Thursday, January 24, 2013

Phil Mickelson and Taxes

I wrote a letter to Phil Mickelson yesterday morning.  Imagine my surprise when I finally got around to listening to yesterday's Glenn Beck this morning and found he was expressing some very similar thoughts.  I guess that's why he makes the big bucks while I keep a blog--he publishes quicker and takes more risks.  Here's my letter, and I'll follow it with discussion.
Mr. Mickelson, good for you.  I can only dream very happy dreams of having your net worth.  And you've worked your butt off to obtain it.  That money doesn't belong to California or the United States of America.  It belongs to you.

The idea that We the People "allow" hard working high achievers to keep what they earn is ludicrous and wrong-headed.  Every member of society consents to fair taxation for the benefit of creating a system that protects our interests.  When a mob mentality results in "soaking the rich" we've gone desperately wrong.

I understand that for the sake of endorsements, there are things you shouldn't say publicly.  Nevertheless, let me congratulate you on saying something that needed saying, even if you had to apologize to keep your sponsors.

More importantly, let me encourage you to proceed with plans to leave California.  There are many states that will treat you better.  San Diego weather is hard to duplicate, but you can approximate it at a much lower cost in some other location.

Best of luck to you.  Keep on winning golf tournaments and shame on our society for making you apologize for telling the truth.
He'll probably never read it, but some of the points I've made are important for all of us to consider.  Freedom can be defined as ownership of yourself and your time.  Slavery is the opposite, a condition in which someone else owns your person and your time.

Involuntary confiscation of your time is a form of slavery.  You trade your time for money when you work, so time really is money.  Involuntary confiscation of your money is also slavery, then.

That's why colonists in America found taxation without representation so objectionable.  It was slavery.  Today in theory our taxation also involves representation.  We consent to being taxed by exercising our right to vote and sending representatives to set policy for us, policy that includes taxation.

The flaw in that plan is that the majority can impose tyranny on the minority.  To prevent that, we have a Constitution that protects the rights of minority groups.  We've even overcome the great shame of slavery because of the principles of freedom the nation was founded on, though it took us longer than modern Americans might have liked.

The very wealthy are a minority group protected by the tyranny of the majority by the Constitution.  When we engage in "soak the rich" policies, we're seeking to enslave a minority group, even if it's a soft and comfortable form of slavery.  We're still telling them, "Your time and person are not your own, and you have no real say in it.  Love, the Majority."

That isn't the way America is supposed to work, and it leads to truly frightening ideas.  Here's one:  Why Do We Allow Inheritance at All?  If the title alone doesn't frighten you, you're not thinking hard enough about it. 

After all, why should kids be allowed to inherit?  I know, you are about to say something along the lines of "I worked hard so that my kids could . . . "  That is a noble emotion.  But at the point at which this question becomes relevant, you will be dead.  And dead people don't have rights.  They don't own property. They don't get to make decisions.
The assumption here is, "Society owns you and all you produce.  You only have the right to keep what we, the Majority, allow you to keep."  That's Marxism, pure and simple.  It's turning freedom on its head.  Principles of freedom would instead say, "If, though hard work and great ideas you succeed in making far more money with your time than others, all that you accrue is yours to do with as you see fit, less a small portion which you consent to pay in taxes."  The key here is ownership.  I own my person, my time and the accrued value of that time.  The government, society and the Majority do not own my person, my time or the accrued value of my time, though I consent to give some of it to provide for necessary functions of government so I can spend my time making wealth instead of trying to cling to it against anarchy.  Ownership of my accrued time means I get to use it how I like.  So even if Estate or Death Taxes actually accomplished what they're supposed to do, they'd be a horrible violation of the principles of freedom.  Since they don't, they're an simply an atrocity that needs to be eliminated.

If you're free, you own yourself and your time.  If you aren't, someone else does, whether we call that someone a slave master, society, the Majority or the government.  People who understand this whether intuitively or explicitly, have reached their breaking points.  We as people must realize our freedom is more valuable to us than any government hand outs.

1 comment:

Mark said...

The central goal of communism must be: no interactions between individuals. The individual must only interact with the State, or they might be getting away with something.

It's rare to see (as in the inheritance piece) the commies say it so openly.