Category Archives: Uncategorized

by | May 7, 2019 · 7:35 am

The Immoral Selflessness of Universal Healthcare

A society of selfless, altruistic beings governed by a similarly minded state is one surely doomed to fail. The notion of universal healthcare runs contrary to the morally selfish behaviors by which society should function. Just as in all other facets of life, a person should be responsible for their and their loved one’s well-being. To be held accountable for the healthcare of all other members of their society would be to put their well-being at the same level of importance as their own; to sacrifice their own earnings for the sake of another.

From a governmental standpoint this as well shows a lack of faith in civil society to maintain a level of individual self-worth and care for themselves. For the state to mandate this proposal would create a sense of altruistic obedience that would damage the laissez fair economic and social culture that has helped the United States achieve enormous success. One man does not owe a thing to another stranger, be it money or healthcare, who is outside of that man’s own interests, they are two separate entities with their own non-crossing paths. If one man has not accumulated the capital to maintain his own health, he clearly has not met the basic necessities for his own life, and would be psychotic to expect someone who has achieved that success to assist him in receiving care.

Taxation on civil society to implement universal healthcare is also quite unjust and tyrannical. While maintaining proper health in a need for individual members of the society to function, to tax each member of such for the benefit of all members is completely undermines the individual worth of each citizen to maintain their own health and puts the weight of it on the shoulders of each member of society. This then forces civil society to become altruistic in believing that the must depend on one another instead of themselves for their own haleness, the most basic and essential of individual concerns.

To have each person commit to the welfare of each member of society would be also to diminish their commitment to themselves and to their loved ones. Similar to an assertion I made in my work “The Virtue of Selfishness,” if a man were to act selfishly, as he should and has the right to, regarding his and his family’s healthcare, he would travel to all ends to pay for essential surgery for his wife. If he were to act selflessly, and in this case altruistically, he would pay for surgery to save the lives of ten other women while leaving his wife to die, being that he would save the lives of ten member of his altruistic society rather than one. Does the second proposal not sound absurdly ridiculous to you? Does it not entirely disregard the natural state of human condition and allocation of importance. If so, you may be beginning to understand the importance and necessity of selfish virtue.

One should provide for the well-being of another if and when that other being is incorporated into the hierarchy of values of one’s life. A man provides money for surgery for his wife because she provides happiness for him, and the loss of her directly corresponds to the loss of his selfish interests. Whereas when one provides for the well-being of a stranger, it does not correlate to the man’s values of happiness, and the man believing he should give his own money to cover the costs for a stranger’s health shows a lack of self-esteem and self-worth essential for one’s own survival and achievement.

To expect civil society to bestow their own earnings for the sake of another’s welfare is a notion of selflessness, sacrifice, and altruism that would destroy the fabric by which this nation is sewn.

Comments Off on The Immoral Selflessness of Universal Healthcare

Filed under Rand, Uncategorized

by | · 2:53 am

Universal Basic Income

In a truly free society, man is free from the government if he wishes to be. Payments under the guise of taxation are voluntary. Man would only pay for what he desires, leaving him free to do work and reap the benefits of such. Any form of forced taxation is tyrannical and should be viewed as such by the populous. The idea of social welfare violates this idea of a man’s right to his life, liberty, and property. Money is taken out of the pockets of hardworking people and given directly to the poor through the government. This is in essence theft from the working man. Of course, if someone wanted to give money to the poor, he is more than welcome too. He has that right to do with his property as he pleases.
Social welfare is ever evolving. The idea of a Universal Basic Income has started to gain steam. In essence, the government would be providing everyone, not just the poor, with an economic stipend. This is still a violation of man’s right to property, but at a much larger scale. The cost for such a plan would devastate the economy. The government would have to reach even deeper into man’s pocket, taking more of his hard-earned property away from him. Now the person cannot turn around and spend this on goods. A policy like this is communism masquerading as altruism. If such a plan would be implemented, apathy would form among the worst of society. What drive would they have to work hard if they were to just feed from the teat of the government? More and more people would turn to this, hurting the economy as it loses more and more workers.
Those who would continue to work hard would be punished as well. Their work would go in vain, as the government would continue to take what isn’t rightfully theirs. The successful would, and rightfully so, find ways to hide their money from the government. Less revenue would be had for this plan, rendering it unsuccessful.
Instead of implementing a Universal Basic Income, which would require heavy regulation, society should look toward rolling back regulations, allowing companies and workers to make more money. The companies would expand, requiring more man power to run them. In turn, more money would be put into the pockets of the people, allowing man to live a life free of governmental control. The selfishness of the best of society would unintentionally elevate everyone. Once the lower classes realized that there was no “parent” there to guide them, they would step up themselves and become productive members of society. Capitalism eliminates the need for altruism. Man succeeds on his own merits.

Comments Off on Universal Basic Income

Filed under Rand, Uncategorized

by | · 12:58 am

Environmental Rationalism

by Ayn Rand

Man has undoubtedly become corrupt in pursuing their interests as a selfish organism. Certain unethical entities—of which occupy and run large corporations—have chosen to destroy the environment. There is almost no reversing the damage done, however there may still be time if we consult the ethics and rationality between the mindless robots responsible (25). It is important to address the ethics of these corporate heads in the effort of having them realize their wrongdoings. Private companies have one of two choices to make, to either abide by environmental politics or not. When thinking about sensation (pleasure), then the rational course becomes clear and objective: anti-environmentalism benefits the individual and not society.

            When determining what constitutes “sensation,” it is important to understand that man has become lost in their actions, leading them to profit from anti-environmentalism. When man is exposed to pleasure (money for instance), they often continue indulging in actions that provide more of it. From these sensations, any guilt associated with wrong-doing is often ignored, or the guilt from it is not experienced immediately. Value should not be affiliated with self-gain only if it harms others. 

            When thinking about the Great Barrier Reef for instance, consider the catastrophe that has begun to ensue on our planet. Man became aware of the consequences to environmental negligence long ago, but was anything done to mitigate the damage already done? The answer is no. All was swept under the rug. Man has to recognize his own mistakes and attend to the damage; logically speaking, he has to consider the long-term consequences for himself, indeed, but most importantly for others. It is important for man to learn to learn how to use their rationality to control their pleasure, to protect the environmental for not doing so impacts others.

            There may exist a case where man is unaware of his wrongdoing. Some individuals may struggle to differentiate between right or wrong, simply because they have no knowledge in what is considered good or evil. Consider companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi for instance, two of the leading polluters of plastic in the world. There may have been a time where the two were unaware of their doing, but now scientific evidence clearly attributes blame to these companies in particular. It is up to the company to take responsibility where it is due and begin to think about the long-term consequences rationally.

             I wish to spend my finals thoughts exploring rationality, and how to acquire it given the circumstances purposed above. Objective reality, which is often understood as the innate rights to life–which also entails respecting the rights of others–, should be considered primarily over private interests (money). Irrational judgment such as polluting the waters of the coast of Australia (the Great Barrier Reef) and therefore impacting fishermen and other local inhabitants, should be considered with great importance. It is clearly unethical to knowingly continue harming others for profit. The fact of the matter is between the following: private interest or the safety of people who rely on these polluted waters. One of the two most be chosen in this binary way of thinking for the advancement of society.  These companies have selected the irrational choice by not abiding by global environmental policies–it is time for change.

Comments Off on Environmental Rationalism

Filed under Rand, Uncategorized

by | March 28, 2019 · 1:43 am

Abortion: Does it Harm Society?

Abortion as a right is a two-sided coin: On one side, the mother’s livelihood is typically harmed if she has a child. On the other side, a potential child is prevented from living out a potentially successful future. Which option affects society in the worst way?

First, the circumstances in which an abortion would be performed must be limited. The women who require an abortion for emergency medical purposes should not be considered. If a mother chooses to abort her child in this situation she will live, and the baby will not. If she chooses not to abort the baby, she and the child may both die. Because the second option causes more long-term harm (i.e. death), That would almost never be a reasonable action to take.

If, instead of the procedure being medically necessary for the health of both parties, the mother simply did not want to have a child, there are a few other factors to consider: The main factor that is relevant to society are the income and marital status of the mother. Most women who have abortions are single and of low to average income. It is important to note that the necessity of an income is diminished if one’s spouse participates in raising the household income. This way, a woman can have a child and not have a job, but still maintain the least harm due to her spouse’s income.

In a typical scenario in which a mother has a low-income job and is single, she has the option to either abort or go through with her pregnancy. If she chooses to abort the child, she will not have to leave her job. This means she can continue moving up in said job, have more income later, and ultimately contribute more to society because of this. However, her child will be prevented from potentially adding greatly to society. This child could have been a president or a homeless person, regardless of how likely one thing or the other is, anything was possible until nothing was.

But say the mother chose not to abort her child. She is then left with two other options: give up the child or keep it. If she chooses to keep the child, she must then give up her job and live on welfare. Additionally, children born to low-income, single mothers are much less likely to succeed. This is the greatest harm. The mother, child, and society all suffer from this option.

Alternatively, the mother could give up the child to a relative or put them up for adoption. In this case, the mother can continue to work and contribute to society as she would if she had an abortion, and society would benefit from this. However, the child would still be less likely to succeed and contribute to society apart from both of their biological parents. Others in society must also give the child opportunity to succeed, which hurts society. This option seems to have the most utility though, because the mother, child, and society all benefit more than in an abortion.

Based solely on utility, Abortion is the best option unless all the typical, low-income, single mothers choose to give up their child. The likelihood of these options happening in a society should determine what laws are made in that region. If the proposed single, low-income women are less likely to give up their children after birth and instead live on welfare, abortion has more utility. Conversely, if they give up their child, abortion has less utility for that society.

Comments Off on Abortion: Does it Harm Society?

Filed under Mill, Uncategorized

by | February 8, 2019 · 2:48 am

On Illegal Immigration

This Nation has oft been referred to as “The Great Melting-Pot,” which is to say, many Peoples have come here from every region of the Earth, representatives of every Culture, Religion, and Philosophy; and from the combination of their various Creeds was this Nation born. Likewise, it is said that America is a Land of Opportunity, where any human may seek the American Dream of Prosperity and Happiness; and in seeking this opportunity, many immigrants have contributed not only to their own wealth, but to the Economical and Cultural wealth of the Nation. Overlooking these many and varied contributions, some Members of our Society have begun to argue that there must be limits set upon immigration to this Country, as those drawn to Lady Liberty’s Beacon are not valid in their aims of resettlement. They say it is Illegal for a human to seek out new Government when his own has failed him. In this essay, I seek to quell my detractors and disprove their claims, which are at odds with the Natural Rights of Humankind.

A Commonwealth, or Country, may be defined as a community of people who have submit themselves to a common Civil Government in order to further advance their Civil Interests, which I take to be Life, Liberty, Health, Freedom from Suffering, and the procurement and retention of Personal Property. If a Commonwealth does not procure, preserve, and advance the Civil Interests of those who reside there, it is not truly a Commonwealth; those who reside there are justified in determining it to be less than a true Society, and seeking out a Commonwealth that allows for their Life, Liberty, Health, and Possessions to be advanced in status. As Civil Interests are inherent to every Human, so every Human has the right to seek them out.

My opponents will no doubt claim that immigrants fleeing illicit Commonwealths would do better to take a stand within their own countries and advocate for a better life. To this, I say that not every human has the mental and physical resolve to resist tyranny; do you expect Babes to take up arms, or nursing mothers? Instead, I should think it better if these people, endowed with wisdom from first-hand experience of Tyranny, would be better suited to mental labour in countries where their wisdom would form an invaluable buttress against those who would promote Absolute Monarchy and Despotism.

Another Argument I have heard against the Inherent Right to Civil Interests is that of Overcrowding. Those who seek to limit the Migration of others say that space is finite within this Nation, and further occupants will overburden us. To this I say: there is still much unoccupied land within this Commonwealth that lies undeveloped, and the Population Density of a Las Angeles or a New York should not be taken as indicative of the entire Nation. If a single Immigrant were to tend an acre of land, and produce food for ten people, then they have not diminished our Nation’s resources but added to them. As Labor is the basis of Personal Property, and what distinguishes it from Common Lands, it is far better to have more laborers than more land that lies Fallow and Unused. Our Administration would be Wise, then, to seek to place Immigrants in places where their labor may be of most use, allowing the fruits of said labor to benefit all.

Comments Off on On Illegal Immigration

Filed under Locke, Uncategorized

by | February 6, 2019 · 5:57 pm

On the Border of Civilization

I have heard it said that a border wall wouldn’t serve the populus well in protecting them. I have heard it said that this wall is, infact, paranoid infatuation with protection. They argue, God has declared the earth, for all the peoples of the world, their mutual property for the collective’s survival and benefit.

This, while based in truth, is obscuring the greater issue. Without this barrier, where are the protections for my property from those who mean to cross borders illegally, and who might also then cross the borders of civilization and steal from me? Individual property must be protected. The default earth is one of freedom. Each man may lay claim to a section of the earth by sewing the fields or taming the forests (or paying rent) freely. However, as the americas have already been claimed, letting foreigners in unannounced, unrestricted, and undocumented risks the property of lawful, consenting citizens. People entering this state without the state’s knowledge cannot be shown to consent to the laws and practices of this state. How are we, as citizens, expected to allow those who may not act in accordance to civil society, as we do, into our borders? Better to circumvent this misfortune and construct a border wall. This would allow each petitioner of entry to lawfully gain access to our nation, mutually benefiting both parties. Those who seek entry gain the protections of our state, honestly, fully, and with the state’s consent in this matter. The state gains knowledge of those who compose its citizenry and, consequently, will gain the ability to police the foreigners should they disobey the order of law.

A response to this argument: In constructing a border wall, inherently the desire to exclude some persons from your society is present. However, by wishing to enter the state’s border, it is safe to assume they wish to be apart of (consent to being apart of) our society. Who are we to say this corner of God’s earth isn’t for those who we turn away?

A man owns his labor and the fruits thereof – the property he has built upon himself. A group of men each own their respective properties. But, who owns the town within which the men reside? The citizens of the town. In the same fashion that we each individually own our properties, we also collectively own the town, and, by extension, the governmental structure the town is founded upon. Men worked to create this great nation, investing their good, intellectual labor. We, the people, propped these individuals up and gave them the seats of power upon which we built this nation. This section of earth is ours, the citizens, by right of collective property. Through reason, we are allowed to choose the practices that, in total, will most benefit us and our property. A murderous citizen may still wish to consent to the state we live in so that he may gain the benefits of citizenry. But, us as a society have decided that he is no longer consenting – or able to consent for that matter. His rights have been removed. If someone similar wishes to enter our nation, we as a people can reject their claim to entry, protecting us, our labor, and our society.

Comments Off on On the Border of Civilization

Filed under Locke, Uncategorized

by | December 13, 2017 · 2:50 pm

Locke’s argument for open carry defies his own logic, and my own

In John Locke’s post “Of Open Carry Rights,” he argues that, while ownership of guns is a private issue and therefore outside the realm of public discourse, the display of dangerous weapons out in the open automatically makes them a point of public interest, and thus arguable in the public sphere. From this point, Locke makes clear that open carry should be restricted because it violates others’ right to life by impeding upon their sense of security. While certainly he’s right that open carry should be restricted because exposure of weapons is an unnecessary incitement to violence, the rhetoric Locke uses to reach this conclusion is faulty because his initial argument lends itself to slippery slope. I refute the argument Locke makes in place of another one that rests on more solid ground.

Locke’s his argument begins with an explanation that the right to own guns, as secured in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is an extension of man’s god-given right to life. As he states in “Liberalism,” people must keep “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In essence: because the government sometimes fails to do its job sufficiently, we must be able to overthrow it—in order to do this, we must be able to arm ourselves. This logic may have been acceptable in a time when man was scattered across the country, when society lacked a practical and reliable infrastructure to ensure the safety of its citizens. However, it is no longer acceptable because we have a steady system of law enforcement in addition to a number of checks upon government (through its multiple branches and through the press). In the modern age, improved communication and delegations of resources has taken the place of much of the need for strong individuals. Due to the interconnectedness of men, I argue that private ownership of guns is no longer a private issue.

As demonstrated in the past few years in the case of the Aurora, Colorado shooting, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, and more recently the concert shooting in Las Vegas, current gun laws are not sufficiently protecting the rights to life of public. It’s evident that the ideology of protecting individual rights as a solution to protect the rights of all is not working. When it comes at the small sacrifice of unregulated gun ownership, protecting these rights are certainly tantamount to individual liberties. To go about ensuring these collective freedoms, I believe that any private ownership of guns should be thoroughly regulated by the government (and perhaps restricted) because the country’s lax stance on guns has obviously not been sufficient to prevent the deaths of over one thousand people due to mass shootings alone.

If we’re to accept the idea that gun ownership is an extension of the right to life in the first place, we’re placing an unfeasible level of accountability at the level of each individual. Even if this necessitates restrictions of the ‘natural’ right to life on the individual level, the collective freedom of the public will be increased, and consequently society will be all the free. This pragmatism may involve some sacrifices, but they’re certainly fewer than those necessitated by Locke’s unwillingness to put his arguments into context. In fact, Locke defies his own logic by conceding that open is false, while still championing the right of gun ownership. The simple fact of the matter is that guns cannot be an extension of the right to life because impede on others’ life to right in the first place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

Comments Off on Locke’s argument for open carry defies his own logic, and my own

Filed under Uncategorized

by | December 12, 2017 · 5:15 am

Your Student Debt Cannot Justify Unfair Taxation

In your opinion, the current tax reform plan is ideal because it lowers taxes on the wealthy. You argue as though Ayn Rand would support this reform that raises taxes on lower to middle class Americans. And that you deserve tax relief due to the tremendous amount of dedication and time it required to become a doctor. You deserve the financial benefits of your career due to life experiences that you were not able to do because of the educational choice you made.  

But wouldn’t Ayn Rand be opposed to any further taxation? The mere potential that a tax reform would raise taxes on even a small portion of society would upset her staunch opposition to any excessive taxation, or even any taxation that exceeds an amount to fund what is extremely necessary.

Perhaps, though, it is better to focus on your perceived ranking of rights. You argue that your educational pursuits and career make you more deserving of your financial earnings. You argue that the tax reform bill is necessary because it lowers the taxes on those that truly deserve their wealth. The increase in taxes on middle and lower class Americans is unfortunate, but not enough to negate your support of the bill. By nature, though, all “men” are created equal, with full inalienable rights. Those who will see their taxes increase have just as much a right to their property as you do. Not because of their education or work ethic, but because of their natural rights. All must be opposed to any infringement on anyone’s rights. Although you must take care of yourself, as an individual, you must also ensure that rights are protected for all. Particularly, you must ensure that the government is doing what it ought to do, which is protect each citizen’s inalienable right. The government’s job is to do no more than what is necessary to protect rights, and this bill is in direct contradiction with the right to property.

While all have a right to their property though, society requires that individuals give up a portion of their rights to enter into a community. Essentially, if you choose to live in a society you are entering into a contract that allows the government to tax you what is necessary to ensure a protection of rights for its people. Similarly, when deciding on your own volition to go to medical school, you entered into a contract to obtain loans which you would pay back upon completing your education. The contract of society, and also the contracts in which you enter within society, must be obeyed. As an individual, you had the choice to give away a certain amount of your property to obtain an education. Your individual choice does not allow you more rights to your property later in life.

Although you argue for the tax reform based on individualism, you fail to acknowledge that you are supporting a piece of legislation that infringes on individuals rights. Your support of such a bill is an encouragement of government encroachment on fundamental rights.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

by | · 4:37 am

The Consequences of Unregulated Weaponry

Ayn Rand believes that American citizens should have the right to carry arms whenever, wherever, and whatever type they see fit. In the article Gun Control Regulations Are Pointless, she makes the argument that “if someone wants to own a gun because it makes them feel safe, or because they enjoy the sport of hunting, then the government does not have the right to keep them from doing so.” She defends this individualistic position by stating that “man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” However, there have been a number of incidents that have made someone’s ability to own a gun less of a priority since it is indirectly harming the public due to mass gun violence.

With the concept of open carry, people assume that having a firearm in their possession means that they will be able to defend themselves against an attacker. Under the idea of individualist pursuit, Rand believes it is lawful to be able to access your own belongings at any time so that someone can achieve personal happiness “because they have a right to self-defense.” However, people are not considering the dangerous indirect consequences of the open carry policy. People are not considering that by carrying a gun, they are automatically making themselves an initial target to skillfully planned killers. Also, there is the possibility that the shooter has more experience with guns than the owner of the gun and the shooter may be capable of taking the gun away from them. This is risking the gun owner’s life by possessing an object that might actually harm them because they are not fully equip to handle a given situation.

Furthermore, we must continue to consider the dangers associated with lax gun control laws. There should be more gun regulations so that people do not harm themselves or their loved ones. More people have been committing mass shootings because they have easy access to large quantities of ammunition. A lot of the mass shooters were diagnosed as mentally unstable, questioning whether or not it was safe for these individuals to even have access to a gun, let alone additional heavy machinery. There was also a period of time when children were accidentally shooting people because they would manage to get ahold of their parents’ gun, not knowing the repercussions of the object. These instances could have been avoided if we had stronger laws that regulated how easy it is for someone to take hold of a gun and where a gun is allowed to be kept.

In contrast with Rand, I state in my book, The Public and Its Problems that “the perception of consequences which are projected in important ways beyond the persons and associations directly concerned in them is the source of a public.” (61) The fact the hundreds of innocent people are being killed each year due to violence is a public concern. Yes, implementing stronger laws that restrict gun owners to having a certain amount of guns in certain places, does infringe on an individual’s pursuit of happiness. However, taking away the rights of individuals is necessary if we are trying to stop the indirect consequences of death taking place. Rand even states that “someone with a clean record is not immune to psychotic breaks, so even someone who passes a background check with flying colors could still use their gun in destructive ways.”  Therefore, if it is possible that someone unsuspecting could begin using weaponry to harm the public, there should be laws that restrict the presence of guns in public areas to avoid potentially fatal consequences.

With, a society as large as ours, it is no longer reasonable to think in individualistic terms. Rand argues that “if a person is wanting to purchase a gun with the intent of using it in criminal ways, they will find a gun one way or another.” However, this is exactly why we need to enforce stronger gun laws, so that people who should not have guns, won’t have access to them. We must consider the potential consequences that arise from not imposing laws that benefit the safety of the entire society.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

by | · 3:57 am

Response to “Student Debt and Tax Reform Does Not Bring the Greatest Happiness”

The biggest mistake we can make in our lives is to be complicit in the state’s seizure of what is rightfully ours. The argument put forth by this medical student exemplifies just that. This student is proud of the tax deduction made to his future income yet does not seem to see the bigger picture. Any taxation by the state is a form of theft. The lowered tax rate through this bill is an insult and should not be accepted as anything but.

Yes, for the creation of roads and social services there must be an influx of money but it should be given voluntarily. Any educated and free thinking person would realize the merits of voluntarily giving a portion of their earnings to the construction of our society. But in no way is the taxation of our property a representation of freedom. It is not the fault of the medical student that this is seen as a personal victory. We are taught to believe that taxation, in any form, will benefit the many.  No one told him that the real victory is the security he will feel once his debts are paid and his earnings are accounted for regularly. Only then will he feel the invitation of giving voluntarily so that he may be a part in the betterment of society.

This young man needs to understand that the only reason government should exist is to protect our rights and our property. That includes the salary that he is so willing to part with once the percentage was in a reasonable range for him. Whether is be 4% or 90%, the taxation of our money is a crime that should not be overlooked. The government has overstepped their place in society and we have allowed them to do so by calling tax cuts “wins”. This is not a win. This is a representation of how the smallest change in our favor leaves us fat and satisfied.  

Why has this student not questioned where his money is going? If anything other than 100% of his money goes to services that are dedicated to protecting his rights, why is he not enraged? Why is this young man satisfied with the tax cut when anyone not willing to do what it takes to survive is being handed his property? How many schools or parks does his money fund that he will never see the benefits of? The type of theft that is happening right before his eyes is astonishing.

Another mistake this young man makes is that he believes he has earned a tax cut based on the youthful opportunities he has “missed out on”. I do not feel any pity for him or his missed opportunities. These are decisions he has made to strengthen his utility and he will have to live with that. The “earned” tax break, whether the taxes were unjust in the first place or not, is a weak way of looking at the situation. No matter what you sacrifice, no matter how hard you work, no one owes anyone anything. We must not let our citizens be weakened by thoughts of what is owed to them. Other than the salary for which the young man will soon be hired for, no breaks in life are owed to him.

The recognition of the amount of taxation this student had to go through was the first step. Now, he needs to question why he is being taxed at all. He needs to know where it is going and why he may never see the benefits of that and how he is complicit in the theft of his own earnings. Because he believes he earned the right to have lower taxes; he will forever live in the state of mind that things in life are owed to him just like the people who believe the money of the rich are owed to them.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized