Clearly, the world described by Hanson and advocated by bammy is a world that will reward tax cheats or those who can avoid the cash economy for their daily bread. I think it time to give thought to ways to make a living without paying the beast.
The nails it graphic about sums it up. Except for one thing: Hanson is not general enough in one assertion: "
Many choose sides in the debate based on their own predicaments."
Had he said "circumstances" rather then "predicaments" I think he'd have been spot on. I think the reason most of my colleagues in academe are leftists is not leftist indoctrination by previous generations of academics, but the fact that if one is an academician one has found something one loves to do so much one would do it without regard to financial reward (be it physics, mathematics, literary criticism, one of the arts, or whatever), so the idea of a fiduciary taking care of all one's material needs is appealing. The foolishness is the belief that that circumstance would be universally beneficial or even universally feasible--neither is the case.
Of course, I would also take to task those who think that the circumstances which are beneficial to commerce are universally beneficial (though they are certainly universally feasible as the rise of business-modeled 'megachurches' and the march of the bean-counters through the institutions shows). Kirk's notion that particularity is valuable applies not only to place and culture but to domains of human activity: universities and churches should no more be run like commercial businesses than commercial businesses should be run like social service agencies.
He makes a strong case for the failure and export of the California model. It is an ugly model that seems to be sweeping the country even as the failure becomes more evident. Amnesty will seal our fate.
His assessment about energy prices is far understated. If (perhaps when) the rats drop the carbon bomb, we will long for only a 20% increase in energy prices. At a minimum, we are looking for a 300% increase. Germany is our energy future with triple our energy costs. Even 300% does not seem enough. I think that we are headed for 500% to 600% increase along with major lifestyle changes.
Speaking of California’s socialist model, why isn’t Hollywood taxed all to sh*t? They’re the exponents of Liberalism and socialism and yet the entertainment industry one of the wealthiest industries. Oh, I forgot, they’re all a bunch of sneaky, feel-good hypocrites and hide their money at the first sign of taxation trouble — so much for the common weal if you can get away just paying lip service.
There should be a new “Hypocrisy” tax. Hypocrites have to pay more than non hypocrites as a new form of “entertainment.” A bevy of beautiful people served up to the common man. The Michael Moores will be stalked by IRS scouts and it will be broadcast weekly. Tune into the “Spot Your Favorite Hypocrite Show” and see them pay for wanting you to pay.
And yet the economic collapse that happens will be blamed on America's capitalist history, and not the more recent socialism.
These idiots ignore the fact that capitalism made us the richest, most powerful country in the world, and socialism destroys wealth wherever it is implemented.
But, capitalism is unfair because some become richer than others...yeah, that doesn't happen in socialism, now, does it?
Okay, rambling on more:
In capitalism, the richest are those who provides goods and services that society desires.
In socialism, the richest are those who are politically well connected, who can change the laws to benefit themselves at the expense of ‘the workers’, and those who can work dark deals at 1AM in the morning with the doors locked. Really, such a warm and fuzzy system.
