The Conscience of a Young Conservative By Matt Palumbo

  • Author: Matt Palumbo
  • Published: December 16, 2014

Description

In this book, Matt Palumbo of Unbiased America takes on the many myths of the socialistic left.

Is Piers Morgan correct that the UK is so much less violent than the US due to gun control? Does socialized medicine make us live longer for cheaper? Is the middle class shrinking? Does Warren Buffet really pay a lower tax rate than his secretary? Is income inequality harmful to societal well-being? Any conservative who studies politics has likely encountered any of the following claims. The Conscience of a Young Conservative is a research heavy book divided into five chapters (and drawing on over 900 footnotes) dealing with gun politics, health care reform, economic policy, economic myths, and “intellectuals and capitalism.”

See More See Less

Discussions

  •  Frank Maruschak

    When & Where does the IRS have "Jurisdiction"

    Is there anyone out there that can SHOW ME the LAW that says the IRS can interfere with the business of the State Department?  Is there anyone out there that show me where “Congress” acquired Legislative Jurisdiction to interfere with travel within a State?  Can anyone show me the Law that grants “Enforcement” jurisdiction to the IRS for any territory other than “Federal” Land?  Just because the bunch of outlaw-renegades that call themselves “Congress” puts a bunch of words on a piece of paper and calls it a “LAW” doesn’t mean that it is a True, Correct, and Certain string of words that actually is “enforceable”.  Yet almost every time Obama writes an “Executive Order” or “Congress” passes something they call a Law most people (including some that should know better) start claiming that you or I are on our way to prison because of some language in the “new” Law or Order.  So let me ask this: How many of you have studied “Federal Jurisdiction”, or Federal “Legislative” Jurisdiction?  How many have read the Constitution and know anything about Separation of Powers?

    Jump to Discussion Post 23 replies
  •  Dave Scotese

    The Tax Honesty Movement

    The “Tax Honesty” movement has demonstrated a few things to a lot of people.  To cover a lot with a few words, I’ll put it this way:  The IRS breaks its own rules in order to rob us through deceit. Some people (Irwin Schiff, for example) have suffered because they attempted to protect themselves from the rule-breakers.  There is now a theory popular among liberty-minded people that the government is too corrupt and powerful for anyone to succeed in an effort like Irwin Schiff’s.  There is also some good evidence showing this theory to be wrong.  It’s available at Peter Hendrickson’s website, losthorizons.com. I think that a lot of bureaucrats feel and believe that they are helping society.  This leaves them open to consider fixing situations in which their bureaucracy is breaking its own rules.  And let’s face it, there are some rules that can actually help liberty.  Perhaps the loads of evidence that Hendrickson has on his site can be explained by the presence of such “good-hearted” individuals in the bowels of the IRS. In any case, if you can, please entertain the possibility that the US Income Tax is not being administered honestly.  Consider that maybe, just maybe, in the gargantuan tangle of words called “Title 26,” the legal meaning of the law as it applies to most people is not coercive at all.  Maybe, if it were properly applied, the government would be a nuisance like neighbors who let their dogs poop on your lawn, instead of a nuisance like cancer in your lungs.  It could be true.  I think it is true, and I think that failing to follow all the twists and turns that Hendrickson uncovered to see for yourself that it is true kind of justifies you still being enslaved to a government that steals from you in order to cause havoc all over the planet in a massive deception that justifies its existence. If we want to honor the goodness in all people, including those who have been tricked into serving evil, we can do so by understanding the rules they think they should be following, and using them to protect ourselves from enslavement.

    Jump to Discussion Post 35 replies
  •  Mark McCammon

    How to Simplify the Tax Code

    It can be a challenge to keep up with all the taxes one needs to pay throughout the year, and than to deal with all the paperwork that needs to be filed can be frustrating. What would be a good way to simplify the Tax Code? Below is a list of some of the taxes that we the people need to pay, or at least we experience their effects at one time or another. -Medicare, Medicare, Social Security, Federal Inocme Tax, State tax, Local Tax, Corporate tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, estate tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gift tax, tariffs on imports and exports, etc. Would a simple flat or consumption tax do the trick?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  •  Jack Feka

    New Encroachments by Government

    I’ve just recently blogged about Insidious Government Encroachment which I believe would provide the basis on a useful discussion here.   I’d be interested and hearing the views and experiences of others from this group.

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies
  •  Seth Cochran

    Allodial title in Land and our Feudal Inheritance

    I recently started looking into the nature of land ownership. I was under the impression that land ownership was absolute- a person is free to lease, sell, rent, put up for collateral, or destroy their land as they see fit. Where, then, does the right of the state to tax and seize fit in? The common sense answer- that ownership is not absolute- is mostly correct. But it’s quite interesting to look into the history of why land ownership is not absolute. The ownership of land that isn’t subject to any higher authority- no state, no landlord, etc.- is called alloidal title or title in alloidum. In feudal times, the only person to hold alloidal title was the feudal lord. He was considered sovereign over the land. No one else had a right to interfere with his use of the property. Other types of ownership that the lord bestowed allowed the people on the land to exercise certain rights, such as the right to sublet, or the right to put the land up as collateral. In modern nation-states, the sovereign (i.e., the government) still exercises exclusive alloidal title. That is to say, you don’t own the land, the United States does. You can’t ever remove the land from their jurisdiction because you don’t have that right. Moreover, as the sovereign, the government retains the right to tax land, seize it through eminent domain, and steal a portion of the land in the event that there is no will. What exactly do landowners own then? They own an interest in real property. When land is bought and sold, what’s actually being legally exchanged is the interest in the land, not the land itself. This is called fee simple ownership. Interestingly, the word fee in this concept is a descendant of the word fief, or land held on the condition of feudal service. Under fee simple ownership, the government- be it feudal lord or “we the people”- retains full ownership of the land, while the subjects of the government are free to exchange title to the land. Never does the land cease to belong to the sovereign, and thus it’s power it protected. As I researched the nature of land ownership, and it’s descent from English common law, the blind justifications made more sense. Of course, they’re not morally right (Thomas Jefferson was in favor of alloidal title) but they make more sense. I’d like to know your thoughts on the matter, and if there’s a professional real estate lawyer who could contribute more to the conversation, that would be great.

    Jump to Discussion Post 107 replies
  •  Artie Duncanson

    Thank Statist Mom for Paying My Taxes?

    Hello there. I work in one state, while claiming residency in another (though I spend almost no time in the residency state, since I live at my place of work), and had not filed taxes in that state for several years. That caught up with me and I was hit with a bunch of extra fines. I am currently funding an upstart business, and these fines would’ve been quite devastating to it’s continuation. Without my knowing it (since my mail still goes to the state I never step foot in) my mom bailed me out and paid off most of those taxes and fines. My mom, despite my years of trying to convince her of the illegitimacy of the State and how a Voluntaryist society is the only morally acceptable one, still remains a hardcore liberal who favors expanding governmental outreach. So my question is, should I have thanked my mom for bailing me out? (I did, but I don’t know to what degree of gratitude I should feel) My conflict comes from the fact that I, as an Anarcho-Capitalist, have expressed openly my desire for the end of the State (thus taxation) for years, and I don’t believe anyone should be taxed. My mom still supports taxation for the social programs she believes in. It’s people like her, people who believe in the legitimacy of the State, that help keep this tax burden on me in the first place. So is it merely fair that she, who supports taxation, should have to support that which she believes in, and I, who’ve been a vocal opponent to it, shouldn’t have to pay for it? (if that is true, then I do acknowledge that she still did pay more than her share, since the sins of government support are shared by most of the populace). On the other hand, while my upstart wouldn’t have collapsed, it would’ve been in an extremely precarious situation without her paying those taxes off. Does my Mom deserve a “Thank you” from me? If so, what degree of gratitude do I owe her, knowing that she supports me being taxed?

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  •  Frank Maruschak

    Publiv vs Private

    What are some of the differences between “Public” and “Private”.  If you are writing for the public or the private don’t you use the same (corrupt) Language.  Is there any difference between Public Law and Private Law if you use the same Language for the writing of both?  Is there a “different” Language for writing the Laws, Rules, and Contracts in either domain?

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies
  •  Frank Maruschak

    PUBLIC vs PRIVATE

    Frank Maruschak October 22, 2015 at 6:00 pm What are some of the differences between “Public” and “Private”.  If you are writing for the public or the private don’t you use the same (corrupt) Language.  Is there any difference between Public Law and Private Law if you use the same Language for the writing of both?  Is there a “different” Language for writing the Laws, Rules, and Contracts in either domain?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  •  Frank Maruschak

    Is setting a Standard Liberating or Opressive

    Mathematician have “standards” for math symbols, Computer Engineers have “standards” for logic symbols, Automotive Engineers “standards” for measuring symbols. Is the coming together and “agreeing” on a “standard” for a set of symbols for the communication of thinking and ideas, an Oppressive or Liberating concept?  Is there more benefit from the reduction of errors, mistakes and miscommunication by the adherence to a “standard” in a field of communication than the harm caused by any suppression of the creative process?

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  •  Zeroth Position