seems to corroborate that analysis. It shows a total eligible
voting population of 208 million persons.
Another analysis
gives a substantially different figure. It shows a
voting population of 212 million eligible persons. (I regard 4
million as significant in a population of 308 million.)
You are welcome to form your own conclusion. I'm going to take a
middle path between these two figures and note that roughly 210
million people were probably qualified to vote. Which means that
roughly 23 million were disqualified by some factor other than age.
Since some of these people might have been able to apply to have
their voting privileges restored, I think these 23 million are
"built in" as part of the population which has withdrawn, which
disobeys the rules (enough to get convicted) and which isn't
necessarily on the side of the state and its thugs.
Using my figure, the population that chose not to vote is 78.7
million. Given where I got my numbers from, the error bar on my
figure is plus or minus two million. So as few as 76.7 million or as
many as 80.7 million had the opportunity to vote, were fully
qualified, and may even have been registered to vote, but simply
chose not to appear at the polls. You should point out to your
friends who are Obamaniax that more people chose not to vote for any
of the candidates on the ballot than voted for Obama, by a very
substantial margin, even under the worst assumptions I have found.
If we add back in those persons who have been stripped of the voting
privilege (I do not call franchise a right, because I don't think
you have a right to impose your will on other people, and because if
it were a right it couldn't be taken away) we get a figure for
"withdrawn Americans" of around 101.7 million. So, on the close
order of 100 million. Nearly a third of the total population.
We cannot make any definite assumptions about the 75 million
children, but we can guess that they are likely to follow the lead
of their parents and siblings. Many of them already have a "bad"
attitude about government. Just look at the way they choose to
dress. So if we divide off about a third of these children, we can
anticipate another 25 million persons "joining the ranks" in the
next 16 to 18 years.
So, altogether, based on these figures, I surmise a total population
of roughly 125 million Americans who are not big enthusiasts of
government. That works out to about 40% of the population as of
November 2008.
2. Income taxes
Tens of millions of Americans who would be expected to file income
taxes do not do so, every year.
Figures on this have varied widely, but I have been following them
for some time. You may remember back in 1998 or so when Congress
called the IRS on the carpet for being brutal, unreasonable,
violent, and despicable toward people the IRS targeted (almost
always falsely and maliciously) for enforcement. Of course, Congress
did nothing meaningful to rein them in. Ending the income tax,
firing everyone at the IRS, and putting their entire enforcement
division on trial for treason, murder, assault, rape, and theft
would be a meaningful action.
One of the things that I noticed came out of those hearings was a
figure of around 60 million Americans that the IRS thinks "should"
be filing income tax papers every year who do not. Of course, the
IRS proudly trotted this figure out to explain why it was so
"important" for them to be brutal and horrid toward people like my
friend Dick Simkanin or my buddy Walt Anderson. Heh.
Since that time I have seen other figures, ranging from a high of
around 138 million who allegedly filed taxes in 2008 (when doing so
got many of them "stimulus" direct payments from the national
government) to a figure of 129 million in April 2010. (Extensions
are included in the figure.) In addition, either through truthful
reporting or through various carefully nuanced approaches, something
like 47% of households paid no income tax for 2009.
It isn't always clear what is meant by "household" but if we applied
that percentage to the population, we would come up with 145.7
million Americans (out of 310 million, estimated population for
2010) who aren't filing any form of income tax. Some of them
wouldn't be expected to, being less than 16 years old and denied
many opportunities to work for a living by age discrimination.
When I was in college, I spent some time pursuing a major in
astrophysics. So when I see a number like 125 million and a number
like 145.7 million, I think of them as roughly the same. They are of
the same order of magnitude, anyway. And when two independent paths
of analysis come to roughly the same result, I think there is
something to the ideas involved.
If we assume that the 75 million children are evenly divided among
every year from zero to 17.99 then we can figure that about 4.17
million are of each age by year. That means that there are about
8.34 million who are 16 and 17 years old, altogether. So if we take
310 million and subtract 75 million children not yet 18 and add back
in those 16 and 17 years old who are able to get "regular" jobs we
find about 243.3 million "adults" who are potentially expected to
file income tax papers of some sort. If we then subtract out the 129
million who seem to have filed taxes, we get a figure of 114.3
million.
But, of course, to this number, we have to add back in the 66.66
million children who exist, who are just as human as anyone else,
and who aren't counted for purposes of the government's expectations
of filing taxes. You can take my approach, which is to say they are
innocent until proven guilty, in which case all of them belong in
the counter-economics category. That gives us a high water mark (so
far) of 180.96 million Americans not filing (including many for
reasons of age).
Or you could take the attitude that if 47% of them are in households
that don't file, you should expect the rest to follow the lead of
their parents and file when they get older. Using this approach, we
add back 31.33 million youngsters. That gives us 145.63 million.
Which is very close to our first approach with the tax data. So,
something like corroboration.
3. Census
Tens of millions of Americans who were expected to return a
completed census form did not do so. Figures varied widely, but I
saw many reports suggesting that as many as one in three households
were not responding. These figures were used in justifying the huge
government hiring surge in April and May, as you may recall. You can
probably still find archived news stories from that time to
corroborate.
So, again, if we take the estimate of 310 million (and you are
welcome to offer some other estimate of population—I have never
believed that the USA government could count, nor that it was
motivated to tell us what it found out if it did count everyone) and
we divide by three we get 103 million Americans who chose not to
respond to the census. Again, that is the same order of magnitude as
the other figures we've seen.
4. Funds
Tens of millions of Americans who have money "coming to them"
through one sort of entitlement program or another not only have not
received that money, but have apparently made no effort to apply for
any of it.
This one is a new technique for estimation that I just ran across.
Kevin Trudeau who is a sometimes controversial figure in the
info-mercial marketing industry, has a new "free money" book. In it
he claims to have condensed the knowledge from many other big books,
including a tome of foundation grants that typically sells for $70
and a bunch of books about free government money (entitlements,
special subsidies, etc.) that are marketed by guys like Matthew
Lesko. None of which interests me because I have no intention to
take anything from the government that I can possibly avoid.
Trudeau makes the claim that something like 22 million people who
applied for money from the government were eventually able to get
it. (I have no estimate on what number of hours they spent filling
out reams of paper, responding to denials, appealing, etc.) He also
makes the claim that something like 147 million Americans qualify
for one or more of these "entitlement" programs. Which, to me, is an
interesting figure.
Combined, that means that right around 125 million Americans who
would qualify for money from the government have not sought to get
that money. Now, you'll immediately say there are many reasons not
to do so. And I agree. Many people who are in the group of persons
not filing taxes presumably don't want to ask the government to send
them money because they might show up at their private mailbox and
find that the government has an arrest warrant for them. Or
foolishly fill in the address where they sleep at night only to find
the door kicked in at 4 a.m., goons all over the house slaughtering
the pets, raping the children, and dragging them off to prison.
But isn't it interesting that this figure is also of the same order
of magnitude? In fact, it is very close to the figures on voting and
taxes. So it seems to me that it corroborates those figures. In any
event, there seems to be something to this idea that many Americans
have withdrawn.
The figures I've shown you range from about 76.7 million up to
180.96 million. The raw average of those two figures is 129 million.
Some of these people are children who may change their minds about
how to behave later on, but that is also true of everyone in the
country.
Are these people who have withdrawn from the system, by one measure
or another, committed agorists, ideological anarchists, and
anarcho-capitalists, one and all? No, I don't think so. I think many
non-voters are simply frustrated by a system which not only doesn't
accurately and ethically count all the votes, not only doesn't
represent their point of view in government, but also seems to
deliberately ignore majority preference in the bank bailouts, auto
bailouts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obamacare, and Don't Ask
Don't Tell votes by Congress, among many other examples.
A system that was honest, ethical, and just would potentially
attract some of these voters back into the system. A candidate such
as Ron Paul, if he were the candidate for one of the major parties,
might attract many voters into the system, even to register for the
first time. So, no, I don't think there is an ideological commitment
here.
And, for the purposes of withdrawing support from the state,
reducing the amount of the economy it can prey upon, reducing the
amount of taxes collected, increasing the number of competitors in
the freed market, making more options available to more people, it
really doesn't matter why people are choosing to withdraw. It seems
clear that they are, and that this development is a positive thing.
Given the numbers involved, it is apparently not a recent thing,
either.
Previous
Contents
Next