NYTimes.com has an article about, the Obama election notwithstanding, Americans’ hysterical reactions to racial issues. There have been many articles and blog postings lately about whether or not this is “post-racial America.” I think the furor over Shirley Sherrod’s speech is a clear indication that race is as much a current issue as ever. This really should come as no surprise. Race has always been a government issue in the USA. From the state-sponsored slave trade through to affirmative action, in America, race and the state have always been intimately intertwined. Considering this, it is hardly a surprise that people “never get past it.” You might as well say “why haven’t we gotten past war?”
I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify statists and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you statists do not. You move to an area and you tax and regulate until every natural resource is ruined and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Statists beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. (Apologies to Agent Smith.)
His political positions and personal life are even less coordinated than he is.
In the former Soviet Union, which is a workable model for forecasting where the United States is headed, there were de facto two sets of rules: one set for the proletariat and another for the Politburo. Nothing exceptional about that, of course, as the political class always enjoys privileges which the masses do not — it’s been that way since, well, the inception of government. The Romans even had an adage to describe this inequality before the law: quod licet jovi non licet bovi (What is permitted for the gods is not permitted for the cattle). Lovely, huh?
Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I. Isabel – Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage – was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.
But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern. Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven – like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau – for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners? Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.
The senior senator’s chief of staff David Wade denied the old salt was berthing his boat out of state to avoid ponying up to the commonwealth. “The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it’s based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons,” Wade told the Track. And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator “is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.”
Well, since he’s not docking the yacht in Rhode Island to avoid the taxes, why doesn’t he go ahead and pay Massachusetts what he’d have to if he were docking it there? David Wade is 12 times more likely to drown in his bowl of Cheerios at breakfast tomorrow than Kerry is of paying Mass. for that yacht.
Which brings us back to the double standard which is omnipresent with these guys. Public schools are good enough for your kids, but their kids attend the finest private schools in the country. You can get by using a small, energy efficient house with minimal air conditioning, but they’re gonna go ahead and own 3 or 4 or 5 energy-guzzling mansions. Feel free to get yourself a Smart Car or avail yourself of “public transportation”, but they’re gonna fly around in private jets or sail their massive yachts. Do you live in an exclusive, gated neighborhood or compound with private security? They do — and they have servants’ quarters, too. And most importantly, you pay the oppressive tax rates they burden you with, but they always find a loophole for themselves, like the yacht fiasco cited here or the Kennedy family trusts. Typical plutocrat behavior. Quod licet jovi non livet bovi.
The pertinence of the quote I launched this post with is via the observation that Kerry and his ilk have so ruined Massachusetts that he opts to maintain (some of) his significant assets outside of that state. I hope Rhode Islanders are paying attention. Here comes the virus.
By
Manuel Lora
/ July 22, 2010 / 1 minute of reading
Share
Mises.org has recently published an article that I co-wrote with Daniel Coleman where we attempt to answer why unlike every other black market, “info-trafficking” remains peaceful:
Unlike most black markets, the black market for information is characterized by peace and stability. There is a near-perfect harmony between the supply and the demand for movies, music, songs, and other digital content that falls under the control of intellectual-property legislation.
In the market for information, we do not see the kinds of conflicts that are rampant in other black markets. There are no turf wars between gangs for the right to offer the latest pop hit or blockbuster movie; there are no robberies committed by would-be users who need the money to get their fix. The vast majority of copyright violators go about their business without harming anyone.
In fact, those who upload, host, and share illegal content are not in any significant danger at all. What sets the black market in information apart from other black markets? Why is it nonviolent?
Stefan Molyneux, of Freedomain Radio, has recently had a very interesting series of interviews on “libertarian parenting”. The three guests (so far?) were me, my fellow TLS blogger Gil Guillory, and just today, David Friedman. The MP3s for the first two, and the YouTube videos for all three, are below. All three had different perspectives but were all very practical and had tons of great tips and ideas. Gil Guillory’s mentioned several books and other resources he’s found useful in the instruction of his children. There was a critique of my discussion by one “Aaron,” an “unschooling” advocate, which was debated further on the FDR boards, and discussed subsequently by Molyneux on the FDR1698 Sunday Call In Show July 18 2010.
MSNBC, a media outfit not known for pro-liberty sentiments, is reporting that there are 3100 organizations involved in the war on terror. The original report comes to us from The Washington Post, another entity not commonly regarded as champions of laissez faire. According to the Post, 1271 government organizations and 1931 private ones are working on counterterrorism. 854,000 people hold top secret clearance. When government programs have become so large that even liberals can’t help but notice, you know you’ve got a problem.
Though liberals are normally (and accurately) described as “big government freaks,” it is difficult to imagine any way to more intractably install big government than to simply make it all secret. This is where those in favor of both small government and “a strong national defense” are simply out of touch with reality. There simply is no way to have both small government and high levels of secrecy about what that government is doing. This is a point Dan Carlin makes in his podcast. Vietnam-era documents which are only now being declassified appear to have only been classified in the first place to avoid embarrassing the people covered in the documents, not for anything we would normally call “national security.” As Carlin points out, these things were intended to be buried until the Congressmen quoted in them were all dead.
Allowing the state to keep secrets is a sure path to expansion of that state. The government regards the leaking of information which undermines people’s confidence in the actions of government employees to be “a threat to national security.” If even pointing out that a course of action is a bad idea is itself considered a bad idea, what hope can there possibly be of learning and improvement? And since the national security advocates all seem to believe that the government should have the right to keep secrets, how can they honestly also believe that it is possible to effectively limit a largely secret government?
