Displaying the most recent of 90433 posts written by

Ruth King

The Property Instinct and the Utter Futility of Socialism Robert E.Wright

https://www.aier.org/article/the-property-instinct-and-the-utter-futility-of-socialism/

If you are like me, you regularly interact with people who remain unphased by America’s recent giant strides towards authoritarian socialism, of an economy run largely by, and for, state actors and their corporate minions. Those who bother to engage the problem at all eventually exclaim something like “Well, no society has ever tried ideal socialism,” by which they mean a system that truly redistributes wealth according to everyone’s needs.

A new book from Chapman University law and economics professor Bart Wilson entitled The Property Species nowhere mentions communism, Marx, or socialism but nevertheless provides a powerfully cogent explanation for why socialism, especially “ideal” socialism, can never work — it’s inhuman because it doesn’t account for humanity’s property instinct.

Classical liberal comebacks to the ideal socialism canard tend to focus on the reasons why socialism cannot possibly succeed. Check out Don Boudreaux’s “The Inevitable Failure of Socialism” for many powerful economic reasons that socialism, even “ideal” socialism, cannot increase the living standards of the masses as quickly as market economies can.

To disparage socialism is not, of course, to embrace the status quo. Our overly powerful governments regularly enrich one party at the expense of others. Corporate welfare is particularly galling, if not well enough understood by the general public, but so too is its enabler, the grabbing hand of government. America can reduce rent seeking without going full bore socialist, which has always proven itself just another system for extracting rents from the masses for the benefits of elites. But the human property instinct renders even “ideal” socialism impossible.

The Symptoms of Our Insanity What explains these insanities that are insults to the American people’s intelligence? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/26/the-symptoms-of-our-insanity/

Think for a minute.  

When did we become a nation of socialist AOCs wearing “Tax the Rich” dresses to $35,000-a-ticket celebrity galas, without mandatory masks, while being served by masked servants—a now tired script from the Obama birthday bash crowd to the grandees at the Emmys?  

When did we discover that we must listen to oppressed billionaire Oprah from her $90 million Montecito estate commiserating with a billionaire Lebron or royal Meghan Markle about the racist white establishment? Is there anyone in the recent Washington intelligence and investigatory hierarchy who has not lied or feigned loss of memory under oath—a low bar that nevertheless excludes, among others, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, or Peter Strzok? 

Did anyone just five years ago believe the following could possibly happen in America—and invoke almost no popular outrage from a somnolent public? 

Item: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, does not deny that: 1) he deliberately aborted the legal chain of operational command—that is, violated the law—by recalibrating established protocols for using nuclear weapons in times of crisis. And he says his interventions were based on his own diagnoses (after prompting from opposition leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) that the commander-in-chief was crazy, and thus could be circumvented.  

And 2), in freelancing style, Milley, on more than one occasion, called the top figure of the Chinese Communist People’s Liberation Army, General Li Zuocheng. He reportedly announced that his own country was currently in crisis (experiencing “messy” democracy), reassuring the Chinese that if he, Milley, the newfound autokrator, sensed there was any chance of hostile and aggressive action on the part of his own country, then on his own initiative he would tip off the Chinese in advance. And far from resigning or being fired for his Strangelovian efforts, Milley would then be hailed as a hero by the popular media and progressive civil libertarians. In other words, for the Left, it is as if Burt Lancaster’s movie character, Air Force General James Mattoon Scott, was the real hero of Seven Days in May. 

Milley has also become the Zelig or Forrest Gump of our times. He turns up at almost all our recent military melodramas and disasters. Milley appears variously in the photo-op/federal troops/tear-gas spoof, the virtue-signaled rumored resignation, the talking referent in anonymously sourced books, puff-piece op-eds, and backgrounder quotes, the Inspector Javert of “white rage,” the student of How To Be An Antiracist, the Afghanistan progress reassurer, the “righteous” drone striker, the adjudicator between January 6 “coups” and 120 days of “penny packet protests” costing $2 billion-dollars in riot and arson destruction and 28 deaths, the Article 88 violator, the reductio ad Hitlerum promulgator, and the underappreciated but rumored polymath bibliophile.  

The “Safety Net”: The Goal Should Be To Minimize The Number Of People Depending On It Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-9-24-the-safety-net-the-goal-should-be-to-minimize-the-number-of-people-depending-on-it

This post is about a situation where the correct public policy approach should be obvious to everyone, but the perverse incentives of government as usual push in exactly the wrong direction.

The issue is how many people should receive benefits, and in what amounts, from government “safety net” programs. From all I can find, there appears to be near-universal support for at least some level of government “safety net” for the poor. After all, no one wants to see fellow citizens starving for lack of food, or dying for lack of medical attention to a curable health condition, and so forth. And can we really count on private charity to fully provide for all the situations of genuine need among the population? Thus the result: Although the details vary greatly, every country with an advanced economy has an extensive system of “need”-based distributions of benefits to those designated as needy. But how many and which people should receive benefits, and how much?

In practice, the number of beneficiaries and level of generosity of a social safety net are inherently unstable. As soon as such a safety net comes into existence, there must inevitably be a line drawn between those who qualify for the benefits and distributions and those who do not. There will always be some elements of arbitrariness in the line-drawing; and the difference in “neediness” between the least-needy person who qualifies for benefits and the most-needy person who does not qualify may be so small as to be imperceptible. So shouldn’t the benefits then be expanded to include the next guy up the ladder? And how about the next guy after that?

An even worse problem than the fineness of the necessary distinctions is the arbitrariness. No matter how carefully eligibility criteria may be crafted, I submit that there will inevitably be many less needy people who qualify for and receive government safety-net benefits, while objectively more needy people fail to qualify. As one obvious example, some people with no income or significant assets at all may nonetheless be able to draw on substantial family resources (from parents, siblings, children, or more distant relatives) in times of need, while others may have just enough income or assets to fail to qualify but no family back-up of any kind. I personally know multiple twenty-somethings with well-off parents who nevertheless qualify for and use the Medicaid and food stamp programs. You probably do too. Hey, nobody said that parental income is part of the eligibility criteria!

Muslim Passenger Screaming ‘Allah’ Tries to Storm Cockpit of JetBlue Flight Out of Boston By Robert Spencer

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/09/25/muslim-passenger-screaming-allah-tries-to-storm-cockpit-of-jetblue-flight-out-of-boston-n1481352

JetBlue Flight 261 was heading out of Boston for San Juan, Puerto Rico, Wednesday night when, according to an FBI affidavit, “an unruly passenger” had to be “physically restrained by flight crew members in response to a physical altercation during the passenger’s attempt to gain access to the flight deck.”

A little over an hour before the flight reached San Juan, the passenger, Khalil El Dahr, “attempted to make a telephone call and became angry about the call’s unsuccess.” This must have been a supremely important phone call, for a few minutes later, El Dahr “pulled himself out of his seat and rushed toward the flight deck yelling to be shot in the Spanish language.”

At that point, a flight attendant (FA) “physically redirected El Dahr into the area in front of the front row before the galley.” However, in a spectacular instance of poor judgment, bad timing, or both, “as the JetBlue FA had El Dahr corralled in the area before the galley on the right side of the plane, a flight crew officer opened the cockpit door.”

El Dahr saw his chance: He “observed the door open and then grabbed the JetBlue FA by their collar and tie with one hand while using his other hand to grab the overhead compartment to gain leverage to kick. As the JetBlue FA was kicked in chest, El Dahr yelled for the flight crew officer to shoot him. While El Dahr was yelling, he was still holding the JetBlue FA by their tie. This resulted in the tie tightening and ultimately prevented the JetBlue FA from breathing. In response, the JetBlue FA released El Dahr to loosen the tie to prevent from being choked and incapacitated. The JetBlue FA was then able to loosen the tie and grab hold of El Dahr to prevent him from successfully breaching the galley area and gaining access to the flight deck.”

El Dahr fought fiercely even when restrained: “When the second JetBlue FA responded to the front of the plane, they observed El Dahr grab the first JetBlue FA by the tie and punch them in the chest. The second JetBlue FA then assisted to get El Dahr restrained. One of the restraints used was a pair of flex cuffs provided by an off-duty FA on board the flight. The flex cuffs were applied to El Dahr’s wrists, but El Dahr resisted so much that El Dahr was able to break the cuffs and free himself. After, a second pair was fastened along with at least four seat belt extenders to secure El Dahr to a seat in the back of the plane.”

FBI Narrative About the Jan. 6th Capitol ‘Insurrection’ Is IMPLODING By Victoria Taft

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/09/26/fbi-narrative-about-the-jan-6th-capitol-insurrection-is-imploding-n1481476

An explosive report over the weekend claims to show that two alleged Capitol riot participants were actually government informants. The New York Times reported Saturday that “records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.”

The revelations in theTimes reveal that there was no conspiracy on the part of the Proud Boys to storm the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, as alleged by the Department of Justice.

It’s already known that the Proud Boys leader, Enrique Tarrio, had been an FBI informant. The Times report concentrates on yet another FBI informant in the right-leaning group who reportedly warned his handler in real-time that some bad stuff was going on at the Capitol.

Recommended: Is It Any Wonder Americans Mistrust the Intelligence Community When They Pull Stunts Like This?

Though several Proud Boys are charged with a conspiracy, this latest informant maintains that there was never any plan by the group to violently storm the Capitol and, indeed, there’s evidence to back that claim.

Indeed, the paper concludes the obvious: that “the new information is likely to complicate the government’s efforts to prove the high-profile conspiracy charges it has brought against several members of the Proud Boys.”

Huh. You don’t say?

Fall Guys Column: Now is the autumn of Democratic discontent Matthew Continetti

https://freebeacon.com/columns/fall-guys/

President Joe Biden practically begged a group of moderate Democrats visiting him in the Oval Office Wednesday to say how much money they are willing to spend on the massive “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill making its way through Congress. According to Politico‘s Playbook, he didn’t get an answer.

The 11 moderates, including Senator Joe Manchin and congresswoman Stephanie Murphy, insisted that Democrats agree first on how much revenue they will raise in taxes before settling on a price tag on a bill that would transform energy, health care, higher education, pre-K, and paid leave. A disappointed Biden assigned the moderates homework: Come up with something that will stop Progressive House members from killing the separate, $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package that already has passed the Senate and is scheduled for a September 27 House vote.

Best of luck. In another meeting Wednesday, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, pulled a Wendy Sherman and broke into tears while pleading that the reconciliation bill include an immigration amnesty (the Senate parliamentarian has said it can’t). Jayapal urged Biden to delay Monday’s vote or be prepared for Progressives to nix the infrastructure deal. Biden didn’t give in, but he did leave open the possibility that the vote won’t take place on September 27 as planned.

Yet any postponement would create new problems for the White House. House moderates have pledged to sink the reconciliation bill if they don’t get to vote for infrastructure first. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose only three votes. And the Senate is tied, with Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema still cagey about what they want to do. And oh, by the way, Congress needs to fund the government before September 30 and raise the debt ceiling before mid-October. Is your head hurting yet?

Democrats have run smack into political reality, and it isn’t pretty. They spent months convincing themselves that a presidential election decided by 42,000 votes in three states, a tied Senate, and a 220-212 House (with 3 vacancies) is the same as FDR’s and LBJ’s supermajorities. Now they are just figuring out that the coalition that put them into office doesn’t agree on much of anything besides the idea that Donald Trump shouldn’t be in the White House.

Now the autumn of 2021 is turning into a reckoning for a Democratic Party that wanted to leverage a squeaker election into fundamental change. Like their predecessors in 1993 and in 2009, frontline House Democrats have to decide whether supporting a liberal agenda is worse for their careers than denying a president of their own party a legislative win. Either way, they lose.

Chance, guile, and missteps put the Democrats in this position. They hardly could believe their luck when Trump’s sour grapes cost the GOP two winnable seats in Georgia and handed Vice President Harris the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. What they forgot was that full control of government is a mixed blessing: Your partisans expect the sun, moon, and stars, while independents have no one else to blame when things go wrong. A Republican Senate might have given Biden a foil, and a reason to govern as the centrist he pretended to be during the campaign. Instead, he has no wiggle room. Thanks, Trump.

IRS would track all bank transactions over $600 under Biden plan; businesses revolt A letter signed by more than 40 trade associations calls on Congress to reject the proposal, saying it violates customer privacy and would create an incredibly expensive and elaborate reporting requirement for banks.By Casey Harper

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/irs-would-track-all-bank-transactions-over-600-under-biden-plan-businesses-revolt

A major component of President Joe Biden’s plan to raise revenue to pay for his trillions of dollars in new federal spending is now under fire from trade associations across the country.

The Biden administration has made clear its plan to beef up IRS auditing by expanding the agency’s funding and power. Biden’s latest proposal would require banks to turn over to the Internal Revenue Service bank account information for all accounts holding more than $600.

In a sharp pushback against the proposal, more thn 40 trade associations, some of which represent entire industries or economic sectors, signed a letter to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) raising the alarm about the plan.

The letter, which includes the support of several banking coalitions, calls on Congress to reject that requirement, saying it violates customer privacy and would create an incredibly expensive and elaborate reporting requirement for the banks.

“While the stated goal of this vast data collection is to uncover tax dodging by the wealthy, this proposal is not remotely targeted to that purpose or that population,” the letter said. “In addition to the significant privacy concerns, it would create tremendous liability for all affected parties by requiring the collection of financial information for nearly every American without proper explanation of how the IRS will store, protect, and use this enormous trove of personal financial information. We believe that this program is costly for all parties, not fit for purpose, and loaded with potential for unintended and serious negative consequences.”

Fox News Runs Devastating List of Every Single Current Biden Controversy, It’s Worse Than You Think By Kipp Jones

https://www.westernjournal.com/fox-news-runs-devastating-list-every-single-current-biden-controversy-worse-think/

“The good news: There are just under three and a half years left of this madness — if we’re lucky.”

Fox News on Wednesday ran a scroll listing the many controversies plaguing the Biden administration during its eighth month, and the moment really put things into context.

We’re in deep trouble.

Not that we didn’t already know our country has descended into complete chaos. That much has been obvious for some time. It’s everywhere you go, actually.

Grocery stores, gas stations, airports and the passable portions of the country’s southern border are all reminders of how terrible President Joe Biden has been for America.

Walk by a TV, though, and the larger picture comes into focus.

That was especially true on Fox News when “America Reports” anchors Shannon Bream and John Roberts rolled out a list of the ongoing crises, tragedies and other disasters plaguing the country and its inept leadership.

“It’s been eight whole months, but it looks like the honeymoon is over,” Bream said while Fox viewers were reminded of the many failings of the Biden administration.

A graphic displaying “current controversies” scrolled upward as the pair commented on the 18 different issues the network had keyed in on. Bream declared that not even the “mainstream media can ignore” all the trouble.

Joe Biden: Tax Tyrant, Tax Cheat, Tax Hypocrite

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/27/joe-biden-tax-tyrant-tax-cheat-tax-hypocrite/

If there were any doubts that the Democrats are closeted authoritarians who sometimes crack the door and reveal their urge to rule like autocrats, all should have been removed last week when President Joe Biden yapped about federal tax policy.

“I’m running to change the dynamic of how the economy grows,” he said. “I’m tired of trickle-down. Trillionaires and billionaires are doing very, very well.”

First, as has been noted elsewhere, there are no trillionaires in the U.S. It shouldn’t be too much to ask a U.S president to know this, but Biden, afflicted with a sharp cognitive decline and a long history of wild embellishment, is no normal president.

Second, it’s not up to Biden to change the “dynamic” of how the economy grows. That’s not his job. An economy grows organically, through the spontaneous, non-coerced actions of free people. Central planners cannot command an economy to expand. Biden was elected to be the CEO of the federal government, and to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, not to carry out his personal preferences. 

Furthermore, Biden has neither the moral nor constitutional license to meddle in private affairs and employ authoritarian means to abolish something simply because he’s tired of it. He is not a king whose whims are law.

An objective media wouldn’t let him get away with making statements in which he makes threats the way a monarch would. But our press is largely along for the ride with the left. They want Democratic presidents to have czar-like powers.

Had he stopped at his “tired” comment, Biden would have been in a deep enough hole, at least with those who aren’t members and patrons of the ruling class. But there’s never been a governor on his tongue, so he continued to dig, insisting the wealthy should be taxed more.

Pelosi Goes for Broke Focused on her legacy, the Speaker pushes Democrats to take votes that will end careers in 2022.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nancy-pelosi-goes-for-broke-house-spending-bill-democrats-senators-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-11632690894?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Can Nancy Pelosi bull-rush her few House moderates and Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema ? That seems to be her strategy this week as she prepares to jam a $3.5 trillion (really $5 trillion) tax and spending bill through Congress.

Mr. Manchin recently wrote in our pages that he favors a “strategic pause” on the spending bill to assess its economic impact and take more time to debate specific policies. Sounds sensible. But Speaker Pelosi doesn’t do pauses, especially in what she views as her legacy project to turn the U.S. into a European entitlement state.

She keeps moving on the spending bill she calls “transformative” to appease her left flank. The Budget Committee marked it up this weekend. She’s hoping this movement will be enough to pass the Senate infrastructure bill through the House this week. Her expectation is that passing that bill will be enough to buy off the swing-district Democrats to sign up for her entitlement project. These Democrats haven’t shown any backbone to date, so it’s a reasonable bet.

The bigger imponderable is whether she and President Biden can bludgeon hesitant Senators into submission. Mrs. Pelosi promised her caucus any bill will be pre-negotiated with the Senate before a vote. But she may have to break that pledge, and many House Democrats have already taken votes in committee that could end their political careers in 2022.

For Mrs. Pelosi, legislative success on her terms is all that matters. The party’s fate in 2022 is incidental, since she’s likely to retire and once entitlements are in place she figures Republicans will lack the fortitude to repeal them. The Speaker will keep marching even if it breaks her own majority.