Links for October 31, 2011: Stanhope on Liberty; Voices from the “1%”; Government owns polluted rivers; others….

  1. Fifteen minutes of brilliance. (NSFW: Language)

  2. Priceless. Uncut footage available here, here, here, and here. I would love even more. Apparently, the conversation lasted three hours.

  3. A different voice from the 1%, This one from the “tax me” contingent. Sorry. You can raise you own taxes if you want, but you got no moral authority to raise your neighbor’s taxes, as far as I’m concerned.

    I have spent far more hours than I should have these last few weeks … trying to understand who these people are and why they would possibly care about my taxes.

    It’s called empathy. It’s called reciprocity. I make more money than some unfortunate people, but I don’t like the idea of other people reaching into my pockets and taking my money on that account. On the other hand, I don’t think I’m better than everybody else. If there were a rule that said: “You may reach into anyone’s pocket but Tim G.’s.” I would consider that rule to be arbitrary and unfair to others. A more fair rule would be: “Nobody reaches into anyone else’s pockets.” I don’t have a particular love for this guy. I just think there ought to be predictable, non-arbitrary, even-handed rules of private property. Is that so wrong?

    The author also extols the government and union help his family received during his impoverished youth. It’s tough to play the “what if” game, but if the government did not interfere so much in the economy to limit people’s productive capacities there is reason to believe that his youth may not have been as bad as he assumes that it would have been. Again, I don’t have a crystal ball, but another way is possible. 

  4. Whoever owns these rivers obviously doesn’t care very much for them. Otherwise, they would defend their property rights in court.

  5. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the bed and banks under all rivers, lakes, and streams that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, held in trust for the public.

    Yeah, yeah. You saw that one coming.

  6. Thinking a lot about “trickle down” this week. From my upcoming feature:

    “Trickle down doesn’t work.” …or so goes the common incantation that statists recite to dispel free-market demons. It’s blurted in the same way that superstitious people blurt “God bless you,” after someone sneezes nearby. If one is caught in a fit of defending rich people’s wealth, the reflexive reaction that she is likely to receive is the utter of those magic words, “Trickle down doesn’t work.”

  7. Henry Blodget completely ignores thinkers inspired by the Austrian school of economics, such as Ron Paul and Peter Schiff, whom Krugman derides, but who also predicted the crisis years in advance with stunning specificity. Not that Republicans are interested in anything Austrian Economics has to teach. They’d love another excuse to spend big. It’s time for the Republicans to finally merge openly with the Democrats. It is time for them all, and Paul Krugman, to at least acknowledge the Austrian School.

  8. A continuation of this story: Kos is at it again. It would help if this Kos author had bothered to look at this earlier Kos article explaining exactly what happened in the bank. Like the author, I won’t abide agent provacateurs, but this was no such case. The “loudest person” at the bank was not the cop, but rather the fully bearded man giving the oration. Clapping or saying “Woo Woo!” louder than the others is one thing. Creating the disturbance is another. This author should know the difference.

  9. “If he would rather die, then he better do it and decrease the surplus population.”

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

2 Responses to Links for October 31, 2011: Stanhope on Liberty; Voices from the “1%”; Government owns polluted rivers; others….

  1. Nik says:

    So, I have to ask you about the Buffet rule.
    There are people amongst the 1% who are making so much money and most of that money is coming in outside the normal system of income tax. Even as libertarian, I don’t see the current system is being a fair game. They have an advantage that nobody else enjoys because they’re able to get money in larger quantities than working-class people from these alternative untaxed or not taxed as much sources. What do you think about this taxation disparity? I see it as an unfairness that needs to be corrected and therefore raising taxes on those incomes or peferably closing loopholes to make the rich pay a fair share wouldn’t necessarily be an overt strain on their income and maybe then you could lower taxes on everybody or at least when we get ourselves out this economic mess.

    • autofyrsto says:

      Taxation is an inherent wrong that should probably be abolished, and should at least be minimized. Think of it like any other crime. If I went on a purse-snatching spree and I targeted only women who make under $40,000 per year, that would be unfair to women making less than $40,000 per year. Arguably, one way to make my purse-snatching system more fair would be to target everyone, and especially those who are well off, but I would not advocate doing that.

      And if I want to sit around making dumb loopholes about which women should get to keep their purses based on whether they invest in low-income housing or ethanol, or whether they earned their income through capital gains, or whether they invested in government bonds or whatnot, that’s a whole new level of depravity. It’s, like, I was a criminal to start, and now I’ve engaged in a campaign of social engineering propelled by selective mercy. What kind of megalomaniac behaves this way?

      If I were not constrained by political realities, obviously I would say that this whole system is corrupt and should be abolished. I think your question is: In light of political reality, what is the best step forward? I can never answer that by saying “We need to take more of rich people’s money.” That, to me, is the first step on the road to perdition. I might say that the loopholes should be closed, but that would not be to get the money. It would be to end the social engineering. It’s a really tough question you’ve asked…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: