Reason Morning Links: The Pot Plot, the Airport's Retort, and Criminal Tweeting

• The dumbest terror scenario you'll read today.
• An airport in Florida secedes from the TSA…
• …and New York City might ban the new nudie scanners.
• Swedish prosecutors issue a new warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
• Is India's microloan sector about to go bust?
• Stop the presses: TARP profiteer praises TARP!
• In China, you can get a year in a labor camp for making a joke on Twitter. In the free world, by contrast, you'll merely be heavily fined.

Comments

[gaijin]

Scanning the headlines today makes me think that the country's governing spokesmodels are all operating under the influence of Hyperbole...maybe the FDA should outlaw it? 🙂

[SIV]

If we legalize marijuana "the terrorists lose!"

[Rather]

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Critical Infrastructure Crisis Response Exercise Program response plan

[?]

New York City might ban the new nudie scanners.

My pocket NYC syllogism generator says this means Puerto Ricans love the new nudie scanners, or that people are dancing in them.

("-gism")

[Warty]

Sorry about your luck, Redskins fans.

[capitol l]

That wasn't metal, that was shit.

[JW]

That's awesome.

This is what happens when you let an angry, little garden gnome own a football team. My bet is that he'll try to charge the gummint wherever Dan Snyder Field eventually ends up, for the tax breaks and subsidies.

[Com'on man]

For any Dophins' fans out there, I, as a life-long fan figured out their problem last night - they fucking suck.

[Mike M.]

The Dolphins really aren't that bad a team. There's a reason why Tyler Thipgen is a third string QB. Running the ball just 13 times in 48 plays last night was simply inexcusable.

[Com'on man]

How many yards did they get out of those 13 carries? 11. Their secondary sucks - can't catch. Thigpen, Henne, and Pennington aren't 3rd string caliber. And the coaching was deplorable. About the only bright spot is Wake. Dolphin's football is my one remaining consistent sports advocacy besides play-offs, The Tourney, bowl games, and championship series. I hate it, but they fucking suck, Mike.

[mad libertarian guy]

It's because they CAN'T run the ball.

That is the root cause of all of our offensive problems: we can't run the ball. At all.

[C'mon man]

mlg, they can't run the ball because they can't stretch the fucking field. If you have no fucking downfield threat, it's a hell of lot easier to defend the run. Fuck, at least throw it downfield successfully, or not, just to keep the defense honest. Shit, just "throw it up" to the giant known as Brandon Marshall.

Pennington can't throw the ball more than 15 yards. Henne looks a deer caught in headlights and doesn't seem to know how to check off options. And, after looking like Peyton for 6 plays against the Titans, Thigpen looked retarded against Chicago.

In Thigpen's defense, along with the likes of Julius chasing you down, not even pretending like you were going to run the ball, certainly set him up to fail.

I had to go somewhere to watch it, and that disappointing crap was not worth the effort. Frustrating.

[mad libertarian guy]

Can you PLEASE not ruin my day any more than that fucking shit fuck of a performance they laid last night?

Fuck.

[P Brooks]

I predict arriving passengers from any airport not under direct TSA control will be declared "unscreened" and forced to go through an official TSA-grade grope before being allowed access to the secure concourse areas and their connecting flights.

There are still a few tiny airports in the Montana hinterland which use private security, I believe. There was an article in the Billings paper some time back which suggested that this posed an exploitable "hole" in security, because the international terror crime syndicate evil geniuses could schlep their weapons of mass destruction to some place like Miles City and then fly into Billings and thence to Martyr Heaven.

[kinnath]

From the Orlando story:

The TSA points out that even if an airport decides to use a private firm for security, the screeners still must follow TSA guidelines. That would include using enhanced pat-downs and the full-body scanners if they are installed at the airport.

So opting out accomplishes nothing.

[TrickyVic]

Very little if anything. Possibly the private firms will fire employees that are rude. But that just means they will be polite when they feel your junk.

[capitol l]

Maybe they could charge more to have an attractive woman do the 'pat-down'.

[Gumbo]

TO ARMS!

[SugarFree]

Slate takes another shit in the dumb-bucket.

By all means, let's eliminate wasteful tax expenditures from the U.S. income-tax system. I'd even favor eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction (though perhaps not at this precise moment, given the perilous state of the housing market). But please, let's hear no more talk about reducing the number of tax brackets. We need more tax brackets, and higher ones, for the rich, richer, and richest. They can afford it.

[Max]

Hating rich people is fun!

[Example of Slate Stupid]

From commenter chemjeff:

No no, 35% marginal rate on income over $1 million is far too low. It should be:
15% marginal tax rate on income $40,000-$80,000
25% marginal tax rate on income $80,000-$250,000
90% marginal tax rate on income >$250,000

that way the rich will finally be paying its fair share!

[MNG]

Won't somebody think of the rich people?

[Mr. FIFY]

Face it, MNG, this is just Slate wanting to tax the rich just for the fuck of it. Getting operating revenue is just a front.

[Com'on man]

I'm all for taxing millionaires/billionaires at 95%. But, we have to ease into it. I'd like to start with two: the Hollywood Tax and the Patriot Tax. Of course, we all know it's better to lead by example, so this should start voluntarily. We start with actor/activists and Warren Buffet.

[cynical]

The problem is that money is a tool of the trade for the capitalist class. The consumer class fails to realize this because money is mainly a way for them to get goods or saved to get goods later, hence they assume that this is also true for the rich, and thus that taking money from them is merely depriving them of luxuries they can afford to miss.

In reality, eat-the-rich financial redistributionism is as destructive as taking farmland from people that have been farming their whole lives and giving it to city dwellers in the name of fairness -- it increases equality, but at the cost of both fairness and functionality. It will lead to the political rather than utilitarian management of capital, and to incompetent management as well, by granting capital to people that didn't earn it and will continue to manage it whether they use it wisely or not (pre-bailout era, investors who misallocated capital were proportionately deprived of the ability to allocate capital, while those who allocated it wisely were granted even more allocation power).

Now, the rich in fact can get quite a few luxuries. But replacing the income tax (which affects both money used for consumption and money reinvested into the economy) with a consumption tax (which only affects the former) is a non-starter with the left, and would be even if it was progressive. Their goal is not to equalize lifestyles, but to acquire control over capital, and thus the economy (which encompasses most human endeavor). Power is the end, not altruism.

[More Slate Stupid]

From Slate commenter Tytus Suski:

May I suggest 100% rate on ALL income, then government delivers goods and services according to individual needs.

[Chad]

Not high enough. We need to tap into saved wealth. ALL of it.

[Joe M]

Sounds like a fresh idea whose time has come.

[Karl Marx]

*ahem*

[Mao Zedong]

That would be a Great Leap Forward for the US.

[Kant]

Funny part is that you seem to miss this snarkiness

[Joe M]

And it's not like their earn their wealth, or anything. Everyone knows the only way to get rich is by ravaging the poor.

[MNG]

Yeah, they all got rich giving excellent value to ungrateful parasites. None of them inherited wealth or got it via rent-seeking for example. God bless those heroic rich people!

[Joe M]

Inherited wealth is not yearly income.

[Rather]

It is if you're a Kennedy

[Rhywun]

Glad I'm not a Kennedy.

[Joe M]

Also, someone earned that wealth at some point in the first place. I guess you don't think they should be allowed to pass it on to their children?

[MNG]

Won't somebody think of the inheritor of wealth?!?

[SugarFree]

If only poor people could inherit wealth...

[gaijin]

oh, but won't they be inheriting the Earth?

[Gumbo]

"oh, but won't they be inheriting the Earth?"

No, that would be the meek. One can be meek and filthy, stinking rich at the same time.

[MNG]

I mean, who will speak for those poor, deserving, unlucky souls? Who will be the voice for the voiceless?

[Joe M]

So, what, exactly, is your objection? You want a 100% death tax?

[MNG]

My objection is this: if someone has to be taxed, then the burden should fall on those who a. can best bear it and/or c. those who least deserve the money. Wealthy inheritors are one of the few that fall into both categories for me, the wealthy suffer proportionately less from having x% of their wealth taken and someone who gets money by falling out of the right vagina at birth is one of the least deserving of it.

[Joe M]

So you're saying the government should be in charge of disposing of someone's income after they die.

I'm not even going to bother with the nonsense about how the wealthy don't suffer, therefore they don't have a right to their money.

[MNG]

"the government should be in charge of disposing of someone's income after they die." Nah, just the wealthy.

"nonsense about how the wealthy don't suffer, therefore they don't have a right to their money"

They have a moral claim to their money, just less of one.

[Joe M]

Ah, so the more money you make, the less you've truly earned it. Honestly, MNG, you scare me.

[MNG]

Of course that is not what I said. I said the more money you make the less burden falls on you when some of it is taken. Go back to my 10:15 post using the scrolling feature found to your right. See 😉 ?

[Joe M]

I'm talking about your 10:19 post, where you clearly stated that the rich have less moral claim to their money.

[TrickyVic]

""I said the more money you make the less burden falls on you when some of it is taken. ""

10% of a poor man's income is a lot less than 10% of a rich man's income.

[capitol l]

What is wealthy? And, is it the same everywhere?

[MNG]

We have to pick some point. I'm happy with the current death tax cut off points. As for income, I'm down with the 250,000 one.

If you want them to vary according to local cost of livings I'd be cool with that.

[capitol l]

As for income, I'm down with the 250,000 one.

So it isn't about unearned wealth it's about (relative)wealth.

[MNG]

Both factors are important. Again, see my 10:15 post for both reasons and why I think they matter morally.

[John Thacker]

Unfortunately for you, the inheritance tax doesn't actually bring in any net revenue at that point, between compliance costs and the harm done to the economy in people both evading taxes and investing in things with special tax treatment.

At best, all you get is penalizing people whose parents died unexpectedly.

Do you dislike the rich so much that you'd spend money just to destroy their wealth?

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Yeah, I'm happy with the current estate tax cutoff points, too! Finally, something we can agree on.

BTW, this year there is no federal estate tax. I'm very happy with that cutoff point.

[Trespassers W]

My objection is this: if someone has to be taxed, then the burden should fall on those who a. can best bear it and/or c. those who least deserve the money.

If someone has to be kicked in the balls, then the burden should fall on those who a. can best bear it and/or c. those who most deserve it.

I could go on. It's better than Mad Libs.

[Kant]

And no doubt you will sit high in your throne deciding who does and does not deserve said monies.

[MNG]

I will. Or you will. From your high position you pronounce that any voluntary transfer of inheritance is the morally right one. From mine I say different. Don't sanctomoniously pretend like we are not doing the same thing though.

[SugarFree]

Don't sanctomoniously pretend like we are not doing the same thing though.

"Stealing and not-stealing are the same thing! Don't you libertards understand anything?!?"

[MNG]

Ah, question begging, got to love it!

We're talking about the morally correct division of inheritance. "Stealing" assumes what we are debating.

[SugarFree]

We're talking about the morally correct division of inheritance.

And taking any of it is stealing. That's the moral divide. You advocate theft; I don't.

Not even under the dubious theory that the rich have to pay more than they derive in worth from the government does taxing inherited wealth make sense... it was already taxed when it was earned.

[Joe M]

At least you're honest about admitting that you think forcing people to do stuff is moral.

[SugarFree]

At least you're honest about admitting that you think forcing people to do stuff is moral.

He has admitted long ago that he's OK with enslaving doctors.

[MNG]

Like you don't have a few in your basement with gimp outfits right now...

[MNG]

Indeed, force is not the worst thing in the world.

You likely believe this too. If you own land and I go take a nap on it, I'm betting you are ok with you or the police initiating force on me to eject me.

[Joe M]

Oh God, I don't want to get into your ridiculously twisted moral equivalencies.

Since you don't believe in property rights, obviously you wouldn't think someone should be allowed to have some removed from their property. And don't think I didn't notice that little trick you tried to pull by slipping in the "initiate force" bit.

[MNG]

I don't understand. Wouldn't you be ok with you initiating force to eject me?

Oh, are you going to say that I initiated the force? By...walking...onto the land and...taking a nap? How many people in the world see that as force? A violent crime? Co'mon man!

[SugarFree]

Thief, slaver, and trespasser. What an impressive resume.

[MNG]

Oh, I see, so you do have moral categories (trespasser) that don't involve initiation of force but that justify force.

Why you naughty lil' slaver you! Welcome to the club. Have a mint julep and let's talk about our overseers!

[Joe M]

You think a person is not allowed to decide who is permitted on their property, end of story. Any bum off the street has a moral right to come sleep in my bed.

[MNG]

See, you don't think force is the worst thing in the world either. You think it is ok to initiate force to protect property rights, or to stop fraud for example.

Tsk, tsk, slaver you!

[Joe M]

Theft is the initiation of force. Protecting your property from theft is therefore not the initiation of force.

[MNG]

My napping on your land is forceful theft? Incredible.

[Spoonman.]

Are you not forcing yourself onto their land?

[MNG]

Nope. I leisurely strolled onto it and laid down. How is that force?

[Joe M]

Let's just clarify: do you think any bum off the street should be permitted to sleep in your bed or not?

[MNG]

Is the bum a sexy girl bum?

[Joe M]

No. It's a disgusting, smelly, unwashed bum in a tattered old trench coat and hat with one of those old-timey checkerboard knapsacks over his shoulder.

[MJ]

"I leisurely strolled onto it and laid down. How is that force?"

Because your leisurely stroll trampled the prize tulip beds, and you conveniently "forgot' how you relieved yourself in the koi pond.

You cannot say your trespass did not cause the owner damage, intentional or not.

[SugarFree]

I'm sure you let random hobos sleep on your couch whenever they feel like it. Or is a house different than your land? You seem to enjoy making spurious categories for like things.

Being too stupid to understand why you are wrong doesn't make you right. It just makes you an idiot.

[MNG]

I don't, but then again I have always said that force can be used to protect other rights (yes, even my property rights). It's you guys who get on the high horse and say "hi-o Slaver, away!"

[Joe M]

See, you're confusing a couple things here.

First of all, you seem to think that protecting rights involves the initiation of force, which it clearly does not.

If someone is violating your rights, they have initiated the force against you. You seem to think that any use of force is the initiation of force.

Second, the dispute we're really having is over what constitutes an actual, moral right. You seem to include a lot of things I don't, such as the right to a job, the right to not listen to loud commercials, the right to free health care, etc.

But to clear things up, are you now saying that you don't think someone has the right to sleep on another person's property without permission?

[Amakudari]

There's a reason trespassing is illegal. It's because you have rights to your own property, including the right to refuse someone from being on it. No, it's not a violent crime, but neither is stealing someone's credit card.

We can argue the semantics of what constitutes "initiating force," but the underlying principle is the same: the person initially violating rights and the law is the person trespassing on your property.

[MNG]

"the person initially violating rights"

So now we are getting somewhere! Force is ok to protect some rights.

Now, we differ on which rights.

But let's drop the slaver bullshit, eh? It was silly.

[Amakudari]

The problem is your equivocation of "initiating force" and "doing something physically to prevent someone from infringing on your rights non-physically". It's a total, and seemingly intentional, misreading of the NAP.

[MNG]

But take that out and you are exactly where I am: violence can be used to secure rights. The "slaver" charge rests on the idea that I resort to violence to secure what I think is a right. the real problem you guys have is you don't think the things I think are rights are rights, not the resort to violence. You're down with that when its your idea of rights.

We're all slavers now 🙂

And now I have to go, but it's been fun.

[SugarFree]

You'd make a fine rapist, MNG.

"I didn't rape her! She was passed out! I didn't use any force."

or

"She had something I needed in her vagina! I had to look for it with my penis."

or

"She has plenty of vagina and I don't have any at all. I'm just saying she should have to share the vagina around."

[Azathoth]

To protect rights. Rights cannot be secured, they are innate. They can be abrogated.

You violated the property, yours was the first action-- the 'initiation' of events that followed from that action. Asking you to leave is not an initiation of anything--it is a reaction. Force would only enter into the situation if, upon being asked to leave, you refused--thus escalating the situation from your stated 'wandering onto' the property to willful illegal occupation. You would be violating rights.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

If you own land and I go take a nap on it, I'm betting you are ok with you or the police initiating force on me to eject me.

Fuck yeah, because it's my land and you have no right to be there without my permission. What's so hard to understand here?

[MNG]

So invasion of property right without consent trumps force.

See, I told you you too agreed that some things are worse than force!

[SugarFree]

Anything done without consent is force.

[MNG]

Anything done without consent is force?

See, I thought force was "the use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain" like those nuts over at Websters. But you have your own special definition.

[SugarFree]

The mental midget climbs on the ladder and thinks he's the tallest person in the room.

All violations of consent are predicated on violence whether they display it initially or not.

[Amakudari]

No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. -Murray Rothbard

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. -Thomas Jefferson

Struggle with the semantics if you must, but the underlying meaning of "initiating force" is extremely clear: denying the rights of others. That is, it is okay to defend your own rights through coercion or violence, and not okay to initiate coercion or violence against the rights of others.

[MNG]

"the underlying meaning of "initiating force" is extremely clear: denying the rights of others"

See, now that you've taken violence out of the equation (unlike the Rothbard quote) you and I agree. Force (application of violence) is not the criteria for what is bad, indeed it can be justified to secure rights. Now we are free to disagree over what those rights are.

[.]

You likely believe this too. If you own land and I go take a nap on it, I'm betting you are ok with you or the police initiating force on me to eject me.

You'd be the one initiating force when you tresspassed by sleeping on the land without asking permission first.

Geez, what a dishonest piece of work you are.

[J_L_B]

The inevitable results of such high tax policies can be found by googling any of the following: Cayman Islands, Bahamas, offshore, tax-haven, tax avoidance, Switzerland, private banking, trust, corporation.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

"those who least deserve it"??

Fuck you, asshole. Who the fuck do you think you are, getting to decide who "deserves" to have material wealth?

And by what measure is the offspring of the person who generated and accumulated the wealth the "least" deserving? How the hell does any other person have any BETTER claim to it or "deserve" it any more?

The wealth belongs to the person who generated and accumulated it. It's not a question of who "deserves" it - it's a matter of who that person says gets it - because it's his (or hers). If the wealthy guy says his offspring get it, that's his right, as the owner of the wealth. If he decides to stiff his kids and give all of it to charities, then his kids get nothing and the charities benefit. Because, again, it's his money and he gets to say what happens to it.

If he decides to leave all of his vast fortune to his kids, that's not one whit of your, or my, goddamn business.

Go make your own wealth, you fucking whiner.

[MNG]

"The wealth belongs to the person who generated and accumulated it. It's not a question of who "deserves" it - it's a matter of who that person says gets it - because it's his (or hers)."

Wow, there is so much begging the question in there, where to start?

How about this. To say something properly belongs to someone is to say he deserves it. You just repeated yourself three times there, like an incantation...

[Joe M]

The only way to "deserve" something is to earn it. Being poor doesn't mean you deserve a plasma TV. Working your tail off and saving money, that's the way to deserve it.

Of course, most people think they deserve far more than they have earned. That's kinda one of the major reasons we're in the mess we're in right now.

[MNG]

"The only way to "deserve" something is to earn it."

Please stop repeating yourself (to say someone has "earned" something is to say he deserves it).

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Please stop repeating yourself (to say someone has "earned" something is to say he deserves it).

Oh for christ's sake, you're a fucking imbecile. I'm done.

[MNG]

earn 1 (?rn)
tr.v. earned, earn?ing, earns
1. To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.
2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action:

See that deserve part? Your quarrel is with the English language, not me...

[Joe M]

2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action:

Being poor doesn't require any effort or action, dictionary-boy.

[MNG]

Dude, I'm not the one saying earning should be the criteria for deserves...But nice try!

[Joe M]

You just argued yourself in a circle.

Quick review:

Me: The only way to "deserve" something is to earn it.

MNG: to say someone has "earned" something is to say he deserves it

So you're already stated that earning and deserving are the same thing. Whereas your dictionary definition say that earning is to deserve specifically from effort or action. Now you're trying to claim that they're not the same anymore.

Tell me, what are the other criteria for deserving something?

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

To say something properly belongs to someone is to say he deserves it.

False. It has nothing to do with who "deserves" it. What is your proposed metric for determining who "deserves" something more than another? Who is the arbiter of the standard.

But as between the person who made the effort, took the risk, created the system, whatever, to generate and accumulate the wealth, and some other person who has no such connection to the wealth whatsoever, then hell yes, the person who generated and accumulated damn well "deserves" it more than the other guy.

How in the hell could you even think to argue otherwise? What did the other guy do to "deserve" it? Just because he "needs" it, we should force the other guy to hand it over?

It belongs to the first person not because he "deserves" it, but simply because it does, under societal conventions going back to the dawn of man, and it only makes sense for it to be that way.

Otherwise, you are indeed advocating theft by force, which is no basis for an orderly, stable society with anything resembling a respect for individual liberties.

[MNG]

Sure it does. When you say someone has earned his money you are saying it belongs to him, that the morally correct thing is for him to have it and control it, that he deserves it. It's all the same thing.

"It belongs to the first person not because he "deserves" it, but simply because it does, under societal conventions going back to the dawn of man, and it only makes sense for it to be that way."

And those societal conventions have always allowed for the taking of part and/or whole of it. Again, you don't want to build your house here man.

[MJ]

"And those societal conventions have always allowed for the taking of part and/or whole of it."

Acknowledging that the government has th power to tax cannot be construed as agreeing that the particular tax under debate is either just or wise.

[The Gobbler]

Eat shit, MNG. All of it.

[oncogenesis]

the burden should fall on those who a. can best bear it and/or c. those who least deserve the money.

This is a bundle of diseased thought.

[SugarFree]

The Champion of Big Union is decrying rent-seekers. Hilarious.

[MNG]

I don't find unions to be any more rent-seeking than corporations and wealthy folks. And as an offsetting factor they benefit more working people in many more meaningful ways.

[SugarFree]

"My thieves are better than your thieves!"

[John Thacker]

It doesn't matter whether they are more rent-seeking or not, it's whether or not you personally support rent-seeking. I oppose both forms, but you seek to differentiate them and support one, AFAICT.

[MNG]

I imagine we might disagree over what constitutes rent-seeking by unions...

[Rhywun]

I love how in your world, the government is more worthy of my money than my loved ones. How sad.

[MNG]

Your loved ones are the government. And mine. And capitol ls.

We the people you know.

[Joe M]

Yeah man, brother love at the point of a gun!

[MNG]

Oh, I love the point of gun stuff. Why not TEH SLAVERY?

[Joe M]

We'll save those comments for your opinion of doctors.

[Warty]

Your loved ones are the government. And mine. And capitol ls.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[John Thacker]

Yes, government is when two of us get together to force the third, unpopular guy to do something for us, we know.

[MNG]

Government is when the group makes rules that the individuals in the group have to follow. Ideally everyone gets a say in this process.

[Joe M]

Government is when the group makes rules that the individuals in the group have to follow.

Yeah, that's what John Thacker just said.

[oncogenesis]

Ideally everyone gets a say in this process.

Simplistic and naive to the point of absurdity. Are you a re high school civics teacher?

[MJ]

It is not simply enough that everyone has a say in making the rules. Given that an individual vote can be one of hundred millions, any given individuals say in a vote amounts to next to nothing in influence over the decision. The requirement has to be that the rules are just and equitable and do not single out disfavored classes of people.

[TrickyVic]

""Yes, government is when two of us get together to force the third, unpopular guy to do something for us, we know.""

That's Ben Franklin's take on democracy. That's when liberty needs to kick in.

[capitol l]

Don't fucking pull me into your infantile fantasy of modern civics. I don't give my goddamn consent, implicitly or explicitly, to what the state does.

"We the people"

Save that saccharin bullshit for the hopeful naifs. That you can say that after being here for so long indicates either massive myopic obtuseness, or a lifetime supply of bullshit to dole out.

Furthermore my loved ones are individuals that are perfectly able to exist outside of man's imagination, and the point of a gun. A government on the other hand is a goddamn abstraction. A distinction of importance I would fucking argue.

Granted a government is the best way, that we presently know, to organize a society, and our government is the best of the lot , but let us not pretend that it is some noble enterprise. Hell, let's not pretend that it is even necessary, just because we lack the imagination and will to something better.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Ah, so if you inherit wealth, you're obviously not worthy of it, and the state, or other people with no relation whatsoever to it and who have done not a damn thing to get it, have a higher claim to it.

Nobody is saying "rich" people are "heroic," but by what legitimate power does the state confiscate wealth simply because it is passing from one generation to the next? And by what right does anyone other than the person whose wealth it is have any claim to it or any say in who gets it?

[MNG]

By what right does the bequeather bequeath it to the inheritor?

That he has it?

So your moral criteria is possession, mine is need. Where does that leave us?

[Joe M]

Capitalism vs Socialism

And which system has consistently failed, hm?

[MNG]

I dunno, you guys are always telling me our nation is a socialist nation and it seems to have done pretty well...

[Joe M]

Our nation started as a capitalist nation, and it's been moving more and more towards socialism. Have you noticed that economic conditions have been deteriorating lately?

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the U.S. has adopted basically the entire Socialist Party platform of the early 20th century.

[SugarFree]

You're a thief and he is not.

[TrickyVic]

""So your moral criteria is possession, mine is need. Where does that leave us?""

So if I work hard and try to set up my kids for a better life after I'm dead, you think it's ok for that earned money to be seized and given to someone else because that can't satisfy their own needs?

[Joe M]

If anyone has less than anyone else, the richer person is evil.

Of course, I'm not sure why MNG hasn't donated his computer to charity yet. After all, I'm sure there's someone else out there who needs it.

[TrickyVic]

""because that can't satisfy their own needs?""

Should say because they can't...

[MNG]

Only if you are leaving millions, and even then I'm going to leave plenty for your kids.

[TrickyVic]

But who are you to decide?

[TrickyVic]

Plus you disagree that a person should receive the fruits of his labors.

[Trespassers W]

Only if you are leaving millions, and even then I'm going to leave plenty for your kids.

You generosity knows no bounds.

I remember how grateful I was when someone stole my bike but left the front wheel.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

By what right? Centuries of developed common law that form the basis of our society. The law of property is one of the oldest areas of English common law, upon which the American system was based. One of the primary concerns the framers of the Constitution had was protection of individual rights, and very significant, if not primary, among those was property rights.

One of the most elemental concepts in the protection of property rights is the right of the property owner to determine what happens to his property. It is a fundmantal feature of "ownership" of property. If someone other than I gets to say what happens to my property, then it's not really MY property, is it?

Ownership of property fundamentally is about control of that property - ownership means I get to say what does and does not happen to it, to the exclusion of anyone else. If the government, or you, or some other bunch of people get to say who gets it or what happens to it, then you destroy the entire system of property rights and ownership that our country was founded on. And yes, it is not too dramatic to say that.

And yeah, I know all about the rule against perpetuities and even Jefferson wanted to prevent eternal dynasties amassing more and more land and wealth for generation after generation. I seriously don't think that allowing a decedent to say who gets his stuff when he dies will create that risk.

What if the decedent leaves all of his wealth to charities? Will you say he had no right to do that? What if they are not the charities you would have liked to see the wealth go to?

Your proposition is childlike and naive.

[MNG]

The law of property that has come down to us has always allowed the government to take it and use it dude, so that's going to be some shaky ground to plant a right not to have an inheritance tax or income tax.

[The Gobbler]

I like what this guy from Farmington Minnesota had to say about taxing the rich. He presented it via a letter to the editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Hey, good idea to tax the rich and corporations more heavily.

It would be easy to agree with this premise, since my wife and I live on Social Security and the bit of savings we accumulated over our working years. However, when I think about it, I often wonder where we'd all be without the so-called rich and the corporations.

For instance, the small church to which we belong moves along nicely, not on the basis of our contributions, but because some others ? hardworking persons, present or former business owners ? contribute so much more than we can afford. We benefit from their generosity.

Too, when we occasionally visit certain museums, libraries, theaters, hospitals, etc., names of benefactors are published in booklets or noted on a wall's plaque. Our names aren't among them, because we can't afford to make that kind of commitment. However, we benefit from some rich person's or a corporation's contribution, and we are grateful.

I hold no envy for any person who does better than us financially. We thank those who contribute generously and who help make our lives more pleasant in many ways.

Don Eide, Farmington

http://www.twincities.com/opinion

[TrickyVic]

In his mind, you work for the lord and he distributes wealth to whom he decides is needy.

[TrickyVic]

And what need is.

You only need a handful of rice a day for food.

[.]

So your moral criteria is possession, mine is need. Where does that leave us?

So you think need is a moral claim? What do you need anything for - to live? But, dude, you don't need to fucking live!
Who am I to decide that? Well as long as I'm not you is all that counts.

[waffles]

I ravaged a poor person last night, with a rake. Since it wasn't really an economic transaction I can't see how you can tax it.

[MNG]

"I ravaged a poor person last night, with a rake."

It strikes me that what you and SF do at night should not be discussed on a public chatboard.

[SugarFree]

It's good to see you have returned to your trolly roots. And your betrayal of your own twisted utilitarian principle is nice... greifing others for your own personal joy like a good little individualist. Ayn would be so proud.

[Joe M]

I don't think anyone posted this yesterday:

Soros & Chertoff Make a Killing On Controversial TSA Scanners

[Com'on man]

Did you ever hear the one about the terrorist who smoked a joint and misplaced his suicide vest?

I look forward to the day hostage negotiators use the Pot Doctrine: "Alright, just calm down, we're sending in a couple of joints and a bag of Doritos!"

SWAT team member scurries out to specified drop leaving a bag of Doritos in the back of the paddywagon, a trail of Doritos to the drop point, and places a super-size bag of Doritos and a couple of joints on the target.

[Joe M]

I don't think anyone posted this yesterday:

George Soros & Michael Chertof are making a lot of money on those TSA scanners.

[Mike M.]

That goof Deepak Chopra is another one.

[Amakudari]

Eh, Soros owned it for a quarter or so, and he doesn't own it now. And he only had a few hundred thousand invested of his illions invested.

Chertoff was being paid by them to shill for the product, and he never disclosed it. That's bullshit.

[P Brooks]

100% rate on ALL income, then government delivers goods and services according to individual needs.

Yay!

I love these guys; they don't even bother with the "from each according to his abilities" part, anymore.

[Fist of Etiquette]

...played out a scenario in which local marijuana growers set off bombs and took over the Shasta Dam, the nation's second largest, to free an imprisoned comrade.

I saw that movie. I think it starred Jim Breuer.

[The Gobbler]

That piece of shit is one of the reasons the laws will never change. Pice of shit, sterotyping little bitch.

[Rastus]

The dumbest terror scenario you'll read today.

That is dumb. Everybody knows real terrorists would have put LSD in the water.

[P Brooks]

"Everything I Know About Economics, I Learned at Kindergarten Snack Time."

[SugarFree]

See, I don't blame Kindergarten. If a five-year-old ran up and threaten another kid with a pair of left-hand safety scissors into surrendering their pudding cup, the teachers would tell him that was wrong.

Redistributuonists: Less moral understanding than a 5-year-old.

[MNG]

Funny example. In every class I've had experience with they make you share your toys when you bring them.

[SugarFree]

At least they have a choice not to bring them if they don't want to share. Your thieving goes on everywhere.

[capitol l]

Damn you! Seconds, mere seconds I tells ya!

[MNG]

Oh, you can choose to not make a lot of money, go on a Galtian strike.

[SugarFree]

"If you just unlocked your doors, I wouldn't have to break them down."

[capitol l]

I think that you may be missing something here, minge.

[John Thacker]

Yes, and your goal, like most of the left, is to make all of society just like primary school, except where you want to make it like middle school.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

In every class I've had experience with they make you share your toys when you bring them.

A. I don't know what kind of left-wing, socialist kindergarten class you went to, but I never had that experience, ever, in any grade.

B. So you're saying we should model our entire U.S. tax and economic system and property rights on the rules that apply to kindergartners?

[MNG]

"So you're saying we should model our entire U.S. tax and economic system and property rights on the rules that apply to kindergartners?"

I guess you missed the 9:55 post that started this thread...

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Yeah, and I guess you missed the ironic snarkiness contained within that post.

[Amakudari]

The hell? Where?

In my school, the lunch you brought, your bookbag, your books, your supplies, your grades, and so on were all yours. The other kids in the class couldn't vote themselves a share, and the teacher would reprimand kids who tried to take things from you.

The classroom's toys, on the other hand, were the property of the school, and their rules were that you had to share.

[Azathoth]

In every class I every went to, if you brought toys to school, the teacher took them if they saw them. There was no 'sharing'. You got the toy back at the end of the day, or year, or not at all.

Sharing was 'taught' via supplies bought by the school.

[P Brooks]

real terrorists would have put LSD in the water.

Those poor, poor fish.

[R C Dean]

Those poor, poor lucky, lucky fish.

[P Brooks]

Stop the presses: TARP profiteer praises TARP!

And, of course, that morning CNBC was sloppily fellating kindly old Grandpa Buffett for telling us all how grateful we should be that the government stepped in and made sure his counterparties could cover their bets.

[Chlorophyllite]

The bongs of allah will rein/rain terror upon us?

[capitol l]

For Warty and Chuck Krauthammer:

Some commie alt-folk/country.

[MNG]

ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFTHROWTHESTIIIIIIIIIIICK!!!!!

[MNG]

Oh, the dog! Haven't seen him in a while, nice doggie!

Can't doggie do threaded comments? Not a border collie I guess...

[The Gobbler]

Just so you know, I taught the dog to steal.

[mad libertarian guy]

If you taught him to steal from rich dogs, it's okay.

[Yonemoto]

Ah, stupid new york city. Haven't they heard of a little thing called Mcculloch v. Maryland?

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Based on my recent track record, this probably was already posted two days ago, but what the hell.

It's a familiar refrain around here:

"Officer cleared in dog shootings."

Standard stupid cop stuff. He was driving by in his cruiser, saw a guy walking two dogs on a leash; they got in a tangle with a third, unleashed dog.

The cop testified at a review board that "The only option I had was to use deadly force to subdue the dogs. Because it attacked, it kept continuing, nothing was working."

The guy with the two dogs denies that: "Nobody was in any danger, I wasn't in any danger," he said. "I had them by the collars, they were looking at me, they were waiting to see if they were going to get yelled at -- literally."

The article says he shot and killed two dogs - one of the guy's dogs that was on a leash, and the other, unleashed dog.

And of course, "The review board justified the shooting."

"The citizens being in such close proximity to the officer firing their weapon is of concern, but I'm not sure in reading the case what choice the officer had," Harmon said.

[B.P.]

Even if there was some sort of mortal danger involved, why shoot one of the leashed dogs? If you shoot the unleashed one, the dogfight is over. Dogs are the new doughnuts... just too damn tempting.

[B.P.]

Oh, and having now read the article, this is the best:

"The chief said other options available to the officer were also considered. Harmon said there was not enough room to swing a baton, pepper spray would have gotten into everyone's eyes and officers are trained that Tasers don't work well on animals."

Let's see... hit 'em with a stick, or use nonlethal pepper spray. Nope! I'll pull my piece and start shooting when there are at least 3 other people in the area. Don't wanna get pepper spray on anyone!

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Exactly. Pepper spray might have gotten in people's eyes! Yeah, far better to kill the guy's pet dog.

[mad libertarian guy]

More to the point, the officer was scared of getting pepper spray in people's eyes, but wasn't at all concerned with stray bullets flying and hitting someone (un)intentionally.

What a stupid fuck.

[Rrabbit]

An IQ test is a hiring requirement.
Any score above 75, and you're out.

[P Brooks]

We're talking about the morally correct division of inheritance.

Jumping Jeeezis on a platinum pogo stick, you're fucked up.

[Old Mexican]

Is India's microloan sector about to go bust?

"The irony here is that by flying across the planet for the story, the NYT has missed the big global picture, which is that Andhra Pradesh is simply the latest and largest proof that microfinance as an industry is at the mercy of regulators and politicians, who are more likely to get things wrong than they are to get things right. Remember Nicaragua? It doesn't take much in the way of political demagoguery to persuade a population to stop paying its loans en masse, driving the local lenders into immediate bankruptcy. Similar things have happened in Bolivia, Bosnia, Pakistan, and Morocco, but the microfinance true believers are often oblivious to this kind of political risk. Silicon Valley billionaire Pierre Omidyar has put some $200 million of his own money into microfinance, for instance, but when I met him in New York recently and asked him about this risk to the model, he had no idea what I was talking about."

Bottom line: Governments are radioactive - they turn anything they touch into shit.

[Amakudari]

There was an interesting story in the latest Freakonomics podcast about prized-linked savings (PLS) accounts.

Basically, they promise low or no interest, but offer the possibility of a large payout to some randomly selected depositors. They're naturally attractive to people who play the lottery, who in turn tend to be poor and less likely to have a banking relationship. Therefore, the prize feature can draw the unbanked into the financial system. Benefits for everyone. The bank makes money, the poor get a banking account to build their savings, and some lucky folks make it big.

The only problem is that it runs up against the state's lottery monopoly. So in places like South Africa where PLS were a huge success, drawing in many unbanked people who would otherwise be gambling, once large enough they were snuffed out by the government to product its gambling racket.

Leave it to the government to discourage people from savings accounts so they can blow it on the Powerball.

[R C Dean]

We're talking about the morally correct division of inheritance.

In what universe does the State have a better moral claim on the assets I have accumulated than the people I choose to give those assets to?

[The Gobbler]

That would be in the Minge Galaxy.

[P Brooks]

What a bunch of suckers you guys all are.

MaunderingNannyGoat comes along and drops his slobbery slimy stick in your laps, and you throw it for him until your arms fall off.

[SugarFree]

Meh. Something to do. And bookmark to throw in his face on a later thread.

[kwais]

And it is good practice for if you are ever in a debate with an educated liberal.
What does your average liberal think should be the limits of the state?
In a democracy can the state commit a genocide? Or just mass theft? Can the state only discriminate by wealth when it steals?
Or if there are utilitarian reasons, could the state discriminate by race when it steals? Why is one ok and not the other?

[TrickyVic]

Hey, he's back!

[R C Dean]

The law of property that has come down to us has always allowed the government to take it and use it

Well, the government should only "take" property after paying for it, you know.

so that's going to be some shaky ground to plant a right not to have an inheritance tax or income tax.

You realize, of course, that an income tax is of recent vintage, property-rights-wise?

Does the government have the power to seize your property? Of course. It also has the power to kick down your door and shoot you in the head. Because it can, doesn't mean it should. Let's not convert historical abuses of power into arguments for the abuse of power, shall we?

Does the government have a better moral claim on your property than the people you choose to give it to? I don't see how.

Let's assume that, on net, the government needs to acquire assets in order to conduct its business. The question becomes, what is the basis for determining which assets it acquire?

Simply saying "He's got lots, lets take his!" doesn't strike me as a good way to go. And as far as I can tell, that's what the inheritance tax comes down to.

[Warty]

A blast from the past: Dave Grohl gets metal.

[Gumbo]

"you'll merely be heavily fined"

Is this an example on a split infinitive?

[Trespassers W]

No.

[Joe M]

It's difficult to simply explain a split infinitive.

[kwais]

MNG,
you are just fucking with people here right? You don't *really* believe that the government has the right to decide who deserves what they own and who doesn't do you?

I mean not at least without a trial, and some wrongdoing having been committed by the one having their property forced away by the state?

[kwais]

MNG,
Also, as per your objection to "slaver"
and "thief"
You could just explain why it is not so. Why is it not slavery, or theft, if the government does it?

[MJ]

"MNG|11.19.10 @ 9:47AM|#
Won't somebody think of the rich people?"

MNG can justify abusing the rights of anyone, as long as he thinks they are part of a classification of people undeserving of sympathy.