The ABA’s main function is no doubt as an interest
group. This has been obvious for
decades. Yet the ABA remains as a
government created monopoly on lawyers.
Give me a break
“In recent decades the ABA has repeatedly departed from its
proper, politically neutral task of promoting the rule of law and the sound
administration of justice and taken partisan stances on controversial political
issues. Of course, a private organization may do this, but then it should not
be treated as an apolitical representative of the entire legal profession
entitled to quasi-governmental status. It is time to treat the ABA as an
interest group like any other.”
Hornberger makes the important point:
“While it’s easy for many Americans
to recognize tyranny when it is committed by foreign regimes, it is much more
difficult for them to recognize tyranny when it is committed by their own
government. But tyranny is tyranny, whether it involves punishing people for
booze or drugs and regardless of the particular regime that is doing the
punishing.”
Iran bans the production, sale and use of alcohol
prohibition. Seems ludicrous to us, but
we did it during Prohibition, AND we currently prohibit other drugs. We have even waged our War on Drugs for
decades. Both Iran and the U.S impose
government tyranny in restricting individual freedom to consume alcohol/drugs. We
can go further and debate the other costs and benefits of legalizing these
vices. But regardless, legalizing drugs
is the only moral path in keeping with our individual rights. Anything less is tyranny.
Scary stuff here:
“Sure, we may have no
sympathy for this particular issue. However, the precedent is set and they can
do this to you for taxes. The government can claim you have an account in
Bangladesh and you say you do not. The judge then throws you in prison for life
until you tell them the location of something that may not even exist. They
need not prove anything anymore, they rely on the judge claiming he has
inherent power to effectively kill you. What next – off with your head?”
AV à An excellent quote
from Hayek in The Road to Serfdom:
“Thus, the more we try to provide full
security by interfering with the market system, the greater the insecurity
becomes; and, what is worse, the greater becomes the contrast between the
security of those to whom it is granted as a privilege and the ever-increasing
insecurity of the under-privileged And the more security becomes a privilege,
and the greater the danger to those excluded from it, the higher will security
be prized. As the number of the privileged increases and the difference between
their security and the insecurity of the others increases, a completely new set
of social values gradually arises. It is no longer independence but security
which gives rank and status, the certain right to a pension more than
confidence in his making good which makes a young man eligible for marriage,
while insecurity becomes the dreaded state of the pariah in which those who in
their youth have been refused admission to the haven of a salaried position
remain for life.”
Allow
me to explain a bit. One major assumption
Hayek makes in this quote is that security (in wages, occupation etc) cannot
exist for everyone at all times. This is
tantamount to socialism, which cannot work for a plethora of reasons of which I
will not explain here – other than what follows. The crucial lapse ensuring the failure of
socialism is that, absent free markets, no one can know what the price of
goods/services should be in order to use resources to help the most people.
It
is helpful to think of this quote from Hayek in terms of an economic pie with two
pieces – 1) those with security and 2) those without security (in job, wages,
income, and lifestyle.) When we
guarantee the income of some, the pie, by definition, becomes proportionately
fixed in size. We limit creative
destruction in this segment/area of the economy and we reduce the number of
entrepreneurs. (By contrast, in an
economy in which nobody has absolute security, everybody must become an
entrepreneur in the sense of always positioning him or herself to provide the
most value to the most people.) Furthermore, the current portion of the pie
taken by people with security leaves behind a relatively smaller piece of the
pie with which others without security can possibly find jobs, income and added
value opportunities.
The
point of Hayek’s quote is that this division between the secure and the
un-secure will continue to create divisions in society. The divisions will yield power to politicians
who give security to more groups. The
irony is by giving these groups more security we limit opportunities for others
within the existing economy. And we
limit the future growth of the economy.
This
phenomenon most certainly becomes a death spiral, and is impetus almost always
comes from government. This spiral
ultimately must end in a revolution. We
are yet to see the revolution but I venture to say it won’t be pretty. Perhaps this is one meaning of Hayek’s
brilliant phrase, “The Road to Serfdom.”
Don Boudreaux’s excellent quote of the
day from James Mill’s Elements of Political Economy:
“The benefit which is derived from
exchanging one commodity for another, arises, in all cases, from the
commodity received, not from the
commodity given. When one country exchanges, in other words, when one
country traffics with another, the whole of its advantage consists in the
commodities imported. It benefits
by the importation, and by nothing else.”
And yet the moron in
the White House wants to stop China from giving us free stuff on grounds of
dumping. I feel like I am living in a
time in which we cannot see the most obvious of points. Imports are good. We have a trade deficit, precisely a good
thing. People send us a lot of stuff to
use and enjoy.
Civil
asset forfeiture is absolutely, positively 100% not acceptable. This is inhumane. This is unconstitutional. This is evil.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
Props to the guy who filmed this video and raised tens of thousands of
dollars for the hot dog vendor. I hope
this officer is fired immediately.
