Severe Chastisement - That's What's Needed!

[All paragraphs in quotes, except for the one quoting the IRS, come from Runaway Slaves: Rebels On the Plantation, by John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger.  Oxford University Press, 1999.]

“It is true that some slaves eagerly awaited being hired out [to employers other than their masters] because they were given special privileges or permitted to keep a portion of their earnings…[H]owever, there was displeasure.  They were in a better position than other slaves to see the direct connection between work and wages.  Those who collected their own earnings and turned them over to their owners must have felt a special pain to see the value of their labor going to their owner’s comfort.  As a consequence, hirelings, including some of the most talented and skilled, ran away…Although whites were often unsure why hired slaves ran away, blacks were more certain: Why should their earnings be expropriated?  Why were they not permitted to keep a portion of their wages?  If they were permitted to keep a part of their earnings, why were they not allowed to keep enough to provide more for their families?”

So, those of you who were reading this blog back in October/November know that I put up the white flag so the IRS couldn’t throw me in prison and rip my family apart.  I brought myself into “compliance” by filing the returns I had missed.  My lone exercise in civil disobedience came to a quiet end.  The IRS reviewed my rather dismal earnings from the past year and asked (sheepishly, I would add) if I could maybe try to pay $50 a month toward my arrearages, which add up to a year’s worth of middle-income wages.  I agreed to start paying in December, and awaited the letter in the mail that would formally spell out our agreement.  In November, I received letters from the IRS stating that my past due taxes were due, in full, in 30 days.  Recently, I received letters containing language that should make the heart of any proud American beat a little faster, that should make citizens of the Land of the Free stand a little taller:

“Intent to seize your property or rights to property.  Amount due immediately.  As we notified you before, our records show you have unpaid taxes…If you don’t call us immediately or pay the amount by [such-and-so date], we may seize (‘levy’) any state tax refund to which you’re entitled and apply it to the amount you owe.  If you still have an outstanding balance after we seize any state tax refund, we may take possession of your other property or your rights to property…Property includes: wages, real estate commissions, and other income; bank accounts; business assets; personal assets (including your car and home); Social Security benefits…If you don’t pay your tax debt, we have the right to seize (‘levy’) your property.”

Honestly, does this sound like something the working and poor classes, people who live week-to-week and month-to-month, drafted and voted to subject themselves to?  Or does this sound like something the powerful elite put in place to milk, oh, I don’t know…who do you think?  Who told the slave whether or not he could keep some of his earnings?  Other slaves?  Or did he voluntarily fork over all or some of his earnings for the sake of his master’s “general welfare”?  Pull your head out.

“…[M]any planters and farmers felt that severe chastisement, especially for running away [running toward freedom], was the best deterrent.  That would teach slaves to be humble and obedient.”

Taking your property or even your rights to property; taking your car or home; throwing you in prison (read: tearing you away from your family) if you fail to file returns – that’s some pretty severe chastisement they’ve got lined up for us, wouldn’t you say?  Does it work?  Does it keep you humble and obedient?  As much as I hate to say it, they got me back in line.

I made so little money this first year back from deployment that I actually qualify for free legal aid.  I am taking advantage of this help to try to get into what is called “non-collectible status” with the IRS.  This will mean the end of collection activities until my financial situation has improved.  Then, when it has improved, they’ll be back to make sure it doesn’t improve too much.  “My God,” they must say to themselves, “what will become of this country if Henning is allowed to breathe a little easier?”

All this money they want to collect from me, that they seem so desperate for – the assumption is that I didn’t actually need it for myself and my kids.  If that is the case, then where is all the unneeded stuff I bought with it?  I spent every penny.  Where is the surplus food and gas I bought?  Where is the second apartment I’m paying rent on?  Where are the closets and dressers full of clothes whose tags have yet to be removed?  Where is my savings account?  I rent a one-bedroom apartment in a lower-middle class neighborhood.  I can’t afford a two-bedroom, or even a one-bedroom with a balcony (which I’d love).  Meanwhile, over 100,000 high and very high income families paid zero income taxes in 2011, yet the IRS doesn’t seem to miss the millions of dollars that represents because those people and their CPA’s and lawyers knew which t’s to cross and i’s to dot.  Free pass, no problem.  The IRS will pass on millions and millions of dollars to come after my tens of thousands (a drop in the bucket) like a hound after a fox.  And yet we revere the income tax because it means “everyone will pay their fair share” (er...with some exceptions, so strike “everyone”…oh, and “fair”).

So, I point out the problem without offering solutions.  I believe that a consumption tax of some kind is the answer.  I do not right now wholeheartedly endorse the Fair Tax or a VAT tax or whatever.  If my lack of solutions disappoints you, if you think I should be coming up with the answers since I’ve bothered to say that something needs fixing, then I have a confession and a proposal for you.

I confess that I am not the smartest person in the world.  There are many people on this earth far more intelligent than me.  And, so, I propose that if you (the average American) took half of the time you spend watching TV and spent that time trying to come up with solutions to this problem, you might be the very person who figures it out!  And why not?  But we’ll never know if you don’t apply yourself.  If I see there is something wrong with my home’s electrical system, must I be the one to fix it?  Why not call on people who are smarter than me and avoid setting my apartment building on fire?  No, I’m perfectly comfortable pointing out a problem without knowing the fix.

I’m also quite comfortable with being looked down upon by the “true believers” of the income tax.  I am used to people asking me how I’d like to see our civilization crumble before my eyes if the income tax were to go away.  How would I like it if we had no more police, firefighters, a military, schools, roads, etc.?  Oh, you mean all those things we had before we had the income tax?  How would I like it if the poor had to carry more of the burden through a consumption tax?  First, show me how the federal consumption taxes created the lower class over a hundred years ago.  Second, explain to me how the poor were being forced to purchase foreign goods and certain items produced here such as tobacco and whiskey.  There were very few things being taxed in order to supply what was a very full U.S. Treasury over a century ago, and the poor could choose whether or not to buy those items without imperiling their lives.  Why couldn’t some type of modern consumption tax follow or even improve upon that model?

“Again and again, slave owners used the same word to describe runaways: ungrateful.  They had been treated well and humanely; they had been given proper food and clothing; they had been well housed and provided with other necessities; their families had been kept together.  Yet, at the first opportunity they had set out on their own.”

Let’s all learn to be ungrateful for the income tax.  Let’s stop believing that we must have threats of the severest punishments hanging over us as soon as we – what, infringe on someone else’s rights?  No, as soon as we step out to earn our living.  Let’s stop believing that we can only support the “Land of the Free” by having the money we sweat for taken by force, like a hired out slave.  Let’s learn to abandon the propaganda regarding the income tax that has been pounded into our heads since we can remember.  Let.  It.  Go.

“‘Every measure that may lessen the dependence of a Slave on his master ought to be opposed, as tending toward dangerous consequences,’ a group of South Carolina slaveholders declared in 1816.”

'Tis the (Tax) Season!

"Tax season" is upon us.  Time to get excited about that anticipated refund or some company's fast and/or free service!  Look closely at the people in these ads - this is how we're supposed to be feeling.

If your feelings aren't reflected here, there is something wrong with you.  You must be one of those selfish right-wingers who hate poor people and think only of themselves.  You must think that the bells and whistles of civilization don't cost anything.  You must be one of those scary anarchist people who live in the hills and belong to a militia.  Shame on you for not caring about the lower classes, for hating powerful, centralized, bloated government.  Shame on you for not knowing your patriotic duty.  Or...

Perhaps your feelings aren't reflected here because you no longer subscribe to the notion that the income tax is the "fairest" system we've come up with.  Perhaps you realize that the only reason people aren't rushing into the poorest neighborhoods of their cities to extol the virtues of the income tax is because there is nothing to be said.  A tax that was sold to the public as the answer to the rich paying their fair share, that would lessen the gap between rich and poor...well?  It's been a full century now.  Still waiting.  When do all those good things kick in?  Do we give it another 100 years, like naive 4-year-olds who believe Santa's sleigh will actually be landing on their roof on Christmas Eve?  Or can we be adults about this and pull the plug?

These people are happy and smiling because they don't see the connection between the income tax and the Robber Baron crowd who literally wrote the legislation to get it off the ground.  I promise you, it isn't the poor who would moan and groan if the income tax were to be abolished.  It's the uber-wealthy who would shit their pants.  The income tax is their gravy train, it lines their pockets, it maintains their insanely rich lifestyles, it allows for a huge military-industrial complex, it is corporate welfare.  And it is all these things by design.  It's not that our income tax money is being misallocated - no.  It's going where it was meant to go - to the wealthy.  When the man who literally wrote the book on why the income tax was being championed a hundred years ago admits that it wasn't needed for revenue purposes, that everything that needed to be paid for by government was already being handled by taxes on foreign goods and a few articles produced here (with a surplus in the Treasury to boot, and without putting people in the Poor House), then why would we fail to suspect that this unnecessary revenue that was going to be raised would end up anywhere other than in the pockets of the Robber Barons who launched the system, and their heirs?

Remember, the tax system that was in place worked so well it created a surplus, and it wasn't responsible for creating the lower class.  The lower class was already there, and already (and understandably) complaining of their situation.  The income tax system was pitched in a way that sympathized with the poor; it was pushed as a remedy to their plight.  (Ever heard of politicians pandering to their constituents, and all the while scheming to line their own pockets and the pockets of their true supporters?  Look it up - it's happened before.)  Of course Congress would approve it.  "Soak the rich!" was the rallying cry behind the income tax.  It all sounds so good, so right, so noble.  But in terms of government revenue, in terms of meeting the government's operating costs, the income tax was to raise a surplus on top of a surplus.  Nothing suspicious there at all.  

Yeah, believing that Santa was going to visit my house on Christmas Eve used to bring a big smile to my face.  I gotta hand it to you - you folks who still believe in the income tax are the true optimists, the true believers.  Smile!

Letter To The Louisiana Governor

January 11, 2013

From: Kurt Henning
Illinois

To: Governor Bobby Jindal
Office of the Governor
Baton Rouge, LA  70804

Dear Governor Jindal,

I am writing from the State of Illinois because I have recently learned that you are considering eliminating the state income tax in Louisiana.  I wish to express that, as a student of American taxation for the last seven years, I am heartily in favor of such a move for the people of your State.

The news media reports that you feel the citizens should be able to have more of the money they have earned in their pockets.  I agree, and I am sure that many of your fellow citizens feel the same way.  I am also sure you realize that your State would become the tenth in the Union that currently meets its expenses without a tax on the income of its citizens.  This would mean that one out of every five of our States have learned they can get along without an income tax.  This is progress!

As well as expressing my support for what you are considering, I would also like to respectfully suggest something as you and your supporters strive to make this significant, positive change.  I would ask that you consider what you are doing in light of every human being’s fundamental right to earn a living, and that a tax on one’s earned income essentially reduces that right to a privilege.

I believe that one’s right to earn a living deserves heightened protection from any burdens laid upon it for two reasons: 1. Because it is primarily through the exercise of this right that we are even able to enjoy our right to live, and 2. Because this right is, in and of itself, one of the primary responsibilities of any adult member of society.  Most rights that we recognize are exercised at one’s discretion.  There are a few rights that we are compelled to exercise as they are among the most basic of human responsibilities.  Among the rights of this nature are the right to work, the right of self-defense, and the right to parent our children.  Some might argue that buying food is a responsibility, and so by the same token should not be taxed.  But working for our living is the wellspring that makes buying the necessities and comforts of life possible, and so deserves that extra measure of protection from being burdened in any way.  No one should be incurring debt as they strive to meet their basic human responsibility of earning a living.

As part of my studies, I have written letters to the governors of all nine states that currently levy no tax on income.  The letters were to simply ask why.  The five responses I received basically came down to economic reasons – that it was economically viable to do away with that form of taxation, and so they did.  I have come to believe that there are more important reasons to avoid a tax on earned income – matters of principle, as stated above.  A California commission reported in 1906 on the question of whether or not to introduce a state income tax: “The Commission believes that it would not be wise to take advantage of this section [of the State constitution which permits an income tax]…Our people have so much respect for labor that what is won by honest toil is regarded as sacred and not to be reduced by direct taxation.”  It is that respect for a person’s labor that I believe needs to be restored in this country.  As your State can easily prove, and as nine others are proving every day, there are other ways, there are other means.

I wish your endeavor all success, Governor.  I hope that it will raise awareness in this country that we are not stuck with the income tax – it is optional.  Most have been taught their entire lives that it is absolutely necessary, inevitable, and eternal, and therefore never look below the surface at the deeper implications of such a form of taxation.  Some still actually cling to the notion that an income tax is the Great Equalizer for society.  After 100 years (of the federal income tax), we are all still holding our breath waiting for that to happen.

Thank you for your service to your great State, and for considering what a neighbor from afar has to say.  Though we are of different States, I take great interest in this subject because I believe that what you and the other nine States do in regard to taxation can have very positive implications for the entire nation.

 

Best wishes to you and to the people of Louisiana.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Kurt Henning

Illinois, USA 

An Open Letter To A Liberal Friend, Part 3 (of 3)

At one time I believed that the “natural state of man” meant a guy out in the wilderness, all alone.  No laws or rules to follow, no accountability, perfect freedom from control and regulation.  Just a guy fighting the elements to stay alive for as long as he can.

I’ve come to see that nothing could be further from the truth.  Man is a social creature by nature – his natural state is one of mingling with his own kind.  The loner out in the wilderness is being led by an instinct that is something other than human.  He is more akin to the male leopard (mating season notwithstanding).  Well, so long as Wild Man is hurting no one, I wish him every success out there.

Meanwhile, there’s a heap of us constantly rubbing elbows and trying to get along.  Isn’t it funny that we even have to try, given our social nature?  And that is what separates us from, say, a herd of water buffalo (mating season notwithstanding).  Friction between humans, who are naturally social, speaks to the reality of the individual. 

I taught preschool for 15 years and recall a saying we had among the staff: “We know children, you know your child.”  It spoke to the facts that we, the Early Childhood educators, were experts on children in general, and that nobody knew an individual child better than the parents.  This view of things made it very easy for the staff to work with parents in a team effort to meet the needs of an individual child; to help the parents see us as a resource for them, and to remind the staff that the parents of a particular child were the real experts on that child. Combining general knowledge of people with very specific knowledge of a person seemed to be the most effective way to deal with any issues a child was dealing with.  In the end, the key to a happy, harmonious room full of 2- and 3-year-olds came down to dealing with and respecting each child as an individual.  The Quacker Room was a very happy place, and its teachers were very tired and underpaid, but on the ball.

I believe the collectivist/individualist conflict is an unnecessary one, because it paints people as being one way or the other (lone individuals or a member of a herd), yet we are neither, because we are both.  I think it goes back to what I said in the last post: who do we fear the most?  The assholes who run the government, or the assholes who run the corporations?  I say, fear them all!  Why leave some of the assholes out?  Why be biased?  Regulate them all!

When the Left calls for regulation of the banks and corporations and the Right calls for limited government (which is just another term for regulation), what are they really asking for?  Protection.  Protection for…people.  So, the motivation for these calls for protection comes from compassion, from charitable hearts.  It’s people caring about other people – on both sides of the political spectrum.

There is no reason that a call for limited government must go hand-in-hand with finding the poor to be despicable and undeserving of help.  In fact, many who espouse limited government follow a religion that gave birth to the concepts of hospitals, full-time charitable organizations, orphanages, and universities (if my research serves me well).  They are some of the most hospitable and charitable people I have ever met, who have, if anything, a soft spot for the poor.  Bear in mind I’m talking about people I have met personally.  These are real people.  I’ve seen in the media the same cold-hearted, self-centered Right that you have, but I’ve never run across those people in real life.  I suppose they’re out there, but my guess is that they are the minority.  I suppose there might be some reason that the media and politicians would want to magnify that crowd…I don’t know…some reason.  As cynical as I am, I still believe in the basic goodness of people.

Though you know I have left the Christian religion, I will borrow a teaching from it that I believe we should apply to government and big business alike, and if we don’t, we will pay a heavy price.  Jesus posed the question: “Was Man made for the Sabbath, or the Sabbath made for Man?”  The problem with big government, as is the problem with big business, is that what began as something created by humans ostensibly to serve other humans can become something that humans are eventually forced to serve.  When this happens, something very fundamental has surely been turned on its head (see: world history).

When enough individuals start to feel like their purpose in life is to work for, fund, and be accountable to their government, then that government’s days are numbered.  No one experiences life as “a group.”  Each one experiences their own life as an individual.  He may share experiences with others, but he lives those experiences within himself.  Corporations would reduce us to a faceless mob whose sole purpose is to produce for the corporation.  Governments (which are corporations, after all) have the same tendency, and we must not lose sight of that fact.  And when governments prevail in turning their citizens into one giant sweatshop, the results are never prosperity for the poor, peace, and harmony.  It’s just the opposite.

As I said at the outset, these are the ramblings of THIS libertarian, neither on the Right nor the Left.  I’m sure I’ve left some holes in what I’ve been trying to share, and I apologize if I haven’t delivered something that is worth thinking about, as I had hoped.

 

I’ll try to sum it all up by saying that I happen to think we (the general population) are naturally united in our humanity, that we are naturally compassionate and charitable, and that it is the self-centered interests who we allow to run the show that artificially divide us and preoccupy us and weaken us, who show us the dreaded face of the fanatical, cold-hearted Right and the smug self-righteousness of the godless Left with no moral compass.  If we could all just move the curtain to the side and look past the smoke and mirrors, I think we would all see a bunch of super rich bastards pushing buttons and pulling levers and holding shiny objects in front of us, mesmerizing us and causing us to walk through life in a stupor as, in the words of George Carlin, “obedient workers.”  Did I say I was cynical?

On Guns

I did not grow up within a strong “gun culture” – my experiences with guns were few and far between. Having been a Navy Reservist now for nine years, I am qualified (according to Navy standards) to handle the 9mm pistol, and I have been associating with people who did grow up within a strong “gun culture.” I have found the large majority of them to be what I would consider “good people” – kind, considerate, respectful.

Our highly safety-conscious military has extremely strict rules as to who will carry firearms and when, and how and where those firearms will be stowed when not in use. Literally every weapon, magazine, and bullet is accounted for. The first thing you see when you go to the armory to clean your weapon is a sign in big, red letters: USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS AUTHORIZED. They are not messing around in the armory – if they see you doing something irresponsible and potentially hazardous with your weapon, they will take you down (as a last resort). Safety first.

It occurs to me that if our military has such strong weapons regulations and accountability for our own soldiers and sailors, and given that generally everyone in the military recognizes these regulations as a matter of common sense and safety, then why shouldn’t we expect such regulation on the largely untrained civilian population? Are safety and accountability necessarily in conflict with rights and liberty?

Guns are very dangerous. They are lethal. I would think that a thoughtful, freedom-loving population would see it as being in everyone’s best interest to bring a few more responsibilities to bear on any civilian’s right to own a gun. I think we’re all okay with the concept of “rights and responsibilities.” It just makes sense.

I need to call on my military and “gun culture” friends to fall back on their training. We know “Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.” Well, we have a situation here. Something’s changed in our society, and there will be time to figure it out eventually. Right now, we need to come together as trained professionals who, as human beings, love our fellow human beings more than political rhetoric. Our children, our civilian population – they need us to toss out, not the Constitution, but the political rhetoric that seems to shut down communication, the sharing of ideas.

We need to Improvise some new rhetoric that keeps channels of communication open, moving beyond “from my cold, dead hands!” I don’t even know what the new rhetoric will be – that’s why they call it improv.

We need to Adapt – we don’t know with certainty what’s caused the change in society that is wreaking this havoc on us, but we know change has occurred, so we must adapt to that change now and not wait until we “figure it out.” We have a situation. Children are being slaughtered, and have been for too long in our schools, malls, neighborhoods, streets, and homes.

We need to Overcome. No more of this. No more.

I believe the regulation and accountability we accept as trained professionals in weapons handling is based on common sense and common safety, and we would be irresponsible to not insist upon it for our untrained civilian population. It’s the same irresponsibility as allowing untrained, unlicensed electricians to wire our homes. As with anything useful but potentially lethal, we need guidelines, standards, and accountability to reduce risk as much as possible. In the case of guns, we’re talking about regulation, strict accountability, and, above all, access.

These changes do not necessarily have to mean a threat to liberty. Isn’t a loaded gun in the hands of an unstable, violent person the ultimate form of tyranny? If it’s tyranny you’re itching to overthrow, we can start right here, right now.

An Open Letter To A Liberal Friend, Part 2

If we can agree that everyone at every point of the political spectrum has their humanity in common, then we can expect common behaviors that spring from that fact.

Probably the number one behavior common to all people is that of self-preservation.  Virtually everything we do relates directly or indirectly to maintaining life.  Why do we work?  To earn money.  What do we buy with that money?  Food, shelter, clothing.  Why do we desire those things?  Because they help us sustain our lives.

Aside from natural disasters, disease, or old age, what is it that can most interfere with our efforts to sustain our lives and to pursue our own happiness during the short time we are here?  To put it bluntly, assholes.  And, aside from the generic street thug assholes running around, which assholes pose the greatest threat to our lives and happiness?  The ones in power.  And where are the seats of power in society?  Government, business, and religion.

This is why separation of church and state is desirable – to limit the power of religious authority over civil society.  This is why the Left wants business regulated – to limit the power and influence of Big Business over the lives of the common worker.  This is why the Right wants small government – to limit bureaucratic power over the lives of the average citizen.

It’s a cryin’ shame that, with few exceptions, “humans + power” tends to lead those who find themselves in positions of power to yield to their Inner Asshole.  What do people with power want?  Again, with few exceptions, they want their power to be secure, and they want more power.  This makes them, in the eyes of their fellow human beings who feel they have little or no power, assholes.  And this will always be true regardless of time or place: no one wants their life run (and potentially ruined) by an asshole.  Self-preservation.  It’s instinctual.

Everyone wants the powerful assholes they fear the most to be limited in their power.  “Government regulation” is the Left’s answer to keeping the assholes who run things in the private sector in check.  “Limited government,” or government held in place by the “chains of the Constitution,” is the Right’s answer to checking the power of the assholes who run the government.  It’s the same response to the same fear.  It seems to be a question of what we fear the most.

In this one short paragraph, I can prove that both sides have legitimate concerns.  Do you think we have nothing to fear from leaders in the private sector?  Work in or just visit a sweatshop.  Do you think we have nothing to fear from government?  Look at the Third Reich.  Look at Stalin.  Think of the millions of souls who would scream from their early graves if they could: Beware out-of-control government!  Beware captains of industry who are not held accountable!

The Left and Right would do themselves a favor if they would stop looking at each other and pointing fingers and engaging in constant friction, and realize their common goal: to hold accountable the Assholes In Charge – all of them.

In the next (and last) part, I will share my thoughts on humans as individuals and as parts of a whole, and hopefully bolster my ultimate position that there is far more that unites us than divides.  Thanks for reading, my friend.

An Open Letter To A Liberal Friend, Part 1

I am writing this post as an open letter to a particular friend of mine so that, while addressing him as an individual, I can hopefully bring a “teachable moment” to the masses who daily cling to every word of this blog for knowledge and guidance (hey, I don’t mind making myself the butt of a joke).  :)

Also, when I speak of the libertarian perspective, I mean THIS libertarian.

________________________

Dear Friend,

I am happy to learn that you have an open mind and are at least willing to listen to what I have to say.  Our subject is an old one: whether people should view the needs of society from the individual or collectivist point of view.  You place yourself firmly on the side of the collectivists and have said that, in order to adopt my individualist philosophy, you “would need to know the mercy and kindness in it, rather than the callous indifference and self-centeredness that is apparent on its face.”

 

I’m glad you said, “…that is apparent on its face.”  If you’ve read much of this blog, you will know that I am definitely in favor of looking below the surface of things.  When I last wrote you, I suggested that “we are more of kindred spirits than you may believe when it comes to caring about other people.”

 

To generalize, I am typically viewed as a libertarian, and you are viewed as a liberal.  One point we can agree on and boast about is the fact that we view liberty as belonging to every person equally.  We do not see liberty as something we dole out only to people who look, believe, or behave as we do.  We accept diversity and do not discriminate where the enjoyment of liberty is concerned.  “Freedom” is the root of our party names, and we take to heart the idea that “all men [people] are created equal,” and should therefore enjoy freedom on an equal footing.  We also recognize that, unfortunately, it has not been played out as such on the world stage.  But this has not caused us to give up on the idea!

“Individualism” has been given a bad name by many of the people who espouse it.  To those on the left side of the political spectrum, the philosophies coming from the right can look very callous and self-centered.  Libertarians themselves have also been known to shoot individualism in the foot.  I recently had a conversation with one who had a problem with me saying that “liberty is for the common good.”  He wouldn’t accept “the common good” because it smacked of collectivist ideology.  He said that liberty went beyond the common good and was essential for humanity’s very existence.  I replied that nothing says “common” like the word “humanity,” and that there was no need to fear the word “common” – it does not contain communist cooties.

There seems to be fear on both sides: the left fears that the masses will needlessly suffer if we don’t address them as a whole.  The right fears being controlled by faceless bureaucracies who don’t respect them as individual persons – they fear being reduced to a cog in the bureaucratic machinery.  It is my view that the fears on either side are legitimate.  These fears should not be discounted or written-off merely as the products of baseless and blind party ideology.  These fears are based on something that is undeniably common to both sides of the political spectrum: our shared humanity.