Taxation is Representation

Michael:

"The fact is that if you make $200,000 per year, a 30% national sales tax hurts you less than if you make $20,000 per year."

The fact is, earning $20,000/yr is ten times easier than earning $200,000/yr.

The fact is, earning $200,000/yr gives one an opportunity to spend more than ten times what earning $20,000/yr does.

The other fact is, it is not the proper function of government to equalize 'hurt' after all the easier/harder has already occurred.

Prices are the most regressive invention ever invented by mankind but they are trivial to get around. If someone wants to enjoy the special privelege of paying the least % of their income for everything from Porsches to spaghetti dinners, all they need to do is earn more.

Since this does not involve any effort at all worth mentioning in these 'hurt' theories, it should be painless to do. Good luck with that.

Inheritance? Why should my deferred spending accrue to your children? Make your case.

Lottery winnings? Purely anecdotal. Make the case that states should ban lotteries.

The politics of chutes and ladders is child's play, a substitute for running uphill. Of course the children at the bottom of the hill are all for it. If it is so damned easy to run up those hills, then there is no impediment justifying constructivist redistribution, is there?

And if it isn't, if it actually involves some kind of effort/pain, then when someone ponies up 15% of thirty million, on what basis to we ever claim that is 'less' than 25% of thirty thousand? If anything, the slacker gliding through this easy life-- the one where making thirty million a year is painless -- isn't doing his fair share.

So either way, the justification for the chutes and ladders view of tribal economics is clear: an unsightly pocket full of wanna, and not much else.

regards,
Fred

Post 21

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 2:27pm

Dan,

Actually it is only the absurd extreme of Michael's response that gives this idea of company employee's voting or not voting based upon the percentage of money the company gets from selling to the government any on-going energy.

In real life, a much smaller government - which is the more important consideration - won't have that many people working for it directly or indirectly via companies. Because the numbers would be so much smaller, it wouldn't matter if they voted or not.

It is only now, where government is huge, and because of that the number of civil servants, and the number of employees of companies, of universities and of other organizations who are translating government vouchers into salary checks is also huge that is this an issue.

I don't see this so much as a serious proposal, but rather as an argument that helps counter the notion of the vote as a sacred policy, and I expect that a smaller government would make the problem pretty much go away. And getting a smaller government means reducing spending and borrowing and printing. And stopping those things means 1) Educate the voter, 2) Electing more fiscal conservatives, 3) Advocate for a balanced budget amendment with caps. 4.) Get rid of the Income tax in favor of a national sales tax. The income tax, with its ugly complexity allows government to try to control the economies, and to bleed us for that big government. Those pursuits would be solid starts towards a smaller government.

How would the idea of restricting voting work out in practice? I think it would be pretty much a mess. It almost is an acceptance of large government. The law can get very complex and arbitrary when you want to draw clear lines of this sort. Take social security recipients for example. They paid into that fund and shouldn't lose their vote because they are now collecting what they paid in. But what if they take out more than they put in? Is that amount tracked, after-inflation, and then a person's vote shut off? No, better to pursue small government.

It isn't a proposal that is serious, but rather illustrative of the principle that the vote should not be a holy right granted to everyone who is warm and breathing, and that large numbers of people with a major, financial conflict of interest are taking us beyond where it will be possible to stop the slide into tyranny. (Did you hear on the news about the people they are finding in Ohio that voted many times?)

Post 22

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 4:09pm

Steve,

Gotcha. It didn't seem like an entirely practical policy change in today's situation, but it is an interesting thought experiment. If we can somehow get people to push the corporate and income taxes into a national sales tax, I think we'd be well on our way to the points you outlined. We aren't getting rid of entitlements overnight, and it would have to be accompanied by a prebate. So that eliminates the argument that it kills the poor. The only thing progressives have then is the "You'll kill the middle class!" argument. On that note we need someone who can articulate the following: "And exactly what do you think of the middle class in today's policies?". Seems like a simple task but I wish my hopes were a bit higher. I really liked Herman Cain at first, then I saw that once he got the spotlight he couldn't even articulate his ideas to Republicans. There are a lot of bright young legislators, we'll see...

Post 23

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 4:32pm

Dan,

More and more I'm becoming pessimistic about the changes rolling forward out of Washington. The things you and I have mentioned would do the trick, they aren't difficult, and could be sold to anyone with a modicum of common sense... except when you get anything to Washington it is killed. And everybody accepts that some strange Alice in Wonderland logic applies when you are Washington and they don't have the same expectations as for any other aspect of life.

And the progressives now have such full support of the mass media that when a rising star appears among conservative republicans, they begin a campaign to smear him before he even gets a start. They smeared Herman Cain, but he was too weak in foreign policy to succeed, and if the affairs the media trotted out were real, that might have killed his election chances. They will totally destroy the image of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz because the progressives can't tolerate a Hispanic to be seen as a champion of conservative causes.

I'm coming to think that the locus of change has to be people organizing on a state level - forcing their state legislators to engage in nullification of federal policy. It isn't a clean kind of change, but rather a way that a bunch of states gathered together, in effect, start bullying the federal government and make the politicians in Washington frightened enough to change course.

Post 24

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 10:01pm

Fred that was bloody beautiful.
Michael, in the immortal words of The Muppet's Swedish Chef..
Vurt de Furk!? (Snickers).

Post 25

Friday, February 22, 2013 - 7:04pm

Philosophy is a broad topic. Everything is on the table, including political theory. As Ayn Rand famously pointed out, changing the political structure of a society requires first changing its (implicitly accepted) philosophy of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

(... which really is about epistemology, a subject she favored over metaphysics).

That said, the discussion here is about politics.

DS in 22: It didn't seem like an entirely practical policy change in today's situation, but it is an interesting thought experiment. If we can somehow get people to push the corporate and income taxes into a national sales tax,

The policy in question was broadly not allowing people to vote if they receive money from the government. As Steve Wolfer pointed out: "The law can get very complex and arbitrary when you want to draw clear lines of this sort. Take social security recipients for example. They paid into that fund and shouldn't lose their vote because they are now collecting what they paid in. " However, it was suggested that employees of so-called "defense contractors" or any company that derives more than 50% of its revenue from government contracts should not be allowed to vote. Of course, as Steve himself pointed out instantiating the law is problematic on many grounds. What if my employer derives 50% of its income from the sale of Military Grade Widgets, but I work in the Gadget department (or division or wholly owned subsidiary)?

Even knowing whether a company derives 50% of its income from government contracts might be impossible, but for the requirements of Commerce Department and IRS filings, which would disappear in an "Objectivist government." You might glean the numbers from a Federal Income and Expense Statement or Balance Sheet but you could not necessarily go to the company or firm to see its reportings, as an "Objectivist government" would not have such requirements as we have today.

SW in 21: Because the numbers would be so much smaller, it wouldn't matter if they voted or not.

Well, it matters a heck of a lot to me whether or not I can vote. I work in private security. Private security firms guard military installations. That woman in front of an Army base front gate is not an G.I. Jane. She is a private contractor working for Wackenhut or Securitas or another private contractor. So, Steve Wolfer really needs to be specific about the consequences of his theories. How am I, as a guard, supposed to know when my firm crosses the 50% tipping point? For a small firm, it might go from Zero Percent to 55% overnight with a single contract.

What surprises - and shocks - me about this from Steve is the essentially collectivist thinking that underlines his proposals. It is as if he is saying: "It does not matter what happens to them because they are a collective that I do not like." It completely ignores the individual. I know that Steve does not intend that. I point it out only to underscore how difficult it can be to think this through logically an rationally.

FB in 20: The fact is, earning $20,000/yr is ten times easier than earning $200,000/yr.

The other fact is, it is not the proper function of government to equalize 'hurt' after all the easier/harder has already occurred.

Prices are the most regressive invention ever invented by mankind but they are trivial to get around. If someone wants to enjoy the special privelege of paying the least % of their income for everything from Porsches to spaghetti dinners, all they need to do is earn more.

It is not the function of equalize pain and suffering, except of course, in the area of Government Policy.

It is interesting to consider whether and to what extent a regressive tax on the poor provides an incentive to get richer. It may well be true that in some science fiction society, paying a lesser percentage to pay net more is a social distinction. It is worth investigating.

I agree absolutely that earning more is harder than earning less. The assumption - with which I implicitly agree - is that those activities that are harder should pay more. The general market does not always agree. For instance, still life painting is hard to do, but no one pays much for it. Certainly, earning earning $200,000 a year selling paintings through Quent Cordair is a challenge.

That brings me back to the fact that no system of taxation is fair. Steve attempted several times to bait me with claims that I am a socilalst because I care about the poor more than I care about the rich. That is total nonsense, of course, I only care about myself.

Post 26

Friday, February 22, 2013 - 9:49pm

Micheal,

You've leaped on your moral hobby horse and began to ride and rant, but only covering one side of issue, thus leaving my comments without their proper context. You wrote:

Steve Wolfer really needs to be specific about the consequences of his theories. How am I, as a guard, supposed to know when my firm crosses the 50% tipping point? For a small firm, it might go from Zero Percent to 55% overnight with a single contract.

First, let's restore the context you have conveniently dropped. Is it fair for people who are living on money from the taxes paid by others to be able to vote when their vote can increase or continue what they get from others? That is the key question. That is the question you haven't answered in regard to the example of defense workers. If your income suddenly went from coming out of the private sector to mostly from other people's taxees, wouldn't that present this conflict of interest? If so, then what would be a fair way to handle it?
---------------

Given that, let's get this asked and answered before going on. Should a welfare recipient be permitted to vote? Should a government employee be permited to vote?

If your answer is, "No," and it is because of that conflict of interest, then it is upon you to answer what the difference is with the employee of a defense contractor.
----------------

You wanted me to be specific about just how this might work. Well, first, let me say again that this only makes a difference if it is possible that a large number of votes would be cast on the basis of this financial conflict of interest. If we had a very small government, then there would be very few people who were so conflicted. In that case the issue wouldn't even arise.

And, if the government has become so large, and it's spending such a large portion of the GNP, then lots of the people can be voting to keep their hands in their neighbors pocket.

Now, having stated that, your question was how could this be done. The federal government sends out yet another multi-page form to each employer that describes how they set the voting status of each employee according to accounting procedures detailing the source of the funds used for that employee, and the form specifies that each employee is to be made aware of any changes and that new hires are to be informed of the voting status of the job they are interviewing for... or something like that. But I am not advocating this. As I said before, I'm advocating for a steady march towards a smaller government and this is NOT a viable, efficient, or politically effective way to get that smaller government. It would generate more heat than light. So, don't plan on a long ride on your moral hobby horse in attacking me over it.
---------------

You go on to rant:

What surprises - and shocks - me about this from Steve is the essentially collectivist thinking that underlines his proposals. It is as if he is saying: "It does not matter what happens to them because they are a collective that I do not like." It completely ignores the individual. I know that Steve does not intend that. I point it out only to underscore how difficult it can be to think this through logically an rationally.

First, I'm not terribly concerned with what surprises or shocks you. Second, you made several errors. It isn't collectivist thinking that underlines my observations ("observations" not proposals). Michael, you are playing mindreader. And doing a bad job of it. I like that class of people who are defense contractor workers, whether they are engineers or guards at a gate... to the degree that you can generalize about such a diverse group. I dislike welfare recipients that are able-bodied parasites... with the caveat that it's a dislike of a group in the sense that is is dislike of the characteristic that puts them in that group, and, on the other hand, I feel bad about those individuals who are on welfare because they are seriously disabled... with the caveat that I might like or dislike any one of them, when I met them. Your attempt to brand me a collectivist is the only thing here that fails to "think this through logically and rationally."
--------------------

I wrote, "Because the numbers would be so much smaller [with a tiny government], it wouldn't matter if they voted or not." And you said, "Well, it matters a heck of a lot to me whether or not I can vote."

You have completely misunderstood me. I didn't mean that a person's vote has no importance to that person or that it shouldn't. What I was saying was that the conflict of interest would still exist with a small government, in the sense that a government employee might still vote for bigger government. But it wouldn't matter that he votes that way, because there would be very few like him. This conflict of interest in voting only becomes a concern when it effects outcomes, which means when it gets to be a sizable portion of the population.
---------------------

Steve attempted several times to bait me with claims that I am a socilalst because I care about the poor more than I care about the rich. That is total nonsense, of course, I only care about myself.

Bait you? Give me a break. You made statements that indicated you believed that the rich should pay for the poor. I asked you why. I did NOT say you were a socialist. And, if you aren't a socialist, then maybe you are someone like Hayek, mostly a capitalist, but one who believes in a social safety net of sorts. Or, maybe you still have some altruistic beliefs. I don't know. I just know that you wrote statements making it clear you were okay with the rich paying for the poor with their taxes. If I'm baiting you, it is only by giving you back your own statements.

Post 27

Saturday, February 23, 2013 - 8:21am

If taxation is theft, then this is a metaphysical problem. No solution is possible because the premise is a fallacy. No method of taxation can avoid being unfair. Every method must be unfair to someone. Sacrificing the rich to the poor is not better (or worse) than taxing the poor to pay for services to the rich. Regressive and progressive taxes alike are inherently unfair because all depend on force. No one pays voluntarily. Therefore, no reorganization of any tax system can find justice.

But neither has either of the libertarian proposals for voluntary taxation (the "contract fee" and the lottery) survived even a cursory interrogation.

As revolutionaries, the founders of the republic, fought against "taxation without representation." They did not fight taxation per se. In fact, they wanted to pay taxes. Taxes on land gave you the right to vote. Or you could pay a "poll tax". Many of the founders were merchants. They did own land. They rented homes in the port cities. Their inventories, their machineries, books, and inventions were not "property" - we still call it real estate, because anything other than land is not "real" property. So, they wanted to be able to buy in to the political process.

That is what we are talking about, or at least, what I am. How much should the right to vote cost? The Bill of Rights promises a jury trial for civil matters involving $20 or more. At that time, a skilled worker earned about 50 cents (2 shillings) a day, so we talking like a month's wages, which in America today would be $3000. We never changed the Bill of Rights. Maybe we should and maybe $3000 is the right price for the privilege of voting. How do you know?

What about homeless veterans? Homeless disabled veterans? Certainly anyone who served in the armed forces with an honorable discharge should be allowed to vote forever because they already paid for it.

If it applies to the army, does it apply to the police and courts of law? How long should you serve as an assitant state prosecutor to earn the lifetime privilege of voting? By what standard do you judge?

I do not know... but I think about it... a lot...

Fred, I do not understand your "chutes and ladders" analogy. (I know the game.) Do you mean that you climb up the ladder of success only to hit a tax chute that takes it away?

Also, I do not understand:

Inheritance? Why should my deferred spending accrue to your children? Make your case.
Lottery winnings? Purely anecdotal. Make the case that states should ban lotteries.

I think that you slipped from a specific "you" (me) to the generic "you" (one or they).

Steve:
1. My "unlimited Objectivist government" only shows that no tinkering with the Constitution will deliver the world you want. The changes to society at large must be deeper and explicitly philosophical.

2. Both you and Jules Troy have disparaged my working as a security guard. I remind you of the scene in the Valley where Dagny says that this is the place where all the best men do the lousiest jobs and the reply is that there are no lousy jobs just lousy men who don't do them right. I earn (earn) between $7.50 and $12.00 per hour, depending on the post and patrol.

Right now, I also have a contract reviewing websites for $50 per hour. (Typically, I get $35, give or take.) I only guard on the weekends right now. I know both sides of this issue. I have been in the grocery store and seen another guy in workies with a $4.95 dinner count his change and realize that he is 50 cents short -- it's the 8.5% sales tax (and you want to make it 30%). I handed him a couple of quarters and said, "I think you dropped these back there." and walked away. I have had the same problem myself.

Right now, things are good, good enough that I bought a sweatshirt from the spirit shop of my alma mater, and also an Atlas Shrugged DVD. So, yes, earning more would be the solution to a regressive tax. But what if you are at your the limit of your ability?

3. We are not all created "equal" in any sense except the political. Not everyone who is poor is lazy. I just suffered through this yesterday at a lunch with some of my Republican friends, one of whom called being the cook in the restraurant a "dead end pink collar job." It is no wonder that people hate Republicans.

4. On my blog from last year is an article on The Roots of Poverty (also an RoR News Discussion). In that, I said: "Today, a woman from an apartment along my walkway was vacuuming out her SUV. I am fairly confident that she did not toss the beer can under the bush. This morning, I met my neighbor below. He has a lunch wagon, a converted pickup. Every day, he gets up, cooks, loads his truck and goes off to construction sites. I doubt that the beer cans are his." At lunch yesterday I told my GOP comrades that every day my parking lot empties out from 5:00 AM to 7:00 AM and starts to fill up after 3:00 PM I see men with toolboxes and lunch boxes come and go. Not everyone who is poor is lazy.

Post 28

Saturday, February 23, 2013 - 9:53am

If taxation is theft, then this is a metaphysical problem.

If the absolute minimum amount of taxation is used for a proper minarchy, then it would be theft in name only.
------------------

No method of taxation can avoid being unfair. Every method must be unfair to someone. Sacrificing the rich to the poor is not better (or worse) than taxing the poor to pay for services to the rich. Regressive and progressive taxes alike are inherently unfair because all depend on force. No one pays voluntarily. Therefore, no reorganization of any tax system can find justice.

So many fallacies and so little time. Where do I start?

There is such a substantial difference between a system of taxation that takes over 50% from some people and gives a 'rebate' to others, even though they didn't pay anything in, and a system that has a national sales tax, or a flat-tax. 50% versus nothing is unfair (except in Marotta-land). To run around shouting all is unfair, is to ignore that difference, and that is like saying killing someone or sneezing on them are both are intrusive - true, but there is a difference.

No one pays voluntarily - that's true. But I'd prefer to pay a tiny amount than a large amount. What is your solution to this... continue what you consider to be an inevitable injustice forever? Each reduction in taxation is, in itself, a move towards greater justice. Each change to make a tax law that applies equally to all is a move towards justice. Justice is not just a location, but moves towards that location.
-----------------

But neither has either of the libertarian proposals for voluntary taxation (the "contract fee" and the lottery) survived even a cursory interrogation.

Whose interrogation? Yours?
-----------------

You keep going back to the voting issue. I told you that I have no interest in that and I'm already regretting making an observation. The issue is getting from where we are now, to a government that is so small that everyone can vote, and if they are voting a conflict of interest (say, because they are a government worker), the number of such workers will be so small it won't have an effect.
-----------------

You wrote:

... no tinkering with the Constitution will deliver the world you want. The changes to society at large must be deeper and explicitly philosophical.

Yes, that's true. I've never disagreed with that. But does that mean we don't discuss what could be improved? Do we wait till we magically have a philosophically perfect society and then sit down to look at the constitution? Does that mean that a change to the constitution could never be helpful in turning the tide, politically and philosophically - at least to a small degree?
------------------

I do remember, vaguely, making some comment about you being a security guard. Maybe I was out of line, but maybe not - because there might have been a cogent point behind my remark. If you can give me a link to that, I'll take a look and if I was out of line, I'll apologize. I've worked at a Jack in the Box flipping burgers, dug ditches, washed dishes, and a dozen other jobs in my time. I have nothing against manual labor and respect the act of independence that is earning a living. One thing I do know. If I made fun of you for being a security guard, there is more to the story than you imply, because I don't make fun of people because of their jobs - I've held far too many of those jobs at the minimum wage level to ever think that way.
-------------------

You took a cheap shot at the concept of a national consumer sales tax. Your little vignette ignored the fact that along with the much higher sales tax, the fellow would not be paying social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment taxes, inheritance taxes, income taxes, and that the price of all goods and services that are in a competitive market would cost less before the sales tax was applied because there would be no corporate income taxes, no employer paid payroll taxes, and their creditors would not be paying tax on the interest from their bonds, their shareholders would not be paying taxes on dividends. And because the employer paid payroll taxes would be gone, salaries and wages would be higher. And all of that is before taking into account the great boom in the economies brought about by the giant shift in America's competitiveness in the global market. In other words, you were unfair in your argument.
--------------------

... earning more would be the solution to a regressive tax. But what if you are at your the limit of your ability?

I repeat, "regressive taxation" and "progressive taxation" are Progressive concepts that arise from their Fabian Socialist roots which go back to the concept of 'From those according to their ability and to those according to their needs.'

It is more just to tax everyone the same. If it is an income tax, make everyone pay the same percentage. If it is a sales tax, make everyone pay the same. You are implying that those of ability have an obligation to pay for those with less ability.
--------------------

Not everyone who is poor is lazy.

Who said they were? Why address that to me? I've been poor, often. And, I'm often lazy. We are talking about what kind of taxes would be fairer - more just. Even when I'm feeling so lazy it is like not having bones in my body, or when I've been too poor to eat to eat the value meal at a McDonalds, I have never expected someone else pay any part of my share.
--------------------

Your argument, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to come down to this: All taxes involve the threat of force, therefore they are all unfair. Since they are all unfair to start with, there is no use changing them in any way - besides it will take a philosophical revolution to totally turn society around and it isn't any use trying to make changes until that societal perfection occurs. In the meantime those of greater wealth and/or greater ability should have pay for the poor or those of lessor abilities.

Post 29

Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 9:40am

Michael:

Fred, I do not understand your "chutes and ladders" analogy. (I know the game.) Do you mean that you climb up the ladder of success only to hit a tax chute that takes it away?

I'm right with you, in that I don't understand the basis for any redistributive logic. It is based on 'quintile' arguments. It is implemented as 'quintile' (decimile, or percentile) logic. And yet, my 1040 still says INDIVIDUAL at the top. So does yours. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Chutes and ladders is an entirely accurate characterization of the social engineering in the US Tax Code. It is also an entirely accurate representation of the special interest chutes and ladders foisted by folks like IBM and GM.

If you took the absolute worst scum among us, and let them loose behind closed doors and let them write the US Tax Code, what you would end up with is the US Tax Code.

regards,
Fred

Post 30

Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 9:46am

Michael:

Also, I do not understand:

[fb]Inheritance? Why should my deferred spending accrue to your children? Make your case.
[fb]Lottery winnings? Purely anecdotal. Make the case that states should ban lotteries.

I think that you slipped from a specific "you" (me) to the generic "you" (one or they).

Inclusive of any and all such.

Agreed; neither are defensible positions. That was my point, there is no defense of those positions.

And yet, they've won the day; completely without justification.

And I'll note again; there is no ethical reason to obey laws that have no ethical basis other than brute force.

regards,
Fred

Post 31

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 12:04am

Now now Michael I only flamed you as a security guard because you blatantly attacked me by erroneously launching an all out attack of my chosen profession when you confused it with my being a government healthcare sponsored technician. I thought we had that all worked out. Why you would bring it up again is beyond me... Well it is not but it is not worth contemplating. Anyways rest assured I am not out to play the "ahaa gotcha game". Just plain old working hard and investing as wisely as possible.

Post 32

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 2:29pm

Fred wrote,

"And I'll note again; there is no ethical reason to obey laws that have no ethical basis other than brute force.

You're in good company, Fred. Here's what Thomas Jefferson wrote,

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

Post 33

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 4:09pm

... and the brightest light at the end of the Dark Ages, Aquinas, said that unjust law is law in name only. He talked about those very-rare times -- e.g., during value-destructive, life-hampering, totalitarian overreach -- where it becomes moral to break "the law." An opposite view was presented by Hobbes and approved of by Machiavelli and then by Leo Strauss* and then by NeoCons (liberal collectivists who shift the focus from welfare to warfare), is that it is never right or good to break the law -- and therefore, that it is never right to revolt.

Ed

*Critics may take me to task for what may seem to be a naive and juvenile view of Strauss or even of contemporary NeoCons such as David Frum. I'll engage such criticism if or when it comes.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/25, 4:15pm)

Post 34

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 5:38pm

The Tea Party was the strongest movement towards turning back big government that we've seen in a long time, but their only success was to take the House away from the Democrats. And the Democrats may win it back in 2014.

I'm hoping that a commonsense movement at the grass roots will see that using the state governments to engage in nullification of unconstitutional federal laws will be a much more effective tool.

It doesn't matter if one group of states nullify drug laws, and another group of states nullify ObamaCare, and yet another group nullify federal gun laws. What is important is getting a handle on a mechanism that moves the totality of power out of Washington... I think that is all that's needed for real change towards smaller government to begin. The states as a group are organized and have considerable power. They stand as an authority. That is the power - the hammer. What is needed is the understanding and confidence of the people that they can direct that power using nullification.

Given the massive disdain in which Washington politics are held, it should only be a matter of time, once people understand and have joined in the use of nullification, before they begin to craft ways to deny Washington money - that will be going for the throat of big government - that is where the tide could be turned.

Post 35

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 7:57pm

Steve,

I like what it is that you are saying.

:-)

Ed

Post 36

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 8:35pm