Taxes And Slavery

The Volt was introduced today with a price tag of around 40K. But that's OK for the person rich enough to afford one you will be helping to pay for it through deductions from your paycheck.  The wealthy person enjoys the car.  You help pay for it with taxes.

To be sure, conservatives are not against taxes. They know that roads, bridges, law enforcement, and all the other things part and parcel to a civil society are not free. But then again, all the things that are part and partial to a civil society are worth the price.  It's when you find your check getting smaller because of grand ideas and political schemes, like paying for a car you don't get to drive, that raises the conservative's ire.  

The fact is that such things are tantamount to slavery.  It's simple.  The slave works, but the plantation owner enjoys the fruit of his labor.  The slave doesn't participate in that fruit, nor does he have a say in how it is used.  Of course it's not quite as simple as the old plantation days wherein  a man's  entire being and life was enslaved.  This slavery is much easier to swallow because it happens a little at a time.

Consider that a man works for fifty years of his life.  Now consider that every year a percentage of income was confiscated; not for things that he needs and uses, but things he doesn't need, want or use... like say Chevy Volts.  In other words, someone else enjoys the fruit of his labor and he has no say in it is used.  Let's say that twenty percent of his time on the job is actually stolen from him for, say, political whims or vote buying.  That would mean that ten years of his life he was a virtual slave.  Ten years of his life has been stolen.

Someone might say that such things are democracy in action; that the majority decides how tax dollars are spent and it doesn't equate to slavery.  There's one problem with this argument.  The  actual people being enslaved by our current out of control spending can't vote.  They can't vote because they haven't been born yet. 

Appeasing Islam

I'm not the smartest turnip that ever fell off the truck but even I realize the truth about appeasing the Radical Islamist; a truth that seems to have eluded some of the smartest amongst us.

There are exactly two ways to appease them; no less, no more.

1. Convert
2. Die

Voters would serve their own self interest to learn this.

On Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Remaining true to this law, in a comment string I was involved in at 4Simpsons recently I brought up the name of Hitler to which I received the reply: "as a general rule once someone brings up the name of Hitler you've won the argument".

While this was a clever way to avoid the point I was making (it didn't work) it did give me reason to do a little research on and contemplation of this matter. I discovered this "Law". Upon examining my thinking and asking the question as to why we bring up the name of Hitler often enough to warrant a "law" I came to a couple of conclusions:

1. The prevailing worldview of the West is one of relativism. The very nature of relativism renders words like "good" and "evil" meaningless. Communication, as a result, are now devoid of a means of articulating these concepts without some widely known universally accepted objective means such as an example. Hitler fills that bill for "evil".
2. Concepts like Godwin's Law either intentionally or unintentionally poison the well. Anytime I find myself increasingly reluctant to do, or especially to say, something, like mentioning Hitler's name in discussions, I am immediately suspicious of this tactic. It is amazing how effective these things are on us.

There is some truth however to the point the blogger made about the use of Hitler's name signifying that you have conceded the argument. The only problem is that he used the wrong name. The correct name that makes this assertion true is George Bush.

The World V Marriage, a comment

Stan at Winging It did a post on Marriage today that is well worth reading. Following is A well written comment left on his post The World V Marriage that is just as important by Stacey from Scotland.

I live in Scotland. Scotland is a bastion of liberality, total-control politics, and the "nanny state." In fact, the nanny state, while telling us we cannot help our neighbours due to the possibility of a lawsuit, is also the forerunner for government support of all things aberrant (e.g., your tax money paying for the unwed teenage mother to have her baby, get paid for it, and be given a house, to boot). Marriage is completely mocked over here. I live in a village of 1800 people. Most of the adults are "co-habitating." The favourite word here is "partner." Everyone has a partner, but no one has a spouse. People are seriously opposed to marriage here because chances are, they will lose their state benefits. Anyway, in a village this small, everyone is related to everyone else, usually because of sleeping around. They all share mothers and fathers. The school system is a nightmare, trying to keep up with who is related to whom. So, if your commenters think marriage is not under attack -- think again. Europe is usually a bit ahead of America when it comes to all things liberal and bad. The UK, and Scotland in particular, has completely marginalized the Christian faith; churches are empty or up for sale; marriage is a relic of the past; and it is no big deal if a kid has no clue who his father is. Commonplace. And very scary.

My husband and I are Christians. We are mocked all the time. The people in this village are angry at us constantly, and all we are doing is living a quiet life, doing our best to keep marriage sacred. The sad thing is, if we slept around and hung out at the pub "religiously" every weekend, we would be completely welcomed and no one would say a word against us.

Your blog is right on about the ills of society, and my husband and I are living in a society that has long since thrown in the towel. Whatever view of the UK it is that Americans hold, I can tell you, it is antiquated and inaccurate. The UK is a mess. And UK culture is swimming in sin.

One final example: a radio ad for a product called IRN BRU. It is a high calorie, high sugar canned drink. The ad features a young man singing and whistling about his wonderful girlfriend, until she drinks his IRN BRU. Then, he tells us gleefully that she is a "numpty," (American equivalent: moron), but he's okay because now he's "shagging my girlfriend's mother." We complained to the appropriate authority here about this ad, and the response: it is totally in line with British culture and they see no reason to pursue our complaint.

Americans: if you want to see what could become of the country, look to the UK. It's a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Who is it who wants to undermine marriage? Practically everybody these days.