Shall Power Be Centralized?
Consider this totally hypothetical situation:
George commissions Barry to ruin Sam’s economy
... making taxing and spending more unfair (to bad rich people like George).
so George can get richer selling Sam’s economy short.
Are you Sam?
Do you prefer (decentralized) markets or (centralized) emperors?
I'm going to assume, just for argument's sake - and hypothetically, of course, that George is George Soros and that Barry is Barry Soetoro and that Sam is Uncle Sam. I am definitely Sam, and if I could find the right operatives, I would have them take out George before he can complete his mission. Barry, being George's puppet, would only sit on the sidelines for the next 6 months while we figure out the proper way to replace him. His replacement would have to be the type who would not do the bidding of George's replacement, who would probably be a Mr. R, from Europe. Just IMHO.
Thank you for your comment, William. Very insightful.
Additionally, regardless of the "players" part of what I was saying is that if there is less power in DC, then it cannot be co-opted for "personal gain" (again regardless of the players). And we might have fewer economic meltdowns if relying on "markets" rather than single point of failure politicians or bureaucrats to "make" the economy alright.
Relying on centralized control (command economies like communism or national socialism" Nazi, or nationalistic equivalents today like Greece's Golden Dawn Party, see for example http://www.theblaze.com/stories/after-greek-neo-nazi-party-gains-gr...) has the additional danger that PEOPLE (in charge) can create economic distortions. See also http://www.fairtaxnation.com/group/fairtaxleadership/forum/topics/t... for additional reasons taxes (for example) can create economic meltdowns (from tax - based "transaction costs" and other reasons), etc.
So, not just to avoid "tyranny", we should seek simple and market based ways to "run" government, or MUCH BETTER YET, avoid the need for government in the first place. For example, voluntary charity (food pantries, community gardens, habitat for humanity, disaster relief of Red Cross and denominational mission groups, etc.) as much as feasible rather than coerced wealth redistribution to "force" citizens to "make" the poor (or temporarily unfortunate) ok.
Capitalism + charity goes much further to "fix" "the problem" (say poverty) than does government.
The Fair Tax happens to be "less government" (meddling => cost, enslavement, etc.) on the taxation side. So, for this in addition to many other reasons, it is better than the present IRS mess.