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.

Cue Laughter!

You know, it’s humiliating when you really think about the esteem you are held in by the powers that be.

After all the t-crossing and i-dotting I did at the IRS office a month ago to get into “compliance,” and agreeing that I would try to start paying (come December) $50 a month toward the $45,000 they want to collect from me, I got a letter in the mail from the IRS stating that they want me to pay over $6,000 immediately for my 2010 taxes.  Talk about a buzzkill.  Here I was, looking forward to the holidays, remembering how difficult it was to go through them last year in Kuwait – away from my boys.  But this year, I’ll be putting up the tree early and leaving it up late, happily scraping together what I can to light up the boys’ faces when they look under said tree in late December, and thoroughly soaking up the holiday glow as much as I possibly can.

But the powers that be, first of all, don’t have to look over their shoulders at past tax liabilities – many of them have none, because they had no liability to begin with.  We who would “soak the rich” via the income tax are laughed at.  As a reminder:

New York Times, June, 2011: “There are 78,000 tax filers with incomes of $211,000 to $533,000 who will pay no federal income taxes this year. Even more amazingly, there are 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million with zero income tax liability, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million with the same federal income tax liability as most of those with incomes barely above the poverty level.”

There are over 100,000 wealthy people who could look at my tax liability and just laugh it away.  “Ain’t my problem!  Sucks to be Kurt Henning!”  And that’s all it would be to them.

But it’s a lot more than that for me.  For me, it’s the year after my deployment where I get to try to rebuild my business.  It’s the first holiday season back where my business is pulling in about half of my monthly living expenses and I still must draw on whatever savings I brought back from my service overseas – savings that will dry up in about three months if business doesn’t improve soon.  But Uncle Sam is serious about what I earned in 2010, and the debt I incurred for earning it.  “We’ve got to have that six thousand bucks, Henning!  We mean it!  We’re depending on you, you American patriot, you!”

Fuck that.  Fuck the whole income tax system.  I didn’t fall into “compliance” out of a sense of patriotic duty.  I’m not complying so little Timmy will have a school to go to and little Sally’s mommy will have a nice road to drive on.  We had all that shit before we had an income tax.  I’m in “compliance” because I don’t want to have to try raising my children from a prison cell, and I don’t want to give the IRS the “right” to pull everything I have out of my own bank account.  It’s called compulsion, coercion, extortion.  It’s just the legal kind, which makes me a legal victim – and that makes it all better.  But legal and legitimate are not always the same thing.

So, I’ll march back over to the IRS office and show them the letter, and I’m sure they’ll say something like, “That letter was automatically generated.  You’ll probably get one for each year you just filed for.  Don’t worry.  We’ll just start your payment plan in December like we talked about.”

There are over 100,000 very wealthy people who never have to worry about such letters, who never have to worry about rebuilding their business after a deployment, who never have to worry about fulfilling the holiday wishes of their children.  And, somehow, Uncle gets along without their income tax money.  No letters, no liability, no worries, no threats.  Must be nice.

And the galling thing is that the difference is this: those people in Congress who literally write the tax code and send it off to the government printing press, they hold those wealthy folks in higher esteem than they do me.  I’m easy to look down upon.  I am easy to disrespect.  I am easy to exploit.  Because I am not one of the wealthy class who can scratch the backs of the “representatives of the People” [laugh track], I am just one of the Many who can be milked.  “And they have to let us squeeze their hardworking teats, or we’ll throw them in prison!”  They laugh.

Can you hear them laughing?  You signed a W-4 for your job, right?  They’re laughing at you, too, sucker.

What Tax Reform Will Really Look Like, Part 3 (of 3)

So Congress came up with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. How could the public not finally rest assured after hearing their representatives tout this new Act?  Listen to their confident rhetoric:

"This bill adopts a tough, certain, exacting minimum tax. We are not going to see stories about this corporation or this rich fellow or this rich woman earning a major amount of money and paying nothing in taxes...What is at stake here is us demonstrating to the American people that we are willing to make the tough choices, make the tough decisions and give them a tax system that they can count on, that is fair, that will finance this government in the right way." Rep. Byron L. Dorgan, (D) North Dakota

"Ordinary citizens - those people without the use of high-paid lawyers and fancy tax shelters - have had to witness a parade of newspaper headlines heralding the...hundreds of millionaires who paid no federal income taxes. This proposal will make that kind of unfairness a thing of the past." -Sen. John F. Kerry, (D) Massachusetts

"Madam Speaker, the vote today is for fairness and equity. For decades, the Congress has called for tax reform. This is our chance. We have railed against the abuses of a tax code that allows millionaires and the rich to escape tax-free, while the working men and women of this country pay for everything." -Rep. William B. Richardson, (D) New Mexico

"By instituting a tough, inescapable minimum tax, we have assured that no matter what special tax incentives wealthy individuals or profitable corporations use, they will be required to pay a minimum amount of tax." -Sen. John H. Chafee, (R) Rhode Island

"Fairness is the hallmark of this bill. We have strengthened the minimum tax for corporations and individuals. No longer will we hear about those who escape their tax responsibility. Taxpayers and corporations alike will pay their fair share." -Rep. Frank J. Guarini, (D) New Jersey

"It wasn't too long ago that my constituents were outraged because of news stories that detailed how wealthy individuals and corporations were escaping taxation by cleverly manipulating the law. Under the tax bill, this will no longer take place." -Rep. George C. Wortley, (R) New York

"It makes me angry that 250 families earned over $1 million last year and paid no taxes...This bill makes sure that does not happen anymore." -Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, (D) Missouri

"[This bill] includes a strong minimum tax provision that assures that wealthy individuals and profitable corporations will pay at least some taxes." -Sen. Charles Mathias, Jr., (R) Maryland

"Every year, the story is printed in the papers - and I paraphrase - 844 Americans last year made over $1 million and paid no taxes. That, justifiably, galls the average taxpayer who is making $15,000 a year and paying $1,000 in taxes. This bill closes those loopholes." -Sen. Bob Packwood, (R) Oregon

From America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?: "In 1989, the latest year for which statistics are available [and only three years after the above bill became law], the number of persons with incomes above $200,000 who paid not one penny in federal income taxes crossed the 1,000 mark for the first time, reaching 1,081. That was up 64 percent from 1986."

So, reader, if history is any indication, what might we expect when the Buffett Rule (or tax reform by any other name) becomes law? I say, nothing.

(Source: America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, by Barlett and Steele, 1994)

Now, in case you want more current numbers, this is from the New York Times, June, 2011: "There are 78,000 tax filers with incomes of $211,000 to $533,000 who will pay no federal income taxes this year. Even more amazingly, there are 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million with zero income tax liability, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million with the same federal income tax liability as most of those with incomes barely above the poverty level."  

The question must be asked: Are we paying our politicians to just talk a good game?  This is why when we hear or read of any Democrat or Republican talking about tax reform, our first response must be to recall our tax reform history, roll our eyes, and smile cynically.  What we do beyond that, who can say?  But if history is any indication on that score, we’ll likely just roll over and take it…again.

What Tax Reform Will Really Look Like, Part 2

So Congress came up with the Tax Reform Act of 1976 to fix the problem.

"The conference report also tightens up the minimum income tax provisions substantially, to insure that wealthy individuals will not be able to use tax shelters to get out of paying income taxes entirely." -Rep. Christopher J. Dodd, (D) Connecticut

"...actions taken by the conferees will assure that all taxpayers pay a reasonable amount of taxes as a result of curbing tax shelter devices and expanding the minimum tax." -Sen. Paul J. Fannin, (R) Arizona

"This bill raises the minimum tax paid by high-income persons and eliminates or restricts many tax shelters. These actions are consistent with my firm support of measures designed to close the loopholes and ensure that each taxpayer bears his or her fair share of the overall tax burden." President Gerald R. Ford, signing the bill into law, October 4, 1976.

In December of that year, the Joint Committee on Taxation issued this statement: "The minimum tax was enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 in order to make sure that at least some minimum tax was paid on tax preference items, especially in the case of high-income persons who were not paying their fair share of taxes.  However, the previous minimum tax did not adequately accomplish these goals, so the [1976] Act contains a substantial revision of the minimum tax for individuals to achieve this objective."

And it's a good thing they put in all that rhetoric and work, because by 1986 there were 659 high-income persons who paid no income tax - a 170 percent increase from 1974, and a 325 percent increase from 1969. Were it not for the highly effective Tax Reform Act of 1976, who knows how much higher those numbers might be, right?

(Source: America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, by Barlett and Steele, 1994)