It is a governing principle of nature that the agency which can produce most good, when perverted from its proper aim, is most productive of evil.  It behooves the well-intentioned, therefore, vigorously to watch the tendency of even their most highly prized institutions, since that which was established in the interest of the right, may so easily become the agent of the wrong. – - – - James Fenimore Cooper

In general, the means by which government’s appetite for tax dollars is satisfied consists of two diametrically opposed views. 

The first, is the belief that the growth of government is the objective.  That is the statist view which has manifested itself in the form of socialism, marxism, communism, and fascism.  These are all variants of the statist view whereby large portions of the citizens’ earnings are taxed in order to grow government.  Ultimately, these types of governments become the payor through acquisition/eradication of the private sector.  They set the amount that is paid out to the workers and thereby move wealth confiscation to the front-end of the paradigm rather than issuing payment followed by taxation.  When the government to whom you pay taxes is also the nation’s exclusive employer, there is a merger of compensation and taxation into a system which simply pays its working citizenry a uniform amount irrespective of the job or education level they possess.  Remarkably, Cuba, which is a socialistic/communistic nation, began for the first time since its communist revolution to structure compensation to its citizens for doctors and other dying or critical vocations to a tiered pay scale.  Thus, Cuba’s communist uniform pay scale — a fundamental part of any statist government because it claims fairness as its aspiration and income disparity as its antithesis– was modified toward a capitalist version in an effort to rescue certain professions; although, such a thing is anathema to statism. 

The crisis-driven utilization of statism, is often called Keynesian economics; the theory that governments must spend money they do not have to recover from economic crises.  This is the view to which President Obama subscribes.  He believes that the government is the center of all things, including, but not limited to the economy.  He sees government as the source of the economy. Equally frightening, he sees it as the arbiter of fairness.  Our Founders rejected this statist view choosing instead to leave economic success in the hands of its earner.  That is called freedom . . . liberty.  

Obama has painted a portrait which is a flawless lesson in socialism 101.  Socialism is not a derogatory word.  Rather, it is a political system.  There is a Socialist Party magazine in the United States, the pages of which are littered with praise for Mr. Obama’s advancement of the Socialist Party’s agenda.  Socialists simply believe that the State (meaning government) is the center of society.  In that political system, the government is the exclusive employer of all.  There is no private sector.  Rather, everyone works for the government.  The government owns all businesses (cf. fascism where the government controls all businesses through absolute regulation, but does not own them).  At any rate, the belief that the government knows  how to spend your money in a more societally preferable way than you do is a fundamental precept to the statist view.  To an ignorant few, their romanticized vision of it is dreamy.  To those who have actually experienced it, it is a nightmare.  To those who are simply undecided (i.e. uninformed), I suggest you consider why a wall (complete with machine gunners, barbwire, and cleared kill zones) was necessary in the formerly communist country.  Likewise, a search the internet and/or the library for photographs of the hoardes of cautiously euphoric faces as they scrambled out of East Germany across the adjacent border into free West Germany.  Their faces are all you need to see.  Their expressions are unforgettable; a combination of euphoric hope mixed with disbelief and the fear that the familiar sound of machine guns may be imminent.

Naturally, a government has no money but for the taxes it collects, so any of the foregoing economic/socialistic models that subscribe to the notion that a government must confiscate prohibitively high portions of workers’ money in order to facilitate government’s growth, really means the taking and spending of your money.  Even the printing of money is ultimately paid for by the taxpayers.  Thus, the first view is that government should be purposely grown, and the amount of taxes must grow commensurately to pay for it.  Actually, a true statist ultimately collapses your wealth through taxation until you more closelty resemble an indentured servant.  Unfortunately, thevery  reason a statist society ultimately exterminates its own people is that it lacks the resources to carry those who are unable to work.  Ironically, only a nation which permits its citizens to thrive can afford to take care of those who do not.

The second view — which would philosophically prefer to prevent the excessive growth of government altogether on the front end — is the belief that cutting taxes stimulates economic activity because letting people keep more of their money will make it likely that they will use it in the way that they freely believe best for them.  Their use of the money that they earn stimulates the economy.  This occurs from their purchases of goods and services.

Even if you subscribe to the belief that purposely seeking to endlessly grow government by confiscatory taxation is the preferable view, you must concede that it is anathema to the principles of liberty and freedom from excessive government set forth in the Constitution.  Moreover, there is a rule that our Founding Fathers identified that is applicable.  They noted that government and individual liberty exist in the same paradigm.  Thus, as governmental power grows, it necessarily impinges on individual freedom.  For example, even if you believe that ObamaCare is a good idea, you must see that your belief in that would require the rest of us to pay for it.  Government is grown, deficits are grown, and ultimately, we all must surrender more of the money we work so hard to earn.

The out-of-wedlock birth rates between African Americans and caucasians in 1964 was virtually identical.  Today,70% of African American children are born out of wedlock.  It is undeniable that governmental “intervention” has broken African American families who depend upon it.  A much more detailed account of this problem, can be found in a wonderful book by Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, My Grandfather’s Son

Liberal policies always generate the exact opposite of their stated intent.  A controversial example of this is the extension of unemployment benefits (which are now 98 weeks . . . just short of two years) which are sold as assistance with the plight of displaced workers, but shown to delay millions from seeking new employment.  If needed, that sounds great, but statistics show the acceptance of those “benefits” to be like stepping into quicksand for millions of Americans now suffering from the most formidable affliction to indivdual aspiration . . . governmental “assistance.”  For some, this period of “assistance” may morph and ultimately substitute future employment with permanent dependency.  Unfortunately, the dependency affliction can highly contagious inside the American household once in its grasp.  Thus, it can spread exponentially and generationally, killing the American Spirit and condemning its victims to a life of dependency in the name of beneficence.


  1. Keira Merritt

    So how do we stop this “growth” or at least slam on the brakes momentarily??

  2. Thanks for the reply! I’ll try to address that in a Post. Collapse which takes the threat to people’s homes is the terrible solution to this. The worse the horror, the better and quicker the understanding of our Founding principles as being not only preferable to socialism, but also revealing socialism as a non-option and as liberty’s cancer. You’re seeing it now. Remember when Bush & Gore ran for Pres.? Dad was very concerned about Gore winning. He said he feared that Gore would do . . . well, what Obama is doing now. I said, “Dad what’s the difference? They’re both going to grow government. With Gore, he will grow it faster which will either expedite the fall of the U.S. or its return to its founding principles faster.” The end — or at least a frightful look over its precipice — is the only cure for our nation’s long march toward socialism.

  3. Attractive and innocent advise! I really like reading about this argument but i do not conform with all your theories.I assume in this globe each person should have it’s own opinion about constituents, but there are ideas on which we have to coincide all.

  4. an astounding article dude. Thank you However I am experiencing problem with ur rss . Do not know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody getting identical rss issue? Anyone who knows kindly respond. Thanks.

Add Your Comment

Make sure you share your opinion with us. Fields marked * are required. Any other information is optional and for your own pleasure. Your email address will be hidden and never published or used in any way.


Optional Details

If you like you can tell us your website URL and Twitter Username. We'll link your name to your web address and we'll add a twitter link to your comment. This is completely optional.