Monthly Archives: October 2013

Pseudo-intellectual NY Times article for socialism

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/questions-for-free-market-moralists/

One obvious false assumption in the article is that free markets create more inequality. I’m anti-egalitarian. Don’t misunderstand me, but it’s pretty obvious to point out the hypocrisy of the left.

The richest counties in the US are those surrounding Washington DC. The government has numerous bureaucracies that dwarf the largest corporations in terms of budget and staff. It’s pretty easy to find idiots like Elizabeth Warren claiming in the same interview that we have to fight inequality and that the bailouts of wall street were essential. Don’t you think taking money from everybody (through taxes) and giving it to the richest, most politically connected banks might be a teensy weensy bit anti-egalitarian?

Big finance has always loved socialism. Here’s a cartoon from 1911: romaninukraine.com/bankers-and-socialists/

It provides so many useful idiots.

I’m anti-egalitarian because socialism sorts people incorrectly. It puts bureaucrats, psychopaths and demagogues in charge, and they annihilate civilization. When the market sorts people, the greatest builders of civilization become the aristocracy.

tldr; Egalitarianism is bad. The author is either a hypocrite or idiot for assuming wealth redistribution has anything to do with creating a more egalitarian society. Where is the evidence of this??? Even by her standards, the free market wins.

***

Other issues with the article:

– conflating morality with legality
– assuming (it seems) a universal morality instead of various regional norms
– obliviousness to what AJ Nock called a “societal court of taste and good manner” (This is very American. Where many cultures struggle to co-exist, norms are weak and relatively few problems can be solved without courts. In what remains of the ethnically homogenous nations Europe, more conflict gets resolved through informal channels, be it talking to somebody’s mother or punching them in the face.)
– as is typical, ignoring our best arguments. No leftists address Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe. They address Friedman, Hayek (sometimes), and Nozick who is sternly criticized by the former (mises.org/daily/2650).

Sheldon Adelson Says Obama Should Nuke Iran

open quoteCasino billionaire Sheldon Adelson told a crowd at Yeshiva University in New York on Tuesday that the only proper negotiating tactic with Iran would be fire a nuclear missile at the country and threaten to wipe out the entire population of Tehran, the nation’s capital.

Adelson, the largest donor to the Republican Party and its affiliated groups, made the comments during a panel discussion hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens and Yeshiva University President Richard Joel. Adelson’s remarks were videotaped by Philip Weiss of the news site Mondoweiss:

What are we going to negotiate about? I would say “Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.” … You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, “OK let it go.” And so there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever. Then you say, “See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. You want to be peaceful? Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes.”

close quote (Read more)

EU vs national sovereignty

Spiegel: Merkel demands EU Treaty change to give Commission control over national budgets
Der Spiegel reports that, in a meeting with EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel set out her proposals for giving the EU greater powers over eurozone members’ national budgets, a move which would require EU Treaty change. Merkel will reportedly insist on legally enforceable contracts between the Commission and individual member states, setting out their obligations for maintaining budgetary discipline and improved competitiveness. In return, Germany could agree to a eurozone budget which would amount to tens of billions. Finally, the President of the Eurogroup would become a “Euro Finance Minister”.

Spiegel Online cites Axel Schäfer, deputy-chair of the SPD’s parliamentary group as saying that “the SPD will not support any settlements if Merkel conducts parallel negotiations with Britain’s David Cameron over the transfer of EU competences back to member states.” Schäfer also warns that the SPD will not support an EU Treaty changes that trigger referenda in individual member states.

Also, here: www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/merkel-aims-for-further-eu-treaty-change-in-third-term-1.1567353