Socialist Paul Kanjorski [D-PA] further spearheads our descent into destruction with a gem of barbaric brilliance he’s named the “Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008″. H.R. 5800 would establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” that would serve to determine if oil companies are bringing in too much money.

Since we’ve, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the founding principles for this nation, and are no longer chained by constitutional justification, this measure is fair game.

Here’s uncle Sam’s claim - “You don’t have a right to your profits, we do. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how you might reinvest your profits, we’d rather confiscate them by force as a form of pandering and income redistribution.”

It escapes me how any human could claim the right to dictate the appropriate profitability of another. Unless he’s the consumer, by what right can he tell another how much the product of his labor and resources should be worth in barter? A producer and his voluntary consumers are the only entities with any justifiable means to determine price. Any man that claims such determination can rightfully be made by anyone other than the producer and consumer, and then imposed by force, is an advocate of slavery.

The proper response to this meddling is for the victim (big oil) to simply say “no, we quit”. It would only take once, as the crumbling economy would send a message to congress reminding them who’s rightfully in charge - the men of production, not crooks and cowards who scheme their way into office and pander to stay there. Kanjorski and all the other rodents would scurry in a desperate attempt to officially retract the 13th amendment in order to fix their boo boo. I long for the then day where men proudly assert their right to the product of their labor. When the victims realize their sanction is the only power Washington thugs maintain, the sick little game that is American politics will be nothing more than a footnote in history.

So, keep pushing Paul. The more you push, the sooner those of us who understand life, liberty and property can rebuild the nation you’re doing your best to obliterate.

It’s official. I’ve returned to the dreary conclusion that there’s not a single candidate in the 2008 election that I can vote for in good conscience. Yep, I’m thinking I was very wrong regarding Ron Paul. Over the past week, I’ve reconsidered my support for his campaign. Like a light switching on in a closet with rats, it’s become shockingly apparent that part of his platform is pragmatic, and built on shaky premises. I applaud his adamant defense of the constitution, his open intent of dismantling several government agencies, his unfaltering support of the second amendment (without stipulations), his defense of property rights and his acute denigration of collectivism (which he accurately summoned is as the underlying pier of racism).

I agree with lots of what he says. Unfortunately, he misses the target on some key issues. Why can’t he tie it all together?

He condemns our ridiculous degree of taxation, but his primary reason is that it would “help the economy”. Why can’t he mention the case that it’s simply wrong to take by force from person A and give to person B? He chastises collectivism in the form of racism, but he fails to criticize the largest collectivist death-blob - the welfare state.

From his letter to congress on May 22, 2002, Paul writes.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

Ok…. great - as if Social Security itself isn’t a collectivized frivolous government program.

Why doesn’t he connect the dots?

He correctly points out that our mission in the middle east is hugely misdirected, but just today in a South Carolina speech claims that we should be “minding our own business”.

Minding our own business? Is he a pacifist?

To completely absolve barbaric faith, and to blame the threat of terrorism on the US not “minding its own business” is absurd. Barbarians fight even amongst themselves by the same means, for the same ends… is that due to us not minding our own business as well?

Let’s be honest, there’s no way Paul will even be in the top three, so my vote is really nothing more than a symbolic gesture. That being said, I still think Paul is the way-lesser of all evils… I just wish he could fix the 20% of his premises that seem to be syrupy gray.

In this article, Yaron Brook very eloquently defends individual rights against the gigantic, emotionally pulsating, collectivist death-machine.

Although this glob of evil seems to be just another page out of the collectivist playbook, there is a distinguishing factor that is noteworthy. Most socialized schemes simply want to horde the results of your productivity in order to redistribute to those who need them more. Socialization of medicine actually takes it a step further in that it requires the wrangling of a highly specialized skill set. Not only does it need your money to pay for someone else’s care, it also needs the brain and body of the individual who completes the equation - the physician. To exist, it needs both indirect and direct slavery.

Despite the emotional appeal that government-imposed “universal health care” would repair American medicine, it would utterly destroy it. A “national” health care system would be immoral, impractical and unconstitutional; it violates the volition of all parties involved, which stifles their ability to innovate, administer, or effectively conduct business.

It is immoral because there is no individual right to health care. There is only the right to pursue the ends that maintain one’s survival without encroaching on the rights of others. It is immoral (commonly known as theft) to take from one individual, to sacrifice one individual, for the sake of another. Individuals are responsible for their own (and anyone else’s whom they choose) health care cost and choices. Medical care is a service that requires expertise in biology, anatomy, medicine and technology. Individuals who achieve this expertise spend a large portion of their life becoming educated and adept in these fields. They then assume extremely high risk in administering and executing their skill set. Individuals who offer this service have the moral right to charge whatever cost they see fit. You and I as consumers have the choice to either use their service (on their terms) or not. That’s it… we have no right to their expertise, no right to a portion of their life… regardless of who’s footing the bill.

It is impractical because the free-market is the only proven means to innovation and productivity. The reason we have $400 notebook computers and $500 50″ flat panel televisions is the free-market. Any time you abandon the objective rules of economics, innovation and value suffer. Entrusting government the responsibility of managing life or death situations for millions of individuals is absurd. The same dysfunction that thrives in public education and all other socialized schemes will prevail in the most deadly way imaginable.

It would be unconstitutional because no where in the either the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, or any other document pertinent to the founding of our nation, is government meddling in the health care industry mentioned. Conversely, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, both of which are required by socializing medicine. Forcing professionals to render services outside of their terms and/or forcing individuals (you and I) to pay for someone else’s medical care is slavery.

13-1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

We have no right to health care - period. By definition a right cannot impose action on another individual… only privileges or mandates can do such.

The real culprit responsible for our current state of medicine is Government. Government meddling in the insurance and medical industries is precisely what has led us to where we are. This read in The Objective Standard offers a vivid summary of the meddling. Get Government completely out of medicine and our level of affordable care, technology and innovation will soar to unprecedented heights.

Our lack of socialized medicine is one of our last remnants of capitalism and the principles this once great nation was founded on. Science, technology and productive individuals coupled with our consistently objective friends, supply and demand, is the only prescription that can/will remedy the woes of American medicine.

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?

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.

These ridiculous debates… what do they actually think they are tricking people into seeing or believing? None of these charlatans actually say anything with meaning. They dance around with words trying to say as little as possible.

The clumsy ninjas of deliberate vagueness.

The entire game has evolved into a contest to see who can make the voters hate them the least. Each of them posturing to say what they think voters need. Each equally afraid to indicate any semblance of reducing GovCo. handouts to the mass of entitlement monkeys this country has become.

We’ve regressed to the point where the former bastion of individual liberty and economic prosperity, America, determines who’s at the helm by a facaduous pageant of corruption.

As long as we’re stuck in this socialist plurality of vote buyers referred to as the “two-party system”, I refuse to play their sick little game. On one side you’ve got slick-talking, collectivist panderers who’s continual ignorance and trampling of the constitution has lost even it’s comic appeal. On the other, you’ve those who blatantly regard as rights, what are really plunderously cultivated assaults on other individuals. Which side is which? One side sees no problem with forking out tax dollars to companies, the other gives freely to individuals. Neither is supported constitutionally. Both sides nitpick the other about “reforms” for this entitlement program, or “revisions” to this encroachment on property rights - arguing about the color of shingles for a house that should never have been built. There isn’t a single candidate on either side who’s not a mixed economy advocate.

Other than the ‘R’ and the ‘D’ beside their names they’re virtually indistinguishable. ‘Socialism Lite’ and ‘Socialism Low-Carb’… either way, we lose.