Week of 04/10/2000

Taxation Song And Dance
- by David Matthews 2

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert Heinlein

Just about this time every year there is a little game that is played in America. It’s called the "Taxation Two-step".

Every year just around Tax Day, we have a general discussion about how we pay our taxes. Most Americans really have no idea how much they’re paying in taxes every year until it is time to file our tax report with the Internal Revenue Service.

Now I’m sure some of our international friends would like to know why that is. Why is it that the average taxpaying American has no idea of how much they pay in taxes until the following year?

Well, once upon a time, we KNEW how much we paid our taxes because we would have to figure it all out ourselves. When the federal income tax was first levied, it was up to us to pay it in its entirety. We would fill out the tax form, do the math, and then write out a check to the government for how much we owed them for the previous year. We still do something like that with local property taxes, which is why we are very sensitive over our property values, what the government assesses that value to be and what the millage rates are.

But then around World War II, the politicians had this brainstorm of an idea. They needed some fast cash to fund the war effort. They couldn’t wait until the following year to get the money, so they came up with the idea of having the employers take the tax percentage out of each worker’s paycheck and give it to the government. Employees wouldn’t have to worry about writing out a check to Uncle Sam every year because it would already be paid before they even see the paycheck. Nice idea, right?

Well, one of the side effects of that is that now people do not really know how much money is being taken out to pay Uncle Sam and his fifty spoiled brats. It’s taken out a bit at a time, long before we even see the money ourselves. So the only way we really know how much of our money is given to the government is when we have to report it.

This has also given government officials on all levels the chance to play games with our tax rates. Since taxpayers have no idea how much they owe the government until tax time, they usually never know when the government decides to take a little extra.

Did you know, for instance, that the government taxes you extra for every hour of overtime you put in at work? The excuse from those in government is that they don’t want people to get rich off of overtime. The more overtime you put in, even more taxes get taken out. But you wouldn’t know that unless you did the math yourself.

How about that refund check you got from last year’s taxes. Did you know that in some states you have to report that as extra income and pay taxes on it again? Surprise! You’re getting taxed on the same money twice! And it’s perfectly legal too. After all, the Fifth Amendment protects one from double jeopardy, but not double-taxation.

It’s a given that nobody likes to pay taxes. We look at government and find it to be incredibly inept at what it does. We’re not happy with how it is run, and we certainly aren’t happy with who is running it, no matter who that person or party is. So we feel they aren’t worth our hard-earned money.

However, while we feel that the politicians don’t deserve OUR hard-earned money, someone’s gotta foot the bill for all those government services we want. After all, how else would we pay for the police officers, and the court system, and the firefighters, and the street sweepers? These folks need to be paid for their services. They certainly don’t operate purely out of the goodness of their hearts.

So we believe taxes to be a necessary evil, one that we would avoid any chance we can get. But to pay for those services we do want, we feel other people should foot the bill. Not only that, but some people feel that they are paying a "disproportionate" amount of taxes, and that other people are getting away with not paying "their fair share."

It is that feeling of "unfairness" that gives politicians plenty of ammunition to further con the American people into paying even more taxes.

There are many ways that politicians con the American taxpayers. The first is the very notion that not everyone is paying "their fair share" of taxes.

Let’s get brutally honest here… NOBODY in America pays "their fair share" of taxes! Nobody. If you claim any kind of deduction, no matter if it is for yourself, your spouse, or for your children, you certainly are not paying your "fair share" of taxes. If you write off your home mortgage as a tax exemption, you are not paying your "fair share" of taxes. If you claim you are a full-time student, you certainly are not paying your "fair share" of taxes. Those examples alone show that a majority of Americans do not pay their "fair share" of taxes. It is safe to say, then, at some point in our lives we all will not pay our "fair share" of the tax burden.

The only way the tax system would ever be "fair" would be if everyone was paying an equal percentage of taxes. A straight flat tax. No exceptions. No exemptions. No deductions. It wouldn’t matter if you made $1000 a year, $10,000 a year, or $1,000,000 a year, you would still have to pay the same percentage of taxes. The more you make, the more you would still have to pay in taxes. You can get no fairer than that.

So unless you’re willing to abandon this punitive tax system and push for a pure flat tax, you have absolutely NO grounds whatsoever to talk about "tax fairness."

Of course, not too many people in government really want that kind of tax system. A flat tax system would mean less money for them to play around with. It would also eliminate a lot of incentives politicians use for special interest groups. How can small town America bring in businesses if they can’t offer them huge tax breaks?

That brings us to the next way our elected officials and their wannabes try to con the American public, with so-called "tax relief" games.

The game works like this: the people complain about taxes. The politicians shed their crocodile tears and promise to offer the public "tax relief." The "relief" won’t come from a tax cut, though. Instead, they’ll offer up a glorified IOU that they claim will be just as good as a tax cut. As a matter of fact, they often go so far as to call it a "tax cut" - even though it is nothing of the sort. You will still have to pay the same amount of taxes as you have been, but now when you file your tax report with the IRS, you can then claim this "tax credit" to be deducted off how much you were supposed to pay last year. Slick, huh? Your "relief" would not take effect for a whole year. A whole year for the government to play with your money, collecting the interest off of it, instead of giving it to you like they are supposed to. Worse yet, not everyone would be eligible for this "tax relief." Single adults, for instance, who don’t have children usually are not eligible for any such "tax relief", and thus have to shoulder most of the tax burden. For people who complain about those who do not pay "their fair share", what they offer is neither "relief" nor fair in any sense.

Then there is "tax-reform roulette" - the political version of the Three Card Monty. In this game, so-called "tax-reform" politicians offer up not one or two, but a whole bevy of tax reform bills for the general legislature to vote on. No doubt any of these bills probably would be a welcome relief for the public; and if decided upon alone, it would be political suicide for any politician to vote against them. But decided upon all together, in a marathon "tax-reform" spree, it is a sure bet that NONE of the bills would ever be passed. Each politician would support one or two of the bills, then vote against all the others, making sure that no bill gets a majority vote. That way, every politician can then go back to their constituents and tell them that they "tried" to do something about the tax system.

While we’re at it, don’t forget the other tax game that politicians love to play, the "taxation name game." Our highest elected con man, President Bill Clinton, loves to play this game because he gets to hide his socialistic drivel by bastardizing the English language. In this game, tax money is not "spent", but rather it is "invested." Clinton, for instance, would claim that the American public doesn’t need a tax cut, because, supposedly, he feels that the people would just spend that money, while he would "invest" it in programs he feels are in the public good. By playing the taxation name game, he can insult the American people while at the same time pretending to care about them.

And Clinton is not the only one who plays the taxation name game. This is an election year, after all. How many of our representatives and senators will be crowding the airwaves with talk about all of the federal funds they have "invested" in their state? All the while, they condemn the "investments" of their political associates as being "wasteful spending." Political pork by any other name is still spent just as quickly. Even the 2000 Census talks about those federal funds being "properly invested" if everyone turns in their forms, as if somehow the whole purpose of the census was to figure out how to spend tax money and not fulfilling a constitutional requirement.

Each of these con games have one purpose, of course: to keep the tax system as complicated and as convoluted as possible. To keep the tax preparers, tax accountants, and tax auditors employed. To keep the tax software on the shelves and in the computers where they belong. In short, those in government keep us confused and keep on deceiving us to maintain the status quo.

If we want real tax reform, then, we must be willing to see through the deceptions our elected officials give us. To see through the slick words of our so-called "reformers" and challenge them to actually deliver that which they promise, or to remove them when they fail to deliver. We must be willing to accept the fact that the only "fair" tax system is where everyone pays the same tax percentage, and that to accept our own exemptions is to allow other people to do the same.

The best way to stop a con man is to not act like an easy mark. The best way to stop a political con man is to stop playing the gullible fool.

Week of 04/03/2000

Stripping Away Freedom
- by David Matthews 2

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

There are times when I look at the American system of government and I breathe a sigh of relief that there is a system of checks and balances. Times when I look towards the judiciary and be thankful that the members of the US Supreme Court are not beholden to polls or to special interest groups. That they look to a document called the US Constitution and all of its amendments, and decide not on what some poll or what some focus group says is right, but what is right by the Constitution.

Sometimes they make the right decision, a decision that reminds people of what freedom is all about. Those are the times I take that breath of relief, because in those instances, the American system works.

Then there are times when they are wrong. Times when they stray away from enforcing the Constitution and start placing priority on redefining the Constitution in what is "for the good of society". Those are the times when I have very grave fears about America. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen with enough frequency to make one concerned.

This is one of those times.

The case involves an ordinance passed by the local government in Erie, Pennsylvania, which outlawed nudity. The ordinance specifically target Erie’s adult-only strip club, requiring the dancers there to cover up certain parts of the female anatomy. The local government knew that eliminating nudity would help bring the demise of that club.

This ordinance was challenged in the courts, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it violated the freedom of speech.

But then it went to the US Supreme Court, and in a 6-3 decision, the justices said that Pennsylvania’s highest court was wrong. Writing for four of the six justices, Justice Sandra Day O’Conner said that even though nudity is a form of expression that deserves SOME First Amendment protection, local communities CAN outlaw nudity to prevent what they say are "negative secondary effects." And that even though the ban violates speech, O’Conner says the effect is "minimal."

The majority decision, though, was not in complete agreement by all six justices. Justices Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they supported the ban to support "the traditional power of government to foster good morals.. and the acceptability of the traditional judgement.. that nude public dancing itself is immoral."

Now folks, I’ll be brutally honest with you… I believe that Justice O’Conner and the other five justices are Constitutionally wrong. Not just mistaken. Not just wrong. CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG. They have erred on the belief that any Constitutionally-protected right can be limited simply because of so-called "negative secondary effects."

This decision does have some very dangerous consequences. For instance, the government can now use this decision to outlaw gun sales, claiming that recent gun-related violence poses "negative secondary effects" that outweigh the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. And besides, one would argue, the effects to limit individual gun sales would be "minimal." After all, we do have the police, don’t we?

Using this decision, government can now outlaw certain religious practices, claiming that certain religious-based incidents pose "negative secondary effects" that outweigh the First Amendment freedom of religion. Say good-bye to any religion that does not hold a domineering stance in society. Besides, as one would argue, government has a "responsibility to foster good morals", right? And wouldn’t it be in the "best interests" of society if religious beliefs that some would consider to be cult-like be stifled? (By the way, did you know that some have called Judaism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism to be cults?)

Using this decision, government can now claim that incidents of rioting, as demonstrated at last year’s chaos surrounding the World Trade Organization’s meeting, constitute a "negative secondary effect" that outweigh the freedom to assemble peaceably as guaranteed in the First Amendment. After all, you can still protest… just not in large groups.

Do you see now how dangerous this decision is? ANY right guaranteed in the US Constitution can now be made null and void by the government if they claim that right has some "negative secondary effects."

But I reserve the brunt of my disgust for Justices Scalia and Thomas, who piously believe that government has a "traditional" role to foster morals. How many times do we have to pound this into people’s heads… THAT IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT! Maybe once upon a time it was, but NOT in a society that is established on the basis of individual freedom.

And certainly Clarence Thomas should remember that there were OTHER things that government traditionally supported. Things like slavery and race-based discrimination. Things that would have kept him from being a member of the Supreme Court if the government continued to support them as they have in the past. These were also supported by the courts "for the good of society." The fact that government traditionally supported these things does not make it right.

Don’t think, however, that this is an easy win for the moralists, though, because the Supreme Court has left open one crucial avenue of attack… and that is attacking the "negative secondary effects" themselves. In the majority opinion, Justice O’Conner noted that NOBODY questioned the validity of those "secondary effects". In a separate dissent, Justice David Souter wanted to have the government prove those effects really existed.

And that is where the government is at its weakest. Indeed, few people ever challenge the validity of those claims of "negative secondary effects." What constitutes those claims? Actual police reports? An in-depth study by impartial bodies interested in presenting unbiased and indisputable facts? Hardly. In most instances, any kind of "proof" is based on studies conducted by questionable or biased sources. Those studies may even be thirty years outdated and have absolutely nothing to do with the affected establishments. Yet those "facts" - if you can even call them such - are accepted on face value simply because some politician, whose bias is often well-documented, offers them for consideration.

As I have often mentioned, moralist-led laws are not written based on fact as much as they are founded on baseless fears, superstitions, rumors, innuendoes, and sometimes even slanderous lies. Moralists use these to intimidate those in government to do their bidding because they are faster and more effective than trying to collect facts to support their claims. Believe it or not, those in the adult entertainment business have the truth on their side, and it is a powerful weapon they must now wield like a machete to cut through the government-endorsed lies.

Granted, strip clubs are not for every adult. Watching naked women - or men for that matter - dance about on a stage or on top of tables is truly an acquired taste. Then again, some people get their thrills watching others line dance, or do the polka, or do the Lambada. Some people even get their jollies watching large congregations assemble like mindless sheep to hear their every word as though it was from God above. The only difference is that nobody ever tries to claim "negative secondary effects" to shut down churches or dance halls. Maybe that’s something that should be changed as an object lesson in what tyranny is really all about.

Tyranny does not show itself all at once. Like the Dance of the Seven Veils, tyranny exposes itself one layer at a time, gracefully removing each layer of protection, each pretense of justification, until there is just naked aggression. It is a far greater evil in a society that claims to cherish freedom than any mythological "negative secondary effects" erroneously associated with strip clubs.

That, unfortunately, is yet another lesson that the members of the US Supreme Court have failed to learn.

Week of 03/27/2000

The Slacker Campaign
- by David Matthews 2

"Although the political liberty of this country is greater than that of nearly every other civilized nations, its personal liberty is said to be less. In other words, men are thought to be more under the control of extra-legal authorities, and to defer more to those around them, in pursuing even their lawful and innocent occupations, than in almost every other country."
- James Fenimore Cooper

Three words come to mind to describe the current presidential campaign: Boring. Very Boring.

I’m not the only one who thinks that way either. The media have jokingly dubbed the 2000 campaign as a race between "Gush and Bore", making fun of both Governor George Bush and Vice-President Al Gore while at the same time emphasizing their political failings.

Part of the problem with this primary season is that it was over way too quickly. Instead of a prolonged season of campaigning and various visits from the candidates, there was a marathon series of primaries from New Hampshire to Texas, forcing many candidates to actually skip some states and concentrate on those that would bring them the larger number of delegates.

Oh sure, the candidates would apologize and say they never really "forgot" about those states. Certainly the frontrunners would claim they never EVER would take the support from those states "for granted". And if you believe that, I’ve got a real sweetheart of a bridge deal for you.

Another part of the problem with this current campaign season are the candidates themselves. This is a case where the political hierarchy and cold hard campaign cash won out over any sort of political ideology. The party bosses did not want reformers or people who would "shake up" the system to be carrying their party banner. They wanted loyalists. They wanted ass-kissers. They wanted someone they could mold to their image and raise the money to keep their respective parties going. They wanted spokesmen, not leaders.

Well, they couldn’t find any more loyal candidates than George W. Bush and Albert Gore, Junior. Two men who got into politics not through leadership or ideology, but rather through their fathers. They got their tickets to ride through nepotism.

What’s worse is that the so-called "competition" has been lacking. Former senator Bill Bradley may have earned some public respect when he dropped out of the Senate because of the games being played, but he had nothing new to offer against the heir apparent to the Clinton machine. Many people knew him, but they just didn’t know what he stood for that was any different than from Al Gore. Being more liberal than the Clinton machine? That’s like saying tofu is not bland enough.

And speaking of that bland substance, the "serious" competition against the GOP’s tofu, Governor Bush, was large in numbers, but equally disappointing. Challengers who offered little that appeased the party loyalists, and most of whom quickly dropped out of the race faster than the time it took for them to enter into it. Senator Bob Smith and conservative loudmouth Pat Buchanan threw temper tantrums and stormed out of the GOP over the party bosses’ unofficial support of Bush. Buchanan is now trying to rally support in the Reform Party. Smith tried to find another party, but none would meet his demands, and he eventually rolled his rotund body back to the ranks of the GOP.

The rest dropped out of contention like flies in a bug zapper. Gone was the social gadfly Liddy Dole, the only female candidate in the GOP. Gone was Senator Orrin Hatch, who never really campaigned because he realized he already had a job as a US Senator. Gone was the theocrat Gary Bauer, who, like God Squad leader Pat Robertson, found it was much better to be the power behind the throne than to try to sit on the throne. Gone was Steve Forbes, who went from being a flat-tax campaigner in 1996, to being a theocratic ass-kisser in 2000, and finding himself in even worse standing. Gone was Senator John McCain, who was the only candidate to pose any real challenge to Bush in the delegates, only to suspend his campaign before the marathon primaries were even finished.

Did I forget anyone? Oh yes, Alan Keys. The only other "serious" GOP contender who, like Pat Buchanan in 1996, is still in the running to keep the party conservative. One has to respect someone who sticks through the race all the way to the convention, even if one does not support everything Keys stands for. Ironically, of the whole group of would-be and wannabe contenders, Keys has been the only candidate who recognizes the existence of the US Constitution. That does not bode well for America, especially since whomever would be taking the Oath of Office in 2001 would be charged with preserving, protecting, and defending the US Constitution. It’s pretty hard to do that when your plans are often in direct violation of what that Constitution entails.

So that’s what we’re told America is left with right now. Two empty, boring candidates who will try to convince us from now until November that one of them is not as empty and boring as the other.

If there was EVER a call for a third option, now is the time.

And that’s really the sad part about this. There is more than just a third option, and I don’t just mean the option of not voting. There are other candidates running for President. Candidates that you will never hear about except over the Internet. Candidates with plans and ideas for making America a better country, for right or for wrong.

Oh, sure, you MIGHT hear a little bit about Pat Buchanan because he’s a GOP also-ran running on the Reform Party ticket. But will the government-condoned duopoly called the Democrats and Republicans allow Buchanan to take part in the debates? Probably not. Not because they thought Buchanan would be a challenge to their power structure, but merely on the principle that adding even ONE extra seat to those debates would open the door for other challenges to their power structure, and to bring in candidates that WOULD be credible enough to pose a threat.

Let’s get brutally honest here… This is not about whether or not third party candidates are competent enough to run for president. As this campaign season proves, any idiot with enough political clout, a team of spin doctors, and a ton of soft money can be considered a candidate for the presidency. This is about maintaining a power structure that have profited the two dominant political parties. This is about maintaining a monopoly that would be blatantly illegal outside of politics.

The end result can be seen by what the voting populace does. They are so turned off by the blandness and the in-fighting and the mudslinging that they refuse to go to the polls. They’ve become a nation of voting slackers; of people for whom the political establishment not only expects to not show up at the polls, but base their very existence on that non-vote.

Is there a solution? You bet. But it’s not going to be easy. It requires changing the voting sentiments of people in general. It means stop voting for whom you think has a better chance of winning and voting for whom you think would best do the job, win or lose. Only when that happens do you stop the dumbing-down of our political candidates. Only then will the candidates and their party bosses stop taking your vote - and especially your non-vote - for granted. Only then will the party bosses to look for real leaders, people who can face the real issues in America, instead of looking for suave spokesmen for their agendas. Only then will you have candidates that are worth a damn in this world.

Forget trying to wait for Congress to pass some kind of lame-ass campaign reform law. The only law they’ll pass will be one that will continue their two-party monopoly and keep the party bosses in power. REAL reform won’t come from the politicians. It will come when the voters stop acting like Pavlovian dogs and start responding to the one voice that truly guides them - their own.

Week of 03/20/2000

Target: Moralism - Part 4
Confronting Moralism
- by David Matthews 2

"In any free society, the conflict between social conformity and individual liberty is permanent, unresolvable, and necessary." - Kathleen Norris

There is a scene in the Brian De Palma movie "The Untouchables" where Sean Connery’s character asks Kevin Cosner’s Elliot Ness just how bad he wants to get Al Capone. Ness replies "I’ll do everything under the law to bring him down."

Connery’s street cop character nods and then asks "And THEN how far would you go?"

When Ness didn’t understand, Connery explained how things were done in Chicago.

"He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He puts three of your men in the hospital, you put three of his in the morgue. THAT’S the Chicago way!"

Of course, Ness is hesitant about going that far. He still had principles and values that he respected. But he eventually realized that the people he was fighting against didn’t have such principles and values. They did whatever they had to do to get the job done. No boundary was off-limits to them. By the end of the movie, Ness realized that the only way to beat Capone was to fight "the Chicago way."

If only things were that simple when confronting a moralist. I really don’t think there would be a problem with moralism if things were on such an even playing field.

Unfortunately, moralists prefer not to involve themselves in such actions. They’re instigators, not participants. They would much rather hide behind the shield of more powerful thugs - namely government. They are lazy, cowardly tyrants who would much rather influence people by force than through the strengths of their arguments. And although they consider themselves to be the Elliot Nesses of this endless struggle for dominance, in action, attitude, and principle, moralists are no better than Al Capone. Or perhaps even worse, because at least Capone was willing to take matters into his own hands when he had to.

So how do you fight that?

Well, let’s get brutally honest here… you can’t fight moralism the way it has been fought. Moralists have always been on the offensive; pushing, shoving, and insisting that government heed their will. They are constantly pushing government officials to enforce antiquated laws, write new laws, and rewrite laws that have been ruled unconstitutional. The people fighting moralism have been forced to fight a defensive war, fighting for every legal inch of freedom, desperately trying to maintain the status quo.

Moralists do not play to win. They play for keeps. One law gets struck down, they get that law re-written and passed all over again. If a judge rules against them, they do everything in their power to replace that judge with one that is more sympathetic to their causes. Same holds true with politicians. If a mayor or council member doesn’t do their bidding, moralists work to replace that elected official. They continue to fight, because they know that it is a battle of attrition, not how many battles are won.

The first way, then, to fight moralism is to change tactics. It is no longer acceptable to play to win, as it has been in the past. If one really wants to fight the scourge of moralism, one has to be just as active as they are.

In other words, it’s time to fight this fight "the Chicago way."

By that, I don’t mean through violence, although some extreme moralists have advocated that route. What I mean is to fight the fight on the level of the moralist. To be passionate and spirited about not letting some dysfunctional thug dictate how things must be in the community. They must be prepared to fight not just one battle, or two, or three, but a struggle that continues until their opponent drops.

Moralists have several weaknesses. The first is the truth. As demonstrated in the past, moralists often rely on unsubstantiated rumors, innuendoes, idle speculations, superstitions, and sometimes outright lies to get the public’s attention. Unfortunately, it often takes time to gather real facts, which is often why moralists don’t rely on them. Timing is everything to them, and the same must apply to those who are fighting moralism.

If you are going to take on a moralist and win, you must respond to their accusations immediately. Don’t wait and formulate what you are going to say later. Don’t wait to gather facts. Take the moralists to task immediately and demand proof. If they can’t provide it, then be quick to paint them as the unreliable liars they are.

If by chance the moralists have proof, question it. Question everything about it; who provided it, when was it provided, how relevant is it to this instance, how did they come to their conclusions. Be skeptical of their information, and make others skeptical of it as well. Don’t ever let it be accepted as fact until you are able to counter it with your own information.

As I stated earlier, moralists love to be instigators. They love to hide behind the shield of government and let politicians do their dirty work. So to counter moralism, one must be willing to remove that shield. Make the battle personal. Do not let the battle be "The Government versus you", but rather make it "the moralists versus you". Find out which group is behind the latest outrage, and name names. Make the government’s role in the issue nothing more than the puppets they are, and show that what is being done is not "the will of the people" but rather the will of a group of elitists.

It also wouldn’t hurt to create your own political organization to rally against the moralists. Moralists use this tactic all the time. Some group called "Mothers Against Offensive Things" sounds a little more important to a politician than simply a gaggle of pissed off housewives with time on their hands and a collective chip on their shoulders. Likewise, a group called "Parents For Free Speech" sounds more respectable than a group of swingers trying to keep the local adults-only club open.

The next step is hard, but one that must be done if you are to truly win out against the moralists. You must become politically active, not just on the national level, but on a local level as well. Be aware of who is running for office, and what their stances are on issues that affect you. Pay attention not just to the city council and mayor’s races, but also to the local zoning board, school board, and library commission. You would be surprised how such branches of government would have an effect on the community. Being active in local politics lets the moralists know that you will not let them run roughshod over your life or your livelihood. Not now, not ever.

Fighting off this evil called moralism not an impossible task. The community of Holland, Michigan, recently fought off the scourge of moralism as it pertained to their regional library system. The various special interest groups both local and national managed to get a resolution placed in that state’s primary election that would force the regional library system to install filtering software on all of their Internet-active computers. The moralists thought this would be a no-brainer vote, especially since they pulled out all of their usual scare tactics. In the end, however, the voters shot down the resolution.

How was this done? How could a conservative community like Holland strike down what many thought would be a no-brainer? Simple. The people who fought for freedom and real personal responsibility did it by playing the same game as the moralists. They formed their own local political group. They took advantage of the fact that those who were pushing for those filters were being sponsored by several national organizations, and they argued that a group of outsiders were going to tell the people of Holland how to live their lives. They matched information and spin, questioned the arguments made by these pro-censorship groups, and urged people to get out there and vote.

And therein lies the real solution to fighting moralism. It doesn’t come from letters to the editor or lawsuits, even though those have been the only traditional recourse. The real solution lies in perseverance and persistence. It is getting your arguments out there, making your own voice large, while making the moralist’s voice small. It means stop being a passive observer in how government operates, and getting involved if for no other reason than for your own well-being. It means staying in there, fighting the fight, and not letting up until the other side falls.

Here endeth the lesson.

Week of 03/13/2000

The High Price of Government
- by David Matthews 2

When the Berlin Wall fell, people rejoiced. It was one of the key symbols of hostilities between America and the Soviet Union. A single city, divided into two halves, in a country that was also divided into two halves. With Berlin unified, it wasn’t long before Germany itself became whole, and again, the people rejoiced.

Soon after Germany was reunified, the Soviet Union itself collapsed. The Cold War was over. Again, people rejoiced. Fifty years of hostility ended with a whimper and not with a thermonuclear bang as so many have feared.

But when the fanfare and the celebrations were over, the people of the former Communist Bloc found out the hard way that there was a high price to pay for communism. The high price was living in a country that could not compete in a capitalist-dominated world.

This is the ugly and bitter truth about the fall of the Soviet Union. The Cold War ended with a whimper not because of the vast superior military strength of the United States and NATO forces. It did not fall because they trembled in sudden fear of the vast thermonuclear power they had collected, and their capacity to obliterate all life on the planet.

No, the Soviet Union and most of the Soviet Bloc withered like leaves in autumn because they could no longer support themselves.

Consider, if you will, how the communist system operates. The government provides everything for the citizen. Food, clothing, shelter, medicine, transportation… each according to their talents, each according to their needs.

Of course, like the pigs in George Orwell’s "Animal Farm", the governing body and those in charge of protecting the state got the lion’s share of the provisions, while the workers struggled for the rest. The state, after all, needs their political leaders to run the country, and it certainly needs its defense forces to keep the people safe and secure. And both have to be well provided for in order to do their respective duties.

Over the years, though, there were fewer and fewer provisions available for the state to distribute. Those in charge did not want to make sacrifices "for the good of the state", so the people had to. Black markets soon developed as a means to help provide for things the state failed to provide as part of their duties. Eventually, government could no longer support itself, and it collapsed.

It is clear where the problem lies with communism. The problem is a combination of greed on behalf of their leaders as well as the tremendous burden put on government to provide for the people. The combination of which spelled the death knell for a system of government once heralded by its creator as "the natural evolution of society."

So aside from a few straggling countries like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, the once-great Soviet Bloc is no more. Capitalism and democracy have beaten back communism. Game over, right?

Wrong.

In fact, the very factors responsible for the downfall of those communist countries are being seen elsewhere… including the United States.

Now let’s get brutally honest here. I’m not talking about communist spies or some grand conspiracy that would make Senator Joe McCarthy smile from the bowls of the hereafter. Rather, I am talking about the seductive trend towards the lesser form of communism, namely socialism.

There is very little to separate between communism and socialism except the degree of government being involved in a person’s life. Both operate on one key question - what can government provide for the public?

Socialists treat government like a magic genie, able to give them whatever they so wish. Need schooling? Government will provide. Need to put your kids through college? Government will provide. How about school meals? Government will provide. How about work? Government will provide. How about unemployment benefits? Government will provide. How about free vacation days? Government will provide. Health care? Government will provide. Retirement? Government will provide. Whatever it is the socialist wishes, there is government program that will provide for them.

Of course, such things don’t come for free, even though many naïve socialists are led to believe that it should be. Some European countries, for instance, love to gloat about how they have "free" health care, "free" retirement programs, and "free" paid vacations via the government. Truth is, they’re not "free" but are paid through heavy taxes. Ever wonder why the price of gasoline is about five dollars a gallon in Europe compared to a dollar-fifty in America? Two words - gas tax.

Then the question is do you get what you pay for? Here in America, one only has to look at this "glorious" retirement program called Social Security to see whether or not you do get what you pay for. Whole generations of Americans have paid fifteen percent of their hard-earned paychecks into a plan that pays them back about $200 a month if you are disabled or if you are over the age of 65. Certainly not enough to retire on, even when $200 a month was a lot of money. In order to be able to have enough to retire on, one still has to take out a separate pension program.

So why keep that program going? Because it is tax money, which to the politicians is like manna from the heavens. And because a whole group of Americans have been conditioned to believe that somehow Social Security still works.

But the wishing doesn’t stop there. In the 1950’s, politicians used to jokingly talk about a chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage. Today, politicians seriously talk about laptop computers for every child, classical music for every expecting mother, and every home wired to the Internet. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently speculated it would be oh-so nice if the poor would be able to have cars of their own instead of relying on public transportation. Mind you, this is the same publication that criticizes Atlanta for their already crowded infrastructure.

I hope you can see a pattern here. The more "feel-good" programs and "wouldn’t-it-be-nice" wishes being added to the scope of government sends it right down the path traveled by the late Soviet Union. A path that leads to a complete collapse of the infrastructure.

That is not a place for any government to be headed towards, especially one that claims to cherish freedom.