What Is The Point of Racial Integration Laws?

Of course, these days, the term "integration" has been updated with euphemisms like "fair housing", "social justice", etc.

That said, such laws intend to replace free choice of association with government-mandated social engineering to produce an outcome where the "correct" proportion of people in each neighborhood/school/etc. have certain superficial facial characteristics.

Specifically: People who write, support, and sue for these laws want to place black people into settings where there apparently aren't "enough" black people.

Why? In education, the values, study habits, and intelligence of white students is supposed to somehow be transmitted to black students who are presumed to be otherwise incapable of achieving "white" levels.

Now, almost universally, white people resist the imposition of these initiatives. And for that, they are called any number of nasty things: Elitist, racist, redneck, etc. But if that is so, then why would anyone want such repellent values transmitted to black students?

Answer: Maybe they don't want those values transmitted.

But then what does integration accomplish? Well, we know that it angers a lot of white people, so perhaps that is the "accomplishment". That is, the laws punish white people who do not live (or send their kids to school with) enough black people.

Living with people similar to yourself is a crime? How so?

Everyone lives with "their own", however they define that term. Just look at any demographic map for confirmation. "Diversity" is temporary, and lasts as long as it takes for demographic shifts to be complete.

Which means that everyone is guilty. But punishment is selective, and is politically based.

That is: Integration laws are unlawful.

And immoral.

And ineffective (at least insofar as achieving their ostensible goals).

Which brings us back to the original question: What is their point? Probably some combination of moral outrage, granting political favors, and good old bullying...because they can.

What is "Progressivism"?

Progressivism is, like many other mass movements, tribalist, and based lies, arrogance, hatred, and hypocrisy.

1. It rests on fabricated, though emotionally appealing narratives, in order to generate support. The world is heating up. White people are racist. Recycling cardboard boxes is beneficial. America "rushed" to war in Iraq. Women earn 59% of what men earn -- and, for good measure, this non-fact is attributed to "sexism". Worse, these narratives are arrogantly stated as axioms, and the burden falls on others to "disprove" them.

2. They arrogantly know what is best for you, and will make you pay for it. Public schools. Restrictions on commerce. Penalties and prohibitions against improving your property. They also rely very heavily on the guilt-generating illusion of attempting to help the "other". In other words, "How can you possibly enjoy 'X' when someone, anyone, else is suffering with 'Y'?" And their solution to this "problem" is to take your property and control your behavior.

3. Their "causes" are never in support of anyone; their causes are instead are based on who they hate and are intended to incite. Example: Their 1990s boycotts against South Africa were ostensibly to support the black victims of the apartheid system, but they displayed an utter disregard for the routine slaughters and famines elsewhere in Africa. Conclusion: Their real "cause" was hating white people. Example: They display hypersensitivity to the "plight" of the "Palestinian" people when Israel defends itself against their attacks -- but are indifferent to the far larger number of Palestinian Arabs who are murdered by other Arabs. Conclusion: Their real "cause" is hating Jews.

4. Philosophy and logic are absent, and are instead replaced by base-instinct universal "wants". For example, they want clean air -- as if anyone else wants dirty air. They want "peace", as if anyone (at least in the western world) wants senseless wars. They want "health care", as though anyone else wants to be sick. Even their "positions" are meaningless: Discrimination against gays was fine when one of theirs (President Clinton) signed the Defense of Marriage Act. And war was fine when he authorized (without Congressional approval) the bombing of a European country (Serbia) that was no threat to the United States -- and when he launched missiles at Iraq. Similarly, their objections to the budget deficit under President Bush vanished when said deficit was to become much larger under President Obama.

5. Their support rests on dependency. They create entitlements (actually, coercive government-enforced claims against others) that leave the "beneficiaries" dependent on oppressive government. The main progressive entitlement is welfare for old people; i.e., Social Security. But after being compelled to make "contributions" to this "fund" for their entire working lives, who would want to vote for dismantling it? Who would, after being compelled to pay for Medicare for year after year, would vote to deny themselves this "benefit" when it becomes their turn to collect? What parent, after paying years of real-estate taxes, would want to abolish "free" government schools and subsidized state colleges? And so progressivism oozes along, growing, and using democracy as a weapon to further itself.

What is "Racism"?

Aside from being used to demonize those with whom you disagree, so-called "racism" is a catch-all term that includes many different concepts. Here's a list that elaborates, bearing in mind that the word "race" itself is poorly defined (and, in our belief, does not exist at all).

1. Racism. This is the belief that there are innate and immutable biological differences that differentiate between all members of different races, and that these differences nearly classify races into different species. Usually, racism involves pseudo-scientific theories that reinforce the racist's beliefs.

2. Prejudice. This is pre-judging an individual based on their race, but without a basis in biological (or any other) theories. Unlike racists, they may not "know" why people of different races behave differently, and they may not care why they act differently, but they nevertheless perceive a difference -- and will act on it. It is also possible for a prejudiced person to change their assessment of individuals within a race once they get to know them. A true racist must be prejudiced, but a prejudiced person need not be a racist. Generally, this is more benign that racism.

3. Bigotry. With a foundation in racism and/or prejudice, the bigot's group is "best".

4. Visceral attraction/revulsion. This is the sense of certain aspects of races that vary in each individual, and that these aspects can be inherently good or bad. Examples include people on dating sites that exclude/include certain races because of some perceived inherent quality.

5. Utopian Racialism. This is the idea, endorsed by racists and the prejudiced, that coercive racial intervention by the state is required to achieve their idea of proper racial representation. Examples range from school and neighborhood "integration" to "affirmative action" to genocide.

6. Statistical Discrimination. This is a conscious decision to tentatively treat individuals in a certain manner because, lacking more detailed information, only group characteristics are available. It is different from prejudice because, unlike prejudice, it does not make assumptions about individuals. Instead, it says, "I do not know enough about you to make an intelligent assessment. So, for the time being, my optimal guess about you as an individual can only be based on generalizations about your group." It also says, "I prefer to (not) work/socialize with large numbers of people belonging to Group "X" because, on average, that group has been demonstrated to exhibit a certain type of behavior.

Does "Income" Have Any Meaning?

You say to me, "Please hold this apple for thirty seconds and return it to me." I then take the apple, and return it to you. Did you just make "income"?

Then you say to me, "Please hold this 25-cent apple for thirty seconds, and then return either the apple or 25 cents to me." I take the apple and return 25 cents to you. Now did you just make "income"?

If you answered the first question with a "yes", then please explain how you just became richer by shuffling an apple across a table and back.

If you answered the first question with a "no" and the second question with a "yes", then please explain how replacing your property with something of equal value has made you richer.

Obviously, there is something very wrong with the idea of "income".

Point #1: What About Expenses?

Let's say you give me an apple in exchange for my tomato. What is your income? A) The "market value" of the tomato? Or B) The extra gain in your pleasure derived from trading up from an apple to a tomato?

If you answer (A), then if you pay $1000 for a box of apples and sell them at a loss for $900, your "income" is nevertheless $900. You just got $900 richer! Would you care to pay taxes on this $900?

Now let's say you spent your last four years in school, paying tuition. You graduated and now have a job. What is your income from this job? What you see in your paycheck? Or, should your "true" income reflect the cost of your tuition? And the several years of forgone income when you went to school instead of having a job? Aren't those expenses similar to the $1000 you paid for the apples?

Let's say that your job happens to pay $100K per year, and that you would not have accepted less than $75K for this job. That is, the job is "worth" $75 to you. Wouldn't your gross income therefore be $25K? Isn't that $25K similar to your gain in trading up from an apple to a tomato?

So, when we see that someone has an income of, say, $500K, what does that really mean? If we don't know how much was invested to get that $500K, how much was forgone to get that $500K, and what your "trade up" gain (i.e., your marginal utility) was to get that $500K...then we really don't know what your income is.

Point #2: Exchange results in "income" in both directions

You sell me an apple for 25 cents. You gained 25 cents and I gained an apple. Your income is 25 cents and my income is an apple. Of course, you are not really 25 cents richer -- and that's because you had to surrender an apple. And I am not richer by an apple -- because I had to surrender 25 cents. But yet, we are both richer because if either one of us did not gain, then the exchange would not have taken place. By how much are we richer? You are richer by the 25 cents less the value of that apple. And I am richer by how much I value that apple less 25 cents. And it is very very difficult to calculate those amounts.

But the main point here is that that "income" accrues to both parties. But that is rarely recognized. To say nothing, of course, of actually calculating what those two incomes actually are.

Point #3: "Income" is a pejorative term for "adding value".

You sell apples for 25 cents each. Your customers place a value on these apples of at least 25 cents each. (If they valued each apple at less than 25 cents, they would be pretty stupid to buy any.) But many customers undoubtedly place a higher value on the apples. Some of your customers (but you don't know which ones) would pay 35 cents and are getting a 10 cent discount.

That is, you are making all of your customers better off by selling those apples. Some are made a little better off, and some are made a lot better off. But they all, via a simple exchange, now posses greater value. If you sold four apples, you just increased value by one dollar. And if your four customers secretly would have paid 50 cents for each apple, then you just (unwittingly) increased value by two dollars.

So, why must people say that others "make money" instead of "create value"? Isn't the point of the transaction to create value? My guess is that envy drives people to tear down those who are productive -- and demonize them by casting them as criminals who are undeserving of their wealth.

The crime is "income" and the penalty is "redistribution". They're both meaningless terms that are part of the lexicon of leftist/statist propaganda -- and this malignant ignorance has been threaded into the popular culture so successfully that it is universally accepted as a mass virtue, to the detriment of almost everyone.

Are "Bailouts" and "Economic Stimuli" Effective?

Of course not.

Unless you define "effective" as the compulsory transfer of property from a productive person to another who has not earned it.

And, unless you define "effective" as reducing overall wealth; e.g., "The economic stimulus has was effective in making people poor."

Let's examine a simple case where there are only three people in the world; you, me, and a politician. And let's say that you grow potatoes, I do nothing, and the politician does politics. One day, the politician declares that the economy of our three-person society will be better off with a "stimulus" comprised of you giving me a large bag of potatoes. The idea, according to the politician, is that I will spend my new wealth -- which will "stimulate" the economy.

OK, I then spend my new wealth on...well, your potatoes -- because that's the only thing to buy in our world. We can obviously simplify this process by declaring that some of what you produce must be given to me. This makes me richer and you poorer, with a net effect of zero. Unless, of course, you grow tired of wasting your effort to produce things for ungrateful people who choose to not work, and you cut back on potato growing. In that case, the net effect of the "stimulus" is negative. That is, I am richer -- but you grow more poor than I have grown rich.

But the politician might say that if I was loaned a few potatoes, as in a "bailout", I would then have the energy to create a potato-mashing machine that would make everyone better off. However, if my machine would make you better off, then you would voluntarily lend me potatoes so that I could make my machine. The fact that the politician is forcing you to give me potatoes ought to set off alarms about the viability of my machine plans.

The real world is obviously more complex that this example, but the principles are the same:

1. The net economic effect of taxation (i.e., forcibly transferring things from the productive to the unproductive) is, at best, zero -- and is probably negative.

2. The morality of the above point is summed up in a word called "stealing". Or, if you resist the theft, you can add the terms, "aggravated harassment", "menacing", and "assault".

3. Back to economics, encouraging people to buy things makes others worse off. If the "economic stimulus" money is used by the unproductive to buy things, then there will be fewer things for the productive to enjoy. The only way to increase affluence is though abundance, and the only way to increase abundance is through production. And if the recipients of "stimulus money" are not producing, then there will be no increase in wealth.

Now, one might say, "Hold on fella, poor people need the money!"

Misleading as that assertion is, it is also unrelated to the stated purpose of a stimulus. You can try using the "poor people" argument to defend taxes, but that is not the same as a "stimulus" argument. And so are other irrelevant arguments, like taxation to correct for externalities. Whatever the merits of those arguments, they are nevertheless unrelated to a general "economic recovery" by way of taxation.

Why, you might ask, does not the citizenry therefore reject the demands of stimuli and bailouts? Because the appeal of utopia is too attractive to decline.

Does Welfare Stimulate The Economy?

It sure does, if you ask Congress and The President:

Deal Struck to Send Checks to Taxpayers

Most single taxpayers would get $600 and most two-wage households would get at least $1,200. The deal includes an additional amount of $300 per child. A total of 116 million taxpayers will receive checks of some size.

Why only $600? Imagine what $6,000 government checks would do.

Does anyone know what the disturbing phrase "stimulate the economy" actually means, anyway?

President Bush, saying the deal would give the economy a shot in the arm, urged quick passage.

"Our economy is structurally sound, but it is dealing with short-term disruptions in the housing market and the impact of higher energy prices," Bush said. "These challenges are slowing growth."

What, exactly, is he talking about? "Shot in the arm?" "Short-term disruptions in the housing market?" What is a "market disruption"?

Well, it appears that:

A) We might or might not have a "financial crisis", at least on paper.

B) If one group of people takes property from a second group of people, then apparently everyone benefits.

"This is a middle-class initiative to strengthen the middle class and those who aspire to be in the middle class," said Pelosi. She said the relief was targeted to "those who need the money and will spend the money."

Just make sure that the money stays out of the hands of people who do NOT need the money...

Can Tax Cuts be Harmful?

Can Tax Cuts be Harmful?

Perhaps so.

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "Pete" du Pont points out that lower tax rates increase tax revenues. (The Heritage Foundation keeps a more permanent thesis on low taxes = more revenue here.)

So, let's accept this premise: Lower tax rates encourage production, which then raises incomes, which then increases government revenue. Win, win, win, win, win.

But what will the government do with this extra revenue? They will spend it. And they will spend it on either government employees or some other part of the parasitic sector: Expanded government agencies, new entitlements, idiotic programs, etc., etc., etc. And that will tend to shift people from productive work to the parasitic dole. Instead of being productive, they will be net consumers of resources.

Now, doesn't that bring us to a disturbing paradox; i.e., lowering taxes might actually expand the stagnating welfare state.

Does that mean that raising taxes might sometimes be beneficial precisely because it reduces government revenue?

Of course, there's some point where raising taxes, to say, 100% reduces revenue and productivity. But can a 1% tax increase be beneficial if it lowers government spending?

I don't know -- and apparently neither Pete nor The Heritage Foundation cared to look into this.

Should Cities Ban Jewish-Made Products?

Should Cities Ban Jewish-Made Products?

For that matter, should they ban black-made, female-made, homosexual-made, etc. products?

Well, why not? At least one city has no problem with banning Chinese products:

Florida city proposes ban on goods from China

Mr Mazziotti said: "I don't think people have the slightest idea how much is from China. I remind people every day. Pick up that label and see where it's made. You might surprise yourself.

"Palm Bay is not going to change the world but this raises public awareness."We are losing out on this war of economics. It's free trade for them but not for us."

His idea had received considerable support from Palm Bay's largely blue collar, 107,000-strong population, said Mr Mazziotti.His hope that other parts of America will follow suit may be fulfilled.

I don't think people have the slightest idea how much is made by Jews...

Is Bush Violating The U.S. Constitution?

That's not even a valid question, unless you're also upset over all the routine constitutional violations by the Federal Government in areas such as striking down local abortion laws, criminalizing drugs, implementing "affirmative action" laws, and doing whatever the Department of Education does.

None of these areas are permitted in The Constitution, so if you're happy with Roe vs. Wade, then you ought not be upset with Bush for his constitutional "violations". Unless constitutional violations are just dandy, if they're your kind of constitutional violations. Or, unless you enjoy cherry-picking "evidence" to support your propaganda...

What is The Difference Between Buyers and Sellers?

Almost none.

To illustrate, consider barter: If I give you a potato in exchange for an orange, then who is the buyer and who is the seller? Now, if I gave you a potato in exchange for a slip of paper (or a credit card number) promising an orange next week, then, in the strictest sense, I am the seller and you are the buyer because I gave you a potato in exchange for an IOU; i.e., in exchange for money.

So, this simple example shows that there are two minor differences between sellers and buyers:

1. If a potato is exchanged for an IOU then it is "sold" by me and "bought" by you -- even though this could also be thought of as bartering the potato for an IOU, or bartering for money.

2. The terms "bought" and "sold" help define the direction of the good (and its reverse; the direction of the money).

(As an aside, this also related to gambling. If we exchange the potato and the orange today, we are betting that the relative value each item will not increase tomorrow.)

In the popular culture, however, buying and selling usually have false definitions. Instead of one being seen as the mirror of the other, the buyer is usually a selfless and relatively powerless consumer battling against a "greedy" seller who can dictate terms at will.

In fact, there are three categories of buyer to seller arrangements:

1. Many-to-One. This refers to many individual buyers trading with a handful of sellers. Generally, this includes consumers trading with airlines, insurance companies, banks, pharmaceutical companies, auto dealers, etc., etc., etc. In the popular culture, this category is often thought of as the only buyer/seller relationship.

2. One-to-Many. This is where many sellers trade with a few buyers. The best examples are companies that derive most of their sales from very few customers, such as Proctor & Gamble with Wal-Mart, franchisees and and franchisers, ComAir with Delta Airlines, Tyson Chicken and McDonald's, etc.

3. Many-to-Many: Lots of sellers and lots of buyers. eBay is probably the best example, although real estate and used cars are also fairly good examples.

4. One-to-One. This is where two separate entities work almost exclusively with each other. It's not common, but labor unions come to mind. Companies buy labor from a single union local, and the union local sells labor to that single company (although its influence is usually industry-wide).

For some reason, popular sympathies are neutral in Examples (2) and (3) -- but lean heavily towards the buyer in Example (1) and the seller in Example (4).

For example, in (1), consumer boycotts against specific companies are often considered appropriate, but company boycotts against specific consumers are never considered appropriate -- and are in fact illegal. The only exception to this, when the rules are actually reversed, is where the seller has a total monopoly; i.e., the seller is the government. In that case, boycotts against the seller are extremely illegal (just ask the IRS) and boycotts against individual buyers are the law ("affirmative action" is a good example of a single-seller government might boycott whites, males, etc. once a quota is reached).

Objectively, though, the differences that exist between any traders are related to market conditions (e.g., scarcity, preferences, alternatives, etc.) and have nothing to do with who the "buyer" and who the "seller" is. But when politicians speak to the "many", they use the language that the "many" understand; i.e., the speak to those in Example (1), where there are a lot of people in the "many", and nothing unites them better than inciting them against a common enemy -- and an "enemy" that is very easy to identify.

How Can We Get More Banks in Poor Neighborhoods?

A new report by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition finds that most of the largest metropolitan areas of the United States have markedly lower numbers of bank branches in working class and minority communities than in the upper class and white neighborhoods.

Setting aside the curious vernacular ("working class" and "minority"), the NCRC is concerned that there are neighborhoods without enough banks, and is proposing that existing banks be forced to open branches in undesirable locations by way of the Federal Reserve Board's "Community Reinvestment Act".

But instead of using force, here are two more palatable ways of bringing more banks to these neighborhoods:

- The NCRC, instead of lobbying for government controls, can open a bank themselves.

- The NCRC can explore reasons why banks, and many other merchants, are reluctant to locate in these neighborhoods. Or, maybe the NCRC can just ask themselves: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the NCRC chose to locate in census tract 1303 (West Roxbury, MA) that is 92.5% white.

Of course, there can be many reasons why there might be fewer banks in these neighborhooods. Perhaps the residents prefer to do their banking in other neighborhoods -- like where they work. Or perhaps there are regulations, like usury laws, that make banking unprofitable in these areas. Or perhaps these areas are better served by pawn shops and check-cashing stores than they are by "traditional" banking services.

And this is ignoring the fact that these neighborhoods have many banks. Go to Yahoo Maps, pick the poorest area you can think of, and then "browse by category", "community services", "banks". Look at the South Side of Chicago, and you will find over 300 banks. Apparently, 300 is not enough. What is enough? Probably no number is enough, as that would give the NCRC nothing to do.

And, apparently, it would give celebrity politicians one less lobbying group to please, as well.

What is "Third-Party Victimhood"?

Third-Party Victimhood was eloquently defined by H.L. Mencken:

"Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of improving or saving X, A is a scoundrel."

And yet, time and again, "A" is viewed as a paragon of moral virtue, altruistically making sacrifices for the benefit of others.

The most obvious example of this behavior is among politicians, who continuously tax productive people for the sake of providing welfare to others. It is often couched in altruistic terms, such as "helping the...

- Farmers
- Loggers
- Steel makers
- Minorities
- Women
- Single mothers
- Senior citizens
- Children
- Working people
- Unemployed
- Underclass
- Middle class
- Veterans
- Union members
- Disabled
- Consumers
- Immigrants
- Uninsured
- Borrowers
- People who are denied loans
- Descendants of slaves
- College students
- High school dropouts
- Environmentalists
- Family businesses
- Rural families
- Home owners
- Apartment renters
- Spanish-speaking population
- People with Spanish surnames
- Native Americans
- Motorists
- People who use public transportation
- People who fly
- Cancer victims
- AIDS victims
- Air pollution victims
- Obese
- Malnourished
- Museum visitors
- Public television viewers
- Public radio listeners
- Churches
- Wildlife enthusiasts


...and on and on and on...and ironically enough, they even promise to somehow "help the taxpayer".

From the above list, it's pretty clear that almost everyone falls into at least one (and often more) of those categories -- which implies that the money is simply being shuffled from some people to others, and then to others, and then back again to yet others, until the tax-and-welfare web is so complex that it is hard to determine who exactly is harmed the most. But to some extent, all are harmed because of the associated taxation. All, that is, except for those who propose and administer these schemes, who are given their "cut" along the way.

Now, let's take one of those groups as an example -- say, museum visitors -- and compare the following TV ads:

1. Politician: "For the sake of art, and for the sake of our children, we must continue to increase funding to museums."

2. Typical affluent museum visitor: "For my sake, we must raise your taxes."

Of course, these statements are functionally equivalent; they are demands to take money from B and give it to X. But when A makes the demand, it appears selfless and moral -- and when X makes the demand, it appears selfish and inappropriate. But they are the same -- except that when X asks directly, at least middleman A does not get a cut.

Why is this such an effective tactic? Probably because A appears to be concerned about X (and we like it when someone shows concern) and X has the dignity to not ask (or demand) your money.

It is something to think about the next time...

- A politician makes a speech.
- A "community activist" makes a demand.
- A coworker asks for a "contribution" for someone else's retirement, departure, birthday, etc.
- An "advocate" for a cause asks for money on the street.

...and so forth.

How Can We Fix The Ostrich-Meat Crisis?

The year: 2020.

The crisis: A growing taste for ostrich meat has produced a crisis.

The problem was discovered when an astute journalist realized that there wasn't enough ostrich meat being produced to feed everyone. Soon, the populace became distraught and their elected representatives promised to fix the problem.

One candidate for office proposed a universal insurance scheme. "It is unacceptable there are people who cannot afford ostrich meat. I therefore demand universal taxpayer-funded ostrich-meat insurance to make ostrich meat available to everyone! And everyone would get the finest cuts, too!"

Another candidate felt that there were "Two Americas: One that ate ostrich meat, and one that did not." He said that if those who ate ostrich meat simply ate less, then there would be enough left over for everyone else.

And yet another "policy-wonk" candidate noted that "As Americans are eating more and more ostrich meat, our nation is spending more than ever on ostrich meat! This is wrong!"

In the universities, professors debated the merits of different ostrich-meat plans: Should it be declared free for all? Should a voucher program be instituted? Should employers supplement employee benefits with free ostrich meat? Should we adopt the Swedish Ostrich Model?

It was the most perplexing problem: Many people wanted ostrich meat, but it was too expensive!

Soon Congress consulted the ultimate experts on ostrich-meat production, The American Ostrich Meat Association (AOMA), which said that the solutions were A) Ostrich-meat consumers should have more government money to spend on ostrich meat, and B) No changes should be made to the number of ostrich farmers, and C) More government money was needed to pay for university grants to study the problem. The professors really liked Item C.

Limited supply and heavy demand resulted in a perplexed nation. Surely, there must be some way to end this quagmire.

Indeed, the nation was in crisis. And yet simultaneously, no one and everyone had a solution.

Does Government Debt Matter?

No.

For all the talk about the government "debt" and "deficits", it is questionable that most people understand these terms. Normally, the "family" analogy is used; i.e., "You wouldn't want your family to be in debt!"

That's a pretty meaningless analogy, as most people would want their families to be in debt under some circumstances, like:

- Buying a house.

- Paying for a college education.

- Borrowing money at 3% and investing it at 7%.

The relevant factor to consider is: What are the alternatives to the government going into debt? In fact, the government has two alternatives, just as any family has:

A) Make the purchase up front, without borrowing.

B) Do not make the purchase at all.

Oddly, when discussing government debt, Alternative (B) never seems to be considered. Instead, the answer is always "raise taxes instead of borrowing". But what does it matter whether taxes are raised to buy something today or to pay off a long-term loan? Neglecting the effect of interest rates, why is it better to empty your bank account to go to the casino instead of emptying your bank account to pay back a gambling loan?

The obvious solution is, "Don't go to the casino to start with." But, if you must go, then borrowing actually makes more sense if you can get a cheap loan -- like the government can with the tax-exempt bonds that it issues.

Put another way, when you are taxed, you are losing your principal and 5% interest that your money would have otherwise earned in the bank. But when the government borrows, then you get to keep your 5% interest at the bank, and pay only 3% interest to the bondholders as they slowly deplete your principal. Of course, if you are paying taxes on your 5% bank interest, then it probably doesn't matter whether the government "borrows" or "takes".

Or, maybe, the government should not be taking your money in any form to begin with.

Must Democracies Stagnate?

Yes, because of political favors granted to reduce competition.

Specifically:

1. Business groups, to maximize profits, demand that the government prohibit competition -- domestic (with restrictive licenses) and foreign (with tariffs).

2. The politicians in government are then pressured to grant these favors, at the risk of not being re-elected.

3. With competition lessened by the government, innovation drops, supplies become artificially low, and we pay high prices.

4. But since each political favor to a business interest costs us pennies, we don't care. No one will petition Congress to save a few cents, on say, sugar -- especially when sugar companies have pressured Congress to maintain quotas that have brought them millions of dollars.

5. However, when all the favors to the many business groups are summed, it costs us a lot.

6. But to stop these favors, each of these hundreds (or thousands?) of laws must be defeated one-by-one. Given the constraints of Point #4, above, this will not happen.

Here's an example:

Recently, President Bush went to Brazil to discuss the substitution of gasoline with sugar-based ethanol. This would make Americans less reliant on foreign oil suppliers, and would reduce the cost of transportation. But although Brazilian farmers were willing to sell cheap ethanol to Americans, Bush indicated that he would not permit the imports without a punitive tariff -- the reason being to "protect" American farmers who are already making corn-based ethanol. But what alternative did Bush have? To anger the farmers, and ruin the chances that his party would win elections?

So, who's the bad guy here:

The politicians, for abusing their power by taking from everyone to give to a privileged few? (But what other choice do the politicians have, if they want to be re-elected?)

Or...

The businesses, for pressuring the government to abuse their power? (But since when is it a crime to support whomever you please in a democratic election? Don't individual citizens do that all the time when their senator fails to "bring home the bacon" from Washington?)

Are both the bad guys? Or is everyone just an honest victim doing their best within a system that will only reward someone else if they fail to follow their incentives?

Should Gambling Remain Illegal?

No, because most gambling is perfectly legal right now -- and it's a good thing that it is. That is, gambling is the basis of the entire economy; investors gamble with capital so that they will be able to make a profit. To run a business, people gamble that they will be able to recover their upfront costs.

For that matter, all financial markets are pure gambles; "Wall Street" is a giant casino where gamblers bet on stocks instead of on roulette wheels or playing cards. Again, it's a good thing that they do, or companies would have difficulty raising money.

Even when you buy "safe" municipal bonds at a fixed rate of return, you are gambling that interest rates stay low; if they rise, then the value of your bonds will fall. Or, on a smaller scale, when you buy the extra-large Costco megapack of toilet tissue, you are betting that the price of toilet tissue will not go down. For that matter, when you plan your next vacation, you are betting your chances of getting killed in an auto accident that you will instead enjoy yourself.

Placing bets on stocks, or anything else, conveys information. Any blowhard can express an ignorant opinion, but when it's time to "put up or shut up", their opinions tend to be more educated and carefully selected. Which is why "terrorism betting markets" were proposed by The Pentagon after 9/11, though they were immediately rejected by senators posturing as defenders of morality -- even though the same politicians are silent on similar betting markets that convey no useful information, like state-operated horse-race gambling and state lotteries. In fact, as one of the more strident voices against allowing freedom in futures markets, Senator Hillary Clinton ought know a thing or two about that topic.

(There's another hypocrisy analogy here when governments ban or partially-ban drugs like marijuana and codeine, although they peddle all-you-can-drink alcohol at municipally owned/financed stadiums. And for the ultimate in government hypocrisy, bear in mind that taxation is almost identical to gambling -- except that you are guaranteed to lose every time.)

Of course, the ostensible reason for opposition to gambling (notwithstanding the above financial-markets examples) is the patronizing view that people are too stupid to gamble prudently, so they must be stopped entirely. Except when the proceeds go to people who define themselves as "Native Americans"; then it's apparently OK for stupid people to gamble away their money, for some reason.

For now, you can gamble all you like with play-money at Inkling Markets; they'll even start you off with five-thousand "dollars". Or, if you wish to wager real money on predicting events, then you can try the Iowa Electronic Markets, which, for some reason has not been shut down. Yet.

Are Socialists and Their Left-Wing Ilk Religious?

Yes they are:

1. Instead of trusting the evolving processes of free markets, they assume that an omnipotent, prescient, just, and benevolent leader can solve all problems.

2. Their doctrine demands today's needless sacrifices (taxes, economic controls, endless regulations, social engineering, etc.) to establish tomorrow's ambiguous utopia.

3. They have a rigid doctrine to which all members subscribe -- and display complete agreement in all aspects of subsidiary issues (wars, gay rights, recycling, etc.)

4. Their beliefs rest on faith; even when repeatedly disproven, they keep believing.

5. Israel is central to their beliefs.

6. They evangelize in public.

Why Are Taxes Bad?

Well, first, here's why they're not bad: Forking over lots of money at the end of the year is a meaningless gesture, especially if everyone else does it too. Just as giving $100 to everyone in the country will make no one richer, taking $100 from everyone in the country will make no one poorer. It's just moving around pieces of paper (or, these days, readouts at the ATM or on your PC), and has no effect on supply or demand.

That said, there are basically three bad things about taxes:

1) They create wrong incentives for taxpayers

2) They create wrong incentives for tax recipients

3) They are morally hard to justify

More specifically:

If you were to perform a service that requires a minimum profit, and the taxes reduce your profit from acceptable to unacceptable, then you will not provide that service. And if you do not provide that service, you will lose the opportunity to make money, your customer will be denied your product, and the government will receive no taxes. That is, everyone loses (although the government's failure to receive taxes is probably a positive thing). The technical term for this is "deadweight loss" and affects:

- People who would otherwise want to make extra money by working overtime or having a second job; i.e. their incentive is to now produce less
- Businesses that are marginally profitable (like small stores) who cannot compete against larger and more profitable businesses who can pay higher taxes; i.e., their incentive is to close their business

In short, if you penalize people for being productive, then they will become less productive -- which exacerbates scarcity and increases prices; i.e., we become poorer.

On the receiving end, tax recipients (from those receiving welfare benefits to government employees) are given incentives to remain unproductive. Instead of things, they are paid to be at home or at their government jobs, producingconsuming things. Their consumption exacerbates scarcity; these people do not provide any mitigating production to lessen scarcity. This also makes everyone else poorer.

Finally, it is hard to morally justify the forced taking of anyone else's property -- which is what taxation is. At times, taxes might produce a desirable outcome from a consequentialist perspective -- but that must be compared against undeniable moral problems.

What Should We Do About Global Warming?

Nothing.

The popular assumption that global warming is real, is caused by human activity, and will culminate in disaster, requires many leaps of faith and many poor decisions.

Accepting the hypothesis that something must be done about global warming requires the following assumptions:

1. Temperatures are rising. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. There seems to be some dispute over this, but the government is saying that temperatures over the last 25 years have increased on average about four-tenths of one degree F. (Apparently, this average is the sum of simultaneous warming and cooling on different parts of the planet.) For argument's sake, let's assume that temperatures are rising.

2. Rising temperatures will lead to catastrophe. The magnitude of global-warming's impact (if any) is speculative, and utterly unreliable when one considers that A) Property values are not declining in coastal areas, and B) People (when not stopped by their government) are generally able to adapt to all sorts of changing conditions. From food preservation to flying to central heating to sun screens to migrating populations to automobile design to agricultural methods, people have used their heads to adapt to environmental changes that were more sudden and more severe than the long-term gradual effect of global warming. But for argument's sake, let's assume that global warming will lead to catastrophe.

3. Global warming is caused by human activity. Earth's temperature has been changing since Day One. Repeated ice ages and hot spells have happened long before people were making "carbon footprints", and for that matter, long before there were people, period. The trouble with attributing global warming to human activity is that it's impossible to do a controlled experiment. We can't switch human activity on and off to see if it indeed has an effect on temperatures. So, as a substitute, we accept as fact that:

A) Human activity increases carbon dioxide, and

B) Atmospheric carbon dioxide increases air temperatures.

By transitivity, we then use logic to conclude that:

C) Human activity causes air temperatures to rise.

All of which, so far, seems appropriate. But then comes the logical flaw of affirming the consequent:

D) If human activity causes air temperatures to rise, then rising air temperatures were caused by increased human activity.

The problem here, which ought to be clear, is that rising temperatures could be the result of any number of things that might dwarf the influence of human activity. Some of these influences are known, such as the variation in the sun's energy and in the orientation and orbit of Earth. Other influences are not known (and might not even exist), but it would be a fallacious argument from ignorance to say something like, "Because we can't figure out the other causes, we'll assume that one possible cause, human activity, is responsible for global warming."

There is no way of determining the influence of human activity on possible global warming. All the forecasters have are mathematical models, produced by vague historical associations and guesswork colored by politics and biases -- which produce dubious results with large margins of error.

But still, for argument's sake, let's assume that global warming is dangerous, and is caused by human activity.

4. Diminishing human activity is a smart investment. What exactly shall we give up to obtain less global warming? How much of global warming's destructiveness will be diminished if we use fluorescent light bulbs? What if we bought more fuel-efficient cars? What if we drove less? What if we stopped driving altogether? What if multiple families shared apartments, as was the case in the (heavily-polluted) Soviet Union?

These questions require an answer of the form: "If we discarded all air-conditioners, then the probability of coastal erosion due to rising sea levels will be diminished by...what?...percent." Or: "If we banned all air travel, then the frequency of hurricanes will be diminished by...what?...percent." Obviously, these questions cannot be answered, because no one has any idea what the benefits will be. Instead, the "environmental" advice is of the form, "It couldn't hurt if we used less energy, so let's do it."

But ignoring the cost of diminished human activity does not make this cost disappear. In fact, less human activity -- less exchange, less production -- results in lower economic growth. And economic growth is precisely what separates the living standards of the USA from Haiti, Mexico, Liberia, etc., etc., etc.

And, ironically, economic growth is what explains the difference in environmental cleanliness between the USA and the aforementioned nations. If you're not rich, you can't afford a catalytic converter.

5. The actions of a few western countries will make a difference. If, say, western governments taxed energy use to lower the quantity demanded by people in west, then there will be more energy available for the rest of the world. For example, if Saudi Arabia cannot sell as much petroleum to Americans, then it will need to lower its price -- and therefore increase the quantity demanded by the Chinese. Think of it this way: If you needed to sell your home, and there was a sudden drop in demand, what would you do? You would, as any homeowner knows, drop the price. In the end, your home will still get sold. Similarly, the petroleum will still be sold -- and used.

Am I Discriminating Against Minorities?

Let's say that you own a building with ten apartments in a city where 20% of the population is "minority", and that none of your apartments are rented to minorities. Does that make you a "racist"?

In fact, if you were to randomly select tenants for your building, there is an 11% chance of that outcome. And, for that matter, there is a 36% chance that your building would be under-represented with minorities; i.e., a situation where they occupy either none (0%), or only one (10%), apartment. This is not conclusive evidence of discrimination.

[If you like probabilities, then you are probably aware that this is a result of a binomial calculation. There's a simple calculator that does the work for you here.]

Now, let's say that 50% of landlords in this city have no minority tenants; the probability of that happening by chance is about zero. Now, since the expected frequency of such an outcome is only 11%, than means that something is "wrong" with about 80% of the landlords. And all you have to do is figure out which 80% might be discriminating -- or, as is typically the case:

A) Punish 100% of landlords, innocent or guilty, and then,

B) Compel all landlords to have renting quotas.

And it is at that point when you will be discriminating -- against the majority. Is there any reason why that is better than discriminating against the minority?

And worse, the above example assumes that the lack of minority tenants is due to active discrimination. But would active discrimination also explain the lack of male kindergarten teachers? Or young people in hospitals?

If you want to see whether you are discriminating, look at the neighbors you chose to live near and look at the spouse you selected -- and then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are guilty.