Monday, December 17, 2012




Dr. Tim says we are all at least half libertarians already, why not become complete libertarians?  Liberty is what has made us more prosperous than anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Liberty’s first virtue is its practicality.  Liberty immunizes the general population from the tragic mistakes of its individual members. When two people exchange in bad faith, those two people alone suffer the consequences.  Unless, of course, those two people just happen to be John Boehner and Barack Obama - then the innocent victims number in the hundreds of millions. 
The idea itself is absurd; why should two men you have never met negotiate how much of your labor they will keep for their own purposes?  What if they compromise on all of it?  Would you celebrate the spirit of bipartisanship and breathe a sigh of relief that a crisis has been averted?  Will you be happy that Washington is working again?  Does gridlock still seem like such an awful thing? 
For that matter, can you even describe the crisis they are trying to avert without using the word “cliff”?   It is a fiscal curb, crack in the driveway, a chalk line. 
They are niggling over the last half trillion as if the first $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities doesn’t matter.  If Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner would decide to quit stalling and take all of the nation's wealth, we would finally be equal.  That should make many people happy, as equality - not freedom - is the progressive's perverted idea of justice.  
Equality of outcome has a price, and that price is everything. 
The relevant question is not which of those two men will convince the Beltway paparazzi that the other guy blinked: it is how much government do we need?   We can answer it in two minutes right here: Democrats, write down how much of your own income you would have given to George W.Bush if he could spend it any way he chose; Republicans, do the same with President Obama in mind.    

What did you decide?  5%, maybe less?  There you go – nearly everyone is already half-libertarian; now just keep both the left hand and right hand out of your wallet - and your school, your work, your bedroom, your gun rack, your church, your charity, your emails, and your stash - and you will complete the journey.      
Alas, the current President does not read Moment Of Clarity, he does not seek consensus on such trivial matters, and he does not regard the Constitution – wisely written to protect us from guys like him - as particularly relevant to his ambitions.  He is hell-bent on raising income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, and the Republicans appear to be ready to do what they do best – cave. 
Francis Begbe writes the best description of the CT shooting that I have read anywhere.

So, just another few things. First, events like these cannot be predicted. They are Black Swans in the truest sense, although negative Black Swans are more likely to occur than positive Black Swans. With youth unemployment as high as it is, with hypergamy being what it is, with obfuscating leftie Boomer mentality pirulating every aspect of society, all exacerbated by a mental condition, that is what makes people just give up. The foot on the face of the beta male. Work on that. This wasn't a suicide neither, this was an act of desperation, an act seen though the lens of a horrible, crushing future. Second, murders like this don't occur when someone "snaps". They are usually meticulously planned, months and months in advance. Lanza was long gone before yesterday, long gone. Was something going on here with the mother we don't know about as well?
One problem with Francis' post is this: "obvious disclaimer, I'm not saying that gun restriction causes murders"

Banning guns may not be the direct cause of more murders, but more murders do happen where guns are banned.

Katie Pavlich says:  "New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent."

The following chart shows the number murders in each city in the Washington D.C. area.  Which city, do you suppose, is the only one that banned handguns?

Dana Loesch comments on the CT shooting.

Where have these mass tragedies occurred? Virginia Tech. Aurora, Colorado. Schools, the majority of them. What do these locations have in common? They are designated “gun-free” zones. Are progressives unable to recognize that their gun control was already in place? Guns were already forbidden? The only solution left is “confiscation,” which goes beyond what they imply by “control.” I would like to hear it explained how a gun-free school zone, in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, would have prevented the actions of a man whose intent was not following the law that day?
another excerpt:
From Glenn Reynolds in USA Today:
One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.
I’d like for the left to explain how it is people are dying from gun shots in Chicago when the city explicitly banned them?
The NSC estimates that in 1995, firearm accidents accounted for 1.5% of fatal accidents. Larger percentages of fatal accidents were accounted for by motor vehicle accidents (47%), falls (13.5%), poisonings (11.4%), drowning (4.8%), fires (4.4%), and choking on an ingested object (3.0%).
Ban gravity! Ban Poison! Ban water! Ban fire! Ban choking!

Plus there are links to good gun stories. (at the bottom of the page)

Jeffery Tucker, my favorite author and who's website is at the top of my list of blog links for a reason, says that, despite the Fed's insistence to the contrary, the Fed's activities will hurt, not help, our unemployed.

Ben Bernanke began his press conference with a touching tribute to the unemployed. Oh, how he cares! And so deeply! His description of the problem was accurate enough. But then out came the smoke and mirrors.

Bernanke said that to remedy the unemployment problem, he will continue the Fed’s program of asset purchases. Specifically, the Fed will continue to buy and hold mortgage-backed securities (yes, they are still sloshing around the banking system) and Treasury securities — $40 billion-plus per month. Plus, he will keep the federal funds rates at near zero.

The great change, he said, is the intense focus on the policy objective of unemployment. The committee sees no inflation threat, so it might as well turn its attention to the labor markets. The Fed loves the unemployed, you see, and wants to help them.

But here’s the disconnect. What the devil does buying bad debt from zombie banks have to do with getting people jobs? The relationship between assets purchases and policy goals is murky at best.

“I need a job, so I hope the Fed buys more bad mortgage debt” — said no unemployed person ever.
Good news! John "By The Way I Served in Vietnam" Kerry is going to be our new Secretary of State!  Don't you feel safer?  How soon do you suppose that quibble in Syria will get cleaned up once By The Way I Served in Vietnam arrives on scene?

"Oh no!" the bad Syrians will say, "Tough and scary By The Way I served in Vietnam is here to end evil and save the day! Whatever shall we do!?!"

[Note to my liberal readers: The previous two paragraphs are sarcasm.  Sarcasm is when someone says one thing but means the opposite.]

No comments:

Post a Comment