Political satirist and author P.J. O’Rourke once wrote of the four ways you can spend money:

  1. You spend your money on yourself.
  2. You spend your money on other people.
  3. You spend other people’s money on yourself.
  4. You spend other people’s money on other people.

In the first case, you’re likely to do some good bargain shopping to get the best stuff for the lowest price. When spending your money on other people, you tend to go as cheaply as you can–that is why ugly polyester ties see a big upswing in sales around Father’s Day. When you spend other people’s money on yourself, you can really live high on the hog, and the sky is no limit–Dom Perignon and fine caviar for breakfast! But when you spend other people’s money on other people, you have no reason to care what is bought or how much it costs. Sadly, this is how our government spends money. Is it any wonder that we get truly stupid spending like mohair subsidies?

One of the current big issues being forwarded by President Bush is a welfare prescription drug benefit. In this case I am absolutely opposed to this new entitlement program. Interestingly, those newfound Democrat spendthrifts who balk at the $87 billion Bush requested to help fight terror and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan are clawing each other in their rush to spend over $400 billion on this newly-proposed benefit for America’s elderly.

Why do the elderly need assistance in paying for their drugs? On average, the elderly are the richest age group in our nation, so they are most equipped to pay for their own pharmaceutical needs. So why are government people on both sides of the political aisle in such a rush to pass this benefit? For one very simple reason: elderly citizens vote, and in vast numbers. Career politicians know that if they can count on the elderly vote, they will never be voted out of office. And that, after all, is their primary concern.

So here we have the wealthiest portion of America’s population on the fast track to get a major government handout to pay for their drugs. And there are plenty of elderly folk who are eagerly anticipating this bit of government largess. After all, they are entitled to this money because they are old, right? Well, not really. But try telling that to the old folks with extended blue-veined hands. I wrote previously about the nature of rights in our country. Basically, I do not have the right to access your money, time or labor. This is why the UN’s statement that we have the “right” to food, clothing, housing and medical care really means they want the right to plunder your pocketbook to pay for other people’s food, clothing, housing, and medical care. These are not rights–these are demands!

Since we have dismissed the erroneous idea that health care is a right, what are some of the other reasons people are clamoring for this new handout? Believe it or not, I have heard several people lay claim to this benefit merely because they are elderly. Really. In their minds, they have achieved the right to vacuum money from your hip pocket because the sun has risen and set on them a magical number of times. While I applaud their longevity, I do not appreciate their willingness to take my money.

The high cost of health care is probably the most commonly-used excuse for this program. After all, the elderly would not need our money to pay for their prescriptions if health care were not so very expensive in our country. But this is backward reasoning. Health care is so high-cost precisely because it falls into the fourth spending category: spending other people’s money on other people. What incentive does the doctor have to compete with other doctors and offer the best service at the lowest cost if his fees are paid by someone he never sees?

My wife’s mother recently had an extensive surgery performed on her foot to reconstruct her bones. To understand how the foot was healing, her podiatrist ordered a series of scans. When the bill came back from the x-ray imaging center, it was almost twice what the regular hospital charges for a full-body MRI. If the doctor had not spotted this extraordinary charge, neither Mom, nor the doctor, nor the insurance company would have noticed or cared. This lack of accountability is one of the primary reasons why health care costs are increasing. In a short while after the passing of this new benefit, health care costs will continue to rise, probably even faster than before, and the cry will come up from the elderly that their doctor visits and surgeries are costing too much. The politicians will see the need to “fix” this problem by tossing even more of other people’s money down this rathole.

So what is this new welfare prescription drug benefit? All together now: it is spending other people’s money on other people. This will do nothing to reduce the cost of health care. It will just force the fewer, poorer young generations to care for the numerous, wealthy retirees. This is like saving a burning house by pitching buckets of gasoline onto the fire. Not a smart move, but since the largest voting block in the nation will benefit, you may be assured that the drug benefit will pass both the House and Senate with ease.

How can we break this spiral of rising costs? The only sure way to change it is to shift the trend from spending other people’s money on other people to spending our own money on ourselves. If we succeed, then our natural desire to spend the lowest amount of money on the best possible product will provide a much-needed brake on the cost of health care. This principle works when we buy cars, clothes, and candy, so why would it not work with health care? It certainly worked in the days when people paid for their own health care, and it would work much better than the current system.

When the local store managers sit down and plan for the next big sale, do you think anyone asks, “So how are we going to pay for this sale?” Of course, no one in his right mind would ever say that about a store sale. Why? Because the increased volume of customers will lead to an increase in overall revenue, not a decrease. Anyone who has ever run a store understands this principle completely. But do you think the liberal left understands this in government? Well, if they do, they certainly don’t act as if they understood it.

Why am I being so harsh on the leftist liberals sitting in the seats of power in Washington D.C.? Because they have yet to learn from the lessons history teaches. This can be seen time and time again, but for the nonce, let’s focus on taxes. The liberals who stalk the halls of power in Washington crave and covet every dime of taxpayer money. No amount of social spending is too much for a liberal, but propose spending tax revenues on something which is actually a Congressional responsibility, such as defense, and they will begin to defend the glorious virtue of fiscal responsibility. Currently the Democrats are blanching at President Bush’s proposal of $87 billion to help fight terror and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Democratic Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware is demanding that the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans be postponed to pay for this proposed funding. Is he asking for this because he’s truly concerned about the government’s bottom line? Of course not! He is a Democrat, after all, and he is firmly in favor of spending over $400 billion on projects like prescription drugs for seniors. So why is he asking to strip the proposed tax cut from the wealthy? It is quite simple–he hates tax cuts.

So why do today’s Democrats hate tax cuts so much? It is a matter of philosophy. They believe that every dime you own is a dime they could spend better and more wisely. If they had their way, they would take all your money since they are so much smarter than you in knowing just how it should be spent. After all, they are the intellectual elite and you are just some brainless hick who should bow to their enlightened whims. If they truly wanted the government to be awash in tax revenue, they would drop the tax rates on Americans.

I can see some people reading this and wondering if I got that right. After all, they think, how can the government get more if it taxes less? It will make more sense if you realize just what the government is. Does the government produce anything? No. It gets all its money from taxation and fees, much like a blood-sucking mosquito or tick, rather than producing any tangible good of its own. But while government does not produce anything, it certainly has a big effect on the American economy. Imagine the economy as a vast flow of water going from place to place, and the government as the pipe through which it flows. The pipe itself does not produce water; it is just moving it around. But it is very easy to see how the pipe can reduce the free flow of water if it becomes plugged or if someone starts cranking down a valve to close it. Government, by its very existence, impedes the free flow of money in the economy with every dollar it takes to fund itself and/or regulate others. As it increases the tax burden on the people, it is cranking down on the free flow of money through the economic pipe. If the government regulated less and taxed at a lower rate, the net result would be a freer and more lively economy, just as a clean, unobstructed pipe allows more water to pass through. Don’t believe me? Then let me give you a concrete example–only about 25 cents of every dollar appropriated for welfare actually makes it to a welfare recipient. Talk about some clogged pipes!

As government steps in to regulate and tax, the economy runs slower and slower. Likewise, the less the government regulates and taxes, the better the economy will be. And as the economy runs well, the government receives more tax revenues. Since Democrats do not understand this, I will point to three examples of how lowering tax rates improved overall tax receipts.

* In the 1920s, the tax rates were reduced, and tax revenues increased by 61%.
* In the 1960s, the tax rates were reduced, and revenues increased by 62%.
* In the 1980s, the tax rates were reduced, and revenues increased by 54%.

Each time the tax burden was reduced on the American people, the economy took off and tax revenues went up. True, the government was getting a smaller slice of the economic pie, but since the overall pie grew, that slice was bigger than before. However, it is possible to drop the tax rates so low that the government will bring in less money. This is predicted in the Laffer Curve. In a nutshell, the Laffer Curve says that between 0% and 100% taxes, there is an optimum tax rate that will bring in the most possible revenue for government. Democrats often discredit the Laffer Curve by pointing to the huge deficits rung up during the Reagan years. However, these deficits were caused not by a lack of revenue, but by a related Congressional increase in spending. Regardless of how much money you earn, if you spend more than your pay raises bring in, you will find yourself in debt; that is precisely what happened during the Reagan years.

If Democrats truly wanted to fund every social program under the sun, they would be champions of reducing tax rates and heating up the American economy. After all, each time this has been tried, the end results have been increased wealth and prosperity for both the people and government. But you will not hear that from the Democrats in D.C. Why is that? I have to believe that they view your money as really belonging to them, and the very idea of you keeping more of your money grates on their nerves.

That, or they have never learned anything from history.

Have you ever noticed that there are places where you feel free to just walk on in, and other places where you always knock first? When I visit my Grandma, I never knock; I just walk on in and give her a big hug. I also learned that I could just walk into my mom-in-law’s house with a shout of “Who’s naked?” to let people know I was there. But when I visit my parents, I always knock first, and I don’t really know why. I certainly feel perfectly accepted in my parents’ home, so it is not as if there is some barrier of unkind feelings in place. The only thing I can possibly think that would explain the difference is the newness of my parents’ place. I guess it just does not feel like home to me.

In the not-so-distant past, people used to know their neighbors more than we do today. It was no big deal to pop over to the next-door neighbor to ask for a cup of milk or some eggs. But I think those days have passed us by. Do you have that type of relationship with your neighbors, or are you like most of us–too busy to just sit down and get to know them? There is something sad about how the times have changed this way. If you are like most people, you might recognize your neighbors, but you would be hard pressed to remember their names. And like most people, you probably keep the house locked up tight while you are home and away.

Would you mind if your neighbors felt comfortable enough in your home to just walk in uninvited? Would you care if they brought their friends with them or showed complete strangers how easy it was to waltz on into your unlocked home? If you are like me and a product of our times, the idea of someone unknown having access to the house gives you the heebie-jeebies. Now imagine that some nutcase has issued death threats against you and your family, and he has already been caught once burglarizing your home. Would you ever leave the doors unlocked? No! You would buy some extra deadbolts and install a potent security system. After all, we are talking about your family!

Right now, our nation is like an unlocked house. Every day illegal aliens cross the porous borders into our national home. If everyone were kind and thoughtful, then we would not mind them dropping by to say hello. But since there are people out there whose primary goal in life is to kill us, it is foolhardy to leave the doors open and let everyone into our nation. Before you think I am anti-immigrant, let me clearly state that I am not. I am all in favor of legal immigrants, as I am a descendant of legal immigrants. If you are a foreigner and you want to become a law-abiding citizen of the United States, I welcome you with open arms. But if you start off by breaking the law as you illegally sneak into this country, I do not have much faith that you will improve your outlook on our country and our laws. And if you are someone who has illegally crossed these borders, then I do not want you to remain in this country. I do not care whether you came from Mexico or Canada, Hong Kong or England. If you did not get here legally, then you are persona non grata, and I want you gone.

Is this harsh? No harsher than calling the cops to boot out someone who has broken into your home. I do not see a difference between the protection I want surrounding my home, and that which I want surrounding my nation. But not everyone sees it this way. My mom-in-law teaches grade school, and she knows which families are here illegally, but she cannot ask the parents or the kids if they are. If she did, she would be sued and possibly fired. Apparently this question violates their civil rights, but how does anyone have the civil right to do something illegal? This must somehow make sense in the minds of the liberals who drafted these laws and the loony ACLU who fought for these “rights.”

I once stood on a bridge crossing the Rio Grande, right on the painted line marking the border between the U.S. and Mexico. In the fifteen minutes I stood there and watched, I counted eight people wading through the low-running river and passing through a fence into the United States. One lady paid a kid to push her across the river in a little raft so she would not have the tell-tale wet pants of someone who had just waded the river. Multiply this scenario by the long length of the U.S.-Mexico border, and you may begin to get an idea of just how porous our borders are.

Governor Gray Davis of California signed the Illegal Alien Drivers’ License bill on Sept. 5, 2003. At that time he said, “They deserve the right to drive.” No, Governor, they do not deserve that right. They are not here legally, so they should not enjoy the privileges that come with legal status. Gov. Davis knows that this is a terrible idea, since he vetoed the bill twice already, but now that he is desperate to keep his governorship, he is blatantly catering to the Latino vote. And since the Motor-Voter laws make it simple to register to vote if you have a driver’s license, this opens up California to massive voter fraud. For this act alone, Gov. Davis should be removed from office. Harsh? Yes. But anyone who is this willing to throw open the doors to illegal aliens has violated his oath of office to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And this law makes it ridiculously easy for foreign enemies to gain a valid driver’s license in California and spread out through our home–the United States–to do their work of evil. I think it’s high time that we called the cops to kick them out of our home.

With the recent battles over the Ten Commandments in Alabama, the way the Christmas holiday is morphing into “Winter Festival,” and the panicked way liberals chant “separation of Church and State” at every chance, you’d think that Christianity and other religions were a massive threat to your safety and liberty. Have you noticed that the phrase is normally given a high level of importance by calling it “the Constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State?” But that phrase does not appear in the Constitution. It was penned by Thomas Jefferson years later in a letter. The part about religion that does appear, when liberals get around to reading the Constitution, is in the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

But what does that mean? It’s simple, really. Congress can do nothing either in favor of or against a religion. The Founding Fathers had seen the way state-sponsored religion, in the forms of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, had disrupted the peace of England. Up to the reign of Henry VIII, the state religion of England was Roman Catholic, but when Pope Clement VII nullified Henry’s second divorce and excommunicated him, Henry broke with the Catholic Church. Parliament declared Henry “Supreme Head of the Church of England” in 1534. Henry’s son, Edward VI, succeeded him in 1547 but died shortly in 1553, and this left England with the choice of two of Henry’s daughters: Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I. The people supported Mary as queen, and she promptly made the Catholic Church the state religion again. This was not done peacefully, and to this day she is often referred to as “Bloody Mary.” Five years after the death of Edward VI, Mary Tudor died childless, and her half-sister Elizabeth I became queen. She removed the Catholic Church from power and reestablished the Church of England, albeit with closer theological ties this time and less bloodshed.

All in all, these were times of turmoil and death in England, and the country lost much political power in Europe along with its last properties in France. It is no wonder that the Founding Fathers did not want to establish a national church in the newly-formed United States. They had seen the horrors that can come from one.

But did they restrict the individual states from making an official state religion within their borders? No. They did not. “Blasphemy!” screams the modern liberal. But it is true. The 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make no laws either for or against religion–but Congress is not the states. The 9th and 10th Amendments specify that any rights not already given to the United States (the federal government) or expressly forbidden the states or people, belong to the states and people. This means that the right to form a state religion does belong to the states. The Founding Fathers wanted the individual states to have enough autonomy to work out their own success. You may think of the United States today as fifty state laboratories each working away trying to do their best. If something works well in one state, it will be noticed and copied by others. Likewise, if something fails miserably it will be rejected by other states–well, that is, unless the failure is propped up by liberals. So by what right can a federal judge order a state judge to remove the Ten Commandments from a courthouse in Alabama? If you said “none,” you are correct. Remember, “Congress shall make no law” applies to the federal government, but how can it apply to a state and a member of the judicial branch? The constant and ill-informed carping of “separation of Church and State” by liberals has muddied the waters in this debate, and it is clear that people do not understand the underlying reasons why the Founding Fathers put this amendment in place any more.

Redefining a word or phrase and then legislating from the new definition is a common tactic among the liberal left. The Founding Fathers are plain about the purpose of the 1st Amendment in their writings. They wanted a freedom of religion to prevent it from being meddled with as it was in 16th-century England. But modern-day liberals have redefined this as freedom from religion. And now that they have redefined this in the minds of the people, they want the judiciary to enforce their new definition. You see this in the constantly outraged left decrying anything Christmas- or God-centered. A nativity scene is now an establishment of religion, and saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is somehow a violation of people’s civil rights. When the Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, California posted “God Bless America,” the religion-hating ACLU objected to this “hurtful, divisive message.” This mistaken idea even leads to such silliness as the Golden Corral restaurant in Tyler, Texas posting “Bless America” because adding “God” to that phrase might offend someone. God save us from the perpetually offended!

But this is a good thing, the liberals tell us, because we do not want to have some religion forcing its beliefs on us. That would be just terrible, they cry. Really? How many laws have been written because of religion? Other than local “blue laws” regarding liquor and shopping on Sunday, can you name any religious laws enforced in the United States? But there is a group of people who have forced their beliefs on us via the law and judiciary: liberals.

Want to buy a 3 1/2-gallon toilet so you don’t have to flush two or three times? You can’t. Liberals don’t want you to flush away that much water. Want to buy an efficient freon-based refrigerator? You can’t. Liberals don’t want you to destroy the ozone with nasty CFCs. Never mind that CFCs are at least four times heavier than air, so how are they making it up to the ozone layer in the first place? Want to drive a large car? You can’t. Liberals have mandated the MPG and energy efficiency of cars, so America no longer produces the large, powerful cars of yesteryear. On every front liberals have been telling us what to do, where to go, how to eat, what to buy, how to believe. But they scream and pitch a fit whenever someone brings up the idea that God might be important in our lives. Why? Because they cannot attack our God-given rights if God still exists. But once God is out of the picture, then our God-given rights become government-given rights. And what government giveth, government also taketh away. Are you comfortable with that? I am not.

We live in a wonderful country. Our Founding Fathers recognized that the people of this nation are sovereign and all rights are held by them. Some of these rights were granted to the federal government by the people; some were granted to the individual states. But the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution tell us two things: just because the Bill of Rights mentions certain rights, it does not mean that those are the only rights. Any right not specifically granted the United States or the individual states is held by the people.

But there is some confusion as to what exactly is a right held by a person. I have heard people say, “I have a right to this job!” or “I have a right to free health care!” But do they? Are these the same sort of rights as the legally recognized right of free speech? Not really. In the case of free speech, you have the right to express your opinion, but there are certain restrictions on it. You do not have the right to disseminate slanderous or libelous information against someone, and the offended person may take you to court if you do. You may not use your freedom of speech to remove or restrict the rights of others. To use a common example, yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is dangerous to the life and safety of others.

There are basically two rules to rights: you may not exercise your rights to restrict the rights of others, and you may not force someone else to pay for your rights. The old saying of “your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose” gives an idea of what is meant by not restricting the rights of others. You may not do murder since it deprives a person of life, nor may you kidnap anyone since it deprives that person of liberty. As for the second rule about rights, you have no right to the time and money of other people. The government reserves this right in the form of taxes, but individuals may not walk up to someone and demand five dollars. That is theft. But you may be surprised at how many people expect and demand your money.

Whenever you hear someone demanding a right to free health care, you should ask him why he feels justified in robbing doctors. After all, if you were to walk into a hospital, receive the care you need and walk out without paying for it, you have essentially robbed the hospital, the doctors and the nurses of payment for their services. This is just the same as shoplifting. But people don’t want to pay for expensive health care, so they scream that it should be free for them. Yelling doesn’t make it so, no matter how shrill you are or how many join in with your screaming. But what if the people vote to make health care free for everyone? It is still stealing. If it is illegal for one person to demand and take money from another, it is just as illegal even if a million people vote to take money from another. And it is just as morally unjustified to vote for the government to tax people and use the money to pay for “free” health care, but you will have a hard time convincing some people of this. They want it, so they expect the government to exercise its might and give it to them.

If you are an artist, do you have the right to perform? Sure; that is part of your freedom of speech. But do you have the right to demand that people buy your CDs or tickets to your performances? Of course not. What if a recording company or music store refuses to produce or sell your albums? Have your rights been violated? Again, no. You have no right to demand that people pay for your expression. You have the right to put on a performance in your garage, but you cannot demand that people pony up the dough for it. As with any transaction, this should be a two-way street: the performer presents tickets for a show, and people choose to buy a ticket and attend. There is an implicit contract where the performer puts on a show as his part of the contract, and the people buy tickets to attend as their part. There is no justification for attempting to force payment; this is an example of the free market in action.

Do you have a right to shelter? No. You have the right to seek shelter. If you think you have the right to shelter, then you must also expect someone will provide it for you. Once again, you are demanding the time and money of another person without justification for doing so. You are, however, free to negotiate for shelter. Most people call this rent or house payments, but in the case of people who cannot or will not pay for shelter, there are charity services who are willing to put people up for the night or week. As with many public services, such accommodations are far from ritzy.

Do you have a right to a job? No. You have the right to look for a job. Whether or not you are hired depends on your skills and the skills of other applicants. Just try marching up to IBM or General Motors and demanding that they hire you because it is your right. Depending on how much of a scene you make, you might get escorted from the building by security, or they will relinquish you into the welcoming hands of the police. What makes you think you have a demand on people’s money like that?

Believe it or not, there are many people who speak in the language of rights who have absolutely no clue how rights truly work. If you are demanding that other people hand over time and money to furnish your rights, then they are not really rights at all.

Since this is my forum to discuss all manner of ideas, I figured it’s time to put forward ten principles commonly held by people.

Public education — One of the government’s prime duties is to see to the education of the rising generation. Our local grade school understands this, and prominently displays over the school stage the phrase “Today’s good students make tomorrow’s good citizens.” How are these students to know what makes a good citizen if the government is not there to educate them? This is why the Department of Education was established by Congress in 1979, and was made a cabinet-level position in 1981.

Formation of a national bank — During the Great Depression, many banks crashed because they were small and didn’t have the wide base needed to weather a run on the bank. Many people lost all their life savings–money they had worked so hard to accumulate. Their only mistake was to put their money into the hands of greedy bankers who closed their banks rather than return the people’s money to their rightful owners. This is why the Federal Reserve was founded, to prevent nickel-and-dime banks from defrauding the people again.

A progressive or graduated income tax — It only makes sense that the rich should pay a higher percentage of their ill-gotten wealth to the government. After all, they have lots more money, so if they are taxed higher they can easily afford to pay it. This also allows for unfortunate people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder to pay little or no income tax.

Abolition of inheritance rights — We have a special tax to keep the money of wealthy parents from reaching the hands of their lazy, shiftless children. This so-called “death tax” is currently at 55%, but Wall Street tycoon Warren Buffet, known by some as the “Oracle of Omaha,” has no desire to pass on his billions to his children. Buffet is the champion for an “enormous inheritance tax.” He made his wealth on his own, so why should he pass on anything to his children? Let them earn their own money.

Property confiscation of all emigrants and rebels — A while back several very wealthy people started to leave the United States. Why? Because they didn’t want to pay their taxes like everyone else. The government is therefore justified in confiscating their wealth as they flee across the borders. Didn’t they make the money here in the United States? Then how can they justify taking it out of the country? They are just selfish. And for those people who stay in the US but break the laws, it is only fitting that we confiscate their property and money. Most of it probably came from selling drugs or other illegal activities, anyway.

Nationally-controlled communication and transportation — It is easy to see the need for a steady hand at the wheel of communication. There are people popping up on the Internet spouting off all sorts of kooky ideas. What if they all got their own radio or TV programs and increased the number of people they could reach that way? It would be bedlam or worse! That is why we have the FCC to control the use of our precious electronic airways. Imagine sitting at home in your comfy chair listening to your favorite classical music station, only to have some yutz down the street start broadcasting loud rap music on that same frequency. Now imagine if someone constructed a toll booth and started charging tolls on the freeway just because it ran next to his house. There is a clear need for government to control both communication and transportation.

Requirement for all to work — Didn’t God tell Adam that by the sweat of his brow he would work all the days of his life? Then why do we think we are any different? We have a need to work. Ideally, the greed of wealthy business owners should be contained to promote this. How many times have you heard of a CEO giving himself a multi-million dollar bonus during the same year that his business is failing? Why should doctors be paid more than teachers? How many teachers do you know who play golf constantly? Not many, I would guess, but can you think of a doctor who doesn’t play golf? It is clear that some people here just don’t work as much as others.

Regional planning — Most towns and cities restrict where certain kinds of buildings can be built, so why don’t we have the same thing on a national level? Why should people be allowed to build their houses right in the middle of the best farmland? Why should towns sprawl out endlessly from their centers? If you have driven down the East Coast, you have seen one city blend into another and then another as you drive along. A strong governmental hand in planning how people spread across our country is sorely needed, and the government is starting to realize this and take action.

Abolition of private property — There are enough greedy landlords causing people to spend way more than they should on rent. This could be solved so easily if we didn’t allow individuals to own land. The principle of eminent domain could be used to allow government to take ownership of any land that is currently privately held. Why waste time and money with all those private landlords, when we already have a Bureau of Land Management?

Government ownership of all factories and agriculture — Have you seen the old black-and-white photos of people working in the sweatshops and factories during the turn of the last century? The images of soot-stained children working next to dangerous machines is just heartbreaking. Thankfully, we don’t have to worry about this any more. That is why we formed the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and Labor, and the Department of the Interior. These departments are aided by the Herculean efforts of the EPA, BLM, National Park Service and the IRS through corporate regulations. This is why children are now free from working in dangerous coal mines.

So do you accept these ten principles, just as many Americans do? If so, congratulations! This makes you a Marxist. These principles are the Ten Planks proposed by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. Yet each and every one of these guiding principles of Communism are enforced to greater or lesser extent in the United States today. Communism has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been tried, so why not give actual freedom a try here in the United States? Are you up for it, or are you still mired in the tommyrot inked by an insolvent fool now 120 years in his grave?