Daniel Deceder – 10/29/08

This page was last updated on November 2, 2008.

Taxes part of doing business; Daniel Deceder; Beaver County Times; October 29, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“About 25 years ago, a friend of mine in government service in Beaver County defined the role of government as being ‘to provide services to the people that cannot be economically provided by the private sector.’

“The closer you examine that definition the more you can understand and agree with the premise.”

[RWC] No, you can’t. Using Mr. Deceder’s “logic,” the government should do whatever can’t be done profitably.

“Will the private sector build roads and bridges? Keep track of public records? Provide education and health care to those who can least afford it? I think not.”

[RWC] Mr. Deceder bases his argument on the idea that those who oppose socialism oppose government. As I’ve written elsewhere, limited government does not mean no government/regulations. Government should provide a civil and criminal legal environment, law enforcement, national security, some elements of infrastructure like roads, et cetera.

On the other hand, government has no business confiscating the fruits of one person’s labor and giving them to another. Programs like Medicare, Socialist Security, farm welfare, et cetera, fall into this latter category.

“Think of government as a business nobody else wants to do and you can get the idea. Any business needs revenues to operate. In the private sector, the income is generated by the sale of goods and services.

“In government, it’s generated by taxes, a necessary evil, but required none-the-less.

“This election is directed to the ‘what’s in it for me’ mentality, but to provide more, more money will be needed. That’s a fact.”

[RWC] Note Mr. Deceder doesn’t say “more” of what.

Also note how Mr. Deceder gets it backwards. Wanting to keep what you earn is “the ‘what’s in it for me’ mentality,” but Mr. Obama wanting to take what you earned and giving it to someone who didn’t is OK.

“Barack Obama’s ‘spread the wealth around’ statement has been taken out of context and twisted into his being portrayed as a socialist.”

[RWC] Sorry, Mr. Deceder, I saw the whole exchange. Mr. Obama was not “taken out of context.” Further, additional recordings from Mr. Obama’s past have surfaced confirming Mr. Obama is a redistributionist.

“If that’s true, then taxes are a socialistic concept, and any form of government that operates with the people’s money is socialist.

“Sounds ridiculous, right? But think about it. Those throwing out the red-meat socialist statements would have you accept the idea they can provide more with less. If it could, it would be done by entrepreneurs for profit.

“Sounds to me like some better get the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘anarchy’ straight. The second scares me more.”

[RWC] Mr. Deceder should include himself in getting “the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘anarchy’ straight.” By the way, who has advocated anarchy?