How many times have we heard, “well, you can afford it,” when it comes to tax issues? Obviously, the implication of this statement is that if one can afford it, one shouldn’t object to giving up one’s hard-earned money for the benefit of total strangers that had nothing to do with earning the money — please see a previous post on why the notion that “you didn’t make your money on your own!” is so utterly stupid ( So, in the case of progressive taxes, the liberal/socialist (lib/soc) elements of our society would browbeat everyone into believing that if one can afford to pay higher and higher taxes then one must pay it, and if someone doesn’t want to pay it, well then it justifies using FORCE to compel the individual to pay it because they can afford t0 pay ever increasing taxes — according to the standards that the random lib/soc bureaucrat has put forth.

Most liberals/socialist (libs/socs) will say this with such conviction, indignation and self-righteousness that most people, including the rich that have to pay the higher taxes, will cower and shrink into bewilderment and do nothing but agree with this argument and “dutifully” pay the ever increasing tax burden placed at their feet. What’s worse, many of the rich that have to burden this ever increasing weight around their productivity have convinced themselves — more like brainwashed themselves — that this is the right thing to do, because they can “afford” it, this is democracy, “it’s the law,” and the Constitution provides for Congress making and enforcing laws to raise tax revenue for the government. When I see these wealthy people who’ve brainwashed themselves into thinking that they have an obligation to pay these ever burdensome taxes, I can’t help but conjure up the image of P.T. Barnum whispering to his friends and cohorts, “there’s a sucker born every minute.” This is then quickly followed-up by another thought that the “stupid and the gullible deserve to have their money parted from them.” I don’t remember who said this last truism.

The thing of it is is that most Americans, whether wealthy or not, believe that if one can afford it, one should pay it. However, like a lot of the stupid arguments that libs/socs use to justify their idiotic and lunatic policies, this argument is beyond stupid at its core and doesn’t even pass the simplest of the simple rational scrutiny. For example, if a person is dying of kidney failure, should we force another person that has two healthy kidneys to give one up, assuming that the donor’s kidney would be a match for the dying person? Most lib/socs, give me the blank stare; these are the truly unthinking dumbass automatons that have been programmed to just repeat what they heard from some “smart” or “wise” person that they “respect” in their lives. Some of the more slick libs/socs will retort something to the effect of “that’s different!” These guys tend to be a bit smarter to a lot smarter than the average dumb lib/soc. However, when asked to say why it’s different they fall flat. Typically, the best these dumbbells can come up with is, “money and kidneys aren’t the same thing!”

Wow, where do I start? I typically crack a broad smile or sometimes even laugh out loud, much to the chagrin and puzzlement of these so called smart lib/soc. Then I retort, “who said anything about kidneys and money being the same thing?” Then the conversation typically flows as follows:

L/S: “You did!” — indignantly

AHA: “When did I say that?”

L/S: “What do you mean?” — accompanied by anger or puzzlement or both

AHA: “When did I say that kidneys and money are the same thing!”

L/S: “Just now! When you said that we should take a kidney from a normal healthy person to give to the ill and dying!” — outright anger and frustration accompany this statement

AHA: “So, how is that saying that money and kidneys are the same thing?”

L/S: “What, are you stupid or something: You just compared taxes, which is money, to kidneys!” — sometimes with derision, sometimes with anger, but always with an air of superiority and a taste of victory in their mouth

AHA: “Funny, I was about to ask you how stupid you have to be to not understand what I’m saying. It’s funny how you think, I’m the one missing the point!”

L/S: “What are you talking about? You’re the one who just compared kidneys to money! What idiot would do that?!” — with anger, sometimes defensively, but always with the air of a superior talking to an inferior

AHA: “Would you like me to explain why you’re the idiot and not me?”

L/S: “Yeah, OK, give it a try.” — typically arms folding and sarcastic grin on their face

AHA: “You obviously don’t understand what it means to argue based on principles. Your argument for why the rich should pay for ever more increasing taxes is because they can afford it. So, you’re using the principle of affordability as the standard for how you justify forcing the rich to pay more and more taxes. Never mind the fact that affordability is subjective, my point was and still is that if you use affordability as the standard for how we measure human interaction then we can justify forcing a healthy person to give up one of their kidneys to a person that needs one. Do you understand?”

At this point, the dumber ones will throw out a whole bunch of idiotic statements like, “I don’t mean we should use affordability as the standard for everything that we do in society, just for taxes!” Wow, I have a field day with this one too. Other ridiculous statements may include something like, “that’s different,” (this is obviously a circular argument), “that’s a clever argument, but you’re just trying to justify why you shouldn’t have to pay more,” errrr, no shit Sherlock, and the “justification” is rational and morally correct, “we live in a democracy and have to abide by the law and the law says you have to pay more. Anyway, who are you to say that the majority is wrong!” oh my greatness! please see previous posts for the destruction of this idiotic argument (

The smarter ones typically tend to get very quiet at this point and don’t have much to say. It seems like they’re running arguments in their head and trying to see which one will stick and find that there is none. The vast majority will say something like, “tomaeto, tomato” then they’ll walk away. Or, they’ll say something like, “well, if you don’t like paying more than run for office or campaign for and vote for politicians that will reduce your taxes.” But looking into their eyes you can see that they are defeated and the only thing they can do is to say something totally prosaic to at least try and salvage some part of their dignity.

The bottom-line is that at the heart of the libs/socs agenda there is nothing of substance in terms of principles and morality. They will use one principle to argue for one of the things that they profess to “believe in” then turn around and use a completely different — and often contradictory — principle to argue for something else that they profess to “believe in.” And, typically, many of their “principles” tend to be very vague — I think deliberately — are at cross-purposes to each other, or are down right stupid, in many cases. However, when confronted with their folly, they never admit that they’re wrong and will always find ways to change the subject, ignore what has been discussed, try to belittle or berate, minimize the importance or otherwise find a way to be dismissive.

The problem is that the libs/socs never learn and, therefore, never change the way they behave. Ultimately, this has led our country down a path of self-destruction from which it gets harder and harder to recover everyday we stay on this course. Ultimately, libs/socs believe that they are doing good for the country by “helping the poor” and, therefore, to them, principles and morality are jast a matter of convenience and remains irrelevant in their minds, as long as they believe they are doing “good for others.”

It should be obvious to any intelligent person, even a lib/soc, that this kind of thinking stems from the thought that the “ends justify the means.” However, history is replete with mistakes, blunders, and great evils justified through the use of this utterly evil principle. Let me be perfectly clear, rarely, if ever do the ends justify the means. In fact, I can’t think of any situation in which the ends justify the means.

The other thought that rational people have to dispel is that what the libs/socs are advocating for helps the poor. It doesn’t, never has (look at the history of Central and Latin America, Europe, etc.) and it never will. The details of the whys and the wherefores are spelled out in previous posts.

Thus, the danger is palpable and demonstrable. Yet, libs/socs continue to perpetuate this evil because they have brainwashed themselves into thinking that what they are fighting for is moral, and, therefore, any means of achieving their objectives are justified, including the use of force. There is no question that this is evil and their agenda is replete with good intentions that manifest through evil. However, in reality, the true danger and evil isn’t necessarily the libs/socs agenda, but that we lack people who truly know how to think. It is because of the lack of the ability to truly think and reason that we even have libs/socs running around creating amok.

Therefore, it should be quite obvious that even before we can discuss what is and isn’t good policy, we have to teach people how to think and reason properly. Then we have to teach people what is and isn’t moral, Just, and rational. Only then can we embark on problem solving anything — society’s problems, launching spacecrafts, developing the next innovative product/service, etc. In particular, we need to start this training from a very young age and this is where schools have failed most miserably, in my opinion.

Regardless, we, Americans, have a long way to go before we can truly achieve a fair and Just society that will withstand the test of time contrary to the popular opinion that we are the greatest and best country in the world. In actuality, the correct statement should be that we are the best of the worst, which isn’t saying much. To put it simply, on a relative scale we may be a 90 out of 100, but on an absolute scale, I don’t think that we’re even a 20.

For more, please read my books, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL,” available at and also available on Kindle, and “The New Constitution for Modern America,” available at and also available on Kindle. Please don’t forget to rate this post. Any comments or questions are welcome and can be left for me on this blog, @Ahmedinejahd on Twitter, on Facebook or via email at Thank you in advance for buying my books, and rating this post. And, thanks for visiting my blog; I hope you get an opportunity to read my other posts. Have a great day!