Genesis of the "NO" Logo
In history there have been two basic forms of social organization: collectivism and individualism. In the 20th and 21st century, collective variations have included socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism. Under collectivism, a ruling class of “intellectuals”, bureaucrats, politicians and/or social planners decides what people want or what is “good” for society and then uses the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax and redistribute wealth in an attempt to achieve their desired objectives. Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence and responsibility. It embraces opposition to controls over the individual when exercised by the state. The Preamble to our Constitution makes it plain that all power rests originally with the people, as individuals.
The “O” within the circle represents collectivism in its various forms. The “N” represents an emphatic repudiation of collectivism. The red, white and blue circles encompassing the “NO” are emblematic of our Republic. It is the responsibility of the individuals in an engaged and enlightened republic to limit the influence of the government, especially one that attempts to wield power outside the boundaries delineated by the Constitution.
When a discriminating income tax is allowed to become the means of legal plunder, the spark of envy within the classes of men is fanned into a raging fire. No longer is the state able to restrain the fruits of covetousness; now it works to produce them. From the spark of envy to a conflagration of confiscation, the graduated income tax has led to democratic tyranny.
The progressive income tax has come upon us gradually. It began with a seemingly harmless maximum rate of 7 per cent. Yet within less than a generation, this rate climbed higher than 90 per cent. Of course “progressive” is a misnomer. “Aggressive” might be closer to the truth. But alas, perhaps “regressive” would be best, as this graduated tax policy has taken America back centuries—down the road to serfdom.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-outcome-of-the-income-tax/
This article was written more than 30 years ago. It is as relevant today as it was then.
Many on the religious left criticize capitalism because all do not end up monetarily equal—or, as Churchill quipped, "all equally miserable." But the Bible's prescription of equality means equality under the law, as in Deuteronomy's saying that "Judges and officers . . . shall judge the people with a just judgment: Do not . . . favor one over the other." Nowhere does the Bible refer to a utopian equality that is contrary to human nature and has never been achieved.
This is a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal. A
large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. Follow the money. Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.
I do not like this Uncle Sam
I do not like his health care scam
I do not like those dirty crooks or
how they lie and cook the books
I do not like when congress steals
I do not like their secret deals
I do not like this jobless rate or
speeches filled with racist hate
I do not like this drilling ban
I do not like this "yes we can"
I do not like this spending spree
I'm smart I know that nothing's free
I do not like their smug replies
when I complain about their lies
I do not like this kind of "hope"
I do not like it Nope Nope Nope.
Tonight, Americans who tune in to the State of the Union will watch the work of a rhetorical master with a flair for illusion..... Before considering the President's record, first consider his message--that economic populism is the core of America's principles, that the federal government should be the guarantor of equal outcomes and that "fairness" of achievement should be decided by legions of bureaucrats in Washington. It is a theme that the President unveiled in a speech last month in Osawatomie, Kansas, and it's one he plans to return to tonight. This vision is at the root of the President's progressive ideal. It is not, however, the ideology on which our country was founded....The "ladder of opportunity" exists so that people may apply their God-given talents and abilities in order to better themselves and pursue the American dream. That is the liberty that makes the United States unique. The President, though, does not stand for that dream. Instead, as he has made clear, he believes that it is through government engineering that society can advance--through more government power, federal education programs, economic regulations, and infrastructure spending, all funded by "fair" taxes on "wealthy" Americans.
This article, published in 1990, is even more relevant today. Here are some excerpts:
Our nation was founded by men who believed in limited government, especially limited central government. They were not anarchists; nor did they espouse laissez faire. But they did believe that rulers ought to be restrained and accountable to the people they govern. If the founders could see what has happened to the relation between the citizens and the government in the United States during the past two centuries, they would be appalled.........All but the few anarchists among us recognize that effective liberty requires some government, if only to define and protect rights to life and property. Beyond a point, however, bigger government begins to cut into our liberties; then the growth of government becomes synonymous with the sacrifice of liberty. In the United States, we entered this stage a long time ago..........The growth of government cannot continue forever. An economy totally dominated by government isn’t viable—even the Communists now recognize this. Eventually the government will eat up so much of the private sector that it will destroy the means of its own sustenance. At some point the balance of political power will swing away from support for bigger government in an effort to revive the dying goose that lays the golden eggs. If such reaction can occur in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it certainly can occur here.
The more objectionable and egregious a government policy is, the more the government depends on brute force to enforce it. So you can know for sure that when such laws are proposed that there are plans for the wars of the future to be even more objectionable, immoral, and unjust than the wars of the past. If you have to criminalize and banish dissent, it is likely that every intelligent person is going to be a target.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/its-treason-to-disagree/
Peter is a favorite of this blogger. He espouses the Austrian school of economics and his views are often at odds with the main stream
Keynesians. His predictions are usually correct.
This is Ron Paul's famous Predictions speech from April 24, 2002. This is the original video compiling recent images and video to give his speech a chilling effect.
