Why is political conservatism (small and limited government) losing ground against political liberalism? Why do they lose battle after battle in this war to the liberals? And it is a war. A war that is equally as old as the concepts of things like money, property and power.
It is widely considered to be immoral for someone to use the threat of force to take money from someone who is unwilling to give it. The word for when this happens is theft. That is what it means. It is generally frowned upon in civilized society.
How many votes does it take to make it moral for me to take your money from you against your will and use it for whatever I want? This question is something that you should answer for yourself.
When the Sixteenth Amendment was debated in the Senate the arguments for it were obvious. "We need the money for 'the good of the country.'" That's kind of ambiguous and arbitrary at best. Were I a prideful cynic I would say that argument reeks of them wanting the money to buy their own power, yachts, mansions, Gulfstream luxury jets, etc.. But I digress.
The arguments against it were purely moral and constitutional. I quote from Article One, Section Nine, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In other more simple words, it is illegal at the constitutional level for the federal government to just take your money.
In addition to that there is the Tenth Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,) which means it is absolutely illegal for the federal government to give itself more power. Any amendment past that point, initiated by the federal government, cannot include a statement that says anything like, "The Congress shall have the power to..." and be considered a valid amendment unless the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is repealed.
The Sixteenth Amendment (The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,) is directly contrary to the Tenth Amendment. In other words the federal government has taken upon itself, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, the power take your money for whatever reason they want.
On top of the above listed constitutional reasons is the simple principle that it is immoral and criminal to use the threat of force to take money from people and use it for whatever the hell you want. It is just as immoral and illegal—should the Constitution actually be followed—for a government to take it as it is for a gangster to take it. The only difference between the two is the number of votes.
So let's look at what is accepted in society today and compare it to the argument for the Sixteenth Amendment.
The liberal argument is that it is okay for the government to take your money and use it how they want. The conservative argument is that it is immoral for anybody to take your money, against your individual consent, regardless of the supposed reasons for doing so.
Today it is generally accepted by the Republican Party that the Sixteenth Amendment is valid, even setting aside totally the irregularities in its ratification. It is accepted by the so-called conservative party that they, just like the Democrats and other forms of liberals, can take your money without your direct consent and spend it any way they damn well want to. The supporters of the Republican Party approve of this theft and unconstitutional expenditure as well as supporting the Sixteenth Amendment which supposedly makes it all "legal" for them to do so. Granted, it is less that they take on the "conservative" side but the principle is the same because they claim that they are "letting you keep more of your money."
In other words the "conservatives" have accepted the premise of the enemy.
General Eisenhower would and should have been fired if he had accepted in WW2 the premise that the Aryan race should rule the world, except it should be the United States in charge of the fascist world government instead of Germany. Had Ike done something like that he would have rightfully been considered a traitor to his country and the world.
Analogous to that, anybody who calls themselves conservative and supports unlimited government taxing and spending, as per the Sixteenth Amendment, or even simply recognizes that the idea is in any way valid, has gone over to the other side by accepting the premise of the enemy.
How can you ever win by granting the opponent their basic premise?
You can't!
The absolute best you could hope for is two gangs of liberals who support their own and oppose the other. In modern political terms this would be Democrats versus Republicans. Why not Spy versus Spy? It makes as much sense, is almost as productive and a lot more amusing.
Forgotten completely between these two unworthy and generally despicable gangs of government thugs is the idea that your money and property are your own and nobody should have more of a right to any of it other than you.
The Premise of the Enemy: Part One
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Two
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Three
