Today was my departure day at a federal agency where I had worked for nearly five years. I turned in my laptop, the only one that I had used for the entire time I was there. Every bit of work that I did was safely stored on the hard drive.
It is incomprehensible how one agency could have so many key people's hard drive crashes.
The IRS needs to be reined in. I would prefer they obliterate it and start over, but we know that's not going to happen.
BTW, I start a new job on Monday, a rare occurrence in the Obama economy. I'm counting the days until I go Galt in a few years.
No, it's not a "wonderful thing". It may be necessitated for some because the civilized world is in such a bad state of decline into statism, but that doesn't make anything about this mess "wonderful". Ayn Rand wanted to Atlas Shrugged to prevent this from happening. Her moral ideals are for all of civilization, not a mentality of "dropping out".
Shucking the bonds of slavery to an oppressive regime IS wonderful. I believe Jefferson summed all I could say in the declaration of independence. A day of freedom is better than a lifetime of servitude to a "ruler".
ewv, the folks who followed John into Galt's Gulch did not 'abandon civilization,' imnsho, they chose to leave a decaying society and establish a different, safer, 'better' one where they could live by their own moral, ethical (and economic) rules rather than have other rules imposed on them by brute force or coercion.
I see that as a huge difference.
Going Galt 'is not "required," it's recommended or suggested as an alternative to living in the status quo hell Outside The Gulch.
If their 'dropping out' will 'make no difference to the course of civilization,' the end-game won't change, but the Gulchers won't have to put up with the horrors during the decay. I say: good for them!
Your_Name_Goes_Here wrote: "I would argue it to be a requirement for one to go Galt so as to begin forcing the repair of a system that our Founding Fathers gave us". That "requirement" is appalling. What Ayn Rand is he talking about?
The 'strikers' in Atlas Shrugged went to the Valley and otherwise stopped producing for the economy specifically to "stop the the motor of the world" in order to accelerate the collapse of the system, and then return once the looters and their controls had been rejected and out of power. That was an artificially accelerated plot device to illustrate the theme of "the role of the mind in man's existence", not a recommendation for people to drop out of working in the US or strike to achieve reform.
Ayn Rand was not advocating that people drop out but hoped to prevent the decline and ultimate collapse instead by letting people read and understand the philosophy of the novel without having to live through the events. She consistently advocated that only philosophy could ultimately save the country. She did not advocate going on strike either to live supposedly better in a "new country" or to achieve reform by damaging the looters through a "strike", and thought that either would be futile. She did recognize that people naturally cut back their efforts in response to punishment. See her "Is Atlas Shrugging?".
If there is a better city, town, state or country than where you are for your life and it is practical to go there to live then by all means do it. But this is still overall a mixed system of government, not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, and for the most part there is no better country to go to and no idyllic Midas Gulch (which was portrayed only to illustrate a superior philosophy and way of life, not as a practical option complete with its own "ray screen" to keep intruders out).
There is no place to go with the promise of what this civilization could have and should have achieved, and nothing practical to gain even at a simpler, lower level of economic activity and technology because of the state of the entire world.
If the decay becomes much worse, such as through a sudden collapse, then you have no choice but to seek a relatively safer shelter, in a cave if you have to, for as long as you can survive against the elements of nature and roving looters or government agents.
But in no case is the necessity of having to move or go "underground" in order to escape injustice "wonderful". The closest anyone has come to "wonderful" in this context was the existence of the significantly freer America that immigrants could move to over a century ago, though they should not have had to do that.
Thank you for presenting a clear view of Rand's thoughts. I heard her speak many times, often in argument against those who felt that she ought to bless their particular "drop-out" scheme. She never granted support to anarchists or libertarians, and seems instead to have treated them as parasites, as leeches clinging to a misunderstanding of her philosophy.
What can one person do? You can live your own life by reason instead of by faith and force. You can work on selling reason as a suitable tool for living. You can speak out against anti-reason, against mere faith, against raw force, wherever you find them.
If we give up and retreat to caves we should retain our hopes, and we should have plans for leaving our caves.
Atlas Shrugged is a novel. The theme (as Rand herself said) is the role of the mind in man's existence. It is not intended as prophecy, even though it seems more and more to be coming true.
History is littered with failed Utopian experiments. Let Galt's Gulch be part of our minds, but let's not sacrifice ourselves to stupid tantrums. "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue and die, and THEN you'll be sorry," is appropriate only for a five-year-old who is testing the limits of authority.
Ayn Rand's concluding statements in her article "What Can One Do?" in 1972:
"... These are some of the right things to do, as often and as widely as possible."
"But that reader's question implied a search for some shortcut in the form of an organized movement. No shortcut is possible."
"It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas—except under a dictatorship."
"If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side—because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality."
Today there _is_ a "movement" against the progressively increasing statism and collectivism, and that is a good thing, but it is not yet the kind of intellectual movement required to combat the driving ideology of the statism and collectivism, and without that will not be enough. And it is no longer clear that "time is on our side", even with the right ideas and "reason and reality on our side".
Whatever happens, dropping out and 'going galt' into hiding (not just a normal retirement or need to cut back and redirect one's efforts to reduce the punishment) is a last ditch effort for survival for as long as that can last, not something "wonderful".
Ayn Rand did regard libertarians as a kind of parasite when they "plagiarized half her philosophy and contradicted the rest". She also had no patience for "new country" escapists.
She wrote an essay entitled "What Can One Do?" emphasizing first learning what is correct and applying it, including, speaking out -- not dropping out aka 'going galt'. But she recognized the natural reaction to cut back in the face of punishment to minimize the sacrifice. She also wrote once that she pays more taxes than she legally had to in order to avoid being tripped up on some bureaucratic regulation, knowing that with her political views they would be all over her at the slightest excuse.
A lot of people today recognize and are stunned by the accuracy of her "prophecy" in Atlas Shrugged, but fewer realize what you do that she was trying to prevent it, not predict it and was not advocating 'dropping out', either as a life style or an alleged means to combat collectivism. Even fewer in today's public reaction recognize and understand the philosophy of reason she advocated as the only antidote.
Civilization is where civilized people live. I don't consider people who live to suck the essence of my life civilized. I don't see people who say that I must produce so that they can prosper as civilized.
If you say that I must be bound that they and you may live, I reject your position. I don't OWE anything to any man I have not willing bound myself to. And those people who have ensconced themselves in positions of power in order to enslave us will never "own" my life.
Leaving aside your dramatic speeches about rulers and servitude, this is still a mixed system, not a communist 'utopia'. In comparison with other countries, let alone primitivism and tribalist butchers like Islamic Nazis, America IS civilized (and so is Israel), and for all the worsening problems there is still no better and safer country to go to than America, though there are some differences among states. 'Dropping out' to 'go Galt', even if it becomes necessary, is not "wonderful", would be yet another loss, and is not what Ayn Rand advocated.
ewv, I retired in 2008, after 50 years of work. like stargeezer, I am also former military -- he army, me air force. he is also retired.
I find retirement wonderful. I sought it at the earliest possible time, and got it at age 59. my wife and I built a home in a gulch. a rancher sitting on a full basement, with a sub-basement at the level of the bottom of the back-yard, the gulch.
we hide out, here. yet we pay oodles of taxes to people who use the $$ to buy democratic votes. it feels like reverse slavery. producers enslaved to those who do not produce.
Yes, Rand taught that we should do everything in our power to make the world *just* for producers. striking *was* a literary device to demonstrate the extent to which we might have to withdraw, to show the contrast between producers, looters and moochers. Rand was the most able defender of the United States qua United States since those who founded this place, IMHO.
I believe that richkinley, at the top of this conversation, is seeking what my wife, also retired, and I, and stargeezer are enjoying -- minimal self-sacrifice while still breathing.
it appears that we all agree, using different terms, and we're not dropping out, but graduating -- from one degree of self-sacrifice to a lesser one.
Well said. I am in a similar situation. I retired 5 years ago, and now I live in South Texas (very south). Small community, huge taxes. Cost of living is very low. I'm trying my best, with what I have. I am very well protected here.
A lot of people have cut back or retired early to put their efforts into more personal activities that the statists can't (yet) touch. It's a natural response to the punishment but not something any of us should have to do to mitigate it. If you have personal, productive values you want to pursue and can do it without a salary, then that is good. But you have noticed that you haven't really "hidden out" -- the property taxes keep following us everywhere, don't they?
"property taxes keep following us everywhere, don't they?"
No, actually they don't always. Without going into lots of detail involving our state laws, a disabled veteran who meets certain criteria in this state are exempt from property taxes. Being retired, and having closed my business to go on "strike" against this criminal administration I refuse to generate ANY taxable income that the looters can benefit from. I refuse to use my abilities to strengthen the hand of the looters who seek to hold my mind hostage.
You can dismiss this as rhetoric if you wish, but I can assure you that I live my ideals, not just "talk" about them. John and I placed a large portion of our lives defending the rights we enjoy as citizens of this nation. We placed our bodies up as collateral to purchase continued freedom for our way of life and now see our sacrifice and the total sacrifice paid by so many of our friends is tossed away by a person who has no idea of the real price we willingly paid. A price he totally dismisses and seems to think we were fools to pay.
I can also assure you that the cost of freedom is very, very dear to me. From buddies who were killed when I started my military career in the jungles of Vietnam to the loss of use of my legs 13 years later, freedom is not free. Yet we have a president who is willing to give all our freedom away for a vote or for a moment of peace promised from a terrorist who cannot be trusted.
Yeeeee Haaaa! Finally, Justice arrives! I've heard of taxes being frozen for selected seniors, but this is better -- and it's not posthumous! Way To Go, America!!! -- j
Complete exemption from property taxes is very unusual, and depends on the state. It's good that you were able to do it, especially after all you have paid.
yes, ewv, I really teed off an Obama campaigner in 2008 when I sent out a memo about the irony of a half-black man reversing slavery to benefit Democrats and their cronies. using our tax dollars.
I disagree, and I think is *is* a wonderful thing. It signifies one person's realization that things are badly broken, potentially beyond repair. Once one recognizes that, I would argue it to be a requirement for one to go Galt so as to begin forcing the repair of a system that our Founding Fathers gave us, and that we ultimately squandered.
"Going Galt" is not going to fix anything in society. As Ayn Rand argued, the cause of the decline is philosophical -- Very few understand the philosophical cause and the proper alternative illustrated in Atlas Shrugged, and a relative handful of people dropping out will make no difference to the course of civilization. At most it might save a few from government abuse, at the expense of giving up the benefits of living and working in an advanced economy. "Going Galt", i.e., dropping out, is not "wonderful" and the notion that it should be "required" is morally obscene. The fact that cutting back to avoid being fleeced with ruinous taxation and social controls is bad enough.
If all (or most) of the real producers, inventors, intellectuals, etc. disappear from the federalist's radar, and create their own economy, it will certainly have a huge effect on society. The real challenge is persuading them to play ball. Takes a lot of time and effort.
All or most of the real producers, most of whom are people with mixed philosophies and many of whom are political liberals, are not going to 'go galt', and "creating their own economy" invisible to the government is not possible.
Ayn Rand's point was that the time and effort is required for enough people to understand the right philosophy, after which dropping out is not required.
I disagree. Most wealthy liberals have inherited their wealth and standing. Theirs' is fleeting. I believe that what Ayn Rand was "showing us" is that we need to go back to a real monetary standard, and start using and promoting it. How can gold & silver transactions between private parties be tracked?
How do you know that most wealthy liberals have inherited their wealth? In the 'blue' states, especially in the northeast and west coast where liberal politics dominates, there are many successful professionals in and business people who are politically liberal. Some are getting government favors and some aren't. It is a mistake to think that successful people must tend to be like Hank Rearden. Very many aren't. In today's culture people have mixed premises. Hank Rearden is an intentional abstraction in romantic fiction intended to emphasize philosophical points through illustration -- 'showing', not 'telling'. It wasn't just a novel that untypically showed businessmen as the heroes.
Ayn Rand said she wrote Atlas Shrugged to portray her idea of the "ideal man", showing what philosophy it represented and what it means in action. The theme of the novel is the role of the mind in man's existence, illustrated by the plot with the "strike". All of it is a lot broader and more fundamental than what monetary standard to adopt.
As for the issue you raised about using gold or silver to barter, the IRS doesn't have to track all your barters through a paper trail. They see people living beyond their reported income, rely on politically motivated 'tipsters' out to cause trouble for their enemies, track monetary sales of hard assets, set up sting operations, and "estimate" what you are earning to impose taxes and penalties. They don't have to prove it; the burden of proof is legally on the victim to prove his innocence to a bureaucrat who has already decided. Tax agencies exploit this power to politically persecute even people who are not hiding income. Your suggestion of a barter tactic here on gg is enough to make you a target regardless of what you actually doing.
If you are working at a job that you are unhappy with, you should stay in that job.
If you are in an unhappy, abusive relationship, you should stay in that relationship.
No. The fact is, you have a choice to make. As humans with free will, we can make the choice to "Go Galt" and abandon that which is biting the hand that feeds it.
OK, I agree with your clarification then, but my analogy is still appropriate with how you worded your statement. The way it came across was that it was bad to cut back in order to being fleeced, which I would strongly disagree with.
Obliterate, yes. Then stop. No transfer of assets from the sovereign people to central looters. Unneccessary and counterproductive to liberty, productivity, and innovation.
Congratulations, @richkinley, both on walking out of Federal employment and on finding a better job.
As for eliminating the IRS, the Fair Tax (http:www.FairTax.org) is the best alternative I've seen as it returns the U.S. tax structure much more closely to what the Constitution originally specified (and more specifically, AWAY from what the Constitution particularly prohibited) and is much more in keeping with Randian economics. The first result of adoption of the Fair Tax is to repeal the 16th Amendment, which is the legal basis of the IRS.
Sadly, hiding or destroying data is commonplace among government agencies, as a form of CYA. There is acute paranoia about what an IG investigation might uncover, so numerous convoluted misdirections are built in, and information is either overwritten or "lost" long before it's supposed to "age out". This is part of the reason why it's nearly impossible to audit any government agency. What's amazing with the IRS case is the awkward ham-handed way the data has been hidden or "lost" by claiming a mysterious pandemic of crashed hard drives. They apparently aren't as clever as other agencies about the way they keep information hidden.
There is a long history of defense related agencies abusing security classifications to hide what they are doing from other agencies, elected representatives and the public. Agencies are notorious for 're-writing' FOIA for their own purposes and otherwise hiding and denying legally requested information.
In Maine a few years ago, the state tax commissioner deflected inquiries from a state senator, arising from constituent complaints of abusive targeting, by hiding behind the "privacy act" to protect his agency; the commissioner wouldn't even answer questions about agency policy, but privately spread malicious gossip about his targets to undermine their credibility.
Under Clinton and Obama officials in EPA and elsewhere have routinely hidden and destroyed their emails revealing political activism in their official work. This included a top Clinton official who had been ordered by a court to turn them over. The strategy has also included using private email accounts and pseudonyms.
This mentality goes on and on. It's a cancer spreading through a progressively politicized and non-objective government.
Re the real topic here... Lerner's non-paper trail, I'm looking forward to the legal challenges driving the NSA to reveal what they have captured of her communications. Let them prove they can add value to domestic government abuse as well as their charter of foreign threats. Those are the ones really needing to be watched.
An outstanding example of boycotting abusers is MLK and the ... City Bus company. The customers voted with their feet and the city capitulated. A perfect solution. All that was needed was a philosophical agreement among the boycotters.
ARI is doing its best to drive such a philosophical understanding to future voters through targeting their achools. clubs, etc. teaching them the rights and responsibilities of sovereign human beings.
Well, I'm going to keep working because I have to, if for nothing else but good health insurance (until Obamacare ruins that), and because, I guess, I love it. Not going to "let the bastards keep me down"! Yep, just like Dagny, but I don't have a John Galt to save me -- I'm a guy -- and there really is no Galt's Gulch, that I know of, to fly in to...otherwise I would.
Because they have the ability to delve into nearly any source of transaction. You might think that total bartering or non-FRN transactions are hidden, but the IRS still has subpoena power to document those transactions, should they choose to do so. All depends on whether you are significant enough to do so. If you're not, you probably wouldn't be "contributing" in the first place.
They don't need a "paper trail". They watch your life style and attribute income (called an "estimate"). They don't need proof. They are the IRS. You are guilty until you prove your innocence to a bureaucrat who has already decided otherwise.
ONLY when they want to. I am trying to collect a 185,000 judgement on my neighbor, and his income taxes showed he had paid his property taxes for the last 3 years (which he deducted) and they never caught that, he also wrote off 300K 5 years in a row on alpacas, which they never questioned. They re selective enforcers and I would not be surprised to find political and personal motives.
But where are the heroic Allies -- Eric Cantor types? The IRS officials are not panicking in the face of defeat, they are manipulating the system and so far getting away with it.
Before the computer era, what went on in the government was way beyond reach or question. We were served the prepared scenarios and we swallowed the majority of them in the belief and trust that our government was what it said it was... until we started to see the cracks forming (Vietnam, Watergate...) and we could no longer keep the faith. We began to doubt, inwardly and to some extent outwardly (demonstrations, challenges, etc.). This continued search for the truth from our elected governing officials and their established institutions has widened with the access to so much more information, making it more difficult to hide actions from words, instant juxtaposition... We now know, and we know it ain't pretty.
How do we take back power? Where do we begin? We call for a complete shutdown of these malfunctioning, if not down right criminal, institutions, i.e, IRS. We start over. Maybe with a straight flat tax for everybody. We cut the crap. Truth is surprisingly simple yet the road it opens is decisively arduous. The outcome- clean, pure, honest liberation.
It wasn't just the feds that decided that they didn't want what they did discoverable - I know one state in which most of their agencies changed from an email system that kept hard backups on servers to one that automatically deleted everything in 6 months. And they're working REALLY hard to delete the old software from all their computers so no one can access the "old files" - never mind some of those records are vital to business...
There's a pervasive attitude to shred what you can in government, so the F***up or illegal mistake someone makes or made doesn't come back to bite someone who whould have caught it (or worse, was complicit in it) in the butt. Why did the IRS files get deleted? Because it is a way of saving the IRS's corporate butt (and the butts of those with their fingers in the cookie jar) from the acts of their employees. If no one can see it, then those in charge (who gave the destruct order) can claim they never saw it, so it never existed...
Its a juvenile, stupid ploy that people are using to hide the cat poop under the rug, rather than cleaning it up in the first place.
The government was smelling them before they ever went on sale. Look for the thread about the fake cell phone towers, they "mysteriously" seem to be popping up all over now.No communications is safe from "our" government.
This is one giant conspiracy by the government who has politicized the IRS. It is obvious that there is dynamite in those e-mails, and probably link the DNC or the WhiteHouse.
It is incomprehensible how one agency could have so many key people's hard drive crashes.
The IRS needs to be reined in. I would prefer they obliterate it and start over, but we know that's not going to happen.
BTW, I start a new job on Monday, a rare occurrence in the Obama economy. I'm counting the days until I go Galt in a few years.
Incomprehensible? No. Clear evidence of obstruction of justice? Yes
I see that as a huge difference.
Going Galt 'is not "required," it's recommended or suggested as an alternative to living in the status quo hell Outside The Gulch.
If their 'dropping out' will 'make no difference to the course of civilization,' the end-game won't change, but the Gulchers won't have to put up with the horrors during the decay. I say: good for them!
The 'strikers' in Atlas Shrugged went to the Valley and otherwise stopped producing for the economy specifically to "stop the the motor of the world" in order to accelerate the collapse of the system, and then return once the looters and their controls had been rejected and out of power. That was an artificially accelerated plot device to illustrate the theme of "the role of the mind in man's existence", not a recommendation for people to drop out of working in the US or strike to achieve reform.
Ayn Rand was not advocating that people drop out but hoped to prevent the decline and ultimate collapse instead by letting people read and understand the philosophy of the novel without having to live through the events. She consistently advocated that only philosophy could ultimately save the country. She did not advocate going on strike either to live supposedly better in a "new country" or to achieve reform by damaging the looters through a "strike", and thought that either would be futile. She did recognize that people naturally cut back their efforts in response to punishment. See her "Is Atlas Shrugging?".
If there is a better city, town, state or country than where you are for your life and it is practical to go there to live then by all means do it. But this is still overall a mixed system of government, not the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, and for the most part there is no better country to go to and no idyllic Midas Gulch (which was portrayed only to illustrate a superior philosophy and way of life, not as a practical option complete with its own "ray screen" to keep intruders out).
There is no place to go with the promise of what this civilization could have and should have achieved, and nothing practical to gain even at a simpler, lower level of economic activity and technology because of the state of the entire world.
If the decay becomes much worse, such as through a sudden collapse, then you have no choice but to seek a relatively safer shelter, in a cave if you have to, for as long as you can survive against the elements of nature and roving looters or government agents.
But in no case is the necessity of having to move or go "underground" in order to escape injustice "wonderful". The closest anyone has come to "wonderful" in this context was the existence of the significantly freer America that immigrants could move to over a century ago, though they should not have had to do that.
What can one person do? You can live your own life by reason instead of by faith and force. You can work on selling reason as a suitable tool for living. You can speak out against anti-reason, against mere faith, against raw force, wherever you find them.
If we give up and retreat to caves we should retain our hopes, and we should have plans for leaving our caves.
Atlas Shrugged is a novel. The theme (as Rand herself said) is the role of the mind in man's existence. It is not intended as prophecy, even though it seems more and more to be coming true.
History is littered with failed Utopian experiments. Let Galt's Gulch be part of our minds, but let's not sacrifice ourselves to stupid tantrums. "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue and die, and THEN you'll be sorry," is appropriate only for a five-year-old who is testing the limits of authority.
"... These are some of the right things to do, as often and as widely as possible."
"But that reader's question implied a search for some shortcut in the form of an organized movement. No shortcut is possible."
"It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas—except under a dictatorship."
"If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side—because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality."
Today there _is_ a "movement" against the progressively increasing statism and collectivism, and that is a good thing, but it is not yet the kind of intellectual movement required to combat the driving ideology of the statism and collectivism, and without that will not be enough. And it is no longer clear that "time is on our side", even with the right ideas and "reason and reality on our side".
Whatever happens, dropping out and 'going galt' into hiding (not just a normal retirement or need to cut back and redirect one's efforts to reduce the punishment) is a last ditch effort for survival for as long as that can last, not something "wonderful".
She wrote an essay entitled "What Can One Do?" emphasizing first learning what is correct and applying it, including, speaking out -- not dropping out aka 'going galt'. But she recognized the natural reaction to cut back in the face of punishment to minimize the sacrifice. She also wrote once that she pays more taxes than she legally had to in order to avoid being tripped up on some bureaucratic regulation, knowing that with her political views they would be all over her at the slightest excuse.
A lot of people today recognize and are stunned by the accuracy of her "prophecy" in Atlas Shrugged, but fewer realize what you do that she was trying to prevent it, not predict it and was not advocating 'dropping out', either as a life style or an alleged means to combat collectivism. Even fewer in today's public reaction recognize and understand the philosophy of reason she advocated as the only antidote.
If you say that I must be bound that they and you may live, I reject your position. I don't OWE anything to any man I have not willing bound myself to. And those people who have ensconced themselves in positions of power in order to enslave us will never "own" my life.
Leaving aside your dramatic speeches about rulers and servitude, this is still a mixed system, not a communist 'utopia'. In comparison with other countries, let alone primitivism and tribalist butchers like Islamic Nazis, America IS civilized (and so is Israel), and for all the worsening problems there is still no better and safer country to go to than America, though there are some differences among states. 'Dropping out' to 'go Galt', even if it becomes necessary, is not "wonderful", would be yet another loss, and is not what Ayn Rand advocated.
stargeezer, I am also former military -- he army,
me air force. he is also retired.
I find retirement wonderful. I sought it at the earliest
possible time, and got it at age 59. my wife and I
built a home in a gulch. a rancher sitting on a
full basement, with a sub-basement at the level
of the bottom of the back-yard, the gulch.
we hide out, here. yet we pay oodles of taxes to
people who use the $$ to buy democratic votes.
it feels like reverse slavery. producers enslaved
to those who do not produce.
Yes, Rand taught that we should do everything
in our power to make the world *just* for producers.
striking *was* a literary device to demonstrate
the extent to which we might have to withdraw,
to show the contrast between producers, looters
and moochers. Rand was the most able defender
of the United States qua United States since
those who founded this place, IMHO.
I believe that richkinley, at the top of this conversation,
is seeking what my wife, also retired, and I, and
stargeezer are enjoying -- minimal self-sacrifice
while still breathing.
it appears that we all agree, using different terms,
and we're not dropping out, but graduating -- from
one degree of self-sacrifice to a lesser one.
Thank You for your contributions!!! -- john mason
No, actually they don't always. Without going into lots of detail involving our state laws, a disabled veteran who meets certain criteria in this state are exempt from property taxes. Being retired, and having closed my business to go on "strike" against this criminal administration I refuse to generate ANY taxable income that the looters can benefit from. I refuse to use my abilities to strengthen the hand of the looters who seek to hold my mind hostage.
You can dismiss this as rhetoric if you wish, but I can assure you that I live my ideals, not just "talk" about them. John and I placed a large portion of our lives defending the rights we enjoy as citizens of this nation. We placed our bodies up as collateral to purchase continued freedom for our way of life and now see our sacrifice and the total sacrifice paid by so many of our friends is tossed away by a person who has no idea of the real price we willingly paid. A price he totally dismisses and seems to think we were fools to pay.
I can also assure you that the cost of freedom is very, very dear to me. From buddies who were killed when I started my military career in the jungles of Vietnam to the loss of use of my legs 13 years later, freedom is not free. Yet we have a president who is willing to give all our freedom away for a vote or for a moment of peace promised from a terrorist who cannot be trusted.
of taxes being frozen for selected seniors, but this is
better -- and it's not posthumous! Way To Go,
America!!! -- j
2008 when I sent out a memo about the irony of a
half-black man reversing slavery to benefit Democrats
and their cronies. using our tax dollars.
taxes follow us everywhere....... -- j
Ayn Rand's point was that the time and effort is required for enough people to understand the right philosophy, after which dropping out is not required.
Ayn Rand said she wrote Atlas Shrugged to portray her idea of the "ideal man", showing what philosophy it represented and what it means in action. The theme of the novel is the role of the mind in man's existence, illustrated by the plot with the "strike". All of it is a lot broader and more fundamental than what monetary standard to adopt.
As for the issue you raised about using gold or silver to barter, the IRS doesn't have to track all your barters through a paper trail. They see people living beyond their reported income, rely on politically motivated 'tipsters' out to cause trouble for their enemies, track monetary sales of hard assets, set up sting operations, and "estimate" what you are earning to impose taxes and penalties. They don't have to prove it; the burden of proof is legally on the victim to prove his innocence to a bureaucrat who has already decided. Tax agencies exploit this power to politically persecute even people who are not hiding income. Your suggestion of a barter tactic here on gg is enough to make you a target regardless of what you actually doing.
If you are working at a job that you are unhappy with, you should stay in that job.
If you are in an unhappy, abusive relationship, you should stay in that relationship.
No. The fact is, you have a choice to make. As humans with free will, we can make the choice to "Go Galt" and abandon that which is biting the hand that feeds it.
Bad enough? So what DID you mean by that?
Having to cut back to avoid being fleeced by the government is obviously bad because you shouldn't have to do that.
As for eliminating the IRS, the Fair Tax (http:www.FairTax.org) is the best alternative I've seen as it returns the U.S. tax structure much more closely to what the Constitution originally specified (and more specifically, AWAY from what the Constitution particularly prohibited) and is much more in keeping with Randian economics. The first result of adoption of the Fair Tax is to repeal the 16th Amendment, which is the legal basis of the IRS.
Because the IRS is an evil looters division of the fedgov, an evil looters conspiracy.
In Maine a few years ago, the state tax commissioner deflected inquiries from a state senator, arising from constituent complaints of abusive targeting, by hiding behind the "privacy act" to protect his agency; the commissioner wouldn't even answer questions about agency policy, but privately spread malicious gossip about his targets to undermine their credibility.
Under Clinton and Obama officials in EPA and elsewhere have routinely hidden and destroyed their emails revealing political activism in their official work. This included a top Clinton official who had been ordered by a court to turn them over. The strategy has also included using private email accounts and pseudonyms.
This mentality goes on and on. It's a cancer spreading through a progressively politicized and non-objective government.
Lerner's non-paper trail, I'm looking forward to the legal challenges driving the NSA to reveal what they have captured of her communications. Let them prove they can add value to domestic government abuse as well as their charter of foreign threats. Those are the ones really needing to be watched.
ARI is doing its best to drive such a philosophical understanding to future voters through targeting their achools. clubs, etc. teaching them the rights and responsibilities of sovereign human beings.
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/09/06/...
We did not have to learn German but soon the libtard thought police will make sure we all speak and think PC.
Before the computer era, what went on in the government was way beyond reach or question.
We were served the prepared scenarios and we swallowed the majority of them in the belief and trust that our government was what it said it was... until we started to see the cracks forming (Vietnam, Watergate...) and we could no longer keep the faith. We began to doubt, inwardly and to some extent outwardly (demonstrations, challenges, etc.). This continued search for the truth from our elected governing officials and their established institutions has widened with the access to so much more information, making it more difficult to hide actions from words, instant juxtaposition... We now know, and we know it ain't pretty.
How do we take back power? Where do we begin? We call for a complete shutdown of these malfunctioning, if not down right criminal, institutions, i.e, IRS. We start over. Maybe with a straight flat tax for everybody. We cut the crap. Truth is surprisingly simple yet the road it opens is decisively arduous. The outcome- clean, pure, honest liberation.
There's a pervasive attitude to shred what you can in government, so the F***up or illegal mistake someone makes or made doesn't come back to bite someone who whould have caught it (or worse, was complicit in it) in the butt. Why did the IRS files get deleted? Because it is a way of saving the IRS's corporate butt (and the butts of those with their fingers in the cookie jar) from the acts of their employees. If no one can see it, then those in charge (who gave the destruct order) can claim they never saw it, so it never existed...
Its a juvenile, stupid ploy that people are using to hide the cat poop under the rug, rather than cleaning it up in the first place.