13 thoughts on “But It’s Not Enough For The Theftists”
Isn’t this an argument that regulatory structure and free trade matter more than tax rates when it comes to wealth creation and general prosperity?
Sort of a “Low Regulations; High Welfare Redistribution” type policy?
Who knows, Brock? It’s never been tried. Probably never will be, nor can be. You might as well ask for a “low inebriation, high beer availability” culture among college students.
As soon as you take something that was originally sold as a general social obligation — to support the government through taxes — and start making invidious distinctions among men — you there “deserve” to pay no taxes, but you over there “deserve” to pay more — then you touch off an eternal passionate struggle to define exactly who “deserves” to pay more. Corruption and regulation and financial finagling naturally follow, as each group attempts to control the apparatus and direct its giant sucking maw towards someone else.
You might as well ask for a “low inebriation, high beer availability” culture among college students.
…and yet, if there ever was a cause worth fighting and dying for…
“low inebriation, high beer availability”
what the f’ would be the point to that?
Who knows, Brock? It’s never been tried.
Carl, my point was that we are trying it right now, more or less. As ungodly awful as our regulatory structure is, it’s still lighter than Europe. And thanks to the 2+ centuries of one language, one currency, free movemnet of labor and capital, we enjoy a much larger and more integrated free trade area than any other nation on Earth (China and India are very sub-divided with significant barriers between States).
So that’s my point. Despite our high-tax environment, we’re still “winning” the general prosperity match-up thanks to our larger free trade area and (comparatively) lighter regulatory burden.
Ah, I see, Brock. So even with one hand tied behind our back, we don’t do as poorly as those with both. Fair enough. I hope you’ll forgive my wishing to experiment in the other direction — increase the scope for individual initiative, particularly among those who have already proved themselves capable of generating goods and services the rest of society values highly (i.e. “the rich”). Just to see what would happen. Why is it we always need to experiment in the direction of dumb collectivist ideas that have been tried and failed over and over again? Is this some kind of Job situation to test our faith?
TQ, I agree with jr, you’ve got it reversed. The better goal is finding out how to achieve high inebriation even in a state of very low beer availability. That would be efficient, in the aftermath of a tsunami, or while attending on the woman clothes-shopping, or if one was a Supreme Court justice who found himself personally present at an Obama speech.
The better goal is finding out how to achieve high inebriation even in a state of very low beer availability.
Spoken like an old fart with an old fart’s solicitudes. I’m talking about maintining that delicate willing-but-not-yet-incapacitated/expectorating esprit de corps in one’s evening companionship whilst she pounding the 40’s like she being deployed to Iraq at sun-up. You know – something important.
Hmmm, tastes great or less filling? Never knew those Miller Lite commercials were actually such a profound expression of humanity’s inner turmoil.
Titus,
The girls best friend just left her at the bar to shack up with some himbo, and she’s desperate for a ride home, so *of course* she needs a designated driver. Drunk girl passed out in the passing-out seat does not equate to a dinner date.
Spoken like an old fart with an old fart’s solicitudes.
Smile when you say that, pilgrim. Keep in mind “old” in this context means experienced enough not to need chemical assistance.
But anyway I suggest this is an energy landscape problem. Your global optimum solution may lie at a considerable distance and in a surprising direction (e.g. shorter, less talkative, smaller cup size) from the local optimum found through beer-catalyzed barrier reduction.
Josh, this. I don’t know why. I don’t think they did, either.
Smile when you say that, pilgrim.
Shit-eating grin qualifies, right? 🙂
Player’s Club aside, the optimal solution ain’t even in the same county as Booty-town, for me, anyway now: with all due respect to oldness which catches-up to us all, the contemporary ladies are down-shifting into settled gear, and I’m too much of a Distinguished Gentleman to act under false pretenses when shit gets real. Fun while it lasted, tho…
Isn’t this an argument that regulatory structure and free trade matter more than tax rates when it comes to wealth creation and general prosperity?
Sort of a “Low Regulations; High Welfare Redistribution” type policy?
Who knows, Brock? It’s never been tried. Probably never will be, nor can be. You might as well ask for a “low inebriation, high beer availability” culture among college students.
As soon as you take something that was originally sold as a general social obligation — to support the government through taxes — and start making invidious distinctions among men — you there “deserve” to pay no taxes, but you over there “deserve” to pay more — then you touch off an eternal passionate struggle to define exactly who “deserves” to pay more. Corruption and regulation and financial finagling naturally follow, as each group attempts to control the apparatus and direct its giant sucking maw towards someone else.
…and yet, if there ever was a cause worth fighting and dying for…
“low inebriation, high beer availability”
what the f’ would be the point to that?
Carl, my point was that we are trying it right now, more or less. As ungodly awful as our regulatory structure is, it’s still lighter than Europe. And thanks to the 2+ centuries of one language, one currency, free movemnet of labor and capital, we enjoy a much larger and more integrated free trade area than any other nation on Earth (China and India are very sub-divided with significant barriers between States).
So that’s my point. Despite our high-tax environment, we’re still “winning” the general prosperity match-up thanks to our larger free trade area and (comparatively) lighter regulatory burden.
Ah, I see, Brock. So even with one hand tied behind our back, we don’t do as poorly as those with both. Fair enough. I hope you’ll forgive my wishing to experiment in the other direction — increase the scope for individual initiative, particularly among those who have already proved themselves capable of generating goods and services the rest of society values highly (i.e. “the rich”). Just to see what would happen. Why is it we always need to experiment in the direction of dumb collectivist ideas that have been tried and failed over and over again? Is this some kind of Job situation to test our faith?
TQ, I agree with jr, you’ve got it reversed. The better goal is finding out how to achieve high inebriation even in a state of very low beer availability. That would be efficient, in the aftermath of a tsunami, or while attending on the woman clothes-shopping, or if one was a Supreme Court justice who found himself personally present at an Obama speech.
Spoken like an old fart with an old fart’s solicitudes. I’m talking about maintining that delicate willing-but-not-yet-incapacitated/expectorating esprit de corps in one’s evening companionship whilst she pounding the 40’s like she being deployed to Iraq at sun-up. You know – something important.
Titus, you’re looking for a herbal solution.
Naw, Ed, I do alright…
Hmmm, tastes great or less filling? Never knew those Miller Lite commercials were actually such a profound expression of humanity’s inner turmoil.
Titus,
The girls best friend just left her at the bar to shack up with some himbo, and she’s desperate for a ride home, so *of course* she needs a designated driver. Drunk girl passed out in the passing-out seat does not equate to a dinner date.
Spoken like an old fart with an old fart’s solicitudes.
Smile when you say that, pilgrim. Keep in mind “old” in this context means experienced enough not to need chemical assistance.
But anyway I suggest this is an energy landscape problem. Your global optimum solution may lie at a considerable distance and in a surprising direction (e.g. shorter, less talkative, smaller cup size) from the local optimum found through beer-catalyzed barrier reduction.
Josh, this. I don’t know why. I don’t think they did, either.
Shit-eating grin qualifies, right? 🙂
Player’s Club aside, the optimal solution ain’t even in the same county as Booty-town, for me, anyway now: with all due respect to oldness which catches-up to us all, the contemporary ladies are down-shifting into settled gear, and I’m too much of a Distinguished Gentleman to act under false pretenses when shit gets real. Fun while it lasted, tho…