Saturday, April 17, 2004

For all those who consistently bleat "MY MONEY! MY MONEY! MY MONEY! LIBERALS ARE ALWAYS USING THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE AWAY MY MONEY!!!!, here is a question to ponder:

"If it's really my money (or your, or anyone else’s for that matter), then WHY IS IT A FEDERAL OFFENSE TO DESTROY A FEDERAL TREASURY NOTE $$$$$?"

You know who you are. I posted this just a couple of days ago, but back then I didn't comment capability. However thanks to Haloscan that has changed, and I was hoping to hear some feedback on this one from both sides, be it lib or con. Not too many people seem to read the BMA much regularly, and that is mostly my own fault for irregular postings, a lousy template, no time for interesting political discussion, but I digress. I really hope someone starts posting some interesting answers on this one.

To be completely upfront, I pretty much agree with just about every single liberal argument regarding a progressive tax system, as well as a distaste for the Bush tax cuts, his fiscal policy, his spending priorities (and so on and so on). That fact aside, I have to say that liberals have been doing a very poor job of debating this issue. While the liberal clichés are worn out and don't seem to resonate the way they should, I think there is something more fundamentally flawed in retorts regarding the subject. The question is not a means to an end but rather an entry point to get the ball rolling on a concept that most people don't think of very much.

A recent discussion on The O'Franken Factor with Al and his ditto-head childhood buddy didn't go so well for Al. I agree with Franken's perspective. However even if I feel the ditto head was wrong I'd have to say he won that verbal joust.

The quip of how rich liberals who opposed the tax cuts are hypocrites if they kept the extra cash, or you should send the difference of the tax cut back to the government if you truly the Bush tax cuts are wrong is so loaded with holes it could qualify as swiss cheese. Unfortunately the retorts to these arguments are time consuming, labor intensive and require the metal capacity that the average Oxycontin addict doesn't have. However I think the aforementioned question could really get people thinking in ways that they don't. All points aside in the on air debate team competition, I'd like to see some libs start dropping the aforementioned question into debates regarding taxes and such. If money was truly equal to property, then you would be able to destroy it just like your stereo system, or your car, or your house (minus your local zoning laws) without fear of federal penalty.

This short quandary may seem a bit strange and short. The reason is if you think about it, you should come to some very different and hopefully interesting ideas about the way most people misconceive the concept of money. That and I don't feel like writing a ten page paper on the fact that money is essentially a piece of paper that is worthless without the institution of the government behind it, which is in turn built on the foundation of revenue, i.e. tax dollars. But I've said too much already, just think about it. If anyone is still reading BMA, even by accident, it would be great to hear some feedback.


Post a Comment

<< Home