It is less important to redistribute wealth than
it is to redistribute opportunity.
Arthur H. Vandenberg
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
“If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will." - Frédéric Bastiat
From FEE:McDonald analyzed the behavior of every country in the world for the past 40 years. His analysis showed a negative correlation between free trade and conflict: The more freely a country trades, the fewer wars it engages in. Countries that engage in free trade are less likely to invade and less likely to be invaded.Images of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Patriot Post |
Republicans Cave in to Spendocrats on the Budget and Debt Limit in the Senate and White House: Thumbs DOWN!
There's no need to cite news reports (but here's one): basically the Dems won an ObamaCare concession for unions with high-priced health plans (but individuals/households don't get their own deferment) but gave few concessions beyond a GOP demand for stringent subsidy qualification checks. No meaningful fiscal reforms. As Rockwell suggests in the clip below, I think there's a lot to be said about a day of reckoning that Obama would have faced if he had delivered on his threat to default. I tend to be pragmatic and reformist, but in good conscience, I would have voted against this deal. I do agree it's good to reduce the economic uncertainty caused by the Democrats' stonewalling fiscal reform and transferring this generation's obligations to future generations. I write more of a rant in my Facebook section below.
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Patriot Post |
Choose Life
Facebook Corner
In yesterday's post, I described a thread on intellectual property;overnight several anti-IP commentators piled on, what I've characterized as "wolf pack attacks". There is only so long you can reason with people whom either reject the concept of property period or maintain a double standard between property derived from creative pursuits versus other sources. These guys basically argue "you didn't invent that", that all inventions are a natural progression of cumulative knowledge. I have no vested interest in working for the collective. For example, if I invent some medicine that cuts the cost of cancer treatment by 80%, what incentive do I have to market this procedure? It would be valuable to health insurers and the government. I would have gone through years of study and my own work, using resources just like any other business, maybe years of uncompensated work. I realize, of course, I have a vested interest to keep my price reasonable to attract customers, but it's a win-win situation. Other vendors sell products at a profit; why is it right for others to simply clone my medicine at negligible cost for their own gain? I might be better off to keep the medicine to myself, set up my own clinic and arbitrage the going rate...
Some of the exchanges were almost comically ludicrous. To give a small slice, I mentioned a well-known quote of Isaac Newton about standing on the shoulders of giants, and I twisted it by saying Newton stood alone. I was really thinking of Newton's Principia, his contributions to physics, in particular classical mechanics. This other commentator thought himself clever by raising Leibniz. Of course, I know who Leibniz is; I hold two degrees in math and took a course on the history of mathematics. I also knew exactly why he had raised the name of Leibniz--he was referencing the debate over the invention of calculus. (See here.) It's fairly clear that Newton invented it first, although he didn't get around to publishing relevant papers until decades later. Leibniz I believe published first, but Newton and Leibniz had some extensive correspondence where Leibniz was aware of Newton's relevant ideas plus access to some of Newton's lightly-circulated papers. It is generally acknowledged that the two men developed the calculus independently; the controversy was whether Leibniz' work was influenced by Newton's unpublished work or had developed it independently, not whether Newton had been influenced by Leibniz' work. The point of the discussant was obvious--even without Newton, the calculus would have been invented. This is speculative, of course; talents like Newton and Leibniz are rare. But what if Leibniz had died in his youth? Newton should have published earlier and there would be no controversy. As I mentioned earlier, Newton also accomplished himself in classical mechanics and optics.
But at any rate, we ended up agreeing to disagree; I consider rationalizations against intellectual property to be no more convincing than those from a pickpocket or burglar. That's not to say I like government collusion with content providers; they need to have a business model feasible for a target audience. I remember one of my first albums, which I thought contained original hit tracks, was actually a collection of lame covers. I've rarely played it since then. But even with video recorders, prerecorded tapes, CD's, and DVD's do brisk business when sold at an affordable price. In part, you often get extras not available, say, on televised content.
(From LFC): Recently entered a discussion with an associate about government overreach into business and abuse of entitlement programs. My argument was one that taxation is theft and that by showing up to work you are telling your employer that the terms of your employment are satisfactory. He countered with social contract and examples from the industrial revolution showing how without government oversight employers would do anything possible to make a buck. It went back and forth for a while and I gave up after his second social contract statement. How can I handle this in the future?
"Social contract" is a legal fiction meant to rationalize Statist authority over the individual. Work is a voluntary contract; we don't need a business-illiterate bureaucrat imposing his opinions on business processes; it takes chutzpah for a government official, whom contributes nothing of value to the economy, to think that he knows enough to intervene in the real contract between employer and employee. If an employer does not treat the employee fairly, the employee can assert his contractual rights to leave the job and seek alternative prospects. Employers hire workers not as a favor but for business reasons; it makes sense to hire workers to their productivity level. It makes no sense to drive a person's wage below the market-clearing rate; he puts the business' objectives at risk. It isn't personal--it's business.
(From Libertarian Republic) Should the crime of rape receive the death sentence?
As a pro-life libertarian-conservative, I do not support legally-sanctioned murder of other human beings. Clearly violations of any woman's liberty/consent are unacceptable and should be sanctioned in an appropriate, commensurate fashion.
"Note increase of warning: 'If we don't do this, will be catastrophic!' They're coming more frequently, until options eventually run out." (From Drudge Report, a commentator): "Well, we tried". Wow. Really Speaker Boehner, Really? You obviously didn't TRY hard enough! We THE PEOPLE are tired of electing Republicans whose spines turn to jelly when they confront Reid and Pelosi! What gives? It's time for you to step down from your speaker position and let someone with a pair lead the Republicans!
How do you expect ANYBODY to negotiate with the likes of Obama and Reid? They think they have an obligation to spend your grandchildren's money... Boehner has to deal with the reality of the Spendocrats and the mainstream media propagandists. Boehner is justifiably worried about the US credit rating--and the fact that the GOP, not the spendaholics, will take the hit on Obama's decision to default.
(my own response/rant) Look, does anyone really really believe we are better off because the Spendocrats, controlling the White House and Senate, are playing a game of political chicken, holding our credit rating hostage? Everybody knows that with Fed-manipulated interest rates Obama gets more than enough revenue to cover our interest expense. The only way we default is if the Deadbeat-in-Chief refuses to honor obligations to our lenders--something I consider treasonous and an impeachable act. The problem is that he'll screw the bondholders just like he did in the auto company bankruptcies. Is it any wonder that the Fed is having to monetize our debt? Nobody wants to buy our debt unless they are in even worse shape. Are we better off because the Congress and the President lack the will and discipline to balance the budget? Who do you think we're fooling? A $17T debt, maybe 5 times higher unfunded liabilities, a sclerotic economy carrying a $1.8T regulatory burden, and being led by professional politicians whom are economically illiterate and promoting an infeasible agenda of 5 decades or more of failed government programs! Would you lend your own money to a country that has no chance of paying off its existing obligations?
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Steve Kelley and Townhall |
Marvin Gaye & Kim Weston, "It Takes Two"
