taxes

Free College? No Such Thing

Posted on Updated on

obama grad

President Obama and the Democratic Party are counting on the, “Stupidity of the American voter,” as the head architect of Obama-care recently put it. The President has just announced his plan to create a federally/state-funded program in which he said, “Two years of college will become as free and universal as high school is today”. He’s promising two free years of community college for anyone who can maintain a C+ average, and follow a couple other simple guidelines. Honestly, though, I can’t imagine his plan is to pull a bunch of 40 year olds back into school, which means this plan is nothing more than Obama’s latest attempt to buy votes from the American youth for the Democratic Party.

Many Obama supporters have been pretty turned off over the last few years by Obama’s performance and his apparent gravity toward scandalous policy failures. This is evidenced by the nearly absolute lack of young-voter-turnout during the last election when Republicans maintained their majority in the House and won the majority in the Senate by a landslide.

In November, Obama’s head architect on Obama-care stated (in regards to the Obama administration having lied in order to get Obama-care passed), “if you had a law which said … healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass.” Regardless of this horrible truth, according to Gallup, the day after Obama announced free-college for everybody his approval rating spiked to his highest level since August of 2013. Can you say “Purchasing votes for the Democratic Party”?

If Obama were going to personally foot the bill for everyone in America to go to college for two years I’d be on board. Or, if he were starting a charity into which folks could voluntarily dump their money as a means to his stated ends I’d be completely indifferent; people can do what they want with their own money.

Unfortunately, though, Obama is not saying either of these things. What he’s saying is that you and I, and our parents, and our children will be FORCED to pay for everyone to go to college.

We are already paying for the baby-boomers’ retirement, walls across borders, really big telescopes, one-way vehicles to comets and other planets, other people’s doctor visits, other people’s children’s schooling, and thousands of other things that we ought not to be paying for. And, now Obama is proposing legislation dictating that Americans MUST pay for young adults to be put through “higher” education.

This initiative raises some really serious concerns. After all, President Obama isn’t actually talking about “free” college. There couldn’t be an exchange of money for that to be true. He means it will be free to the consumer. In reality, Obama is advocating a hijacking of middle class Americans’ freedom as they will be FORCED to pay $60 Billion dollars for the program over the next decade, according to Politico.com.

And wouldn’t corralling youths into welfare-schools inflate demand and cause a reduction in the supply? And wouldn’t that result in skyrocketing costs? This means that tax-robbed people will end up paying even MORE money for OTHER PEOPLE to obtain a LESSER education!

That’s bad enough without mentioning the opportunity-cost people will suffer who won’t actually benefit from this “furthered” education while they could have been gaining workplace experience and increasing their wages through time in their industry. According to Forbes, “one-third to one-half of recent college graduates [are] taking jobs that usually go to high school graduates –they are “underemployed,” many of them still living with their parents and dependent on parental financial support.”

Forbes later goes on to say, “…[of] every ten students that enter community college, only three graduate within three years.” So why would we want to push even more people into institutions that are already producing such grossly incompetent results? And, won’t this tremendous influx in college-goers completely devalue the college degree for all the people who would otherwise actually benefit from obtaining one?

Also, Bloomberg estimates that every American is already (mostly unwittingly) saddled with $58,000+ in debt to the government’s creditors. Thus, I’d say that stacking this unfunded liability on the shoulders of the working class is a pretty terrible idea.

Further, people can’t afford to pay for other people’s educations (in the same way that they can’t afford to pay for other people’s healthcare). Bloomberg also points out that the average American household currently holds over $15,000 in credit card debt alone. People already come out of government schools financially illiterate, lacking critical thinking skills, and worshiping government. Most people can’t even begin to fathom that voluntary solutions to societal issues might exist without including the State’s force. A government takeover of community college-funding is the first few inches on the slippery slope to government stipulations, regulations, and government-approved curriculum.

The last thing Americans need is for young adults to be manipulated into staying in government-institutions becoming further indoctrinated, and causing true adulthood to be pushed off until years later than it already is.

I think it would have been far more impressive if Obama had decided to improve the government-controlled education system which currently exists; the one that lands American children 26th in Reading, 28th in Science, and 37th in Math compared to the rest of the world, according to Bloomberg. Government really ought to focus on doing less, and performing really, really well at what it already insists on doing.

Liabilities keep getting stacked one atop the next by the bureaucrats who all-too-willingly control our lives and enslave our children, and our children’s children, through national debt. These investments are not liabilities of the government; they’re our liabilities! We, the people, are the ones who’ll have to pay for these programs when America’s creditors come knocking.

It’s no surprise that so many are unable to see the light when it comes to government intrusion. After all, the government forced us to spend 15,000 hours “learning” what the government wanted us to know in government institutions. Our thinking skills are at the level the government wants them to be at.

Writes Nick Anderson of The Washington Post:
“The National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit organization, reported in December that there were about 6.1 million students enrolled in public two-year colleges, a drop of 3.5 percent compared to 2013. There had been similar drops in each of the previous two years. Obama officials hope their plan will turn that trend around.” This brings me to my last point.

The federal government has taken over the entire institution of student loans, to the tune of over $1 Trillion of student loan debt, which means that people are paying the Federal government interest on $1 Trillion. That’s quite a bit of income for the Feds. After seeing a decrease for three consecutive years in the number of people seeking “higher” education, the Federal government is planning to force its subjects to foot the bill for the first two years of everyone’s education in order to incentivize student loan applications in years to come. This program is an investment in the future alright – the future of the Federal government’s financial standing.

People are finally realizing that the “higher” in “higher education” doesn’t mean higher than otherwise attainable; it means higher institutional education than what people received at their poorly performing, government-run high schools. People are finally wising up and seeking out jobs in which to gain experience and knowledge. People are seeking the wisdom that living life (with the internet) gets them rather than traveling the traditional educational paths. That means people are losing interest in paying the Federal government for loans. And, since the internet has caused a tremendous decrease in the government’s leverage when using propaganda against its citizens, Obama MUST resort to legislatively criminalizing anyone who doesn’t pay for other people’s college.

This new proposal is simply the latest in a string of wealth-redistribution attempts. Government tells people they’ll get free stuff, and “the stupidity of the American voter” takes over. In reality, people who work hard to earn money for themselves, their families, and their retirement will see their wages garnished and given away to other people. This is textbook wealth-redistribution.

The Feds aren’t really interested in the wellbeing and livelihood of their constituents. They’re interested in getting their hands on our money, and our votes on their side of the ballot, so they can maintain power.

Who Took Your Taxes, Why and the Future

Posted on Updated on

20131009-122640.jpg

We all know that it’s not okay for children to hit each other.  But, does this apply in grown-up life.  Let’s examine…

Were you to have a pencil and I a dollar, and were you to want a dollar more than your pencil and I to want a pencil more than my dollar we could agree to trade.  I could walk away happier with a new pencil, and you could walk away happier with a dollar.  It isn’t okay for either of us to bang the other on the head and take their property.  For the sake of argument, let’s assume that we engage in peaceful negotiation and walk away having transacted the pencil-for-a-dollar exchange .
If, as you walk away with your dollar, a thug were to approach you, put a gun to your head and proclaim his authority to steal a portion of your dollar you would call it theft.  Even if this thug were to promise to give a portion of the stolen money to good causes (after paying himself, of course), it is theft.  I am talking about the government stealing your money and calling it “taxation”.
I’ve heard it argued that there exists a social contract by which members of society are bound to provide for one another.  But, alas, under close examination no such contract exists. In order for a contract to exist two parties must communicate an exchange of goods and/or services under no threat of force, and each party must agree to the terms of the contract.  As stated earlier, this is not the case under the government’s so-called “social contract”.  People do not agree to give their money to the government as a means to provide for the common good, because they are not given a choice.  They are told to give their money to the government in exchange for not being imprisoned or murdered.  Complying with a bully is not the same as agreeing to a contract.   The immoral root of taxation is arguably why people dislike paying taxes fundamentally, though they have been conditioned to think that they dislike paying taxes because they’re selfish by nature (original sin doctrine).
In fact, people have been conditioned to think many things which are not true.  For instance, paying taxes is not an accurate description of what people do.  If you were to hand over the requested portion of your dollar to the armed thug in the storyline I described earlier, you would not be paying him anything.  You would be complying with an armed robber.
If you were to resist the armed thug, let’s say he would then arrest you and take you to jail.  Of course, you would more accurately describe yourself as having been shackled, kidnapped, sexually violated and imprisoned.
Let’s say you were to resist kidnapping, and the robber were to use necessary force to subjugate you, or perhaps even be obligated to use deadly force against you.  You would probably be more precise in saying you’d been beaten or murdered.  I could give countless examples beyond this, but I think you’re starting to get the point.  The government justifies its immorality through soft language.  The people are being fffffooled.  Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying you won’t first be penalized with fines for not handing over significant portions of your earnings – you will.  I’m saying that the IRS will demand your money, then they’ll demand more of your money, and finally they’ll call up some costumed sociopaths to initiate force against you.
If someone feels  I’m being extreme in my descriptions I suggest that they stop paying their taxes; I think they’ll quickly come to terms with the precision of my imagery.
So what is “mine”?  What is “selfish”?  Indeed, they are one in the same.  Selfishness is one of the most basic instincts built into mammals to include human beings.  Very early on children show a strong sense of “mine”. Just imagine taking a toy or ice cream cone away from a toddler.  Indubitably, parents, teachers, coaches and the like expel this instinct from children on the grounds that it is “not nice” and indoctrinate them with a sense of sharing-as-duty or even virtue.  But, this notion of what belongs to us is so essential and inherent within us that it really ought to be given some consideration before writing it off as a corrupt or non-virtuous trait.
The  “mine” concept is innate rather than learned in order to provide us the desire to obtain necessities and to trigger our protective instincts when our property is threatened.  Selfishness is beyond virtue; it is a rudimentary mental tool necessary for survival.  Conceptually, this is akin to self-ownership, responsibility for one’s self, etc.  It is instinct that drives us away from complacency and toward productivity in our own interest.  This is a superb mental feature.
This doesn’t mean that sharing superfluous resources is unreasonable; in fact, sharing can be a wonderful act of cooperation, or charity and should be celebrated!  But it must be understood that individuals hold the power to decide how much of their resources are superfluous, and when and where to distribute them – if they feel the desire to distribute them at all.
To force a person to give up the fruits of their productivity is immoral.  After all, if a person’s possessions are acquired as a result of their own productivity and private-trade, then to force that person to hand over their possessions is to force them to work.  This, which was once called slavery is now called a “social contract”.
Some people argue that were there no government to steal our money there would be no civil rights, no roads, no fire services, police forces, or all the things that government provides.  This is a tremendous breach of logic and a stupefying attempt to justify the initiation of force.  It must be understood that the government doesn’t produce anything therefore it has nothing to give to its subjects; rather, governments steal money from productive tax-livestock (you and me) and redistributes it to its agencies who then trickle the stolen money through the systems paying every bureaucrat on the way down until finally providing a service to a special interest group in order to bolster support for politicians.

Not only does the government not provide anything, it hinders social progress.  To better examine this let’s pose some of the aforementioned statements in questions.

1)     If there were no government who’d allow women to have equality?

I must first point out that women’s lack of equality in the world until less than 100 years ago was a direct result of governments.  Governments dictate who is allowed to do what.  Until the 1920’s governments dictated that women were lesser than their male counterparts.  This changed due to a shift in societal attitudes.  Had the government not existed to hold women back, society could have been able to move forward in their acceptance of women as equals far sooner.  It was the state whose law was enforced on society through the threat of violence that is responsible.
This applies, of course, to all civil rights.  While slavery was eventually abolished by a stroke of the proverbial government quill, it was also legally instituted with a previous stroke of that same utensil.
In fact, segregation was also enforced by law.  When considering that the success of private business is directly proportional to the amount of customers partaking in their services, it stands to reason that excluding a large generic group of potential patrons from commerce would not be a viable option for business-owners for long.  Segregation was legislated and enforced on the private market under the threat of violence; had it been a matter of private choice, it could have been considered unfeasible and been done away with through public ostracism much more quickly than we eventually saw through political discourse.

2)     Who will build the roads?!

This is possibly the most preposterous question to ask, but so many people do ask.  Well, first of all, I suppose private companies will build the roads without the government.  There are certainly plenty of pavers and graders out there in the private market to build roads. And private companies will be in the business of owning roads.  They’ll charge tolls for using their roads, and people will pay gladly.
At first, it must sound outrageous to suggest that people would have to pay a toll every time they use a road; I understand, but that is simply because people cannot afford to pay twice.   It’s really difficult to understand this concept of constantly paying private-road tolls without considering what it would be like to keep your money in a world without governmental theft (taxation)!
Today, nearly half of an average worker’s wages are sucked up into the ever-present vacuum of government institutions in order to pay for things that probably would not be funded were the government not to hold its subjects at gunpoint.  You see, if you weren’t being robbed to pay for walls around the country’s borders, or to pay for others’ medical treatments, or to pay for other people’s children to go to school, you probably wouldn’t.  And this is fine.  This is good, even!  You shouldn’t pay for someone else’s responsibilities.  You have your own responsibilities as a result of your plight in life and your decisions.  Take care of your self. 
If you kept what you earned, you’d be able to pay tolls on private roads.  You’d be able to pay a privately operated fire department to protect you from fire stuff.  Or perhaps you’d pay an insurance company who could pay a privately owned fire department.  You could pay for private security in your neighborhood.  You could pay for whatever services you wanted, and you could NOT pay for services that you don’t think are necessary for your well-being.  It could be your choice.  You could work to produce for your self, and you could keep what you earn, in a truly free society.

3)     If you don’t like it you can leave!!

This is usually one of the last attempts to argue the statist viewpoint.  Statists point to the notion that if you don’t like living under a constant threat of being robbed and forced to pay for others’ responsibilities “Well, then you can just move to an ISLAND!!!”
This is, without ambiguity, a complete breakdown of cognitive ability.  Going back to our situation with the armed robber, if the robber repeatedly steals your money at gun-point and says to you, “If you don’t like the way I run my block, well, then you can just throw away all that you’ve worked for thus far and move to a new block!” that really isn’t a reasonable suggestion.  It’s difficult not to laugh at the absurdity of this statement.  Just imagine Paul Revere riding the opposite direction from town and shouting, “Oh no, guys!  They won’t let us freely trade, so we have to pack up and move to the woods and fend for oursellllvvvves!”  This statement is as astonishingly dimwitted as it is emotionally vomited out of desperation.

Here’s the kicker.  It doesn’t matter.  These statist arguments don’t actually hold a candle.  All of these arguments are for effect.  They’re scare tactics.  Think about what is being proposed by these arguments.  They imply that without the government, its theft, its threats, etc, we’ll all live in a world where women are mistreated, minorities are left by the wayside, in which there will be NO ROADS, and buildings and houses will burn to the ground in a heap of regretful, unpatriotic ash.  It will be a world full of murderers and selfish narcissists.  No one will care for the poor.  The underprivileged children won’t be educated.  It will be… …AAAnnaarrrchyyy!
In truth, nobody knows what it would be like in a truly free society.  I, and many others, assert rulers aren’t needed to set the rules.  Instead, public ostracism would be hard at work.  Public ostracism can currently be seen working every day as pop culture dictates what is acceptable. 
For example, when I was growing up it was cool to call people faggots, but if I were to do this today I’d be virtually (and possibly literally) flogged by society.  Societal norms do shift, and with those shifts come direction on which behaviors are acceptable.  Without the brutality of government social molding would be far more effective as norms would be shifted more freely without the extra steps needed to persuade elderly bigots who hold power through the threat of violence to make changes.
Free society is a ways off, but we can all start living more freely today by resisting the urge to search for handouts, taking responsibility for the negative consequences of our decisions and actions, and feeling good about reaping rewards for our good choices.  Society owes nothing to us, nor do we owe anything to society. Reject regulation and taxation; instead move toward cooperation and liberty.

– pCoast