When socialists steal all your money, blame those who compromise today

By David McElroy · June 30, 2018

When do you stand up to an extortionist? Do you tolerate him as long as he demands only 10 percent of your income? Or 30 percent? Or 50 percent?

Or do you wait until he demands everything?

The political system that’s been imposed on you — the one you were taught to worship — already steals money from you. The political question in this country isn’t whether it’s acceptable to steal from you or not. The question is how much the thieves and extortionists are allowed to steal — 30 percent of your income? 50 percent? 70 percent?

About 20 or 30 years ago, everybody was convinced that complete socialism was dead. The “mixed system” of the western democracies had won, simply because socialist systems inevitably collapse. But now that there’s been a bit of time after the fall of the Soviet Union, many younger people are embracing the economic idiocy of socialism.

When they eventually take over — and demand full control of your income — you’ll have only yourself to blame, because you’ve been willing to compromise with the extortionists today.

You were taught that “paying your taxes” made you a good citizen. You were told that those who didn’t pay taxes were “cheats” and criminals. You were even told that there is a “social contract that binds us all together.”

When exactly did you agree to such a contract? When did you agree that politicians have the right to decide how much money you have to hand over? When did you agree that it was moral for your property to be seized if you refused to pay? When you you agree that it was fair for you to be sent to prison if you failed to tell politicians and bureaucrats exactly how much money you make?

I never agreed to any such contract. You almost certainly didn’t agree to it, either. Instead, a government-operated system of schools fed you propaganda and made you worship that system. It made you a willing sheep who volunteers to be sheered every time politicians say it’s time.

You might grumble at handing over half your income. If you have a high income and live in a high-tax state, you’ll end up forking over roughly half of what you make when all forms of taxes are taken into account. But even though you grumble — and even though you wish it were a bit less — it never occurs to you to question the foundations of this evil system of extortion.

Because you don’t question the morality of this extortion, you support the politicians who promise to steal “not quite as much” as the other politicians want to steal. You think the “lesser thieves” are the good guys.

But it never occurs to you to withdraw your consent.

If a mugger steals your money, you hand it over to him because he’s holding a gun on you. You don’t say, “Well, this mugger is just asking for 30 percent of my money and he promises to do some good things, so I owe it to him.” No, you don’t voluntarily give him your money. You’re outraged and you want better security against such a thief.

Government of the sort that you currently support is the mugger holding the gun. The politicians and bureaucrats have no right to your money, because you haven’t agreed to buy the services they claim to be providing. It’s theft or extortion or whatever you want to call it, because the only reason you’re paying is that someone has a gun held to you — in order to take your property by force if your don’t obey.

It’s time to withdraw your consent for this barbaric system.

Socialists are on the rise in the Democratic Party today. We saw the first wave of that this past week. It’s going to get far worse. These people aren’t just the “socialist lite” of the mainstream Democrats. These are the hardcore kind who want to take everything you have. They want to turn your life and this entire country into the next Venezuela.

By what moral reasoning are you going to fight them? Are you going to tell them that their theft was fine as long as it was only 30 percent? Or 50 percent? Or 70 percent? At what point are you willing to say that what’s happening is wrong?

I can’t set us on a path to a voluntary system all by myself. You can’t, either. As long as the majority still support such theft — and are taught to revere it — nothing will change. As long as people consent to be mugged, nothing will change.

But if enough people can come to understand that the money they are handing over to government is stolen money, we can fight back — and when social and economic collapse inevitably comes — we can have a chance to replace this theft with a system of completely voluntary exchange.

I don’t expect you to understand yet how that can work. You’ve spent your whole life being taught that this theft is moral, after all. I’m just asking you to accept that you are a victim of theft — or extortion, if you prefer.

The first step is realizing what’s going on and withdrawing the consent you’ve given because of brainwashing in schools. You will have to pay taxes for now, just as I do — but you will pay that money with the understanding that someone is holding a gun on you, not because you have a moral obligation to do so.

The socialists are coming — and they’re coming for all the money and property of productive people. If you want to have any chance of defeating them, you have to quit compromising with evil. You have to quit supporting the people who say, “We’re going to take your money, but not quite as much.”

Withdraw your consent — at least in your own mind. Things are going to get worse. You need to understand what’s going on and you need to free your mind before that day gets here.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts