Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Beware Reliance

Re: Beware Reliance

Ricahrd Godinez — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:11:25 -0000

I LIKE TYLER CARTERS COCK IN MY BUTT

Re: Beware Reliance

poopoo — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:10:04 -0000

huge pee pee

Re: Beware Reliance

Hammer — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:56:24 -0000

Martin, if you are saying that the government has a right to take people's things after they die, you are not a Libertarian. If you say the government has a right to tax people for more money just because they have earned more, you are not a Libertarian.

You might as well say "Just because I don't believe in the resurrection and the Trinity, I am still a Catholic!"

And yes, all titles to property are the fruits of someone's labor, and sacrosanct, unless proven that they were taken by force or fraud. Just because you think someone makes too much money doesn't mean they didn't earn it.

Re: Beware Reliance

Martin Brock — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:40:14 -0000

Martin, you are pretty far from a libertarian. As soon as you started supporting the rights of some to dictate how others dispose of the fruits of their labor, you fell off that platform.

I don't recognize your title to the Lordship of Libertarianism, and I haven't dictated how others dispose of the fruits of their labor either, unless you simply dictate that all titles to property are "fruits of labor" by your own lordly fiat.

Re: Beware Reliance

Martin Brock — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:00:59 -0000

I propose that Martin Brock's house title be revoked in the interests of "setting a good example" or "walk the talk". After all it would be no good for him to be "rent seeking".

Neither your simple-minded conflation of this title revocation with the title expiration I discussed nor your ignorance of the meaning of "rent seeking" are my problems.

Re: Beware Reliance

cpurick — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:03:09 -0000

"Holy crap! A few bad apples?? From Michael Millken to Enron , World Com and now the current situation "these few bad apples" have dramatically effected our economies, our taxes , our retirement portfolios."

First, you need to get some perspective. These are only a tiny fraction of our wealthy. What happens with this influential minority does not speak for the bulk of our wealth or the bulk of our wealthy -- it speaks only for a few.

I see you've totally abandoned the inheritance angle, btw. It's time to abandon the "rich people are all the enemy" mentality, too.

"These guys, white collar criminals , multi-national corporations and their lobbyist have done far more harm to our econmy then all the welfare programs put together."

People can always be expected to do what is best for themselves. That is not a new thing, yet it seems that financial fraud is always a surprise. I call your attention to your own snippet: "and their lobbyist." Though you are in denial, you obviously understand that government plays a role in this -- lobbyists themselves have no power. What's more, corporate interests are not sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Yet somehow you blame corporations and their lobbyists for doing what they're supposed to do, while ignoring the fact that your sworn representatives have betrayed their oaths and placed us all at risk.

I suggest you look to your beloved government for the problem, because they are the ones who have failed you. And you may want to rethink that whole "white collar criminal" thing -- thanks to government, much of what happened here was explicitly legal.

The moral hazards described in the original post apply to industrial behavior as much as to individuals -- perhaps even more so.

And anytime you think to blame anything on "lobbyists," prepare yourself to be called a fool. Lobbyists do not make policy, and if you think lobbyists influence policy, well, we warn you about that every time you seek to enact policy over commerce. You were warned. As a big-government voter, you are more responsible for this than any lobbyist. When will we see you doing your perp walk, George?

Re: Beware Reliance

brotio — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:40:41 -0000

"...that you believe this to be true as we see the "wealth" of those who "earned" it pushing pyramid schemes" - Mierduck

It appears our dear ducktor has learned a new phrase (pyramid scheme). I don't have the stomach to go look, but I'll bet that phrase just came into vogue on Daily Kos or one of the other leftard blogs.

Wherever you learned it, Mierduck, when did it become a bad thing to you? You've championed St Franklin of Roosevelt's pyramid scheme (as you have everything your Savior ever did to us) from the moment you came to this Cafe. Why is one pyramid scheme moral and all of the others are immoral?

Re: Beware Reliance

Guest — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:34:27 -0000

Open your eyes Stockholm Boy you're making excuses for criminals thinking they have something to do with your fairytale ideology.

Posted by: muirgeo | Dec 3, 2008 9:35:02 PM

Sigh. Swing by wikipedia and look up the terms "strawman", "non-sequitur", and "ad-hominem".

Re: Beware Reliance

muirgeo — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:35:02 -0000

What a few bad apples have done does not mean that the bulk of wealth was stolen.

Posted by: cpurick

Holy crap! A few bad apples?? From Michael Millken to Enron , World Com and now the current situation "these few bad apples" have dramatically effected our economies, our taxes , our retirement portfolios.

These guys, white collar criminals , multi-national corporations and their lobbyist have done far more harm to our econmy then all the welfare programs put together.

Open your eyes Stockholm Boy you're making excuses for criminals thinking they have something to do with your fairytale ideology.

Re: Beware Reliance

Crusader — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:55:25 -0000

I propose that Martin Brock's house title be revoked in the interests of "setting a good example" or "walk the talk". After all it would be no good for him to be "rent seeking".

Re: Beware Reliance

Hammer — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:41:03 -0000

"Actually, I'm a libertarian and also favor title expiration. Title expiration is similar to an inheritance tax, but a probate court removes monetary proceeds of an estate sale from circulation rather than transferring the money to a central authority. The probate court could burn the money on the deceased's funeral pyre, a fitting tribute to his life's contribution."

Martin, you are pretty far from a libertarian. As soon as you started supporting the rights of some to dictate how others dispose of the fruits of their labor, you fell off that platform.

More on topic, the second point of Russ' letter is very important as well I think. Too many people (quite often Republicans) forget that "free" money and other favors provided by the government can quite easily dry up or be turned against you as soon as it is unpopular politically, but an income stream based on voluntary transactions is much more stable. How many publicly funded universities would be in deep water if the Fed' suddenly decided to stop subsidising tuition, for example.

Re: Beware Reliance

cpurick — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:34:31 -0000

What a few bad apples have done does not mean that the bulk of wealth was stolen. In fact, the wealth has changed very little (i.e. the homes are all still there); it's mostly just money that has moved around. You will be a grownup, George, when you understand that they are not the same thing.

Also, you seem to have retreated from your original premise that wealth is "inherited." It's nice to see that you're learning, even if slowly.

Re: Beware Reliance

muirgeo — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:17:53 -0000

Any way you look at it, you are led by men of wealth, the bulk of which is earned rather than inherited.

Posted by: cpurick

It's pathetic that you believe this to be true as we see the "wealth" of those who "earned" it pushing pyramid schemes and toxic fraudulent paper for what it's really worth. These people did not do anything productive for society or the economy and in fact stole worth and have brought the productive economy to a halt. Some still have billions in their accounts that represents nothing but pilfering from the productive economy. You suffer from a serious case of Economic Stockholm Syndrome or the Battered Wife equivalent of some morbid economic psychological dysfunction. Or maybe you just belong to what day by day could more legitimately be considered a cult.

Re: Beware Reliance

cpurick — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:58:07 -0000

"No one coerces the Citibank executive to take the bonus."

That's funny, but it's clearly horses hit. Obviously some money as coerced from taxpayers who "bailed out" Citi. So the coercion is there.

You have yet to assign any similar origin to Buffett's money, so absent charges from anyone who claims he defrauded them, it remains an apples/oranges comparison. Buffett gets a pass because there's no evidence he didn't earn it -- and the fact that you don't understand what he does that qualifies as "earning" is irrelevant.

Are you planning to substantiate your bulls hit, or will this just be more word games?

Re: Beware Reliance

Martin Brock — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:30:25 -0000

Martin, you specifically gave examples rooted in coerced government redistribution.

No one coerces the Citibank executive to take the bonus.

So, instead of asking me why I give him a pass for not being the same as your examples, explain the coercion behind Buffett's wealth that proves he is like your examples.

Here you simply avoid the question by asking me to disprove that your assumption rather than accept any burden of proving it. My question remains. Why do you make your assumption. I have not asserted that Buffet's wealth involves any coercion, so I have no assertion to prove.

BTW, that Buffett holds title to $60B worth of capital on loan to the rest of us in the form of long-term investments strikes me as a much better thing ...

Surely that depends on what these "long-term investments" are. Buffet was cheerleader in chief for the bailout, you know.

Re: Beware Reliance

cpurick — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:39:06 -0000

Martin, you specifically gave examples rooted in coerced government redistribution.

You did not provide any evidence of such redistribution in Buffett's case. So, instead of asking me why I give him a pass for not being the same as your examples, explain the coercion behind Buffett's wealth that proves he is like your examples.

BTW, that Buffett holds title to $60B worth of capital on loan to the rest of us in the form of long-term investments strikes me as a much better thing for society than having that capital assigned to people who'd just as soon hock it for consumer goods. The fact that Buffett owns what he owns does not account for any individual not having the things they deserve. The same cannot be said for the people described in your examples.

Re: Beware Reliance

Guest — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:22:50 -0000

"George has slain so many straw men here that I propose an award called 'The George' for proficiency in hitting imaginary targets."

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 3, 2008 11:28:26 AM

Shame on you, Sam! This, quite simply, isn't true. It's impossible for you or I to know what we believe if it wasn't for George.

Thank God for him.

/sarcasm

Re: Beware Reliance

Martin Brock — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:53:56 -0000

The presumption is that the man with $60B acquired it through voluntary transactions.

Here you simply beg the question again. Why do you make this assumption in Buffet's case specifically?

Re: Beware Reliance

Sam Grove — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:42:32 -0000

Let me draw a picture for you trumpit, some people, when given the means, will engage fully in self destructive behavior.

When they have to fend for themselves, they will be more fit, because the motivation keeps them active and keeps their minds alert for opportunities.

If you 'take care' of them, they will cease their struggle and begin their decline.

Re: Beware Reliance

Sam Grove — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:28:26 -0000

George has slain so many straw men here that I propose an award called 'The George' for proficiency in hitting imaginary targets.

Or course, it may not be possible for anyone else to surpass the original.

As for Warren Buffet:

Yes, it's impossible to determine how much people are really worth. The game is so extensively rigged that political conniving has become a highly rewarded skill. Has WB really earned all the wealth he controls? I sincerely doubt it.

What's the solution?

That has been addressed here quite often.

Re: Beware Reliance

cpurick — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:27:37 -0000

"Do you make this assumption only about the man with $60,000,000,000? Why would you do that?"

The presumption is that the man with $60B acquired it through voluntary transactions. If you are not one of those who gave it to him, then it's irrelevant whether you can comprehend the values that were exchanged in the transaction, and rather non-libertarian, btw, for you to be trying to second guess the outcomes that arise.

Likewise, even money that was not rightfully earned has a rightful owner. What's missing is an understanding that money is not wealth, and that there is ultimately less overall wealth in a system where entitlement is redistributed from those who have earned it to those who are awarded it by the state. Refer to the original post for an explanation of the machinery involved.

Re: Beware Reliance

Sam Grove — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:16:33 -0000

It's nice to know that blind people are skiing at Aspen, Colorado ski resorts. I didn't know that seeing-eye dogs were allowed on the lifts.

These weren't physically disabled people. They were individuals with psychological issues and tended toward substance abuse. Providing them with a guaranteed income meant they could spend more time enjoying their chosen poison rather than struggling to scrape up enough money to purchase same.

Re: Beware Reliance

cpurick — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:58:29 -0000

An abundance of nonsense. Libertarians are not "content to be lead[sic] by those of inherited wealth." Any way you look at it, you are led by men of wealth, the bulk of which is earned rather than inherited. This is the rewarding of merit that you supposedly seek (though I suspect you lie about that), and it is not mutually exclusive with the maximizing of opportunity unless one subscribes to zero sum game fallacies (as you are admittedly wont to do).

Refer to the original post here. The notion that faulty derivatives are secure originates in the very reliance on government -- to make good wherever the underlying economics are unsustainable -- that Don was talking about in the first place. You are making Don's point as you attack it.

The bottom line is that you seek an equal voice in policy for the ignorant and unqualified, through policymakers who exploit naivete and ignorance. All based on the zero sum reasoning that wealth is evidence of theft from the poor. Is that how you get your money George? By stealing it?

Re: Beware Reliance

Martin Brock — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:30:27 -0000

If Warren Buffett is worth $60B, that is not $60B that has been "taken out of the system": it is $60B that has been entrusted to the system by its rightful owner, ...

How do you know this?

If I'm worth $60,000 after receiving my executive's bonus from Citibank after Henry Paulson hands the bank billions of taxpayer dollars, has my $60,000 been entrusted to its rightful owner? If I'm a welfare mother worth $6000, having squirreled away so much during a decade on WIC, AFDC, food stamps, public housing and other benefits, has my $6000 been entrusted to its rightful owner?

Do you make this assumption only about the man with $60,000,000,000? Why would you do that?

Re: Beware Reliance

Martin Brock — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:22:36 -0000

Libertarians are content to be lead by those of inherited wealth while progressives want to be joint leaders of a government of the people were merit is well rewarded and opportunity for all maximized.

Actually, I'm a libertarian and also favor title expiration. Title expiration is similar to an inheritance tax, but a probate court removes monetary proceeds of an estate sale from circulation rather than transferring the money to a central authority. The probate court could burn the money on the deceased's funeral pyre, a fitting tribute to his life's contribution.

What's a "joint leader of a government"? Is that what I am when I check a box beside the name of one of two men, neither of whom I trust to represent me?

Where is this utopian government well rewarding merit and maximizing opportunity for all? The one governing me hands trillions, hand over fist, to incredibly wealthy elites at Halliburton, Blackwater, J. P. Morgan, AIG and Goldman Sachs, the latter being the largest contributor to the campaign of our latest imperial Commander in Chief leading us with plenary powers through the perpetual, Orwellian War on Terror.

Are you governed otherwise? Maybe I should move.