"I'm not encouraging American's NOT to fill out the census"...you just did by saying that, and you know it. Fox is irresponsible and a threat to national security.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'census, representation, white, multiratial, ACORN, Halliburton' to 'census, representation, white, multiracial, ACORN, Halliburton' - edited by xxovercastxx

Realize folks, this is FOX NEWS. How often does FOX NEWS report 100% of the truth and facts, or even 1% of the time? This is an organization that rountinely is the mouth piece if not lap dog, of the Republican party. Often the vehicle and media engine to spread fear, confusion, and hatred. They appeal to the lowest common denomiator of this country's people - the ones that are not wise enough to think for themselves.

So, for the sake of the arguement, lets just say Fox News, and more importantly Mr. Beck, is reporting this information 100% correct and factual (when you stop laughing, read on).

The US Census is mandated through the US Constitution, to be perform every ten years. Its to gather information needed for goverment spending and direction of resources. Its to make the best effort to contact every person of legal age, and every household in the U.S.A. Over the years of this process, somethings have changed, understandibly, since the country has changed from the original thirteen colonies. The current census has its own website and process to explain what it is, does, and can not do. Do a yahoo/goggle search. If you still have questions, contact your representative or senator for additional information.

Mr. Beck, is neither informed, nor honest when it comes to legal system of the USA, nor the facts of the 2010 US Census. As always, with Fox News (come on guys, you know this drill after 8 years of GWB & Fox News!), you have to check the information they give for accuracy.

Census is total bullshit. I keep updating my local census with my wife's green card status and foreign nationality. They keep relisting her as a US citizen.

If they want my phone number, they can look it up IF it is publicly listed. If they want my 'race', whatever the fuck that means, they can look at my name and make a best guess. If they want to know my religion, they can send magical radio-wave signals to the big magical guy in the sky and as him/her/it directly.

All I see this census as being is to toss a lot of data into a database somewhere which will then be used against us for domestic spying. Illegal in all respects of course, but that branch of the government can do whatever it wants anyhow. With no fear of prosecution.

I know we've been over this before. But I'm still trying to help you. I keep showing up your nonsense argument for what it is:

Myth: Taxes are theft.

Fact: Taxes are payments for the public goods and services you consume.

Summary

Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy.


Argument

Many conservatives and libertarians make the following populist argument:

"If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, arrest you, and seize your property."

The implication here is that you are being extorted to pay taxes, and this theft amounts to a violation of your rights. Although the events described are technically correct -- you should expect such a response from any crime you commit -- the implication that the government is aggressing against you is false, and not a little demagogic.

Taxes are part of a social contract, an agreement between voters and government to exchange money for the government's goods and services. Even libertarians agree that breach of contract legitimates a police response. So the real question is not whether a crime should be met with "men with guns," but whether or not the social contract is valid, especially to those who don't agree with it or devote their allegiance to it.

Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly, is implicit agreement of the social contract, just as any consumption of food in a restaurant is implicit agreement to pay the bill.

Many conservatives and libertarians concede the logic of this argument, but point out that taxes do not go exclusively to public goods and services. They also go for welfare payments to the poor who are allegedly doing nothing and getting a free ride from the system. That, they claim, is theft.

But this argument fails too. Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well (although tax critics are loathe to admit this). If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.

We should also note that the program most popularly known as "welfare" -- Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- takes up less than 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. (1) That tax critics would raise such a big stink over such a paltry sum begs an explanation. Their typical response to this is to expand the definition of welfare. But suppose we include all programs that involve one-way transfers of wealth with no expectation of immediate repayment or return services. According to the Library of Congress, in 1992 such expenditures at the federal, state and local level came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of their combined budgets of $2,487 billion. (2) It still seems incredible that such fiery anti-tax rhetoric is reserved for 12 percent of a person's taxes. But keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc. Voters have ultimately agreed that these programs provide not just social insurance, but social investment. Certainly our society benefits by enabling more young people to attend college. Some may dispute the need for such social insurance and investment, but the majority of voters have (ultimately) agreed to put it in our social contract.

And this brings us to the second line of liberal argument: the best form of social contract is majority rule. It's not perfect, but its better than minority rule and still better than one-person rule. Government by unanimous consent is impractical, since it almost never happens, and society by anarchy results in "kill or be killed." So what do libertarians and conservatives propose in democracy's stead?

Of course, nearly all democracies have constraints on majority rule, designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. In the U.S., these are embodied in our constitution. But to be legitimate, a constitution must be a document of the people; hence it must be approved by the majority. (In the U.S., a supermajority.) And the constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But should the constitution allow taxation? If conservatives and libertarians feel that it should not, then it is up to them to describe a constitutional or political system that would work better than majority rule. Do they prefer minority rule? Or dictator rule? The only alternative to these historical atrocities is self-rule -- but again, that's anarchy, kill-or-be-killed.

Of course, some may wish to keep the current political structure, and simply convince the majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment. But if they do, then they are legitimizing the social contract… which hardly puts them in a position to call taxation "theft."

Understanding the above points allows you to see through common anti-tax arguments. Here is a real example taken from the Internet:

The "How Many Men?" Argument (1)

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote against them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?


This argument is based on a faulty premise of ownership. Suppose the gang of ten men had helped you buy the car, pitching in with a loan that covered 29 percent of the sticker price (which is about the percentage of the GDP devoted in the United States to taxes). And suppose they simply wanted return payment. By not returning the favor, it is you who become the thief. If you want a car that is 100 percent yours, simply pay the full price of one. Of course, by accepting the loan from the gang of ten men, you were able to buy a better car than you could afford in the first place…

Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.

Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW, and earlier reports; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF, No. 5, 1992.

2. Ibid.

Wow, he sure comes off as insincere... I guess that might be that elusive 'televangelist' quality people are talking about.

Below is an exerpt from the first post I saw on the 9 principles page:
"I am concerned about the next census. With the census being conducted under direction from the White House, what incentive do they have to be honest? Unless we hold their feet to the fire and conduct our own census. We have people spread all over the country as a part of the 912 project."

I thought Rachel was a commentator, not a newsreader or journalist.

Regarding the stimulus package, bank bailouts, etc., no one really knows what will work, because, I think, no one is really sure of what the variables are, nor are they assured that the supposed paradigms of the past are actually viable today. I say "supposed paradigms" to refer to "free market capitalism," "government spending," etc. There is so much hanky panky going on financially and monetarily, does ANYONE really know what to do with any degree of certainty? I know one thing: if Obama's Administration somehow makes this work, the Republicans won't be in control in Washington for a generation, and that's got to scare them absolutely shitless. If they don't have control of the White House or Congress, they won't be riding high on the lobbyist hog and the reapportionment after the 2010 census will really hose them. They need Obama to fail and fail big, but if he does, this country will descend into bankruptcy, chaos and destruction. I guess, though, they are willing to roll them bones. They'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, sorta kinda.

I went through and struck out the statements I disagree with. Looks like we agree on about 99% of it.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Americans have been living beyond their means for years now. The let's cut taxes and everything will be peachy approach will simply not work, it will only continue to create further debt in a already debt ridden society. Just because you get an extra 10,000 dollars will not alleviate the long term problems the economy is facing. The government is far too large but the political incentive to reduce it is simply not there. Too much legislation has created too many public offices that serve no purpose, and too much of government work is already being privatized out with no real solid oversight. These are some of the steps I would take before probably being assassinated because it would rattle too many people in comfortable positions.
- Eliminate the following: Department of Health, Department of Education, Drug Enforcement Agency and the SEC. DOH and DOE statistical bodies can be rolled into the Census office for information gathering. The DEA needs to be dissolved, parts not dealing with drug enforcement rolled into the FBI. The SEC should be reformed entirely and given higher powers and responsibilities, its failure to catch the Madoff scandal is simply unforgivable.
- Slash Pentagon spending, the US spends almost 4 to 5 times as much as the nearest highest spender on defense. America has the best cold war era military force that is trying to fight guerrilla wars while constantly changing its attack profile from standard engagement to network centric warfare to COIN. Enough military readjustments on the taxpayers bill.
- Working with the infrastructure survey create open bid contracts to rebuild and improve America's basic infrastructure. Eliminate the made in USA clause which is basically protectionist scheme. Infrastructure is the most vital component in the economy, years of tax cuts meant you are living on shit built back in the 50s.
- Eliminate American protectionist schemes for agriculture. This is lunacy and only helps large agriculture firms while US consumers lose out, welcome to the globalization bitches. Africa makes cheaper bananas and mangos anyway.
- Make all private sector lobbying illegal. All lobbying should be citizen empowered only with no private interests. Currently any private firm can buy lobbying pressure to roll in laws that are only beneficial for it's own interests. This is waste and imbalance.
- Legalize drugs and tax them. This a mute point, there too much waste in capturing marijuana smokers and filling the jails with them, while culturally we all watch Weeds on HBO. There is an untapped revenue source here.
- Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, close down every single US military post. Needless waste on a needless war that cost too many American lives. Withdrawal must be countered with a monument to all those killed needlessly, a formal apology by the President for straining the nation.
- Create a viable social health care system while allowing private care to flourish as an alternative choice. The health of labor is the wealth of the economy, everyone should have access to affordable health care that doesn't ruin your finical portfolio if you get a heart attack. We can afford to spend trillions to build bombs, we can afford to spend trillions making sure every American is able to stay healthy.
- Incorporate legal immigration and legalize everyone in the US, firms need cheap labour, all those kids in the OC will not do the cheap labor jobs that people who immigrate will. Removing barriers will allow more people to contribute to the economy. Tax them accordingly.
- Form a WWII style incentive towards improving American education and finding alternative viable fuel sources.
- End all SOCIAL based legislation that deal with marriage and gay rights, this is not a sector the government should have any say in.
- Introduce progressive tax structures that scale to abnormal income increases, foster the creation of the middle class. End lax inheritances taxation. End favorable tax heavens for corporations. End corporate tax write offs. This is necessary to balance out the economy unfortunately.

Americans have been living beyond their means for years now. The let's cut taxes and everything will be peachy approach will simply not work, it will only continue to create further debt in a already debt ridden society. Just because you get an extra 10,000 dollars will not alleviate the long term problems the economy is facing. The government is far too large but the political incentive to reduce it is simply not there. Too much legislation has created too many public offices that serve no purpose, and too much of government work is already being privatized out with no real solid oversight. These are some of the steps I would take before probably being assassinated because it would rattle too many people in comfortable positions.

- Eliminate the following: Department of Health, Department of Education, Drug Enforcement Agency and the SEC. DOH and DOE statistical bodies can be rolled into the Census office for information gathering. The DEA needs to be dissolved, parts not dealing with drug enforcement rolled into the FBI. The SEC should be reformed entirely and given higher powers and responsibilities, its failure to catch the Madoff scandal is simply unforgivable.

- Slash Pentagon spending, the US spends almost 4 to 5 times as much as the nearest highest spender on defense. America has the best cold war era military force that is trying to fight guerrilla wars while constantly changing its attack profile from standard engagement to network centric warfare to COIN. Enough military readjustments on the taxpayers bill.

- Working with the infrastructure survey create open bid contracts to rebuild and improve America's basic infrastructure. Eliminate the made in USA clause which is basically protectionist scheme. Infrastructure is the most vital component in the economy, years of tax cuts meant you are living on shit built back in the 50s.

- Eliminate American protectionist schemes for agriculture. This is lunacy and only helps large agriculture firms while US consumers lose out, welcome to the globalization bitches. Africa makes cheaper bananas and mangos anyway.

- Make all private sector lobbying illegal. All lobbying should be citizen empowered only with no private interests. Currently any private firm can buy lobbying pressure to roll in laws that are only beneficial for it's own interests. This is waste and imbalance.

- Legalize drugs and tax them. This a mute point, there too much waste in capturing marijuana smokers and filling the jails with them, while culturally we all watch Weeds on HBO. There is an untapped revenue source here.

- Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, close down every single US military post. Needless waste on a needless war that cost too many American lives. Withdrawal must be countered with a monument to all those killed needlessly, a formal apology by the President for straining the nation.

- Create a viable social health care system while allowing private care to flourish as an alternative choice. The health of labor is the wealth of the economy, everyone should have access to affordable health care that doesn't ruin your finical portfolio if you get a heart attack. We can afford to spend trillions to build bombs, we can afford to spend trillions making sure every American is able to stay healthy.

- Incorporate legal immigration and legalize everyone in the US, firms need cheap labour, all those kids in the OC will not do the cheap labor jobs that people who immigrate will. Removing barriers will allow more people to contribute to the economy. Tax them accordingly.

- Form a WWII style incentive towards improving American education and finding alternative viable fuel sources.

- End all SOCIAL based legislation that deal with marriage and gay rights, this is not a sector the government should have any say in.

- Introduce progressive tax structures that scale to abnormal income increases, foster the creation of the middle class. End lax inheritances taxation. End favorable tax heavens for corporations. End corporate tax write offs. This is necessary to balance out the economy unfortunately.

Why would anyone in BC want to (or have to) learn English....?

What has been done to those people is uncalled for under the Constitution Of The United States.

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

The United States Constitution Article 1 Section Nine, the whole section quoted from - http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9

What the United States Executive Branch is doing is in direct violation of the constitution. Every single one of those prisoners has the right to pursue the writ of Habeus Corpus. Any one who says things otherwise should be held in contempt of court and tried for treason, to the utmost extent of the law.

Treason you say? Yes I say. How and why? Because every person in the prison that does not get a fair jury trial, is giving the bad guys and even the people that may adore the US a reason to fear and hate the US. Thus prolonging the problem and not working under the Constitution to solve the problem.

They must understand that the United States people are held captive by their overbearing government.

Studies that focus on the effect of tax cuts on the economy point toward job creation, higher wages, and an increase in revenue. The fact that the economy is experiencing a downturn cannot be linked to the Bush Tax Cuts. The slide is due to other problems. I'm pulling from multiple sources so I'll help you out by quoting those studies HERE, so you don't have to read all day (just half a day).

What does the following article tell you (cited by Lori Robertson, author of the Fact Check article you linked to)?

"History demonstrates that lower tax rates are good for the economy. The tax rate reductions in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s all resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. Moreover, even though critics complained that these tax rate reductions would allow the "rich" to keep too much of their money, upper-income taxpayers actually wound up paying a greater share of the tax burden during all three decades, because lower rates reduced the incentive to hide, shelter, and underreport income."
Heritage.org

Obama knows that he shouldn't be raising taxes.

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy."
The Huffington Post

Lowering taxes for the big earners means freeing up more capital in the private sector. THAT'S A GOOD THING! Raising taxes obviously has the opposite effect.

"The higher the bracket, the greater the penalty. By the time taxpayers reach the 39.6 percent bracket, they are able to keep only about 60 cents of any added income--and this is counting only the federal individual income tax. This high tax "price" of government has adverse effects on work effort, but most of the economic damage occurs because punitive tax rates discourage saving and investment. Indeed, because upper-bracket taxpayers earn most of their income by supplying capital to the market, and because capital is extremely sensitive to changes in tax rates, this is one of the most important reasons to reduce the top tax rate.

More specifically, high tax rates encourage upper-income taxpayers to alter the location, timing, and composition of their portfolios to protect their income. This misallocation of savings and investment reduces the economy's growth rate and deprives workers of the capital they need to be more productive; and this lower productivity means, of course, that workers will earn less income."

-Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Heritage.org

Just read the Joint Economic Committee's studies on Tax Rates VS. Tax Revenues:

"The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden."
House Joint Economic Committee Report April 1996

In response to the Rolling Stone article you presented:

"Referring to the chart on page 5 of the census report, we see that the top of the lowest fifth bracket went from $13,471 in 1967 to $16,116 in 1998, a growth of 19.6% in real terms. During the same time, the top fifth of wage earners went from a minimum of $53,170 in 1967 to $75,000 in 1998, a growth of 41.1%. Similar increases can be observed in each of the income brackets.

Everyone got richer, but the rich got richer faster.

This is hardly surprising. Someone that is rich is going to have more extra money that they can invest which, in turn, creates more money. Money generates money and no-one disputes that being rich is, by definition, a financial advantage in a capitalistic society. Short of draconian wealth redistribution, this will always be the case. However, the macro-economic data from 1967 to 1998 does not support the assertion that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The data supports the position that everyone got richer. While there may be year to year variations in a negative direction, the long-term trend is that all Americans are getting richer."
Letxa.com

From the same article:

"Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance (given that you can only give a tax cut to someone that pays taxes, and that the "rich" are really the only ones that pay taxes in any substantial manner) or is disingenous (because the person knows this to be true, but makes the accusation anyway). The statement "a tax cut favors the rich" should be reworded "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes." It would be just as accurate but obviously without the class warfare undertones. Unfortunately, those that state "tax cuts favor the rich" are usually hoping for those class warefare undertones, so hoping for them to use the more accurate and less divisive words is probably utopian."
Letxa.com

...but what do Barack Obama, The Heritage Foundation, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Joint Economic Committee know?

Here is my attempt to derive a political system from "the right to life", using only market concepts and voluntary cooperation.

This is our current system in action in 2007:
........................................(billions).............(%)
national defense...............$552.................19%
education.........................$91...................3%
health...............................$266.................9%
medicare...........................$375................13%
income security.................$365................13%
social security....................$596................21%
veterans benefits...............$72..................3%
environment......................$31..................1%
transportation....................$72..................3%
community development....$54.................2%
international affairs.............$29.................1%
general science...................$23.................1%
agriculture......................... $25.................1%
admistration of justice.........$41................ 1%
general government............$18.................1%
interest...............................$226...............8%
total....................................$2836

If we use pre-occupation levels, we spent $275 billion on national defense. This places the cost of a government functioning only to ensure "the right to life" at 275+41+18=$334 billion. If we are generous and keep in education, transportation, and the environment that adds an extra 91+31+72=$194.

The national income as reported for 2007 was about $14,000 billion dollars. To finance a government whose annual budget is $334 billion, 300 million people would have to donate $1,113 each or 2.38%, on average. If you take the median income in 2007 of $50,233, this represents a 2.22% all-inclusive tax rate. For the poorest, who make only $12,000 a year, this represents 9.26%―higher, but roughly half the level of taxation they currently endure.

In 2007, the census reported the bottom 20% of Americans made $19,178 or less, while the top 20% made over $100,000, and the top 6.78% held over 1/3 of the national income―or around $4.66 trillion dollars. If only the top 80% paid taxes, their fair share would rise to $1,390―and the poorest 40 million Americans would get a free ride. If only the top 6.78% paid taxes, they would only have to donate 6.9%--an amount almost equal to our current sales tax alone. Despite shouldering the entire financial burden of the country, the income of the top 6.78% would rise by over 40% current levels.

However, if the only moral system of taxation in a free society is a voluntary one, why would anyone be motivated to pay taxes? The answer comes from property rights. Property is secured by the police, national defense, fire department, and the legal system. Police can be dispatched to prevent or stop acts of vandalism, burglaries, riots, and violent crime. The army provides a defense against invasion from foreign entities, and the resulting occupation and looting. The fire department suppresses destructive property fires triggered by arson, carelessness, or natural causes. And the legal system prosecutes violations of individual/property rights.

The successful entrepreneur, who has amassed great wealth, has a lot to lose from the violations of these rights. A working family struggling to make ends meet, however, has much less capital to lose. Thus, the wealthiest individuals will have a large incentive to voluntarily subject themselves to taxation―for the selfish reason of securing their wealth. The lower and middle class will be motivated as well, but to a lesser extent―one that, as for the wealthy individual, is proportional to the sum of their assets. To some degree, the wealthy will rely on private security in safeguarding their assets, but even the wealthiest individual cannot finance a private security force capable of repelling a foreign invasion by a modern army, nor could they maintain their high standard of living while surrounded in anarchy―where the lack of a public police force and legal consequence would present little resistance for those willing to violate the rights of others. In this way, the wealthy minority will voluntarily fund the basic roles of government, while the majority benefit at little to no cost.

So what about social services such as education, transportation, healthcare, and unemployment insurance? There are many ways to achieve these on the free market―either through private businesses or non-profit organizations. The implementation and management of a privately funded business and a publicly funded state program are really quite similar―both are funded by large groups of people (shareholders or voters), and both have concentrated leadership which is democratically elected (CE0/board or president/congress). The difference arises when business is bad: a private organization which does not provide a service in demand, or provides it inefficiently will go bankrupt, while a state program which does the same will likely result in increased taxation or national debt. If the government is forbidden from forced taxation―all differences between the two vanish. Thus, it is possible to have a privately funded non-profit organization which provides education, transportation, healthcare, or unemployment insurance―regardless of whether its leadership is elected through the state. And by making financial information public, the organization can ensure a healthy supply of donations―if the service it provides is in demand.

Let's apply the same analysis to a public service: say, education. Most Americans believe in providing an education for all those who desire to pursue it. However, the top tier of society is already donating 6.9% of their income in taxes, and may not find any additional benefit in educating the poor―after all they have the police and army which is what they really need to protect their property. The lower 80% of America is different―they are not yet wealthy, so they can see the benefit of a public education which can be used to generate wealth-- the bottom 20% even more so―although they cannot afford to donate much. We are thus left with 60% of America, or the 180 million Americans that make up the middle class. If every member of the class donates a mere $1000 a year towards education, or 2% of their median $50,233 income (of which they are paying no taxes so far), together they could pool about $180 billion―twice the $91 billion spent on education in our current system.

Now enter the teachers. Teachers can't teach without students, so in the selfish interest of providing themselves with an income, a group of teachers may form a non-profit organization called the United Teachers For America, whose goal is to provide a quality education free of charge. Their annual budget is $91 billion―but we have already shown that by donating a mere 2% of their income, middle-class America alone could provide up to $180 billion. Since they are operating on donations, which may vary from year to year, the UTFA may decide to maintain a surplus―in order to sustain operations for several years with below-average donations. This same strategy has been successfully adopted by private companies who keep cash on hand to protect against a downturn. Then, by making their financial information public, the leadership can solicit extra donations during below-average years--analogous to the spike in donations local blood drives receive after a crisis. The UTFA, competing in the free market, receive income (in this case donations) based on the quality of service they provide. This creates a strong motivation to provide efficient, high quality education―not only to sustain operations, but also to provide competitive wages for the teachers they employ. Likewise, there will also be a thriving private sector, which through competitive action in the free market, will offer a multitude of degree and tuition options--at a much lower cost than exists today. Similar arguments can be made for any number of public services such as transportation, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc.

The departure from forced taxation alone will impact the lowest-income families in the following ways: income will increase 15-23%, prices of goods and services will decrease up to 8%, housing costs will decrease by up to 5%, heating/fuel costs will decrease by up to 12.5%--resulting in an effective increase in wages by ~20-35%. When one compounds the action of a free market, where income has also increased by up to 40%, and harmful regulations are lifted―the effective increase in wages could be as high as 60-75%. Low-income families will be free of taxation, have increased wages, and not only have access to cheaper goods and services, but access to goods and services that were previously unavailable.

^Yeah, it's like when a couple years ago there was a government census of religion in the U.K, and everyone wrote in "Jedi" for laughs.

@blutruth
1. The US census lists the number of Vetrans in the US at 24 million (I'm not sure if by Veterans they mean exmilitary or ex war time servers). The current size of the US military is 3 million (1.5 active, 1.5 reservists). On top of that there is the abundance of sportsman in the US that would also probably pick up a rifle. The military would be handily outnumbered. Also, considering the fact that we currently have a paper thin military fighting two wars overseas, and this conspiracy theory requiring the initiation of a third, who exactly is going to enforce this martial law? Our military is pretty busy at the moment.

2. The Milgram experiment. Even in the Milgram experiment they were only able to get 65% to follow to the end. The Milgram experiment isn't directly comparable because it suffers from the trolley problem, there's a big difference between pushing a button and shocking someone in another room and pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. Also, my impression when I was in was that Bush isn't exactly seen as a holy man worth killing countrymen for. Ron Paul was the candidate the military backed the most after all. The military is about as sick of Bush as the general population is.

@slash
2. Russia, China, and the UN are going to aid president Bush by enforcing martial Law for him. You are an idiot. The international community wants to see Bush gone more that the American community wants him gone.

Sure, Bush could very well attack Iran before he leaves office because he is an idiot. Suspending the elections and instituting martial law though? This is deep into tinfoil hat territory. Iraq is only the size of California and we still haven't squashed the insurgency there. Yet we're going fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran and still find enough troops somewhere to occupy the US as well. Maybe it makes an entertaining thought but it is not plausible in the least.