Beware Reliance

I LIKE TYLER CARTERS COCK IN MY BUTT

huge pee pee

Martin, if you are saying that the government has a right to take people's things after they die, you are not a Libertarian. If you say the government has a right to tax people for more money just because they have earned more, you are not a Libertarian.

You might as well say "Just because I don't believe in the resurrection and the Trinity, I am still a Catholic!"

And yes, all titles to property are the fruits of someone's labor, and sacrosanct, unless proven that they were taken by force or fraud. Just because you think someone makes too much money doesn't mean they didn't earn it.

Martin, you are pretty far from a libertarian. As soon as you started supporting the rights of some to dictate how others dispose of the fruits of their labor, you fell off that platform.

I don't recognize your title to the Lordship of Libertarianism, and I haven't dictated how others dispose of the fruits of their labor either, unless you simply dictate that all titles to property are "fruits of labor" by your own lordly fiat.

I propose that Martin Brock's house title be revoked in the interests of "setting a good example" or "walk the talk". After all it would be no good for him to be "rent seeking".

Neither your simple-minded conflation of this title revocation with the title expiration I discussed nor your ignorance of the meaning of "rent seeking" are my problems.

"Holy crap! A few bad apples?? From Michael Millken to Enron , World Com and now the current situation "these few bad apples" have dramatically effected our economies, our taxes , our retirement portfolios."

First, you need to get some perspective. These are only a tiny fraction of our wealthy. What happens with this influential minority does not speak for the bulk of our wealth or the bulk of our wealthy -- it speaks only for a few.

I see you've totally abandoned the inheritance angle, btw. It's time to abandon the "rich people are all the enemy" mentality, too.

"These guys, white collar criminals , multi-national corporations and their lobbyist have done far more harm to our econmy then all the welfare programs put together."

People can always be expected to do what is best for themselves. That is not a new thing, yet it seems that financial fraud is always a surprise. I call your attention to your own snippet: "and their lobbyist." Though you are in denial, you obviously understand that government plays a role in this -- lobbyists themselves have no power. What's more, corporate interests are not sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Yet somehow you blame corporations and their lobbyists for doing what they're supposed to do, while ignoring the fact that your sworn representatives have betrayed their oaths and placed us all at risk.

I suggest you look to your beloved government for the problem, because they are the ones who have failed you. And you may want to rethink that whole "white collar criminal" thing -- thanks to government, much of what happened here was explicitly legal.

The moral hazards described in the original post apply to industrial behavior as much as to individuals -- perhaps even more so.

And anytime you think to blame anything on "lobbyists," prepare yourself to be called a fool. Lobbyists do not make policy, and if you think lobbyists influence policy, well, we warn you about that every time you seek to enact policy over commerce. You were warned. As a big-government voter, you are more responsible for this than any lobbyist. When will we see you doing your perp walk, George?

"...that you believe this to be true as we see the "wealth" of those who "earned" it pushing pyramid schemes" - Mierduck

It appears our dear ducktor has learned a new phrase (pyramid scheme). I don't have the stomach to go look, but I'll bet that phrase just came into vogue on Daily Kos or one of the other leftard blogs.

Wherever you learned it, Mierduck, when did it become a bad thing to you? You've championed St Franklin of Roosevelt's pyramid scheme (as you have everything your Savior ever did to us) from the moment you came to this Cafe. Why is one pyramid scheme moral and all of the others are immoral?

Open your eyes Stockholm Boy you're making excuses for criminals thinking they have something to do with your fairytale ideology.

Posted by: muirgeo | Dec 3, 2008 9:35:02 PM

Sigh. Swing by wikipedia and look up the terms "strawman", "non-sequitur", and "ad-hominem".

What a few bad apples have done does not mean that the bulk of wealth was stolen.

Posted by: cpurick

Holy crap! A few bad apples?? From Michael Millken to Enron , World Com and now the current situation "these few bad apples" have dramatically effected our economies, our taxes , our retirement portfolios.

These guys, white collar criminals , multi-national corporations and their lobbyist have done far more harm to our econmy then all the welfare programs put together.

Open your eyes Stockholm Boy you're making excuses for criminals thinking they have something to do with your fairytale ideology.

I propose that Martin Brock's house title be revoked in the interests of "setting a good example" or "walk the talk". After all it would be no good for him to be "rent seeking".

"Actually, I'm a libertarian and also favor title expiration. Title expiration is similar to an inheritance tax, but a probate court removes monetary proceeds of an estate sale from circulation rather than transferring the money to a central authority. The probate court could burn the money on the deceased's funeral pyre, a fitting tribute to his life's contribution."

Martin, you are pretty far from a libertarian. As soon as you started supporting the rights of some to dictate how others dispose of the fruits of their labor, you fell off that platform.

More on topic, the second point of Russ' letter is very important as well I think. Too many people (quite often Republicans) forget that "free" money and other favors provided by the government can quite easily dry up or be turned against you as soon as it is unpopular politically, but an income stream based on voluntary transactions is much more stable. How many publicly funded universities would be in deep water if the Fed' suddenly decided to stop subsidising tuition, for example.

What a few bad apples have done does not mean that the bulk of wealth was stolen. In fact, the wealth has changed very little (i.e. the homes are all still there); it's mostly just money that has moved around. You will be a grownup, George, when you understand that they are not the same thing.

Also, you seem to have retreated from your original premise that wealth is "inherited." It's nice to see that you're learning, even if slowly.

Any way you look at it, you are led by men of wealth, the bulk of which is earned rather than inherited.

Posted by: cpurick

It's pathetic that you believe this to be true as we see the "wealth" of those who "earned" it pushing pyramid schemes and toxic fraudulent paper for what it's really worth. These people did not do anything productive for society or the economy and in fact stole worth and have brought the productive economy to a halt. Some still have billions in their accounts that represents nothing but pilfering from the productive economy. You suffer from a serious case of Economic Stockholm Syndrome or the Battered Wife equivalent of some morbid economic psychological dysfunction. Or maybe you just belong to what day by day could more legitimately be considered a cult.

"No one coerces the Citibank executive to take the bonus."

That's funny, but it's clearly horses hit. Obviously some money as coerced from taxpayers who "bailed out" Citi. So the coercion is there.

You have yet to assign any similar origin to Buffett's money, so absent charges from anyone who claims he defrauded them, it remains an apples/oranges comparison. Buffett gets a pass because there's no evidence he didn't earn it -- and the fact that you don't understand what he does that qualifies as "earning" is irrelevant.

Are you planning to substantiate your bulls hit, or will this just be more word games?

Martin, you specifically gave examples rooted in coerced government redistribution.

No one coerces the Citibank executive to take the bonus.

So, instead of asking me why I give him a pass for not being the same as your examples, explain the coercion behind Buffett's wealth that proves he is like your examples.

Here you simply avoid the question by asking me to disprove that your assumption rather than accept any burden of proving it. My question remains. Why do you make your assumption. I have not asserted that Buffet's wealth involves any coercion, so I have no assertion to prove.

BTW, that Buffett holds title to $60B worth of capital on loan to the rest of us in the form of long-term investments strikes me as a much better thing ...

Surely that depends on what these "long-term investments" are. Buffet was cheerleader in chief for the bailout, you know.

Martin, you specifically gave examples rooted in coerced government redistribution.

You did not provide any evidence of such redistribution in Buffett's case. So, instead of asking me why I give him a pass for not being the same as your examples, explain the coercion behind Buffett's wealth that proves he is like your examples.

BTW, that Buffett holds title to $60B worth of capital on loan to the rest of us in the form of long-term investments strikes me as a much better thing for society than having that capital assigned to people who'd just as soon hock it for consumer goods. The fact that Buffett owns what he owns does not account for any individual not having the things they deserve. The same cannot be said for the people described in your examples.

"George has slain so many straw men here that I propose an award called 'The George' for proficiency in hitting imaginary targets."

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 3, 2008 11:28:26 AM

Shame on you, Sam! This, quite simply, isn't true. It's impossible for you or I to know what we believe if it wasn't for George.

Thank God for him.

/sarcasm

The presumption is that the man with $60B acquired it through voluntary transactions.

Here you simply beg the question again. Why do you make this assumption in Buffet's case specifically?

Let me draw a picture for you trumpit, some people, when given the means, will engage fully in self destructive behavior.

When they have to fend for themselves, they will be more fit, because the motivation keeps them active and keeps their minds alert for opportunities.

If you 'take care' of them, they will cease their struggle and begin their decline.

George has slain so many straw men here that I propose an award called 'The George' for proficiency in hitting imaginary targets.

Or course, it may not be possible for anyone else to surpass the original.

As for Warren Buffet:

Yes, it's impossible to determine how much people are really worth. The game is so extensively rigged that political conniving has become a highly rewarded skill. Has WB really earned all the wealth he controls? I sincerely doubt it.

What's the solution?

That has been addressed here quite often.

"Do you make this assumption only about the man with $60,000,000,000? Why would you do that?"

The presumption is that the man with $60B acquired it through voluntary transactions. If you are not one of those who gave it to him, then it's irrelevant whether you can comprehend the values that were exchanged in the transaction, and rather non-libertarian, btw, for you to be trying to second guess the outcomes that arise.

Likewise, even money that was not rightfully earned has a rightful owner. What's missing is an understanding that money is not wealth, and that there is ultimately less overall wealth in a system where entitlement is redistributed from those who have earned it to those who are awarded it by the state. Refer to the original post for an explanation of the machinery involved.

It's nice to know that blind people are skiing at Aspen, Colorado ski resorts. I didn't know that seeing-eye dogs were allowed on the lifts.

These weren't physically disabled people. They were individuals with psychological issues and tended toward substance abuse. Providing them with a guaranteed income meant they could spend more time enjoying their chosen poison rather than struggling to scrape up enough money to purchase same.

An abundance of nonsense. Libertarians are not "content to be lead[sic] by those of inherited wealth." Any way you look at it, you are led by men of wealth, the bulk of which is earned rather than inherited. This is the rewarding of merit that you supposedly seek (though I suspect you lie about that), and it is not mutually exclusive with the maximizing of opportunity unless one subscribes to zero sum game fallacies (as you are admittedly wont to do).

Refer to the original post here. The notion that faulty derivatives are secure originates in the very reliance on government -- to make good wherever the underlying economics are unsustainable -- that Don was talking about in the first place. You are making Don's point as you attack it.

The bottom line is that you seek an equal voice in policy for the ignorant and unqualified, through policymakers who exploit naivete and ignorance. All based on the zero sum reasoning that wealth is evidence of theft from the poor. Is that how you get your money George? By stealing it?

If Warren Buffett is worth $60B, that is not $60B that has been "taken out of the system": it is $60B that has been entrusted to the system by its rightful owner, ...

How do you know this?

If I'm worth $60,000 after receiving my executive's bonus from Citibank after Henry Paulson hands the bank billions of taxpayer dollars, has my $60,000 been entrusted to its rightful owner? If I'm a welfare mother worth $6000, having squirreled away so much during a decade on WIC, AFDC, food stamps, public housing and other benefits, has my $6000 been entrusted to its rightful owner?

Do you make this assumption only about the man with $60,000,000,000? Why would you do that?

Libertarians are content to be lead by those of inherited wealth while progressives want to be joint leaders of a government of the people were merit is well rewarded and opportunity for all maximized.

Actually, I'm a libertarian and also favor title expiration. Title expiration is similar to an inheritance tax, but a probate court removes monetary proceeds of an estate sale from circulation rather than transferring the money to a central authority. The probate court could burn the money on the deceased's funeral pyre, a fitting tribute to his life's contribution.

What's a "joint leader of a government"? Is that what I am when I check a box beside the name of one of two men, neither of whom I trust to represent me?

Where is this utopian government well rewarding merit and maximizing opportunity for all? The one governing me hands trillions, hand over fist, to incredibly wealthy elites at Halliburton, Blackwater, J. P. Morgan, AIG and Goldman Sachs, the latter being the largest contributor to the campaign of our latest imperial Commander in Chief leading us with plenary powers through the perpetual, Orwellian War on Terror.

Are you governed otherwise? Maybe I should move.

Hey, the differences are clear. Libertarians are content to be lead by those of inherited wealth while progressives want to be joint leaders of a government of the people were merit is well rewarded and opportunity for all maximized. And the evidence seems to clearly suggest the latter leads to greater economic prosperity and freedom.

The problem for the libertarian is their belief that freedom and liberty can be complete in a high tech intra-dependent highly populated modern world. They still hold that supply and demand works as well with Adam Smiths apples and pears traded in an open market as it does with complex products like financial derivatives and other instruments traded via computers at the speed of light using complex mathematical formulas and computer programs of when to buy and sell through different money exchanges around the world . They actually think such a system of world finance needs to be deregulated and expect good results rather then the success going to the most conniving among us. Pretty dang ignorant and over simplified is the bottom line of what they believe. In fact , they can't even tell you how what they believe would look like in todays real and complex world markets.

John Bogle in Forbes made a good point recently that not only do these pyramid markets schemes push out good money with bad but they also pull some of our brightest talents away from more productive endeavors in chase of easy money.

The village idiot:

"The problem is the schemers on top who take immense quantities of wealth out of the system while adding nothing."

For the most part, "wealth" is nothing more than the size of the number on an account that represents how much forgone consumption someone has accumulated. The only part that is ever "taken out of the system" is that which is actually consumed, and the "wealthy" rarely consume more than a fraction of their entitlement.

If Warren Buffett is worth $60B, that is not $60B that has been "taken out of the system": it is $60B that has been entrusted to the system by its rightful owner, and lent to others who do not have enough capital of their own. They in turn lend it to others, and so on, until even the lowliest french fry guy at McDonald's is technically "lent" a deep fryer and a sack of pototoes with which to make himself -- and everyone else back up the line to Buffett -- a little more, well, entitled.

It's easy to blame a few guys at the top whose account balances skyrocketed in the process of lending homes to people with no hope of paying for them, but a lot more wealth was "taken out of the system" by a booming industry of mortgage brokers, processors, builders, plumbers and dry-wall-hanging Democrat-voting illegal aliens. Those are the people who actually consumed the only portion of the entire mess that's irretrievably "out of the system." How do you propose to punish them, George?

Perhaps your response belongs on the list of fallacies that you are no longer permitted to repeat here. Since you are the only person here with such a list, maybe you should be actively considering that every time you hit the "Post" button, George.

muirgeo: Is it really fun misinterpreting people's words like that? Someone criticizes giving benefits to the poor, you assume they are calling for giving government benefits to the rich, when they have had a history of arguing against government benefits to ANYONE. Why do you bother? Your objections are transparent strawmen.

Posted by: Trumpit on Dec 3, 2008 @ 12:38:58AM

"Great leaders need to take the initiative by doing away with the idol rich and life of Riley."

Great leaders need to put an end to a bureaucracy that takes no responsibility for their actions or errors.

I question the idea that initiative is the answer. First, political activity is a form of initiative - if you can't create it, steal it and rationalize it. Second, I question whether a majority of the human population is capable of initiative. Buzzards don't eat road kill because they lack sufficient incentives to hunt, but because they are evolutionarily adapted to be scavengers.

So what is the answer? Not sure. But I think it is going to take the form of respect. A smart scavenger respects those with initiative - those who provide the meals. The dumb scavengers will have to be forced to respect - one way or another.

Reminds me of Milton Friedman's dissection of JFK's famous "Ask not what your country" . . . etc.

Friedman? I remember Robert Ringer doing such a disection, but I haven't heard of Friedman doing it.

"She noted that clients started 'going downhill' after qualifying for SSI and receiving payments."

It's nice to know that blind people are skiing at Aspen, Colorado ski resorts. I didn't know that seeing-eye dogs were allowed on the lifts. I learn something new everyday. Truthfully though, there ought to be a way to push a blind person down the hill without breaking every bone in his body. They deserve the outdoor thrill of skiing just like the Kennedys' or bushes' do. An entrepreneur should come up with something to make a wet dream a reality. Sonny Bono and a member of the Kennedy Clan skied into a tree, killing themselves in the process. They had the advantage of good eyesight if not good foresight. Skiing can be dangerous, so watch those slippery slopes, folks!

"In a free society prosperity is achieved by persons who take initiative for themselves – persons who do not sit around, brandishing excuses, waiting for their needs to be "addressed" by Great Leaders."

It's not funny that you conveniently forget the vast quantity of wealth that is tranferred by inheritence. This creates dynasties of people who sit around, brandishing their millions and billions, owning more and more, all for them and feces in your face if you dare say to them "enough is enough already!" Their needs are meet by their multiplicity of Mercedes, Ferraris, Gucci handbags, and Harry Winston diamonds & rubies, not to mention the many chic addresses on their dozen or so mansions, chalets, and estates located in every European capital, Honolulu, and Aspen. Great leaders need to take the initiative by doing away with the idol rich and life of Riley. Put them to work shoveling coal in the snow at part of the new works programs soon to be proposed by President-elect Obama. They can keep their Gucci boots on as far as I'm concerned. By all means give them a gold-plated shovel for Christmas as part of the bail/bale out.

"...that are nothing more then pyramids schemes stealing from the real productivity pie of America." -Mierduck

And the number-one pyramid scheme in America is the one run by the government. The one that you oppose privatizing. The one that you think is moral and just, because it forbids letting those who have earned the money determine what they should do with their money.

Reminds me of Milton Friedman's dissection of JFK's famous "Ask not what your country" . . . etc.

Growing up in the 70s, I was lead to believe that those words were above reproach, sacrosanct.

And Friedman laid them bare for their full meaning.

The state takes care of us as if we were children, and we reciprocate that benevolence through serving the state in some kind of happy serfdom.

So much for a free citizenry.

One of the news magazines I saw on the stand today had a picture of Obama on the cover with the words "How To Fix the World."

Oh boy, we're in trouble.

Initiative these days is all about how to finagle money from government contracts or about creating complex financial products (or their equivalents) that are nothing more then pyramids schemes stealing from the real productivity pie of America.

And the way to stop that is to eliminate the power to take money from some to give to others.

Also, I knew a woman who volunteered in the local clinic (Summersville, WV) that provided assistance to marginal persons.

She noted that clients started "going downhill" after qualifying for SSI and receiving payments.

"Bob Herbert wants President Obama to "begin addressing on day one the interests of those who are not rich and who have not had the ear of those in power" .... Sounds reasonable – but it's not."

For you to say, "...Sounds reasonable – but it's not." you have to believe either that the government SHOULD address the needs of the rich over those of everyday citizens or you must believe the rich are not disproportionately represented. Either position is inconsistent with the facts. This has nothing to do with initiative and all to do with fairness and the purpose of our country. Politicians have a constitutional obligation to represent their constituencies none of which our multi-national corporations.

Initiative these days is all about how to finagle money from government contracts or about creating complex financial products (or their equivalents) that are nothing more then pyramids schemes stealing from the real productivity pie of America.

When you assume the average American has little initiative you are off the mark. Most Americans are content to work a good days work for a fair wage. Their ability to do so is hampered by people who care little about adding productively to our society when they can become richer faster by scheming and speculating and lobbying.

The problem these past 20-30 years is not people being lazy or expecting a fair wage or wanting handouts. The problem is the schemers on top who take immense quantities of wealth out of the system while adding nothing. They are far more parasitic to our wealth and economy then even the most haphazard of governmental programs aimed at the average citizen.

I recall seeing a report on TV about a Pacific island that became the recipient of government largess for some reason or other.

The natives no longer had to make any effort to survive.

Many became alcoholic and the island became plagued with litter.