And if you really supported liberty, you'd give me lots of money for my books and pamphlets!!! Traitor!

Republican Colorado House Minority Leader Hugh McKean Dies Suddenly from Heart Attack, Age 55
November 1, 2022

Whatever part of me ever used to qualify as "liberal" - I used to be offended by some of the words Guns'n'Roses used, that's how liberal I was - it would be the early-2000s where that went away.  9/11 was certainly a major part of that, but that was an event unto itself, the reaction was major and immediate.  For me, the major change was around the same time but more about day-to-day life.

I'd spent my first several years as a legal adult with a working-class job, holding down an apartment and spending the rest of my paycheck on whatever late-teens/early-20s people did back then.  Every year, I filed taxes and the federal refund was a little bit less than my monthly rent.  So I went on my life thinking that was how things worked.

Then came the GWB tax cuts.  One day I got a check in the mail that I was convinced had to be some kind of mistake.  The government accidently sent me money and would come to get it back sooner-or-later, so I didn't even cash the check.  I didn't want to go to jail.

The next time I filed taxes, I discovered a much bigger refund.  I was nervous about that too but couldn't see anything I had done wrong.  When the refund came in, it was enough money to pay my rent twice and still enough left over to buy a pizza or something.

That was mind-blowing.  I got back more of my money and could use it for what I wanted?  Is that even legal?  Well, yes.  That was also what Democrats were raging about, they totally hated it.  People able to spend their own money?  Not if Democrats have anything to say about that.

I'd eventually cashed the first check and knew I wasn't the only poor person in the country.  That would mean a lot of others were getting the same benefits, something that makes their lives easier.  That's what Democrats claim they want to do, why are they opposed to it?  How could it be wrong to *not* take more of poor people's money?

The interaction I had with leftists show why.  They didn't have the slightest concern about the poor, they barely even acknowledged their existence.  Only the rich got their attention, no one else, and they sure hated the rich.

I couldn't see a problem, ok, they deserve tax cuts too.  Treat them the way you treat poor people, that's fair.  There's a lot more of us anyway.  The rich have more money and spend it in more places, their taxes are already higher, so their refunds will be too.  You have to care about how much money other people have to see anything wrong with that.  I didn't care, the leftists did.

The rich don't need the help, they can pay for it themselves, but people who aren't rich have more money because of tax cuts you oppose.  The rich are also obvious targets and you really want to hit them, exactly like you hit non-rich people.  That's wrong.

And I never got leftists to even acknowledge this.  At most, they *might* have accepted the poor getting larger tax refunds than they had before the Bush tax cuts, but they obviously weren't going to push for that.  But it helps poor people!  Not good enough.

So really, it was watching that which helped establish my political positions.  I don't recall who often they used the specific term "diversity" back then but they weren't showing any actual diversity of thought.  I didn't see one who opposed the tax cuts but totally supported the Iraq invasion.  None of them said they ignored the tax cuts and focused on gay marriage or abortion instead.  No one who demanded we teach Iraqis about abortion or gay marriage.  No, they all had the same opinions on all of the same issues.

That's where the realization started crystaling about the difference between individualism and collectivism.  You have to spend a certain amount of time sleeping, eating and using the toilet, not to mention paying attention to your wife, children, job, hobbies, etc.   If you go to church or watch tv, that's even more time spent doing something you're interested in, regardless of whatever political issues there are.

But the collectivists say that there's nothing apolitical in existence.  They all say that, no exceptions.  They're the ones obsessed with money but that's what they accuse anyone they disagree with of being.  They claim to want to help the poor but keeping people as poor as possible is all they do.  Their leaders are very rich and getting richer, no problem with that.

Individually and freedom are about *not* getting in everyone's way and *not* demanding money from them.  Collectivists always disagree with that, or at least recite whatever their leaders say.  They never even question the contradiction.

The Bush tax cuts were made permanent in 2010 by Obama, who signed that bill a couple months after I returned from my second deployment to Iraq in two years and my third overall.  There weren't any protestors, there weren't any major complaints.  Just mindless obedience as the left has always had.

I'm sure the individuals reading this have reasons for moving away from collectivism with small or large differences from my anecdote here, but that's how individualism works.  I don't know your life and you don't know mine.  At best, we might guess correctly but a lot more often we'll get it wrong.

Whatever reason we're all here for, freedom and liberty are the best gifts we have, for ourselves and each other.  Making our own decisions for ourselves as well as our families, businesses and communities.  Just the fact that we've permitted collectivists to exist shows that, given that they sure don't treat us the same way.

That's why it's so important that we draw a line and say this doesn't go any further.  That's the unity we really need to strive for.  Enough is enough.