A Reprieve from Bureaucrats

Nanny Statism
Share

Our friend Fester writes:

The other day a friend on Facebook commented on the show “Hoarders”. In this show they have a psychologist and a junk clean up crew come into a house and clean it up. She was upset because she did not feel as if the crew helped the people they cleaned up because they only spend about a week at the house and she didn’t feel like this was enough time to address the deep psychological issues these people have.

While I agree that these people probably have mental issues that are not being addressed by the show, if you watch the show you will notice that almost all of the people who ask to go on the show have a legal issue surrounding the hoarding. These people are being pursued by code enforcement officers, by child protective services, by fire marshals, etc. They may not be getting the psychological help they need, but they are getting a reprieve from the evil government officials who would kick these people out of their homes, or steal their children away from them, etc. It may only be temporary, but if it gives them another year of peace from the bureaucrats then the show is doing a good service to these people.

You can watch Hoarders on A&E.

A Reprieve from Bureaucrats Read Post »

All You Ever Need to Refute a Paul Krugman Column

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism
Share

Courtesy of Tim Cavanaugh at Reason, we now have a basic template to refute just about anything Nobel Laureate, neo-Keynesian, and regime apologist Paul Krugman ever publishes:

[destroy whatever economic fallacy Krugman promotes this week]

The rest of his column is political speech and unworthy of note. The above is all the intellectual content, and it is very shabby.

All You Ever Need to Refute a Paul Krugman Column Read Post »

Against Political Panglossianism

Anti-Statism, Vulgar Politics
Share

I offer to readers a term of my coinage: polidicy.

I construct it as “theodicy” was constructed, and I do so in the spirit of the copycat. A theodicy is a vindication of divine goodness in the context of the existence of evil. It is an important theological concept, and you will find theodicies embedded in most understandings of Providence, and nearly everyone who believes in a deity has some sort of theodicy in tow.

Polidicy, then, is a vindication of a state or government body in the context of its own obvious crimes. Most people who are loyal to some state and pretend to possess a moral sense, or conscience, have some polidicy in their head, some set of excuses for why the state’s many crimes do not amount to a moral case against the state as such, and how, even, the state can be said to be “basically good.”

Against Political Panglossianism Read Post »

Price Discrimination: An Example

(Austrian) Economics
Share

The rental rates on iTunes are fairly well established. You pay most for a new HD release, a little less for an older movie, and less yet for non-HD.

But one movie on iTunes rents for more than double the usual, highest established rate. What’s going on here? Should we send in a “rogue economist,” perhaps, like the dudes of Freakonomics fame?

Well, they would know, since it’s their movie. Freakonomics: The Movie, that is being rented on iTunes for more than double the regular rental price. And, though this may be just the kind of puzzle Levitt and Dubner like to fix upon …

Price Discrimination: An Example Read Post »

Mileposts on Environmentalism’s Road to Hell

Environment, Nanny Statism
Share

Plane dropping fire retardantWill there come a time when firefighters have to consider saving an endangered species over someone’s home?  One wonders:

Lost in the images of aircraft dropping giant red plumes of retardant on a Colorado wildfire this week is the fact that the practice may not be legal under federal environmental laws.

A federal judge in July declared that the government’s current plan for dropping retardant on fires is illegal, and he gave the U.S. Forest Service until the end of next year to find a more environmentally friendly alternative.

The issue appears to hinge more on how the retardant is used than on the retardant itself, but when human lives and property are on the line, should it matter at all if some fish and plants are put at risk?  Plants grow back and waterways recover, even from the worst disasters.  People’s lives and homes aren’t so easy to reassemble.

Then we have the Federal government’s futile attempts to spark the “green economy”, which has succeeded primarily in shipping jobs overseas (h/t Jeffrey Tucker):

The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s….

What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.

The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.

Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.

Bastiat weeps!  Of course the unintended consequences are never considered by policy makers when The Future of Civilization is at stake (or at least when cheap political points can be scored).  A few hundred people’s livelihoods, consumers’ freedom of choice: small sacrifices on the environmentalists’ altar.  Maybe Mother Earth will thank us in a few million years.

Mileposts on Environmentalism’s Road to Hell Read Post »

Scroll to Top