Thickening the Herd

Originally Published In:

Fairfield County Weekly (4/15/09) Link

There is something magical about this time of year. Birds are chirping. Flowers are blooming. What a great time to collect some taxes!

Is it a coincidence that Easter, Passover and Tax Day all happen right around this time? Chocolate bunnies, hidden eggs, slain firstborns and taxes. Sounds about right.

Our current federal day of reckoning, April 15, falls on the day Abraham Lincoln died. But his legacy of imposing the first ever unconstitutional income tax to fund his invasion of the part of our country that wanted to secede lives on. In 1913, our elected officials, doing as always what is best for us and having only our best intentions in mind, shoved the income tax permanently down our throats with a constitutional amendment, and there that lump has lodged ever since. Originally, the first filing date was March 1. Five years later, they made it March 15, and in 1955, it became the inglorious and unholy day we know it to be today.

In Connecticut, our very first tax came around in 1637. What did the government need the money for? War — what else? We had to defeat those rascally Pequots because they were competing with us in the fur trade. Well, we succeeded. With its tax-funded military efforts, the colony of Connecticut cut down the local Pequot population by half, from about 6,000 to 3,000, with half of the population losses coming from death and the other half from being sold into slavery. We all but wiped the Pequot out.

Today, of course, their descendants run Foxwoods, one of the largest and most profitable casinos in the world, while we continue to pay taxes every spring.

What if we were to stop? What if we declared Connecticut a federal-free zone? The state would defend our right to not pay federal taxes, opt out of all federally funded programs, and of course abolish our own state income taxes as well.

What would happen? First, we would see some large migration patterns. Those unfortunate enough to have been entrenched against their will into the Social Security/Medicare Ponzi scheme would have to establish residence in one of the other 49 states to continue to receive federal assistance. Fortunately, Massachusetts and New York are nearby, and Florida always welcomes Connecticut retirees.

Offsetting that population loss would be an influx of youth, entrepreneurs and productive people from all of the other 49 states looking to live and work in a place where they can keep all of their earnings, a place where both sides of the coin of liberty, freedom and responsibility, are espoused.

Connecticut's history is one of restless Puritans evolving into happy Yankees. A federal-free state would ignite those same fires of passion.

The second thing that would happen is that we would see an increase in the quality of transportation, education and every other facet of life that would suddenly be rescued from the burdensome, painful and counterproductive regulations that infest the federal trough. No more long-distance restrictions on how teachers can teach: Local control would guide educational choices. No more slow repairs and low speed limits: We could drive as fast as we as a state decide, on roads we can repair ourselves without having to overpay.

The third thing that would happen is that Washington, D.C. would get angry. They want our money, pure and simple. From the government's point of view, we are not their masters, but their sheep, and they need to herd us and shear us. What can the shepherd do when his flock feels cold from too much shearing (too many taxes)? His only option is to get more dogs.

If the recent "tea party" demonstrations have taught us anything, it is that anti-tax sentiment is climbing to a new high. If the anti-tax protests continue to grow in frequency and strength, the federal government will have no option but to bring its army home from abroad and point its guns at us, the people.

Wouldn't it be nice if, by the time they did that, we had already opted out of their herd?

   If Connecticut stopped

   If Connecticut stopped sending money to Washington, and removed all taxes on precious metal transactions - thereby creating a viable alternative currency - Washington would send troops and claim that Conn. was trying to succeed.  When California tried to decriminalize medicinal Marijuana, Bush sent in Federal storm troops to arrest doctors.  Clinton had done the same thing.

   The whole fight has become about who controls money and power.  If you take away sources of money, the huge government/enlightened class legislates truth folks will lose all semblance of civility.

5 Comments from Fairfield County Weekly

Well, Phil,
You've pretty much got it figured out. It's not the country I remember as I was growing up during the early fifties. Although we did have some problems then, it was one hell of a country compared to now. The bureacrats have won, and we are their slaves. So, it's either stand up now and reclaim our lives or admit defeat in all that matters. It's really not all that hard to figure out, is it.
Posted by james Armstrong on 4.15.09 at 13.55
I always enjoy your historically informed libertarian rants. But this one baffles me a bit: If we declare ourselves free of federal regs, etc, and "drive as fast as we as a state decide, on roads we can repair ourselves without having to overpay"what roads would we drive on? The feds fund 80% of our road construction and repair. And who was it who overpaid and screwed up the repair of I-84 and the construction of the new bridge on I-95 in New Haven? The feds? Or your precious local government?
When my mother had heart surgery and nearly died of a stroke a few years ago, every health care provider sighed when they found out that she carried private insurance: Medicare, they said, would have been so much better: more efficient for the hospital and cost my mother much less. So much for the evils of government-run health care. (At least before the Bushies started messing with it.)

Posted by jmamis on 4.16.09 at 4.53
Hi jmamis -- a rant is "a wild, incoherent, emotional articulation."

Is it wild to suggest that our state, having more residents today than all of America did in 1789, can govern itself?

Is it incoherent to predict that those who rely on the Washington, DC intravenous drip will move once their catheter here is snipped?

Am I being overly emotional in hoping that we can shuffle off this seemingly immortal federal coil before their slings and arrows take all our fortune?

You may be right that Connecticut itself is too big of a government. Perhaps it needs to be decentralized too, so that no small handful of people can ruin the lives of millions. But before we can do that, we need to purge ourselves of the federal addiction. We need to go into rehab. Yes, we will go through withdrawal symptoms. That's the price of an overdue detox.

Let's not confuse an appreciation of freedom with a rant. A rational, logical, historical perspective can also be passionate, bold, and fun. But believing we need a federal government to take money from people by force to pay for their roads and medicine; believing that there can be no voluntary alternative; believing that civilization will collapse if government doesn't get to be the middleman in every transaction? That's the real nonsense. That's the real rant.

Thanks for writing,
Phil

Posted by Phil Maymin on 4.19.09 at 18.35
FYI: I meant "rant" for the "wild" and "emotional" -- both good things -- certainly not the "incoherent," which your columns never are. Even though the last few months, to this less historically fine-tuned reader, prove, if nothing else, that the free market unfettered can cause a whole hell of a lot of damage.
Posted by jmamis on 4.20.09 at 6.05
Hi jmamis -- thanks. About the "free market damage," I will try to reply fully in my next column. It makes sense to address this myth once and for all, especially since many Fairfield County residents are the ones being blamed.

All the best,
Phil

Posted by Phil Maymin on 4.21.09 at 6.06