Taxation and state power have grown far beyond any legitimate usefulness they might have. Our society is drowning in both. We have given ourselves a fire hose when all we need is a Dixie Cup.

The United States government is the single largest employer in the country. This is obscene.

The government produces nothing of value. Nothing. Why are so many people necessary to produce nothing of value? They are not.

They are wasteful. Would that it were that was all. But they are worse than wasteful. They prevent actual production of value. The government makes it harder for people that wish to produce to do so.

Unreasonable licenses, fees, regulation, red tape and bureaucracy make it so.

Without the production of value, there are no jobs. There is no food. There is no shelter. People produce these things. Government does not.

Indeed, oftentimes people form corporations to produce things. Yet corporations are nothing. They are legal fiction. Corporations are nothing but the individuals that comprise them.

True, government is nothing but people that comprise it. The difference is that people are free to purchase things from the people in a corporation or not, yet people are forcibly coerced into giving money to the government.

To some, this government coercion is fine. To me, it is not.

I make no apology for being anti-government.

And I am tired of being criticized for lacking compassion because I am against the government and against the forcible confiscation of people’s money. It is not the government’s job to provide compassion.

It is mine. It is yours.

By sloughing off the responsibility of “compassion” over to the government, some are relieved of the moral burden of being compassionate themselves.

If they vote in favor of government force to take other people’s money to help the needy, they are compassionate. They care. At least that is the fiction under which these misguided people operate. It is so much easier to believe in fiction than reality.

It is not compassionate to take someone else’s money for a cause, no matter how worthy. It is compassionate to voluntarily give money to a cause in which one believes.

Some say charity will never be sufficient to provide for all the worthy causes. That government taxation is necessary to provide for all of these worthy causes. I say these people’s definition of “worthy cause” is overly broad.

If people do not wish to give money to a cause, the cause is not worthy to that person. It is immoral to force that person to give anyway, because government deems it necessary.

It is so much easier to force others to donate than to ask nicely. If one has to ask, then the answer might be “no.”

The faux-compassionate, pro-government faction can not stand for that. They deem themselves too compassionate to give others that freedom.

I am anti-government. I am anti-tax. I am pro-freedom. I am pro-liberty.

And I make no apologies.

(Alexandria, Va.) — As John McCain and Barack Obama jockeyed for position in the race to appear “leader-like” over the economy and in upcoming debates, the latest update of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s (NTUF) candidate cost analysis project shows that despite their different styles, the major party Presidential hopefuls have one thing in common: both their agendas would add billions more to the taxpayer’s tab every year.

NTUF’s fourth and final round of assigning price tags to the candidates’ platforms since January 29 found that Sen. McCain (R-AZ) would increase yearly federal spending by $92.4 billion, compared to Sen. Obama’s (D-IL) $293.0 billion. NTUF also released a first-time analysis of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who would instead cut annual federal spending by $200.9 billion. The studies include proposals through September 19.

—————

Would you call the police on someone who didn’t donate to a charity that you consider to be a “worthy cause”? If not, then you should oppose County Issue 1B in this November’s election, which would extend the so-called “Worthy Cause” sales tax. This tax is immoral — regardless of how worthy the causes are. It is compulsory charity, or charity at gun-point. It is intolerant to people’s values and unfair to charities that must earn our donations. It undermines both the responsibility of donors and the accountability of nonprofits that receive forced donations.

The compulsory charity tax represents the tyranny of the majority. Recipients of the tax revenues are politically-favored charitable organizations in Boulder County. Generous Boulder County residents can and do donate to these organizations. But in 2000, 50.5 percent of the voters supported the measure, which makes it a crime for Boulder County consumers not to donate to these charities. You can end up in behind bars.

This is an offensive display of arrogance and intolerance. In 2000, almost 67,000 voters voted for the tax. Apparently it’s not enough for these supporters to donate to charities they deem “worthy.” They asked government to impose their values on everyone else, as if they are anointed to declare what the real “worthy causes” are. But there’s no compassion in spending other people’s money by force.

Compulsory charity is unfair to nonprofits who do not receive government subsidies. Every dollar you’re taxed to fund politically-favored charities is a dollar you could have given to a charity that actually earned your donation. We appropriately disapprove when government legislates to give certain businesses advantage over competitors. We should also object to politically-favored government-subsidized charities.

Compulsory charity undermines your responsibility to promote your chosen values. Say you care about whether people receive adequate health care, housing, or education. The last thing you want is for government to address the issue. Government is unaccountable to you as a donor; it gets your tax dollars even if you think it’s squandering your tax dollars. This lack of accountability gives government-funded charities little incentive to be efficient or effective. By empowering government, you disempower yourself.

Compare this to donating to a charity yourself. You’re the customer. Charities know that to keep your donations coming, they must demonstrate that they are a worthy cause. You can read the organization’s literature and Web site, talk to their employees, or read performance evaluations by Charity Navigator and GuideStar.org.

GuideStar envisions “an increasingly efficient nonprofit marketplace where donors seek out and compare charities, monitor their performances, and give with greater confidence; nonprofit organizations pursue more effective operating practices, embrace greater accountability, and enjoy lower fundraising costs; and society benefits from a more efficient, generous and well-targeted allocation of resources to the nonprofit sector.”

Supporters of the “Worthy Cause” tax claim that without it, worthy causes would not have sufficient funds. But the alternative to the compulsory charity tax is not “doing nothing.” The alternative is to take responsibility for supporting your values by donating money yourself and persuading others to donate.

Remember the 67,000 voters who originally supported the tax? If they thought these causes are so important, they should put their money where their vote is. This year’s Boulder County budget includes $3.5 million in the “Worthy Cause Fund.” Instead of voting to force their neighbors to donate to charity, a $50 tax-deductible donation would provide this revenue.

Another common argument in support of compulsory charity is that “we all benefit from it.” But do we? The poor also pay the sales tax, but could benefit more by using their hard-earned money to provide for their families. That $3.5 million can create other values, either through other charities or businesses that create jobs.

In any case, just because you benefit from something does not mean you must pay for it. We benefit if others have food, shelter, clothing, and good hygiene, but this doesn’t mean government should force us to buy food, shelter, clothing, and soap for others.

Some claim that these are necessities of life are “rights.” They are not. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce.

The “Worthy Cause” tax empowers authorities to decide for others what causes are more “worthy” than others. This is an elitist and intolerant, and has no place in a civil society. Ballot Issue 1B isn’t about “a penny for a worthy cause,” it’s about compulsory charity. If you want to donate your own penny, that’s great. But your neighbors’ pennies are not yours to give.

“We need to help people cope with rising gas and food prices, spark job creation by repairing our schools and our roads, help states avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, and help homeowners stay in their homes,” said the Illinois senator. “And we must also ensure that the solution we design doesn’t reward particular companies, or irresponsible borrowers or lenders, or CEOs, some of whom helped cause this mess.”

Surely the fiscally responsible Republicans would see it differently, right?  McCain’s take:

“This financial crisis requires leadership and action in order to restore a sound foundation to financial markets, get our economy on its feet, and eliminate this burden on hard-working middle-class Americans.”

Both parties then went about squabbling over the minutia to make it appear as though there were differences.  McCain wants more “government oversight”.  Obama wants to add additional “assistance for the middle class”.  But fundamentally, they both agree: the right fix is a huge and enormously expensive program by the federal goverment.

I often run into people who say they’d vote Libertarian, but they just don’t want to see candidate X get into office.  They vote for the “lesser of two evils”.  Well, who do you vote for if you don’t want to see another $1 trillion or so of good money (over $3700 per american man, woman, and child) thown after this bad debt?

(If you’re curious about the Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr’s position on all this: see http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/another-federal-bailout-“i-told-you-so”-says-bob-barr )

Vote:  The Colorado LP blog is one of contenders in the KOA contest for best Colorado blog.  Click here to vote: Vote  We’re already up to 3rd place.  Your vote may help us top the list.  The winner gets a permanent link from KOA.  Your vote can help to expose many folks to Libertarianism.

Listen:  Local activists Frank Atwood and Natalie Mellon were featured on the iVoices podcast.  Although each had help from readers of this newsletter, they were key to the elimination of food taxes in Littleton and Lakewood.  Click on Frank and Natalie to listen to these short broadcasts and learn how they did it.

Digg:  Click to “digg” various articles and videos about Bob Barr.  As these get more diggs, more people will watch them.  Digg here.

Donate:  We are on the ballot in 30 states and the national LP needs donations to get on the remaining 18 (Oklahoma and 1 other state are not possible).  So far Libertarians have donated over $90,000.  Donate here.

Volunteer:  Michele wrote in about an opportunity for us to have a booth at the City Park Festival of the Arts.  On July 20th, it’s from 12 to 7pm with a free Jazz concert.  If two folks volunteer to man the booth, we can have it for $10.  Email me directly to volunteer.

Canvass:  Jim Frye continues to make progress flyering (a new word) his entire district.  I and 3 others completed two neighborhoods on Tuesday.  Come get two hours of exercise walking and let the folks of Aurora know they have a choice.  You can RSVP at the Libertarian calendar.

Learn:  For only $75 you can enjoy 5 one day a week classes on the basics of freedom.  These are taught by a former head of the Colorado Libertarian Party, Penn Pfiffner and they will give you lots of ammo for future discussions.  Watch the promo video here.

Petition:  We’ve won in Littleton.  We’ve won in Lakewood.  Do you want to help repeal the food tax in Arvada?  There’s still time to get this on the ballot.  Email me if you’d like to help get petition signatures.  We’ll start this up if we get enough petitioners.