Agrument Against Oppression or The Truth Behind Liberalism Exposed

There are those out there that argue well for oppression. Even quoting Adam Smith to make the oppression seem ok.

The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State.

They use this to say the successful should be oppressed based on their ability to be oppressed. Like slavers use to say of black slaves being made for the fields or the poor because of their inability or lack of intelligence which keeps them from rising above their current class. The successful are better able to endure oppression therefore they are who we should oppress. Interesting argument, very Marxist, and still very immoral in my opinion but each to their own.

I don’t think Adam Smith was a proponent of a progressive income tax as they try to say one should take the time and effort to read all of Wealth of Nations. I acknowledge the importance and need for taxation as Adam Smith did and I don’t think we should set up a system where those that can’t pay taxes should be oppressed either with debtor’s prisons and all that nonsense like at the time Adam Smith lived.

“In all cases, a direct tax upon the wages of labour must, in the long run, occasion both a greater reduction in the rent of land, and a greater rise in the price of manufactured goods, than would have followed from a proper assessment of a sum equal to the produce of the tax, partly upon the rent of land, and partly upon consumable commodities.”

Rent of land is much like a capital gains tax and consumable commodities is not income. Further, Mr. Smith said that…

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Again, nothing about taxes on income and even further something more then a proportion of their revenue a consumption tax perhaps???

“Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the State.”

“As little as possible” being the key point here. Our upper marginal income tax rate is near 50%. To me this is not a marginal amount. I don’t think anybody would think of 50% as being as little as possible in fact 50% is half. I don’t know who thinks half is a little amount. If I say I’m only going to take a sip of your drink and then I drink half did I take a sip? Nope.

Based alone on the wisdom of Adam Smith (without bringing anything else into the debate) I do not agree that oppression “simply put” should be based on “those who can better afford to pay to support the government”. I think oppression is wrong. The wealthy have less to protect then the poor because the wealthy have means to avoid and escape from things such as hurricane’s, war, and disease. The poor are in greater need of protection as they lack the means for protection.

Don’t get me wrong, I like paying for government roads, military, police, and for protection with contracts and the such. I don’t like paying for social “security”, medicare, child tax credits, public schools, and other such nonsense.

Here is the novel idea. What about paying taxes based on use which is something Adam Smith advocated as well. That is novel…paying for what you need or use. Not taxes based on ability but taxes based on use and need, that is not oppression but freedom of choice. I may be young and I might not think much before I write or talk but I’ve been around and done alot in my 20+ years to know the truth. Oppression regardless of the type is still oppression whether based on ability to endure it or any other form. Do not be fooled by Republican’s and Democrat’s that make this argument.

But wait is oppression to terse a term to use?

I don’t think so. Oppression is a very accurate use for what is going on and what is being said in the debate. Oppression is oppression regardless of whether it is supported by the majority or not. Just like oppression is oppression even if it is on the backs of those that can endure.

“Just because your friends want to jump off a bridge doesn’t mean you should jump off a bridge.”

That is a saying my parents taught me when I’d try to say that my friends were allowed to do something and I didn’t think it was fair I wasn’t. Just because the majority says do something doesn’t make it right to do. It’s called “tyranny of the majority” to use the words of our founding fathers and just because one think it is ok to oppress somebody because of their ability and now because the majority says it’s ok doesn’t make it any more moral.

Take for example the U.S. revolution. The majority of England didn’t agree with the English colony’s. I suppose those of Obama’s ilk and mentality disagree with what Washington and Adams and Jefferson did then because they were against the majority. Well, each to their own. Personally, I admire those men and their mentality.

But wait I’ve never lived under oppression! I disagree 100% that I have never lived under oppression. I haven’t lived under Nazi oppression or Islamic oppression or outright communist oppression your right their. However, when a young guy like myself trying to raise 4 little kids has to write a check to the government on April 15th after they’d already withheld thousands I am economically oppressed. What benefit did I get from the 10s of thousands I paid in taxes? Bailout Wall Street, bailout Chrysler, pay for a joke of a public school for my kids (whom I educate at home in my free time anyways), pay for somebodies health care (while we shell out 4 grand for my wifes latest c-section) yeah that’s fair, pay for somebodies food stamps, pay for some illegal immigrants drivers license, donate some money internationally to support abortion, bailout those that paid to much for their homes while I live in a 1,200 sq ft house for 6 because I live debt free, get a little use of roads (even though the state is raising the tolls here) and some military protection from terrorists (until we get attacked again). The government limits my freedom of choice. For me it is to a point of being oppressive. And when I see Obama’s tax increases I know more oppression is on the way.

It’s great that their are those out their that have the freedom to comment about oppressing people because that is blatently what your saying. I just wish they wouldn’t be shy about it. Don’t try to hide behind the majority or peoples ability or the fact it’s economic oppression and not religious oppression/or racial oppression. After all Obama and his plans have a 60%+ approval rate the majority can’t be wrong, right?

“Get those rich successful people. Raise the taxes on the top % of wage earners. Down with the successful.” Don’t be shy! Don’t be such cowards that you have to hide your true beliefs behind the “majority” or because people have the ability it’s not oppression.