You don’t have to be a “conspiracy theorist” to put it all together. Just look at the FACTS. And at what the leftists say they want to do. And the evidence that 100 percent of the time (especially since the huge success of COVID fascism) they follow through on exactly what they say they want to do.

They’re not making the military woke in order to destroy it. They’re making the military woke so that woke soldiers can be counted on to turn against the dissidents, when the time comes. They’re not anti-military. They’re anti-freedom. Like Hitler and Stalin, they’re just fine with the use of force — so long as it’s THEIR force. Rest assured they’re not planning on a military dominated by drag queens. They are counting on a military to enforce a rule of law where your life is run by woke monsters like AOC.

Leftists played the long game, first with universities and later with government-run primary and secondary schools. Their results have been spectacular. Two-thirds or more 20-somethings and even 30-somethings are now hard core socialists who oppose free speech, gun rights, capitalism and private property (except for their own private property, of course). Taking over schools worked. Now they’re finishing the job by taking over police forces and the military.

Increasingly, the real question in America will become: Will the military fire on their fellow citizens, if they’re not woke, green fascist, medically fascist, Communist and all the rest? It will come to that. The only way it won’t come to that, of course, is if nonleftists refuse to resist or fight back (even passively) in any way. While the economy is still pretty good, that probably won’t happen. But what happens if the economy stays pretty good, and the one party in power (already in place) decides to base your ability to get a mortgage, a loan — or even electricity — on your support of the government and wokester ideas?

Think it can’t happen here? It’s already happening here. The rest is just a matter of time; and not much more time, the way things are escalating.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Many people are under the impression that they can avoid trouble in their relationships by not arguing. They mistakenly assume that the absence of fighting – or any disagreement – is an indication that the relationship is healthy. But that assumption is wrong.

The most successful relationships consist of two people getting what they want simply because they are being who they are. In good relationships, conflicts are viewed as temporary and resolvable. Dealbreakers are not as issue, because each party sees evidence that the other is getting from of the relationship what’s satisfactory to him or her. Because of this mutual security, it’s automatically expected that conflict will be resolvable, and is the exception rather than the norm. Each partner wants to see the other as happy as possible, simply because that is the source of his or her own happiness.

Avoiding conflict on principle can lead to a non-authentic relationship where false assumptions will build up on one or both sides. When one of those mistaken assumptions is contradicted or betrayed, resentment develops. The problem could be prevented by allowing conflict into the mix earlier on, rather than being so conflict-avoidant that a larger battle is finally unavoidable.

In a personal or romantic relationship, most issues (even minor ones) boil down to hurt feelings. In many cases, hurt feelings are caused by a lack of visibility in some instance. In other words, if you feel your spouse/partner was not listening to you, or paying attention to what’s important to you, then there’s some resentment. Most of these problems can be resolved by simply expressing your hurt feelings — not in a hostile or offensive way, but simply as a matter of fact. When expressing those feelings, it’s best to do so benevolently, i.e., with an assumption on your part that you genuinely realize that no harm was intended, though hurt feelings did end up being the result. It’s less in the spirit of accusation and more in the context of, “Just letting you know how I felt about what you said [or did].”

Healthy, mature individuals love their partners and do not want to hurt them. They want their partners to feel visible, and they want them to know how important they are to them. Acknowledging hurt feelings or other misunderstandings should not be something to avoid. It should be something that’s always assumed to be resolvable and fixable, even with just a few minutes of communication.

When you’re hurt or upset about something, it’s wise to view it in a wider context. For example, ask yourself, “What am I really upset about here? Is it really this thing I’m focusing on, or is it something else? Is it just one instance of my feelings being hurt, or is it part of what I see as a wider pattern?” The clearer you are about these things before communicating your feelings to a loved one, the better you’ll be able to explain yourself when asked to do so. Should every single hurt feeling be brought up? No. It’s not necessary. But if it’s something you view as a large incident or a pattern of incidents that isn’t going away, then it’s better to bring it up than let it boil beneath the surface.

“Not fighting” is not something to strive for, if by that you mean avoiding conflict at any price. It’s better and healthier to embrace the conflict in a rational and benevolent way than to pretend it doesn’t exist and have it come back later to bite you and your partner where it can hurt the most.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

The powers of the general government are only of a general nature, and their object is to protect, defend, and strengthen the United States; but the internal administration of governments is left to the state legislatures, who exclusively retain such powers as will give the states the advantages of small republics, without the danger commonly attendant on the weakness of such governments.

Frances Corbin
 

The government-proclaimed mental health “experts” and “doctors” have stated, unequivocally, that the mental health and stability of ANY 3-year-old or 10-year-old who feels that he or she MAY need a “sex change” be immediately acted upon. Basically, they’re saying, any child that doesn’t have immediate “gender transition” surgery (some would call it mutilation) will commit suicide. This, they claim, justifies the state intervening over and above the parental wishes in such cases.

We’re told that ALL doctors and mental health professionals agree with this. My prior experience as a mental health professional, going back to 1988, strongly suggests otherwise. Most of the mental health professionals I knew were always good Democrats. Virtually all of them had the attitude of being nonjudgmental and affirmative toward ADULTS who considered themselves “transsexual” and presented for mental health counseling, etc. However, imposing immediate and irreversible surgery on minor children — pre-adolescents, no less — is not something that even ever occurred to people functioning in the mainstream of the mental health professional world, even as recently as 8 or 10 years ago. It would have properly been considered the stuff of Nazi Germany, or some equivalent totalitarian nightmare.

Furthermore, any mental health professional who speaks out against state-sanctioned surgery for children (against all parental opposition as well) faces loss of referrals and professional shunning — or even, in jurisdictions like California (with no doubt other states to follow), loss of licensure. So how credible is the claim that ALL doctors and mental health professionals hold a particular point-of-view when they’re almost literally held at gunpoint in doing so? We saw the exact same thing with COVID.

My final question: Even if we accept that ALL minor children who request “gender change” surgery — without fully understanding what it is, and without any parental consent — are to be immediately given that surgery … what if that same child later regrets it? Or changes his or her mind? What’s to be done then? Are those claims to be taken seriously? Or will those likewise be ignored, censored or shamed out of existence?

We live in sociopathic, psychopathological times. What’s happening with this gender change surgery for children is the tip of a much more sinister iceberg consisting of totalitarian government control and literally Orwellian anti-logic. No civilization can be expected to withstand it, especially so long as only a marginal few stand up against it in any remotely principled way.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

At first glance, a lot of the social problems and resource waste emerging from government intervention seem pretty easy to fix: the government should just stop doing whatever it is doing that is creating the problems and the waste. The stubborn persistence of institutions and organizations that keep societies poor is a vexing problem for social scientists. In Political Capitalism, the economist Randall Holcombe takes on this problem by analyzing “political capitalism” as a distinct economic system with its own logic and features rather than as some kind of midpoint between capitalism and socialism.

As he points out, people do not generally demand “big government” in general. Rather, they demand intervention to solve specific problems when people believe using government is either cheaper or more than just relying on the market. The reader might be reminded of Milton Friedman’s observation that every businessperson believes in unregulated, free competition in every industry but their own–which, of course, must be protected and subsidized as a matter of “national security” or something like that.

If you surf the web a bit you might come across a picture of a protest sign with a slogan like “The system didn’t fail; it was designed this way.” Holcombe argues that it is a mistake to think Political Capitalism–he gets the term from the historian Gabriel Kolko, who in turn got it from Max Weber–was designed by sinister interests in a smoke-filled room. His goal is to understand “the system and its pathologies,” and, importantly, to show that “(p)olitical capitalism was not designed by the elite, it evolved as a result of human action but not of human design” (p. 269).

He makes an obvious point that a lot of economists are too quick to forget: “Economic policy is not made by economists, it is made by politicians” (p. 141). We are not, as too many scholars seem to think, disinterested technocrats whispering wisdom into the ears of benevolent and omnipotent autocrats. We should dispense with this presumption if we are going to make serious and meaningful progress toward actually understanding the world we inhabit, to say nothing of improving it.

The pathologies of political capitalism emerge too frequently and regularly to be a coincidence, but they emerge too haphazardly to be a conspiracy. Holcombe works to build a theory of political capitalism on a multidisciplinary foundation. He mixes the theory of economic and political elites as it has been developed by political scientists and sociologists with Good Old Fashioned, Methodologically Individualistic Public Choice Theory to help us understand what Ayn Rand called “the aristocracy of pull” in Atlas Shrugged.

One of the striking facts about the zeitgeist, Holcombe points out, is the many areas of agreement between the left and the right with respect to the characteristics of political capitalism. Using a series of quotes from David Stockman (on the right) and the Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz on the left, he shows that both believe the political system is captured and dominated by political and economic elites who, to the best of their ability, run “the system” for themselves. If virtually everyone agrees that “the system” is controlled by elites for their benefit and at the expense of everyone else, why is it this way and why don’t we replace it with something better?

Holcombe builds a theory of political capitalism that might remind readers of the framework Douglass North, Barry Weingast, and John Wallis develop in their 2009 book Violence and Social Orders. North, Wallis, and Weingast distinguish between natural states, which “use the political system to regulate economic competition and create economic rents; the rents order social relations, control violence, and establish social cooperation,” and open access societies, where “entry and competition order social relations.”

Political Capitalism is a complement to North, Wallis, and Weingast because it helps us better understand the stability of elite coalitions and their ability to create rents by restricting entry. Readers might also be reminded of Gregory Clark’s 2015 book The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility. Clark shows how even very different societies exhibit similar social mobility patterns. To Clark, “social competence” is the secret sauce that helps people move into (or out of) elite circles. While Holcombe does not discuss “social competence” explicitly, his analysis complements Clark’s by marrying public choice theory to elite theory and explaining the bargains (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) that explain the stability of the political and economic elite.

Holcombe’s theory of the elite has three steps (p. 67): “Individuals sometimes act as members of groups rather than as individuals,” “Individuals sort into groups in which they have common interests,” and “Groups use any power at their disposal to provide institutional advantages to their group over others.” That one can be a beneficiary of these steps helps us understand why competition to get into the elite groups–by attending an elite college or university, for example–is so fierce.

Here is where Clark’s “social competence” is especially relevant. Holcombe explains that there are a lot of unwritten rules in the rent-seeking society that is political capitalism. Lobbyists understand, for example, that if they are invited to a reception hosted by a legislator, they had better show up. What’s more, they had better show up with a check. The opportunities to buy and sell influence–”pull”–are practically infinite, and they are often opaque. Holcombe offers the example of the Clinton Foundation, analyzed in a 2015 book by Peter Schweizer. Here is Holcombe (p. 268):

“In his 2013 book Extortion, [Schweizer] gives examples of the payments legislators extort from business interests in exchange for favorable legislation. In his 2015 book Clinton Cash, he describes how foreign governments and businesses made contributions to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, rapidly followed by State Department policies and decisions that benefitted (sic) those donors. Did foreign governments and businesses receive favorable treatment from the State Department in exchange for their contributions to the Clinton Foundation? Schweizer presents evidence that they did, but Clinton says they did not.”

Holcombe offers this example to illustrate “the ambiguities inherent in regulation.” The system–which no one designed–encourages and reinforces activities that blur the lines between respectable rent-seeking and contemptible corruption.

Consider, for example, the problem of transitional gains and transitional losses. Institutional changes are capitalized into the value of assets that then receive no more than normal market returns. Holcombe points to taxi medallions in New York City, where the transitional gains–the present value of the rents accruing to taxi privileges–accrued to those who got the medallions first. Unsurprisingly, people who hold the medallions fight hard to avoid the transitional losses (reflected in falling values for taxi medallions) that come with the erosion or elimination of privileges.

This helps us understand the persistence of institutions that are unambiguously evil (like chattel slavery) and those that are merely inefficient (like the mortgage interest deduction). As an economist, I think we should get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. As someone who, as of this writing, is preparing to sign a thirty-year mortgage, I balk just a bit at the idea because eliminating that deduction would reduce the value of our home. Even if it were “offset” by a reduction in tax rates, it’s not clear that we would be better off. My narrow material interest makes it hard to say, “Let’s get rid of this special privilege that clearly benefits me.” It’s easier to push legislators and regulators to gore other people’s oxen and leave ours alone.

Herein lies the logic of Political Capitalism. As Holcombe explains, “The elite implement institutional changes, after all, and if changes could not assure benefits to those who have the power to change them institutional improvement is unlikely to occur” (p. 222). We cannot, in short, expect the elite to go to the barricades in the pursuit of policies that will make them poorer. Hence, resource-wasting, gains-from-trade-reducing policies persist in all their inefficient glory.

What, then, is to be done? In various places, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman emphasize the importance of public opinion. Deirdre McCloskey argues that the Great Enrichment emerged in response to changes in how people think and talk about trucking and bartering. Holcombe seems to concur: “As the ideology of democracy has replaced the ideology of liberty, the force of government has encroached upon the voluntary exchange of markets” (p. 197).

If public opinion continues this drift, political capitalism will become harder and harder to uproot. Political capitalism grows as a hardy weed in the soil of ideas that might choke out the delicate flower of liberty; however, changing the intellectual soil and moving it in the direction of support for an open access society has the potential to fight back at least some of this encroachment.

People who teach principles of economics courses know the frustration. We spend a lot of time talking about how free markets work and how different government interventions like price controls and tariffs make things worse for the people their advocates claim to be trying to help.

We gloss over some of the important and real complications of transition between institutions if we limit ourselves to just saying, “The government should stop doing that.” Political Capitalism helps us understand why they don’t and, importantly, helps us plot a way forward by marrying elite theory to public choice.

The reader of Political Capitalism will be pulled away from blackboard models of perfect worlds we can imagine, but they will come away with a better understanding of the world we actually inhabit.

Art Carden, Atlas Society

The statist Uniparty and its media are in a blind panic about defaulting on the national debt. Maybe we shouldn’t believe them that defaulting on the debt would be such an unmitigated catastrophe. It might be for THEM. Why? Because they rely on the idea of fiat currency — “funny money” — that can be “created” at will, so they can spend in literally unlimited amounts. On a gold standard, which the U.S. once had, such unconscionable debt was not possible. Only once the U.S. Federal Reserve and the government freed itself from any market-based, objective standard in the 20th Century did politicians get free rein to spend like there’s no tomorrow.

I’m not saying there will be no economic repercussions if the debt is “defaulted” on tomorrow. I am saying we don’t honestly know for sure. If there are problems, the blame would be on the politicians for turning our currency into fiat currency in the first place, and unhinging money from any kind of market-based, objective standard. When you pursue such a policy, sooner or later you have to pay the consequences.

It might be a GOOD thing if the federal government lost all fiscal credibility officially. It might mean we’d have to do what will soon have to be done anyway — start over.

As Joseph Solis-Mullen wrote at the economics think tank Mises Institute,

“The good news, at least for ordinary Americans, is that we personally just don’t hold very much of the debt. Fully two-thirds is held between the Fed, various other US government entities, and foreign governments. A US government default wouldn’t be the first time the latter have taken a haircut (Alexander Hamilton and Richard Nixon both undertook such necessary actions), and our own government has spent the money so poorly that no coherent argument can be made that justifies paying them back. They would just continue in their profligate ways. As for Wall Street, they’ve lived on corporate welfare long enough to justify their taking a one-time bath.

Apart from not paying perpetual interest on ever-increasing debt, another benefit of default, rarely mentioned but arguably one of the most important from the antiwar libertarian perspective, is that it would essentially end Washington’s ability to practice unbridled military Keynesianism. Slapping pointless wars and military buildups on the credit card has become Congress’s standard operating procedure. It is not a coincidence that our annual trillion-dollar deficits are approximately equal to the trillion dollars dumped into the the military-industrial complex black hole each year.”

When you hear the shrieking of the people who fear “defaulting” on the national debt, remember that the government defaulted on economics the minute it went outside the boundaries of the Constitution and unhinged us from a gold standard. The people with the most to lose are the least deserving.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial

Why Get Help?

It Is Important to Give Back!” When I hear someone espouse this concept, my first thought is: “So, what did you take or borrow that did not belong to you? Your neighbor’s lawn mower?”

Of course, that is not what “giving back” means today. It means that if you are successful, you owe somebody something. But what do you owe, whom do you owe it to, and why? Often the answer is: “You should give back to society.” Remember, though, that society is a collection of individuals, 99.99999 percent of whom have nothing to do with you.

So, let’s start with people who may have helped you in life. For example, a teacher may have encouraged you to learn or given you wonderful career advice. You certainly owe that person recognition and thanks, though not your life savings. Your teacher did not create the wealth that you earned. The education or career advice that your teacher gave you may have been a piece of the puzzle, but it was not the full reason for your success. If it were, every student who received the same advice and encouragement would have reached the same level of success. You succeeded in the end because of your efforts, your hard work, and your commitment to productivity.

Perhaps you had a business and employed competent, hard-working people, so you are led to believe that you owe them something. Yet, the relationship was one that involved a trade. Your employees worked, and, ideally, you treated them fairly with competitive pay, earned bonuses or stock options, verbal recognition, and other awards. If you cheated them, say on salary, then you should give back what you owe them, but otherwise, it was your leadership, your willingness to take risks and make investments, and your reputation that allowed the business to thrive.

What about payback to those who produced the goods and services you bought (e.g., Apple, Amazon)? You paid them by buying what they sold, and, perhaps, by recommending their product.

What about giving to your community in the form of donations to parks, scholarships for students, or financial contributions in emergencies, such as storms or floods? This is wonderful if you can afford it. Such actions show generosity and create good will, but they are not the payment of a debt. Framing your generosity as “giving back” implies that you are completing your part of a pre-arranged deal between partners in which you were given something for which you must pay. But this is an inaccurate representation of the arrangement.

The implicit motive of the “payback concept” is to help you reduce your feelings of guilt for allegedly unearned personal achievement and pride. But why would you feel such guilt? This guilt arises if you accept the premise that you did not earn what you got, and that self-interest and pride are immoral, and that a moral person would work only for the good of others. Payback, in this context, is a way of seeking forgiveness for personal achievement. But you do not need justification for an achievement that you earned. You have a right to your own life and to pride in your achievements.

It is legitimate to ask: what if the city or state gave me a tax break for putting my business there? I am not in favor of such breaks (which are widely used) because they are unfair to the local businesses that did not qualify for the same tax breaks. But if you made a deal to hire 250 people in exchange for a tax break, you need to keep your promise or give back the money.

Maybe you are thinking: “I am worth millions or billions, what should I do with the money? It would bore me to spend it all on houses and yachts?”

Good question.

Your first order of business should be, if attacked, to defend your absolute right to the money you earned and to do what you want with it, assuming you earned it honestly and paid your legally owed taxes.

But you could then ask: “Now that I have the money, what else is personally important to me?”

Warning: there is a movement toward self-appointed gurus, with their own personal agendas, telling people what kinds of volunteer projects are “acceptable. Ignore such people. What you choose to do with your time and money is none of anyone else’s business.

Aside from supporting, but not spoiling, kids and valued relatives, the possibilities are endless. You could start a new business; support other entrepreneurs; fund think tanks; support research so scientists without political pull do not have to beg the government for money. You could open scores of private elementary schools, ideally based on the Montessori Method, open to all applicants and with scholarships for all students who are admitted if needed. (You could set your own admission standards.) You could open private hospitals with low fees; pioneer breakthroughs in low-cost, private housing; support non-profits that defend individual rights; provide college scholarships to high-achieving high school students; create and open high-tech (STEM) schools with admission based on merit only; give time and money to animal shelters; start an organization that donates money to universities that support individualism; or support a political candidate, if you can find one you can trust.

The options are endless; the key is to engage in philanthropic acts because you personally love the cause you are supporting and want a sense of purpose. Wanting to make the world you live in a better place is a great thing but do it through activities that have personal meaning to you.

EDWIN A LOCKE Edwin A. Locke is Dean’s Professor of Leadership and Motivation Emeritus at the R.H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland. He is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science (APS), the American Psychological Association, the Society for Industrial & Organizational Behavior, and the Academy of Management. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award (Society for I/O Psychology), the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Management (OB Division), the J. M. Cattell Award (APS) and the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the Academy of Management. He, with Gary Latham, has spent over 50 years developing Goal Setting Theory, ranked No. 1 in importance among 73 management theories. He has published over 320 chapters, articles, reviews and notes, and has authored or edited 13 books including (w. Kenner) The Selfish Path to Romance, (w. Latham) New Directions in Goal Setting and Task Performance, and The Prime Movers: Traits of the Great Wealth Creators. He is internationally known for his research on motivation, job satisfaction, leadership, and other topics. His website is: EdwinLocke.com

POLITICS | TAXATION

Abolition of Income and Inheritance Taxes Under Capitalism (Part 5 of 10)

BY GEORGE REISMAN | APR 29, 2023

A possible way to start on the elimination of the income/inheritance tax right now would be to fight for the immediate adoption of a universal exemption of at least 51 percent of everyone’s income from federal, state, and local income taxation under all circumstances.

This article is excerpted from chapter 20 “Toward The Establishment of Laissez-Faire Capitalism” from George Reisman’s Capitalism: A Treatise On Economics (1996). See the Amazon.com author’s page for additional titles by Dr. Reisman.

The total abolition of the personal and corporate income taxes and of the inheritance tax is an essential feature of a procapitalist political program. It is required by the individual’s right to his own property. In addition, progress toward the abolition of these taxes helps to create the conditions required for economic progress, by increasing economic incentives and the ability to save, both of which serve to promote capital accumulation and thus a rising productivity of labor and rising real wages.

It must be stressed that the more rapidly economic progress can take place, thanks to reductions in the income and inheritance taxes, the more rapidly can the relative size of the government in the economic system be reduced. The consequence of this is that the degree to which people must experience the burden of the government’s exactions is correspondingly diminished. If economic progress can take place at a rate of, say, 3 percent a year, then even if government activity were not reduced at all, the relative size of the government in the economic system would be cut in half in a single generation. For in that time economic progress at a 3 percent annual rate would have succeeded in doubling the size of the economic system. Thus, the burden experienced even from supporting a government of the same size would be felt much more lightly.

These facts imply two important principles pertaining to our political program. First, in reducing income tax rates, our primary emphasis should usually be on reducing the maximum rates, until there exists only a single proportional income tax rate. Reductions in the upper brackets have the greatest impact in strengthening economic incentives and saving, and thus do the most to bring about economic progress. We need to make the public aware of how everyone benefits from these tax reductions–of how they operate to raise the demand for labor and thus wages, and, at the same time, progressively to increase the productivity of labor and thus the supply of goods relative to the supply of labor, which steadily reduces prices relative to wages and thereby steadily raises real wages. Of course, once the so-called progressive aspects of the income and inheritance taxes have been eliminated, work should immediately commence on the steady reduction in what remains of those taxes, and should continue until they are totally eliminated.

Second, a closely related minimal short-run political demand we should make is that the level of real per capita government spending be immediately frozen, so that it does not exceed its current level. Such a demand would be a call not for the immediate abolition of the welfare state and improper government activity of all kinds, but a demand for an immediate cessation in their further growth. Its implementation would result in a continuing automatic shrinkage in the relative size of the government, so long as economic progress continued.

A possible way to start on the elimination of the income/inheritance tax right now would be to fight for the immediate adoption of a universal exemption of at least 51 percent of everyone’s income from federal, state, and local income taxation under all circumstances. This would be in the name of the principle that the individual is the owner of his own income. The 51 percent exemption would constitute meaningful recognition of this principle. Over the years, we would work to increase the tax exempt portion of everyone’s income while reducing the rates on the taxable portion, until the income tax was totally abolished. Given the drastic reductions in welfare-type spending I have proposed and the achievement of economic progress, it should be possible to phase out the income tax entirely over the course of a generation.

The same phase-out procedure should be applied to the corporate income tax. In addition, in the short-run, we should demand the elimination of the double taxation presently entailed in the corporate income tax. It represents double taxation for a corporation first to be taxed on its income, and then for the stockholders of that corporation to be taxed again on what they receive from their own corporation, which has already paid a substantial income tax. The principle of the 51 percent exemption and its progressive enlargement should be applied to the total of every individual’s personal income plus his share of the profits of any corporation in which he owns stock.

However, the most important short-run goal that we should emphasize in connection with taxes is compelling the government to respect the ordinary civil rights of taxpayers. We should demand the abolition of criminal penalties for income-tax evasion, in the name of the principle that an individual cannot steal or fraudulently keep what is his own property to begin with. Also, just as in the case of government agencies seeking search warrants, we should demand that the Internal Revenue Service be compelled to obtain a prior court order authorizing any seizure of property or attachment of salaries and bank accounts it wishes to undertake. If it is not possible to obtain such elementary protection of individual rights, then a compromise that at least would be a move in the right direction would be the existence of automatic judicial review of all such IRS activities. And until criminal penalties for not paying taxes are eliminated, we should demand that the Fifth Amendment rights of individuals to remain silent in order not to incriminate themselves be applied to taxpayers, i.e., that no criminal penalties exist for failure to file an income tax return. In other words, we should demand that taxpayers, who are presently subject to criminal law, enjoy the full civil rights accorded to criminals. In answer to objections that the income tax cannot work without the violation of elementary civil rights, we should reply that if that is the case, then it is further proof of why the income tax must be abolished. So long as the supporters of the income tax wish to retain it, we must demand that they accept the burden of finding ways of harmonizing it with respect for such rights.

A further principle that I believe should be applied in connection with proposals for the reform of the income tax is that no reductions of any kind should ever be made in existing tax exemptions, shelters, or so-called loopholes. Our principle should be that no one’s income taxes should ever be increased over what they would be under existing law. It is true that the various exemptions, such as for interest paid on home mortgages, have some economically distorting effects by artificially encouraging some types of economic activity at the expense of other types, but those distortions will become less and less significant with the reduction in the burden of the income tax, and will disappear altogether when it disappears. We should take the position that every reform of the income tax must serve to reduce the income taxes paid by some or all people, and not increase the income taxes paid by anyone.

Still a further principle that we must uphold concerning tax reform, and one whose necessity should be obvious on the basis of all the preceding discussions concerning the role of capital formation and the consequences of inflation, is that tax reductions must be accompanied by equivalent or even more than equivalent reductions in government spending–specifically, in nondefense spending primarily. In view of the highly destructive effects of budget deficits, it should be clear why tax cuts must be accompanied at least by equivalent reductions in government spending of one kind or another. Deficits, it should be recalled, deprive the economic system of the benefit of the portion of the supply of savings that must be used to finance the deficits. In the absence of a gold standard, they also lead to the rapid inflation of the money supply, which, of course, also undermines capital formation. Cutting taxes without cutting government spending, therefore, is no solution for reducing the government’s assaults on the economic system.

The reason the reductions in government spending must be primarily at the expense specifically of nondefense spending is that defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Spending for defense should be cut only as it becomes genuinely safe to do so. It should be blatantly obvious that we should never advocate imperiling the defense of this country, which means, essentially, the defense of such freedom as exists in the world, in order to preserve any aspect of the welfare state. Indeed, our need for national defense exists for no other reason than to prevent the imposition of the underlying premise of the welfare state in a more extreme and more consistent form by outside military force. That premise, of course, is that some men have the right to enslave others for the satisfaction of their needs. Thus, not only must we never dream of sacrificing national defense to any aspect of the welfare state, but what we want national defense for is precisely to protect us from the logically consistent version of the welfare state that is represented by totalitarian socialism. Furthermore, what we should advocate in connection with national defense is overwhelming military superiority for the United States. That is our only real guarantee of avoiding war. If we have such superiority, we will not start a war, and it is unlikely that anyone else will dare to do so.

Copyright 1996 George Reisman. All rights reserved. The encyclopedic Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics is a required reference for every Capitalist’s library. Reisman’s treatise is now available in two volumes: Volume I (focuses on microeconomic issues) and Volume II (focuses on macroeconomic issues).

Articles in this Series

• Toward the Establishment of Laissez-Faire Capitalism (Part 1 of 10)
• Privatization of Property: Importance of Fighting on Basis of Principles (Part 2 of 10)
• The Freedom of Production and Trade Under Capitalism (Part 3 of 10)
• Capitalism and the Abolition of the Welfare State (Part 4 of 10)
• Abolition of Income and Inheritance Taxes Under Capitalism (Part 5 of 10)
• Establishment of Gold as Money (Part 6 of 10)
• A Pro-Capitalist Foreign Policy (Part 7 of 10)
• Separation of State from Education, Science, and Religion (Part 8 of 10)
• A General Campaign at the Local Level for Laissez-Faire Capitalism (Part 9 of 10)
• The Outlook for the Future of Capitalism (Part 10 of 10)

FEEL FREE TO SHARE

GEORGE REISMAN

George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. See his Amazon.com author’s page for additional titles by him. Visit his website capitalism.net and his blog atGeorgeReismansBlog.blogspot.com. Watch his YouTube videos and follow @GGReisman on Twitter.

POLITICS

• Abolition of Income and Inheritance Taxes Under Capitalism (Part 5 of 10)
• The Goal of Socialism
• Capitalism and the Abolition of the Welfare State (Part 4 of 10)
• Patriot Act 2.0 on Steroids? The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communication Technology Act
• The Tax Code: A Playground for the Few, A Labyrinth for the Many
• Privatization of Property: Importance of Fighting on Basis of Principles (Part 2 of 10)
• California Gasoline Price Gouging Bill Does Not Address Root Problem
• Capitalism and The Exploitation of Third World Countries
• Toward the Establishment of Laissez-Faire Capitalism (Part 1 of 10)
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): No Banking System Savior Then or Now

CAPITALISM REVIEW

• Ayn Rand vs. “Liberals”
• Yaron Brook: Elon Musk’s SpaceX Rocket Termination Was a Success
• DeSantis Disappoints
• Tucker Carlson Leaves Fox News: Aftermath of Dominion Voting Systems Defamation Trial?
• Governor Ron DeSantis Letter to Biden: Let Novak Djokovic Play Tennis in the US
• Yeonmi Park: Woke Revolution in America Imitates North Korea Regime
• Burning The Wrong Witch: The Demonization of J.K. Rowling
• Yaron Brook & Elan Journo: Nationalism Hostile to America
• James Toohey: Global Lessons for High Caliber, Low Cost Education
• Corporations as ‘Creatures of the State’ is a Socialist myth

Voice of Capitalism

Our weekly email newsletter.

SIGN UP!COMMENTS

RELATED ARTICLES

The Goal of Socialism

Socialism is a doctrine based at root not on love for the poor but on hatred for the creators, meaning anyone who makes money.

Capitalism and the Abolition of the Welfare State (Part 4 of 10)

The savings of individuals would steadily replace taxes as the source of provision for old age.

Patriot Act 2.0 on Steroids? The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communication Technology Act

Online Security Concerns Shouldn’t Enable a Surveillance State

What is capitalism? | About | Terms of Use | Privacy | Blog | Books | Contact

Copyright 2023 Capitalism Magazine. All rights reserved.

But there’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly–ask yourself only what it accomplishes. Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men. Of course, you must dress it up. You must tell people that they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don’t have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. ’Universal Harmony’–’Eternal Spirit’–’Divine Purpose’–’Nirvana’–’Paradise’–’Racial Supremacy’–’The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’ Internal corruption, Peter. That’s the oldest one of all. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it. Yet the test should be so simple: just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice–run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if ever you hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it’s your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself–that will be the man who’s not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you.

Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

Those of us on the side of civilizational sanity need all the help we can get in pushing back against the onslaught.

Last Friday, I attended the Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary Gala, a sprawling and swanky affair featuring many fine presentations, a surprise Dierks Bentley mini-concert for the country music enthusiasts (yours truly among them) and an extravagant post-dinner fireworks show over the Potomac River. But the highlight of the evening, bar none, was former Fox News star Tucker Carlson’s electric keynote address and his (all-too-brief) colloquy on stage afterward with Heritage’s exceptional new president, Kevin Roberts.

Carlson’s speech was both wildly entertaining and poignant, at times slapstick funny and at other times humorously self-deprecating about his Episcopalian faith. But as Carlson began to reach his peroration, the key substantive takeaway he wished to impart unto his audience became clear. The relevant political and cultural battle lines in the year 2023 are not those befitting a civil and polite discussion where both sides are reasonable, both sides pursue their own version of the common good and the best think tank white paper wins out in the end, Carlson cautioned. No, our current civilizational struggle is not reflective of a refined policy debate between amicable partisans; rather, it is one that implicates fundamentally distinct theological and anthropological visions of mankind—of man’s very biology and his relation with his fellow man, the state, and God Himself.

I immediately hearkened back to an interview Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams did with the far-left Atlantic in October 2021, where Williams had this provocative (but accurate) line about America’s contemporary fault lines: “Even during the Civil War—I think we’re more divided now than we were then. As Lincoln said, we all prayed to the same God. We all believed in the same Constitution. We just differed over the question of slavery.” This is the precise sentiment that Carlson was getting at in his keynote speech at the Heritage gala last Friday.

We in the audience did not know it yet, at the time of Carlson’s speech—nor did Carlson, for that matter—but the broadcasting star had already given his last searing monologue for Fox News. In a stunning development, Fox News broke the news to their highest-rated host on Monday morning that he was fired. Hopefully, Carlson will retain something approximating his exceptional level of cultural and political influence in whatever role he next serves, because his witness to truth and civilizational sanity has never been more necessary.

This is perhaps most clearly true when it comes to gender ideology and transgenderism, which is the issue most directly implicated by Carlson’s framing of America’s fundamental divide as a struggle between differing theological and anthropological conceptions of man. Is sexual dimorphism an obvious empirical reality, rooted in Genesis 1:27, and mandating legal codification for any regime that claims a basis in truth and justice? Or is gender instead “fluid,” wherein man can replace God and change his gender on a lark, and wherein it is contemptible bigotry to deny anyone’s subjective sense of biological or sexual reality?

Tucker Carlson certainly knew his answer: He opened a memorable 2021 interview of former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson by asking the then-sitting governor, who had shamefully vetoed a bill to protect vulnerable children from the predatory scalpels of the woke-besotted medical establishment, why he had “come out publicly as ‘pro-choice’ on the question of chemical castration of children.” Oof.

That is not a debate where the “best white paper wins.” It is a zero-sum contestation of clashing visions of the human person, rooted in diametrically opposed substantive underpinnings. And, more to the point, the forces of godlessness, paganism, and civilizational arson certainly already treat the debate over gender ideology as a vicious winner-take-all battle.

The recent mini-insurrection in Nashville, which followed the tragic shooting of a Christian school and the temporary expulsions of two insurrection-complicit state lawmakers, can best be understood as one elaborate attempt to distract the public from the real issue: That a transgender lunatic shot up a Christian school, and that law enforcement has thus far been unwilling to defy the transgender lobby’s not-so-thinly-veiled blackmail, opting instead to deep-six the deceased shooter’s presumptively anti-Christian manifesto.

More recently, a similar situation unfolded in the state House in Montana, where Republicans banned a transgender lawmaker from attending or speaking during floor sessions following that lawmaker’s comment, during the debate over an anti-chemical castration bill similar to the one Hutchinson vetoed in Arkansas, that the lawmaker hoped colleagues would see “blood on (their) hands” when they bowed their heads in prayer.

Numerous protesters were arrested and forcibly removed from the legislature earlier this week, as they agitated in favor of the uncouth transgender lawmaker.

Large swaths of the modern Left have made the fight for gender ideology and transgenderism their foremost hill to die on, precisely because they are so infatuated with their own vogue anthropology and “theology” that they view the other side—the side of sanity—as wholly undeserving of the civility and respect that a normal exchange over public policy might entail. I know this all too well, myself: My writing that invariably elicits the most protests when I speak on university campuses is a short piece I wrote a few years ago praising U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan’s admirable use of biologically correct pronouns in a judicial opinion. I’d write the same thing again today.

But those protesters, whether in Nashville, Helena, Stanford Law School, or another academic corridor, are not open to rational debate. They are not willing to be reasoned with. Rather, they know their conclusions, because they have fully imbibed a highly fashionable—if false—anthropological and “theological” conception of man. Those of us on the side of civilizational sanity need all the help we can get in pushing back against the onslaught.

Josh Hammer, American Greatness