From the time we are little, we are taught that we are free. We're taught that America stands for freedom, liberty, etc.... As one grows older, one should question whether they truly are free. Don't get me wrong, America is among the most free countries in the world. I'm not questioning whether we have more liberty then North Korea, Iraq, Iran, or for that matter, even most of Western Europe and Canada. Of course we do, but does that mean we're free or just comparitively free? Lets look at the income tax.

The average American loses between 30 and 40 percent of the money they make to taxes. This does not include the taxes that are placed on the companies that own the products that we buy, which are ultimately included in the costs of the product. This is simply what we lose off the top, before we attempted to live our lives. Would this qualify as freedom? When one is not allowed to keep 1/3 of what they exchanged their labor for, is that freedom? The colonists rebelled against an effective tax rate of 4%. That is not a typo. The colonists rebelled because they were upset that the taxes England imposed on them came to an effective rate of 4%. Yes, 4%!!!!!!

Are you a taxpayer? Do you have debt? If you're feeling bored (or need a cure for insomnia) add up the amount of taxes you have paid in the last 5 years. I'm not talking about whether you got a refund or not. All April 15th does is balance out whether you over or underpaid the IRS. I mean, add up the total amount of tax you actually had withheld from your paycheck (you can even add back your refund). You can find this on your W-2 that you're given at the end of the year. Now, for the fun part, compare this to the amount of debt you have. How much debt would you have if you were allowed to keep all wages you earned? How much more would you be able to afford? How much less would you or your household actually have to work? Is your government worth it?

In a free society a person that goes about their daily life, and exchanges their work for compensation, and then keeps the entire compansation, is not a criminal. They are a free person excercising their natural right to exchange with other individuals. In order for an individual to no longer be free, they must be forced by direct threat or through physical coercion to change how they go about their daily life. Taking all of this into account, if a person in the US exchanges their labor for $100, are they free to keep it, or must they go out of their way to report it to the government, then give them 1/3 of it? Is this freedom?

 

Recently, Ron Paul created a stir when he suggested we understand the motives behind the terrorist attacks of 2001. The reason, he asserts, that we were attacked, was because we had been meddling in their affairs. Those in favor of meddling in Mideast affairs state that they hate us because of our freedoms, and that this is the only way to keep from a massive attack on the US in the future. They claim that a policy of nonintervention leads to despots, warlords, and tyrants attempting to take over the world. Let's examine.....

In 1953, we toppled the Iranian government and installed a western friendly shah, and everyone lived happily ever after......well, not really. Twenty-six years later, we had a hostage crisis, the government of Iran was overthrown, and has been run by one tyrant after another ever since.

In the late 60s, we decided to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnam. Our government instructed the South Vietnamese on how they were allowed to fight, which led to their defeat. Our actions also destabilized the region enough for Pol Pot to take over Cambodia, and kill 1.5 million of his own people.

When the above mentioned Iranian government came about, a war broke out between Iran and Iraq. In our inifinite wisdom, our policymakers decided to meddle again, and help out Saddam Hussein. The aid we gave him made it possible for him to invade kuwait. So we had to come in and stop Saddam, the same person we empowered.

During most of the 1980s, we aided Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in a war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. We later invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power. To this day we are still fighting Osama bin Laden.

So being interventionist has had its down sides. What about WW2? Surely there is justification for intervening if just stop future Hitlers. Yet, when WW1 ended, was Western Europe more concerned with moving on, or punishing Germany? Could their actions following WW1, demanding that Germany pay them more then was reasonably available in any country back then, possibly be considered non-interventionist? The resutling hyperinflation and economic collapse goes a long way towards understanding how a frustrated populace could turn to a charismatic tyrant promising German greatness once again.

So that leaves the idea of them hating us because of our culture......or because we're wealthy.....or because we're free.

To prove they hate our freedoms and our wealth, one need look no further then the massive terrorist attacks that took place in Costa Rica, Switzerland and Luxembourgh......which never happened. By any objective standard, the named countries are more free and wealthier then a majority of the coalition in the middle east right now. Yet the terrorists look towards the coalition when they want targets.

So how about some non-intervention?

I'll be voting for Ron Paul.

Insanity: Repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

In 1968, we elected Nixon. We wanted out of Vietnam. We were disgusted by Johnson's Great Society porgrams. During Nixon's entire presidency, we stayed in Vietnam, and the Greater Society was never rescinded. Discretionary spending increased faster then the rate of inflation plus population growth.

In 1980, we elected Ronald Reagan because he gave us hope. During his presidency, spending sky-rocketed. Discretionary, non-military, non-defense spending increased at a rate far faster then the rate of inflation plus population growth. As for his tax "cuts," while the rates applied went down, write-offs were rewritten in such a way that the effective average federal tax rate for America actually increased from 27.5% to 31%.  We were sent on multiple military missions to countries that posed no threat to us.

In 1992, we elected Bill Clinton. The income tax rate was increased. We were told that we were experiencing prosperity. During this period of "amazing prosperity," average personal debt increased approximately 6 times, and the annual number of bankruptcy filings increased 15 times. We were sent on multiple military missions (i.e. Kosovo)  to areas that posed no threat to us. 

In 2000, we elected George Bush. Non-military, non-defense, discretionary spending has increased at a rate that far outpaces inflation plus population growth. Our prescription drugs were socialized. We are about to grant amnesty to 12 million illegals.  

During the time period covered, the following has occurred that both parties at different times had a chance to correct:

- Kelo vs. New london - For all the talk about how "outraged" every politician in Washington is, they have yet to pass any law clarifying the intent of the 5th amendment.

- Earmarks have increased literally thousands of times over. 

- McCain-Feingold effectively shut out what little voice those that were not politically connected had. This should have been called the incumbent reelection act. Challengers to incumbents most often rely on "soft" money, and must spend more for name recognition.

- A military presence has been kept in over 100 countries.

- Our total national debt has increased every year.

- Millions have been jailed for commiting "victimless crimes"

- During each election, the majority of money given to a candidate comes from billionaires and multi-millionaires.

For all our talk about needing changes, we're on pace to have a presidential showdown between Rudy McRomney(son) and Hillary Edbama. Do you honestly believe things will be different with either of them?

I'll be voting Ron Paul.