Tuesday, September 8, 2009


Hey everyone!

Wouldn't you know it, the weekend I lay low, the video of me at Norm Dicks' town hall goes viral... hahahahaha.

Hot Air posted it first. As of last night it had over 40,000 views on You Tube!

It's funny because apparently there was a lot of confusion as to whether or not that was me, or if this was the blog that belongs to the girl in the video, and of course I was off on my relaxing weekend so I couldn't confirm any of it. Hilarious.

Anyway, it is me in the video. And I'm happy so many people understand what I was trying to do and say. It's exactly as Allahpundit at Hot Air said, I was basically asking Norm to act like a man and be the thief he really is by taking my money in front of everyone instead of via legislation concocted behind closed doors.

You should have seen his face!!! He was RED. He waved his arm and dismissed me, and then turned to the other side of the room. Also not shown in the video was the mass of people standing up waving their own bills in the air saying, "come and take my money too!" BRILLIANT!

Look folks, if we continue to only fight about the details of the legislation, we have already relented and compromised our most basic principles. We will have agreed on the basic premise and will only be ironing out the details. We've agreed on the house and now we're just arguing over the drapes. The problem is, we DO NOT agree on the basic premise of government bureaucrats assessing the "needs" of the American people and then deciding who gets the freebies and who gets to pay. Uh uh. No way. THIS is the argument we need to be having. It is the intellectually honest debate and it is fun to make the lefties crawl out from under the "reform" rock and admit that it is not "reform" they are after, but rather a public option and eventually a single payer system.

Oh, and I am thoroughly refreshed for the battles ahead. One more thing - a message to the D.C. rats, lest they forget:



  1. hello,
    I watched that youtube video several times,
    I showed it to my husband,
    it was great, intelligent, clever, and creative,and funny!!!
    such a proud laugh I had,
    I'm so proud of you,
    a new conservative star!!!
    I'm sure soon you will be the third most hated conservative woman by liberals,
    I wish I could do what you did for a week end. and just check myself out... no politics for 2 days,
    we really need our strength, this is not going to be easier at any point of this presidency,
    but it feels good that it is working so far,
    they get caught in coockie jar, and they have to stop what they are doing, see stalled health care " reform",van jones, and the parafernalia for the speech to teh kids in school...

    once again, you are great!!!!
    I love your blog too, ( the pics of liberty belle is very creative too !!! )will come to read it often,
    ( it was not easy to find you :)
    by a woman from the ex socialist block,
    God Bless You!

  2. I saw the vid this morning off of hot air. Great job!!

  3. Saw the video this weekend. Wonderful! Keep up the good work; we need a lot more like you out there.

  4. __t_i_m_o_t_h_y__m_u_r_r_a_y__September 8, 2009 at 12:42 PM

    Very inspiring. Thank you so much for your courage.

  5. You are totally right.
    Oh, and you also totally rock.

  6. You were amazing. Such a simple act and yet it demonstates what thieves these politicians are and yet they dont have the nerve to do it in the light of day.

    Keep up the pressure. I have a feeling 2010 is going to be a bloodbath for these leeches.


  7. You did a truly fantastic job of saying what needs to be said during the Town Hall meetings. It is a prime example of what we, the people, need to do to retain our freedoms. The founders are smiling right now.

    Washington, Jefferson, LB.

  8. Well done! The $20 bill was a brilliant idea.


  9. Kudos!
    Well planned and played!

  10. I'm so glad that SOMEONE has the courage and intelligence to reframe the argument! It's not about whether it's too expensive or all the small details like public option/individual mandate etc. It's about whether in a free society we are free to make any of the important decisions for our own lives and are free to keep the fruits of our own labor. It's about whether we are free adults or just mindless wards of the nanny-state.

  11. I commented on the video here. Given the fact that most Republicans support FDR's various programs and given all the other things, your Randroid dream will never come to pass. Even if somehow it were imposed on the U.S., it wouldn't last long and we'd probably end up with some sort of socialism not long after.

    And, asking things like this is just a cheap stunt; if you want to have an impact, ask actual questions like these.

  12. I'm with you, but hasn't the horse already left the barn, and a long time ago, first via Social Security, then Medicare and various other federal welfare programs? Once we acceded to the government's right to take our earnings and use them not for the general welfare but for the welfare of specific individuals, we have bno philosophical base left on which we can claim that any such government program is immoral, unconstitutional, or just wrong.

    Think I'm off base? Substitute "Social Security" for Obamacare in your argument and see gow far you get.

    Someone commenting on this video -- darned if I can find it at Ace, Hot Air, Pattetico, or my othe usual suspects -- says he's been doin essentially the same thing for years. When his liberal friends start talking about their rights to his earnings (though they never phrase it that way), he flips his wallet on the table nad tells them that if they hmean what they say, they should have no compunction about taking its contents. Strange; they never do.

  13. You did great. You were respectful but still devastating. I hope that video gets viewed a lot more.

  14. Congratulations,

    Keith Olberman is making you the "most horrible person in the world", the NY Times is going to investigate you to determine exactly just where you got that $20.00, and Linda Douglas is putting you on her "fishy" list.

    You're a marked woman.

  15. Thank you. I know how brave you have to be to stand up like you did but this issue has us all fired up. Keep up the good work. We'll have to start a Milwaukee Sons and Daughters of Liberty.

  16. Great Job, Intellectual firepower and a direct hit.

  17. Great Video, I was in a quandary as to what to post on my "Tea Party" sign for DC, so many issues - Thanks for the clarity - "Come and Take It" fits the bill nicely.

  18. Hi,

    I enjoyed the video. You should get some T-shirts printed with your slogan on the back.

  19. I agree totally with your last part. We conservatives have to beat this completely back. If we allow the left to get a legal foothold with this (by passing something that will eventually lead to single payer) then they will win in the long term, whatever "victory" we can claim in the short run. Unfortunately, there are many on the right who do not understand this (particularly the politicians) and think that by simply limiting it to public option is a win. Not so. Once they get a beachhead with health care, it'll be almost impossible to stop.

  20. Strong work, young lady.

    Amazing how testy people get when you call something by its name.

    As a physician and a provider of the services some deem a "right", I agree with you completely. People who believe healthcare is a right are welcome to spend the same number of years that I did to complete my education and training, and then dispense their hard-won knowledge and time to people who feel entitled to it. I won't.

  21. You kick ass.

    You might also add the concept of WFB's --it's not just taking the money from A to give it to B, but in Buckley's words, the money goes to Washington and "spends a night on the town."

    So Dick takes your twenty, gets a martini with it, and person B gets twelve bucks.

    It's not just the transfer of wealth, but the inefficient and kleptocratic transfer that adds insult to injury.

  22. I'm not sure scientifically how it's possible, but I want to have your babies.

  23. You rock!

    I certainly hope that there are enough inspired voters like you in his district to retire him come 2010.


  24. Surely you knew the congressman would not deign to take the twenty. Of course you did. Well done.

  25. You're my hero :) I've been waiting for a female to get in on the dishing out of the whoop ass :)

  26. Brilliant. Fookin' brilliant! I only wish my Congresscritters were bright enough to realize when they'd been called out like that.

  27. That's the problem with vampires and leaches, they can't tolerate sunlight.
    Absolutely brilliant move, but the next time, instead of the twenty, I'd suggest a stake and holy water. (The only real way to stop them...)

  28. Bless you! You made my mom so happy, and your words ring so true to all of us here in Oregon. Keep up your struggle, we are here with you!

  29. @LonewackoDotCom Real fiscal conservatives consider FDR one of the most damaging presidents of all time. Keli is right on target with her message.

  30. when you're an old dumb with breast cancer don't come to me and beg for my money!

  31. No one loathes the government more than I do, but arguing against a heath care option for everyone... really? I mean, that's what conservatives are finally so fed up with?

    After years of cheerleading for George Bush while he was implementing massively irresponsible tax cuts and spending, NOW you're upset? When we have a president trying to do something that benefits everyone and not just the elite, NOW you're upset?

    Wow. Sorry, but my lungs are already tired from a decade of screaming. I think I'll save what breath I have left for something a little more unjust than a public insurance option.

  32. I know I'm late to the party, but I just discovered a link to this post from one of my favorite blogs today. That was you! Awesome!

  33. LonewackoDotCom: setting aside the lameness of throwing around the barely-clever-the-first-time epithet "Randroid" in your rhetoric, let me point out that supporters of the ideas you're trying to critique are not trying to "impose" anything on anyone. QUITE the opposite, in fact.

    Secondly, in response to Cassie Wallender and others who describe laissez-faire economic policies as "conservative": I know your ideology is in the right place, but I think it's time we reclaimed the word liberal for our side of the argument.

    Capitalism, properly speaking, is the most liberal economic philosophy ever devised. On the flip side, there's nothing more conservative, properly speaking, than the notion that individuals are not allowed the exclusive possession and use of what they produce and that they owe some portion of it to their tribe/feudal lord/government.

  34. Ah yes, the old libertarian fantasy...Look, if you want to live in a country with no government, why not move to Haiti or Somalia? Meanwhile, countries where people actually want to live have quite developed governments....some are even, gasp, socialist! Denmark, for example, was recently cited (by Forbes, that lefty rag) as the country with the happiest population. The rest of the Scandanavian and Benelux countries rounded out the top of that list. (The US was nowhere near the top.) What do these countries have in common? Huge taxes (ours are nothing in comparison), more egalitarianism, less income disparity, a comprehensive social safety net, a healthier population. Damn socialism! But seriously, Conan O'Brian just earned what, $33 million for getting fired from NBC. Should he REALLY not have to pay taxes on that money? Did he really "earn" it? I mean, did he work 3000 times harder than a 5th grade teacher making $30,000 a year?

  35. the third time - If you accept the moral argument for capitalism, which is that no one has the right to forcibly take any portion of what you produce away from you for any reason (other than punitive governmental action taken against you as a result of your having violated someone else's rights), then it becomes irrelevant whether or not there are some people out there who are happy to abdicate either full control over the wealth they produce or full responsibility for producing the wealth necessary to support themselves.

    Even if the name Ayn Rand makes you reflexively wince and/or sneer, you should know that, as an advocate of capitalism, she was anything but an anarchist. If you want to read a quick outline of the argument in favor of voluntary government financing (not only why we should have it, but how it might be implemented), you should check out her article entitled "Government Financing in a Fully Free Society" from her collection of essays entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness".

    Lastly - as far as Conan goes, if someone gave him $33 million, whether happily or out of legal obligation, then he's entitled (morally, if not legally) to dispense with every dime of it as he sees fit as long as whoever gave it to him acquired it by moral (if not legal) means themselves. Ditto the 5th grade teacher. If your next question is how we could possibly operate a government without bleeding income from either of these people, check out the article I mentioned above. It might not be the final solution, but it doesn't claim to be.

  36. Geoff,

    First of all, there's nothing moral about capitalism: it's a perfectly a-moral system, which is what makes it so ruthlessly effective. I know, Adam Smith, invisible hand, blah blah blah...look--no serious economist believes in that anymore. Totally unfettered capitalism leads to massive income inequality, monopoly, giant bubbles and even bigger recessions when they burst. People think Marx hated capitalism--he didn't! He just saw that, unchecked, it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    Second, Repigs like to label us libtards as fiscally soft in the head, but do you REALLY think people are going to pay taxes if they don't have to? Really? Similiarly, do you really think we'd have the minimum wage, weekends, OSHA, or job benefits of any kind if people--usually in the form of, gasp, unions!--hadn't fought tooth and nail for these things?

    Then there's the military which, last time I checked, was also taxpayer funded (and part of that darned guvermint!) The estimated Pentagon budget for this 2010 is $663.8 BILLION. We spend more money on our military than every other nation on Earth, COMBINED. We currently have a military presence in 135 countries. We are an empire, my friend, and this empire isn't going to pay for itself. Something tells me the powers that be in the Pentagon, Republican or Democratic, as well as their various corporate croneys (Blackwater, KBR, etc.) certainly wouldn't stand for a system of "voluntary" government funding.

    And yet the Teabaggers are a patriotic bunch, big supporters of the military, etc. Let's be honest, shall we? At the heart of the tea party hatred of taxes is that old chestnut, so brilliantly employed by Reagan, of the black (or brown), inner-city welfare mother with 10 kids (each from different fathers, 'natch), spending her welfare check on steak and single malt scotch. THAT'S who all the Angry White Men resent footing the bill for, isn't it? That's the ugly fantasy at the heart of this 'movement.'

  37. You might want to chill with the ad hominem, ttt. It doesn't do your argument any favors. Although, to tell you the truth, what you just posted read more like a rant.

    It's obvious that you're going to internally charicature anything I say as the ravings of a Confederate flag waving, black church burning hillbilly, and I'm not going to bend over backwards trying to prove you wrong (which you are, incedentally).

    All I can tell you is, if you're curious about the reasoning behind the arguments I made above, you might start by reading some Ayn Rand. And no, you don't have to wade through Atlas Shrugged, which even I imagine would be a bit of a chore.

    I commend you for being familiar with what Marx actually had to say (unlike all of those hipsters running around with Che Guevara merchandise), and I think that the advocacy of my side of the argument would benefit from more people who fit your stereotype of free marketeers familiarizing themselves with Marxism rather than thoughtlessly demonizing him.

    On the flip side, I think the same has been done to Rand and other touchstone capitalist intellectuals by people on the left. I won't insult you by assuming that you haven't read any of this stuff, but if you haven't, you might give it a try. Rand's philisophical books are mostly collections of articles that can be read in bite-sized chunks and out of order. Not a bad place to start for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with both sides of the argument.

  38. Sorry to come off like a ranter, Geoff, but I fail to see how my last post was ad hominem in any way. I never meant to suggest that YOU, personally, were a racist, only that racist fantasies are at the heart of much of the Tea Party movement. You can see this at work in the contradictory TP depictions of Obama, who is simultaneously portrayed as a thug, a Chicago street hustler, AS WELL AS an arugula-munching elitist smarty-pants uppity negro (similarly, the Nazis caricatured Jews as both low-life vermin AND wealthy elitists). Now, I know what you're going to say: this is a philosophy--we're against Big Government. Sure, but people don't take to the streets because of abstract, intellectual stuff like philosophy. They do it because they feel like they're being screwed over, and they're angry and scared. And this is where I'm sympathetic to the underlying causes of the TP phenomenon, the roots of which, I think we would all agree, stem from anxieties about the decline of the working class here in America, compounded by the recession and the election of that crazy negro socialist. America lost another 3 million manufacturing jobs over the last couple years, while China gained 10 million. Those jobs are what built this country, and they're not coming back. Now, you can blame this slow decline on welfare mothers, on Obama, or on the insidious spread of socialism (although again, this implies that we Americans are reading), but what's really responsible is a little thing called Globalization. Capitalism giveth, and capitalism taketh away. At some point in the future the Chinese worker will organize and demand a better salary, standards of living, etc., and the cheap jobs will move on. And so it goes.

    Yes, I'm familiar with Rand. Loved The Fountainhead--when I was 17. Not sure how it would stand up now. But I will take your suggestion and take another look. While we're on the topic of Rand, though, here's one thing I don't get: how does the patriotic, God-fearin' Teabagger reconcile Rand's radical atheism, Nietzsche-inspired rejection of altruism, and belief in an almost pure egoism and reason with the teachings of Jesus Christ? If you asked an assembly of Tea Party folks I'm sure most would tell you they want prayer in the schools, the Ten Commandments posted in every class, a return to 'traditional values' etc. Isn't this a pretty serious internal contradiction?

  39. "Teabaggers" = ad hominem. Not that I'm deeply offended. It didn't escape my imagination when this whole thing started that the Tea Partiers were setting themselves up for that. But it's a little too obvious an insult to be funny more than once.

    I should probably confess at this point that I'm not altogether familiar with any agenda the TP's may have outside of protesting Obama's spending bonanza (some of which, I'll acknowledge, had its roots in the Bush administration). I would guess from their embrace of Sarah Palin that they do share the unfortunate tendency you describe, i.e. Christian Right conservatism.

    But I think it's unfair to characterize them as racist. I feel pretty confident that if John Edwards (white, Southern-accented, self-proclaimed farm boy) had been elected and were enacting the same policies, then the TP demo would be equally up in arms.

    What drew me to this blog was the taxation issue. Believe it or not, I consider myself a radical liberal. As did, in a sense, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. I and they just adhere to the classical sense of the word, which denotes a belief in free enterprise as well as freedom of speech, conscience, etc. A lot of what I believe lines up with the Libertarian platform as I understand it.

    As far as Rand goes, I'd skip the fiction. The only thing I've read in that category was one of her shorter novels, which wasn't exactly a page-turner. What I would direct your attention to are the more concise collections of philosophical essays - "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Philosophy: Who Needs It" being good examples.

    And you're right - the bulk of the opposition to government entitlements does seem to stem from the Christian Right, for whom I share your contempt. They probably wouldn't like Rand, and I know she didn't care much for them. The one point I would dispute in your characterization of her is that she was inspired by Nietzsche. Their conceptions of egoism were very different, and she repudiates him specifically in her writings.

  40. I commend your consistency, Geoff, and I share your contempt for the Christian Right. But I have to question your point about TPers and racism. The "othering" of Obama has played a key role in galvanizing the Tea Party (for crying out loud, the guy's middle name is Hussein! And his dad was a Kenyan muslim! I can understand why some white working class guy in Indiana thinks the world is going to hell), and is obviously at the heart of the 'birther' movement. I also really find it hard to believe that John Edwards, in the same place, would generate the same crowds of outraged white people. As you point out, Pres. Cheney started the bailouts and engineered massive spending, and I don't recall people talking about "wanting their country back." And we've all seen the posters, the depictions of Obama as a pimp, a gangster, a monkey, etc., the famous "half-breed musliN" comment; I also recall seeing McCain having to calm down his own supporters at a rally ("No, he's a decent family man!), whipped up by racist whackjobs on the blogosphere and in the right-wing media. We're not talking about a few bad apples here. THAT SAID, I agree that racism is NOT the prime motivation in the TP movement. Really, isn't the root of this all about the continuing decline of the working and lower middle classes in America? Case in point: my uncle has a McMansion in the burbs, a Harley and Porsche, and is retired on full pension at 57. This is a guy with a high school degree who worked hard and put in a lot of overtime at his foreman job at GM. Needless to say, those days are gone, and his similarly-educated kids are scraping and barely making it. Another case: my aunt, God bless her, lives in a trailer in Idaho, where, due to work-related injuries, she sits around watching Fox News all day. The other day she tells me she hopes the 'socialist' Obama healthcare doesn't pass. This is a woman who survives solely on the $600 a month she gets from social security. Her meds are fully covered by Medicare. She also has concerns about Obama's birth certificate. Of course, the Republican Party--the party of Rich Old White Guys--is standing right there, quite happy to marshall all this malaise and confusion to pursue its own ends, ie, lower taxes on the wealthy and corporate welfare. The Tea Party movement is doomed to be appropriated--we've already seen the ominous cracks appear at the latest "convention," pitting rich astroturfer dilettantes vs actual grassroot members.

  41. At this point I should probably concede that you seem to know a lot more about the wider demographics of the TP movement than I do. I ended up on this blog after I heard an NPR story about Liberty Belle that didn't delve much into the uglier side of some of the movement's supporters.

    I like her view on taxation as well as the title of the blog and the principle it implies. At this point, though, I'm not sure there's much more I can say regarding the TP movement (which seems to have been the genesis of this blog) without revealing my ignorance of the wider scope of their agenda, not to mention veering off into my own wider political beliefs, which wouldn't be relevant to the discussion.

    I think you're right on target when you bring up the confusion of the public at large. There seems to be more than plenty to go around, across all points of the political spectrum, and may Reason (had to get in a little A.R. love, per usual) help us get out of this mess.

  42. Dear Liberty Belle,

    Great idea!! While we are at it, why don't we get rid of the darn socialist fire and police departments as well. Oh and roads and schools, who needs those?! I think you're absolutely right, people should pave their own damn roads and teach their own children history, math, and chemistry according to their own C+ understanding of it.

    I'm with you 500%.

  43. Your stunt with the $20, which you seem to think is so clever, is really just a bit of cheap, Glen Beck-style theatrics. What are you saying? Taxes being used for a common good is the equivalent to theft. Um, yeah, okaaaay.
    I can tell by the way you smirk as the crowd cheers you on you really get off on the attention. And you really seem jazzed by your YouTube "fame." You are aware that YouTube videos featuring people getting hit in the crotch score hits in the millions, right?
    And really, how much have you ever paid in taxes, anyway? Or is the idea of the "man" stealing your hard earned money a purely theoretical thing?
    Sorry, but the rest of the civilized world does regard health care as a right. You don't get it, because you have led an extremely sheltered existence and you obviously have never needed someone else's help.
    Socialism isn't the big bad boogieman you think it is. Ignorance and fear are what you really need to worry about. And all you're doing is adding to that particular problem.

  44. Posturing tripe. You idiots will kill the GOP with your meaningless self-aggrandizement and celebrity mongering.

  45. Anonymous 2/28 #2 - I will try to avoid your tactic of spewing ad hominem bile, but I will go far enough to say that if YOU were intelligent, you'd be able to recognize our hostess's intelligence.

    Anonymous 2/28 #1 - Kudos for avoiding your fellow nameless commentator's name-calling. At least you have some semblance of an argument commingled with your snark.

    In addressing that argument, I would suggest that "robbery" is a better word for the governmental practice of confiscating the wealth/property of one person in order to redistribute it to another person. "Theft" is an act of stealing without the victim's awareness and isn't discovered until after the fact, whereas people who pay income taxes are usually aware of it and would certainly be aware of the (presumably armed) government agents sent to arrest them if they didn't pay the full amount demanded by the IRS.

    It is probably the case that, for the time being, some form of involuntary taxation is required in order to fund the current spending habits of our government. There are valid theories of how government could be voluntarily funded (see the article by Ayn Rand I cited above entitled "Government Financing in a Free Society"), but it wouldn't be plausible unless the government was stripped to its proper functions.

    I'll ignore your armchair psychological evaluations of LB as well as your unsubtantiated assumption that she's never worked hard in order to support herself, except to point out that it doesn't matter how much she's paid in taxes if one accepts the notion that she's paid more than was justifiable. Unless you're suggesting that the acceptability of stealing is somehow inversely proportional to the wealth of the victim, which would certainly be a unique stance.

    In regard to your claim that the rest of the "civilized" world accepts the idea that healthcare is a right, I would suggest that a good definition of civilization (or the best method of achieving it) is the protection of individual rights. That would include the right to the exclusive possession and use of one's wealth (including property), assuming that it was acquired without violating any other person's individual rights.

    The United States is certainly guilty of obstructing the advance of civilization, particularly insofar as it prosecutes victimless "crimes", often more stridently than other democratic republics. However, insofar as other semi-civilized states are guilty of the forcible redistribution of wealth, they are doing the same thing.

    I'd like to point out here that I do believe that minors should be entitled by law to the basic necessities, including food, shelter, clothing, education and health care, to name the most obvious. However, I don't believe that anyone should be granted the full rights of a citizen as long as they require government assistance to support them. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

  46. It all comes down to GREED. You want every penny of what someone told you are entitled to for your labor. Well personally, I think it's a fine thing that there are systems in place to help you SHARE.

  47. Anonymous 3/19,

    If two people enter into a voluntary agreement to make an exchange - in this case labor for money - by what logic do you imagine that you or anyone else has a right to a cut of that transaction?

    The definition of "entitlement" is etymologically simple - it means to hold title to something. In the case of employment, the employee is entitled to whatever form and amount of compensation they agree on with their employer.

    If some entity forcibly confiscates a portion of that compensation, then whatever portion of the employee's labor was exchanged for that portion was performed involuntarily, in that there was no voluntary exchange between the two parties. This is called involuntary servitude. I believe there's an amendment to the Constitution dealing with that.

    So yes, I am entitled to every penny that my employer agrees to pay me in exchange for my labor. If you feel that you or anyone else is entitled to some of those pennies, then it seems to me that the burden of justifying that falls on you.

    Sharing is a voluntary act by definition. No one can "help" you share. The systems you refer to are in place in order to force people to surrender whatever they (the systems) seek to redistribute.

    Before you conclude that I or anyone else who advocates laissez-faire capitalism is some kind of cold-hearted monster, let me point out that some of the most generous people I know are fiscal conservatives (who should properly be called fiscal liberals, but that's a whole 'nother discussion). I'm not suggesting that they have a greater tendency towards generosity. My point is that their and my reasoning in favor of limited government is based on the belief that you are entitled to keep, or give away, as much as you are able to morally (if not legally) earn.

  48. I really appreciated hearing what you had to say on the news tonight. You are my new friend. Why is it that people assume that conservatives are pushy and mean. Everyone who knows me says that I am very sweet. I can let my opinion be known without being mean. Keep up the good work and please let all of us know when the next "tea party" will be. It's time that we let our voices be heard.

  49. Mr Hicks,

    To answer your first question, I think that the governing body is entitled to a portion of that income for facilitating your ability to enter into such a transaction. The said body does so by providing the community with the necessary infrastructure such as roads, water, sewage treatment, etc. as well as services like those offered by the police and fire departments. These services allow for the economic and industrial development that has led to the socio-economic landscape we see today.

    To address your definition of "sharing", I do believe that you are wrong.
    From dictionary.com:
    Share –verb (used with object)
    3. to divide and distribute in shares; apportion.
    4. to use, participate in, enjoy, receive, etc., jointly

    Our parents had to teach us to share with our brothers and sisters. I guess some people did not learn.

  50. Mr./Mrs./Miss/Dr. Anonymous,

    I know I've been harping on this point for a long time on this page, to the point where I've almost made this a blog within a blog. But as long as whoever approves these posts continutes to approve mine (or until I get permanently distracted), I'll keep fighting the good fight.

    The point I've been harping on is that there are legitimate arguments in favor of the eventual establishment of voluntary government financing, if and when we are able to whittle it down to its legitimate functions (the most important being law enforcement and dispute resolution, which you rightly suggest is necessary for a civil society to function).

    The notion you're espousing here - that everyone needs to be forced to pay whatever portion of their income the government dictates in order for it to function - is so deeply ingrained in most people's minds that the idea of a voluntary financing seems so absurd that it doesn't even warrant consideration.

    If you're willing to consider it, I would recommend a short article I've referred to before entitled "Government Financing in a Free Society" by Ayn Rand. I'm going to go a short way out on a wide limb and assume that, if you've heard of her, she's probably not your favorite thinker. But I would suggest that the article I'm referring to is at least worth reading and thinking about.

    As for the other services you're talking about, I think it's debatable whether or not the government should be the entity providing them. But that would be a very long debate, and I'm not convinced enough either way to throw myself behind one or the other position.

    I'm not arguing with the dictionary definition of sharing, just with the idea that it should be forced on people against their will. There are lots of things that parents should teach their children, but do you really believe that the government should take over that role once a child reaches adulthood?

    I hate to even address your catty innuendo regarding my (or anyone else's who happens to share my beliefs on this) social conditioning. I'm actually pretty good at sharing. I also brush my teeth every day and say "please" and "thank you" when appropriate, all thanks to my mom's diligence in raising me. I'll extend you the courtesy that you're denying me and assume that you do all of these things, too.

    However, I don't think I (being currently taxed along with everyone else in order to fund the enforcement of our laws) have any right or responsibility to make sure that you or anyone else does. I don't care how beatiful and clean Singapore might be - I live here instead of there for a reason.


I believe in free speech, including offensive speech, and especially political speech. Comments that are left on my blog do not necessarily represent my views nor do I necessarily endorse them. I am not responsible for other people's views or comments. That is how the 1st Amendment works.