- Cafe Hayek - https://cafehayek.com -

Some Links

Tweet [1]

David Henderson has an account of yet another instance of government thievery in the United States that would cause even the most shameless banana-republic autocrat to blush noticeably [2].

Speaking of the horrendous and lawless practice called “civil asset forfeiture,” here’s my Mercatus Center colleague Nita Ghei from three years ago [3].

David Boaz wishes us all a Happy July 2nd! [4]

I love this line from Arnold Kling [5]:

Capitalism is inherently sustainable, relentlessly producing more human satisfaction using fewer resources. What environmentalists call “sustainability” ought to be called primitivism, producing less human satisfaction using more resources.

Here’s George Selgin on the euro [6].

George Will rightly criticizes some GOP pols for their reaction to the recent Court ruling on same-sex marriage [7].

Here’s the audio of a talk given not long ago by Steve Horwitz on the socialist-calculation debate [8].

Bart Hinkle writes on the foolishness of Bernie Sanders’s socialism [9].  A slice:

Sanders’ defenders will say he wants to redistribute wealth, not control the allocation of economic goods. But as Hungarian philosopher and economist Anthony de Jasay explained in The State [10], the two are inseparable. There is no point in taking money from A and giving it to B except to change the allocation of goods. The whole point is to get A to buy less champagne (or spend less money marketing new deodorants) and allow B to buy more of what she wants. Redistribution of wealth is meant to divert resources from “socially useless” goods to socially useful ones.

Which brings us to the principled objection: socially useless to whom? In a world of hungry children, Jones might think it’s idiocy to spend a single cent on one more song by Kanye or Taylor Swift (and Jones would be right!). But that isn’t Jones’ choice to make for anybody except Jones. If Smith wants to waste his money on a pop singer’s latest release, he has every right to do so, and nobody else has the right to force him to do otherwise. After all: If Smith has no right to decide how he will spend his own money, then by what means does Jones, whose money it isn’t, acquire such a right?

Comments