You can see the full details of the plan here, or you can download a PDF. Here are some of the high notes:

Spending and Entitlement Programs

The Paul budget cuts $1 trillion in the first year of his presidency, including complete evaporation of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, Interior, and Education. Finally, a Republican who actually wants to abolish the wretched DOEs (both of them)! Ending foreign wars provides most of the cuts in this category. Spending returns to 2006 levels within a year (not enough, in my opinion, but a good start).

The plan provides for preservation of existing Medicaid and other welfare programs for the time being, but more importantly allows people to opt out! Considering that I no ZERO people, libertarian or not, who expect to receive a cent back from what they pay into Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security this is a godsend.

Taxes

Paul’s plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, which is down from around 40%. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates out there and it is one of the many reasons for the declining industrial economy here. All of the Bush tax cuts remain (one of the few good things Bush ever did) and the Death Tax is abolished. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

Regulation

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley will be scrapped, thank goodness. Not really a surprise, of course, because these monstrous regulatory devices are easily some of the most destructive mandates in recent years.  The report also says, “President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.” Hopefully by “onerous” he means almost everything.

Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve, of course, will get a full audit, exposing the government banksters’ fraud and deception forced upon the world. Gold may not be made official money yet, but this is the best start you can hope for.

Conclusion

All this being said, as an abolitionist I would be remiss to point out that this budget does not go far enough, for three reasons. First, why are certain departments, like defense, seeing nominal increases in spending after the major cuts year on year? If the plan is to drill down the size of government, I wouldn’t expect to see any department or program see increases over the years. And no, I don’t think that inflation-adjusted numbers should count. I don’t get a raise just because my money is worth less, and neither should the government.

Second, unless I missed it then why on earth is the income tax not eliminated on day one? Has that not been a pretty important point of Paul’s message from the beginning? Would somebody correct me please?

Third, why stop here with the cuts? There are plenty more departments to eliminate, bureaucratic orgs to eradicate, and government waste to incinerate. Never rest on your laurels, strike the root! Now, I grant that, while comprehensive, this plan is not written on stone tablets. Ron probably would love to do more, but in such a publication as this you must nail down the essentials rather than write every detail you can. So, kudos to the Paul campaign for putting forward a good plan.

Again, you can check out the full plan here.

I hear there is another major money bomb coming up, called Black This Out. If you support this plan, perhaps you should consider donating?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America

“Don’t smoke, chew, or run with girls that do” is a popular adage in some Christian circles today. Christians are concerned about what God thinks about their behavior. They are also concerned about what men think. Of course, any true Christian who struggles with pornography will not herald his addiction, but in many places Christians will seek to cover up arguably less egregious activities like drinking alcohol, smoking cigars, or even gambling now and then. These practices are often viewed as taboo— even when used in moderation. Paradoxically, Christians are able to openly indulge in overeating or overspending on cars, clothing, and entertainment devices without chagrin. Gluttony and profligate spending seem to be more acceptable sins among believers than other excesses, creating a (widespread) inconsistency of thought about what is appropriate Christian behavior.

In my last column, I argued that the state lottery is the best tax because it is a voluntary, even if it is a “stupid tax” paid by the fatuous and the ignorant. That is the public policy side of the issue. But the “moral side” deserves to be developed as well. In doing so, we might consider a classification of Christian practice highlighting four items: pornography, wine, Milky Way candy bars, and prayer.

The broad headings of this arrangement (noting an assignment of each of the four items) would be: [A] “never permissible” (e.g., pornography) and [B] “permissible”. Category B could be further divided into three sub-classifications: [1] “permissible in moderation” (e.g., wine), [2] “always permissible unless there are extenuating circumstances” (e.g., Milky Way candy bars), [3] “always permissible without qualification” (e.g., praying or preaching the gospel). These categories are especially apropos in terms of our entertainment choices, and in terms of the public policies we would support or criticize.

Category A practices, such as viewing pornography, are relatively easy for Christians to identify and eschew. They are, obviously, always sinful. At least I cannot think of any general, legitimate use for something like pornography (although I would be willing to entertain an argument to the contrary if someone wanted to make one). In a word, Category A items are intrinsically evil themselves or are part and parcel of an institution that is intrinsically evil. The scriptural rule regarding such practices would seem to be summed up in I Thessalonians 5:22, I Peter 2:11 and Romans 12:21: “Abstain from every form of evil”, “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” and “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (NKJV). In his January 11, 2003 article in World , “Wages from Sin”, Pastor John Piper seems to place playing the lottery in this category. I think he is mistaken. There is nothing intrinsically evil about either the purchase or the entertainment provided by the lottery ticket. Whether or not the lottery as an institution is evil is more intriguing, but to condemn any voluntary action that is not specifically condemned by the Scriptures (such as gambling or lotteries) is probably imprudent and may well be an encroachment upon Christian liberty. Indeed, the institution of the lottery, at least insofar as it is by nature a game based on probability like the casting of lots, is mentioned in the Bible without condemnation (e.g., Leviticus 16:8; Joshua 18:6-10; I Samuel 14:42; I Chronicles 24:31, 25:8, 26:13-14; Nehemiah 10:34, 11:1; Jonah 1:7; Proverbs 16:33; Acts 1:26). It was even used (apparently) to determine the will of God.

The Scriptures seem to indicate that Christians may use alcoholic beverages like wine and beer in moderation (e.g., John 2:1-11, 4:46; I Timothy 5:23, etc.). Thus, Category B1 practices would be permitted up to a point, beyond which (e.g., inebriation) the practice becomes sinful. Although there might be some people who abstain from Category B1 practices because of past excesses or because it would cause another to stumble (cf. Rom 14:13-21), they would not be considered evil in general but are essential amoral . I would include buying lottery tickets among the many Category B1 practices, which may provide genuine enjoyment or entertainment value when used in moderation. Certainly, a family that spends $5 per month on lottery tickets is not going to harm itself financially any more than a family that spends $5 per month at Blockbuster video. Like any form of entertainment, the value of which is always determined by subjective individual preferences, Category B1 practices provide some value to the participants. Just because I am not very entertained by renting and viewing Mary Poppins or by playing skee-ball in an arcade does not mean that they do not entertain others. Is there a point at which expenditures for entertainment for a Christian turn into excess? Of course there is, but that point is not usually a bright line that can be objectively determined by onlookers. The scriptural rule regarding such practices (or Christian liberties) would seem to be summed up in I Corinthians 6:12 and Romans 14:4: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” and “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”

Category B2 practices are never sinful in and of themselves. It is not wrong to buy candy bars— Baby Ruth, Milky Way or otherwise—in general. However, if a person is overweight, buying candy might be sinful because it compounds his gluttony and lack of self-control. It might also be sinful for cavity-prone people to buy candy. In either of these cases, issues arise involving caring for our bodies (cf. I Corinthians 6:19-20). Moreover, in large enough quantities, partaking of Category B2 practices could entail poor stewardship, lack of wisdom, or defective priorities. How much of God’s money should we waste? The scriptural rule regarding such practices would seem to be summed up in (among other places) I Corinthians 4:2, 9:27 and 10:23: “Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful”, “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” and “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify”.

I concur with Piper’s condemnation of greed and covetousness among lottery players. Paul said that, “those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition” (I Timothy 6:9). Jesus said, “Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (Luke 12:15). However, Piper’s notion that playing the lottery harms the poor is debatable. Even if poor people are worse off because state lotteries or other gambling exists, that fact does not mean that the participation by relatively wealthier individuals exacerbates poverty. Moreover, there is no good reason to assume that public policy outlawing lotteries would reduce poverty or gambling, any more than Prohibition in the 1920s reduced alcohol use. Indeed, Piper’s notion smacks of the sentiment that is commonly found in modern American liberals, who blame big business or big government for bad individual behavior and its outcome. But such sentiment is false.

Is it not said that lung cancer and smoking addiction are not the fault of the individuals who choose to smoke but rather the fault of greedy, manipulative firms like Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds, along with advertising firms and the media which make commercials that impel people to smoke? They are supposedly profiting at the expense of the weak and poor and the federal government compounds the problem by issuing subsidies to tobacco farmers.

This sort of drivel, although commonplace, is simply not true. People choose actions, and expend scarce resources for them, because they expect to benefit. Individual choice, when voluntary, is never someone else’s fault. Adam had no right to alleviate his guilt by blaming Eve, nor did Eve by blaming Satan. As the Scripture says in Galatians 6:5 and II Corinthians 5:20, “each one shall bear his own load” and “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad”. Individuals will be judged according to what they have done in the body without appealing to the sins of others for mitigation of the consequences. Lottery winnings are not “plunder” (as Piper said), and playing the lottery in moderation does not necessitate “spiritual suicide”. They are proceeds from an entertaining game (at least to some) with very poor odds, in which millions of individuals voluntarily choose to participate.

Piper does not want his ministry or church to receive any of the filthy lucre of lottery winnings. I could certainly understand Piper’s reasoning if his goal were to reduce the number of people in his church who are given to excess in the lottery. But Piper should be careful to not go beyond what the Bible says. After all, Jesus received a fragrant, expensive gift that was bought by a woman of ill repute (Luke 7:3639).

On a similar occasion, the Apostle John records that the disciples too—Judas Iscariot in particular—complained about Mary’s inefficient use of the valuable oil. “But Jesus said, ‘Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always’” (John 12:7-8). It was Judas Iscariot who raised concerns about the poor being harmed. If Jesus Christ was willing to receive benefits from apparently wasteful means, or even from ill-gotten gains, then why should the church reject them? Furthermore, one might argue that the doctrine of Proverbs 13:22b would reach the epitome of fulfillment in the giving of lottery winnings to the church. It says, “The wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous”. Why is it wrong for the saints to benefit by the undoing of the wicked? Accordingly, the Bible records many instances where the wealth of the unsaved is rightly received by God’s people and used for righteous purposes. The Queen of Sheba—not necessarily a believer—and Hiram’s ships brought exotic treasures to Solomon that augmented the glory of the Temple and wealth of God’s people (I Kings 10:1,10-12; II Chronicles 9:1,9-11). The unbelieving king Artaxerxes granted Nehemiah’s request for safe passage and timber to rebuild the Temple, Jerusalem’s wall, and houses in Judea (Nehemiah 2:4-8). The wise men from the East (or magi)—astrologers that interpreted dreams and performed magic—were probably not truly converted men and yet Christ received their gifts by Joseph and Mary (Matthew 2:1-2,9-12). Ananias and Sapphira were slain for lying to the Holy Spirit but there is no indication that their offering was refused by the church (Acts 5:1-11).

The Bible does not condemn gambling per se. It only condemns the excesses that might devolve from gambling. The lottery is permissible in moderation (a Category B1 activity in last week’s column), like using wine or beer, which the godly may use in moderation. In saying this, I am careful to concur with the Westminster Confession of Faith in its application of the eighth commandment against fraud and lying. Its Larger Catechism (question 142) condemns “wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.” Excessive gambling is sin, just as excessive use of alcohol (drunkenness) is sin. I also affirm my commitment to a providential understanding of life. There is nothing that is outside of the control of a sovereign God. Yet God has set forth certain random processes to serve His purposes in the world, as Ecclesiastes 9:11 affirms: “I returned and saw under the sun that—The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all.” In this life, God permits the lottery to work just as He permits random number generators to work, but always under His permissive decree.

While I do not play the lottery, I will leave others to their liberty. And I see no reason for churches to abstain from receiving gifts derived from state lottery winnings that will help them further the Gospel, edify the church, and assist the poor, widows, and orphans.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on February 16 and 23, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Are State Lotteries Immoral?

The state lottery is one of those things which divide men of good will on the political and social right. For instance, the platform of the Constitution Party says: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development.” Conversely, a state lottery policy is refreshing for many libertarians.

Why would libertarians like the lottery? It has nothing to do with the morality of gambling but it has everything to do with the nature and propriety of the tax. Yes, the lottery is a tax. The lottery funds functions of civil government just like coercive taxes. The difference is that lotteries are voluntary — unlike any other significant tax source. In fact, enthusiastic and greedy people rush to play the lottery. I recently spoke to the South Carolina Lottery director. He stated that during a recent $100+ million “Powerball” game, sales exceeded 15,000 tickets per hour—a rate faster than the tickets can be printed. Can you think of any other tax that people rush to pay? By contrast, the state extorts money from people by taxing income, sales, gasoline, real property, luxury, and various “sins”, along with requiring licenses, permits, registration fees, and traffic fines, all of which go to the general budget of the state. Then the state doles out paltry welfare benefits, but receiving these benefits is nowhere near as exhilarating as having the television station’s cameraman at your front door. Somehow, buying a pile of lottery tickets (albeit with a remote chance of winning) is much more fun than “contributing” 12.4% of your earnings for the Social Security “program”? The odds of winning the lottery are probably greater than a young man’s chances of ever collecting Social Security.

Let’s face it: the state lottery is a “stupid tax”. Like other monopolized “public enterprises”, the lottery does not produce the high quality, low-priced, innovative, and consumer-friendly product that would be offered in a free market. For instance, Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos compete by advertising the highest payouts (e.g., slot machines paying 98.3% in one casino versus only 97.8% in others), and people flock to consume the services provided. The South Carolina Lottery’s payout is a measly 58%— rather meager compared to Las Vegas. Hence, one could make the case that playing the state lottery is a pursuit of fatuous or ignorant people.

Of course, not all lottery players are dolts or idiots. For instance, my brother-in-law once stated that—as a Calvinist—he need buy only one ticket. If God wants him to win the jackpot, only one ticket is required. Perhaps one could argue that the Calvinist-lottery thesis provides a basis for a person buying five $1 lottery tickets per year. The opportunity cost imposed on the family from buying these tickets corresponds to ordering one medium pizza instead of one large one—not much of a concern. I choose not to play the lottery, not so much out of scruples, but because I do not want pay the Stupid Tax. Yet such choices should be left to the liberty of conscience of each individual.

Now someone will argue that I am forgetting about the fact that gambling is a social evil and that it supports wicked institutions. I agree, at least in terms of excessive gambling. However, as far as my brother-in-law is concerned, I am not convinced that his $5 annual expense has any moral implications other than a pound or two less on his waistline from eating a little less pizza. I would also have to agree that the state is the wickedest institution in our world, and far worse than any Mafia family in Atlantic City. But why should the lottery’s moral ramifications block its support as a voluntary taxation scheme?

The Bible says that “the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous” (Proverbs 13:22) and “he who is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Revelation 22:11). I prefer that obtuse people scurry to pay a voluntary Stupid Tax any day versus having state-organized crime units blitz me with extortionist policies. Somebody has to pay for the limited government we desire. Why not let the government be financed by voluntary taxes like lotteries? In fact, I am willing to go out on a limb and call for a general repeal of all income, sales, and real property taxes, replacing them with lotteries instead. That idea should at least catch the eye of the most zealous Constitution Party member, along with all libertarians!

One last practical item regards the South Carolina Life Scholarship and Piedmont Fellows Scholarship programs that are financed by the lottery. These are educational grants that are financed 100% by voluntary taxes. Some of my regular readers might be surprised that I see no moral problem with taking such grants. I have argued in Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective that it is wrong and sinful for Christians or for all those who love liberty to take any welfare state, proactive policy benefits. Doing so makes one complicit in receiving stolen funds and effectively robbing innocent people.

However, the state lottery is categorically different than welfare because there is no extortion and thus no stolen funds. There is no Robin Hood role of robbing from one group and giving to another. Plus, the whole policy does not seem to be proactive, but rather a means for the state to pad its coffers and for politicians to garner votes. The whole lottery scheme is better characterized as a policy of inefficient provision. The educational grants are a means of making voters happy, creating government jobs to “boost” the economy, and a means for the state to skim off a small portion of the spoils. (Lottery administration costs are 12%, 30% of revenues fund scholarships—or slide into the state’s coffers—and 58% are paid out in prizes.) Thus, if you have no scruples about choosing to use “public enterprises” like public libraries or state parks, then letting the ignorant fund your family’s intellectual development should not be troublesome. A lottery-funded program is not morally repugnant like proactive redistributive welfare policy.

In certain rare or unusual circumstances, lottery-funded scholarships pose a moral dilemma. When the number of students “entitled” to receive lottery money in a given year exceeds the lottery receipts available to fund their corresponding scholarships, the shortfall must be made up out of the state’s general budget. So it would behoove a person to confirm that no such unusual circumstances exist prior to applying. Do you have college-bound kids wanting to attend school in South Carolina? Have little fear of gathering what sinners have voluntarily stored up for your family. And while you’re at it, enthusiastically support state lottery policy—the great Stupid Tax. The “sinners” who indulge themselves in it will end up paying some of the expenses of government. One day we may be able to replace our extortive taxation system with a purely voluntary one utilizing lotteries.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on February 9, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Lottery is the Best Tax

Besides taxation being theft, immoral, and pure evil, there is a simple solution to this idiotic problem.

80% of Americans could just write a check to the U.S. Treasury, then shut up about tax increases.

This quote from the linked article is priceless:

"We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs," he said, rejecting conservative calls for a balanced-budget amendment. "The constitution already tells us to do our jobs."

Yeah, the Constitution is what drives excessive taxation, a welfare state, fiat currency, and endless wars. Or maybe it does? Lysander Spooner was right:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

80% of Americans should write a check to the U.S. Treasury then SHUT UP.

—–

I absolutely despise tax season. This year especially. I made less money this year and yet paid more to the State.

And what for?

So a run-amok military can go bomb Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"?

So I can watch the economy dissolve while the Wall Street banksters enrich themselves with printed money from the Fed and inflate us to death?

So I am "protected" from "harm" by thugs in uniforms from the perils of harmless immigrants and the devil weed?

So I can entertain myself with the antics of politicians (if only that were all I had to worry about)?

So I get my precious interstate system, education system, welfare system, and the like?

So the alphabet soup bureaucracy "regulates" my health, wealth, food, drugs, and internet?

I have to ask, is it worth the cost?

Never. But you did get what you bargained for.

How foolish that you, America, would stoop so low. This government of lawlessness deserves no anthem, no salute, no pledge, no respect. Turn your back on it.

—–

For more on why I hate thievery, I mean taxes, check out my article series 10 Things I Hate About Taxes.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ode to Tax Season 2011

I love this post by my dear friend Anthony Gregory at the Independent Institute: “Saved from the Precipice of Doom!”

————————

Thank goodness for the Republicans and Democrats, who in the eleventh hour, put aside their differences and compromised to avert the catastrophe of a government shutdown. You see, the Republicans wanted to cut something like $78.5 billion from what Obama wanted to spend—itself more than $78.5 billion over the year before. The Democrats were initially willing to talk about “cutting” much less. And now, thanks to the greatest political compromise since the one in 1850—and surely one that will be as permanent in preventing a national crisis—we can all sleep at night knowing that Yosemite and the National Archives will continue to be open for business. The Washington Post reports:

The final pact on 2011 spending called for $38 billion in cuts to federal agency budgets compared with last year’s levels, about $78.5 billion below the president’s initial funding request for 2011. The White House, which initially resisted any funding reductions, started touting all the cuts it signed off on in a statement that praised reductions of $13 billion in funding for education, health and labor programs.

Oh my, oh my! $38 billion cut from Obama’s budget proposal? I guess everyone gets what they want. Obama gets to pat himself on the back for avoiding a shutdown. The Republicans get to pat themselves on the back for avoiding a shutdown, and the American people are satisfied as well.

Oh, wait. Those who love government spending are not so satisfied. You see, the cuts appear to target hot-button social programs. And those who want (at a bare minimum) for government to live within its means might also be dissatisfied. They might protest that even if we go by Obama’s projected deficits, these cuts will only shave a few percent of the amount deeper the U.S. goes into the debt hole in a year.

Yet we should forget about all this and just be glad the government didn’t shut down. For if it did, we would surely awake to a dystopian nightmare, coastal cities collapsing into the ocean, civil unrest at every corner, whole swaths of previously populated centers abandoned, disease and lawlessness rampant in every direction. Thank goodness Congress and the President got together and stopped this.

After all, we all remember when happened when the government shut down in 1995. Traffic lights didn’t work. All the prisoners were running wild in the streets. The US military was completely put out of commission, allowing the Soviet Union to spring back to life and take over half of the world. In the Great Government Shutdown of 1995, an estimated 150 million Americans died of starvation, pertussis, rubella and acute cynicism. Cats were chasing dogs, telephones and plumbing ceased to function completely, and only 75 channels were available on cable television.

Some will respond that these claims are preposterous—that in fact, not only do modern “government shutdowns” only close down a handful of functions (including such programs as tax refunds and national museums, just to annoy the American people)—but that, in the United States, such shutdowns are so superficial an example of the government truly shutting down that they actually cost more money than allowing the government to run as normal.

Sure, refuse to take such a catastrophe seriously. But as our Dear Leader says, “Americans of different beliefs came together. . . [i]n the final hours before our government would have been forced to shut down. . . [to pass] a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history.” Thanks to these courageous and selfless efforts, “when 50 eighth graders from Colorado arrive in our nation’s capital,” they might “get a chance to look up at the Washington Monument and feel the sense of pride and possibility that defines America.”

Doesn’t that make your burn with patriotic fever? Red-white-and-blue fumes are just making their way up my esophagus right now. The two parties put aside their vast disagreement—over whether to borrow another trillion or so of to be paid back by these eighth graders or whether to cut that amount down by a few percent—and they agreed to meet in the middle. Just like their parents and grandparents, these kids will have the pride to know that they live in a country where every generation has the chance to grow up with much more money owed by the government on their behalf that the generation before it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Saved from Doom!!!

There is some controversy over the proposed construction of a $150 million Noah’s Ark theme park on 800 acres near Interstate 75 in Kentucky. The theme park – to be called Ark Encounter – is a joint venture between Answers in Genesis and Ark Encounter LLC. The former group already opened a $27 million Creation museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, in 2007.

The proposed park, to be completed by 2014, will feature live animals, event venues, a children’s play area, a replica of the biblical Tower of Babel, a 500-seat special effects theater, a reproduction of a first-century Middle Eastern village, an aviary, and a 500 by 75 foot wooden ark to replicate the biblical Noah’s Ark. The project is expected to create more than 900 jobs, attract 1.6 million visitors in the park’s first year, and have an economic impact of $214 million in the first year alone.

As expected, religious groups generally hailed the project even as other groups that focus on church-state issues had a problem with the project. Contrary to critics of the theme park who think the educational message of the park is “unscientific” and “embarrassing for the state” or that any jobs created would be “low-paying” and “transient,” Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, seemed to raise two main arguments against the proposed park: First, Lynn pointed out that when Noah launched the Ark the first time, he was not looking for government funding. Second, he said that while the Constitution doesn’t prevent someone from putting up a water park, it does prevent people from putting up a religious one, such as Noah’s water park.

But both of Lynn’s points are misguided.

Under Kentucky’s Tourism Development Act, which exists to bring tourist attractions to Kentucky, up to 25 percent of the cost of an approved project can be recovered by developers via the state’s refunding to them a portion of the sales tax paid by visitors on admission tickets, gift sales, and food. Up to ten percent of the tax incentives can be refunded per year for up to ten years. It is a common thing for states to use various tax incentive measures to lure new businesses to the state. The tax incentives here involve rebated sales tax money collected that would not even be available if Ark Encounter never opened its doors. No government funding will be used to construct the park. And not only will no money be taken from the state budget, the project will generate millions of dollars of government revenue in the form of increased federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and local real estate taxes. Like any for-profit business, Ark Encounter will be forced to be a tax collector for the state. And like any for-profit business, Ark Encounter is a legitimate candidate for Kentucky’s tax incentives.

Libertarians would, of course, argue that states shouldn’t collect sales tax (the states of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon have no general sales tax), force businesses to be tax collectors, or take money from people in the form of sales taxes (or any other kind of taxes) and redistribute it to private businesses – for any reason. But Rev. Lynn is not arguing against the sales tax incentives on libertarian grounds.

Lynn’s second argument is a veiled reference to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The principle of what he seems to be saying is true: governments shouldn’t fund religious construction projects or business operations. But this has nothing to do with the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion. The reception by religious-oriented businesses of refunded sales tax collected is not establishing any religion. And neither does it violate the prevailing broad view of the federal courts on the First Amendment. Two groups that are not normally on the side of religion, the ACLU and American Atheists, agree. The ACLU of Kentucky said that so long as giving tax incentives to religious groups is nondiscriminatory, it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. American Atheists stated that giving tax incentives to religious groups is only actionable when there is a demonstrable bias in the sort of religious groups who benefit.

From the perspective of libertarianism, the real issue is not one of religion, but whether governments should fund private construction projects or the operations of any business no matter how it obtains the money to do so. But not only should the government not do these things, it should not have its own construction projects or operate any business. The purpose of governments, should they exist at all, is to protect their citizens’ life, liberty, and property from the violence or fraud of others. Governments shouldn’t build sports venues, run liquor stores, pick up garbage, or operate a bus service. These goods and services should be left to the free market.

Whether Ark Encounter or any other business – secular or religious – should accept tax incentives of this nature is another matter.

First of all, there are always strings attached to deals like this and there is no exception here. Kentucky governor Steve Beshear insists that “Kentucky’s contract with developers of the theme park will bar tax incentives if there is discrimination in hiring based on religion.” Mike Zovath, Senior Vice President of Special Projects for Answers in Genesis, “pledged to be mindful of ‘green’ building standards and to use local contractors.”

And second, there is the moral aspect since businesses that accept refunded sales tax collected can be said to be receiving stolen funds. However, some businesses may look at receiving a sales tax incentive as a return of money confiscated from the business in the form of state corporate income tax, unemployment tax, gross receipts tax, or franchise tax. Thus, they might accept state money up to the amount of the taxes they have paid.

So what does all of this have to do with private property? Plenty.

There are many principles to be noted here that relate to the sanctity of private property. In a truly free society, there are a number of things that a property owner should not be prevented from doing.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property as he sees fit. That means no zoning laws, building codes, eminent domain, or environmental regulations to strip someone of his property or limit its use.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from constructing whatever he chooses on his property. That might mean building a home, a business, a monument, or a nature preserve.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from promoting any religion with his property. That might be accomplished by putting up a church, a mosque, a synagogue, a Buddhist temple, or a statue of Darwin.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from operating any business on his property. That might be a hospital, a bar, a retail store, or a theme park.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using whatever hiring practices they choose or making any compensation agreement with employees in the course of operating any business on his property. That might include low-paying jobs, transient jobs, immigrant workers, non-union labor, out-of-town and/or non-licensed contractors, and discrimination in hiring based on religion or any other criteria.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property for any educational mission. That might be promoting evolution or creation, free love or celibacy, or ‘green’ building standards.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from using his property to promote something that people disagree with. That might mean something considered stupid, immoral, unscientific, or embarrassing to the state.

The owner of a piece of property should not be prevented by governments or anyone else from doing whatever he wants on his property. That might be erecting a cross or flag, burning a cross or flag, or creating or filling in a wetland.

Controversy over a Noah’s Ark theme park – or the construction or operation of any other business – vanishes when the property rights of the park, its patrons, its critics, and the taxpayers are all respected.

Originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation on January 11, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Noah’s Ark and the Sanctity of Private Property

The quote that drove me nuts:

They [the bankers] are already getting richer because of our taxpayer bailout, and now we’re giving them more tax breaks and estate tax bonanzas. There is socialism in America, but it’s only for the rich. Risk has been socialized for some of the very richest people in the country, and then, the “free market” pain is distributed to all the rest.

How on earth is this man even taken seriously!?!

Good question, Doug, good question… If only the Republicans (or the Dems for that matter) would start working on massive SPENDING cuts as well. But Wallis would probably be irate…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Jim Wallis Hates Tax Cuts

According to the Tax Foundation, Americans will spend about 30 percent of their income on taxes in 2008. For comparison, in 1900, it was around 6 percent. Put differently, for almost four months out of the year you work just to pay for government. In the current system most types of income are taxed, sometimes twice, and often progressively. These are just some of the taxes levied by government: federal and local income tax, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, cigarette tax, liquor tax, vehicle sales tax, utility tax, marriage license tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax, etc. On top of that, you pay to compensate for taxes levied on others. For instance, you, as a consumer, pay higher prices for goods and services because of the corporate income tax levied on businesses. The government, if it is to exist, should protect people from force and fraud. Therefore, at most, government should tax only to maintain a national defense, a police force and law courts. But instead, legislators seek to fulfill the so-called “needs” of the constituencies and special interest groups that put and keep them in office. So, the government has tasked itself with providing cheaper prescription drugs for seniors, improving education for children, supporting for farmers by keeping food prices high and paying them for any product they fail to sell, covering the living expenses of the poor, paying for medical research, and so on. The result is not a system that protects our individual rights but a system that provides benefits to some at the expense of others. Typically there will be concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, which makes organizing resistance difficult and leads to even larger government interference.

Taxes violate individual rights. Specifically, it violates your property rights. By using taxation to benefit some people, the government says that you have no right to keep what you have earned or how you spend it, as long as there is someone else who needs or wants it, and that it, the government, has the right to seize your property in order to provide it to the person or group they see fit. That’s damn close to making you a slave. As John A. Pugsley stated, “How does the IRS agent who collects our taxes differ from the gunman? He does not. You are forced to pay under threat of imprisonment (the gun). Your money is taken without your voluntary consent. It is used by other people who claim that their need is a just demand of your property. The process is justified because a group of people (voters) decide as a group that you should be robbed and that the money should be used for whatever purposes they deem proper.”

The current tax system creates winners and losers. The government does not create wealth, but only usurps and redistributes it. The winners in this redistribution are legislators and the special interest groups that pander to them. Also, foreign producers win because the taxes levied on businesses increase prices on domestic goods. Tax accountants win because they garner more business due to the complicated the tax codes. And, people who are the least productive win because their income tax is lowest; some do not have to pay income tax at all. The losers are clearly productive individuals, those who have created wealth by providing goods and services to others, who have chosen to voluntarily patron their business. But more than that, everyone who pays income tax loses because they have to spend time and money to complete complicated income tax returns. As Mark Skousen penned: “Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, ‘Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.’ But isn’t the opposite really the case? Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned and totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success.” Taxes trample the idea of virtue. Forcing individuals via taxation to pay for the “needs” of others (often determined by a bureaucrat) does make them benevolent or charitable. What makes people charitable and benevolent is realizing that there are persons in true need and causes well worth while contributing to. Many people do realize this, which is why they give voluntarily. Moreover, excessive taxation discourages charitable giving because people have less money to give, or figure that their taxes already pay for helping the needy.

Taxation is frequently “progressive.” That means that individuals who earn more are forced to pay more. But why? They do not derive any greater benefit from the government by doing so. The underlying assumption of progressive taxation is that wealth is a like a fixed pie from which some people get to take a larger piece, thereby decreasing the share of others. Accordingly, income inequality is the expression of unfair wealth distribution and should be decreased by reallocation from the top to the bottom. Hence, those who make more should pay more because they have to give back in some way what they have taken from others. This depiction of the economy is inaccurate. More production generates more economic progress which leads to an increase in wealth for everyone (at least in a free market system), so that the pie does not remain a fixed size.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Tax Slavery Sucks

Rent-seeking refers to the behavior of individuals or groups expending resources to achieve public policy decisions that transfer wealth to them at the expense of others. Some examples:

• A nonprofit organization might seek for the government to spend taxpayer money on their pet cause, such as protecting the environment or researching a disease.
• A workers’ union might want the government to force employers to provide higher wages, more benefits and greater job security.
• A corporation might seek subsidization to support an unsustainable business model instead of working to become more profitable.

While the rent-seekers should be faulted for the behavior, it is the government granting rent-seekers what they want that is the real problem. As it shells out more benefits and privileges, government has to collect more taxes to administer and pay for them, thus vastly increasing its size and scope.

Rent-seeking is theft. A rent-seeker wants to achieve a wealth transfer in his favor without having to provide value in return. In a mixed economy, companies and organizations find it more effective to petition the government for protection (i.e. subsidies, tariffs, entry barriers, regulations, etc.) than to compete by providing goods and services that consumers want to pay for. Since in a free market the choices of other individuals might not go in his favor, the rent-seeker would rather have the government initiate force against those individuals. The free market, on the other hand, is predicated upon and respects individuals’ free choices. Rent-seekers hinder the dynamism of the free market. When you and I trade in the free market, we each give the other something the other wants more than we want it, relative to what we receive in exchange. By contrast, when the government initiates force in favor of a rent-seeker, it makes everybody but the rent-seeker worse off. It leaves the rent-seeker’s competitors worse off, because the rent-seeker now has a government-enforced advantage, whether in the form of a government-approved monopoly, or stifling regulations faced by would-be entrepreneurs. Because market forces and signals are hindered and distorted, this leaves consumers worse off. They are forced to pay higher prices for poorer quality goods and services.

Rent-seeking harms economic growth. Instead of companies investing their money in new technology, new jobs, offering consumers better products and better prices, or increasing their employees’ pay, the money ends up in the pockets of lobbyists and the politicians able to grant favors. Consumers are forced to pay more for goods and services and taxpayers have to foot the bill for the rent-seekers’ government-enforced advantage. So, over time, as government arbitrarily favors one group over another and expands in size in order to pay for rents, rent-seeking erodes the mechanisms that make economic growth and wealth creation possible: the impartial rule of law, limited government and individual rights.

Statists, whether out of distrust of individuals or faith in the ability of the government, prefer that the state controls people instead of people controlling themselves; they opt for government intervention rather than individual liberty. Statist policies can include regulation of the economy, provision of social goods, and control over personal behaviors. Many political ideologies can be subsumed under the label “statist” — communism, fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism. Even a democracy can become statist if it does not create or does not follow constitutional safeguards against the majority imposing its will without regard for the individual rights of the minority.

Statism is anti-liberty. Individuals have property in themselves, also called self-ownership, which entails they should be free to control their bodies, their minds and their lives. The only way to interfere with that freedom is by means of physical force. The job of governments is to defend individual rights by protecting individuals against the initiation of physical force. However, when governments institute statist policies, they initiate force against individuals who are not infringing on the liberty of others and thus violate individual rights. For instance, regulations, tariffs and subsidies for businesses violate the rights of entrepreneurs and consumers, who both are prevented from voluntarily determining the terms of their interactions with others. If I choose to not give my money to a certain business, government has no authority to overrule that decision. It violates my freedom of choice and deprives others of the property they would have gained in the absence of government interference. Immigration restrictions violate the rights of individuals, since they are prevented from peacefully living and working where they choose to. Bans on smoking and the use of other drugs, speed limits and seat belt requirements, and laws preventing the sale of organs violate your rights since you are prevented from making decisions about your own body.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Stop Rent-seeking