Miscellany: 12/15/13

Quote of the Day
One man practicing sportsmanship is 
far better than 50 preaching it.
Knute Rockne

Earlier One-Off Post: Man of the Year 2013

Troll Stomping

Via Illinois Policy Institute

49% of the U.S. population lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit.   (See WSJ here.)

This piece brought the trolls (and/or defensive senior citizens) out in force, and I wasn't in the mood to suffer fools gladly. The WSJ piece pointed out (including social security recipients) nearly one in 2 households has at least one person drawing a government benefit. The most common objection is the inclusion of  social security payments as an entitlement or benefit; they will heatedly argue that they earned that benefit by paying into it all their work career.

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, an entitlement program is a type of "government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right...whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. Examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.

I  am somewhat empathetic with the idea that I've "earned" the benefit--I was paying social security on my college work/study minimum wage earning at 16 years and on occasion I've paid up to the maximum on contribution over the years; I hit my eligibility work requirement several years back (not my age requirement). But at the same time I know most of the money paid by myself and my employer match (which is really part of my compensation) did not go into an account with real assets, like income-generating timber, to fund my retirement pension: it went to fund current retirees and any surplus was "invested" in government IOU's. Yes, the IOU's require interest payments from the Treasury, but what happens when that IOU is cashed in? Unless the government is running a budget surplus (which since 1970 has occurred just 4 times--all around the turn of the century under a GOP House), that means the government must borrow from the public to get funding. If your retirement pay is being paid by transfer from current workers and/or external creditors, how does it differ fundamentally from any other government handout? It's not really your money--your money went to pay for past government spending; it's gone: you'll never see it again just like all your other tax payments.

Right now the government is spending most of its budget on pensions and health care--not common goods (like, say, national defense) but individual benefit programs. I've never quite understood why we have multiple support programs: what I think we'll eventually end up with is a unified poverty support system, with means-tested supplemental income.

One troll basically presented a  list of entitlement programs (see above) and basically dared libertarians/conservatives to touch a "third rail" program; not all conservatives are wusses. I'm looking at over $80T in unfunded liabilities, just on the federal level: my response is to PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING! I think most middle to upper income people shouldn't count on government entitlements. Is it fair? Wrong question; the question is, what is feasible? We have to be honest with people: the government really hasn't adequately funded entitlements while life expectancy (and expected disbursements) continue to increase. We need for people to take more responsibility for their own retirement and healthcare

The Copts of Egypt



He Didn't Win the Heisman, But He Won My Respect



Facebook Corner

(Catholic Libertarians). In a new interview, Pope Francis responded to critics who call his stance on capitalism "Marxist," saying that the political and economic philosophy is flat "wrong."
Rush Limbaugh is more of a populist conservative; the pope is correct in the sense the Church has been sharply critical of both capitalism and Marxist over the past century plus. But the pope is attacking a straw man and is unconscionably judgmental of those whom have achieved a certain degree of economic success. He is grossly incompetent about business and the economy and definitely has Statist tendencies (at one point he goes out of the way to call politics a noble profession). In reality, his views are more consistent with economic fascism (government-dominated economy); there can be social democratic redistribution. The state doesn't necessarily have to own production in order to control it.

Instead of condemning the free market he doesn't understand (after all, Argentina is listed as one of the least economically free economies in the world), you might think that he would address the far more salient problems of Statism, the dehumanizing dependence on the State, morally hazardous policy, the failure to understand the benefits to the consumer of free markets and free trade. You see little emphasis on mutualism as an alternative to the State.

The attack on "greed" is pathetically derivative of "progressive" ideology. It's clear that wealth certainly is an objective , but, for instance, it doesn't explain why Warren Buffett continued to work far beyond he was set for life. People may be motivated by different reasons: the challenge of running a successful business, power or recognition, etc. Buffett has willed the bulk of his estate to a philanthropy. I don't really see "greed" explaining a low-growth economy: it has more to do with counter-productive state causing regime uncertainty with economically illiterate intervention.

The problem is that the pope, by exposing a derivative understanding of the economy, has undermined his own credibility. Responding in a defensive way--"hey, I'm not the first guy to say these things"--is not helpful. He specifically used long-discredited populist stereotypes of the invisible hand, trickle-down economics, and social darwinism. It's one thing to call on business owners and managers to reflect on Christian values; it's counter-productive to engage in class-warfare rhetoric.
 Unfettered capitalism appears to be a system that grants monopoly rights, socializes business losses, forbids devaluing unbacked notes, limits liability of corporate entities...it appears that unfettered capitalism is actually an unfettered State that often acts on behalf of "private" corporations.
 Oh, PLEASE. The guy specifically attacked the invisible hand, trickle-down capitalism, and alleged social darwinism. He's praising the Statist political profession. He's engaging in zero-sum rhetoric and attacking owner/manager greed. This is all derivative populist claptrap. I don't want you to put words in his mouth over crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is an artifact of an economically interventionist State; if we downsize the State, those perverse incentives wither away.

(Cato Institute). Happy Bill of Rights Day! What does the Bill of Rights mean to you? Join the Twitter contest using ‪#‎CatoForRights‬: http://j.mp/1cJDulu
The Bill of Narrowly Interpreted Exceptions to Tyranny


(The Libertarian Republic). Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against gay people? | The Libertarian Republic http://bit.ly/1cKuFYV

 I scanned several comments to see if anyone raised the concept of voluntary vs. forced. Of course, the state should not intervene in business decisions; if it does, you are essentially enslaved to the state. I feel that the invisible hand will address consumer needs (including those of gays). 

To give a simple example, I'm left-handed; I usually can't find lefty-friendly items in most stores, but there are multiple Internet portals that stock relevant items. Do I feel those brick-and-motor stores "discriminate" against me? No. They could stock the items but I don't want the government to require them to stock a low-turnover item.

I don't believe in the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act, because it is unconstitutional in concept--an abuse of the Commerce Clause, which was intended to promote an open market among states, not to micromanage businesses licensed in a state. That STATE LAWS, like Jim Crow laws, discriminated was clearly a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Personally I don't believe in creating an exception to the voluntary principle on the basis of political correctness. Where does it end? Some restaurants won't admit men without coat and tie; other stores say, "No shoes, no service"


Now I'm not in business to turn down a paying, profitable customer, even a green Martian. If a competitor would be stupid enough to do so, I would market my shop/restaurant as gay-friendly, race-friendly. I would not have sicced the Statist dogs on my competitor, even if I thought their religious/moral principles were unjust. Personally, if I was treated unfairly, I wouldn't want to do business with him--why reward a bigot with a profitable transaction?

Commercial of the Year: Choose Life



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of the original artist via the Independent Institute

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Holiday Series

Zooey Deschanel and Leon Redbone, "Baby It's Cold Outside". Technically, this tune isn't on on my Shuffle because I refuse to buy the "Elf" soundtrack just to get one song (it is on my Youtube playlist). Redbone's distinctive deep vocals are delightfully contrasted with Zooey's lighthearted delivery; I think they've made the song their own.