defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
That sums my concern with the Tea Party movement. I have yet to hear how they would actually propose to reduce taxes and balance the budget.
Here is a Washington Post article For tea party, midterms present a choice between ideals, pragmatism
One Tea Party supporter, Stephen Fincher who is a farmer has received farming subsidies. The Washington Post article states: "The one possible chink is the farm subsidy issue, a topic that makes Fincher and his team sensitive. According to data compiled by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, Fincher and his wife, Lynn, received about $2.5 million in subsidies between 1995 and 2006. But Fincher said that without that money, his farm would have shut down years ago." (emphasis added). Unfortunately, this ends up being another typical example of welfare for me is OK but we have to cut welfare for the other guy to balance the budget.
[Comment at 04/19/2010 10:46 AM by Steve R.]
Obama is currently doing his best to pay off as money non-contributors to society as possible so that the welfare state may be expanded beyond sustainable limits. What few fail to recognize (at least, those who are the beneficiaries of the welfare state) is that expansion will lead to bankruptcy of the United States and the biggest debt default in the history of mankind. Perhaps only through catastophe will people wake up to the fact that you cannot take more and more (and more) from those who actually contribute to society and give to those who do not.
[Comment at 04/20/2010 06:34 AM by Anonymous]
I think we are in agreement that Obama is paying off non-contributors (Bread and Circuses). However, I may not have been exactly clear in my post, that the Tea Party Movement lacks a coherent message as to how the Federal budget would be balanced. All I hear is shrill rhetoric but nothing substantive. Furthermore, I have to really wonder about the credibility of those behind the Tea Party Movement. Is Mr. Fincher is a typical member who is actually clueless concerning his receipt of welfare? If the Tea Party Movement is made up of unthinking buffoons who don't realize what a balanced budget would mean, then we will continue to spend ourselves into oblivion.
Now for the flip side. It seems that the Washington Post and the New York Times are trying to smear the Tea Party Movement as being racially motivated! Playing the racial card is disgusting.
If you want to discredit a movement, do some real investigative journalism don't run a smear campaign based on innuendo. The Post and Times should be interviewing the Tea Party Movement leadership and asking them "How do you propose to balance the Federal budget? Do you believe in a flat tax? What would be an acceptable tax rate?" That is what we should be discussing. If the Tea Party Movement leadership cannot provide rationale answers to those questions,they will self-destruct.
[Comment at 04/20/2010 09:58 AM by Steve R.]
Actually, wouldn't a better caption be "No thanks, I'm a Keynesian!" Just think about all the construction workers who will benefit from rebuilding his house.
[Comment at 04/20/2010 10:23 AM by RickC]
Gee, I was under the impression that the Tea Party Movement was more of a grass roots thing. I have yet to see any racial or radical elements. I think people are just pissed that the government is spending money like a drunken sailor. The new mantra of the middle class should be "stop the spending."
True, their agenda is poorly formed, but the end game is the same: reduce government spending. I know, when anything is that vague it is difficult to get a handle on where they are going. Many good causes flounder because they focus on the end goal without providing any of the steps to get there.
[Comment at 04/20/2010 11:37 AM by Anonymous]
And what, pray tell, does a hoary old star trek episode have to do with the price of tea in China?
[Comment at 04/20/2010 12:43 PM by Suzzle]
Nonsense. In fact it is ONLY libertarians who are entitled to receive government payments or services. For us, it's restitution. For others, it's participating in theft that they support.
[Comment at 04/21/2010 03:32 PM by Stephan Kinsella]
This tired old argument again?
Stick THIS in your anarchist pipe and smoke it: http://law.fordham.edu/assets/CorporateCenter/Black_-_Fragile_becomes_Friable.pdf
[Comment at 04/25/2010 12:15 AM by Nobody Nowhere]
From William Black's paper:
Analogous to Gresham's law (hyperinflations causes "bad money to drive good money out of circulation")
He has Gresham's law wrong.
Because neo-classical theory is virulently hostile towards government....
Should I laugh now or wait for the punchline?
I skimmed his paper. He should take econ 101. Seriously.
[Comment at 04/25/2010 06:27 PM by Bill Stepp]
Bill Stepp wrote:
[implied insults deleted]
No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.
It was written three years before the mortgage meltdown but seems eerily prophetic about it. Assets that are hard to assess. Companies look perfectly solvent from the outside right up until the bottom drops out. Lax regulation of the sector. Public-sector fraud abetting private-sector (bailouts, anyone?).
The major failing there is that it does not have the guts to name George W. Bush as an example of a head of state committing fraud, although by 2005 Bush had already used the Iraq war (and its fraudulent pretext of "WMDs") to funnel billions to Blackwater and other companies, and the WMDs were already known not to actually exist in Iraq.
[Comment at 04/25/2010 08:46 PM by Nobody Nowhere]
Time to resurrect this cartoon and its implications. See No Pay, No Spray?. Fox News actually got the story implications correct! Amazing.
[Comment at 10/09/2010 10:05 AM by Steve R.]
Most Recent Comments
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy Thank you for this great
at 06/21/2019 02:13 PM by spam name
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser
at 05/11/2019 09:15 PM by Marcelo
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/
at 04/07/2019 11:22 PM by WolfLarsen
at 04/07/2019 11:21 PM by WolfLarsen
IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre
at 04/07/2019 11:20 PM by WolfLarsen
at 02/05/2019 07:44 AM by Anonymous
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good
at 06/19/2018 10:36 PM by Michael Jones
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous