Mike Judge, the creator of the animated TV series King of the Hill, has now created another animated show called The Goode Family. It premiered two days ago on ABC. Instead of being an over-the-top caricature of rednecks, it's an over-the-top caricature of sanctimonious, politically correct liberals -- especially environmentalists. It's about time somebody had the balls to create a show like this.
Cracking jokes about rednecks and red state culture is not controversial; it's practically required in blue Hollywood. But poking fun at environmentalists, especially from within Hollywood's own ranks... now that's controversial.
I find it interesting that the introduction of The Goode Family has coincided with the economic reality of the recession taking its toll on pricey businesses such as Starbucks Coffee and Whole Foods Market, which cater to the elitist, pretentious liberal crowd. (And witness the correspondingly sharp explosion in popularity of low-brow McCafe. I stopped by a McDonald's the other day, and everyone in line ahead of me was ordering a McCafe drink.) It seems as though the expansion of the pricey businesses in previous years was partly a biproduct of bubble-illusion, much like the real estate bubble in which it was embedded, and now that the economic house of cards is crashing down, people are beginning to recognize the reality that not everyone can afford the liberal brand of moral superiority.
If you haven't seen The Goode Family yet, go watch it on Hulu. The first episode is hilarious. Let's hear it for Mike Judge for having the courage to create a network TV show with its cross-hairs fixed on Blue State America for a change!
Friday, May 29, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Is There Such a Thing as "Too Much" Liberty?
My friend Jason made an interesting comment regarding my previous post: "Too much of either liberty or justice will invariably squelch the other." I'd like to explore that comment.
Admittedly, I have read little if any political theory on the philosophy of justice. But that may not be a drawback for the purposes of this blog post. Often, one's perspective on an issue is shaped by other people's ideas before one ever sits down alone to really think through the issue de novo. The standard academic approach is first to learn what other people have said or written about an idea, and then to think -- hopefully critically -- more deeply about it. Less common in academia is the approach of thinking deeply and systematically about something before preconceptions are fed into one's mind. But doesn't the latter approach potentially yield better intellectual fruit? With either approach, one ends up learning "the greats." But in the latter case, one has the additional opportunity to take an unbiased, and therefore maximally open-minded, stab at an issue before being shown the well-trodden road of orthodoxy. It is in this fresh, unbiased spirit that I approach the idea of justice, about which I am admittedly uneducated.
Back to the statement under consideration: "Too much of either liberty or justice will invariably squelch the other." Too much liberty? Too much justice? Something tells me one's exact definitions of the terms "liberty" and "justice" will have a significant bearing on the truth of that statement.
The statement seems to assume that "liberty" means freedom in the positive sense: "freedom to." I fully agree that if people have unlimited positive freedom -- freedom to do anything and everything -- chaos, and therefore injustice, is the inevitable result. So I would say that is a bad definition of liberty. Now, how about we define "liberty" in the negative sense: "freedom from." In particular, freedom from violent aggression against one's physical person or property. If we define violent aggression against a person's body or property as "crime," then liberty in the negative sense is freedom from crime. That is the libertarian definition of liberty.
Now let's up the ante. Let's define "liberty" and "justice" in terms of each other. Let's define "injustice" as a crime (violent aggression against one's body or property) for which the victim(s) are not eventually recompensed. We can now say that liberty is defined as the freedom from injustice, and justice is defined as the recompense of victims whose liberty has been violated. Liberty and justice require each other. Moreover, total liberty and total justice require each other. Under these definitions, the idea that there must not be "too much" of either liberty or justice is absurd.
I realize that my definitions above are not completely precise. The definitions themselves contain words (e.g., "recompense") that need to be defined just like liberty and justice do. But I think I succeeded in clarifying the definitions at least enough to illustrate the critical dependence of the "liberty vs. justice" issue one one's precise definitions of those two terms.
Remember: It's freedom from, not freedom to!
Admittedly, I have read little if any political theory on the philosophy of justice. But that may not be a drawback for the purposes of this blog post. Often, one's perspective on an issue is shaped by other people's ideas before one ever sits down alone to really think through the issue de novo. The standard academic approach is first to learn what other people have said or written about an idea, and then to think -- hopefully critically -- more deeply about it. Less common in academia is the approach of thinking deeply and systematically about something before preconceptions are fed into one's mind. But doesn't the latter approach potentially yield better intellectual fruit? With either approach, one ends up learning "the greats." But in the latter case, one has the additional opportunity to take an unbiased, and therefore maximally open-minded, stab at an issue before being shown the well-trodden road of orthodoxy. It is in this fresh, unbiased spirit that I approach the idea of justice, about which I am admittedly uneducated.
Back to the statement under consideration: "Too much of either liberty or justice will invariably squelch the other." Too much liberty? Too much justice? Something tells me one's exact definitions of the terms "liberty" and "justice" will have a significant bearing on the truth of that statement.
The statement seems to assume that "liberty" means freedom in the positive sense: "freedom to." I fully agree that if people have unlimited positive freedom -- freedom to do anything and everything -- chaos, and therefore injustice, is the inevitable result. So I would say that is a bad definition of liberty. Now, how about we define "liberty" in the negative sense: "freedom from." In particular, freedom from violent aggression against one's physical person or property. If we define violent aggression against a person's body or property as "crime," then liberty in the negative sense is freedom from crime. That is the libertarian definition of liberty.
Now let's up the ante. Let's define "liberty" and "justice" in terms of each other. Let's define "injustice" as a crime (violent aggression against one's body or property) for which the victim(s) are not eventually recompensed. We can now say that liberty is defined as the freedom from injustice, and justice is defined as the recompense of victims whose liberty has been violated. Liberty and justice require each other. Moreover, total liberty and total justice require each other. Under these definitions, the idea that there must not be "too much" of either liberty or justice is absurd.
I realize that my definitions above are not completely precise. The definitions themselves contain words (e.g., "recompense") that need to be defined just like liberty and justice do. But I think I succeeded in clarifying the definitions at least enough to illustrate the critical dependence of the "liberty vs. justice" issue one one's precise definitions of those two terms.
Remember: It's freedom from, not freedom to!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Meet H. L. Mencken
In my previous post I asked, "Are we adults, or are we children?" One of the most famous writers and journalists in America in the early 20th Century, H. L. Mencken, had an interesting answer to that question. He said the vast majority of people never progress mentally beyond adolescence, and that the disastrous but infinitely entertaining spectacle of democracy proves it.
I first heard of Mencken in a LewRockwell.com podcast interview from June 8, 2008, entitled "The Old Right." When Murray Rothbard, one of the most influential and well-known Austro-Libertarian theorists after Ludwig von Mises, was once asked how to learn to write well, he responded, "Read H. L. Mencken." So I read Mencken's 1926 book, Notes on Democracy.
Wow. The Mises Institute's warning that Notes on Democracy is not for the faint of heart is accurate. If you think Rothbard doesn't sugar-coat his writing, wait till you read Mencken. The man is incredibly blunt. Basically, Notes is a comedic roast of democracy that is as far from political correctness as east is from west.
As I mentioned above, Mencken held a dim view of the common man, Homo vulgaris. In fact, he is openly elitist in Notes. He contends that the concept of democracy was a step backward, not forward, for mankind since it gave inferior men a means by which to elevate themselves to the level of truly superior men. He explains that the bulk of men, who are inferior, do not want freedom; they want safety and security. More than that, they are genetically incapable even of understanding such abstract concepts as freedom, honor, and courage. Civilization advances in spite of, not because of, the bulk of these inferior men. It is in fact the small minority of truly superior men, history's towering geniuses, who alone have shaped and guided humanity's progress in all areas. Although he does not use these exact words, what Mencken implies is that Homo vulgaris serves simply to provide fertilizer from which the flower of true superiority, Nietzsche's übermensch, can grow.
Now, I can't say I completely agree with Mencken's thoroughly dim view of the common man, but I find it difficult to argue with much of what he says in Notes. Specifically, I cannot disagree with him that some men are intrinsically superior to others in various ways, sometimes as a result of genetics. This is one of the most controversial ideas today, and merely suggesting it will typically get one skewered by the press or crucified by the academic orthodoxy. Most people have a vehement, deep-seated, but completely unexamined (and therefore inherently religious) belief that all men are created with equal ability and potential in every way. But if all men are created equal in all ways, why do they not all look alike? Why do they not all sound alike? Why do they not all think and act alike? Why can some men master a dozen languages, while others never get a firm grip on even one? Why can some men compose majestic symphonies, while others cannot even memorize the melody to "Yankee Doodle"? Why are some men geniuses in five different areas, while most others are not geniuses in even one? Anyone who does not have a reasonable answer to those questions, yet maintains with fiery conviction that all men are equal in every way, is simply clinging to a religious belief that contradicts the plain facts.
Mencken's point is that democracy is a Utopian theory, but in practice it amounts to mob rule -- and the mob is not very bright. The Founding Fathers agreed with this idea, which is why they put various checks in place to hold back the mob and its fickle passions. Unfortunately, their checks did not work very well. The system we have today may not officially be a direct democracy, but history indicates that it has nevertheless devolved by the political pressures of mob rule.
Perhaps Mencken's most surprising claim is that one of democracy's most profound failures is that it eliminates the aristocracy (heredity/superiority-based class distinction) and replaces it with a plutocracy (wealth-based class distinction). Mencken is actually in favor of aristocracy since it is insulated from the degrading and corrupting pressures of the mob. For it is only in isolation from the mob that geniuses can develop and protect virtues like honor, courage, and freedom that ultimately direct the evolution, rather than devolution, of humanity.
After immersing myself in Austro-Libertarian ideas for months, reading Mencken forced me to confront an aspect of liberty I had not yet fully considered: Does the "invisible hand" work because of, or in spite of, freedom for the ignorant masses? Is the history of economic progress a history of collective prosperity emerging from the ignorant masses who had increasing levels of freedom, or is it actually the history of a relatively small number of industrial and financial geniuses who were able to harness the mob's unfocused energy for the purpose of their focused and enlightened goals?
Far from being a spontaneous uprising of the masses, the American Revolution was directed from beginning to end by a small minority of highly intelligent and educated men. As some of the Founding Fathers pointed out in their writings, freedom cannot long survive in the hands of those who lack the knowledge and will to defend it. That means most people. If Mencken is correct that the masses are truly ignorant and have never mentally progressed beyond adolescence, then maybe the waxing and waning of freedom throughout history has had far more to do with the struggles and conflicts of geniuses than with the superstitions and myopic passions of Homo vulgaris.
I first heard of Mencken in a LewRockwell.com podcast interview from June 8, 2008, entitled "The Old Right." When Murray Rothbard, one of the most influential and well-known Austro-Libertarian theorists after Ludwig von Mises, was once asked how to learn to write well, he responded, "Read H. L. Mencken." So I read Mencken's 1926 book, Notes on Democracy.
Wow. The Mises Institute's warning that Notes on Democracy is not for the faint of heart is accurate. If you think Rothbard doesn't sugar-coat his writing, wait till you read Mencken. The man is incredibly blunt. Basically, Notes is a comedic roast of democracy that is as far from political correctness as east is from west.
As I mentioned above, Mencken held a dim view of the common man, Homo vulgaris. In fact, he is openly elitist in Notes. He contends that the concept of democracy was a step backward, not forward, for mankind since it gave inferior men a means by which to elevate themselves to the level of truly superior men. He explains that the bulk of men, who are inferior, do not want freedom; they want safety and security. More than that, they are genetically incapable even of understanding such abstract concepts as freedom, honor, and courage. Civilization advances in spite of, not because of, the bulk of these inferior men. It is in fact the small minority of truly superior men, history's towering geniuses, who alone have shaped and guided humanity's progress in all areas. Although he does not use these exact words, what Mencken implies is that Homo vulgaris serves simply to provide fertilizer from which the flower of true superiority, Nietzsche's übermensch, can grow.
Now, I can't say I completely agree with Mencken's thoroughly dim view of the common man, but I find it difficult to argue with much of what he says in Notes. Specifically, I cannot disagree with him that some men are intrinsically superior to others in various ways, sometimes as a result of genetics. This is one of the most controversial ideas today, and merely suggesting it will typically get one skewered by the press or crucified by the academic orthodoxy. Most people have a vehement, deep-seated, but completely unexamined (and therefore inherently religious) belief that all men are created with equal ability and potential in every way. But if all men are created equal in all ways, why do they not all look alike? Why do they not all sound alike? Why do they not all think and act alike? Why can some men master a dozen languages, while others never get a firm grip on even one? Why can some men compose majestic symphonies, while others cannot even memorize the melody to "Yankee Doodle"? Why are some men geniuses in five different areas, while most others are not geniuses in even one? Anyone who does not have a reasonable answer to those questions, yet maintains with fiery conviction that all men are equal in every way, is simply clinging to a religious belief that contradicts the plain facts.
Mencken's point is that democracy is a Utopian theory, but in practice it amounts to mob rule -- and the mob is not very bright. The Founding Fathers agreed with this idea, which is why they put various checks in place to hold back the mob and its fickle passions. Unfortunately, their checks did not work very well. The system we have today may not officially be a direct democracy, but history indicates that it has nevertheless devolved by the political pressures of mob rule.
Perhaps Mencken's most surprising claim is that one of democracy's most profound failures is that it eliminates the aristocracy (heredity/superiority-based class distinction) and replaces it with a plutocracy (wealth-based class distinction). Mencken is actually in favor of aristocracy since it is insulated from the degrading and corrupting pressures of the mob. For it is only in isolation from the mob that geniuses can develop and protect virtues like honor, courage, and freedom that ultimately direct the evolution, rather than devolution, of humanity.
After immersing myself in Austro-Libertarian ideas for months, reading Mencken forced me to confront an aspect of liberty I had not yet fully considered: Does the "invisible hand" work because of, or in spite of, freedom for the ignorant masses? Is the history of economic progress a history of collective prosperity emerging from the ignorant masses who had increasing levels of freedom, or is it actually the history of a relatively small number of industrial and financial geniuses who were able to harness the mob's unfocused energy for the purpose of their focused and enlightened goals?
Far from being a spontaneous uprising of the masses, the American Revolution was directed from beginning to end by a small minority of highly intelligent and educated men. As some of the Founding Fathers pointed out in their writings, freedom cannot long survive in the hands of those who lack the knowledge and will to defend it. That means most people. If Mencken is correct that the masses are truly ignorant and have never mentally progressed beyond adolescence, then maybe the waxing and waning of freedom throughout history has had far more to do with the struggles and conflicts of geniuses than with the superstitions and myopic passions of Homo vulgaris.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The War on Drugs
Some of the most fundamental arguments for and against the War on Drugs can be concisely stated thus:
Anti-drug position: The government should outlaw certain drugs, because people often behave irresponsibly or even dangerously when they consume them, and some of those drugs can also be dangerous to one's health. Legalized drugs would impose a burden on society, the safety of our roads, the health care system, etc.
Pro-freedom position: It is a violation of a person's natural rights for the government to imprison or harm him merely for possessing, selling, or consuming a drug. A person owns his own body, and therefore any decision that only affects his body and nobody else's is purely his own. If he has violated someone's natural rights (life, liberty, or private property), whether influenced by drugs or not, then of course a crime has been committed and should be dealt with accordingly. But buying, selling, possessing, or consuming a drug in the absence of a violation of anyone's natural rights is not a crime.
A couple of obvious questions present themselves: If, say, marijuana is illegal ostensibly because it alters a person's judgment, why is alcohol legal? Alcohol certainly alters a person's judgment. Furthermore, whereas people under the influence of alcohol tend to become more aggressive and often even belligerent, people under the influence of marijuana tend to become less aggressive and more relaxed. Similarly, if some drugs are illegal ostensibly because of their negative health effects, why is tobacco legal? Tobacco, whether smoked or chewed, is strongly correlated with cancer.
I assert that existing drug laws are logically inconsistent. Logical consistency ultimately requires one of two alternatives: (a) prohibit all drugs, or (b) legalize all drugs.
Prohibiting all drugs is not possible due to the inherently arbitrary definition of the word "drug." If one defines a drug as a substance that has an effect on one's body and/or mind, then every atom, molecule, compound, or mixture in existence would have to be defined as a drug: If one were to ingest, smoke, or handle enough of anything, it would have a noticeable effect on one's body and/or mind. Some substances just happen to have more of an effect than others. The only non-arbitrary, logically consistent alternative is to legalize all drugs.
A lot of people would probably be surprised to learn that one of the most profound discoveries in the biological sciences in the history of the human race was made by a man while he was tripping on acid. Graham Hancock explains in his 2007 book Supernatural:
You can read the cited article here.
The fact that Crick discovered the famous double helix shape of DNA while under the influence of LSD doesn't necessarily mean that he would never have discovered it without LSD. Even if he hadn't, perhaps somebody else would have made the discovery without LSD. Independent, near-simultaneous discoveries are common throughout the history of science. Nevertheless, Crick's acid-trip discovery should at least make us pause and consider the possibility that maybe -- just maybe -- some drugs that are currently illegal can, are, and have been, used responsibly as tools for various purposes.
For ages, shamans in countless hunter-gatherer societies throughout the world have used the substances found in various psychoactive plants as the foundation of their religions. These people have claimed, and still claim, that the psychedelic substances -- ayahuasca, psilocybin mushrooms, ibogaine, mescaline, etc. -- open a gate to the "spirit world" that allows them to enter and explore. Maybe it's true, and maybe it's not. I suppose one actually must take a given drug and experience the result firsthand before one knows for sure.
Have government officials experienced each and every psychedelic substance that they have banned virtually worldwide? Of course not. Even if they had, what right does a government have to tell people which inner experiences they are and are not allowed to have?
For those who would argue that prohibiting drugs isn't primarily about banning certain inner experiences, but rather preventing people from harming themselves or others, I ask this: If that is the case, then why should people be allowed to drink alcohol? Or own knives and guns? Or drive cars?
Are we adults, or are we children? The War on Drugs is a war on natural rights. It is a war on freedom and personal responsibility.
Anti-drug position: The government should outlaw certain drugs, because people often behave irresponsibly or even dangerously when they consume them, and some of those drugs can also be dangerous to one's health. Legalized drugs would impose a burden on society, the safety of our roads, the health care system, etc.
Pro-freedom position: It is a violation of a person's natural rights for the government to imprison or harm him merely for possessing, selling, or consuming a drug. A person owns his own body, and therefore any decision that only affects his body and nobody else's is purely his own. If he has violated someone's natural rights (life, liberty, or private property), whether influenced by drugs or not, then of course a crime has been committed and should be dealt with accordingly. But buying, selling, possessing, or consuming a drug in the absence of a violation of anyone's natural rights is not a crime.
A couple of obvious questions present themselves: If, say, marijuana is illegal ostensibly because it alters a person's judgment, why is alcohol legal? Alcohol certainly alters a person's judgment. Furthermore, whereas people under the influence of alcohol tend to become more aggressive and often even belligerent, people under the influence of marijuana tend to become less aggressive and more relaxed. Similarly, if some drugs are illegal ostensibly because of their negative health effects, why is tobacco legal? Tobacco, whether smoked or chewed, is strongly correlated with cancer.
I assert that existing drug laws are logically inconsistent. Logical consistency ultimately requires one of two alternatives: (a) prohibit all drugs, or (b) legalize all drugs.
Prohibiting all drugs is not possible due to the inherently arbitrary definition of the word "drug." If one defines a drug as a substance that has an effect on one's body and/or mind, then every atom, molecule, compound, or mixture in existence would have to be defined as a drug: If one were to ingest, smoke, or handle enough of anything, it would have a noticeable effect on one's body and/or mind. Some substances just happen to have more of an effect than others. The only non-arbitrary, logically consistent alternative is to legalize all drugs.
A lot of people would probably be surprised to learn that one of the most profound discoveries in the biological sciences in the history of the human race was made by a man while he was tripping on acid. Graham Hancock explains in his 2007 book Supernatural:
In late July 2004, the Nobel Prize-winning biologist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, died at the age of 88, and soon afterwards a little-known fact of his life hit the tabloid press. This was that when he was working at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge in the early 1950s, he frequently used LSD (which remained legal until the mid-1960s) as a "thinking tool" to boost his mental powers. According to a report published in London on August 8, 2004 in The Mail on Sunday, Crick had privately admitted to colleagues that he was under the influence of LSD in 1953 at the moment when he "perceived the double helix shape" and unraveled the structure of DNA.
You can read the cited article here.
The fact that Crick discovered the famous double helix shape of DNA while under the influence of LSD doesn't necessarily mean that he would never have discovered it without LSD. Even if he hadn't, perhaps somebody else would have made the discovery without LSD. Independent, near-simultaneous discoveries are common throughout the history of science. Nevertheless, Crick's acid-trip discovery should at least make us pause and consider the possibility that maybe -- just maybe -- some drugs that are currently illegal can, are, and have been, used responsibly as tools for various purposes.
For ages, shamans in countless hunter-gatherer societies throughout the world have used the substances found in various psychoactive plants as the foundation of their religions. These people have claimed, and still claim, that the psychedelic substances -- ayahuasca, psilocybin mushrooms, ibogaine, mescaline, etc. -- open a gate to the "spirit world" that allows them to enter and explore. Maybe it's true, and maybe it's not. I suppose one actually must take a given drug and experience the result firsthand before one knows for sure.
Have government officials experienced each and every psychedelic substance that they have banned virtually worldwide? Of course not. Even if they had, what right does a government have to tell people which inner experiences they are and are not allowed to have?
For those who would argue that prohibiting drugs isn't primarily about banning certain inner experiences, but rather preventing people from harming themselves or others, I ask this: If that is the case, then why should people be allowed to drink alcohol? Or own knives and guns? Or drive cars?
Are we adults, or are we children? The War on Drugs is a war on natural rights. It is a war on freedom and personal responsibility.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Brown is the New Green
My apartment manager recently left a note hanging on my doorknob informing me of an upcoming "Going Green Project." The note pointed out that Southern California is facing a water crisis, so the management company is going to be proactive rather than reactive by "providing efficiency before it is mandated by the state." It is going to be "part of the solution rather than part of the problem" by installing new "energy efficient" toilets at no charge to the tenants.
It's official: Shit has just gone green.
First, I'll just point out the note's interesting usage of the term "energy efficient" in reference to the new toilets. Until now, the toilets I've used have been plumbing fixtures hooked up only to water and sewage pipes, not electrical outlets. If these new toilets use AC power, I can't wait to try one out!
All sarcasm aside, this "going green" fad has gone way too far. It has officially joined the politically correct lexicon of overused euphemisms. Secretaries are now "administrative assistants." Trash men are now "sanitation engineers." And now, businesses no longer cut costs -- they "conserve resources" or "increase energy efficiency."
But isn't conservation of resources (energy, water, labor, materials, etc.) relative to produced output the most basic way in which a business increases its profits? Haven't businesses been pursuing increased profits -- and therefore increased efficiency -- since capitalism first came on the scene? Am I missing something here? When has waste ever been rewarded in a free market? The only institution that rewards waste is government.
Regarding water and energy, the only reason we have shortages and "crises" in the first place is because water and energy are not ruled by purely free market forces. They are heavily regulated, or completely controlled, by government, which does not allow market prices for those resources to prevail. Government keeps the prices of water and energy artificially low, and the inevitable result is that shortages occur due to overuse (i.e., waste). Market prices are part of a self-rationing mechanism. A high price for a resource sends a signal to consumers and businesses to use less of that resource, and a low price sends a signal to consumers and businesses that they can use more of it. As a resource becomes more scarce, its market price will naturally rise -- unless, of course, government intervenes in the name of "fairness" or "protection against price gouging" and thereby prevents the market price from performing its rationing function.
If we really want people and businesses to conserve energy and water, we shouldn't sanctimoniously heap guilt on them about all things "non-green" while simultaneously allowing our government to keep the resource prices artificially low. We should simply get the government out of the water and energy businesses altogether -- flush them down the toilet -- so that market prices can prevail and thereby allow people to self-ration their use of those crucial resources.
It's official: Shit has just gone green.
First, I'll just point out the note's interesting usage of the term "energy efficient" in reference to the new toilets. Until now, the toilets I've used have been plumbing fixtures hooked up only to water and sewage pipes, not electrical outlets. If these new toilets use AC power, I can't wait to try one out!
All sarcasm aside, this "going green" fad has gone way too far. It has officially joined the politically correct lexicon of overused euphemisms. Secretaries are now "administrative assistants." Trash men are now "sanitation engineers." And now, businesses no longer cut costs -- they "conserve resources" or "increase energy efficiency."
But isn't conservation of resources (energy, water, labor, materials, etc.) relative to produced output the most basic way in which a business increases its profits? Haven't businesses been pursuing increased profits -- and therefore increased efficiency -- since capitalism first came on the scene? Am I missing something here? When has waste ever been rewarded in a free market? The only institution that rewards waste is government.
Regarding water and energy, the only reason we have shortages and "crises" in the first place is because water and energy are not ruled by purely free market forces. They are heavily regulated, or completely controlled, by government, which does not allow market prices for those resources to prevail. Government keeps the prices of water and energy artificially low, and the inevitable result is that shortages occur due to overuse (i.e., waste). Market prices are part of a self-rationing mechanism. A high price for a resource sends a signal to consumers and businesses to use less of that resource, and a low price sends a signal to consumers and businesses that they can use more of it. As a resource becomes more scarce, its market price will naturally rise -- unless, of course, government intervenes in the name of "fairness" or "protection against price gouging" and thereby prevents the market price from performing its rationing function.
If we really want people and businesses to conserve energy and water, we shouldn't sanctimoniously heap guilt on them about all things "non-green" while simultaneously allowing our government to keep the resource prices artificially low. We should simply get the government out of the water and energy businesses altogether -- flush them down the toilet -- so that market prices can prevail and thereby allow people to self-ration their use of those crucial resources.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Happy 94th, Income Tax!
Today, April 15th, marks the 94th year that Americans have had to pay an income tax to the federal government.
I cringe whenever I think about the utterly primitive and barbaric conditions that prevailed in the United States prior to 1916, that first year of the federal income tax. No roads, no commerce, no laws, no technology, no language, no civilization of any sort. Just the law of the jungle: widespread pillage, plunder, rape, pedophilia, necrophilia... even cannibalism.
Thank God the federal government saved the day with its brilliant solution of stealing a portion of every person's income. Out of that daring, resolute action on the part of government in 1916, American civilization was born. Prior to that year, there was no America. The land was merely inhabited by godless, lawless ape-men who spent their days wallowing in the mud like pigs.
But the theft of a portion of their income changed everything. It immediately transformed the disgusting animals into decent social beings striving for virtue and the eternal glories of the State.
Happy 94th, Income Tax! We Americans obviously owe our lives -- nay, our very civilization -- to you.
I cringe whenever I think about the utterly primitive and barbaric conditions that prevailed in the United States prior to 1916, that first year of the federal income tax. No roads, no commerce, no laws, no technology, no language, no civilization of any sort. Just the law of the jungle: widespread pillage, plunder, rape, pedophilia, necrophilia... even cannibalism.
Thank God the federal government saved the day with its brilliant solution of stealing a portion of every person's income. Out of that daring, resolute action on the part of government in 1916, American civilization was born. Prior to that year, there was no America. The land was merely inhabited by godless, lawless ape-men who spent their days wallowing in the mud like pigs.
But the theft of a portion of their income changed everything. It immediately transformed the disgusting animals into decent social beings striving for virtue and the eternal glories of the State.
Happy 94th, Income Tax! We Americans obviously owe our lives -- nay, our very civilization -- to you.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)