Good By America

Objective Perspective ?

http://www.strike-the-root.com/why-im-leaving-america

Some might think I should work to save you instead of leaving you to crumble. The ship is sinking, and we either need to make repairs or head for the lifeboats. But I took a look at your blueprints, and you were never structurally sound to begin with.

All I can do is make the best decision with the information I have, and the only logical conclusion is that life will be better without you. Like your people are so fond of saying: freedom isn’t free; but I’m more than willing to pay the costs, no matter how high they might prove to be.

The above are two excerpts. The first I disagree with. While there has never been a perfect society, I believe that our Constitution and the visions of our forefathers were good.
The second? The two sentences seem mutually exclusive. If one is willing to pay the costs for freedom no matter how high, then one should not hightail it out when there is trouble, one should have the courage to stay, and the strength to do what should be done to recreate the vision our forefathers had.

To whoever wrote that, I'd just like to say: Good luck finding another society that doesn't "aggressively coerce" people into living in some semblance of social cohesion with each other. Because there are none. Because even in the most basic societies, the guy at the top doesn't want anyone taking his place. Do you think for even one second that people would play nicely together if there weren't consequences for actions? Did you forget about how even after major Revolutions, the new governing body that replaced the old one still looks pretty much the same and life continues on mostly like before?

Then he goes on to talk mainly about the evils of taxes. I hate taxes and wish they were lower as I'm sure everyone does, but I still understand there is a basic reason for the idea of them. Does anyone honestly believe that in a truly anarchistic world, the strong wouldn't just take whatever they wanted from the weak? Do we really want people literally starving in the streets? In a truly anarchistic world, someone would just take over and become a new head of "state" anyway. Either that or we'd have several individuals fighting for control. It's human nature. Might makes right.

This guy demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of how the world and human beings work. He has the exact same sort of "me against the world" mindset that you find in the writings of sociopaths and people who've committed horrible acts of violence. The only solution for him would be to live out in the wilderness somewhere alone as a hermit.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/review...tes-of-america



Some of the president’s supporters have argued that the United States has always redistributed wealth through taxes. There may be a sliver of truth to that, but overall, taxes are used to pay for federal infrastructure. Wealth redistribution is primarily designed so that money is taken from one class and paid to another.
What the president’s supporters fail to recognize is that there is something suspect about the president refraining from using the capitalist word "taxes" and instead using the touchstone socialism phrase "wealth redistribution." For instance, a pro-life person never uses the word "fetus" — they use the phrase "unborn child" and vice-versa. Advocates of the free enterprise system use the word taxes. Socialists use the phrase wealth redistribution.

Taxes themselves aren't designed to redistribute wealth, but our social programs do. Straightforward taxes are pretty much equal: the more income you make, the more you pay in taxes. We have tax brackets because people who make millions of dollars per year aren't going to be harmed as much by a high rate compared to a person making minimum wage. When applied to our social programs like welfare, it's commonly called "leveling the playing field" instead of the "redistribution of wealth".

Sometimes I get mad at how much is taken out of my paycheck, and I currently don't make very much. I used to think the "threat" of high taxes would discourage people from working hard enough to get a high income in the first place, but now I don't think that. I think people will try to make as much money as they can regardless. Our world runs on money, so how can that realistically change?

Communism and socialism rhetoric says that everything you make and own should actually belong to the State or to the People which leaves you with little incentive to actually work and achieve anything. That isn't realistically going to happen in America, believe me-- we are all much too attached to our stuff. But I definitely don't think millionaires should be paying a lower tax rate than the middle class. I definitely don't like that companies outsource jobs to get the "best deal" for labor, costing us jobs which causes our economy to collapse.

Some people are going to be poor for their entire lives no matter how hard they work. Fact of life. Some people were born into lives of privilege because others had been lucky or worked hard for generations before them. There's still plenty of people who are born poor but die rich and vice-versa.