TEACHING CONSERVATISM: THE TYRANNY OF THE MASSES

BY HARIOLOR

Fair denizens of the interweb, I shall, as ever, endeavor to be brief in today's submission. Ultimately, I am sure to fail. Already I've squandered three sentences; but I digress. What I would like to do is begin with a simple thought experiment for you:

Imagine your favorite vice, it need not be destructive or deviant (though it certainly could be if you like) - a fine ice cream treat, a good book and comfortable chair, chewing a hangnail, whatever you will.

Now imagine you have, by some happy accident, moved to a town in which exactly half the people share your favorite vice. Not too shabby, you've got immediate grounds for friendship with half the people in town. But let's say exactly half the people in this town have a favorite vice that is exactly that thing that annoys you most. Now here's the kicker - the two halves overlap, so half of the people who like what you like also do what you hate. Imagine also, that these are the only two factors that matter to you and everyone else in the town, and none of you are able to move out (remember, this is a thought experiment). So there are four distinct types of neighbors in this little town, and you're all stuck with each other.

People you like = 25%

People you should like but annoy you = 25%

People you don't care about either way = 25%

People who only annoy you = 25%

Well now your happy relationship with half the town has been reduced to a happy relationship with one-fourth. What's worse, there's a full fourth of the town that you really can't stand (those nail-chewing troglodytes!).

Now, imagine you are talking with some friends, one of whom is a politician - maybe the mayor, or on city council, whatever. Since you're all bona-fide members of the fine-ice-cream-treat-loving-non-nail-chewing sect in town, you feel comfortable expressing your frustration about the town's apparent propensity for munching on keratinous growths. “If only,” you complain, “it were possible to get everybody to stop biting their nails.”

Your politician friend perks up, “Why, all we'd have to do is pass a law against nail-biting. Only half the town bites their nails anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard, and then we could be friends with half the town, instead of only a fourth of it. What's even better, we wouldn't have to dislike anybody. The idea practically sells itself!”

So you and your politician friend set about devising a way that you can create a law that will effectively outlaw nail-biting. You recognize that not everybody who hates nail-biters necessarily believes that nail-biting should be forbidden, though. So you'll have to make the law seem fair enough to appease the ice-cream eaters who don't want to punish the nail-biters, since they bite their nails too. You'll also want to hedge your bets by making some of the neutral folks see the advantage of your law.

After long debate, you decide that you will paint society as the victim, in order to appeal to everyone's better motives. Nail biting is unsanitary, and passes disease, you will argue (whether this is true or not is immaterial, it is a reasonable conclusion that's easily believed). Even worse, you say, children of nail-biters will tend to bite their own nails too, making the next generation sicker as well!

Oh, the humanity!

So, with good victims to protect, now you need to appeal to fairness. Jail time will be out of the question, since nail-chewing is not currently a crime, and you'd never convince people that it's bad enough to warrant a stay in jail (at least not the first time you introduce the law). I'll leave the decision to you as to what is the best way to be fair:

a) require that anyone caught chewing their nails be forced to wear a bright red headband when out in public

b) require that anyone who chews their nails pay a “chewage tax” of $10/day any day they chew

c) distribute free nail clippers and files at the local department of health and in schools and hospitals, simultaneously running advertising campaigns that explain the terrors of nail biting

d) chop off everybody's nails and burn their cuticles so nobody ever has nails again.

Remember, you've been able to show that nail-biting is not only annoying, but is also harmful (the veracity of your claim is irrelevant, you only need convince people that it's true). You also can benefit personally from making fewer people chew their nails.

Okay, make your decision before you move on. Write it down.

Let's examine each of these possibilities now:

a) This is a social incentive against nail-chewing. The costs are low, and you do nothing to address whether people bite their nails in the privacy of their homes, but you certainly expect that fewer people will be caught biting their nails in public if they have to wear those stupid red headbands. You won't make any more friends this way, but you'll be less annoyed all the time.

b) This is an economic incentive against the habit. You'll bring in lots of revenue, which could be used to fund the schools, or pay for a plan like c). Of course, some people will be able to afford the tax and keep on chewing, but the majority of people can't spare an extra $3650 per year, so they might rein in the habit. Then again, they might just cut back on public chewing.

c) This is a negative social incentive like a), but is cleverly disguised as a social-benefit program. The program will probably cost money, and is unlikely to be helpful on its own. However, it's easy to argue the upside of providing free services that address a sinister issue like fingernail-chewing. It's also hardest to call unfair, as it leaves nail-chewers with no excuse for not stopping their dirty habit.
You've provided ample free resources to help them kick the habit.

d) This is a powerful preemptive move. There's little room left for choice, but you've absolutely solved the problem. What's better, it's perfectly fair, in that it treats everybody equally. Your town can be happy again.

So what's the best way to address the issue of fingernail-chewing? Have you changed your mind from what you wrote down? You can change your answer now, if you like, but I'll present some downsides to each option, so choose carefully

a) This treatment is not perfectly equitable, as it treats some people differently from others (you might argue that that's the point). What's worse, this is potentially a self-segregating solution. You might find that instead of a town of otherwise similar people who variously annoy each other, your town will be divided into the red- headband side of town, and the no-headband side of town. While the division might not be that immediate, or that drastic, social segregation occurs easily, and is likely to be expedited by this sort of measure.

b) This option could be unfair because you are imposing a fee on a behavior that is perfectly legal. Certainly, people could avoid the fee by not chewing their nails in public, but if they have been chewing their nails for years and enduring nothing worse than the angry glares of non-chewers, it is more than a little arbitrary to suddenly decide that they should pay (literally) for their habit. Some people might even like chewing so much that they don't stop at all, despite the fact that they can't afford the tax. That could drive people into poverty simply because they don't want to stop chewing their nails. Maybe that's their fault - but perhaps the moral burden is shifted to you for having passed the law.

c) This is superficially a fair solution, especially if the costs are paid by a plan like b). Then again, that would mean a fair plan is funded by a less-fair plan, but issues of relationship like that are beyond the scope of this experiment. The real problem here is that taxpayer money is being put towards a cause that is of debatable merit, and the final result is the least effective of any of the options. This is a bit of a money-pit, and what you gain in fairness you lose in effectiveness. In fact, you and your politician buddy might only tack on an option like c) as an afterthought, in order to buy a few more of the “neutral” votes. It's unlikely that this is going to be your primary method for combating fingernail-chewing. It's just not dramatic enough, you know?

d) This is a brilliantly fair solution. Everybody has their rights infringed in equal measure. The problem is, most everybody would balk at the idea of state-mandated cosmetic surgery. To gain support for this sort of measure, you'd have to make the perceived risk of nail- chewing far greater than the tangible harm caused by forcing people to have their nails surgically removed. Good luck with that one.

There's another option that I didn't give you, of course; and you may have thought of it yourself. It's the option you never hear about in the press; the option precious few politicians ever embrace privately, let alone publicly. Yet, it is the one that is guaranteed to be absolutely fair, causes no additional harm to anyone, and costs nothing to implement.

e) You could do nothing at all. This is the “conservative” solution, and possibly the best one. The problem is, people thrive on perceptions of fear and urgent calls for change. It's in our nature - I suspect that our ancient ancestors survived as well as they did because they learned to be paranoid, angry, mob-oriented little apelings. If there's only one tiger in your primeval forest, you're not in much danger from it. But you feel a lot safer assuming the tiger is behind every tree, just waiting for you.

And when you get home safely, you can pat yourself on the back for being so wise and cautions. Nobody has to know the tiger was 30 miles away at the time, sleeping contentedly. So let's look at some modern “tigers” that we've legislated against, I'll even include the methods used.

Guns - b) (though there's a loud minority that really is pushing for d))

Alcohol - b) and c)

Illegal narcotics - b) c) and d)

Smoking - b) and c), in many areas a) as well

“Unhealthy” foods - c), often b) or a). d) is appearing as well (ban on trans-fats, anyone?)

The list goes on.

The things all these have in common? The extent of their public harm is open for debate, though the perceived harm is universally high. All of them have also been legislated against through outright bans, social incentives, or taxes and fines. And all of them are vices. I proposed chewing fingernails as an obviously innocuous example, but what if I'd proposed religion (a personal choice with historically destructive tendencies), or charity (a potentially economically damaging activity that likely benefits the donor more than the donee).

You'd want to string me up for suggesting we should fine people for attending church, or that we should ban all charitable giving. But religion and charity are no less protected by the constitution than are guns, or greasy foods. Many would even claim that at least some narcotics are protected by the constitution (though current law says otherwise).

The point is, next time you are getting ready to vote for a measure to limit the freedom of someone else because “they're harming themselves” or “you have to think of the children” or “it just plain annoys me”, stop and put yourself in the shoes of the people you're legislating against. What if our town wasn't legislating against nail-chewing, but against ice cream sundae eating? What if the arguments in favor of the legislation were just as compelling, but you happened to like eating ice cream? Would you want the angry majority forcing you to live by their rules? I doubt it.

And once again, I fail at brevity.

TEACHING CONSERVATISM: THE FIRST AMENDMENT

BY CINCINNATUS

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Let me start by saying that it is my fervent hope that this particular article in the Teaching Conservatism series is entirely superfluous, that what follows is nothing new to the reader, that a clear and accurate understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can be assumed on the part of all citizens. It is my gnawing fear (borne from careful observation of my peers) that this is not the case, however, that spurs this article’s publication.

The First Amendment concerns what is commonly referred to as our freedom of expression, encompassing our free exercise of religion, speech, publication, peaceable assembly, and petition. As with all ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, it is an explicit expression of the limitations of Government’s authority over the individual rather than a bestowing of rights upon the people.

Let us begin with free exercise of religion. It was the concern of many of the Founders, particularly Jefferson (who in fact had no involvement in the drafting of the United States Constitution, contrary to common belief), that the new American government might, by establishment of a state-sponsored religion or Church, not only coerce and persecute its own citizens but pervert religion itself for political purposes. The First Amendment was intended to unambiguously protect the right of the citizen to be secure from Government harassment or abuse due to his faith or lack of faith. Religious freedom is further protected in Article VI of the Constitution, which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In other words, Government cannot circumvent the First Amendment by packing the legislative, executive or judicial branch with religiously homogenous officials that would amount to de facto rather than de jure religious establishment.

While it is clear from the writings of the Founders that the Constitution was intended to establish a separation of Church and State, debate has nevertheless raged over the years as to what form that separation should take. Do religious displays on Government premises, for instance, represent sponsorship of that particular faith? Do the words “In God We Trust” emblazoned on our currency do the same? There are many who adamantly argue that they do. Conservatives, however, typically understand the Establishment Clause as the official establishment by act of Congress of a state-sponsored religion or Church. More to the point, we feel that any sponsorship of religion by Government that has a compulsory element by which you are forced to exercise a religion against your will represents a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. The words “In God We Trust” do not compel atheists by law to attend church or Muslims to refer to “Allah” by the Christian nomenclature of “God.” Religious displays or signs advocating atheism on Government property likewise do not represent religious establishment, so long as petitioners of all faiths are permitted to have displays should they so choose.

Regarding freedom of speech, over the centuries litigation and legal interpretation have settled with relative clarity most of the grey areas in the language of the amendment; as is always the case, your inalienable rights exist insofar as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. For instance, from the beginning this amendment was understood not to protect libel, slander, perjury, or copyright infringement. More recently, in the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), the concept of “imminent lawless action” was established, by which free speech is not protected if it is likely to cause a violation of the law faster than a law officer can reasonably be summoned to the scene. Other recently established limitations exist, such as the Miller test, which is used to censor “obscenity” according to community standards. Beyond this, your freedom of speech is boundless. You are free to openly criticize or praise government, society, individuals, and institutions. You are even free to lie, so long as those lies do not constitute libel, slander, perjury or incite “imminent lawless action.” Freedom of the press goes hand in hand with freedom of speech, in that citizens are at liberty to broadcast their free speech to as wide an audience as cares to listen, be it by print, internet, television, radio or otherwise.

Real conservatives embrace freedom of speech and the press, as it represents the most potent weapon against tyranny in our republic. The power to inform and be informed remains the determinative factor of who truly governs in any society. With this power, however, comes the power to dis-inform. While insidious, this power remains constitutionally protected (within the aforementioned limits), as the People and not Government must remain the final arbiters of what is true and what is not. As Jefferson, the father of our conservative movement said in his first inaugural address, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Consequently, the conservative answer to bias or untruth in the media is refutation through participation in public discourse rather than censorship of the offenders. Hence this blog.

Freedom of speech and the press fascinates me the most, primarily because even the Founders who drafted the First Amendment disagreed upon the extent to which this right was constitutionally protected. In 1798, in the thick of the Quasi War with France, President John Adams and the Federalists in Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to protect the federal government from “domestic enemies”. The Sedition Act made “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government and its officials illegal. Numerous newspaper editors were jailed and fined for criticizing the president and his administration. Fortunately the Act expired in 1801, before it could be challenged in court (jurists have widely agreed that any such challenge would have carried the day).

Nevertheless, the debate over the enforcement of “truth and accountability” in the media astoundingly still rages just as it did then. The focus of modern ire is talk radio and internet blogging. The Fairness Doctrine, which was an FCC policy from 1949-1985, compelled radio broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints to their own on their programs. There is talk on the part of many Democrats (including former President Clinton) of reinstating this policy by act of Congress. While the Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court decision Red Lion Broadcasting Co v FCC (1969), conservatives typically feel that compelling speech on the part of private citizens or interests is just as unconstitutional as restraining or punishing speech. Especially with the diversity of modern media, opposing viewpoints are ever-present and freely articulated should citizens seek them. Moreover, placing the arbitration of what is true or not in the hands of Government rather than the People is anathema to the intent of United States Constitution.

Finally, freedom of peaceable assembly and petition are the second-most potent weapons (next to speech/press) in the arsenal of the citizenry. They permit American citizens to demonstrate by show of numbers the support for an idea or communicate ideas freely and directly to large groups of their fellow citizens. Freedom of petition similarly allows citizenry to demonstrate numerical support for a grievance to Government. Without the freedoms of peaceable assembly and petition, Government may dismiss any opposition movement as fringe discontents who constitute a minority, just as tin-pot dictators continue to do all over the world today. Furthermore, just as with the freedoms of speech and press, assembly and petition permit opposition to Government to organize rather than be fragmented, disparate and ultimately powerless.

Real conservatives celebrate the First Amendment, just as they celebrate the Constitution as a whole, without reservation. We are not fundamentalists clamoring for state-established religion. We do not advocate the muzzling of political opposition or dissent. Indeed, in recent years we have become the voice of opposition and dissent. We insist upon the freedom to organize, assemble and demonstrate our strength to our Government, just as we insist that these freedoms be accorded to our political opponents. Our movement is predicated on the free exchange of rational ideas.

TEACHING CONSERVATISM: "TAXATION 101" or "RENDER UNTO CAESAR"

BY HARIOLOR

I

Rebate – Prebate – Cut – Credit – Deduction – Refund. These are among the most potent tools in a politician's arsenal of political jargon. This is because few issues can speak as clearly to the heart of the voter as does tax policy. This is understandable. When you earn money, whether in return for work, as dividend on a wise investment, or from some lucky windfall, you inevitably will give some of it up as tax. For most voters, paying taxes is a miserable reality with little evident reward that reliably invokes impassioned tirades from even the least politically-minded among us. Why then do we seem to tolerate so well paying so much in tax, and why do we feel so helpless to change things? To answer these questions, we will have to go back to the roots of the tax system as we know it, beginning with the fundamental (and very conservative) question: why do we have taxes at all?

Government, at its most basic, is explained with brilliant clarity in Thomas Paine's Common Sense. I would suggest as your first homework assignment that you read through it (it's short!), as it is one of the foundational documents of America. Essentially, the founders of our country understood that people, by nature, will tend to come together into groups. This is natural, because you can get more done as a group than as an individual. As long as your work is altruistic, no government will be needed, because everybody will act in the best interests of everyone else (including themselves), because they recognize the interdependence of the group. But after awhile, conflicts of interest may arise, even among the most altruistic individuals. This is because utility cannot be reliably measured, so it is impossible to determine how best to allocate the resources (materials, labor, ingenuity, etc) available to the group. This is where an economy must develop. The individuals make decisions about what, to them, is the most important use of the asset. If everyone was altruistic (and aware of their situation), there would still be no need for government, nor even law. Every transaction would be as fair as possible, and everyone would rest easy knowing that society as a whole was providing them with exactly as much or as little as they deserved. Alas, humans are not perfect.

Fortunately, our founders, for all their apparent idealism, were often harsh, even cynical pragmatists. So it was that they recognized that sometimes people would not be altruistic in their decisions, they might be entirely selfish, willfully harming others to advance their own ends. Other people might feel they have been wronged when, really, they haven't. This conflict is at the root of law. Laws exist because we can either fight with each other when one party in an exchange feels wronged (whether they are or not), or we can come to some sort of an accord through civil means. Sometimes we can reach these accords of our own (this is negotiation), other times we need some impartial advice (this is arbitration). At times though, we have an irreconcilable conflict. The only solution then is to have some codified standard that we can point to as a fair solution. Not fair because it is absolutely equitable, but fair because it can be applied equally to anyone (this is adjudication). Congratulations, now we have a civilization. Notice, there is still absolutely no need for tax...but...

We'll need people now to make decisions as to what standards are fair, and probably people to enforce those standards, and other people to apply the standards to each situation. We could achieve this through a collective screaming match, but that would probably devolve into war long before we came to an accord. As such, we have to make a decision: do we give up civilization and go back to isolation (where we are maximally free, but less prosperous because we are alone), or do we give up some of our freedom in exchange for security (and maybe greater prosperity). Our founders, in their wisdom, begrudgingly acknowledged the necessity of giving up some measure of freedom in order to ensure that there was some sort of civilization at all. However, they believed strongly (well, most of them) in limiting the power of the authority that creates and enforces the law – namely, government. In particular, they wanted to limit the national (federal) government, because they knew that each community was unique, and would have different needs better served by different laws. But here's the rub, and you've certainly figured this out already: you aren't going to get people to create, apply, and enforce the laws for free. And that's not to mention the need for an army to protect our civilization from others that might attack us for whatever reason - even our militia might want to be paid while they're away from their normal jobs, fighting on our behalf. So what now?

As you have surely guessed the answer is to grant the lawmaking body of government the authority to levy a fee on certain transactions between entities (groups or individuals) in order to raise revenue to fund the activities of government (which themselves were to be grossly limited, but that's a different rant). These levies, or taxes, or capitations (there are many words for what boil down to very similar things) could be executed in only a few ways. One would be to tax goods when they change hands. These are tariffs, sales taxes, duties, and the like. Another way is to tax goods when they are produced. These are excise taxes. The third way would be to tax entities based on their apportionment of property, income, or changes in net worth. These are property taxes, income taxes, and capital gains taxes.

In order to grant the federal government the power to levy taxes, a power lacking in the failed Articles of Confederation, the founders drafted Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution to say: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Notice that Duties and Excises are all trade-related taxes. The founders did not believe that the federal government had any business taxing individuals or businesses based on their worth or income. This was in line with the conception of the federal government held by the founders: namely one which was present as a necessary evil, limited in its authority, and subject to the will of the people (as voters in the several States of the Republic) as a servile entity that provided the minimum necessary legal and military support to ensure the freedom of the people be best preserved. The inclusion of the word impost, meaning simply something levied, left some room for maneuvering with regards to the nature of other taxes that might be levied. The built in defense against Imposts becoming individual taxes, however, was the requirement of uniformity. Because all taxes must be uniform, it is impossible to fairly apportion equal amounts to states with unequal distributions of population and wealth. Therefore Article I includes Section 9, Clause 4, stating: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. This says that direct taxes on individuals may only be levied in proportion to the population in the states where the taxes are levied.

These were inconvenient realities, however, when the Civil War came around, and a whopping 3% income tax on incomes over $800 (a tremendous sum in that time) was levied against the American people to fund the war effort in 1861 (nearly ninety years after the founding of the nation). The tax was rescinded in 1872 as reconstruction progressed and the federal government found themselves no longer needing wartime funds. In 1894 tariffs on trade were reduced, and a peacetime income tax of 2% on income over $4000 was imposed. This lasted only one year before the Supreme Court ruled that apportionment of direct taxes was impractical and was for all effective purposes banned by the US Constitution.

Queue the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, which explicitly revokes the apportionment requirement for direct taxes on incomes from any source by reclassifying them as indirect taxes that need only be applied uniformly to all citizens – this is the root of virtually all modern taxation. In 1939, in the wake of the Great Depression, the Congress made the final stroke that would ensure far-reaching tax authority by defining income as: gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. [phew!]

So there you have it. Government is a necessary evil that protects otherwise good and cooperative people from unjust treatment by creating and enforcing laws. The government of the United States is [was] peculiar in that the people elect each other to the government, allowing those laws to be changed as necessary on an ongoing basis to best serve the needs and desires of the constituent voters. Government, however, requires funding to function effectively, even in its most limited form. Therefore, the government was permitted to enforce uniform taxation on commerce, as oversight of interstate and international commerce was already part of the federal government's role. Slowly, as government grew ever larger (a phenomenon the founders warned us of) it required greater and greater funding, particularly as post-Depression America learned to depend ever more on the federal government as a source of social welfare programs (charity by coercion, as the cynics might call it). Once the government had wrestled away the authority to tax “all income from whatever source derived”, all bets were off. So now we have a tax system that taxes you any time you:

Buy anything
Sell anything
Earn anything
Inherit anything
Trade anything
Extract anything from the dirt (oil, coal, buried treasure...)

Of course, this list looks frighteningly unfair, and we must remember that every single line of the entire ridiculously large and complex tax code exists for a reason. But since the little list above says that just about everything you do can be taxed, why do we need so much law about it? Well, for two reasons:

One reason is that people hate paying taxes, so they find creative legal loopholes to avoid paying them. As soon as a loophole is discovered, it is closed with a new addition to the tax code. After all, taxes are meant to be uniform, and if you're clever enough to legally avoid the tax – well shame on you, they'll get you next time.

The second reason for all the messy tax code is that Congress figured out that once they had virtually unlimited power to tax the people, the had virtually unlimited power to shape our behavior. If you don't want people to smoke, tax it. If you want people to buy more goldfish, give a tax credit for goldfish purchases. If you want people to stop importing cheap shoes made in Bangladesh, put a heavy tariff on cheap shoes from Bangladesh. Politicians will smile winningly while manipulating you with taxes, using one of these lines of reasoning (every time, I guarantee):

[your favorite social program] needs to be funded
[your favorite social vice] needs to be restricted
[your favorite social behavior] needs to be supported
[your favorite social class] needs to be more fairly treated

So it is that we have taxes that are marginally progressive but pragmatically regressive, offset by deductions for dependents, based on age, social status, legal status, offset by income caps, offset by rate changes depending on marital status, offset by rate changes for investment losses, offset by deductions for all sorts of expenses, offset by direct credits for having children, going to school, getting sick, not getting sick, helping the environment, and on and on and on.

None of this is necessary. And most of it was never intended by the founders to be constitutional. So accept that there will be taxes. Indeed, there should be taxes. But only because we need some sort of government, and that only to protect our sovereignty as a nation and to guarantee the rule of justice. So the next time you hear about a tax hike for “the rich” remember that “the rich” drive commerce, and those higher taxes will lead to higher prices for you. When you hear about a “tax cut” for the poor, remember that a cut being implemented means that politicians know your taxes were already too high to begin with, and probably still are, but the group getting the cut is a politically expedient poster-child for whatever cause-of-the-moment politicians are latching on to. It really is that simplistic.

Above all else, remember that your money is your money. The government only has a right to it if you give them that right. You give them that right by voting for politicians that raise taxes. Politicians only raise taxes to punish the rich (and thereby appease the poorer classes), and/or to fund government spending. Since even the most die-hard Democrat will laugh at a joke about government inefficiency, it should be clear to every American that funding government projects is a horrible idea. Indeed, history proves it so. And since there is no way to seriously claim that punishing the rich for being rich is in any way fair (to whom is a progressive tax fair, exactly?) or remotely American (sorry Biden, but you're dead wrong on this one if the Constitution and the founding fathers are any gauge), then why ever vote for anyone that raises taxes? The cynic in me has some answers, but the realist in me says that only a champion reader has suffered through my rant to this point, and I need to stop. Hopefully, you've learned something, or at the very least will think long and hard the next time you hear any politician of any political stripe talking about any kind of tax policy. Unless the politician is suggesting massive repeals, simplifications, and accompanying cuts in government spending, you can be absolutely and completely certain he/she is simply using tax as a political tool to manipulate you into voting against your own best interests. Every time this will be true, without exceptions. I guarantee it.

TEACHING CONSERVATISM: LIMITED GOVERNMENT

BY CINCINNATUS

We at The Children Of The Revolution believe that the future of authentic conservatism depends entirely on our ability to teach our beliefs in a rational and open manner. Indeed, we have seen first-hand the fruits of the coordinated indoctrination of the youth of this country by agenda-driven liberals as we ourselves passed through the public and higher education systems in America. Consequently, we understand how lopsided the knowledge that our generation has accrued through their education actually is, and further how arduous such an effort to educate them in the principles of conservatism will be. Nevertheless, we have committed ourselves that such a course is necessary to the survival and eventual re-emergence of what a fellow blogger has dubbed “rational conservatism,” but in essence is merely the continuation of the principles of our nation’s founding. To that end, we begin what will be a series of treatises aimed at Teaching Conservatism.

There are countless misconceptions about conservatism, primarily due to a co-opting of our message and name by political partisans on both sides of the aisle. It is assumed that a “conservative” is just another name for a “Republican.” It is further assumed that a conservative is a Warhawk and a religious fundamentalist. These perceptions are utter fallacy and are a result in part of the evolution of election strategies, designed to garner support from certain powerful voting blocks. True conservatives adhere to a set of core principles that are immutable, as they are a reflection of the inalienable rights recognized by our Declaration of Independence. Political parties, by comparison, are entities that change based upon shifting attitudes, polling data, and the events of history. Conservatives may tend to vote with one party more than another, but our allegiance is to our principles rather than primacy of any one party, person or special interest.

That having been said, there is a reason why conservatives have trended toward voting Republican in the past. Until recently, Republicans have postured themselves as the party of “small government.” The Democrat alternative was one of baldly stated federal government increases in spending and authority. While we may debate the Republican Party’s motives and certainly take due note of the fruits of their “small government” policies (namely, the increase in the size and power of the federal government to an all time high), the argument for limited government found a prominent voice with their party alone. That all, of course, has changed. Conservatives find themselves little satisfied, in fact in large part disgusted, by the excesses of both parties and shy like a battered dog from the Republican enticements of renewed commitment to small government policies.

But why do we conservatives advocate limited government? Sadly, the answer to that question is no longer obvious to many Americans. At its core, the conservative argument is founded upon a simple and logical precept, mathematical in nature. That principle is that the more decisions that government is permitted to make for you, the fewer decisions you are able to make for yourself. Essentially, two objects cannot occupy the same space. In a very real and not just rhetorical sense, expanded government, be it in spending and revenue collection or otherwise, is equivalent to a usurpation of your natural freedom. Typically in history this usurpation has occurred by force, with the government taking what it wanted regardless of the will of its citizens. In our American republic, however, we find ourselves, the citizens, in the unique situation of deciding whether to keep our freedoms or give more of them away to our government. This is, of course, a cost-benefit analysis for us. We are not induced by our government or politicians to relinquish freedoms unless there is some sort of payoff. An example (simplified) of this sort of tradeoff would be Universal Healthcare. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to government-furnished healthcare, however we are presented with the choice of affording that power to government in exchange for increased taxes and the intrusion of government into the healthcare industry, which would have an impact upon the free market. There are many citizens who view this tradeoff as fair and equitable. There are also many, namely conservatives, who do not view it as such.

The conservative maxim of limited government means that we typically will vote down or oppose any increase in the size or authority of federal government; and yes, that includes overburdensome taxes, which are an infringement upon your property. There are rare exceptions, but it is indeed fair to peg conservatives as “small government” people. This is the heart and soul of our movement. And where does this principle come from? As with nearly all conservative tenets, it is taken directly from the founding of our nation. While the Founders disagreed on a great deal, one thing they all agreed upon in drafting the Constitution was that the federal government should be limited in its powers. They did this by specifying the powers of the federal government in Articles I-VI (Article VII dealing with the ratification of the Constitution itself) and by including the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which clearly devolves any powers not specified in those Articles to the states and the people themselves. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall made this plain in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 by stating:

“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”

Nevertheless, liberalism espouses a view that powers peripheral or related to those enumerated in the Constitution but not themselves specified should be granted to the federal government as well. This is in direct opposition to the conservative philosophy of originalism, which holds that the Constitution means exactly what it says and no more. This is a central source of conflict between conservatives and liberals and as such is at the heart of most hot-button political issues, particularly judicial appointments.

The reasoning behind the Founders’ collective decision to limit federal power is the simple truth that a single individual has a better notion of what is in his/her own interest than his/her government. Similarly, they reasoned that state and local government, composed of smaller units of citizens rather than the diverse nation as a whole, should be the focus of government for the people. In all cases, however, the idea was and is to constrain government as much as is practical in order to allow individuals to make more decisions for themselves, in the interest of their prosperity.

So what does limited government mean in a practical sense? First and foremost, it means that you are secure in your person and property. You are at liberty to retain more of your income, you are free from unreasonable search or seizure by the police, you are free to defend yourself and your home (with a firearm, if you so choose), you are free to pursue any path so long as it does not infringe upon the life and liberty of others. It also means sacrifices. Fewer social programs in the mold of social security, Medicare and welfare as they exist today. Accountability for your decisions, should they land you in poverty or jail. It means living with the reality of a federal government that refuses to solve your problems for you. Adherence to limited government also means, as most of the Founders agreed, limitation of warfare strictly to the defense of American property and the American nation, as executive power is at its greatest and most autocratic during times of war, particularly prolonged war of the sort the Founders observed in Europe.

In the articles that follow in the Teaching Conservatism series, we will deal with many specific issues and the conservative stance, however it is important to remember that at the heart of nearly every issue, the goal for conservatism is to constrain government power as much as is reasonably possible to uplift the individual American. When in political doubt, the conservative will ask him or herself: will this unduly expand government authority?