Libertarian, Paleo & Naderite
Friday, January 30, 2004
While I'm digesting that intriguing article I'll take a moment instead with your simile. Isn't it ironic that the Hon. Mr. Kennedy and his family owe their all to prohibition?
Tort Reform Down Under
Mildly amusing article here from Australia's Courier Mail:
Coalition vows to halt frivolous court cases
My favorite line: "This is about making sure that people are more responsible for (their) . . . own actions. We don't want to have a situation where this rampant stupid American style of suing is let go unfettered."
No wonder I've always kind of liked the Aussies. They display this type of common sense, while here in America we have a trial lawyer running for president. Jon Edwards would support tort reform the way Ted Kennedy would support a return to prohibition.
Meanwhile, as regards our application for membership in the Northern Alliance: haven't heard back from Hugh, but certainly won't today as he's snowmobiling on balmy Lake Minnetonka. I'll start bugging him again next week once he's back in CA and has had time to thaw out.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Application to Join the Northern Alliance
I think our young-but-rapidly-maturing blog is ready and more than qualified to join the Northern Alliance, so I'm sending an e-mail to Hugh Hewitt on this subject. Did I mention that Mr. Hewitt (aka "AM radio shock jock Hugh Hewitt") is the finest radio host on the face of the earth?
Our editors traded e-mails regarding the Al Franken assault incident yesterday, but I didn't blog on it because I honestly believed it was a hoax, until I heard Hugh cover it on his show last night. He said about the same thing I did: this was an assault, there should be charges pressed and lawsuit filed. Also, that Franken's actions nicely illustrate liberal's true attitude toward free speech: defend it for your own viewpoint, but when confronted with an opposing viewpoint, respond with violence since you have no intellectual ammunition to use (Steve excepted of course, being that rarest of species -- a liberal who's both intelligent and reasonable. Still wrong, but intelligent and reasonable nonetheless.).
Smart, beautiful and witty morning host Laura Ingraham also pointed out this morning that if a conservative had done what Franken did, it would be all over the news, being decried as the most base behavior. But for some reason (liberal media bias perhaps? No, can't be, that of course doesn't exist), Franken is pretty much getting a pass so far. Did I mention that Laura is on the same network as Hugh Hewitt?
Here's a link to Hugh's site. What the heck, here's another one. I want all of our readers (yes, that means BOTH of you) to email Hugh on behalf of this blog, supporting our quest for membership in the Northern Alliance.
We'll keep you posted!
A Bit of Cleanup
A few items to tidy up here.
(Begin rant) First, I'm SICK AND TIRED of the "Bush lied" crap. If you had a principled stand against going to war in Iraq, that's fine, and there's nothing unpatriotic or America-hating about that. You can argue about the meaning of "imminent" (as in threat), or the precise nature of Saddam (a relative secularist for that region) and his relationship with Islamofacsist terror groups, but for God's sake QUIT repeating the same old LIES from the DNC and nine/eight/seven dwarfs about Bush "misleading us into war."
The Kay report and other evidence HAS shown that Saddam possessed banned weapons and had active WMD programs, and we KNOW that he used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians in the past. Obviously, the intelligence provided to the president on this score was less than perfect, but who was who hollowed out our intelligence capabilities in the first place? Oh yeah, that would be Frank Church and his band of merry head-in-the-sand Democrats. The entire security council of the UN believed Saddam had these weapons (go back and look at all of the resoutions passed). Bill Clinton believed it, as did Madeline Albright and everyone else on his security team. George W acted on this belief -- perhaps (partially) mistaken, but unquestionably sincere. Until you can show me PROOF that our president actually knew that the intelligence he was receiving (from our team, the UK intelligence services, the UN etc.), SHUT UP about the Bush lied crap. (end rant)
Second, and all of to the right of Ted Kennedy also sick of repeating this, but Bill Clinton was NOT impeached for having sex with an intern -- he was impeached (and disbarred in his home state, for that matter) for lying under oath. The subject of the perjury is immaterial.
Finally, to wrap up Steve's confusion over the old saying about anyone who's not a liberal at 20 not having a heart, while anyone who isn't a conservative by 30 not having a brain: liberalism (modern, not classical) is essentially the philosophy of the child. I want what I want, I want it now, I want you to give it to me, it isn't fair that someone else has more than I have, and the world is a dark and scary place so I need Big Nanny government to protect me from it. Conservativism is the philosophy of the mature adult: I still want what I want, but I understand that nobody owes me that or is going to give it to me, that I need to earn it by using my brains and hard work to add as much value as I possibly can, that yes there should be a social safety net (of government and private charity combined) to help those down-on-their-luck to get back on their feet again (but not to provide a permanent livlihood and foster dependence), and that sometimes in life things happen that are unfair; no individual can control everything that happens to him or her, but each individual can control their own response to outside events.
Most liberals are liberals because they are either locked into a juvenile mentality (common among artists, and particularly among actors and actresses, who make their living play-acting like children) or are direct beneficiaries of the government's largesse (e.g. public employee union members, welfare [corporate or individual] recipients, etc.). A few wealthy business types are liberal out of misplaced guilt (if you feel bad about being rich, donate more of your own money to charity -- don't steal from the middle class to hand out), and a few, like Steve, are simply inexplicable.
Is that everything? Oh, Khatami in Iran seems to have his hands full right now battling for democracy against the theocratic totalitarians, so we should wish him well, do what we can under the table to support him, and work towards better relations in the future. I still think his public rebuff of our diplomatic mission was wrong and obnoxious, but I'm willing to chalk it up to stress and lay off him (for now).
Oh, and Paul O'Neil was a crappy Treasury secretary with ZERO credibility on international affairs, whose allegations have been denied by virtually EVERYONE familiar with the actual facts, and who himself has rescinded most of his charges from the book, so give it up on that score.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Steve is soft on crime
Impeachment has lost it's luster. If and, more likely, when we have a case let's charge these people with crimes and arrest them. Maybe Clinton's foolish behavior merited the puffery and hypocrisy of his proceedings. If lying about adultery results in impeachment I'll hold out for the lasting image of Rove, or whomever outed our agent, in handcuffs being loaded into a squad car and driven directly to his treason trial and his conspirators pictures lined up on the front page of the paper.
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
This isn't a really good time for me to entertain the Doles right now. Maybe you can come back later.
It seems from Tom's breaking news that this might be a pretty crappy time for Khatami to have the Iranian populus associate moderate reformers with a progressive woman leader and a popular American spokesman for Pepsi and Viagara. Libby Dole is a great choice for this mission, no problems there, but it seems that he's got fish to fry with the Governing Council and having any representatives from the great Satan waiting in his parlor would be mighty difficult to sell to either the GC or the folks with rocks and bottles milling around the streets.
Of course it is hypocritical of them to take our money at the same time. Is that the worst thing we can say about the government of Iran?
I say bank the good will and call them after Easter to see who's in charge. Maybe they can do something for us on the QT with this influence they have with the Shia in Iraq. Bush should cool it with sending the Doles, CNN and Access Hollywood to cover his good deeds.
France and Germany were war profiteers, no question, but I seem to remember a certain Lt. Colonel North and a future Sec of Defense and some other luminaries mucking about for both sides during that period. Just because the shipment came from other countries didn't make us less complicit and a lot of little tales of US involvements are adding up to a what really matters for this embattled president (Khatami, that is). That the U.S. is the brand name of Western intrigue and responsibility that goes along with most of the public derision in the Middle East. Remember when students in Tehran asked the U.S. to please stay back from supporting them during the night protests last year?
They're at it Again
UN asks for money for Iran, U.S. told to stay home
Despicable. In essence, what Asefi is saying is: "We want to continue to blow up women and children in Israel, harbor those who blow up women and children in the US (and elsewhere), and build big bombs so we can threaten to blow up many more of your women and children -- but please keep sending the checks."
Moderates aren't even allowed to run for office in Iraq, as the Guardian Council, an unelected body of self-proclaimed supreme rulers, sets the rules for elections.
(Digression ahead) Wait, that sounds like the U.S., post- McCain-Feingold "reform." No, wait it is Iran, the Supreme Court of the U.S. hasn't yet taken upon itself the power to disqualify legitimate candidates, only to tell them to shut up and let the incumbent win. (End of digression)
Here's the story on Iranian elections:
IRNA: Iran's cabinet may dissolve
What kind of a democracy is it that is, essentially, run by "Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei"? We don't have a "supreme leader" (well, other than Sandra Day O'Connor perhaps), we have a president, and he's term-limited. The Iranians currently have a sham democracy, one that as Scott points out, rebuffs the U.S. for no long-term gain. I think further regime change is needed, but fortunately, this time it is possible for that to happen from within. We (the U.S.) shouldn't try to run it, but we should support it.
As for the old Iraq-Iran war stuff: the financial and arms support we provided to Iraq was minimal. His primary arms suppliers were -- hold your breath -- Germany and France. Yes, the same countries who wanted to veto our war with Iraq and keep a genocidal maniac in power. So that argument doesn't hold. It's time for the Iranian parliament to wake up, smell the coffee, play nice with the rest of the world, disband the Guardian Council and listen to the will of their people. And in exchange for all of the earthquake relief we've provided, simply being willing be talk to us doesn't seem to be too much to ask.
"I love the 80's" not a big ratings getter for MTV Tehran
I don't want the role of Khatami apologist. I don't see any long term gain for Iraq rebuffing the U.S.. Moderates in Iran cannot hold power without showing that they can engage the rest of the world. The post-Shah generation Tom cites so appropriately won't accept cold storage in a fundamentalist state.
If they can't reach a critical mass in the near future, though, those elements will grit teeth through the short remainder of the living Ayatollahs' rule then muster a flameout revolution by the post Iran/Iran War generation and behold; another impoverished state run by bandits like so many in that region.
However, the U.S. should not be the country to call Khatami to the table. Freedom does not have to come wrapped in a us flag and wearing spurs. That generation after the Shah did go to school. I also wasn't around to vote for Ike but I still know who his vice-president was. History class is more important than gym in a totalitarian state. More importantly if we are talking about generational motivators let's skip ahead to nine years of war with Iraq during which the U.S. made little secret of who they backed, funded, and funneled materiel and considered an important regional ally. First Iran can look at us as the friend of an enemy then they can look at the last ten years to see what a good friend to Saddam we have remained. Khatami has to run a nation of millions who and don't want to be our friend or our dog. I think we'd need a bigger earthquake to change his mind.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Tom Responds on Death, Taxes and Iran; Mark Still MIA
Where does one begin? At the first part of this debate I suppose, so "bottoms up"!
First, Steve misses my point about passing along wealth vs. disposing of it - what I meant was not that, under a 100% inheritance tax, the wealthy would SPEND all of their money before they passed away, but rather that would find a way to pass it along to their heirs prior to death, and so avoid the tax. ("Like my mansion, son? Tell you what, why don't you buy it from me -- got a dollar?") This is an argument from practicality; if you tax something at 100%, you will get zero of it to tax. As Scott points out, even at the current rate, very little inherited wealth actually gets taxed. But of course, liberals are famous for ignoring unintended consequences.
"Spoiled" and "drunk" (at least until he stopped drinking completely) I'll accept or at least not argue with too strenuously, but what evidence do you have that George W ever snorted coke? Or are you confusing him with his predecessor?
On the inheritance tax and "fairness" -- I'd need another entire essay to address this matter, so that will have to wait for another time. But briefly -- when it comes to income, wealth and taxes, I don't EVER trust the government to define "fairness." What's more unfair, that a small percentage of Americans own 50% of the country's wealth, or that the same group pays 70% of the total tax burden? As I said, a topic for another time and a longer treatment. But Scott, in his first post, addresses the death tax (yes, that's what it is) nicely and succinctly with a well-stated post.
On Bush's recent announcements regarding immigration, illegal aliens and work permits -- this is another one of those rare instances in which I (for the most part anyway) agree with Steve. As with the Medicare prescription drug bill, Bush's proposals on dealing with illegal immigrants will draw fire from both the left and right, while making very few people happy, and not solving the fundamental problem. As I've emphasized before, I'm no partisan hack; I think George W has gotten most of the big stuff right, but some of his policy moves have been awful.
In his defense, however (you knew this had to come), it isn't George W's fault that this country lacks a clear immigration policy and has for pretty much the last four decades. His recent proposals are an effort to help, given the void here. If we really need more immigrants at this time, then we should up the targets and streamline the process to turn more new arrivals as quickly as possible into legal citizens. If we don't, then we should lower the targets and actually enforce our laws (mass deportations and heavy fines for the employers of illegals). As things currently stand, we decry the high level of immigration -- particularly the illegal sort -- but then turn the other way and accept, as Steve notes, a two-tiered system which ultimately serves the neither the best interests of legal citizens or the illegal workers.
On Iraq: I won't back down an inch from this. What Khatami said was absolutely inexcusable. The fact that we continue to send aid and assistance there for the disaster victims while he rebuffs our diplomatic overtures, disparages us publicly, and continues clandestine support for Islamo-fascist terrorists speaks volumes about the difference in both class and civility in our two countries. Palavi was no model of democracy or benevolence, but he did try to modernize the country and he protected it from Soviet hegemony. It's obvious by the level of unrest there now that the 1979 coup basically succeeded at replacing one oppressive regime with another. The architects of that coup were Bolshevik in their methods even if not in their ideology. And Scott is wrong on one key point: "They still remember Shah Palavi as a brutal and divisive dictator who ran a group of thugs through the streets in 1954 and toppled a pretty agreeable but slightly pink government." No, they don't -- nearly 50% of Iran's population is under the age of 18, and somewhere in the 65-70% range is under the age of 30. They remember the Shah as well as I remember Ike (which I don't, his presidency preceded my birth, Steve's contention about my age notwithstanding). These people don't remember the Shah at all; they know he did some bad stuff, but also that there were certain freedoms under his rule that have now been lost. No one there wants the Shah back, but the majority of Iranians do want more freedom, more modernity, and more openness than they have under the current regime; why on earth wouldn't and shouldn't we support those aspirations?
The age/conservatism argument will have to wait for another time.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Forgot the link
I did not do a deep background search on this site but it presents most or more of the history that I would cite but cannot locate from a recent BBC World Service documentary on the topic.
Secret History of 1954 Iranian Coup
Back to Bam
I can't say I like 'em but I can see where they are comin' from
If we have any dialogue with Iran out of this event it is better than we've had for twenty five years. Khatami is still one of our best public points of contact with moderates in the theocracy and it's too bad that he can't take this opportunity. Just like any other time we could have given him some thing to work with us on we've always squeezed him too hard and threatened his delicate position as head of that state.
Americans played a larger role in putting the Mullahs in place than we'll ususally care to remember and Iranians have a longer memory than most Americans. They still remember Shah Palavi as a brutal and divisive dicator who ran a goup of thugs through the streets in 1954 and toppled a pretty agreeable but slightly pink government. The CIA did not make much of a secret that the Embassy was one of his operational sites and that they were funding him. The Shah built up a military backed class division that is still the envy the west.
Heck, we put a lot of brutal puppets in place back then as our S.O.P. but this one had a popular opposition that didn't march for the Kremlin, they marched for Allah and we had a pretty poor grasp of what that meant back then.
That is why the opposition in 1979 seized the embassy, it had a lot more local interest than just being a local piece of American real estate. It was actual building from which the force came in '54.
It is also bigger news there than here that our former CIA director's son is our current President.
Yes, if Iran could just focus on the good thing we are doing in Iraq with forceful decapitation and the armies next door and forget about he last fifty years of US meddling and hamfisted intrigue in their own state maybe they could focus on this single humanitaran event and let us leverage it for the adminitration's political gain. Imagine the selfishness of those people!
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
I hate to make a first impression by faking to the right but there are plenty of responsible strategies for succession of wealth and no one is required to follow them. Spending up money and paying a tremenous amount of excise and sales tax is not prudent or socially useful. If in turn your kids are planning on supply siding all your dough we've managed Steve's suggestion without the burden of legislation.
It would be unusual for a prudent person who is subject to that tax to liquidate and turn half their fortune over to taxes. If they did, hey, great for us, we can try to buy down the deficit since we aren't doing anything reasonable about controlling it.
Realistically though, if there wasn't some concentration of money in trusts combined with tax benefits for debt investment we'd be hard pressed to build infrastructure in this country. And that applies to college dormitories, hospitals in low-revenue rural areas, and wind farms as well as eight lane highways, stadia, and coal fired power plants. Steve's family farm example is a great underlining of the reason the inheritance tax is irrelevant to all but the most uncommon cases. Prudent people don't pay it and I'd be suprised if Steve could show me that the inheritance tax is applied to any large amount of the wealth in transition that he cited to start this debate.
Morally I think the tax is excessive but not so excessive that I am convinced that it should be abolished. It provides the incentive to be prudent and generates direct revenue for the federal govenment which, like it or not, is a system that does allow citizens to make, keep and protect the fruits of their labors.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
There is Hope for Liberals (Even Steve)
I came across this wonderful piece today and just had to share:
My Journey to Conservatism
Like the author, I was also a clueless liberal in my younger days, though not wrong about everything. I railed against the draft (actually, still do; that's the libertarian in me. As much as I respect, tremendously, the efforts and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, and as grateful as I am to them for their service, I still believe that our current all-volunteer force is vastly superior to forced conscription.), the lack of funding for worthy but needy would-be college students (again, I still believe that financial aid for those with the aptitude and ambition -- but without the means to afford college -- is a fantastic investment for the taxpayer), and the unequal distribution of wealth (okay, so I was clearly wrong about some things).
The article above is definitely worth a read for anyone over 30 who still leans leftward.
Debating the Death Tax
Yesterday, Steve wrote to me:
"I am forced to point out that as a practical matter, much (most?) of the wealth in the hands of the wealthy passes by virtue of inheritance, not effort, not to mention the inherent benefit of having a name like Hilton or Bush, money help aside. I would be willing to explore, as a sort of compromise, dismantling the entire tax structure, do away with all taxes but one: a 100% inheritance tax.
Use this to fund universal K-college education (now truly need-blind, as in Britain), and then let people succeed or fail as their skills and interests warrant. People can buy whatever extravagances they can afford in their own lifetimes, and then shuffle off the mortal coil with a state-funded funeral (lest the disgustingly rich squander the nation's wealth on modern pyramids).
Seems fair, no?"
Fair? Well, no. There are several obvisous problems with such an approach. Herewith, just a few objections off the top of my head:
The Moral argument: How is it that spending on "whatever extravagances they (anyone with an income) can afford in their own lifetimes" is moral, but choosing to path wealth along to one's children (or someone else of the giver's choosing, or a charity, etc.) is not an acceptable choice? How is it that spending money during one's lifetime on things like gambling, pornography, booze, cigarettes, red meat, donations to the Democratic party, etc. is morally acceptable to Steve but passing along wealth to one's children or other heirs is not? Being a libertarian, I of course could care less what people choose to spend their money on as long as it's legal (everything on the above list) and doesn't harm others (hmm, those contributions to the Democratic party may run afoul of this), but from a moral standpoint, it's hard to figure how leavnig money to one's heirs of choice is so unacceptable.
The Fiscal argument: In practice, this approach wouldn't work at all (see the arguments below), but even theoretically, one has to admit that this would work (at best) on only one generation: the following generation would simply be smart enough not to accumulate any wealth (at least any that can be tracked), leaving the government backrupt and forced to reinstate all of the taxes you just agreed to drop in place of this one.
The Socio-Economic argument: A significant majority (I believe the figure I've seen is close to 80% although I don't have the source at hand, so I could be slightly off) of estates subject to the current death tax don't belong to those with names like Rockefeller or Kennedy or Hilton or Bush; they don't in fact belong to anyone who inherited their own wealth, but rather to self-made first-generation successful people (primarily farmers and small-business owners). How on earth does it benefit society to turn all of these assets over to the government for sale rather than permit those who built the wealth to pass it along to those they believe will be the best stewards of the assets (generally their children, and the fact that some children are ill-equipped to run the family farm or business doesn't negate the general argument)? And who will have the means to buy all of these farms and businesses with no inherited wealth available? And even if someone could, wouldn't the fact that they can't pass along the wealth be a strong disincentive to buy the assets? For that matter, wouldn't the 100% inheritance tax serve as a strong disincentive to build up the farm or company in the first place? New business formation would plummet under this plan, leaving few jobs available for all of the newly well-educated graduates of Steve's free education system.
The Practical argument: If no wealth can be passed along, what's to stop a wealthy, aging individual to simply dispose of all of his or her assets ahead of death? Indeed, much of this happens now due to the way we fund nursing home care; someone who lived well during their lifetime is suddenly, lo and behold, destitute when the time comes to move out of their home and into The Home. A 100% inheritance tax would only encourage this type of behavior on a much more massive and creative scale.
So -- sorry, Steve, but this notion clearly ain't gonna fly. Two final points: 1) "Universal K-college education"? Why? What if Suzy wants to go trade school or Johnny wants to go straight to work -- shouldn't people have options? How would our society necessarily be better off if EVERYONE had a bachelor's degree? I agree that for those who demonstrate both the aptitude and the ambition to go to college, money shouldn't be an issue, and I don't object to tax dollars helping with this. But "universal" I can't buy into. 2) "Disgustingly rich." Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, dude. I'm a uniter, not a divider.
