Liberals Aren't Liberal -- They're Too Conservative

Liberals these days have gotten kinda soft. I keep hearing about liberals being so futuristic and ahead of the times but all I see are cavemen walking around with clubs.

by Quinton Figueroa on July 21st, 2014

Here is what liberal means:

open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Liberals are big on being "liberal". They let people do what they want to do... or so they say. You see, liberals really aren't liberal at all. Liberals are actually followers who just allow people to do what the state tells them they should allow. As soon as it comes to something that is liberal, but the state doesn't allow, then liberals stop being liberal and become conservative.

Let's look at a few items liberals aren't so liberal on:

Don't allow guns

Liberal aren't too liberal when it comes to guns. It doesn't matter if you're a quality citizen with no criminal record. Guns are dangerous and you're dangerous. We can't trust everyday people to use guns because that would be the liberal thing to do. Of course police officers and the state can have guns. They're the upper elite class who is allowed to have guns. The lower class people can't. We can trust the state but we can't trust everyday people to have guns. Once again, liberal.

Don't let people pay employees what they want to pay them

Liberals are super progressive and open to everything... until you want to pay somebody what they're worth. That is a bit too liberal for liberals. When a doctor or a lawyer charges somebody $100/hour for their services they can easily understand that their time and expertise is worth this price. When a painter charges somebody $20/hour for their services everyone can understand that that is their price and that is what they're worth. But when an unskilled, part-time worker at a burger joint charges $5/hour for their services everyone goes up in flames, especially liberals.

"Whoa! $5/hour!", they say. "That's way too low. That's basically slave-wage. You can't live on $5/hour. Are you crazy", they say.

Even if somebody is okay being paid $5/hour that's not allowed. Even if somebody knows the $5 is worth more than their time and are happy to have a job the liberals won't have any of that. Shame on the worker and the employer voluntarily agreeing on an exchange between themselves. You can't do that! That's too liberal for liberals. And so liberals want to constrict markets and people from doing what they want to do, because for some reason liberals are experts on how to run a market and an economy. They are able to do the millions of calculations in real time to know exactly where to allocate resources every millisecond. Liberals aren't just conservative but they're also really good at economics and logic too.

Don't let people be liberal in their choices for services (doctors, etc)

But if you wanting to work for $5/hour was too liberal for liberals then you'll really set them off when you want to use a doctor that doesn't have a license. Oh snap, I said it! No license. Holy smokes, now we're getting really far out there!

What happens when I want to use a doctor that works out of his home and charges me 80% less than the licensed doctors? Am I allowed to do this? Is he allowed to offer such services? Or does he have to be licensed first? Does he have to be reigned in by the liberservatives and follow the licensing rules that they put in place? So much for being liberal. Apparently liberals not only know how to run an economy but they also know which decisions are best for me as well. My own individual choice on how much risk I want to take with my doctor is far too liberal for most liberals.

Don't let people choose their school

Well, so far it seems pretty strict getting along in this liberal world. I can't protect myself from criminals. I can't work for the price I want. I can't hire a doctor that doesn't have a license. Perhaps I could just opt-out and skip school completely. Nope, can't do that either. Am I crazy or just plain stupid? Liberals are far too conservative to let me or my children avoid school completely.

I have to go to school. And of course I do. School is something everyone has to have, even if you don't need it. If you don't need it liberals will force you to need it. If I want to start my own school that is different and dare I say better than the current schools I will be in really big trouble again. I can't start a school. That's far too liberal. I can't discard traditional values in favor of educating people better than the current state schools. The current state schools are the tradition and therefore the liberals are big on that. Liberals love tradition and they love doing what has been popular in the past.

Don't allow to not pay taxes

Okay, so now I've had it with these so-called liberals. There's just too many things they're not liberal about. Maybe after all this I could just stop paying my taxes for things and opt-out of the system completely. Maybe it would be best just to say, "okay, you know what, you guys win. I'm going to simply stop participating in your system and just stand out on the sidelines and just take care of myself and my family. Best of luck to you all." DUDE... WTF, is this even real life?? You can't opt-out of the system. That is beyond liberal, beyond super liberal and in the territory of straight liberal nirvana. That is the mac-daddy liberal of all liberal things to do. If I were to do that it would have a picture of my face next to liberal in the Webster's dictionary and on Google when you search for liberal. Am I fu%#cking stupid or something?

You can't opt-out of society. Liberals have to force you to pay taxes so that you can support their not-so-liberal things like monopoly schools, monopoly roads, monopoly police, monopoly courts and monopoly money. It's okay for liberals to force these things on me, even if I want to be liberal and not participate. I keep forgetting -- liberals aren't really liberal. That's just the bullshit they tell the .

So much for being liberal. Looks like it turns out most of these liberals are actually conservatives trying to bring us back to driving in a horse and buggy and going to the restroom in outhouses. So the next time you hear liberals talking about being progressive and forward-thinking you may want to remind them that they're actually conservatives in sheep's clothing. Thanks guys, but no thanks. I'd rather move society forward. Liberals are far too conservative for me.

 Filed under: Politics / Government, Liberal, Conservative

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Los Angeles, CA

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...

More

8 Comments

Anonymous: I'm neither a conservative

I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal. Don't judge. I think both sides of legislators are sheep in the other side's clothing who are advocating for policies without thinking them through-- and followers are blindly following that label without thinking each decision through.

First, taxes go to the welfare of the entire state. Whether we have more or less taxes, and what they are paid for are arbitrary: regardless of a "conservative" or a "liberal" society, taxes are a necessary part of a society. If you wish to become stateless, you are at liberty to do so.

Second, part of the problem in society is its intrinsic structure. To pay someone $5 an hour and expect them to raise a family is absolutely impossible even when they are trying their hardest; they are forced into contracts with employers because employers collectively ignore the costs to their workers. Insofar as you have been privileged enough not to live in such conditions, I would not criticize the less fortunate until you have experienced living as one of them. The structure of society is flawed because there's no reason why a painter or a lawyer does work worth more than an "unskilled" worker. Janitors, for example, are just as crucial to a functioning society as a lawmaker is-- and a lawmaker may even be reluctant to fulfill a janitor's duties in a world with no janitors.

Third, certain decisions are made for the overall benefit of society. Unlicensed doctors will produce more harm than good because charlatan doctors can appear in such a society. Guns in the wrong hands will cause more harm than good-- liberals advocate for him control, not prohibition. Schools are necessary for the well being of children-- and so that each child can receive due equal access despite external obstacles. Such are among the many reasons for these policies. I do not default that they are correct or accurate-- but insofar as there is no reason for thinking otherwise and your reasoning is simply "I want to do otherwise," your logic is flawed.

Finally, setting up other schools with different ideologies as you suggest are very possible-- you probably did not realize that. There are many chartered schools all over the country and many parents also homeschool their children. In terms of curriculum in standard public schools, however, children ought to have equal access to the same level of education regardless of their physical location or background. It is not a child's choice as to which family he or she was born in, and adults who make society have the obligation to respect that.

I'm criticizing neither conservative programs, nor liberal, but I consider many of your facts incorrect and your logic flawed. I don't believe anybody should take firm liberal nor conservative ideologies because there are great policies both sides create and great policies outside of either (there are more than two political philosophies in the world!). However, I offer constructive criticism that perhaps you and others can read some books on logic and political philosophy.

Quinton Figueroa: Thank you very much for
@Anonymous (view comment)

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I will give you my take on your response :)

"taxes are a necessary part of a society"

This is not an argument. You would need to show why a society can not function without taxes which I think you would be hard-pressed to do so. We only pay taxes for some things and not for other things. Why do we pay taxes for education but not for food? Why do we pay taxes for police but not for homes? Where do you draw the line?

But more important, taxes are force and I don't believe using physical violence on another human being is rational or moral. There are better ways to get things done than forcing people to pay for things that you want.

"If you wish to become stateless, you are at liberty to do so."

No I'm not. I have to pay taxes or I'll be put in jail.

"To pay someone $5 an hour and expect them to raise a family is absolutely impossible even when they are trying their hardest; they are forced into contracts with employers because employers collectively ignore the costs to their workers"

People shouldn't be raising families on $5 an hour then. They don't have any other options? Sure they do. Don't have a family unless you're ready for it.

Nobody is forced into contracts with employers. People voluntarily choose to work where they work. We don't have forced labor in America. If somebody wants to quit their job they can. Nobody is ever forced to work.

"The structure of society is flawed because there's no reason why a painter or a lawyer does work worth more than an "unskilled" worker. Janitors, for example, are just as crucial to a functioning society as a lawmaker is-- and a lawmaker may even be reluctant to fulfill a janitor's duties in a world with no janitors."

This is not flawed, it is strictly mathematical and basic economics. Certain things are needed more in society than other things and the prices people pay for these things reflect that. If you need a heart transplant and only 1 person in the town knows how to do that then you are going to pay him a lot of money. If you need a bathroom cleaned there are thousands of people in a town who know how to do that. All the people who do janitorial work will be competing with each other and bringing down the costs. One janitor will offer to clean your bathroom for $20. Another will offer $10. Another will offer $5. This is why janitors make less money. But this is also why things become cheaper. Competition makes things cheaper and more efficient for you the consumer.

"Third, certain decisions are made for the overall benefit of society"

Not possible. Overall benefit is too generic and every individual has different preferences.

"Unlicensed doctors will produce more harm than good because charlatan doctors can appear in such a society"

Not true, but even if it was let people have the freedom to take that risk. We already have that freedom in many other fields. I'm able to take the risk with charlatan painters. I'm able to take the risk with charlatan plastic surgeons. I'm able to take the risk with charlatan online stores. This is a totally unsubstantiated statement.

"Guns in the wrong hands will cause more harm than good-- liberals advocate for him control, not prohibition"

Agreed, we should prohibit guns from criminals who historically have by far the greatest record of killing other humans with guns -- government.

"Such are among the many reasons for these policies. I do not default that they are correct or accurate-- but insofar as there is no reason for thinking otherwise and your reasoning is simply "I want to do otherwise," your logic is flawed."

If somebody or something is wrong it isn't flawed to call it wrong without a plan of how to correct it. If I didn't know who would pick the cotton after ending slavery that doesn't make my logic flawed for saying that I want to end slavery.

"Finally, setting up other schools with different ideologies as you suggest are very possible-- you probably did not realize that. There are many chartered schools all over the country and many parents also homeschool their children."

Of course I'm aware of it. The problem is that I still have to pay my taxes to support the current state schools. I can't opt-out of the state system.

I do appreciate your response.

Anonymous: That was a pretty solid

That was a pretty solid response and I enjoyed reading it :)
"You would need to show why a society can not function without taxes which I think you would be hard-pressed to do so. We only pay taxes for some things and not for other things. Why do we pay taxes for education but not for food? Why do we pay taxes for police but not for homes? Where do you draw the line?"
Any society pragmatically requires taxes to run its programs. Conservative or liberal, no taxes at all mean that there is no government at all, since the government would then do literally nothing (as opposed to what we now perceive as "Capitol Hill doing almost nothing"). That would be anarchy; anarchy is bad because in a state of nature, with no laws, anybody could do anything to anybody else; we require protection.

"But more important, taxes are force and I don't believe using physical violence on another human being is rational or moral. There are better ways to get things done than forcing people to pay for things that you want."
Taxes are not a source of physical violence. They are payment for being part of a society. You may be referring to your argument about going to jail if IRS payments are not submitted, but you would not pay taxes if you were stateless because you would not be part of the state. Renouncing citizenship is entirely possible when the benefits of statelessness or a different nationality outweigh the costs. Otherwise, since we live in an imperfect and heterogeneous society, each individual will always disapprove of certain taxes but approve of others. If we each chose to pay certain taxes and not others, we would be unable to run programs entirely because of lack of funding; having the policies that we do approve is worth paying for others that we don't. Additionally, if we paid only for what we approved for, wealth would increasingly exploit the less fortunate; since we can't choose the background to which we're born, that would be an unfair exploitation of circumstances people did not choose.

"Nobody is forced into contracts with employers. People voluntarily choose to work where they work. We don't have forced labor in America. If somebody wants to quit their job they can. Nobody is ever forced to work."
And then what? If taxes don't pay for social programs, they die from lack of resources. If taxes pay for social programs, they live at the lowest standard of living. If they're trying to raise a family, they keep the job, but work at whatever wages the industry sets and is unable to get into decent standards of living. We may economically set a lower monetary value for janitorial work, but that shouldn't set a monetary value for how much the janitor himself, as a person, is worth. Education allows an unskilled laborer to access better work if he chooses to; that education is only available to him through taxes others pay; it is fair to others to pay those taxes because it is only because of random luck that they are not stuck in the same situation. Or, the janitor is trying to support children, which is much better and more sustainable than infanticide or the foster care system. Others may question why the janitor even has children, or how he ended up in his lower socioeconomic class (if he wasn't born into it), or why he is unskilled (did he have access to education?)-- forgetting that policies need to account for inevitable human error. In the same situations, we may have made the same mistakes; generalization prevents us from accounting for mistakes that each of us all makes, only which may be more powerful on a life when that life is living a different situation from ours.
"Overall benefit is too generic and every individual has different preferences."
Exactly why policymakers and each of us must look at cost-benefit analysis. The fact that we are willing to stay in a society means that there's something worthwhile in it for us. The overall benefit refers to two things-- that majority, and whether basic living needs are met. Those would be the factors needed to sustain life and also the opportunity to improve one's own life. Without opportunity, nothing is possible.
To doctors and guns-- It's an is-ought fallacy that fake painters, plastic surgeons and online stores exist; they shouldn't. In the same way, charlatan doctors shouldn't exist (I'm also pretty sure that plastic surgeons have to get licenses as well). An unqualified painter may destroy a wall, but an unqualified doctor can destroy a human life. Such a scenario produces large quantities of problems for the society: What if the adult is choosing that doctor for a minor who is making no decision for him or herself? What if the doctor is a fraud exploiting the poor or less medically educated? What if a doctor means well, but makes a mistake-- licensed doctors would be protected, but how do you handle an unlicensed doctor's mistake? Such a policy does not simply deal with an individual's choice to life, but with all of society's lives. A new gun policy asks for stringent rules, not abolishment. Responding that governments have caused the most damage doesn't answer the question of whether stringent rules are necessary (and although governments have caused much harm, removing government weaponry altogether would also be harmful). There is a certain type of idealism in that reasoning. 'Governments with weapons are bad, so we should remove the weapons' resonates a good intention, but would cause devastating side effects-- it also doesn't speak to the liberals' gun policy itself. More stringent rules for guns would only mean that groups of people with criminal backgrounds would access weapons less easily.
"If somebody or something is wrong it isn't flawed to call it wrong without a plan of how to correct it."
This was specifically talking about my responses to gun, education, etc. policies: I'm not asking for solvency to problems that exist in the status quo. Instead, I do think a lot of your article arguments stem liked 'I don't want to pay taxes,' 'I don't want to go to school' or 'I want to choose my own doctor' without considering the societal implications. I'm not saying that I'm right, but I'm asking for more substantiated logic. I maybe sounded irritated. Oops, sorry :( but I felt a lot of the arguments lacked sound reasoning (although I did like your response a lot).

Finally, I sound like I support all these liberal policies, but I don't want to be labelled as either liberal or conservative. I take individual stances on individual policies and question some basic facets of society. Like, when you say, "Competition makes things cheaper and more efficient for you the consumer," I wonder how ethical the structure of our society really is... When conservatives argue against liberals and vice versa all the time, there not only is a gray ground in between, but there is also RGB color outside of the philosophies of either. :)

Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the followup. I
@Anonymous (view comment)

Thanks for the followup. I see what you are saying and appreciate your thoughts. I am sure we could go back and forth for a while on these things. I'll try to hit on my main point about government, which is that I am of the view that we shouldn't have any government at all.

Another important point worth mentioning. We like to assume that government currently solves all these problems we are talking about. They don't. We still have all these problems with the government and most of the time the government actually makes the problems worse.

"Conservative or liberal, no taxes at all mean that there is no government at all, since the government would then do literally nothing (as opposed to what we now perceive as "Capitol Hill doing almost nothing"). That would be anarchy; anarchy is bad because in a state of nature, with no laws, anybody could do anything to anybody else; we require protection."

No government doesn't mean that there wouldn't be laws or protection. This is a common misconception people have when they think of not having a government. All government services, including military, police, courts and law could be handled by the market. Just because we have always had government handle things like courts and police doesn't mean there isn't a better way to handle it.

"You may be referring to your argument about going to jail if IRS payments are not submitted, but you would not pay taxes if you were stateless because you would not be part of the state. Renouncing citizenship is entirely possible when the benefits of statelessness or a different nationality outweigh the costs"

This is what I am referring to and it is a fair point that you can leave a country if you don't like the government. The only problem is that there really isn't a stateless location to go to. All land on this planet pretty much has a government in control of it via force. So the whole world is ran by different gangs of people who use force to get people to do things.

"Otherwise, since we live in an imperfect and heterogeneous society, each individual will always disapprove of certain taxes but approve of others. If we each chose to pay certain taxes and not others, we would be unable to run programs entirely because of lack of funding; having the policies that we do approve is worth paying for others that we don't"

This is precisely what we want. We want people to proportionally pay for what they use. That is why the free market is so much better than government. People should vote with their money, not their mouth. If things don't get funding and the government has to force people to pay for it then that means that people really don't want it. The government doesn't have to force people to pay for new iPhones. That's because people really want that. People allocate their money on things that they want, and that is how it should be. If government programs don't get funded because the government stops forcing people to pay for them what does that really say?

"Additionally, if we paid only for what we approved for, wealth would increasingly exploit the less fortunate; since we can't choose the background to which we're born, that would be an unfair exploitation of circumstances people did not choose."

Less fortunate is a relative term. Just because somebody is rich or poor doesn't make them more or less fortunate. But regardless, how would wealth increasingly exploit the less fortunate? Wealthy people are the people who provide jobs for poor people. Wealthy people are the people who invent things for poor people. Wealthy people are the people who make the cost of living cheaper for poor people. Wealthy people are the people who make it possible for poor people to live better today than kings lived 200 years ago. Wealthy people do not exploit the poor without the consent of the poor. Governments exploit the poor with or without consent.

"And then what? If taxes don't pay for social programs, they die from lack of resources. If taxes pay for social programs, they live at the lowest standard of living. If they're trying to raise a family, they keep the job, but work at whatever wages the industry sets and is unable to get into decent standards of living."

People aren't dying in civilized societies from lack of resources. People who have resources don't let other people die intentionally. If somebody is starving and needs food somebody will give them food if they really need it. That's how charity works. Poor people are much more likely to die from obesity than starvation. Lack of resources isn't a problem for poor people. The choices people make are the problem.

Moreover, the standard of living increases for people when people are able to allocate their money towards businesses and efforts that they believe in. When 30 - 50% of people's money is sent to government in the form of taxation this is a misallocation of capital. Money that could have been used by smart and efficient companies is instead wasted on less intelligent and inefficient bureaucrats.

"We may economically set a lower monetary value for janitorial work, but that shouldn't set a monetary value for how much the janitor himself, as a person, is worth"

And it doesn't. As a person the janitor is as important and special as any other human being.

"Education allows an unskilled laborer to access better work if he chooses to; that education is only available to him through taxes others pay"

Education is available through many ways outside of government schools. You can go to Barns and Noble and read your heart out. You can learn on the job. You can talk to other people. There are infinite ways to educate yourself for free or very cheap.

Moreover, many poor people don't take advantage of the government tools that are already available for themselves like libraries. If people had $10,000 to spend to better their situation most people would spend it on technology, clothes, a car or something of this nature. That's just how people are. People don't want to be educated and if they do they will find a way to be educated. These are choices people make.

"it is fair to others to pay those taxes because it is only because of random luck that they are not stuck in the same situation"

It is many things why somebody may or may not be in a better situation than another. Luck is hardly the reason. It is usually personal choices made by the individual, not luck. And again, who is to say being poor is less favorable than being rich?

"Others may question why the janitor even has children, or how he ended up in his lower socioeconomic class (if he wasn't born into it), or why he is unskilled (did he have access to education?)-- forgetting that policies need to account for inevitable human error"

Yes, which is why the most favorable policy for poor people is no government.

"Exactly why policymakers and each of us must look at cost-benefit analysis. The fact that we are willing to stay in a society means that there's something worthwhile in it for us. The overall benefit refers to two things-- that majority, and whether basic living needs are met. Those would be the factors needed to sustain life and also the opportunity to improve one's own life. Without opportunity, nothing is possible."

And the cost-benefit analysis clearly shows no government as the greatest benefit with the least cost.

The majority doesn't mean anything. If majority of white people want to hang 1 black man 100 years ago is that okay? What about that 1 black man who isn't a majority? Why side with the majority? Shouldn't we side with truth and accuracy?

Basic living needs is another broad generalization that can mean anything. Food is a basic living need. Why doesn't the government control complete food distribution like the Soviet Union?

"Without opportunity, nothing is possible."

The most opportunity is without government.

"To doctors and guns-- It's an is-ought fallacy that fake painters, plastic surgeons and online stores exist; they shouldn't."

And you realize that this isn't a problem in society at all. We don't have problems with any of these things because the market handles it. There are plenty of review sites, there are plenty of 3rd party agencies, we have friends who recommend us services to use. The government is the last person we should trust when it comes to what is good or bad for us. And how many times has government approved a drug or food only to later unapproved it and change their mind? Even more to the point, how many good drugs and services does the government keep from ever coming into existence because they don't meet government regulations? Any problem in society is an opportunity for someone to make money solving. If there are shady doctors then I will start a business solving the problem of people choosing shady doctors.

"What if the adult is choosing that doctor for a minor who is making no decision for him or herself? What if the doctor is a fraud exploiting the poor or less medically educated? What if a doctor means well, but makes a mistake-- licensed doctors would be protected, but how do you handle an unlicensed doctor's mistake? Such a policy does not simply deal with an individual's choice to life, but with all of society's lives."

For the minor it would be handled like an adult making a decision for a minor in anything else. If the doctor is a fraud then non-fraud doctors can educate and show the poor people why this doctor is a fraud and earn their business. If a doctor makes a mistake then a court would determine how to handle it, the same way we do now.

"A new gun policy asks for stringent rules, not abolishment. Responding that governments have caused the most damage doesn't answer the question of whether stringent rules are necessary (and although governments have caused much harm, removing government weaponry altogether would also be harmful). There is a certain type of idealism in that reasoning. 'Governments with weapons are bad, so we should remove the weapons' resonates a good intention, but would cause devastating side effects-- it also doesn't speak to the liberals' gun policy itself. More stringent rules for guns would only mean that groups of people with criminal backgrounds would access weapons less easily."

You can't take away a choice from somebody and expect them to learn from that. People should choose to not kill other people, not be forced by guns not to use guns. That's like spanking your child and telling him not to hit another child.

"I'm not saying that I'm right, but I'm asking for more substantiated logic."

Yeah I understand that. I am currently writing a book with the full substantiated logic. The purpose of this post most certainly wasn't for me to go into detail on these topics. It was more to bring these topics up without a full explanation.

"I wonder how ethical the structure of our society really is... When conservatives argue against liberals and vice versa all the time, there not only is a gray ground in between, but there is also RGB color outside of the philosophies of either. :)"

I agree with you. And I really think our society (the government part of it) is highly unethical. The whole thing is a joke to me. I used to believe it could be fixed. Then I believed there was a right way to fix it. Now I believe the whole thing is an unnecessary creation. I think humans will look back sometime into the distant future and ask themselves how could humans be such savages where they would violently force other humans to do what others tell them to do. Similar to how we view slavery today is how I think humans will view the entire government structure in the future.

TC: Another really great article.

Hey, wow another really great article dude. Really like your site and your sense. You should do an article about how so called "conservatives" (neo-conservatives, status quo republicans) are actually liberals. That would be freaking awesome. Most are pro-fed, need i say more?

Liberalisimo: Look. He's right. Too many

Look. He's right. Too many people say: you can't live on $5/hr. But what if I have a job, and I just want to pick up a couple hrs here and there, and the owner of a joint is willing to pay me on that limited basis in order to cover peak rushes in his biz? Nope--the progressives have outlawed it. The owner knows I might not be back when he needs me. But he's willing to pay me on the spot, and I'm willing to flip those burgers. How wonderful that some high minded progressives prevent me from doing this!

No income taxes before 1913. But surely we cannot live with out the 16th amendment. The 20th century was the bloodiest and most war torn century on the books. I think we CANNOT live WITH that horrible amendment.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?: Nice!

Thanks for your vivid illustration of liberalism, the new conservatism. It's why the term "libertarian" had to be coined.

Val: Taxes are inevitable

Interesting discussion, but futile exercise. Government is originated from the Anarchy - people group up, compete for the leadership within group, - the group grows and becomes family business, The Tribe, competes with other groups (families), conquers them. The Head of the family has the biggest house, right? He gets to have his share of the products = Taxes. The dominant tribe collects from the conquered ones Meat, Fish, Furs and other contributions = Taxes. One tribe's leader is ambitious enough to go to conquer even more, he needs more fighters, need to support them = Taxes, - from their own Tribe and those under his power... Owner of a small business pays racket payments (protection) to a local gangster = Taxes! It's all about the same: Tribes, Gangs, Countries, ..., the difference is in Capitalization.

Add new comment