no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

I Responded to the Census Today

March 16th, 2010

The answer was “2”.

That is all.

The public announcement commercials I hear on the radio say that they use the census data to determine our “fair share” of funding. One commercial says something like,

If a town had 100 students, they’d need about 5 school teachers.  If next year they had a lot more students, but nobody filled out the census, they’d still have only 5 teachers.

Don’t you think that the townsfolk (i.e., the people impacted most by changing demography) would realize their town’s population was booming, and plan accordingly? Why should the people living in the neighboring town (or State, for that matter) pay to subsidize their growth?

You know what’s fair? Not having to give all that money away to the bureaucrats in the first place. If we didn’t give it to them, they wouldn’t need to worry about whether we got our “fair share” or not. If they didn’t have all this stolen money with which to bribe us, they wouldn’t be able to bribe us. Simply, our “fair share” is whatever we earns we keeps.

Government Employees Are Overpaid

March 5th, 2010

A lot of people make a big fuss when the federal employee salary and benefit figures come out. There’s an article in USAToday that highlights the ever-widening gap between public and private compensation.

For occupations that “exist both in government and the private sector,” government employees took home an average of about $68,000 in salary, compared to only $60,000 for their privately-employed counterparts. That’s a pretty sizeable gap. What’s more alarming is the value of fringe benefits: pensions, health insurance, vacation allowances, etc. Government employees took home an average of about $41K, compared to only $10K for comparable private workers.

Do the math: that’s about a 50% premium. Many of them also get such unheard-of-in-the-private-sector benefits as: all federal holidays off work, four or more weeks paid vacation, 20-and-done for retirement, etc.

Now, I’m all for people getting paid what they’re worth. But that’s exactly the problem with any of the government functions—there is no market for the ditch-digging that most of them perform, and so it’s impossible to gauge the value of their work. And even if we could, they have one unique advantage which they use to exploit the rest of us: those of us who are paying their salaries do not have a choice as to whether we want to keep buying from them. As long as they show up to work, we get stuck with the bill.

Most of them are nothing but leeches, consuming and destroying wealth, draining productivity from the economy. The fact is that most of these occupations shouldn’t exist in the first place, but they do, and they’re being paid extravagantly for doing non-work.

Most of them don’t know it, because they’ve never had an honest, reflective thought in their entire lives, but they’re all thieves.

Taxation is Theft: Elaine Brown Sentenced to Life in Prison

October 5th, 2009

In slave states like America, production is a crime which must be remedied by onerous taxation.  Defiance is met with extortion and violence.  Case-in-point: for the “crime” of not paying taxes Elaine Brown has been handed a sentence that amounts to “life in prison,” according to this post on

No matter how you slice it, in point of fact, Ed and Elaine Brown are guilty of either earning income (i.e., selling goods and.or services to people who voluntarily buy said goods and/or services) or owning/operating a corporation which does same. In reality, there are many millions of people who “don’t pay taxes” or don’t pay “their fair share”. These free-riders are variously: government employees, state-sponsored corporations (i.e., most if not all corporations), welfare victims, etc., all of whom produce nothing of any value, and therefore pay no net taxes.

The Browns, in literal point of fact, are guilty of producing. That is all.

Ed and Elaine Brown responded to the charges brought against them with “tax protester statutory arguments,” arguing in-short that the “government had not presented any law requiring them to pay income taxes.” There are a lot of statutory arguments, most of which fall under the IRS umbrella of “frivolous” defenses, which as far as I can tell means;

Many people find these defenses compelling, and we (the IRS) are sick of trying to respond to each of these defenses, therefore we label the lot of them ‘frivolous’ and deny defendants from appealing to basic human decency henceforth.

If the Brown’s statutory defense really were a sufficient defense, the government would simply draft and approve a law which required people to pay taxes on their individual wage-incomes. The flaw in the Brown’s argument is that they concede that “if there were a law” they would abide it. .

In the comments on Infowars, there are a lot of commenters saying that a tax on income is legal, as long as it’s not a tax on wages. The repeat the lie that a tax on corporate income is perfectly legit. Pore through 600 stupid comments debating the “legality” of robbery, if you want to get dizzy, for example:

Some people just don’t know the law…There is tax. Only on Corporate/Business Income. Tax on personal labor wages IS ILLEGAL

To the rest of You: Give it up, brush up on your pocket Constitution.

You, sir, are exactly wrong.

For the record, it doesn’t matter whether a tax on wages is “legal” because as a rule, the various taxes on wage-income are handled as though they are legal and case law has been adjudicated in such a manner as to render impotent the “statutory” defenses like those raised by the Browns. So it doesn’t matter if they’re “legal” or not, the law has proven powerless to uphold itself.

The only appropriate tax rate is zero, and the only real argument is not whether income taxes are “legal” but rather, whether they are proper.

No man in his individual capacity would be justified in extracting “taxes” from any other man. And what would not be tolerated of any man ought not be tolerated of any men.

I submit, therefore, that taxes are not proper, and that taxation really is theft, the substantive difference (as the saying goes) is that the thief doesn’t pretend to have your best interests in mind when he robs you.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics