Last Week’s Links, for February 13, 2012: A Hodgepodge

  1. I think the “Big Think” is to progressives like what “LearnLiberty” is to libertarians. This is good, I think, because it showcases for us some often mind-numbing obliviousness.

    I must say I’m a bit confused. The man claims to have been drowning in an ocean of free marketers and Hayekians, yet he doesn’t seem to hear anything they say, much less comprehend it. First, he completely misrepresents their ideas. Then, he claims that no fiscal conservatives are talking about this, that, or the other progressive talking point. It’s as if he had never so much as visited a libertarian website in his life, much less had his voice drowned out by gaggles of real, live libertarians. Maybe he’s talking about Republicans. Hmmm….

  2. Probably the largest picture of Paul Krugman you’re likely to see on the web.

  3. We can gamble in Vegas. We can donate on Kiva or Kickstarter. But it’s illegal to purchase $100 of stock in a job-creating business? That makes no sense.

    The rule evidently applies to those without the financial wherewithal to satisfy the SEC.  I didn’t even know about it. Really? If this is true, then ‘free country’ my ass. It’s really a miracle that anything ever gets done at all with such shackles on markets. 

  4. Mr. Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion, quite possibly making him the largest taxpayer in history. He is expected to sell enough stock to pay his tax.

    Not enough, apparenlty. The article continues on about how to suck more out of him.

  5. One common misconception of libertarianism is that it is always “pro-business”. In truth, libertarians encourage good faith criticism against any company that seems to do more harm than good. People should know which companies are failing them, and vote with their dollars for companies that behave better. If any company that commits an actual trespass against a neighbor should be required to pay reparations.

  6. If UCSF researcher Robert H. Lustig and his team had their way, sugar would be regulated similarly to alcohol and tobacco, and would be knocked off of a USDA list of foods “Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS),” which allows food manufacturers to add unlimited amounts to any food. Using four criteria established in 2003 to justify regulating alcohol, these scientists make a case for why sugar is a public health concern and should be regulated:

    The first criterion on the list of why sugar should be regulated out of our lives is that “sugar is unavoidable”. Yes, seriously. Just set the traps and watch all of us suckers fall right in. They’d better start building the prisons now! Or, how about this: “Hey, scientists! Why don’t you all stick to teaching us how stuff works and leave the ruining of our lives up to the idiot politicians?”

  7. It’s interesting. People should be aware of this stuff.

  8. Scarcity ruins another utopia.

  9. This Opinionator is right, but seems to be oblivious to the libertarians’ Nolan Chart, which has been around for decades.

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

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: