Recently, Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said that "I'll put it this way, you don't deserve to keep all of it. It's not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together."
"Keep all of what?" you may be asking. Your money.
You see, Representative Schakowsky believes that you don't deserve to keep all of your money. Why don't you deserve to keep all of your hard-earned money? Because of government. You see, we have to have government. We can't exist without government.
I disagree. I say, government can't exist without us.
There is another conversation that we need to have before we can talk taxes. It's a conversation about whether we, as American citizens, have inalienable rights.
Tina Korbe from Hot Air recently blogged about this. Quote:
"...the government does have that authority (to tax) from our consent, the consent we express in the Constitution, which does give the federal government the power to tax...when the federal government taxes us, then, it doesn't really take our money. We freely--if indirectly--choose to appropriate our money to the federal government by voting in the Congress that establishes the tax rates in the first place. We consent to giving the federal government authority over a particular portion of our private resources, making those private resources public. In effect, we cede our right to that property to the federal government. The federal government, then, has a right to our tax dollars because we give it that right."
Did you catch the important phrase? "...we give it that right".
J.E. Dyer from Hot Air continues this thought. She says, "The question of what we 'deserve' boils down to which came first, the individual human with rights, or the state. America was founded on the principle that the individual human with rights comes first. Any idea that violates that principle is counter to our founding idea...The American founding idea is that we the people decide what government will do, and we decide how much money government will have to do it with. Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."
Catch that one? "Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."
You see, this is the core of the true debate. How big should the government be? How much should the government do? What does the government deserve to get?
How many of our rights to property (our money) do we cede to the government? How should the government spend our ceded property?
And...who gets to decide this? We the People or We the Feds?
Now, back to Congresswoman Schakowsky. She, along with many in our country, have reversed the above. They believe that government existed first, and should, therefore, have first dibs on our property. She says, "Government is those things we decide to do together. And there are many things we decide to do together."
Really? I don't remember wanting to purchase shares of Chrysler.
She continues, "I think you need to pay your fair share of the things we decided are national priorities."
Bingo. She's not talking about all of government. You see, most of your life you exist at the local level. Local ordinances, local government, local codes, property taxes, state ordinances, etc. Very rarely, are you living at the national level. But she's reversed that. What she calls "we" is really "them" at the federal level. The federal government is consuming more and more of your property. And what do you have to show for it? Less and less. In fact, much of what you give to the federal government, in the hopes of future pay outs, is insolvent. Like Social Security.
So, if you believe that we give the government power, and we decide how big government should be, then I propose you do this:
Go cash in your shares of Chrysler. Get your money back...we are constantly told "we own" the company.
Yet, this is what will happen. Nothing. You don't own anything. The federal government owns the shares. Now, tell me, is Representative Schakowsky talking about the things "we decide to do together", or is she really saying, "we the federal government has decided the things we will do without you"?
Interesting question to ponder. Are We the People really in control? For if our government does things we do not consent to, nor have the ability to correct, are we still living under the wishes of the Founding Fathers? Are we still living under the guide of the Constitution?
Or are we somewhere else?
"If any of us doesn't deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a slave...in the American idea, the state doesn't operate on the basis of 'what we deserve'. It operates on the basis of law. 'What we deserve' is outside the scope of the state's competence to decide. America was founded on the principle that individual rights precede and constrain the state. As far as government is properly concerned, we all deserve to keep 100% of our money. The question of what we decide to do with it, and how the functions of government figure into that, is a separate and subordinate topic.
It is impossible to live as free men and women otherwise."
"Keep all of what?" you may be asking. Your money.
You see, Representative Schakowsky believes that you don't deserve to keep all of your money. Why don't you deserve to keep all of your hard-earned money? Because of government. You see, we have to have government. We can't exist without government.
I disagree. I say, government can't exist without us.
There is another conversation that we need to have before we can talk taxes. It's a conversation about whether we, as American citizens, have inalienable rights.
Tina Korbe from Hot Air recently blogged about this. Quote:
"...the government does have that authority (to tax) from our consent, the consent we express in the Constitution, which does give the federal government the power to tax...when the federal government taxes us, then, it doesn't really take our money. We freely--if indirectly--choose to appropriate our money to the federal government by voting in the Congress that establishes the tax rates in the first place. We consent to giving the federal government authority over a particular portion of our private resources, making those private resources public. In effect, we cede our right to that property to the federal government. The federal government, then, has a right to our tax dollars because we give it that right."
Did you catch the important phrase? "...we give it that right".
J.E. Dyer from Hot Air continues this thought. She says, "The question of what we 'deserve' boils down to which came first, the individual human with rights, or the state. America was founded on the principle that the individual human with rights comes first. Any idea that violates that principle is counter to our founding idea...The American founding idea is that we the people decide what government will do, and we decide how much money government will have to do it with. Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."
Catch that one? "Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."
You see, this is the core of the true debate. How big should the government be? How much should the government do? What does the government deserve to get?
How many of our rights to property (our money) do we cede to the government? How should the government spend our ceded property?
And...who gets to decide this? We the People or We the Feds?
Now, back to Congresswoman Schakowsky. She, along with many in our country, have reversed the above. They believe that government existed first, and should, therefore, have first dibs on our property. She says, "Government is those things we decide to do together. And there are many things we decide to do together."
Really? I don't remember wanting to purchase shares of Chrysler.
She continues, "I think you need to pay your fair share of the things we decided are national priorities."
Bingo. She's not talking about all of government. You see, most of your life you exist at the local level. Local ordinances, local government, local codes, property taxes, state ordinances, etc. Very rarely, are you living at the national level. But she's reversed that. What she calls "we" is really "them" at the federal level. The federal government is consuming more and more of your property. And what do you have to show for it? Less and less. In fact, much of what you give to the federal government, in the hopes of future pay outs, is insolvent. Like Social Security.
So, if you believe that we give the government power, and we decide how big government should be, then I propose you do this:
Go cash in your shares of Chrysler. Get your money back...we are constantly told "we own" the company.
Yet, this is what will happen. Nothing. You don't own anything. The federal government owns the shares. Now, tell me, is Representative Schakowsky talking about the things "we decide to do together", or is she really saying, "we the federal government has decided the things we will do without you"?
Interesting question to ponder. Are We the People really in control? For if our government does things we do not consent to, nor have the ability to correct, are we still living under the wishes of the Founding Fathers? Are we still living under the guide of the Constitution?
Or are we somewhere else?
"If any of us doesn't deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a slave...in the American idea, the state doesn't operate on the basis of 'what we deserve'. It operates on the basis of law. 'What we deserve' is outside the scope of the state's competence to decide. America was founded on the principle that individual rights precede and constrain the state. As far as government is properly concerned, we all deserve to keep 100% of our money. The question of what we decide to do with it, and how the functions of government figure into that, is a separate and subordinate topic.
It is impossible to live as free men and women otherwise."
No comments:
Post a Comment