I heard one radio show (Family Talk) that was playing a recording from a church service, where a former American Family Radio exec was speaking about the fundamentals of (political) economics. It went something like this:
"If you make $100, and you go into a restaurant where everything costs less than $100, then you have complete freedom to get anything you want there. But if someone takes money away from you, then they take some freedom away from you. Because if you only have $80 left, you can no longer buy something that costs $90. When somebody comes up to you with a gun and takes money from you, they take freedom from you and it's called theft. When the government takes money from you, and they can do so with men with guns, they take freedom from you and that's called taxes."I was thinking to myself, hmmm....
"If I have $100, but I can't drive anywhere to spend it because there are no roads, then I don't have freedom. If I have $100, but my house has been destroyed due to a hurricane and there is no one to aid me in rebuilding my life, then I don't have freedom. Etc. On the other hand, if I chip in $30 for the collective good, to get roads and disaster relief, to protect the nation, to help ensure quality medication, to make sure that the water is safe to drink, to provide primary education, etc., then I'll have much greater freedom than I would ever have with just $100, and an entire nations of millions will share in that enhanced freedom with me."Are the economic principles really that difficult to understand here? Our government isn't perfect. In fact, in a lot of ways, it really sucks. And I am all for reform and responsible spending. But to come at the problem from the perspective that keeping all of your money ensures you the most freedom, let alone that it is best for the nation, is fundamentally wrong.
Vote with your head.