Some libertarian/minarchist websites are all excited about Andrew Napolitano's new show on Fox Business News. It seems that Fox Business News is trying to become the (L)libertarian channel, in the way that Fox News is the Republican channel.
Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul are simultaneously encouraging and frustrating. They're the most libertarian/minarchist mainstream media personalities. At the same time, they still say "The Constitution is a valid contract and the authority of the Federal government is legitimate. If only we didn't elect such corrupt politicians, then things would get better!"
This quote shows that Andrew Napolitano is a pro-State troll:
I think all taxation is theft. I'm not talking about user fees; I am taking about the government taking money from you for the privilege of engaging in a commercial transaction or for the privilege of earning income. It's moral theft. But as it is lawful, I can't encourage tax resistance because I would be encouraging criminal behavior. I can encourage the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments that would shrink the government back down to it's normal size and starve. But until that is the case, if you want to stay our of jail you better pay your taxes.He gets off to such a good start, "All taxation is theft!" Then he says, "If you're concerned about excessive taxation, your only recourse is to write your Congressman and hope they repeal the law. Until then, pay the tribute to your masters and be a good slave!"
BTW, eliminating the income tax does not require the repeal of the 16th amendment. Congress can repeal the income tax without repealing the 16th amendment. The 16th amendment allows Congress to collect income taxes, but does not require Congress to impose such a tax. Of course, repealing the income tax is politically infeasible. Congressmen depend on the income tax for their power and influence. They won't give up their gravy train!
Andrew Napolitano makes an interesting point. He is a high-profile mainstream media personality. If he advocated for tax resistance, then he would be jailed for treason. He would be "encouraging criminal behavior", and therefore he'd be a criminal if he encouraged tax resistance.
That's one corrupt aspect of State law. If X is recognized by the State as a statutory crime, and you advocate that people do X, then you're a criminal. For example, Dr. Kevorkian is barred from advocating assisted suicide as terms of his parole. If I advocated that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud, then I might be legally responsible if someone followed my advice, stopped taking their poison, and then did something stupid while suffering from withdrawal.
As a relatively unknown blogger, State bureaucrats aren't threatened by me. They don't have the resources to crack down on everyone. (I sometimes wonder if any State insiders read my blog, given my very unusual history.) If Andrew Napolitano went around saying "The government's authority is not legitimate! You should stop paying taxes!", then he would lose his status as a State insider. No mainstream media corporation would broadcast his content. He might be jailed for treason.
Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul are pushing the "debate ceiling". They are one of few State insiders who publicly criticize the State extortion racket. If I attempt to become a high-profile public advocate for freedom, then I might benefit from the fact that Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul pushed the limits of the "debate ceiling".
Andrew Napolitano was self-publishing his show on the Internet for awhile. He was popular, and then landed a contract with Fox. Maybe I can follow a similar track towards wider popularity.
If I become a high-profile advocate for freedom, then I risk being assaulted by State thugs. Irwin Schiff was prosecuted by the IRS only after he gave an interview on NBC promoting his tax resistance philosophy. As a small unknown blogger, I'm at relatively low risk. If I gain a wider audience and start practical agorism, I'm taking a greater personal risk.
Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul are simultaneously encouraging and frustrating. They are encouraging, because they're the most freedom-minded mainstream media personalities. They are frustrating because they still say "The Constitution is a valid contract; if only politicians would follow it. The authority of the Federal government is legitimate. All the slaves have to do is vote for less corrupt politicians, and then things will get better."
The US economic and political system has crossed the "moral event horizon". Reform is no longer possible. State insiders benefit from corruption. They will always successfully lobby against real reform. At this point, complete collapse is a historic inevitability.
3 comments:
'tis the tall poppy that feels the scythe's edge first.
Glenn Beck's new book The Overton Window takes its name from another word for "debate ceiling."
Is it better that they say what they have to in order to stay on tv? or is it better to be all alone in their principles? (assuming for a moment that they are actual anarco-capitalists of course).
At least for now they get to say things like "taxation is theft", even if they can't advocate resistance.
It's hard enough getting people to accept that the State isn't this all knowing all benevolent creature. It's good to have someone chirping on main stream tv, even if it isn't the whole message.
Post a Comment