Tea Partiers: Liberty is More Than Low Taxes

[Anonymous]

I'm sick of tea partiers ranting about liberty, when they really mean low taxes and maybe getting out of buying health insurance. Can I assume they will be vigorously supporting the ACLU, or does liberty only mean the things a white "christian" hockey mom approves?

[Anonymous]

The ability to tax is the ability to destroy. Socialism demands the forfeiture of liberty. Tax revenue is the mothers milk of socialism and communism. Low taxes keep these forces on a short leash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ability to tax is the ability to destroy. Socialism demands the forfeiture of liberty. Tax revenue is the mothers milk of socialism and communism. Low taxes keep these forces on a short leash.

Life inevitably leads to death. Breathing is the mother's milk of life. Stop breathing to keep death on a short leash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ability to tax is the ability to destroy. Socialism demands the forfeiture of liberty. Tax revenue is the mothers milk of socialism and communism. Low taxes keep these forces on a short leash.

Taxes don't enter your home without permission. Taxes don't tell you what you can write or what you can say or where you can say it. Taxes don't spy on your phone calls or monitor what books you check out of the library. Taxes don't pull you over because you are black. Taxes don't tell you who you can date or what to do with your body. Taxes don't interfere with your right to worship.

We have an entire bill of rights, and that's what the Founders called Liberty. They were worried enough about protecting these freedoms to wisely forge a document to protect them - even though the federal government didn't collect any income taxes at all until the civil war. If Thomas Jefferson thought that Liberty was more than freedom from taxes, well I do too.

As for your socialism comment, many socialist countries have excellent protection for these civil liberties. So your thesis does not seem to correspond to modern political history. I personally like capitalism, but the facts are what they are.

[Anonymous]

The Tea Partiers want more freedom for themselves. I don't know if they really care about freedom for others.

[Anonymous]

Why is the government unable to operate efficiently on less income like families and businesses can?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ability to tax is the ability to destroy. Socialism demands the forfeiture of liberty. Tax revenue is the mothers milk of socialism and communism. Low taxes keep these forces on a short leash.

Taxes don't enter your home without permission. Taxes don't tell you what you can write or what you can say or where you can say it. Taxes don't spy on your phone calls or monitor what books you check out of the library. Taxes don't pull you over because you are black. Taxes don't tell you who you can date or what to do with your body. Taxes don't interfere with your right to worship.

We have an entire bill of rights, and that's what the Founders called Liberty. They were worried enough about protecting these freedoms to wisely forge a document to protect them - even though the federal government didn't collect any income taxes at all until the civil war. If Thomas Jefferson thought that Liberty was more than freedom from taxes, well I do too.

As for your socialism comment, many socialist countries have excellent protection for these civil liberties. So your thesis does not seem to correspond to modern political history. I personally like capitalism, but the facts are what they are.

Private property rights and benefiting from the sweat of ones brow are the cornerstones of liberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ability to tax is the ability to destroy. Socialism demands the forfeiture of liberty. Tax revenue is the mothers milk of socialism and communism. Low taxes keep these forces on a short leash.

Taxes don't enter your home without permission. Taxes don't tell you what you can write or what you can say or where you can say it. Taxes don't spy on your phone calls or monitor what books you check out of the library. Taxes don't pull you over because you are black. Taxes don't tell you who you can date or what to do with your body. Taxes don't interfere with your right to worship.

We have an entire bill of rights, and that's what the Founders called Liberty. They were worried enough about protecting these freedoms to wisely forge a document to protect them - even though the federal government didn't collect any income taxes at all until the civil war. If Thomas Jefferson thought that Liberty was more than freedom from taxes, well I do too.

As for your socialism comment, many socialist countries have excellent protection for these civil liberties. So your thesis does not seem to correspond to modern political history. I personally like capitalism, but the facts are what they are.

Private property rights and benefiting from the sweat of ones brow are the cornerstones of liberty.

No, that's the cornerstone of a free market economy. But capitalism does not ensure Liberty. Ayn Rand might have told you that, but Locke knew better.

[Anonymous]

I don't get their "liberty" rallying cry while simultaneiously demanding ultra conservative social changes, like Creationism taught in schools. Lower taxes I can understand, but a government agency teaching religious ideas to our kids seems to be a huge overstep. I don't know how they can even say it with a straight face.

Liberty FAIL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the government unable to operate efficiently on less income like families and businesses can?

I'm curious: do you own a home? Did you pay for it in cash, or did you borrow money to purchase it? Pay cash for college? Ever get a car loan? "operate efficiently on less income like families and businesses can" is an utterly meaningless feel-good phrase, and reflects on the seriousness of your typical teabagger.

Taxes are the contributions that we--as a society--decide to cough up to pay for the upkeep of the state. You may not personally think that the rates are optimal, but then again, not everyone can agree on everything. But we--through our elected officials--make these decisions, and given sufficient support, they can be changed. If you don't like it, you can opt out. And by that, or course, I mean move the Hell out of the country. We don't want or need you.

[Anonymous]

I own four houses, 3 investments. 2 bought in cash. 2 borrowed 50%. Lease my cars as a straight expense. All of my cash has been earned by 25 years of work with 1-2 weeks off a year. But I still look like I'm 35 and am suprisingly sensitive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I own four houses, 3 investments. 2 bought in cash. 2 borrowed 50%. Lease my cars as a straight expense. All of my cash has been earned by 25 years of work with 1-2 weeks off a year. But I still look like I'm 35 and am suprisingly sensitive!

But that PP's point is that your two mortgages and financed vehicles are deficit spending. When people say "why can't the government live within its means" they conveniently forget that they have debt as well.