seansy777's Xanga

HEIL FDR!!!

Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:25:36 GMT

To those of you interested in the parrellels between the rize of socialism in nazi germany and the rise of socialism in the United States, copy and paste the following link. Interestingly, Hitler himself said he was in full "accord with the President {of the Unites States} in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'. Perhaps Hitler was only wrong because he lost the war. Or perhaps he was wrong because mankind is meant to be comprised of strong, rational, independent human beings who interact voluntarily.

http://www.mises.org/story/2312

Vote Libertarian.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:09:16 GMT

Isn't this amazing?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

TAXES
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the $)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

What the f__k?!

Brought to you by thinklibertarian.com

THE LITTLE RED HEN

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:06:15 GMT

Once upon a time, on a farm in Texas, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat.

She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"
"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. And so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden
grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a drop out and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."
"Excess profits!" cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.

And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand." But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the "party" and got her bread free.

And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared, as long as there was free bread.

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.

His wife Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That's $20 million for memories from two people who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.

God Bless America!

Brought to you by thinklibertarian.com

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:08:38 GMT

We know, by infinite Examples and Experience, that Men possessed of Power, rather than part with it, will do any thing, even the worst and the blackest, to keep it; and scarce ever any Man upon Earth went out of it as long as he could carry every thing his own Way in it. . . . This seems certain, That the Good of the World, or of their People, was not one of their Motives either for continuing in Power, or for quitting it.

It is the Nature of Power to be ever encroaching, and converting every extraordinary Power, granted at particular Times, and upon particular Occasions, into an ordinary Power, to be used at all Times, and when there is no Occasion, nor does it ever part willingly with any Advantage….

Alas! Power encroaches daily upon Liberty, with a Success too evident; and the Balance between them is almost lost. Tyranny has engrossed almost the whole Earth, and striking at Mankind Root and Branch, makes the World a Slaughterhouse; and will certainly go on to destroy, till it is either destroyed itself, or, which is most likely, has left nothing else to destroy.

-Cato's Letters, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, 1720

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:58:48 GMT

LEFT-LIBERAL INTELLECTUALS are often a wondrous group to behold. In the last three or four decades, not a very long time in human history, they have, like whirling dervishes, let loose a series of angry complaints against free-market capitalism. The curious thing is that each of these complaints has been contradictory to one or more of their predecessors. But contradictory complaints by liberal intellectuals do not seem to faze them or serve to abate their petulance—even though it is often the very same intellectuals who are reversing themselves so rapidly. And these reversals seem to make no dent whatever in their self-righteousness or in the self-confidence of their position.

Let us consider the record of recent decades:

1. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the liberal intellectuals came to the conclusion that capitalism was suffering from inevitable "secular stagnation," a stagnation imposed by the slowing down of population growth, the end of the old Western frontier, and by the supposed fact that no further inventions were possible. All this spelled eternal stagnation, permanent mass unemployment, and therefore the need for socialism, or thoroughgoing State planning, to replace free-market capitalism. This on the threshold of the greatest boom in American history!

2. During the 1950s, despite the great boom in postwar America, the

liberal intellectuals kept raising their sights; the cult of "economic growth" now entered the scene. To be sure, capitalism was growing, but it was not growing fast enough. Therefore free-market capitalism must be abandoned, and socialism or government intervention must step in and force-feed the economy, must build investments and compel greater saving in order to maximize the rate of growth, even if we don't want to grow that fast. Conservative economists such as Colin Clark attacked this liberal program as "growthmanship."

3. Suddenly, John Kenneth Galbraith entered the liberal scene with his best-selling The Affluent Society in 1958. And just as suddenly, the liberal intellectuals reversed their indictments. The trouble with capitalism, it now appeared, was that it had grown too much; we were no longer stagnant, but too well off, and man had lost his spirituality amidst supermarkets and automobile tail fins. What was necessary, then, was for government to step in, either in massive intervention or as socialism, and tax the consumers heavily in order to reduce their bloated affluence.

4. The cult of excess affluence had its day, to be superseded by a contradictory worry about poverty, stimulated by Michael Harrington's The Other America in 1962. Suddenly, the problem with America was not excessive affluence, but increasing and grinding poverty—and, once again, the solution was for the government to step in, plan mightily, and tax the wealthy in order to lift up the poor. And so we had the War on Poverty for several years.

5. Stagnation; deficient growth; overaffluence; overpoverty; the intellectual fashions changed like ladies' hemlines. Then, in 1964, the happily short-lived Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution issued its then-famous manifesto, which brought us and the liberal intellectuals full circle. For two or three frenetic years we were regaled with the idea that America's problem was not stagnation but the exact reverse: in a few short years all of America's production facilities would be automated and cybernated, incomes and production would be enormous and superabundant, but everyone would be automated out of a job. Once again, free-market capitalism would lead to permanent mass unemployment, which could only be remedied—you guessed it!—by massive State intervention or by outright socialism. For several years, in the mid-1960s, we thus suffered from what was justly named the "Automation Hysteria."1

6. By the late 1960s it was clear to everyone that the automation hysterics had been dead wrong, that automation was proceeding at no faster a pace than old-fashioned "mechanization" and indeed that the 1969 recession was causing a falling off in the rate of increase of productivity. One hears no more about automation dangers nowadays; we are now in the seventh phase of liberal economic flip-flops.

7. Affluence is again excessive, and, in the name of conservation, ecology, and the increasing scarcity of resources, free-market capitalism is growing much too fast. State planning, or socialism, must, of course, step in to abolish all growth and bring about a zero-growth society and economy—in order to avoid negative growth, or retrogression, sometime in the future! We are now back to a super-Galbraithian position, to which has been added scientific jargon about effluents, ecology, and "spaceship earth," as well as a bitter assault on technology itself as being an evil polluter. Capitalism has brought about technology, growth—including population growth, industry, and pollution—and government is supposed to step in and eradicate these evils.

It is not at all unusual, in fact, to find the same people now holding a contradictory blend of positions 5 and 7 and maintaining at one and the same time that (a) we are living in a "post-scarcity" age where we no longer need private property, capitalism, or material incentives to production; and (b) that capitalist greed is depleting our resources and bringing about imminent worldwide scarcity. The liberal answer to both, or indeed to all, of these problems turns out, of course, to be the same: socialism or state planning to replace free-market capitalism. The great economist Joseph Schumpeter put the whole shoddy performance of liberal intellectuals into a nutshell a generation ago: "Capitalism stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets. They are going to pass it, whatever the defense they may hear; the only success victorious defense can possibly produce is a change in the indictment."2And so, the charges, the indictments, may change and contradict previous charges—but the answer is always and wearily the same.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:17:31 GMT

"The moment we engage in confederations, or alliances with any nation we may from that time date the downfall of our republic." -Andrew Jackson

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:31:15 GMT

I just read an article that stated an interesting fact about former Governor of California Gray Davis. In his entire 6 year term he chased out 50,000 millionaires from the state of California through taxes and anti-business regulations. You who hate production and wealth, are saying this is a good thing, chasing out the evil rich people. Unfortunately those millionaires accounted for 6 BILLION in tax revenue.

I hate you. It is not a mild hatred. It is not a boiling hatred. It is a cold, unbiased, logically concluded hatred. It seems clear to me, what happens when the men of the mind, the men of wealth and production leave. What happens if we all leave? Who will you chain and mooch off of? You will not win.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Sat, 03 Sep 2005 02:10:53 GMT

Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.-- Ayn Rand

    I am a minority. I am the smallest minority you will ever meet. I am an individual. I am a man who does not live for other men. Yet, if you have a value to offer me, I will trade my achievements with you. I will not share in your failures. I will not force you to share in mine. There are those of you who will read this, and millions who will not, who will want to destroy me. They believe themselves to be the majority. It is the curse of a democracy that when it removes the individual tyrants, it creates an entire body of tyrants. You, who would vote to control the minority, have done this since the birth of this country.

    Is it any wonder that this country is the greatest on the planet? I am not speaking in terms of greatest in today's terms. Not in the way we police the world, not in the way we "help" other nations. I am speaking in the way the founding fathers spoke. In philosophical terms. It should be a sign to you, who would vote to destroy me, the minority, that the fathers knew you would come along. They did not expect this country to last more than 50 years. But we have prevailed, we, the men of individual rights and production.

    The Fathers studied a great deal before they drafted the documents that conceived this nation. They studied Greece, Rome, they studied Europe's monarchies, and they read John Locke. John Locke was, ironically, a liberal. But he was a liberal in the original sense, in the classical sense. Locke, and the Framers of the Constitution, viewed man as an individual rational being. An entity in and of himself. And no man had the right to harm another in any way. There is and always will be only two ways to deal with other men. By trade or by force. All previous social systems regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, voluntary, co-existance of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right, that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

    Does this scare you? You who fear greatness? That is what it comes down to. You want the greatness of Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, The Wright Brothers, and Madame Curie. I have just one question. What did FDR, Hillary Clinton, or even Rush Limbaugh do that any of the above couldn't do better. Or did they, and you simply missed it?

   This entry is a statement to the moral cowards who don't see the greatness of what this country was. Who fail to see that the rich don't get richer by taking from the poor, the rich get richer by creating a bigger pie. All forms of trade must take place with both parties beliving it is in their best interest. The person who makes $35,000 a year and buys his bread lives better than the wealthy person 300 years ago. He has access to drugs (or he would if you didn't tax them so much), he has air conditioning, cars, and a higher productivity per hour than anyone in history.

   Did this occur mystically? Did this man win the ovarian lottery? In a way, he did. Alas, we make the chances of such future benefits slimmer and slimmer every time congress meets. The Founding Fathers gave us a gift. Of course it was in their self interest, they were under rule of a tyrranical goverment. But that is the essence of how capitalism and it's moral code works. The accumulation of capital is continuous. The wealthiest people in the 1800s would not arrive today and find their descendants still at the top of the Forbes list. Only in laissez-faire America could a young boy by the name of Rockefeller become the richest man on the planet by lighting the homes of america, and then fueling their automobiles, by starting with NOTHING. The richest people 50 years ago are not the richest people today. If you wish to stay the richest person in the world, you have to continuosly earn it (or vote congress to protect it for you, as many governments do and this one has occasionally done). THAT is where your theory of wealth staying in the hands of the rich disintegrates. The richest man in the world 50 years from now will start with nothing, and he will be born in the most economically free environment possible. What he will create will add years to our lives in the form of time saved in production. If you wish that country to be the United States, I suggest you get the hell out of my way.

Next time: Good thing the Watergate didn't exist during FDR's Presidency.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:15:13 GMT

I'm putting this up because most of you need some reminding.

"Man is a heroic being, with the achievement of his desires through productive work as his highest endeavor. If a flash flood occurs, animals perish; man builds a dam. If drought and famine occur animals perish; man builds an irrigation canal. If carniverous packs attack mercilessly, animals perish; man writes THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."
-Ayn Rand

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

A few things to note:
1. Congress used to have to raise taxes for a particular cause, it couldnt just got into debt all the time. Now they just print more money and go into more and more debt.
2. Congress used to have to vote before we sent a single troop into battle.
3. Clause 8 recognizes property rights, as does the rest of the consitution. They don't seem to do that as much nowadays, do they? If you're poor you have to worry about them taking your house to put up an industrial complex to get "more tax revenue" and if you're rich, well you're just taxed to the hilt on top of having to worry about government regulation of your business.
4. How secure do you think our Blessings of Liberty(it's not so much a blessing as a moral natural state of man, however if I got complete liberty as in the first century of the Republic, I'd probably consider it a blessing) are?
5. The Constitution as a form of government can be viewed as a LIMIT on the powers of Government. It has been lost to many today what a novel idea this is then and now. The Constitution protects us from invaders and criminals, which is the proper role of government, and the Bill of Rights protects us from the government. Yet there we go, year in and year out giving the government all sorts of brand new ways to infringe upon liberty.

"The Government which governs least, governs best"
-Thomas Jefferson

Is the way we are set up today what the Founding Fathers wanted? Seems like it worked pretty well back then. I wonder when we got all screwed up. Hmmmmmm, let me think...

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:06:30 GMT

"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."

Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment