ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, November 26, 2012

WND column

The Liberty Curve

Most people instinctively understand the truth underlying the concept of the Laffer Curve. It articulates the elasticity of taxable income, which is to say, it shows how the amount of taxable income tends to change in response to changes in the income tax rate.  This is because most people understand that they modify their behavior in response to positive and negative stimuli.

Labels: ,

99 Comments:

Anonymous Stilicho November 26, 2012 7:33 AM  

Interesting. I infer that you plot restrictions on liberty on the y axis and liberty experienced on the x axis. I agree with your premise that the resulting function would be a curve instead of a linear progression. I expect the tipping point (where the curve drops off severely on the right side of the apex) would be where life, liberty, and property may be arbitrarily taken by the state without meaningful recourse. Uh oh.

Anonymous Crispy November 26, 2012 7:46 AM  

*gasp!*

You mean that migration through open borders between heterogeneous cultures can cause deleterious effects to the "host"? I am shocked, shocked!

Anonymous HongKongCharlie November 26, 2012 7:47 AM  

First we had a Representational Republic then Abe Lincoln took the first major step away from that. The rest they say is history and it looks like some of us will see the end stage.

HKC


Anonymous Stilicho November 26, 2012 7:49 AM  

Oops, I switched X and Y axes. Y is liberty experienced and X is restrictions. Need more coffee.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 7:57 AM  

The problem is not High tax state vs Low tax state. As you pointed out once yourself... there is county data available. And even in a hell hole like california... we see that rural counties are red... and urban areas are blue.

So the problem isn't about refusing to let californians move... but is more about restricting the urban vote.

If for example... only owners of 1 acre or more were allowed to vote... not only would Obama never have had a prayer of winning... Romney would never even have been close to being nominated either. The most liberal states in America would in fact be considerably more conservative than the most conservative states now.

Anonymous Krul November 26, 2012 7:58 AM  

This is an issue that deserves some careful consideration and serious discussion on the Right.

Since our ideological opponents and their predecessors have argued for giving over absolute power to the state, our champions have spent most of their energies arguing in favor of individual freedom and limited government. Merely establishing the principle that there ought to be any limits on government's power over the individual has traditionally required most of our focus. This is because the errors of perspectives like Collectivism and Keynesianism have been so prevalent and influential throughout the West. This is one of the many downsides of being a "reactionary", I suppose.

The trouble is that more nuanced discussion of the actual optimal powers of the government and restrictions on the individual has fallen by the wayside. It's an issue we need to address, because effecting republican government would require a very different strategy than anarchic government.

The Right wing tendency to blithely assume that the US Constitution encapsulates the pure, distilled essence of perfect government composition contributes to the problem. The US Constitution was an amazingly successful experiment, but its historical record of being continuously undermined since its ratification tends to show that it has room for improvement.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 7:59 AM  

By the way... I argue that limiting the vote is not limiting individual freedom. Voting is a privilege.

Anonymous Krul November 26, 2012 8:01 AM  

"anarchic government"

-should be "anarchic society".

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 26, 2012 8:08 AM  

The basic error of Vox's post is that societies exist to give humans "freedom".

Machiavelli who was an atheist talked about keeping old words but changing the definition under them in order to "Bring about a freer and new order of things".

"Liberty" was a big goal set up by the "Enlightenment". "Liberty" is what Atheists wanted from the Hegemonic state of Christendom. This is also what happened underneath the Protestant Reformation where the "Individual" was stressed.

Whereas Plato and Aristotle talked about "guardians of the law", Machiavelli talked of "guardians of liberty".

But that is not the essence of the state or society. Vox and the libertarians, and the rest here are trapped in the "Enlightenment" and its erroneous and evil memes.

Liberty was never the goal of any ancient state or that of Christendom or the Tsarist state or of Byzantium. The whole modern world is an atheist creation. It is a Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist civilization.

Socrates remarks in Plato's Republic that an excess of liberty turns the people into slaves. That is what has happened in America. You don't realize the natural law "The half is more than the whole". That humans must recognize limits and live according to nature.

Life is not about maximizing liberty nor is a state run on "liberty" like the FFofA constructed America. America is a failed state that has cultivated evil throughout the world. It is the Novus Ordo of Machiavelli.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 8:09 AM  

BTW...

Is the black general on black ops II the biggest douchebag in gaming history?

Its a parody. It has to be a parody.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 26, 2012 8:17 AM  

You haven't yet revealed your secret mathematical formula about red state subsidy by blue state. Now would seem to be the ideal time.

Anonymous Roundtine November 26, 2012 8:30 AM  

The US Constitution was an amazingly successful experiment, but its historical record of being continuously undermined since its ratification tends to show that it has room for improvement.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Every system decays because the society decays, it is up to the subsequent generations to renew the experiment.

Without outside pressure on a system (natural threats such as constant drought, floods, man made forces such as warfare, poverty, hunger) there will always be a tendency towards decay as soon as the opposing force ceases. Wealth is often the enemy of liberty; poverty its ally.

The restrictions on individuals come from God and Nature, not the government. I don't think it's possible, in practice, to separate out the technological advancements and culture from the political changes. As an example, Chinese society is very "communistic" without being communist. Even before the Communists came along, Chinese society was structured around the family, not the individual. There are many parts of Chinese society that from Western eyes appear communist, but in fact is Chinese.

The issue with the Constitution isn't that it needs new restrictions, it's that a majority of the voting public do not want those restrictions. The public has become "unAmerican."

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 8:35 AM  

My feeling about a practical useable definition of "liberty" ("freedom" I consider to be a slightly different animal) is, the ability to live without being answerable to people who do not have your interests in mind, or at least the common interest, to which you have overtly consented. In a society as complex as our own, I do not agree that silence implies consent; it often merely implies not knowing which cup the ball is under at any given moment.

In terms of a possible "curve", you could plot it in terms of where mutual and non-mutual interests lay.

Anonymous VD November 26, 2012 8:46 AM  

You haven't yet revealed your secret mathematical formula about red state subsidy by blue state. Now would seem to be the ideal time.

Not so much. We're trying to get a book out on time.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 8:47 AM  

WLW -- re the Republic...

I do not insist on this, since it's an idiosyncratic view and the scholarship is so massively wide, but I take a rather peculiar reading of Republic.

In my view, it is obvious that the central question is not "what is an ideal society/form of goverment?" it is literally, "what is justice?"

The question is initially answered on personal, not political terms, all of which Socrates finds unsatisfactory. It is only at that moment that he proposes to expand the question to anatomize it in more detail, in the famous proposition that "the polis is Man writ large" -- which the others accept, but which is of course subject to a thousand legitimate objections.

The fact is that the main body of Republic is a sort of blown-up Power-Point presentation on the articulated nature of Man. I therefore propose that it is not a document of pure political philosophy, but an early form of psychology; that is, if we accept that Justice is a sort of balance but we cannot say with certainty what sort of things are being balanced, Republic is an enquiry into what,metaphorically, the balanced (and therefore just) individual might be composed of.

Hence I don't find all his crazy suggestions about Guardians and education policies and banning poetry to be genuine political suggestions; I view them as metaphorical attempts to suggest what the just man, or maybe the sane man, thinks about the world. The fact that the whole thing culminates in the parable of the cave, which is about an individual's ability to perceive the truth rather than about a society's ability to function justly, would appear to support my point.

But again, I don't insist, I merely suggest; it would be nutty to insist.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 26, 2012 8:48 AM  


Wealth is often the enemy of liberty; poverty its ally.


The incremental increase in the wealth of society only means that eventually it will become obvious to everyone that people are due things "for free." This is an ultimate heresy for those on the right, but it is inevitable. Social security, medicare, the welfare state in general are only possible because we have become wealthier over the centuries, and that trend will continue. If you equate wealth to slavery, you might as well assign "war" to "peace."

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 8:49 AM  

"You haven't yet revealed your secret mathematical formula about red state subsidy by blue state. Now would seem to be the ideal time."

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out mate. Its military spending. Take out military spending and the south suddenly becomes a source of income... not a drain.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 8:53 AM  

Scoobs... please don't encourage Wheeler... He deeply regrets not being sodomized by a greek king as a child. And he writes tirelessly to try to keep future young boys from suffering the same loss.

Anonymous Josh November 26, 2012 9:04 AM  

Nate, I'm sure Wheeler is going to argue that such buggery "built character" or suffering like that.

Anonymous Krul November 26, 2012 9:05 AM  

The incremental increase in the wealth of society only means that eventually it will become obvious to everyone that people are due things "for free."

On what grounds to you state that people are due free things? Our wealth makes it possible to give and ask nothing in return without infury to ourselves, true, but this alone does not entitle the recipient to the gift.

Social security, medicare, the welfare state in general are only possible because we have become wealthier over the centuries, and that trend will continue.

What makes you so sure the trend will continue? I hope you're right, but wealth creation is contingent on peoples' undertaking of wealth generating actions, like invention and investment. The long stretches of history in societies all over the globe with barely any material improvement suggest that wealth generation is not inevitable.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 26, 2012 9:11 AM  

Great Martini after your highly embarrassing comments the other day about corporate tax rates, the rich, fair shares, etc, I am surprised you continue to post here.

My guess on VD's theory is basically that "reds" in the blue states are subsidizing huge numbers of "blues" in the southern red states.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 26, 2012 9:11 AM  


It doesn't take a genius to figure it out mate. Its military spending. Take out military spending and the south suddenly becomes a source of income... not a drain.


It's times like this that make me wish Wolfram Alpha didn't suck, because I could totally use it. California does get a lot of defense spending, though.

Anonymous Joe Doakes November 26, 2012 9:14 AM  

Thank you, Vox. Applying the Laffer Curve to liberty is the sort of epiphany I come here for.

All the political theorists I've read agree we need just enough government, but not too much; they never explain what tool measures that "Goldilocks and The Three Bears" amount of government.

You just did. Congrats.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 26, 2012 9:16 AM  

we have become wealthier over the centuries, and that trend will continue

Ha

Anonymous Toby Temple November 26, 2012 9:25 AM  

And yet, as those who reside in states near California very well know, the freedoms they enjoy on a practical basis are being reduced as a direct result as the “Californication” of their cities, counties and states by the 225,000 Californians who flee the increasingly bankrupt state every year and then drive up prices and vote to impose California-like government policies on their new neighbors.

The locusts are moving towards another thick patch of flora.

Sadly, these "locusts" are humans.

Maybe its time for the "ants" to make new colonies ones again?

Anonymous DrTorch November 26, 2012 9:29 AM  

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out mate. Its military spending. Take out military spending and the south suddenly becomes a source of income... not a drain.

Not just that. DoE labs should be taken out too. If the gov't is purchasing a good or service, then it is not providing a subsidy. And yes, the leftists were lying when they started promoting their chart of Red states as takers.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 9:33 AM  

Next project for VD: plot a Laffer curve for liberty versus ethnic/racial homogeneity.

As the internet cliche has come to be stated... liberty, security, diversity: pick any two out of three.

Brood parasites. From a Darwinist point of view, they're amazing critters. But not from any other point of view.

Don't you just love how "diversity" has appeared literally out of nowhere conceptually in the past few decades, and has been magically grandfathered in to our founding principles, as if it had been there all along? Why, it's almost as if a bunch of ideologically committed subversive destructive Bolshevists had plotted a devious scheme to destroy America from within, worming their way into all our major institutions under the guise of being loyal, and then working tirelessly, day and night, to deceive the people, aggrandize themselves, and achieve their goals of destroying everything that made America good.

Thanks, Jews! We won't forget what you did!

We really won't.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 26, 2012 9:37 AM  


On what grounds to you state that people are due free things?


The expansion of wealth implies that people will eventually be due free things, purely on the grounds that they share human legacy. Perhaps they will not share everything or be due equal proportion of all that is available--which will be cornucopious, but more and more, they will be due things for free, just as you are provided things free (that perhaps you don't fully appreciate) that our predecessors were denied.

Anonymous SlartiBartFast November 26, 2012 9:38 AM  

Does anyone know if there is some sort of 'shift' that the Laffer Curve, whether applied to taxation or liberty, undergoes as people get used to new and higher levels of taxation/laws?

Blogger James Dixon November 26, 2012 9:42 AM  

> The incremental increase in the wealth of society only means that eventually it will become obvious to everyone that people are due things "for free." This is an ultimate heresy for those on the right, but it is inevitable. Social security, medicare, the welfare state in general...

None of those are free. Someone is paying for all of them.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 9:42 AM  

"It's times like this that make me wish Wolfram Alpha didn't suck, because I could totally use it. California does get a lot of defense spending, though."

its fairly easy to fact check. in fact the internets have already done it for you. And yes... Cali does get an enormous amount of defense spending.

here's the rub: Money going to defense contracts is counted as government spending (shipbuilders in MS building new aircraft carriers for example were are counted as money going to mississippi) but the tarp money going to wall street was not counted as federal money going to New York.

If you count TARP spending... we find that New York is the single biggest wellfare queen of them all.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 26, 2012 9:45 AM  

Paraphrased and some quotes out of Edith Hamilton's The Greek Way:

:"As the cosmos had an established harmony that bestows an underlying universal law, the Greek conviction was that limits were good. Exaggeration was foreign to them; they detested extremes and the idea of the limitless repelled them. "Greek words which meant boundless, illimitable, and the like, had bad connotations." Their idea of freedom was bound up in the word, "sophrosuné" which meant that in human society just like in nature, "it meant accepting the bounds of excellence laid down for human nature; restraining the impulses to unrestricted freedom, shunning excess, obeying the inner laws of harmony and proportion".

Edith Hamilton is a great writer of Classical antiquity. If anything she has captured the essence of the Greeks and the fountain of Western culture. Does what is quoted above on anybody's radar? Do you guys know what you are doing? Are you all so caught up in that "Enlightenment Cr#%" of "Liberty" for?

Edith Hamilton captured beautifully what humans in a state should have. It is the Golden Mean, Ordered Liberty. "The Half is more than the whole". That is a mystery.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 9:46 AM  

"just as you are provided things free (that perhaps you don't fully appreciate) that our predecessors were denied."

?????

!!!

?!?!?!?!??????

There are no free things. Everything is paid for in some capacity, whether the payor is visible to you or not. Not even air and water (well the clean varieties anyway) are free. What in God's name are you talking about?!?

Anonymous The Great Martini November 26, 2012 9:46 AM  


What makes you so sure the trend will continue? I hope you're right, but wealth creation is contingent on peoples' undertaking of wealth generating actions, like invention and investment. The long stretches of history in societies all over the globe with barely any material improvement suggest that wealth generation is not inevitable.


General increase in technological knowledge base. It becomes easier to do all thing with incremental increase in knowledge, while the baseline requirement for feeding, clothing and housing ourselves remains the same over time. Of course, there are not guarantees against catastrophe, so it could all go down the drain rather quickly.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 26, 2012 9:49 AM  

The incremental increase in the wealth of society only means that eventually it will become obvious to everyone that people are due things "for free."

It also becomes "obvious to everyone" that only a small collective of individuals with powers of judgment over life, liberty, and property can distribute it properly. Naturally, these individuals are not the best and brightest of your pathetic and ephemeral race, as those who are most gifted prefer to invent, explore, and create rather than to manage daily those deemed too stupid or helpless to manage themselves.

Necessarily, these petty bureaucrats fail at their appointed tasks, between their incompetence and their avarice; but they cast their failures as due to a lack of "flexibility" to "get things done". The tethers that check them are slackened, and they gain greater and greater power over the lives, liberty, and property of their charges. Because your lives are so brief, you do not see the gradual decay, the rot of the building until it collapses about you.

You end with thieves, murderers, and morons wielding godlike authority over your lives and livelihoods, and doing it badly, as they must. Then you cry out for a gifted tyrant to displace them.

It is the natural cycle of your miserable kind, and I? I am the tyrant to whom you will not merely kneel but crawl to free you from the "fairness" your self-appointed idiot masters imposed. I need only wait.

...I feel an evil laugh might be in order here, but I've never been able to manage more than a dry chuckle. Will someone kindly oblige me?

Anonymous Mike43 November 26, 2012 9:57 AM  

Red state subsidy? I have had that argument with more than a few colleagues. Living in Texas, they gleefully tell me that we would be broke without the subsidy.

Included in the subsidy, are the literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and air men stationed in Texas. Strip the DOD costs and most red states are subsidizing blue states.

It's a strange world some people live in, bereft of logic and sanity.

Anonymous The Lightworker November 26, 2012 10:01 AM  

Freedom for whom?

If you say that every inhabitant of the Earth is free to move to Iceland, and take what they please and dispose of the (soon to be previous) inhabitants as they wish, and if you enforce that, does that maximize human liberty in Iceland? (The global many now have vast rights in Iceland, and only a small nation will be eliminated, a utilitarian bargain from a certain point of view.)

Or would that be the reverse of true liberty, since it means genocide for the Icelanders?

And in that case, shouldn't the first issue have been, whose liberty in Iceland should we be securing?

I think that the right answer is that the state, or the competent authority, ought to secure the rights in Iceland of the descendants of the traditional inhabitants of Iceland. (Who would of course be White, but not only that, or else Russians, Poles, Australians and Americans would have the right to flood the place and in effect to destroy the culture of its inhabitants.)

Whether you like that answer or some other, I think the question of "whose liberty to secure?" comes before the question of how much liberty will be secured purely by how much regulation (of unspecified kinds).

At least it should be explicitly clear whether the people you are restricting and the people whose liberty you hope to secure are in all cases the same people.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 10:03 AM  

The Red State Susidy argument is appealing to the blue staters because they know for a fact that are infinitely superior to the rural hillbillies and rednecks who spend all their time masturbating to gun porn and starring a bible they never open.

The assumption appeals to them... and therefore they conclude its true.

Anonymous Curly Le Stooge November 26, 2012 10:03 AM  

...I feel an evil laugh might be in order here, but I've never been able to manage more than a dry chuckle. Will someone kindly oblige me? Loki of Asgard

I shall, Master.............nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk

Anonymous Stilicho November 26, 2012 10:13 AM  

Ordered Liberty

Sure, and this ties in nicely with Vox's proposed liberty curve. It also dovetails quite well with what the Founders tried to create here. Indeed, in many respects, the Founders admired Sparta as much or more than Athens. So stick that in your anti-Elightenment pie and smoke it. Problem is, how to define the boundaries? Where does liberty devolve into license? Who gets to set the limits? These and other considerations are the practical problems that must be dealt with unless you prefer that the path lead to Loki. An ant colony may be very productive, sustainable and even provide comfort, sustenance, and a measure of contentment to its inhabitants, but that does not mean that it is a suitable solution for a free man exercising free will. The only practical solution I've seen that provides a reasonable solution is to limit the exercise of sovereignty to those who have in some fashion shown that they are more likely than not to exercise it responsibly.

Anonymous Josh November 26, 2012 10:13 AM  

Hey now...ain't nothing wrong with gun porn...unless you're jacking off to a Glock catalogue...

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 10:17 AM  

The Red States, at least the Southern ones, also contain an extraordinary percentage of the country's supply of destructive, antisocial, criminal useless negroes, who naturally require a great deal of subsidy per the Blue State instructions. And not only direct subsidy but also indirect subsidy in terms of the massive absolute drains on production they inflict, through the necessity of avoiding them, on otherwise productive white (i.e. "actual") Americans.

In addition, Texas and Arizona, two more Red states, contain a vast reservoir of useless pointless low-IQ public-service-draining Latinos, and their countless greasy ninos, many or most of whom are criminal illegal invaders of this country who deserve to be shot on sight without remorse.

Are these well-documented matters part of the official calculations? If not, why not?

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 10:22 AM  

"Where does liberty devolve into license? Who gets to set the limits?"

As in chess, when a problem becomes onerously challenging, very often the first thing to attempt is to simplify, by exchanging or otherwise taking threatening pieces off the board.

Your questions would become immensely less difficult to resolve if the community which was asking and trying to answer them were made up solely of white Christian European stock. As it should be, and as it was intended to be. Until of course... well, you know...

Anonymous The Great Martini November 26, 2012 10:30 AM  


What in God's name are you talking about?!?


A useful way to think about it is in terms of energy and transportation. Relative to previous generations, at least those before the Industrial Revolution, you get energy for free, because you have access to oil and gasoline. Gasoline, relative to energy content of prior sources centuries ago is basically free for you and me. I don't remember the exact figure, but a barrel of oil renders approximately ten man-years worth of labor energy, and it's something you could easily afford today. Just think about that for a day or two. It not the conventional economic way to think about wealth and expense, which is probably why you're having a hard time wrapping your mind around it, but energy is essentially something we have come to believe is our due "for free." The same applies to extraordinarily rapid transportation. The only reason none of this strikes you as stunningly unusual in economic terms is that you're integrating it with the entire scope of our economy, which has diluted its effects in many ways. For instance, the reason nobody really notices that one man can produce food for a few thousand people is because that very capacity is utilized by allowing, for example, a hundred pudgy Google engineers to produce your next smart phone...and a hundred other--frivolous by yesterday's standards--products.

Anonymous Josh November 26, 2012 10:32 AM  

Scoobius, you do realize that the south has lived with blacks for hundreds of years and is perfect capable of putting them to productive work? And Texas has done the same with latinos?

Blogger tz November 26, 2012 10:33 AM  

It is also mufti-dimensional. Some things can only be done in common. The Catholic social teaching features both solidarity and subsidiarity as compliments. If your village wants to tax themselves to build a park, but almost everyone in the village would use the park (or streetcar line, or library) it isn't very tyrannical. If the federal government imposes parks, streetcars, and libraries on every tiny RFD spot, it is tyranny.

The Articles of Confederation were too little - you could break a contract by crossing state lines. The Constitution was probably as close as Man has come in an actual code of law. (I should say Secular law, the Torah is both secular and religious).

The left and right want to micromanage human behaviors, they just differ on which behaviors. They both want to have big government, they only differ at the margins between welfare and warfare.

There will be evils of all kinds, and both commission and omission at every level of government, but it is worse the higher it occurs as there are fewer alternatives. If every restaurant is a McDonalds there really isn't much choice. If you have food courts with the identical selection is is only a little better.

As to the states that get an influx, I have little sympathy. They can lock-in various laws and policies in their constitutions and make them very hard to change, but instead want a fuzzy, flexible set of rules. "Just in case". They don't trust liberty, so won't defend it so don't deserve it. North Dakota had a chance to end property tax but voted against it. May they be overrun with refugees from CA, MA, and NY who will raise the rates.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Most are not willing to pay.

But as I suggested, Ron Paul for Gov in TX, then secede.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 10:35 AM  

"Are these well-documented matters part of the official calculations? If not, why not?"

Yes they are.

But there are a couple points you're missing. In the north blacks are almost entirely urban. In the south... its much more of an urban rural mix. And yes they have a high percentage of government assistance... it is not as universal as it is with the urban blacks of the north.

For example down here we have whole rural towns that are black. Top to bottom... all black. And most of those folks work. They don't earn much... but they work. Not a place you want to make a habit of visiting when the sun goes down... but during the day you'll just be a curiosity... and if you need assistance... and why would you be stopping there if you didn't... they'll provide it politely. Because really all they want you to do to is leave.

Now all those rural towns add up to more black folks than say... urban Mobile county? well yeah... it does. But more than Montgomery, Birmingham, and Mobile all added together? eh... now its questionable. But its a lot closer than it is up north where you have a near universally urban black community.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 10:39 AM  

Methinks Scoobs is old enough to remember that Blacks were once far better educated than they are today... and far less dependent on the government.

Anonymous CLK November 26, 2012 10:44 AM  

VD say "Most people instinctively understand the truth underlying the concept of the Laffer Curve"

I am not sure of the correctness this statement because (a) most people don't even know what the Laffer curve is and (b) there is not widespread agreement to what it means other that at the extremes of 0% and 100% (and even there there is some room for argument)

Lets not turn this Laffer curve (or Laffer himself) into something that it is not -- its a simple curve that other than the conditions at the limits of the function ( 0% and 100% -which are trivial solutions) is open for debate (as to the shape of the curve, whether its monotonic or even continuous...)... This was created to support a supply side model that has been shown to be flawed...

I would like to see the Laffer curve/model compared against historical data before I buy into it defining some optimum level of tax rate.

heres an interesting article:
http://business.time.com/2012/08/09/arthur-laffers-anti-stimulus-curve-ball-is-a-foul/.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 10:45 AM  

"Relative to previous generations, at least those before the Industrial Revolution, you get energy for free, because you have access to oil and gasoline. Gasoline, relative to energy content of prior sources centuries ago is basically free for you and me. I don't remember the exact figure, but a barrel of oil renders approximately ten man-years worth of labor energy"

This is utterly meaningless in relation to what we are talking about in the present. Cost is not relative to the past in the terms we are discussing, cost exists in the present and is absolute. What things once were like, relative to the past, has nothing at all to do with present "cost" which is about our present conditions and therefore our present necessities, and which is what determines whether a thing is "free" or not. The "cost" of a bowl of Raisin Bran this morning, when you're hungry, is not tethered in any meaningful way to what the "cost" of a bowl of Cap'n Crunch was, back when you were six. And I can assure you, with reference to this country's endless nonsense in the Persian Gulf, that oil today, right now, is not "free".

What are you going to tell me next? That literacy is "free" because anyone can attain it -- except that everyone doesn't, and some people attain it more slowly than others, at varying public costs for a varying diminishing return, etc etc...

I think maybe you need a good dash of Hai Karate! Men's Cologne -- WAKES YOU UP LIKE A COLD SLAP IN THE FACE!!

Some of the commercials (you can find them on Youtube) are pretty damn amusing.

Anonymous Noah B. November 26, 2012 11:00 AM  

"Relative to previous generations, at least those before the Industrial Revolution, you get energy for free, because you have access to oil and gasoline."

True but not terribly relevant. Everyone else living in an industrialized nation has the same access to energy that I do, so my access to energy provides me with no relative economic advantage.

Anonymous Shild November 26, 2012 11:04 AM  

The expansion of wealth implies that people will eventually be due free things, purely on the grounds that they share human legacy. Perhaps they will not share everything or be due equal proportion of all that is available--which will be cornucopious, but more and more, they will be due things for free, just as you are provided things free (that perhaps you don't fully appreciate) that our predecessors were denied.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. The productive capacity of humanity will eventually reach the point where goods are so abundant that it will no longer be necessary to restrict access to them. Protecting one's property would be pointless because no amount of thievery or generosity would noticeably dent one's wealth. At this point, with no practical motive to "hoard" all of one's property one would give freely to others simply because one values their lives, expecting nothing in return. In fact, you could make the case that the institution of "private property" itself would be obsolete in such a state of super-abundance.

Am I in the ballpark?

Anonymous Noah B. November 26, 2012 11:15 AM  

"The expansion of wealth implies that people will eventually be due free things, purely on the grounds that they share human legacy."

Compared to previous generations, humanity produces far more than our ancestors could have imagined.

So why isn't everything free?

One big reason is that human desires are essentially unlimited. (This is probably the most accurate of the various assumptions of modern economics.) Simply put, people want more than they already have. Another is that the population tends to increase as resources become more abundant. So a condition of abundance usually doesn't last very long. Not to mention, if everything were free, why would anyone bother to produce anything?

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 11:30 AM  

Look... all the moron commie is saying is that compared to cavemen... we're all insanely rich.

No doubt he thinks saying this makes him look very insightful... so give him his golf clap and hopefully he'll wonder off so the grown ups can talk.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 11:45 AM  

"The Articles of Confederation were too little - you could break a contract by crossing state lines. The Constitution was probably as close as Man has come in an actual code of law. (I should say Secular law, the Torah is both secular and religious)."

Why should Tennessee honor a Texas contract?

Blogger JohnG November 26, 2012 11:57 AM  

The Russians have a couple thoughts on our plight, kind of interesting.!
I honestly don’t understand how those morons can flee the state and then vote for the same garbage. It’s not simply stupidity, I can argue with my relatives till I’m blue in the face and they will still tell me that black is white.
Bah, Nate. If we cut the military 100% we’d still have about an $800 billion deficit and social welfare programs would still grow at ~10% to devour the entire thing. At least Defense is constitutional. Having said that, I work for the DoD and am retired military – I agree that it could be significantly cut and waste eliminated to the tune of 10’s of billions. I’m even starting to warm up to the idea of conscription…get more congress critters kids blown up by IEDs and maybe somebody would think twice about us being the global bully.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 26, 2012 12:01 PM  

People don't give a shit about their absolute wealth compared to a caveman they care about their relative status compared to their neighbor. There's no amount of wealth increase that can change the human desire for social status and that's why these fantastic pie in the sky free everything kumbayah utopias are just that -- fantasy.

Anonymous Stilicho November 26, 2012 12:49 PM  


Why should Tennessee honor a Texas contract?


Ask Bud Adams

Anonymous Jack Amok November 26, 2012 1:08 PM  

If for example... only owners of 1 acre or more were allowed to vote... not only would Obama never have had a prayer of winning...

Nate, you don't even have to make it 1 acre. Owning any real estate as a prereq for voting would've given the election to Ronmey by a comfortable margin. so would restricting voting to Men. So would restricting it to Married people. Ultimately we're going to have to do some form of that if we're going to preserve any sort of democratic system. There are many workable choices - property ownership, marriage, gender (really, if there's one thing Game teaches, it's that women are far too self-centered to be allowed to make decisions for anyone besides themselves), or just tax eater status (nobody who takes more from the public treasury than they put in can vote). All will produce howls from the usual crowd. But the usual crowd howls all the time anyway. Sooner or later the rest of us will be stone deaf to the din and go ahead regarless.

Or else it all comes crashing down and we finally get our El Duce. I think an American totalitarianism would be more like the Italian fascists than the German ones or the Slavic commies. I mean, Mussolini modeled his on Woodrow Wilson, who's administration Jonah Goldberg (rightly) labels the first fascist government of the 20th Century.

Anyway, on the subject of Californication, it hits close to home for me. I grew up in California, and now live in Washington State. I vote considerably more conservative and libertarian than the knucklehead natives of the Evergreen State. For one thing, I saw first hand the ruin liberalism brought to my home state. I lived in San Diego and watch the Mexifornication of California as the gangs began moving in. And I saw the inept response the kleptocrats in government had, their tendency to underbus the white middle class. The morons up here putting dems in charge have no idea what sort of catastrophe they are voting themselves. It has always been my contention that it was easterners moving into California that tipped the balance. My response to people who complained about Californians moving into their state was always "Perhaps we should've just sent the New Yorkers straight here?"

The US Constitution was an amazingly successful experiment, but its historical record of being continuously undermined since its ratification tends to show that it has room for improvement.

The people who wrote the Constitution never thought it was fool-proof. Franklin's famouse quote "A Republic, if you can keep it" give the proper sentiment. Rules are never a substitue for men. Conservatives in Washington State continually make that mistake. They pour time and effort into Initiative and Referendums running the gamut from fiscal issues to social ones. But then they re-elect the same overspending, degenerate politicians to office. They think the rules will force crooks to be honest. The only solution is to refuse to trust untrustworthy people, and to consistently punish betrayal.

we have to make judgements and enforce consequences. That is another reason why the privlidge of voting can't be given out to just anyone.

At any rate, I think the sweet spot in the Laffer-Liberty curve comes where only people who have proven they can reliably contribute to society are allowed to vote, but those same people have to police themselves so that they don't abuse their position, so that they don't keep cronies in, and so that they don't keep ambitious and responsible people out. It's a club you have to earn your way in, but one that doesn't get snooty about it. No wonder liberty is such a difficult thing to have and hold.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 26, 2012 1:12 PM  

Good grief, I am living proof that Captian Capitalism was right when he gave advice to would-be self-publishers. Have a woman proof read, men suck at it. I proof read that last post. Twice. "Famouse quote?" Argh.

Anonymous 11B November 26, 2012 1:26 PM  

Next project for VD: plot a Laffer curve for liberty versus ethnic/racial homogeneity.

As the internet cliche has come to be stated... liberty, security, diversity: pick any two out of three.


Ethnic/racial homogeneity and liberty only seem to fit with whitopias. They might fit with some Oriental enclave. But they sure as heck don't fit with homogenous black areas like Detroit. I doubt a homogenous Mestizo area would be anything desirable either.

Anonymous DrTorch November 26, 2012 1:37 PM  

Red and Blue states: takers vs makers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2012/11/25/do-you-live-in-a-death-spiral-state/

Anonymous Noah B. November 26, 2012 1:54 PM  

"Why should Tennessee honor a Texas contract?"

Only if Tennessee previously agreed to honor it. Otherwise, no reason at all.

Anonymous Crispy November 26, 2012 2:06 PM  

Fred Reed wrote a column in much the same vein, except that he detailed rural-to-suburban "development" and concluded:

I'd like to live again in Mr. Liddy's world. Unfortunately it is self-eliminating. Freedom is in the long run inconsistent with freedom, because it is inevitable exercised in ways that engender control. As a species, we just can't keep our pants up. But it was nice for a while.

See http://www.fredoneverything.net/Liddy.shtml

Anonymous Elmer Fudge (friend of Sexual Chocolate) November 26, 2012 3:21 PM  

I can recall the days when supply side was just a footnote in my college econ text. I also recently recall the days of Laffer coming on Judge Nap's show, and in the context of 'libertarian,' looking really foolish. Any mathematical model is only as good (or accurate) as the data inputted. And, I don't trust most -- facts.

For myself, I prefer to fly at the 100,000 foot level. This is the way I see/read it. I'm at the worst a minarchist, trying at my best to become an anarco-capitalist. The Constitution of 1787 grants at first a minarchy, but also that document, although penned largely by Madison, is a Hamiltonian document, and thus said govt. will ultimately become Hamiltonian. (what we are at present, govt. via big banks/bankers). The Articles of 1777 granted us the closest we ever thought we could get to anarco-capitalism. My view, is that we need to head back in that general direction. Doing that, there would be no need for state's secession. As a Christian, the trick is to live/govern between Romans 13 and 1 Thes. 4:11-12. We cannot expect to live/govern ideally as the latter. However, one does not also want to put his head [literally] in jeopardy, simply because he does not do as "the Romans do." (striving to live quietly, and mind his own business)

Blogger Joe A. November 26, 2012 3:24 PM  

I'd thoroughly enjoy a debate between Vox and Stefan Molyneaux.

Anonymous RedJack November 26, 2012 3:39 PM  

Reed is correct.


I was back home in Nebraska for Thanksgiving. My parents sold the farm, moved to Omaha, and now live on the dole. Dad had major brain surgery a few years ago, and can no longer work.

When I go back to my home town, I see just what Reed talked about. My family that is still there does well, but they are making plans to leave. The little town is getting filled with welfare moms from Omaha and Lincoln, in order to make it more "diverse".

Anonymous natem November 26, 2012 4:35 PM  

RedJack

Its the same in my moms hometown in rural illinois. People from Chicago realized theyd get their welfare check no matter where the were so they moved out there (its a ways out- about 45 mins from Joliet) and brought their vibrancy. Shame since even in a down economy its still a nice town

Anonymous Tad November 26, 2012 4:55 PM  

@JACK AMOK people who have proven they can reliably contribute to society

And what would be the reliable measure of a contribution to society? Who would decided what this amounts to? Would there be a formula?

At some point you have to decided if Jefferson had it right about "All Men" or if you prefer to install a regime in which only "Some Men" are given their due.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 26, 2012 5:18 PM  

Tad

Why, how clever of you, you've hit upon the basic problem! You get a Kupie Doll.

Of coure, Jefferson didn't even think "All Men are created equal" meant "all people get to vote." He came from a society that not only denied blacks and women the vote, but unpropertied white men as well.

And when you compare the sort of politicians his contemporaries voted into office with the ones our Universal Suffrage (what a phrase!) society does, makes you think we might have something to learn from those old white guys.

"Why should Tennessee honor a Texas contract?"

Only if Tennessee previously agreed to honor it. Otherwise, no reason at all.


Just because there are some Southrons here, and I like needling 'em, I'll point out that the first instance of the Feds stomping all over States Rights in the whole slavery/abolitionist battle was not done by Lincoln, or by the North. It was the Southron-dominated Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, where they held that Northern free states had to honor the slavery contracts issued in Southern slave states.

Anonymous Tad November 26, 2012 6:03 PM  

@JackAmok Of coure, Jefferson didn't even think "All Men are created equal" meant "all people get to vote." He came from a society that not only denied blacks and women the vote, but unpropertied white men as well.

One more piece of evidence of the basic flaws of the original Constitution. Of course the response ought to be to correct the flaws. Yet I realize that there are many such as your that would amend those flaws by including, "All men who look like me are equal, the rest are here to serve." I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for enough bigots to join your cause.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 7:00 PM  

"if Jefferson had it right about "All Men" [are created equal]"

Gawd, this drives me crazy. The statement is continually taken out of context. Jefferson was trying to build an argument that sovereignty resides in the people, not the Crown, and that all just government (which btw in his view has a specific purpose: "to secure these Rights") derives its power from the just consent of the people. "All men are created equal" is his opening axiom in this argument. What it means is that there aren't people who naturally somehow have a greater amount of "consent" than other people. It also doesn't mean that a particular polity is perforce a universal proposition. Everyone has Rights endowed by their Creator, but as a plain matter of reality, not everybody is necessarily competent "to secure these Rights" (for instance we do not let kindergartners vote or serve in the military). Jefferson also tacitly admits throughout that there are such things as a "people," a "nation," and "we/us". These would all be meaningless terms if they failed to make a concrete distinction.

In any event the "all men" clause and its corollaries are part of a document which is a philosophical treatise and a declaration of war; it has no force of law, merely force of cultural consideration.

Ah, but which culture? They're specific and discrete, like everything else on Earth.

Like a wise man once said, "It is no wonder, it's a perfect ponder."

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 7:03 PM  

"All men who look like me are equal, the rest are here to serve."

A more apt way to put it might be, "All men who look like me are equal, the rest should not have come here at all because they had no business doing so, except to plunder the men who look like me."

Anonymous Tad November 26, 2012 7:29 PM  

@Scoobious A more apt way to put it might be, "All men who look like me are equal, the rest should not have come here at all because they had no business doing so, except to plunder the men who look like me."

But of course that would not be "apt" at all as we know that the Italians, Germans, Spanish, French, Russian, Polish, Jews, Muslims, Catholics and all others that came to this place did so without any intent of plundering those that look like you. That's your imagination and bigotry at work.

Anonymous Van November 26, 2012 7:32 PM  

Tad:

In the DoI, there is not a period after the word "equal." It is follwed by a pair of important clauses. Your interpretation is delusional.

Blogger Nate November 26, 2012 8:04 PM  

"Just because there are some Southrons here, and I like needling 'em, I'll point out that the first instance of the Feds stomping all over States Rights in the whole slavery/abolitionist battle was not done by Lincoln, or by the North."

Wrong.

The first instance was in the American System... which was a tarrif system that taxed the South exclusively and spent the money in the North.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 8:41 PM  

"That's your imagination and bigotry at work."

I really think, for your own good, that you should stop using the words "bigotry" and "bigots". I do not think you have a good grasp of what these words mean, merely a shallow and self-interested grasp. It is a beam in your eye, and a stumbling block to true understanding, of which you have so far not impressed me of being capable. Some of the elements of your last comment serve as evidence of my assertion. Go back and read what you wrote carefully, think about it, if thinking is in your repertoire.


Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 8:48 PM  

Oh, and by the way, Muslims most specifically very much have come here explicitly in order to plunder us. Do you know anything at all about their theology?

As for whether Jews came here for plunder, well, I'll let your own guilty conscience advise you on that one.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 26, 2012 8:58 PM  

Tad

I don't want people who look like me to vote. Several idiots in the Democrat party have the same color skin as me. What I'd prefer is to limit voting to people who think like me, but I figure that's even harder to justify. I'm willing to settle for limiting it to people who pull their weight. I know it's hard for indoctrinated libs to understand, but I don't care about skin color.

Nate

I specifically said the first instance in the slavery/abolition debate. But I know it's a subject southern folk can't think straight on. I thought it was intersting, given the quesiton about contracts from different states. Also, most contracts these days specify the state under who's laws they will be governed. Wouldn't really be a problem to specify a contract was to be governed by the laws of, say, Texas and Tennessee, right there in the document.

Anonymous Van November 26, 2012 9:46 PM  

I believe the contract issue is covered by Article IV Section 1 - full faith and credit. Enlightn me if there was an earlier, different interpretation.

Anonymous Van November 26, 2012 9:49 PM  

Tad seems to think that when evaluating the intentions of today's third world immigrants, rather than look at their behavior, we should look at the behavior of European immigrants from 150 years ago.

Anonymous Tad November 26, 2012 9:51 PM  

@Scobious As for whether Jews came here for plunder, well, I'll let your own guilty conscience advise you on that one.

If you can't match our work ethic and can't match our intellect and can't bring yourself to admit your own liabilities, at least have the courtesy to not blame your deficiencies on an entire people.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 10:11 PM  

"at least have the courtesy to not blame your deficiencies on an entire people."

What deficiencies? We were getting along just fine without you. Again, what deficiencies? The lack of an urge to plunder? Is that a deficiency in your mind?

Wait, don't answer that.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 26, 2012 10:24 PM  

"If you can't match our work ethic and can't match our intellect and can't bring yourself to admit your own liabilities, at least have the courtesy to not blame your deficiencies on an entire people."

Can't match your intellect? WTF are you talking about? Where the hell do you think you are, Mali? Look around you! (or, in another language of your manifest inferiors, Circumspice! as that pork-soiled goy Christopher Wren might say.) It's a pigsty, innit. Which is, mysteriously, why you remain here. I'm sure your team could do a much better job in half the time. Oh, wait, that would involve work, and you wouldn't want to soil yourselves with _that_.

So, why do you insist on following us around despite all your endless wailing about our wicked anti-semitism that arose for no reason at all whatsoever? We're evil and stupid, remember? We're anti-semitic pork-eating blood-libelling fiends who stupidly worship a dead guy on a stick! We're savages, you should RUN from us, far, FAR away! RUN! Run for your lives, there are plenty of places to run to, to be safe from us!!

Oh, wait, you're still here. Now why the heck is that?

Work ethic?!? Who do you think built this whole place? Hint: it wasn't you. Work ethic? You're hilarious.

THE KING OF THE LOCUSTS: Well if you can't match our giant ravenous swarms and prefer to grow wheat instead of just descending upon it and devouring it, then don't blame us for your deficiencies.

WHEAT FARMER: [invents insecticide, sprays vigorously]

THE KING OF THE LOCUSTS: Hey, no fair, that's anti-semitic!

Anonymous rycamor November 27, 2012 12:27 AM  

Crispy November 26, 2012 2:06 PM

Fred Reed wrote a column in much the same vein, except that he detailed rural-to-suburban "development" and concluded:

I'd like to live again in Mr. Liddy's world. Unfortunately it is self-eliminating. Freedom is in the long run inconsistent with freedom, because it is inevitable exercised in ways that engender control. As a species, we just can't keep our pants up. But it was nice for a while.

See http://www.fredoneverything.net/Liddy.shtml


Yes, but. You have to admit that the USA's adventures in circumventing the Constitution and common sense have exacerbated that problem immensely. Just the fact of the Federal Reserve put Americans into that nervous must-expand-now mentality, and provided easy access to cheap debt in order to get there. Our meddling in the wars of others helped create the military-industrial complex. Add to this our immigration policy (especially from 1965 onward), as well as just about every other Federal policy, and you have a way of life that slowly committed suicide. A shame, since it really could have lasted a lot longer.

Anonymous Krul November 27, 2012 1:32 AM  

Locusts? Plunder? Geez, Scoob, what do you have against Jews anyway? What have they ever done to you?

Anonymous Tad November 27, 2012 10:23 AM  

@Scoobious who stupidly worship a dead guy on a stick!

I have to admit, that one made me laugh.

Anonymous Tad November 27, 2012 10:27 AM  

@Scoobious Oh, wait, you're still here. Now why the heck is that?

We like the setting. You know, Europe is just a plane ride away. The good sun is an easy jaunt south. Excellent golf courses. All kinds of great food, no matter where you are.

Plus, the bigots and anti-semites are few and far between and usually announce themselves.

Anonymous Tom B November 27, 2012 10:31 AM  

"Ethnic/racial homogeneity and liberty only seem to fit with whitopias. They might fit with some Oriental enclave. But they sure as heck don't fit with homogenous black areas like Detroit. I doubt a homogenous Mestizo area would be anything desirable either."

I actually disagree; I think the majority of Black and Hispanics not only want but aspire to living in a society that we around here have assumed to be only possible among people from WASP roots. However, I do think that there is something inherantly flawed in their collective characters that makes them more vulnerable to tyranny and more willing to knuckle under to it. Each group (and of course there are individual exceptions among each group), through either cowardice or an unhealthy preference for life at any cost find themselves unable to withstand the pressures our Founding Fathers knew existed that threatened freedom and liberty.

Those that threaten freedom and liberty know this. Now that we have extended freedom and liberty to Blacks and Hispanics, who are the weakest among us in their resolve for freedom, the enemies of freedom and liberty are attacking those weakest links with both the carrot AND the stick. And its working.

Anyways, that's my two cents worth.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 27, 2012 11:34 AM  

"We like the setting."

You know, I'm really starting to like Tad. He proves all my points for me, which kind of saves me a bit of bother. He's an invaluable tool, and some of you will recall what Confucius said about tools.

I'm beginning to wonder, though: maybe he is an operative for Hamas or Stormfront? Seeing as how he loves to embody every cliche in the universe? It's even a bit much for me, to be honest, given my personal experience, which is necessarily a lot weirder and more individuated.

Either way, Tad: you oughta knock off using the word "bigot" as you clearly have no idea what it means.

Oh, and "anti-semite"? Three famous definitions leap to mind:

1. Anti-semitism: another term for "pattern recognition".
2. Anti-semitism: justifiable defense against "semitism."
3. Anti-semitism: (pace Joe Sobran) Anyone or anything the Jews don't like.


Anonymous scoobius dubious November 27, 2012 12:28 PM  

"Geez, Scoob, what do you have against Jews anyway? What have they ever done to you?"

What do I have against them? Nothing at all. What have they done to me, personally? Nothing much, really. You fail to understand the issue.

There's no pathology here. Like many a man who's moved in certain, uh, circles, for much of his life, I've had Jewish lovers and Jewish close friends, Jewish mentors and Jewish proteges, Jewish colleagues and employers and employees. I really don't have a personal problem at all, I have an intellectual and a political problem. To my mind, genuine denounceable "anti-semitism" (which does exist, alas) is an emotional problem and a species of pathology, an a priori assignation of irrational guilt for irrational reasons. But in our present regime, many things are called "anti-semitism" which are nothing of the sort, they are legitimate social criticism.

There do exist, far, far apart from any sort of pathology, well-expounded bodies of rational and well-documented thought which have to do with the structural, the political, the ethical, the ethnographic. Wow, it's almost as if "Europe" and its off-shoots were a complicated phenonmenon! These are of a critical nature, and as such are open to criticism themselves; but if they are critical of observable documented Jewish patterns of behavior, and the ways in which these impact the lives of other ethnes, how can this be anti-semitic? So long as they are intellectually and morally serious, and they are, then it's simply a legitimate object of study.

But then we move, as we must, from study, once more back to material interests. In this there is bound to be conflict. Since the Jews insist on living in the Christian West (and which does not insist on hosting them), which in theory, according to their theology, they themselves despise, but since they also insist on defining their own interests quite differently from the interests of the Christian West, and also insist on participating in a rashly disproportionate, one almost wishes to say a grotesque, share in the structures of Western power, I ask... how is such an absolutely extraordinary phenomenon somehow shaded from sunlight and reasonable analysis?

Is this, or is it not, a legitimate question?

As for the locusts and what-not, for goodness sakes it's just a blog. One employs poetic figures and fancies as the mood strikes. Give me tenure and then maybe I'll give you something more considered. Meantime take that chill pill. Sheesh.


Anonymous 11B November 27, 2012 1:07 PM  

I actually disagree; I think the majority of Black and Hispanics not only want but aspire to living in a society that we around here have assumed to be only possible among people from WASP roots.

Of course they want to, that's why they follow whites. It won't take too long for the hispanics to follow the whites out of California. The blacks, with the assistance of Section 8, are doing the same.

However, I do think that there is something inherantly flawed in their collective characters that makes them more vulnerable to tyranny and more willing to knuckle under to it.

How about that their collective group IQs are in the 85 to 90 range? Rather than being vulnerable to tyranny, they are the tyranny with the high crime and social dysfunction they bring to communities, schools and public spaces, not to mention the drain on social safety nets.

Collectively they are not equipped as groups to create wealth or maintain stable societies. The productive members of their groups, the 'talented tenth', are not large enough to make up for the dead weight of their groups. The talented tenth could function in WASPs societies, but as the name implies, we are looking at about 10 percent that are capable of this.

Anonymous Krul November 27, 2012 2:01 PM  

they are critical of observable documented Jewish patterns of behavior, and the ways in which these impact the lives of other ethnes

Do you have any sources on that? I've long been confused by the prevalence of anti-Jewish rhetoric like yours which never seems to go into specifics.

Anonymous Luke November 27, 2012 2:48 PM  

Scoobius, if you write a book, I want to know about it so I can buy it. You are one of the most on-target and astute posters on this site.

Tad, when you use the word "bigot" as a magic epithet, thinking it will work here the way it served your kind back in liberal statist anti-white racist land, you've simply violated a corollary of Godwin's Law of internet discussion. That is, you've demonstrated that you have nothing and will never have anything of worth to add to any substantial debate, which is a complete and permanent forfeit here.

Anonymous Tom B November 27, 2012 2:52 PM  

Of course they want to, that's why they follow whites. It won't take too long for the hispanics to follow the whites out of California. The blacks, with the assistance of Section 8, are doing the same.

Naw, that's not why they are leaving Cali or anywhere else large numbers of Blacks are packing their bags. I spent 6 months in Ybor City, Fl living in a boarding house my final term at USF. I was probably the only "cracker" within 5 miles of my location not there to buy drugs and leave in a hurry.

I got to know the people in my area reasonably well, and the man I call my best friend lives there still (a former NOI member to boot!). The values of the majority of the people I spoke to, either because I got to know them well or just met in passing suggests to me that these people are NOT only desirous of freedom and liberty of the type we're talking about, but that when they hear OUR KIND of talk they support it.

The problem reaching them is two fold, based on my very subjective experience; one is that the enemies of liberty have successfully gotten the weakest members of the community to buy into the liberal/progressive lie. Part of that (but certainly not all, though it may be impossible to list ALL of the reasons here) is due to a lack of conservatives/libertarians getting their hands dirty and countering the lies. When I lived there, they were ASTOUNDED that a White Republican lived in their neighborhood! They asked questions about what I thought and believed politically, religiously and on issues of race, and most could not believe how much they agreed with me. I had a Pastor of a Church there ask me if I was a typical Republican why did I "let" the Party act in such a racist manner, because, he said, otherwise he would be much more willing to support a candidate that sounded like me. He felt he had nowhere to go BUT the Democrats. I think my answers opened his eyes.

The second part is that the liberal/progressive didn't just sell their Marxist definition of freedom to those most vulnerable Blacks, but used Blacks as props once their hooks were in. Blacks are kept stupid; I know the Bell Curve data, but I think the calculus there isn't either/or on natural intelligence versus education - its a combination of both. And right now the education half is dismissed in the Black community - not by the Pastors and parents, but by those social drains enabled by the Welfare state. And thanks to the progressives (who manipulate them at every turn), its those social drains that sets the agenda for the Black community with a political weight that far outstrips their number. And even when people like my friend, who runs a summer "camp" teaching entreprenurial skills to inner city kids speak up, its the social drains shouting "get your free Obamaphone" that are drowning him out.

And again, there are a million different tangents here that we can't possibly cover. I don't doubt what you are saying as much as the numbers - I think its more like a talented 40th.

Anonymous Tad November 27, 2012 4:54 PM  

@luke
Tad, when you use the word "bigot" as a magic epithet, thinking it will work here the way it served your kind back in liberal statist anti-white racist land, you've simply violated a corollary of Godwin's Law of internet discussion. That is, you've demonstrated that you have nothing and will never have anything of worth to add to any substantial debate, which is a complete and permanent forfeit here.

Luke, relax. The use of the term "bigot" in the current context is merely a means of referring to one that hates Jews for irrational and personal reasons having to do with their own deficiencies. Sheesh. Get over it.

Anonymous 11B November 27, 2012 5:13 PM  

I think its more like a talented 40th

I would doubt that. If the IQ stats are reasonably accurate, then half the black population has an IQ of 85 or less. As for the other half, one standard deviation puts them at around 100, which is considered average for a white. Even if you look at the remaining few who rate a 115, then that just puts them on par for the average college graduate. You'd have to hit 130 or above to start talking about real talent. And I think 10% might be even too high for that level.

The majority of blacks you see in the middle class are largely middle class because of government intervention. They are overrepresented in cushy federal jobs and the private sector is forced to hire them. If the market were truly free, you'd see a drastic reduction in the black middle class. Outside of sports and entertainment, there probably aren't too many fields were they would be represented proportionately to their numbers in the general population.

Anonymous 11B November 27, 2012 5:35 PM  

I think its more like a talented 40th

One more thing. We don't even have a talented 40th among whites or any other group. By definition the average white guy is, average. And the ones above that are not necessarily talented until you get to ones north of IQ 130.

Anonymous Van November 28, 2012 8:42 AM  

A 40th is smaller than a tenth

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts