If the Repugs don't nominate Ron and he doesn't go third party...Submitted by marlow on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 21:25
See Mary Ruwart's brilliant explanation of the evil of all taxation - but especially see near the end where the best alternative to Ron - should he not nab the GOP nomination - is presented. Note, Ron Paul and Mary Ruwart have mutually supported each other for years.
“Nothing is certain but death and taxes.”
Conventional wisdom puts the so-called “necessary evil” of taxation on par with death—inevitable, unavoidable, the way the world works. Our society seems to believe that taxation is indispensable to civilization. Our ancestors once believed the same thing about slavery.
Today, we know better. Slavery is not only unnecessary to civilization, but hinders its development. What we call “evil” has a way of doing that.
One day, the “necessary evil” of taxation will be recognized for what libertarians know it to be: legalized theft, a hindrance to civilization, prosperity, harmony, and happiness.
We’ve been so conditioned to accept taxation, that we often forget it’s an “evil.” Yet if we closely examine the process of taxation, we find it looks a lot like stealing.
Imagine, for example, that we wanted to have a new neighborhood park. We could get together with other neighbors who wanted the same thing and raise the necessary funds. We could even hire a manager to do this if we didn’t want to.
If some of our neighbors didn’t want to contribute, they wouldn’t have to. If they changed their mind later, however, they might have to pay an extra entry fee. Everyone would be free to choose whether or not they wanted to help create a park.
However, we usually prefer not to honor our neighbor’s choice. If we are part of a majority that wants the park, we vote to impose a tax on all of our neighbors, even those who don’t want a park or wouldn’t use one. The majority forces the minority to its will. The minority is no longer free to choose.
If one of our neighbors refuses to pay the park tax, he or she will be forced—at gunpoint, if necessary— to do so. For example, if the new tax is a property tax, a lien will be placed on the dissenting person’s home. Eventually, if the tax is not paid, armed officers will forcibly evict our neighbors from their home. If they resist, they may even be shot and killed, yet they have harmed no one. Their only crime is that they didn’t agree with the majority about how their hard-earned money should be spent.
Most of the time, our dissenting neighbors will pay the tax before they are forced to do so at gunpoint. Eventually, they will retaliate in kind by becoming part of a majority that opposes what we might prefer. For example, people who don’t want a park may want a library instead. They will vote to force us to pay a library tax, even though we buy our reading material at a bookstore rather than patronize a library.
With taxation, we take turns being minorities and majorities, victims and aggressors. We become irate and belligerent as the stakes escalate, reminiscent of the famous Hatfield and McCoy feud.
You can see this interplay in the verbal venom used by the liberals and conservatives, as they decry the way the other group wants to spend your hard-earned money. They never question whether or not your money should be forcibly taken from you in the first place. They clearly believe that it is their “divine right” to do so.
Libertarians believe that it is your divine right to spend your money as you wish. If you are smart enough to earn it, you are smart enough to spend it. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul is still stealing. Taxation is indeed an evil, an evil that tempts us to grab as much as we can from each other. Voting for a tax is a declaration of war on our neighbors and is eventually responded to in kind. No wonder we have so much strife in our fair land!
Not only is taxation “evil,” it’s unnecessary as well. When government provides a service, it costs us twice as much as a private firm would charge us (for examples, see my book, “Healing Our World,” available as a bound book (2003 edition) or a free download (1992 edition) at www.ruwart.com). If we all spent our money the way we chose to, instead of trying to tax each other, we’d have twice as much to spend. Imagine how much better off we’d be! Civilization would flourish, instead of being suppressed. Harmony would be restored.
The only major party candidate who understands that taxation is an unnecessary evil is Dr. Ron Paul, GOP hopeful, and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee. If he doesn’t get the Republican Party’s nomination, many supporters will write in his name on their ballots. Sadly, such loyalty will go unreported by the press, since write-in votes are rarely counted and even more rarely reported.
I see only one way that his supporters can make their voices heard if Dr. Paul doesn’t receive the GOP nomination. If the Ron Paul Revolution votes en masse for the Libertarian Party (LP) candidates, including the presidential nominee, the LP will receive an unprecedented number of votes. The Ron Paul Revolution votes will likely land LP candidates in local and state offices, and empower them to help Dr. Paul with his programs.
The press tied the libertarian label closely to Ron Paul. The Revolution will get credit for the surge in LP interest. Sympathetic politicians may feel it’s safe to come out of the closet and support Congressman Paul’s proposals.
Of course, all this is possible only if the LP runs a principled Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter for their presidential candidate. I propose to be that candidate. I have supported Dr. Paul’s congressional campaigns since 1988 and have been active in his presidential run. Dr. Paul has supported me by endorsing my book, “Healing Our World,” and writing President Bush in support of my application for FDA Commissioner some years ago. As the LP presidential nominee, I will refer to Dr. Paul’s ongoing efforts, such as passage of the “Health Freedom Protection Act,” as part of my program to deregulate the health care industry.
If Ron Paul does get the GOP nomination, what a wonderful dilemma we will face. I would be delighted to educate voters on choosing between the greater of two goods, rather than trying to discourage them from voting against the lesser of two evils!