Read this excellent piece from a conservative site about the
deep state and neoconservative foreign policy that is in no way conservative.
“The founders didn’t envision a CIA,
let alone a national police force. Just for example, the FBI was only made
necessary when the federal government dramatically expanded in size and
scope due to Prohibition,
which only was made necessary when Americans decided to turn to government, not
to the church and civil society, to remedy the country’s ills.
The point is that the intelligence
bureaucracy will always be politicized, as long as it is endowed with such
immense power. The deep state shouldn’t just be brought to heel under President
Trump’s authority, its size and scope should be reduced so that no president
can wield its current accumulation of power.”
I copy this post as a quick reminder from Dr. Block on Say’s
Law
“From: R
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 1:44 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Austrian Economics
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 1:44 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Austrian Economics
Hi, I have a doubt in
economics which I got after reading the Atlas shrugged by Ayn Rand. I would be
highly obliged if you could help me with this query:-Causality is an
irreversible absolute. One cannot eat a cake before he bakes it. Therefore
production is the cause and consumption is the effect. In any Credit
transaction we consume before we produce which is a reversal of causality.
Therefore any form of credit should not exist. Where am I going wrong in my
thinking? R
Dear R: You say this: ‘In
any Credit transaction we consume before we produce which is a reversal of
causality.’ This is false. A correct statement would be, ‘When we borrow, we
consume before we produce which is a reversal of causality.’ But in a credit
transaction, there are TWO sides. The borrower and the lender. Before the
borrower can consumer, the lender had to produce. So, production always comes
before consumption. No exceptions.”
Three important takeaways from this article:
·
“The economics of price gouging is simple. Price gouging is
simply charging market prices for goods that are in high demand and short
supply. Natural disasters don’t negate economic laws.”
·
“For the government to try and calculate how much prices should
be allowed to rise on certain goods before, during, and after a natural
disaster is pure Soviet-style central planning. Price-gouging laws are contrary
the free market, free enterprise, and freedom itself.”
·
“Price-gouging laws grossly violate property
rights.”
I am with Laurence Vance. Price
gouging is good. Absolutely everything about it is good. It allocates resources better, conveys
scarcity better, and creates incentives for increased supply better than any
other system of allocation. While these
are all good reasons supporting price gouging, none is stronger than the moral
reason for it. It is the only decision
that respects property rights. Telling
me what I can and cannot do with my property (keep in mind that this ultimately
ends with the threat of being thrown in a cage if I don’t comply) is completely
and utterly immoral and we should never force someone to do something. Hence, I support allowing price gouging and
find anyone that doesn’t contemptible.
I also like the conclusion of this
post:
“None of this means that raising prices on
essential goods in the midst of a natural disaster is always moral, just, and
right. But that is a matter of conscience, religion, and ethics, not law.”
I concur with Phil Giraldi. I am offended by libraries dedicated to
presidents in general, and specifically to the last two idiots that oversaw the
executive branch.
“If we really think we can eradicate evil in our country by
destroying anything symbolic or plausibly linked to the bad old days, then
let’s get those bulldozers rolling. Bill, Barack and W can kiss their libraries
goodbye, though I am still wondering what to do with the associated think
tanks. Just imagine what a George W. Bush think tank must look like. Good
grief!”
No comments:
Post a Comment