True, libertarians occasionally fall short of their own standard. Glaringly absent from this article, however, is any comparison between Ron Paul’s pork and that of his fellow lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Glaringly absent also is any comparison between what Galvestonians send to Washington in taxes and what they receive from Washington in services. I’m not sure, exactly, how these comparisons will turn out, but I think any prima facie case alleging hypocrisy against Ron Paul would make these comparisons clear. The only comparison you’ll find here is between what Galvestonians receive now and what they had received years ago.
The article includes a response from Paul:
Trying to justify his projects in a 2009 Fox News interview, Paul said, “If they are going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people.” Asked to elaborate on Paul’s position, his spokeswoman pointed to a statement on Paul’s website arguing that eliminating earmarks “would further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.”
The author’s tone alone suggests his belief that this attempted justification was unsuccessful; he does not trouble himself to refute these arguments.
Satire, I believe, on an earlier chart published by the Heritage Foundation that pegged a turn in employment to the passage of Obamacare. I want to highlight, though, that this is where the Austrian praxeaological method—deriving economic truth from first principles—can help. The true effect that these expansive government schemes and programs have on society is difficult, if not impossible, to divine from this sort of statistical analysis. What do we really learn from looking at these charts, other than that some other statistician can produce another chart that conveys a different message? Why not, then, apply what we know about human nature when possible to augment, if not supplant, this barrage of often conflicting statistical models?
Barton failed to mention that the 2007 bill didn’t actually ban incandescent bulbs; it only required them to use less energy. But why let the truth get in the way of a catchy bill title and some angst about Big Government?
Kate Sheppard failed to mention here that the new and more efficient incandescent bulbs cost twelve times as much as the old incandescent bulbs. But why let home economics get in the way of her catchy paean to government regulation?
The ordinary citizen, who is considered normal simply because he is in the majority, lives within the law. The criminal is concerned with the breaking of the law and lives outside it. The politician is different in that his thought pattern is shaped behind the law. It is in relation to the law that these three environments are distinguishable; the mental habits acquired in each environment are necessarily indigenous to it.
We really need to think of politicians as a different type of person.
This building has been closed for over ten years. Why? The city says you can’t have more than five coin-operated machines unless you have an arcade license, and an arcade license can only be granted if you are on the boardwalk. It’s total nonsense.
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.
This entry was posted on Monday, August 1st, 2011 at 1:52 pm and is filed under Diigo. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.