Links for December 26, 2007: Another stomach-turning spending visual; Inside the above-board marijuana industry; Cenk Uygur vs. Peter Schiff shoutfest; others….

December 24, 2011
  1. After a while, these become just a bunch of numbers, unhinged from any consequences.

  2. Look at the inside of their facility. You might mistake it for a bank at first glance. Look at the paperwork. Look at the oversight. Face reality: people buy drugs. Now ask yourself: would you rather people buy drugs in places like this, or from criminal thugs on street corners? Read the rest of this entry »


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

October 29, 2011
  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.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for Monday, August 15th, 2011: Riots, Spending, Banning Ourselves to Prosperity, others….

August 14, 2011
  1. Synopsis: According to Darcus Howe, London youth are rioting because of police brutality and harassment in the form of racially motivated stops and searches. Howe calls it “an insurrection of the masses of the people.”

  2. Stirring images of wanton destruction in London. The youth there are also fed up with the brutality and suspicionless searches apparently perpetrated by historic London furniture stores and jewelry stores (note sarcasm).

  3. The situation in London.

    An “insurrection of the masses of the people” would have directed its retaliation against aggressive government forces, not uninvolved third parties.

  4. Written by an assistant professor of economics and finance, this paper lauds self-service bans at gas stations in New Jersey and Oregon, citing numerous benefits such as improved safety, reductions in certain business costs, environmental benefits, public support, and job creation.

    Needless to say, I disagree. My comments are too lengthy to post in this roundup, but look forward to a short feature in the near future.  Read the rest of this entry »