On The Fact That I Don't Consider Myself An "American"

Did you know that, even after the Constitution was ratified by every state, New Yorkers, Virginians, etc. continued to identify themselves by their state of residence, rather than by their national citizenship?

Yeah, the centralizers, gun-toters and cronies (Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, Wilson, the Roosevelts, etc.) eventually put a screaming halt to that (self-determination only being a good thing for Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc. apparently), and now we're ALL "Americans".

Although it's mostly because I hate democracy so much that I don't consider myself an American, but rather more of a sovereign citizen. By which I mean that, while I don't consider myself a member of the movement, I do subscribe to many of their beliefs. Sovereign citizens, for example, "especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate".

Which I do. I continue to pay taxes, however. But only because I know that jackbooted agents of the State will show up on my doorstep with a guns and threaten my life if I don't. Yeah, I refuse to voluntarily participate in a system that steals from productive people to give to lazy unproductive people.

I do participate involuntarily, but only because I value my life and don't wish to be murdered or imprisoned. The fact remains, however, that I never signed the social contract, which is why I REALLY resent having to pay anything toward the "common good". AKA redistribution, AKA theft, which is (obviously) evil.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-303.

As A Libertarian, I Can Confirm That I Hate Democracy

This is an accusation that is often flug at Libertarians. Instead of denying it, I can confirm that it is absolutely TRUE. Fact is, I do agree with James Madison's view of Democracy, which is that "it is the most vile form of government".

And of course he's correct in that the inevitable results of pure democracy are mob-rule, socialism, plunder, subjugation of the minority, and a total abandonment of the non-aggression principle (sometimes leading to war or genocide). I mean, just look at Zimbabwe and South Africa for starters. Fucking hellholes!!

Me, I would MUCH prefer a benevolent dictatorship lead by a coalition of the uber-wealthy elites, perhaps with Gary Johnson serving as a figurehead. "King Gary" or "Emperor for life Johnson" sounds a HELL of a lot better to me than President Hillary Clinton (*shudder*)

BTW, as far as our new dictator's "benevolence" goes, I only mean there would be no mass murdering in the oligarchy. Unlike socialist dictatorships, under which the State usually kills millions. Directly. Indirect deaths (those due to starvation) would likely be similar. Or perhaps even greater. Due to our new oligarchic overlords abolishing ALL welfare.

The result being that millions of worthless Takers would (given their refusal to work) bite it. Or, as Ayn Rand said (in regards to the poor man) "If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course". Ha ha ha ha! Perfect!

If that utopia ever came about? It would SURELY cause me great joy to hear the news of the day. Because the top story would likely be a report on how bodies of worthless poor people were collected and incinerated that day. Of course it wouldn't go on for too long. Sooner or later the US would purged of it's parasite infestation. And that would be a day to par-tay! Emperor Johnson would likely declare a national holiday.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-302.

Taxation Is Theft (Takers Stealing From Makers Via The Democratic Process)

Karl Marx frequently referred to profits as theft but never referred to taxes as theft. Can you fucking believe it? So that which is taken through the barrel of a gun and coercion ISN'T theft but entrepreneurship, ingenuity, vision, and risk-taking through a series of voluntary associations IS. Man, was that dude ever fucked in the head.

BTW, that taxes are taken through the barrel of a gun and coercion is absolutely true. Rich folks never voluntarily pay their taxes. Or, perhaps SOME do. I've heard that many resist, and that's when the jackbooted thugs are sent out to grind their bootheels into the throats of their rich victims.

This happens everyday, given the fact that resisting muggings are human nature. Especially if they happen time and time again. Usually on April 15th of every damn year! What I'd like to know is what the hell makes the State think it has the right to steal from citizens? Now, I know you're probably going to tell me that the 16th amendment gives the State this right (specifically the right to assess and collect an income tax).

And, if you do make this argument I'm going to have to admit that you're right. However... uh... I've got nothing. Which isn't to say that taxes STILL are not teft. I mean, they aren't, but that isn't going to stop me from saying they are. Because... Libertarian?

Also, apparently pointing out the fact that you never signed the social contract is not an acceptable reason to not cough up the State's protection money? Pay up or you'll go to jail? Seriously?

Although, unless you're for anarchy, the government needs some money to operate. For a police force to keep the violent Blacks from stealing from Whites, at least. But I say poor people should pay. They're the ones committing most of the crime, so it only makes sense that they should be the ones to pay.

Instead the Democrats think the poors should be given lots of free gifts? While the rich Makers shoulder most of the tax load? Not paying their fair share? Clearly they're paying WAY more. Which has GOT to stop, IMO.

BTW, in regards to profits being theft? The Left might say that, given the fact that pay is negotiated between employers (who have all the power) and singular employees (who are in oversupply, thus not in a position to demand much in pay). Excepting situation in which there is a union, of course. Unions put the worker in a position in which they can negotiate for a higher wage, despite the oversupply of labor.

But stealing from workers is an employer's RIGHT, IMO. I'm talking about Natural Rights. Rich people get more of them due to them being rich. The State, representing "the people" is like a union of all citizens. This is the primary aspect of collectivism that Democrats support and Republicans oppose. Republicans opposing it for good reason. Which is because it is evil.

I mean, an institution that attempts to equalize (to some small extent) the power of poor/middle class people with that of rich people can only be viewed as evil. At least by rational people, given the fact that poors stealing from richers (via the State) is wrong, while richers stealing from poors IS THEIR RIGHT! Or, their Natural Right, to be more precise.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-262.

The Darkest Period in Human History?

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the FDR presidency. Under this tyrant the top tax rate on our beloved wealthy Makers was increased to a mind-boggling 94%. This asshole even had the gall to suggest that rich folks should pay 100% after earning 350k (in today's dollars)! Which is obviously peanuts. Enough for a middle class loser to get by on, but clearly not enough for a worthy rich man to live in style. I mean, you've got to have enough to pay your servants.

As a runner up "darkest period" I'm going with when the gorgeous, delightful, and talented Polly Pergen left "To Tell the Truth" in 1961 and was replaced by the dumpy, acerbic, and difficult to watch Peggy Cass. What a fat uggo! IMO only good looking women should be allowed on TV. I'm even opposed to having uggos in "character" rolls. "Character actor" being code for unpleasant in appearance. Only men should be character actors, I think. I mean, why subject your audience's eyes to unnecessary pain?

The brightest period in human history? It might surprise you, but my selection is the years 1346 to 1353. This would be peak years of the Black Death. The Black Death being "one of the most devastating pandemics in human history". The disease swept Europe, killing an estimated 75 to 200 million people, or 30–60% of Europe's total population.

So, why do I consider this to be a "bright" period? Because (as I pointed out in a prior commentary) the Black Death raised the standard of living of many survivors who inherited estates from the plague's victims. Not that I necessarily care about the living standard of worthless poors. No, but that millions of these parasites were exterminated is a "good" that would surely have made Ayn Rand smile.

Rand would absolutely agree that poors going to an early grave when there is an overabundance of them is a positive, and definitely something that should happen at least once in awhile. I mean, we want their numbers to be high enough so that the price of labor is low, but not so high that they consume too much resources (think a plague of locusts).

There is also the possibility that, if they become too numerous and if their living conditions become too horrid (especially compared to their wealthy superiors) they could rise up. The execution of the Romanov family being but one historical example of a revolution of the lower classes leading to the deaths of superior wealthy people.

Something that might have happened under FDR if the wealthy individuals that the tyrant FDR plundered had resisted, given the fact that (ultimately) the theft of money from rich people (in the form of taxes) is extracted via the barrel of a gun.

Which is pretty fucked in the head if you ask me, given that the wealthy earned their money via entrepreneurship, ingenuity, vision, and risk-taking through a series of voluntary associations. Yet they're the criminals if they don't pay this protection money.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-261.

On The State Having The Gall To Enforce Laws After Passing Them (Laws The People Say They Want Via Democratic Elections)

The fact is that, whenever you go to bottom of the rabbit-hole with groups like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the Bernie Sanders crowd, etc, and ask these assholes how they're going to implement their agenda, they always have to confess that it will only be obtained through coercion, force, the threat of violence, and violence itself via the full force of the State.

I refer, of course, to the passage of laws after politicians who agree with them are democratically elected. HOW TERRIBLE!! I mean, if you're a oligarchy worshipping stooge like I am, you've seriously got to despise the fact that people can vote for representatives who might pass laws that could increase taxes on rich people. It's outrageous!

But relax, it's for our own good, they say. But is paying slightly more in taxes (so that ALL of the citizens of the United States do better) "good"? Some might say that when we all do better that is in the best interest of rich folks as well. And, if I was to be completely honest, I'd have to admit that these people are probably right.

On the other hand, stealing from wealthy Makers in order that we might all do better is a prospect I find highly offensive. Rich people can NEVER have enough money, IMO. And, if increasing the wealth of those who are already unbelievably wealthy necessitates the destruction of the Middle Class? Then I say it would absolutely be worth it.

Because if a rich person doesn't want to pay? He shouldn't have to. That's the bottom line here. Also, the State enforcing laws? Even more outrageous. At least when it comes to rich folks. Paying taxes is for poor people, IMO. Rich people shouldn't have to pay them. Unless (for some strange reason) they want to. I'm OK with the State asking "please", but not with the State using force. Obviously that's wrong (when it's a rich person. But not when it's a poor person).

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-257.

We Should Be Squeezing Blood From The Turnips! Lazy Mooching Poors Pay Way Too Little In Taxes!

The fact is that, even when you account for payroll, excise, and other taxes, the bottom quintile of American taxpayers only pay 1.8% of their income to the Feds (Source). Yeah, that asshole Bernie tends to gloss over this fact (if in fact he even knows about it). Big surprise, huh?

BTW, don't look at that link I provided above, because if you do, you'll read some facts that don't jibe with my narrative. Which is that some taxpayers have it easy (freeloaders mooching off the system), while others (the Makers) unfairly pay most of the taxes (they are the hosts to the parasitical leeches in the bottom quintile).

Inconvenient to my narrative would be the fact that "the payroll tax is regressive (the effective rate falls as income rises): it claimed an average of 8.2 percent of income from tax units in the lowest quintile but only 6.8 percent from the top quintile; for the top 1 percent, the tax averaged just 0.9 percent of income".

And the Tax Policy Center (the source I initially cited) also notes that "a key insight from economics is that taxes are not always borne by the individual or business that writes the check to the IRS. Sometimes taxes are shifted. For example, most economists believe that the employer portion of payroll taxes translate into lower wages and are thus ultimately borne by workers".

SUPER inconvenient to my Libertarian narrative would be that "there is not a consensus, however, on the economic incidence of other taxes, such as the corporate income tax". Inconvenient because I'm for the elimination of all corporate taxes, because such taxes are passed along to the consumer! Or so the brain dead Libertarian talking point goes. As you can see the TPC says "wait a minute" in regards to that one!

Then there is also the fact that "in 2011, households in the top, middle, and bottom quintiles received 52, 14, and 5 percent of the nation's before-tax income, respectively". So, the bottom quintile is only paying 1.8%, but they are only making 5% of all the income that's earned.

Regardless, I say that (if taxes are to be paid AT ALL, and I'm of the opinion that all taxation is theft) we should squeeze these turnips until they bleed. Tax them til they squeal. Because if someone has to pay (for the government to function), then I say it should be the worthless Takers. As opposed to the worthy Makers.

Let the rich man keep what he's earned. Time for the free ride the poor leeches have been enjoying for so long (at the rich man's expense) to end! Ayn Rand would absolutely agree.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-245.

On The Fact The Evolution Is Phony Baloney

The odds of a chimpanzee randomly typing out the word "evolution"? For the sake of simplicity, let's leave out the numbers and punctuation marks. Even after that, the odds are still astronomical; 26 to the 9th power to 1, or 5,429,571,278,976 to 1. And yet this is in essence what the advocates of evolution are asking us to believe, MULTIPLIED BY INFINITY.

Look, I'm not saying that the Bible-thumping creationists are correct, either (with many of them in fact being certifiable), just that maybe we still don't know, that's all. Personally, I think life on earth was created in a lab by super-intelligent AI robots, who then seeded the galaxy. But, hey, I could be wrong.

Anyway, Bible-thumpers are usually Conservative, as I am. So at least they're right on that front. I'm talking about the belief that, if you're a Maker, you should be able to keep 100 percent of YOUR money. By which I mean taxes should be zero. Because they're evil. I mean, the Christian Bible says "thou shalt not steal from the Makers", right? Or some variation. Something "God" and the AI robots that created us are SURELY in agreement on.

That thievery from the Makers is a sin. Stealing from poor people, however? It doesn't count. Because what we're really talking about is exploiting. And a rich man exploiting a poor man to further enrich himself is just the way the world works. Because it's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Read Ayn Rand if you don't believe me. Social justice warriors are worse than Nazis. And are going to end up in "hell" for their sins (if such a place exists).

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-233.