For those interested in conspiracy theories, consider the withholding of US federal and state income taxes.

By law, we are forced to send in our “fair share” of the tax burden at regular intervals. Employers are required not to give it to us in the first place, and send it directly to the governments.

Why not allow us to keep it until the annual tax bill is calculated?

Perhaps it’s to avoid the ensuing revolts when wealth-creating people are made fully aware of the huge dollar amount that they are forced to pay each year. Instead of being angry and horrified, people are usually happy to get a “refund.”

Perhaps it’s to avoid the huge tax “loss” from people who have already spent the governments’ share of their created wealth, and must declare bankruptcy (this doesn’t work with tax bills, so there’s no escape).

For further reading on the history of tax withholding, see this report: Evolution of Federal Income Tax Withholding. In 1943, the government used the opportunity of centralized power and patriotism to pass this law.

All of us owe it to humanity and the freedom of our progeny to be aware of our roles in supporting the ballooning government machine that invades our lives and choices, and forces us to work and slave for anything and everyone as long as it’s not for ourselves.

There is a proper role for government: the limited protection of our individual rights from other humans both foreign and domestic. It should not “redistribute” (i.e., extort from those who create it) it to other individuals, groups, unions, farmers, poor, underprivileged, deserving, undeserving, or any other imagined recipient.

We should start by knowing the exact figure in dollars and percentage that is extorted from us each year.

Tax Freedom Day is the last day of each year that the average person must work and produce wealth for the US federal and state government to confiscate—like it or not. According to the Tax Foundation site, people living in 1930 worked from January 1st until February 11th (11.2%) to pay their share of the federal and state government. In 2000, this time increased to May 3rd (33.6%).

Since this site is using averages for all people (it’s focused on the size of the government), it doesn’t account for the extremely unjust distribution of the burden: those who create more wealth are penalized more, those who create no little or no wealth are in many cases REWARDED through “social” programs and “safety nets.”

We’ve all heard and quickly forgot the horror story of the “fair” tax burdens: all those who create the bottom 50% of the wealth shoulder just over 4%; those who create the top 10% of the wealth shoulder 65% of the burden. Suckers.

It’s a wonder that the economy hasn’t yet collapsed. Perhaps there is some math whiz in the OMB who has determined that average people will stop creating wealth if they’re allowed to only keep, say, 50%. So the government is careful to keep it lower than this threshold.

It’s also easy for people to stick it to their neighbors by voting for more programs and socialism so long as those who earn more than they do are forced to pay. Looking at the distribution of the tax burden, it’s easy to see how these new laws are passed: to the more populous “poor” people, it’s easy money.

The more I think about it, the more I’m ready to quit and either sit at home and play Xbox all day or swing in my hammock and get away with contributing my measly 4%. At least I won’t be a sucker.

Nobody has the moral right to own slaves. This is generally accepted in the free world today.

However if slavery is renamed and resold to the public, there is apparently no problem with practicing it. Increasingly in the modern word, governments are forcing people to work for others. They demand payments of wealth to be “redistributed” to other recipients. If people disagree and choose not to be slaves, they will be forced to comply. This means incarceration, further seizure of wealth, and if people choose to defend themselves, this means death.

Modern politicians have redefined the word “rights” to include the right to enslave others (i.e., the right to force people to work for the benefit of others). Since self-sacrifice is an unquestioned “virtue” in many religions and philosophies (even though Kant was trying to defend religion against reason), this is an easy pill to swallow for most—it’s been taught in the public schools all along.

These days it’s common to hear phrases such as the “right to health care,” the “right to work” or the “right to be free from hunger.” However these “rights” all include finding some poor victim to provide this wealth. Generally, they are phrased as a “right to” instead of a “right from.”

The founding fathers of the United States of America had it correct. Rights should be honored to protect people from each other (i.e., individual rights). Since we all have a right to be free from coercion/force and to pursue happiness (not to be guaranteed happiness by enslaving others), they created the US constitution to defend those rights.

Everyone should scrutinize the supposed “rights” in the modern world and check them to ensure that they’re not actually renamed excuses to enslave other people. Any supposed right that requires wealth forced from another person is immoral.

I came across a well-written article about the “right” to health care written by Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute entitled “Health Care Is Not a Right.” It discusses not only the immorality of this supposed right, but also how it would be disastrous in practice.

We typically grow up using the word “fair” in the context of games and sports. Not playing by the rules of games amounts to fraud. A card game opponent with 5 aces is certainly perpetrating fraud. Tackling soccer (football outside the USA) players is certainly outside of the authored rules of that game.

Games are engaging activities that serve as entertainment and/or contests to compare a narrow set of human abilities against one another. It’s important to remember that games are human constructions.

In reality, the only “rules” are those imposed by nature (e.g., physics and psychology). Humans increasingly learn to manipulate the raw materials of nature to create increasingly complex and useful products—products that achieve the goals of the people who seek them. To understand reality, humans use reason to integrate and simplify reality’s seemingly endless details in to useful concepts.

In free societies, the division of labor greatly improves the quality of life by allowing individuals to voluntarily trade with one another—thus reaping the benefits of each other’s expertise. Individuals in societies should be protected from force or fraud (killing/threatening, stealing, or violating agreements).

However, politicians and liberal pundits alike are increasingly using the word “fair” out of context of games. They use it to imply that someone isn’t playing by the proper “rules”. Most societies already have rules against murder, stealing, and breach of contracts, so what are they seeking to add to this list?

Those who use the word “fair” in politics are seeking to impose their own game on a society separate from reality. Most often, they’re inspired by destructive and unreal games thought up by the likes of Marx and Lenin. Of course, when these games are made in to laws (imposed by guns), no one can choose to stop playing.

There is nothing more proper than people dealing with one another by voluntary free trade. There is nothing more evil than people dealing with one another by force and extortion. Societies flourish when individuals are rewarded for creating wealth. Societies crumble when individuals are penalized for creating wealth.

The use of the word “fair” should send up an automatic red flag in the mind of anyone who enjoys political freedom.

Obama seems to want to be elected because he is black. At Claflin University, he told the audience “At every turn in our history, there’s been somebody who said we can’t.” By stating “we,” he has lumped himself in with all other people with black-skin producing genes. Simple racism. Since he treats people based on their skin color, who will he favor when in office and why?

He goes on: “Some people said we can’t do this, we can’t do that, so we shouldn’t even try. If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I’m here to tell you, ‘Yes we can.’”

If the qualification for holding public office is to paint feelings in to sentences without saying anything at all, then I know that I’m not qualified. It’s a shame that people are ready and willing to elect a person who spews such drivel. Perhaps it’s hard to be a politician and be expected to say something all of the time without offending anyone.

Ultimately, since Obama supports universal health care (robbing from the “rich” to create medical bread lines), I’ll not be voting for him.