Any group within a society of individuals that has taken upon themselves the mantle of government, attempts to control people in several different ways. One way is to reward their conspirators. They make their goals the same as the goals of government. All of these types of alliances have exchanges. There's something at stake for both of them. For their loyalty and votes, they let them share in the spoils and booty from the losers. A second way, is pure and direct force. This one is so direct that we don't even need to speak about it. The third way, is to disarm the people. The first words of any tyrant is to disarm the people. And then there is education. Compulsory and free and public education is the standard of any totalitarian society. There is one more though. And that deals with the use of language.
Through language, the tyrant seeks to make you his slave. Even a Gaddafi promises his people freedom. 'Through his will you will be free.' But it's more like you are only free in the sense that you are free of your own thoughts. The tyrant might say free education, but you know it's not free! Here socialist conspirators might cry out 'health care is a right.' But can one man's right negate the rights of another man? It certainly is not a 'right.' It a special privilege over the rights of others. The tyrant's words can no longer have their effect if you understand his language, as he will no longer be a respectful ruler, but a mere swindler of words.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Recently, I read a book by Irwin Schiff, 'How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't.' As the title suggests, the book is about how an economy grows and what retards that growth. Among the topics in the book was the poll tax, something that I haven't given much thought to mainly because of the popular disapproval of it. However, I believe this is an unfounded assumption, at least under libertarian conditions. Under these conditions, taxes are unjust because they misappropriate wealth and property of individuals against their consent. Also, it doesn't allow for an individual to opt out of the system. This means the taxes are not voluntary. If you are among ten individuals and nine of them vote to distribute your possessions and you vote against them, the action made on this vote cannot be considered voluntary since it was not based on your own choice. It cannot be considered consensual neither, simply because you voted on it. Does acting in the interest of protecting your own wealth and property necessarily mean that you have consented to it being taken away from you? Poll taxes might be better thought of as donations to an elected administrator. Poll taxes themselves do not violate the rights of anyone, since under libertarian conditions decisions made by the administrator could not be used to violate people rights in the first place. In summary, poll taxes, along with charities and donations, are just forms of appropriation of wealth and property.