In Just One Month, Politicians Prove the Power To Govern Is the Power To Destroy

Taxation is only one hammer available to politicians when they set out to smash the world around them

The Course of Empire: Destruction by Thomas ColeThomas Cole/Public Domain"The power to tax involves the power to destroy," wrote then-Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819. The man lacked vision. As we've seen time and again, and was emphasized this month with all of the subtlety of Joe Biden on a bender, government can destroy in all sorts of ways beyond taxation. In fact, everything the coercive and yet incompetent institution touches is put immediately at risk of collective disaster from stupid or petulant political decisions.

Marshall's quote, unsurprisingly, isn't the U.S. government's favorite bon mot regarding taxation. The Internal Revenue Service prefers "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society," penned by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in 1927. With an eye toward upbeat marketing, the IRS bypassed Marshall and inscribed a version of Holmes' sentiment on the exterior of its headquarters in D.C. Undoubtedly, the nation's tax collectors really didn't want to draw attention to the rest of Marshall's ruling, in which he found taxation so dangerous that the federal government must be shielded from state exactions lest it be...well...destroyed.

The rest of us are on our own.

We're on our own in dealing with the rest of the federal government's power to destroy, too. And, wow, have we received a recent reminder of government officials' ability to kneecap the world around them in ways both malicious and incompetent.

With the almost/sort of/partial shutdown, we saw Congress and the White House engage in a belated slap fight over borrowing, taxing, and spending policy that culminated in the brief furlough of federal workers and discontinuation of "services" to the American public. Some of those suspended services, such parks and businesses on leased federal land, were privately managed or self-funding and were supposed to be immune to financial shenanigans in D.C. They were shuttered only to inflict pain as part of the political game. Other "services," were actually impositions by the federal government requiring people to ask, mother-may-I, before going about their business. Employers, breweries, and fishermen don't need government permission to function, but they're required by regulations to wait on officials' pleasure before acting, even if the government has decided to sulk in the corner for a couple of weeks until it's allowed to run up the credit cards.

The theatrical closure of services and the dependent status to which government has reduced so many people destroyed opportunity, prosperity, and irreplaceable time and pleasure in people's lives.

The shutdown was "resolved" by suspending limits on the federal government's ability to borrow money until February 7, 2014. The Treasury Department promptly ran up the tab another $328 billion in one day, raising the national debt to $17.076 trillion in a process that even the Congressional Budget Office calls "unsustainable." With spending expected to outstrip revenues for decades to come, inflicting a burden on Americans not yet born, government has demonstrated the astounding ability to destroy the future!

The simultaneous rollout of the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" exchanges provides another dramatic example of why we should be happy there's no federal Department of Wet Dreams. At a cost of something on the order of $500 million, the federal government built a website to help people shop for health insurance that they are required by law, under pain of fines, to purchase. The website and its dozens of exchanges don't work. They don't work because, with those hundreds of millions, the federal government bought really bad design and implementation. They don't work so impressively that when the press actually came up with a living person who claimed to have successfully enrolled in a health plan using the exchanges, Reason's Peter Suderman exposed the story as bogus.

The Course of Empire: Desolation, by Thomas ColeThomas Cole/Public DomainThe blown rollout of Obamacare destroyed not just wealth, political promises and the expectations of those remaining starry-eyed believers in tax-supported unicorns, it may also destroy an already damaged health care system. The Affordable Care Act mandates health coverage for all Americans, and imposes a litany of regulations with which most existing health plans don't comply. That means lots of people are expected to purchase new, compliant, coverage through the Obamacare exchanges. That don't work.

As Jeffrey Young, health care reporter for the Huffington Post, writes, "anyone who isn't able to get coverage because of the exchanges' problems could confront the prospect of tax penalties through no fault of their own."

Penalizing people for not complying with a law with which the goverment has made it impossible to comply is destructiveness raised to a level of evil genius. (White House flak Jay Carney says this won't happen. We'll see.)

Then again, if somebody finally does get the Obamacare exchanges working and conscripted customers are able to shop for their or-else options, people will find that the law hikes the cost of health coverage for Americans in 45 out of the 50 states in return for a strictly limited, behind-the-Iron Curtain-quality selection of doctors and hospitals. One large provider, Wellpoint, plans to cut by as much as half the number of physicians available on plans it offers through the exchanges.

That's just October of 2013. Which isn't over, yet. And we haven't even addressed drone killings, no-knock raids, or those little temper tantrums known as wars of aggression.

Yes, the power to tax does indeed involve the power to destroy. But John Marshall should have thought bigger. Taxation isn't the only hammer government officials can swing when they get a hankering to smash.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Paul.||

    culminated in the brief furlough of federal workers and discontinuation of "services" to the American public

    I know you're trying to bring the 'shutdown' rhetoric into a more truthful light, but even here, you go too far.

    It resulted in a brief furlough of a tiny percentage of federal workers and a false-flag operation meant to look like the discontinuation of "services" to the American public.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I waver between regulation or taxation as to which is the more destructive. If I could do away with just one, the U.S. Tax Code or our regulatory environment, I don't know which I would choose.

  • Paul.||

    I would probably lean to get rid of the tax code. As a card-carrying glibertarian, I don't have a problem light touch regulation (passed by representative body only, thank you very much).

    If they eliminated or simplified the tax code, that lets us keep the money and comply with regulations as we see fit.

    Regulations impose a cost, but that cost is soft. Taxation takes the money right out of my pocket with the IRS saying FYTW as they leave the property I rent from them.

  • Will Nonya||

    I don't know, they're two halves of the sate coin. However if you removed regulation which is intentionally punitive you might be able to afford the taxation. At the very least they wouldn't being telling you what to do with what you have left.

  • Ketogenic Paleo||

    Regulations can stay hidden better than taxes, which means they can be abused more while people blame it on a scapegoat.

  • Jquip||

    Putting aside any random notion of what a 'regulation' is, the current tax code has installed a breathing tax on the populus.

    There is a tax rebate if you purchase politically preferred private services. But it's still a per capita breathing tax.

    Repeal the 16th amendment and there are no such further problems. And protest about regulation can be started from 1 of 57 State spoilers, rather than 1 of 300,000,000 odd Serf spoilers.

  • Paul.||

    They don't work because, with those hundreds of millions, the federal government bought really bad design and implementation.

    Yes, but they bough the best bad design that money could buy.

  • Tony||

    So go live in your anarchic paradise and don't come whining to the rest of us when you can't figure out why your neighbor is raping and pillaging you when you explained very clearly to him that force is bad.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Were neighbors raping and pillaging each other 5 seconds after James Madison's signature dried on the parchment of the Constituition?

  • Tony||

    To some degree, probably. But it should be noted that there were both taxes and rules before and after that event.

  • Tony||

    Because surely you're not claiming the US constitution, whose primary purpose was to establish a stronger national government, was the foundation of an anarchic paradise.

  • phandaal||

    Right, the constitution was written to create a powerful state, not to set individual rights above those of the state. There's just that pesky Bill of Rights getting in the way of your fantasy.

  • Tony||

    The Bill of Rights is not The Constitution. Lots of stuff comes before the Bill of Rights whose purpose was to establish a much stronger central government than had come before. The reason is because the prior system had failed.

  • phandaal||

    Are you serious? The Constitution wasn't ratified until the Bill of Rights was included.

  • phandaal||

    Correction, the opponents of the Constitution as it was originally written wouldn't agree to ratify without the concession that the amendments would be included.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Lots of stuff comes before the Bill of Rights whose purpose was to establish a much stronger central government than had come before.

    But not at the expense of individual rights, which your ilk seems to have forgotten about everything that doesn't involve the crotch area.

  • coma44||

    ^^this^^

    And to add more crotch!

  • Tony||

    It doesn't say anything about an individual right not to be taxed or regulated. For that matter, the supposed individual right to bear arms has the word "regulated" in its language.

    A right to a jury trial entails proscription of jurors. Nobody here is talking about any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. They're talking about rights they invented out of thin air.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Gee, Tony, the Constitution does say something about your beloved progressive income tax though:

    "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

    And since you don't believe amendments are the Constitution then you've got a bit of a problem in your paradise...

  • Tony||

    An income tax is obviously not a capitation tax, and the 16th amendment established it as an indirect tax. Yes amendments are part of the constitution but you guys seem to be ignoring the main body that establishes a strong federal government.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Reading comprehension a bit of a problem? "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

    That is in the Constitution and only after the 16th amendment was made did it turn into an indirect tax. You're arguing the core intent of the Constitution and so you have to accept that the core intent of the document outlawed progressive income tax. But since you like the results of the 16th, then you have to accept the results of the 10th which was ratified with the actual Constitution itself,

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


    Gee, seems to me like the founders were pretty damn worried about having that much central authority after all...

  • Juice||

    For that matter, the supposed individual right to bear arms has the word "regulated" in its language.

    The 2nd amendment suggests that the militia should be regulated. The right of the people shall not be infringed (regulated).

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    They're talking about rights they invented out of thin air.

    You mean the right to healthcare? Because that isn't in the Constitution either.

  • DenverJay||

    "Regulation" in this context in 18th century English meant "trained and provisioned". Look it up.

  • Craig@NC||

    The purpose of the Bill of Rights "was to establish a much stronger central government," Tony wrote. Maybe he didn't write exactly what he meant because the statement is clearly incorrect.

  • ||

    Tony, I'm Canadian and I know that wasn't the purpose of the founding fathers.

    Even I know Hamilton represented the faction of the framers that believed "more" in central authority but to say that was the purpose seems rather outrageous to me.

    Jesus Christ.

    Really, Tony?

    Why do I picture you in front of the mirror crying as make up oozes down your face as you try to apply more make up? You remind me of a depressed character in a Lou Reed song who has lost all hope.

    Snap out of it for fuck sakes.

  • coma44||

    "Snap out of it for fuck sakes."

    He can't because the government has not told him how to or sent out the "representative" to "guide" him "out"

  • Loki||

    I picture him as the "Leave Brtiney alone" ... person (could never tell if that was a dude or a chick).

    "Leave the government alone!" *sobs uncontrollably* "Leave 'em alone!!!"

  • Lar Gand||

    He might have trouble logging in to the website.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    No vacuum brain, the point is that the federal government was far smaller in scope and power then than it is now and
    the subsequent increase in it's power hasn't altered the probability of one getting raped or pillaged one iota from whatever risk level existed at that time.

  • DarrenM||

    The US Constitution was created to establish a stronger national government that what existed at that time by replacing the Articles of Confederation (as I recall from school). It was never intended to create anything near what we have now.

  • Craig@NC||

    I wonder what Tony's talking about here. I don't think this article had anything to do with a call for anarchy.

  • phandaal||

    I don't think he can conceive of a situation in which people value their security enough to pay for it without a boot on their necks.

  • Tony||

    I can conceive of a situation in which people who can afford a personal security force would pay for it. My concern is everyone else.

  • phandaal||

    Is it impossible for a community to fund their own security? Only individuals within that community can do it, and only when they're wealthy?

  • coma44||

    Tony is a small child out in the wild alone without the "Government" to hold his hand.

  • Craig@NC||

    I suspect he's just pulling some legs. None of his posts make any sense but he gets a lot of responses. Seems like a gag to me.

  • phandaal||

    I like to think he's a Miyagi-type figure, just messing with people to train them for debate in the real world.

  • coma44||

    The only leg he is pulling is his own 3rd member.

  • Loki||

    Seems like a gag to me.

    Seems like an irritating troll to me.

  • DarrenM||

    Tony is a small child out in the wild alone without the "Government" to hold his hand.

    Or he believes everyone else is. I'm sure there are people like that, but it's ridiculous to penalize everyone else for the inadequacies of others.

  • Tony||

    ??? A community funding its security is collectively is called government.

  • Juice||

    If people can opt out, then it's not any kind of government on Earth today.

  • Tony||

    How do people opt out? Not pay their share ("taxes")? Okay, so it's legitimate to rob their homes?

    You see the problem here?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    How do people opt out? Not pay their share ("taxes")? Okay, so it's legitimate to rob their homes?

    You see the problem here?

    Yes, I see the problem here: you think it's legitimate to rob someones home if they don't pay taxes. But before, you said government isn't good or bad itself: it's a tool that can be used for good or bad.

    So, what the hell does someone not paying taxes have to do with the legitimacy of stealing from them? Are we back to "government is inherently good/legitimate"?

    I see the problem: you can't think consistently. You reflexively say whatever you think sounds good in the moment, never mind its direct contradictions with your previous statements. Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

  • Brian||

    By this definition, MetLife is a government.

  • BoxyBoxyBoxyBoxy||

    If it's funded by voluntary cooperation, then your raping/pillaging neighbor is a much better example of what a government is.

  • Big Chief||

    A community funding its security collectively is called free association.

    A community FORCED to fund its security under penalty of death is called government. FIFY.

  • gimmeasammich||

    I'm just going to leave this right here...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8359948.stm

  • phandaal||

    Tony wrote: "??? A community funding its security is collectively is called government."

    No, it isn't. It doesn't change the community into a legislative body any more than hiring an EMT service or firefighters or teachers would. You don't get to make random statements and call them fact.

    Then again, I'm not surprised that you think that guns are what transform ordinary people into people with the legitimate right to control others.

  • Tamfang||

    That non-wealthy individuals can't pay for their own security is demonstrated by the fact that only the wealthy pay taxes. Right?

  • Freedom Frog||

    My concern is everyone else.

    Yeah. I think that's pretty clear actually.

  • phandaal||

    I know, right? I bet people did a roaring business in lube up until the early 20th century. It's a wonder anyone was able to walk down the street without getting a hard fucking.

    And the pillaging! How were people able to accumulate so much wealth without park rangers shutting down private businesses or the Department of Agriculture issuing egg licenses to small farmers?

  • Tony||

    People were plenty fucked before the invention of modern society. Especially if you weren't white and male. "But apart from the near-total exclusion of more than half the population from meaningful participation in society and capitalism, and apart from the fact that you were likely to die before you were 50, it was a paradise!"

  • phandaal||

    No, people were fucked if they weren't politically powerful before our ancestors codified exactly what the government was allowed to do and legalized the right of individuals to say "fuck off."

    Most of the world had civilizations that rose and fell just fine on their own, and most of them weren't founded or destroyed by white people. I assume you are referring only to European societies and those places colonized by European societies in the last 500 years or so.

  • coma44||

    ^^this^^

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    People were plenty fucked before the invention of modern society. Especially if you weren't white and male. "But apart from the near-total exclusion of more than half the population from meaningful participation in society and capitalism,

    Yes, in that way, it is sad that the time period wasn't libertarian enough. After all, rights for women and non-whites comes from libertarian ideas of self-ownership. Not big government.

    You claim that government is a tool: that it can't be good or bad. OK, this implies you can't give it credit for ending slavery, because the same government could have just as easily led them on a Trail of Tears. What was the difference? Libertarian ideas of self-ownership. Government itself doesn't have an opinion. Neither does democracy, or socialism/communism for that matter, since they're just ways to make a decision, and ways to organize an economy.

    So, sorry the 1800's weren't libertarian enough for you, but that's an argument in favor of more libertarianism, not against it.

  • Tony||

    Like all tools, government can be used for good or bad. I prefer that we talk about how to use government for good rather than whether government per se is good, because I think the latter conversation descends into nonsense.

    The 1800s weren't free enough, but they were certainly more libertarian than today. Even forbidding slavery is a centralized imposition on the will of people, an exception to the libertarian ideal. Just in order to ensure universal individual liberty, the basic libertarian society, you have to restrict certain individual freedoms and preferences.

    Your premises do not fit your outcomes. You readily acknowledge the good of centralized decision making and coercion when it comes to establishing the very first aspects of what you claim is a free society. You may draw a line after that, but the act of drawing the line legitimizes opinions about drawing the line elsewhere.

  • Brian||

    Even forbidding slavery is a centralized imposition on the will of people, an exception to the libertarian ideal

    No, it isn't. Libertarians of all shapes and sizes embrace the idea of the government protecting property rights, based on the legitimacy of self-ownership, and the legitimacy of self-defense on someone else's behalf. In that sense, government isn't bad when it prohibits slavery.

    But, now, as you say, we're "talk about how to use government for good...". This implies that what the government is doing is either good or bad, i.e., it's not self-legitimizing. Thank you very much.

    OK, so when the police protect property rights, that's legitimate, not because the police are inherently legitimate, but because property rights are legitimate. Otherwise, we're bad to the "government is always good/bad" paradigm that you reject.

    OK, if private property rights are good, and slavery is bad, then taxing everyone arbitrarily at 15-25-50% of their income is.... denying property rights? Slavery? So, the government contradicts the legitimate principles it claims to protect?

    As you say, your premises do not fit your outcomes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Like all tools government guns can be used for good or bad. I prefer that we talk about how to use government guns for good rather than whether government guns per se [are] good, because I think the latter conversation descends into nonsense.

  • Tamfang||

    If "forbidding slavery is a centralized imposition on the will of people," what is enforcing slavery?

  • Brian||

    It's socializing the costs of slave keeping onto the tax paying society. In other words, too much freedom, too small a government.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    and apart from the fact that you were likely to die before you were 50, it was a paradise!"

    This reminds me of the time you told us that the black plaque was a problem of limited government. Like, mortality is a libertarian problem, solved by democrats.

    I assume it was capitalism's fault that we didn't have the Apollo moon landings in 1868, right?

  • Tony||

    The Black Death was not prevented because of a lack of institutions that could prevent it, such as the ones that exist today and that continuously prevent bacterial pandemics.

    I don't blame capitalism for not having a space program in the 19th century, but I do note that it was central planning and funding by government that created one first.

  • Brian||

    Tony:
    I don't blame capitalism for not having a space program in the 19th century, but I do note that it was central planning and funding by government that created one first.

    And the fact that no one had walked on the moon was clearly a problem for every taxpayer.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And has resulted in a program that can no longer even put a person into orbit. Thank you for illustrating just how unsustainable and inefficient government is. We are now relying entirely on private enterprise to hopefully launch Americans back into space in spite of spending nearly $20B a year on a space jobs program that can't even accomplish one of its primary missions.

  • Brian||

    You can't blame them: when they started the space program, it sucked in private engineers from industry.

    We're in the 2nd and 3rd generation now of government run space exploration. The people are completely different. They've been federal employees their whole life.

    That's what socialists never understand: they nationalize private institutions and assume that they'll run like private institutions for decades. In reality, maybe a couple of decades, if you're lucky. Eventually, it stabilizes to the Department of Motor Vehicles. But, they can always point to those early years and claim victory.

  • Tony||

    This is a cute libertarian-friendly narrative but I'm sure you realize it's bullshit. NASA is hardly limping along like an underfunded DMV. It's doing lots of things besides manned spaceflight, and if you thought that continued to be a useful endeavor, all that would be required is funding. Scientists haven't gotten dumber.

  • Brian||

  • Brian||

    Constrat this with the Apollo mission, which came in on time and within the neighborhood of it's proposed budget.

    Scientists may not be stupider, in general, but we're still talking about federal employees here. "Good enough for government work" eventually gets taken to heart.

    And, does it really need to be said? Aren't we already there?

    "Coming to a healthcare provider near you!"

  • DenverJay||

    Hmmm...sorta. Although there were definitely very strong Governments on most of the planet at that time. I think that scientific knowledge is more important than Government for disease prevention. Also, why is it impossible to have Health organizations without them being Government organizations? would everybody just say "fuck it! let N1H1 spread, no one can make me help stop it!"

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Especially if you weren't white and male"

    And it takes a government to enforce segergation or prevent suffrage, you stupid, totalitarianism-sucking dipshit.

    Since you love to conflate anarchy and Libertarianism, maybe you can explain how segregation would work in a lawless society.

    "and apart from the fact that you were likely to die before you were 50"

    Yeah, nevermind the fact that life expectancy rose, and continues to do so, in almost entire part to scientific advances and discoveries made possible by a capitalist society in which centralized government was prevented from stepping in and suppressing discovery, as it had throughout the middle ages. But then, that's exactly what pinko Luddite shitbags like you crave.

    The Soviets, on the other hand, couldn't even get basic fucking farming right.

  • coma44||

    "So go live in your anarchic paradise and don't come whining to the rest of us when you can't figure out why your neighbor is raping and pillaging you when you explained very clearly to him that force is bad."

    I will not have to explain it a second time to him because if he "rapes and pillaging" he will be shot.

  • Tony||

    Unless he shoots you first, which he's perfectly entitled to do since there are no socially legitimized (taxpayer funded) institutions forcing him to behave otherwise.

  • coma44||

    "Unless he shoots you first, which he's perfectly entitled to do since there are no socially legitimized (taxpayer funded) institutions forcing him to behave otherwise."

    Well Tony maybe you can explain how with all the "tax payer funded" institutions in place in Chicago and New York why they are not crime free....

  • phandaal||

    Too much anarchy. Gun laws not strict enough.

  • coma44||

    "Too much anarchy. Gun laws not strict enough"

    Nice, even the token Progressive troll Tony could not come out with that yet.

  • Tony||

    You'd have to compare the current crime metrics to what they'd be without government. I suspect they wouldn't improve.

  • Brian||

    Violent crime was a lot worse in the 1800's than it is now, taking the most dangerous parts of the wild west, and the most dangerous parts of our inner cities.

    You can thank the drug war for that.

  • Brian||

    *I mean backwards: worse now than the 1800's.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Unless he shoots you first, which he's perfectly entitled to do since there are no socially legitimized (taxpayer funded) institutions forcing him to behave otherwise.

    At the point that we're dealing with taxes and guns, what does legitimization have to do with anything, again?

  • ||

    What kind of deadbeat neighbours does Tony have?

  • coma44||

    Apparently ones that work for the IRS.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    So go live in your anarchic paradise and don't come whining to the rest of us when you can't figure out why your neighbor is raping and pillaging you when you explained very clearly to him that force is bad.

    Translation: Boogeymen! Boogeymen! Boogeymen! Boogeymen!

  • Tamfang||

    Won't anyone think of the children roads??

  • DenverJay||

    Also, although there are many anarchists on these threads, Libertarian-ism is NOT Anarchy. It is concerned with having a government that protects the rights of all (so no raping and pillaging), but is kept in check, and does little else besides protecting rights, leaving individuals free to come up with their own solutions to life's problems, and to live their lives how they think best, with no permission needed if they want to drink more than 20oz of soda or smoke a joint, or marry someone of the same sex or a different race. To be able to live without fear of being "stopped and frisked" or arrested for putting substances in their own bodies, or having their home broken into by armed goons, their families terrified, and their pets shot.
    Governments have always existed, the thugs would get together and decide they were going to boss others around. Libertarians want to tell those thugs to fuck off, not see how far up the thugs' asses they could crawl, unlike some.

  • Jquip||

    You seem to be unaware, but Socialist, Welfare, Great Society, -- or whatever folks want to call it this Tuesday -- paradises are *defined as* my neighbor raping and pillaging me.

    I'm no fan of Anarchy, but at least it's egalitarian about the raping and pillaging.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Given that about 40% of the federal budget is paying for grandma you seem to be arguing that we'll have a horde of horny octogenarians wrestling us to the ground to give us all gummers.

    Holy fuck, it's worse than Watts!

  • Ketogenic Paleo||

    This is the fundamental difference between libertarians and liberals; for libertarian Minarchy or Anarchy to work you need a society of people who will more often than not act with benevolence, co-operation and be use their minds.
    For the guiding hand of the liberal state to work you need a small cadre of smart, kindly government and intellectual elites to keep things together or else they believe people will more often than not act evil, stupidly and in an anti-social way.

    Evolution strongly indicates liberals and Big Gov't Oligarchs are wrong.

    Also, that neighbour can go eat lead.

  • ||

    Even in Canada we have limits to how far we're willing to go when it comes to confiscating wealth. Believe it or not, we have (generally) lower corporate tax rates for example.

    When a candidate for the NDP the uber-socialist Linda McQuaig agitated for a 70% tax rate (I forget the details) the leader of the party Thomas Mulcair declared that idea 'confiscatory.' Which of course it is. She basically advocated for theft. It was something to hear his comments coming out of a leftist party.

    It's socialism (like what they want to do in Mass. by limiting CEO pay) by other means. It's much easier to say "oh, you're just paranoid there is no socialism! Socialism is full control of the means of production!" when it's done piece by piece.

  • ||

    It helps, by the way, that Mulcair represents a wealthy part of the city of Montreal in the district of Outremont (the French version of Westmount).

    McQuaig, for her part, lives in a posh part of Toronto. Like a good socialist.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Unlike Tony, most Canadians understand the limits of scale.

  • DarrenM||

    Fascism would be more accurate. Unfortunately, the ignorant choose to equate it with racism. Thanks, Adolf, for the smoke screen.

  • coma44||

    "McQuaig, for her part, lives in a posh part of Toronto. Like a good socialist."

    Don't they all.

    They (the socialist want to bees) for the most part believe that by promoting all this social stuff, the sins of "being rich" will be washed away. Funny part is they never do it with their own money.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Funny part is they never do it with their own money."

    Of course not.

    Grandstanding about how "compassionate" they are with other people's money is a universally distinguishing characteristic of all liberals.

  • Brian||

    That means lots of people are expected to purchase new, compliant, coverage through the Obamacare exchanges. That don't work.

    Hey, Obama told us yesterday that you can still apply by snail mail. Ignorance other archaic options is no excuse to break the law.

    Forward!

  • Ron||

    You can apply by snail mail? that is as long as snail mail exist since it too is in a financial mess that may shut most of it down.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's only because those radical Republicans are forcing the USPS to save for its retirees' health and pension benefits. We all know that responsible organizations leave those problems to the future.

  • Brian||

    Exactly. Delaying pension and health benefit savings has a stimulative effect. See Detroit.

  • DarrenM||

    I'll bet you can apply by telegraph in a few months.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's been over 48 hours since the last Tony posts. Anyone else wondering if he has spent all of that time waiting on healthcare.gov to double the number of enrollees?

  • Brian||

    I just assume he's avoiding articles about Obamacare. He's on the wrong side of the tragic irony.

  • DenverJay||

    Double it to what? 4?

  • ||

    Come on, come on, come on, no whammies, no whammies!

  • juliajuli27||

    my best friend's step-aunt makes $73/hr on the laptop. She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $21645 just working on the laptop for a few hours. go
    ===========================
    http://WWW.Works23.Com
    ===========================

  • optimusratiostultum||

    The income tax is immoral. It is based on the supposition that the people owe a debt to the government simply for being allowed to live.

    All taxes ought to be based on consumption (licenses, fees, stamps etc..) and effectively tied to the use of the institution they are ment to fund, such as the gas tax paying for roads and only roads.

    The current system simply adds all federal income to the big slush fund for politicians to play with.

  • lyttene||

    I agree with the opinion of To Govern Is the Power To Destroy

  • EndTheBeguine||

    "White House flak Jay Carney says this won't happen."

    No other sentence could make me more certain this will happen.

  • dcbsky@icloud.com||

    Please lay the credit for the petulance and damage where it belongs: at the feet of Him and His regime.

  • thorax232||

    People paying attention to and fearing the government is like an adult paying attention to and fearing a child with a sharp stick.

  • petarmark4||

    like Walter explained I am taken by surprise that a single mom able to profit $5487 in four weeks on the internet. visit their website
    http://WWW.JOBS72.COM

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement