How many of us, no matter how much we hate guns, would be willing to put a sign stating, “We have no guns here”, on our home? Common sense tells us that this is an invitation to criminals. This same simple concept applies to schools and other public places.

“It’s more than that, [t]elling the population that they are incapable of owning a tool that can be dangerous means you are creating a population that loses its self-reliance and increasingly sees itself as wards of the state.”

A great read, cutting past most of the polarized, gun-control verses gun-rights debate; examining the issue thoughtfully and pragmatically.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

And later:

It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

Again, The Federalist Papers are fascinating. Not an easy read, but worth while. The Kindle edition is free on Amazon. (Affiliate Link.)

For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.

An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.

It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.

History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

First, while government does provide many foundational and framework services for its citizens; that’s why the people created the government; that’s the reason they pay taxes.

The government is not the benefactor of society asking for it’s share back but the servent of the people, apportioned power and funds to help them. It’s the people’s assistant, not their caretaker.

That is what has so riled up people in Obama’s remark, that he acts like Government is the benefactor rather than the servent of the people.

That also is part of the issue of Big Government, not just that such is given to bureaucratic waste, but that it threatens the master-servent relationship between the People and the Government; ultimately resulting in infringement and outright violation of our inalienable rights.

And that fundamentally violates the purpose of American Government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Maximization of personal liberty is the end of government. That is why the rule of law is preferred over anarchy, and why democracy is preferred over autocracy. That’s the fundamental tenet of American Government.

We live in a democracy, the Government is ultimately an aggregate of the public’s actions at the voting booth. Thus, to truly change our political system we must change the acting beliefs of the people. Obviously, since this is our end we should—within morality—only act in ways that will actually help this end.

As we live in a democracy, to change results we must change public opinion. The public is an aggregate of individuals. To change individual opinion you must have their attention and make sense to them.

When you use heated rhetoric to describe the opposing view you alienate those who hold those views. When you’re Thomas Pain writing to a majority who already agrees with you, that’s fine; those you alienate aren’t significant.

But when you’re you, in our presently ideologically divided country, those you alienate will be your downfall. You can not expect to win any true victory by merely polarizing both sides and hoping your side happens to be the 51 to the 49.

Rather, you must change public opinion, not polarize it. To do so you must target your communication to engage individuals, whether they agree with you already or not. Writing about how stupid Obamacare is won’t convince someone who supports it to change their mind, they’ll just hear you calling them stupid. You might argue that that’s not what you did, but that dosent’ matter. What matters is what the recipient hears.

Thus, I do not join with groups such as Resist44. I find their writing polarizing, not convincing. It’s the sort of writing that only someone who already agrees with will think makes sense. Others will simply laugh at its logical inconsistencies and heated spewing.

You should communicate, not just spout. Otherwise your not helping. so please: shut up.*

If I’m wrong, write it out and tweet me a link @Jackson4Christ

* My bad. If someone wasn’t convinced by my argument, then telling them to shut up won’t help. If they were convinced, telling them to shut up if they hadn’t agreed leaves a bad taste. If they were sitting on the edge, telling them to shut up probably pushed them away. It was not pragmatic. Though I would not go so far as to say that it was a diss to anyone’s free speech.

If you considder all monetary (or monetary equivilent) actions between people and the government under the term “tax”—I’d use a different term if I could think of one—then welfare is a form of tax return.

In that case, our family’s net tax “burden” of +$11k/yr, which is 85% of the $13k/yr they make working. Thus, their effective tax rate is a positive (i.e. in their favor) of 85%.

In other words, they effectively don’t pay any sort of taxes; as they receive more from the government then they put in. (Not counting the valuation of public services such as roads that they receive.)

Now that’s an interesting way to look at it…

In continuation of a discussion with Dr. Richard Bullock on Twitter. To sum up, he states:

[The percentage of income paid by the poor] differs by state, but in AL, families making less than $13,000 pay more than 25% in direct taxes, another 15% indirect. This does not include property taxes, passed alog to renters through higher rents and other pass through taxes. The rich in AL rarely pay more than 15% overall. The average is more like 35%.

There are a couple things funny with this argument however. First, to only make 13,000/yr pre-tax at minimum wage you’re only working 36 hours a week (assuming 51 weeks a year.) (I’m assuming Dr. Bullock had a reason for picking his $13k/yr figure.)

Second, for the head of hypothetical situation of a family of four to only be making minimum wage seems unlikely: an established family would indicate an work history, which would make even an unremarkable worker likely to be yielding a higher return for their time.

Third, the Poverty Threshold for a family of four in 2009 was $21,756/yr, if you adjust that for New Orleans’s 106.1 Cost of Living Index in 2009 you get $23,083/yr.  So what’s the point of all this? Because how far net income is below the poverty threshold is used when determining eligibility for Welfare.

Specific $ amounts for our $13k/yr hypothetical family aren’t easily forthcoming, but WelfareInfo.org states that a family for four receives $500/mo in food stamps and $900 in cash assistance on average nationally. That’s $1,400/mo, or $16,800 year, more than our minimum wage earner could make even if he was working 40 hours a week. So, with welfare our single minimum wage income, family of four, is making $29,000/yr.

(That dosen’t include welfare assistance available through HUD, which would decrease their tax burden by eliminating a property taxes on their dwelling.)

However, welfare is tax free. Assuming our family is paying 40% of earned income in tax (as Dr. Bullock estimates), they only pay that 40% on their earned $13k. That is, they pay $5,200 a year in taxes.

But, $5.2k is only 22% of $29,000; making a family of four’s effective tax rate 18%. While that’s more than the rich’s estimated 15%, it’s far less than the 35% that the middle class was estimated to pay.

So, I don’t find that the poor’s effective tax burden is really as hard as it seemed at first glance.

What do you think?

Did I miss something?

Amendum: Alternatively, if you considder all monetary (or monetary equivilent) actions between people and the government under the term “tax”—I’d use a different term if I could think of one—then welfare is a form of tax return.

In that case, our family’s net tax “burden” of +$11k/yr, which is 85% of the $13k/yr they make working. Thus, their effective tax rate is a positive (i.e. in their favor) of 85%.

In other words, they effectively don’t pay any sort of taxes; as they receive more from the government then they put in. (Not counting the valuation of public services such as roads that they receive.)

Now that’s an interesting way to look at it…