in the mood for any of the music in the car, so I decided to catch a few Christmas tunes and check in with a few of the local talk radio stations.

Occasionally, I endure the slightly masochistic enjoyment of hesitating when my radio dial lands on an NPR station. It never lasts more than a minute or two. Despite my experience with people and my awareness of the lack of principled morality that most people maintain, NPR never fails to surprise or annoy me. This particular segment took place in Iowa as part of the orgasmic liberal frenzy associated with the vote-buying conference known as the Iowa Caucus. The host asks individuals in a local restaurant about why they would vote for their particular collectivist. All answers were the typical catch phrases… their candidate had “good ideas” or “would turn the country in the right direction” — yea, sure they would.

This particular answer stood out as the most illustrative of how pathetically apathetic most people have become. You ready for it?

“I’m either gonna vote for Hillary or Ron Paul”

Seriously? You’re either going cast your vote for a big-government, pro-abortion socialist.. or a limited government, pro-life Capitalist?

No big deal… there’s no inner conflict of fundamental philosophical premises that a few hours on the internet can’t resolve.

This is hilarious until you ponder how this remarkable, yet typical mindset represents a prevalent segment of our population. One which plays a decisive role in what kind of country my family lives in.

In response to CAV’s most recent comments…

The ‘Fair Tax’ is no step in the right direction. It is like a band-aid on a cancerous lesion:

Sure, this system would still sacrifice individual property and productivity for the sake of a collective. Yes, it would still exist as a system of force, funding a federal budget that’s 80-90% illegitimate. It would still be immoral, and it is indeed a band-aid.

But, it would likely demolish perhaps the most intrusive and out-of-scope instrument of destruction and force at GovCo’s disposal. To ever arrive at the moral, just system that you and I both envision, a major philosophical and structural revolution would have to occur. This movement could be the beginning tug in an effort to yank the rug from under the table… which I think is what really will have to happen to facilitate change.

I do think this would be a step in the right direction for four reasons.

One, many businesses would be relieved of the accounting and administrative burden of our current withholding system, enabling them to focus more time and energy on being innovative and productive. The effects of this relief on small businesses alone could be enormous.

The lesion needs to be observed by someone who knows what he’s looking at, and removed before it worsens — not hidden from view for the convenience of those who don’t want to look more closely.

Second, taxation on a consumption basis would highlight, not hide the amount of wealth being forced from individuals. Withholdings facilitate an inconspicuous way to sweep the amount confiscated under the rug. If every consumer has to face the reality of where a large portion of their money goes on a daily basis instead of once a year, I do think more people will start to ask questions.

Third, we the victims would have a greater ability not to sanction our destroyer. In our current system we have very little choice but to sanction it. We have to work to survive and within our current laws then taxes must be “withheld.” Outside of risking the wrath of an IRS audit, there’s very little avenue for escape. We either have to work, and pay what we’re told; or not work, and perish.

A consumption tax returns power back to individuals… albeit minimal. I have to work to survive, but I don’t have to consume at my current rate to exist. My family could live on much less than we presently do. Under the FairTax we could consume less and still produce at our current rate. We could easily cut our monthly burn rate by 60%. That’s 60% more control (less taxation) than we have now without dropping our productivity at all. Currently, the only way you can pay less into the system, other than complicated legal wrangling, is to produce less. The FairTax would dissolve this dichotomy. One could consume less and maintain one’s productivity. Yes, the economy would inevitably suffer from the reduction in consumption, but the beast and its moochers would starve before the productive. Although it wouldn’t go down without a fight, this empowerment could serve as a means to starve the beast.

Finally, although it’s definitely not “fair,” as implied by its title, it would at least make it a possibility to spread the tax burden more evenly (again, without reducing production). Currently, the tax burden is grossly skewed towards the top 5% of income earners. There would still be sloth’s who pay nothing at all, but the big chunk wouldn’t necessarily fall only on the shoulders of the most productive as it does now.

I think this is one case where a movement whose philosophical roots are either not well articulated, inconsistent or even non-existent could serve as a means to a larger end - one with legitimate moral tenants. In other words, I think this could lead us to the same desirable goal… just with less objectively pure premises. It wouldn’t be the complete 180 that we should take, but it would be a very prominent shift towards that end.

In response to CAV @ Gus Van Horn who recently commented on the FairTax…

As one who once fell for a different primary season tax gimmick, I agree with Shlaes. This idea [The FairTax Plan] is a gimmick. It is an attempt to evade the fundamental problems posed by the nature of the welfare state as a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. (The problem of enforcement, which proponents soft-pedal, is just one way this problem rears its ugly head.)

I don’t see the FairTax bill as a gimmick. Neither the bill, nor its proponents contend that the scope of our welfare state will be reduced.

That’s really not its declared purpose. The purpose is to eliminate the burden of the IRS and its overhead from individual and corporate accounting. Wouldn’t this would be the largest reduction in the overreaching scope of Government in the history of our nation?

Additionally, this could initiate monumental cleansing of our political system solely by its devastating affects on lobbyists.

The system will still be progressive, complex and immoral, but arguably more just. No longer will passivity be rewarded while achievement is punished (to the extent that it currently is). No longer will the presence and magnitude of individual contributions be virtually hidden by way of “withholdings.”

Sure, the consumption tax rate can and would still be increased, but in a tremendously more visible manner to everyone who consumes – not in a progressively tiered assault on the most productive individuals. And sure, enforcement would still be complex, but it’s victim base is much more narrowly focused (retailers), and it’s guidelines greatly simplified.

We should passionately defend and advocate reason, rights, laissez-faire Capitalism, self-reliance, low taxes and the proper role of Government on principle, but this movement (albeit pragmatic) presents a strategy for dismantling a giant governmental tumor.

The FairTax wouldn’t eliminate all the rats and roaches, but it would open windows and clear the air, making their hideouts more conspicuous.

How could this not be a step in the right direction?

Michael Vick loses two years of his life, an estimated $200,000,000, and possibly his career for a “crime” that didn’t violate any individuals right to life, liberty or property.

Yet another tragic victory for advocates of subjective law. Principles are pesky things when dwelling in the world of emotions.

I will actually vote for Ron Paul. This man is saying things that no other politician has the philosophical basis, nerve, or intellectual honesty to even hint at on a national stage.

Paul gets it. He realizes that we shouldn’t have digressed in to a country where politicians tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies, how much we should be able to keep of the money we earn, how much business owners should pay their employees, or that we should have to ask permission to exercise our right to protect our own lives. He consistently cites individual rights, freedom and the founding documents of our once great nation. He conveys no altruistic mandates, no “rights” which are really privileges, nor any compulsory sacrifice of individuals to other individuals or the state.

Honestly, he’s consistent enough across the board on reducing the size and scope of government that I would gladly overlook his questionable stance on abortion for the monumental shift in the right direction his ideals would bring. Admittedly, this is an easier trade off for a male.

He may not be perfect, but he’s so much more free-market minded and individualistic that I wouldn’t think twice about giving him my vote.

There are no others that I’d even get off the couch for.

Pulling the lever for someone who’s stances I agree with ~98% of is something I can do in good conscience. The rest of the field (pathetic, pandering weasels that they are) may have stances that I agree with ~5% of (mostly not in principle, just in end-result.)

Great video from a Google Candidate series.

Other great videos here with another intellectually honest individual, John Stossel.