At least for tonight. It seems I have a general disinterest in everything not related to music (and Scrabble), which curiously includes everything else I do. So let me just give y'all some sorts of an update of matters that have occurred since the last post, mmmkay?
First off, much to my chagrin, my rating at the Online Scrabble Club has been dropping. Even though my proficiency has improved, I can't seem to get a break when it comes to letter distribution. Even with words in my arsenal like cwm, mm, hm, zooid, zori, djinni, tranq, jeez, and such it seems an impossibility to win. But enough of that.
Musically I've come across some gems which thou ought to explore:
-The Body Acoustic (Cyndi Lauper)
-Raising Sand (Robert Plant and Allison Krauss)
-Death Songs For The Living (Gob Iron)
-Sloe Gin (Joe Bonamassa)
-Kill To Get Crimson (Mark Knopfler)
-Road To Escondito (J.J. Cale and Eric Clapton)
When it comes to my reading, most of it seems to be concerned with the anarcho-capitalist school of thought, which I like quite a bit. Well... it's the way to go, really. I am particularly fond of the writings of David Friedman, an Economics professor at the University of Chicago, who sees zero value in government. Hi Carol!
By the way, Carol, in a discussion about privatized education, you posed the question "What would you think if Bridgestone/Firestone and/or WalMart ran our schools?" We already know those schools would probably be even worse than what we have right now, so who in their right mind would be forcing parents to send their kids there? Who claims authority to send kids anywhere anyways, and more importantly, why?
Anyways, I apologize for so rudely interrupting myself. I have been reading other stuff though. Books that seriously and convincingly question compulsory/public education, about astrophysics, law, property rights, a couple of biographies and as always algebra.
I really have more stuff to type, but in all honesty, I got bored. C-ya!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
spunky indeed. I won't honor your silly question with a reply. I have better blogging to do. Let's just agree that you are probably wrong and I will prove why/how when I have nothing better to do.
bah.
The only problem I have with anarcho-capitalism is the immense suffering that would result.
Also, I can't afford to hire my own private defense force. The undesirability of the state of nature legitimizes even rather bad governments. (This is the theme of the movie --Hero-- by the way.)
Government skeptics should support a Basic Income Guarantee, which requires very little bureaucracy, expands freedom, and promotes equality.
Nixon and McGovern tried to pass it and it is under consideration in a few countries. Alaska has a small one.
There is a bill in congress and Huckabee has proposes a BIG but it will take more support than present to pass it. Though it is closer to us than anarcho-capitalism.
Check out www.usbig.net
Say, isn't the title for this blog post also the title of a Justin Timberlake song?
Anarcho-capitalists have no interest in chaos. Even though anarchism is usually associated with such chaos and catchy pop songs with punchy bass-lines, it merely means "no government". The rules of engagement in society would be shaped by the economy, which is what "capitalist" refers to. It has nothing to do with "may the richest guy win."
As far as a private defense force is concerned, you would be in a better position to hire one if you weren't paying taxes. Secondly, there are numerous private security active already, which testifies to the ineffectiveness of the police. Thirdly, it is generally accepted that it costs government twice as much to do something as it would a private company. You would be cheaper off, and you would be safer since the company you hire to protect you has a vested financial interest in you.
A BIG won't work, I am afraid. Based on the 2006/2007 GDP: 20% (the proposed BIG rate) of $13.16 trillion divided by 301,139,947 (the population, July 2006 est.)= $8,740.12. Nice indeed for the poor (a family of 4 would have $35,000 guaranteed), but cup change for the rich, especially in comparison to what they would have to pay in taxes to get it.
The two issues I have are, 1) It would make citizens less willing to be competitive in the workforce, I mean, why would they? 2) It would be cheaper for the rich to hire a tax expert and offshore their assets, and hence pay no/very little taxes, than it is to pay them. This would put the burden to sustain such a program back on the poor and middle class.
Post a Comment