Say Anything Blog

C’mon, Rob, that’s not what the guy’s saying at all. His view - expressed very clumsily, I’ll grant you - is that government is a necessary part of the overall societal compact that enables the market to work.

He’s right that the market would punish a state (or county, or nation) without roads, for example, and the fact is that in the US we’ve chosen to have government take care of building the roads. Williamson believes that to that extent it’s necessary that we pay taxes, and we shouldn’t complain because those taxes are ultimately beneficial.

What he’s not addressing is that it’s the fact that since this is our money we have the right and obligation to ensure we approve of what is done with it. Tax Freedom Day is nothing more than a rhetorical device; obviously everyone’s annual day of freedom from indenture is different. The construct of Tax Freedom Day helps us to remember that we need to keep an eye on what our elected officials are doing with our money, and the complaints help keep those officials on their toes and responsive to us. Williamson is dead wrong in thinking that people shouldn’t complain about the government taking our money, and the pretax income argument is simply specious. Pre or post-tax, it’s all our money, we’ve earned it. Yes, we all need to pony up our share of the services we have agreed to provide for each other (i.e., government) but there should be loud and ongoing debate on the extent and nature of those services.

I think his point is basically ‘stop whining about taxes already’, not ‘how dare you complain about your government’s largesse’. At least, I hope that’s what it was. I’d hate to think he really is that dumb.

Thad Williamson is an assistant professor of leadership studies at the University of Richmond.

1) He’s a communist.
2) He’s a professor.
3) He’s a communist professor.
4) He professor of leadership studies.
5) He thinks leadership can be taught.

The guy is a nut.

Dil, I think you give him too much credit.  The implication of his column is that our money doesn’t belong to us because we couldn’t have earned it without the government.

Which isn’t exactly true.  Economic activity doesn’t cease to exist in the absence of government.  Depending on the type of government it can be more efficient and profitable when governed, but that hardly means that the wealth created by free people in a free market belongs to the government first, citizens second.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It is straight-up communism.  There is no nuance to this deranged insanity. 

These are the people that believe the Constitution gives people rights (rather than limiting what rights the government can take from being).

Even the infrastructure is only built when there is a demand for them, and then it is paid for with the earnings of those who use them.  Demand creates supply, not the govt.  Our Constitution clearly states that the govt is created by the people, not the other way around.  This guy is preaching straight Marxism.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Do Americans Have A Moral Right To The Pre-Tax Earnings?

It might have been clearer if you had written it “Do Americans Have a Right To Their Pre-Tax Earnings?”

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

we have a right to our post-tax income,

Spoken like a man who lives in an ivory tower, divorced from the real world.

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

A bigger problem is that there are people that benefit from high taxes on other people.

We need to set up the system where everyone pays the same tax rate.  That will put us all in the same boat when it comes to new spending.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

We need to set up the system where everyone pays the same tax rate.  That will put us all in the same boat when it comes to new spending.

Unfortunately, TW, the supply and cost of govt is not caused by either the demand for govt or the price of govt.  It is determined by the desire of politicians for other peoples’ money.  Govt spending is not dependent upon the method of taxation.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Williamson is espousing Marxist Socialism. All, including people, is the property of the State. That is the conclusion Williamson has reached. I am not the property of any State, nor are my son or wife. Period.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Government’s roles are simple:

1.  Ensure the rights to life, liberty, and property
2.  Raise a military to defend life, liberty and property
3.  Provide a court system to adjudicate disputes

Now, as such, the government must define the rules of the game for appropriate times when life, liberty, or property rights of an individual can be infringed and the penalities when one acts contrary to these established laws--Legislative Branch does these things.  Second, the courts system must adjudicate disputes rising from these laws--Judicial Branch.  Finally, the government must have an enforcement arm to ensure that policy can be put into effect.  Man gives up their natural freedom in return for government acting in these capacities.

The author of the article believes that economic propsperity as he defines it--meaning an individual getting to keep an ever diminishing portion of the fruits of his labors--is sufficient justification for government to stray beyond these basic duties.  He reinforces his belief that government has the right to infringe on the rightful owners of property through taxes for such items as:

To take an obvious example, if government allowed Virginia’s roads to fall into disrepair, that would over time substantially hamper the state’s long-term economic prospects—and in turn, the quality of jobs and income available to individual citizens. Or if Medicare were eliminated, some persons might enjoy a slightly higher income, but others would face catastrophic costs in trying to care for themselves or a sick parent. Or to take a more extreme illustration, if the police vanished tomorrow for lack of funding, chaos would likely ensue and the economy would collapse, taking everyone’s pre-tax income with it.

What is lacking is that the individual that pays the taxes does not receive direct benefit from his taxes and the author talks about directly taking money from an individual to apply that money to a “societal” good.  Namely, my gains are used for the benefit of someone else and it is argued that by taking what is rightfully mine and giving it to someone else (entitlements) or spending it on public good (roads, medicair, etc.) that I am personally or that society is better off because that leads to greater prosperity.

Only problem is that this argument only works to the limit of the government acting in a responsible manner and it is clear that entitlement spending on social programs like the War on Poverty and so on as well as bridges to nowhere serves no public good and does nothing to correct any societal ill.  Further, the only purpose of these programs is to take money from one person and transfer it to another--whether that other is a government contractor who builds the bridge, a bureaucrat who overseas the program, or a constituent that is paid via transfer payment.

While I get the point that we all should pay taxes, it is the very anger and resentment over the progressively higher and higher rates that puts downward pressure on government to curtail spending.  So his bullshit logic of shut up and be happy because our country is prosperous despite bridges to nowhere and programs like welfare just doesn’t fly.  Sure, some things serve a public good, but one cannot argue that without massive Federal Tax dollars that are tied to strings like “speed limits”, “line colors”, and DUI BAC’s that roads would never get built or that society would crumble. 

I am glad that the roads in Alaska are being put into place with my tax dollars so that folks don’t have to use a ferry anymore.  I believe that is what he is arguing.  And I guess we all better shut up now.

Well said as usual, Rob.

To take an obvious example, if government allowed Virginia’s roads to fall into disrepair, that would over time substantially hamper the state’s long-term economic prospects

Or, if the government were to take some of your tax dollars to fund, say, a crucifix immersed in urine, would not funding that substantially hamper the state’s long-term economic prospects?
Or is that too obvious, too?

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Universities are a taxpayer subsidized monopoly. This goof ball probably has or wants tenure.
How many of us in the regular world have it?

This guy’s belief system is that we work to provide resources for the government.  That’s classic communism.  He does temper it with a tiny amount of capitalism since he does believe that a person is entitled to some small cut of his/her own pay.

"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think that means the government serves the people, not the people serve the government.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

To build on Whistler’s quote of the Declaration, the original form of the declarations of liberty was that men had a right to life, liberty, and property.  Ironically, a professor of leadership is turning upside down the doctrines of God-given rights.

And if we view these rights as absolute, and government as the guarantor of those rights, then a just tax is that which will allow the preservation of these rights to the greatest extent possible.