Links for January 3, 2010: Deregulation? D.E.A.? Bulliion? Pinkwashing?

January 2, 2011
  • One of my favorite speaker/authors.

    Tom Woods hints at debunking. It’s a tough point to get unless you know all the details. I must admit that I do not, but I’d like to learn. See also the comments on Tom Woods’s facebook page.

  • Like many of the cables made public in recent weeks, those describing the drug war do not offer large disclosures. Rather, it is the details that add up to a clearer picture of the corrupting influence of big traffickers, the tricky game of figuring out which foreign officials are actually controlled by drug lords, and the story of how an entrepreneurial agency operating in the shadows of the F.B.I. has become something more than a drug agency.

    Read: “the corrupting influence of drug prohibition.” Read the rest of this entry »


  • Links for July 12, 2010: Is the Energy Star Program a Rubber Stamp?; Much Ado About the Economy, Economics; Much, Much More!

    July 11, 2010
    1. The Government Accountability Office tested the government’s Energy Star program with phony products and found it essentially to be a rubber stamp–except that only 15 of 20 products were accepted and two were rejected.  I wish they’d explained the rejections in a little more detail.

    2. Every time a libertarian stays in the closet, an angel gets its wings ripped off.

    3. We need you out here!!! I highly recommend listening to Mises.org podcasts and watching Reason.tv. After a while, you’ll come to realize that you have ready responses to every statist argument that comes down the tube.  Also, take Christopher Hitchens’s sage advice to heart.

    4. “The Conscience of a Liberal”: Calling your opponent “bizarre” and “crazy” = Checkmate!!! See full ThinkMarkets.wordpress.com response hereRead the rest of this entry »


    Links for June 14, 2010: Christopher Hitchens on disagreeing with the Left, Study alleges progressives are poor at basic economics, others….

    June 13, 2010
    1. I would never make a political disagreement the cause of a quarrel with a friend. I think it’s silly to do that. But there is a tendency on the left—and I bet there are people here who know what I’m talking about—to think that if someone in any way disagrees with the left, it must be for the lowest possible reason, and that if you’ve found the lowest possible motive, you’ve found the right one. There’s this whole culture of: no one would leave us or quarrel with us if they weren’t a sellout. It’s actually a very sick mentality, and very widespread, and people who think like that or feel like that can dump me if they want, but that’s almost to as much as to say that they weren’t much of a friend.

      Yes, I know what he’s talking about. Speaking of sell-outs, Christopher Hitchens will be speaking to a sold-out crowd tomorrow, June 15, at the Free Library of Philadelphia.

    2. This study purports to find that self-identified progressives and liberals are less “economically enlightened” as compared to conservatives and Libertarians. I believe the result is essentially correct because every day I read articles from progressives who advocate feel-good policy proposals without examining economic consequences or responding adequately to economic concerns. I regularly comment on this very phenomenon here on this blog. Unfortunately, this study is so biased and flawed that it will not convince anybody.  The condescending title of this article alone will rightfully repel the very people who should receive the message most.  See a rebuttal here and a forum discussion here. Read the rest of this entry »


    Links for March 2, 2010: Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul Supporters, A Marxist Response to the “Mudpie Argument”, others….

    March 3, 2010
    1. YouTube | Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul & his supporters

      A fundamental disagreement I have with Chomsky is that, whereas he seems universally to recognize the authority of democracy, I do not. Chomsky reassures us that alien forces such as government are not trying to steal our money through taxation. We should rejoice on tax day, Chomsky argues, because it is only a majority of our brethren who have voted to steal our money from us for the purposes that “we” (read “they”) have agreed upon. The assumption is that we all always assent to democracy. I do not accept that assumption. The cliche to remember is tyranny of the majority. Fifty-one percent of the people have have no inherent right to the property of the other forty-nine percent. If some members of the forty-nine percent wish to waive their property rights in the name of democracy, they may. To force this waiver, however, is simply tyranny of the majority. We all know how much Chomsky hates tyranny! Read the rest of this entry »