Thursday Highlights

Goood morning.

  1. For the carbon fans.
  2. Bang! Art.
  3. Let’s see, the Democrat plan is to “go over the cliff” and blame the GOP. Hard to do, honestly, in the face of this though.
  4. Origin of terms as explanation.
  5. The flawed argument against torture is that it doesn’t work. Here’s another failure of consequentialism. The reason it’s a bad idea is not because it doesn’t work.
  6. Liking gridlock (stopping athwart progress saying stop) is a conservative thing I suspect.
  7. Potato famine as laisseze faire … is just plain bad history.
  8. Hmm, I’d say the description fits just about everybody of any party affiliation in the beltway.
  9. On the other hand, here’s a strong bid by the  Democrats for both at the same time.
  10. Libertarians, it seems, can’t muster strong arguments against bestiality.
  11. The sad state of soft academia.
  12. Glub glub.
  13. Big red gets stupid too.
  14. So … connected to the President’s departure or not?
  15. My feeling is that there was no intention of keeping the promises, i.e., they were lies and deception. Do you agree or disagree?

6 Responses to Thursday Highlights

  1. 15.My feeling is that there was no intention of keeping the promises, i.e., they were lies and deception. Do you agree or disagree?

    You had a feeling about so-called promises on dividend tax rates? I doubt you had even given it serious thought. Since the original article is gated, it’s not possible to evaluate whether there was ever a ‘promise’ to keep dividend rates lower, but it hardly seems all that partisan to be in favor of taxing dividends as ordinary income.

    Mankiw seems to neglect just whose getting the special treatment here:

    A similar thing happened with Bowles-Simpson. During his first term, he appointed a bipartisan panel, which concluded we could address our long-term fiscal problem with lower tax rates and a broader tax base. Now, the President goes around the country lambasting that approach.

    Taxing dividends at a lower rate than other types of income does, in fact, increase rates and make the base smaller. Taxing one type of income at a lower rate is no different, effectively, than giving special deductions for various activities. The effect is that you have to increase the general tax rate to offset the special favors.

    IMO income should be treated as income. If you earn $100 working overtime, $100 profit selling vacuums door to door, or $100 from dividends in stock you own it should not make a difference in your income taxes due.

  2. 10.Libertarians, it seems, can’t muster strong arguments against bestiality.

    Seems like a rather simple libertarian argument, since we cannot secure consent from animals we can outlaw sex with them.

  3. Boonton
    Re #10 … “can’t muster an argument”

    And neither it seems can Mr Boonton. You secure consent to neuter? Breed? Put to sleep? Chip? By the same argument those would be outlawed too.

    #15, it’s unclear how my prior knowledge/opinion is required for me to not believe that he made promises in good faith. And you are against tax free munis, retirement funds? Tax breaks for home ownership, marriage and other behavior modification? Interesting. Vet that with your fellow liberals.

  4. And neither it seems can Mr Boonton. You secure consent to neuter? Breed? Put to sleep? Chip? By the same argument those would be outlawed too.

    Your argument seems to be all or nothing. Unless you treat an entity with the full range of freedom and rights of an adult human then you can treat it like a piece of furniture.

    #15, it’s unclear how my prior knowledge/opinion is required for me to not believe that he made promises in good faith.

    You believed he made a promise about dividend tax rates in bad faith, yet you were unaware of anything he promised about dividend tax rates?

  5. Boonton,

    Your argument seems to be all or nothing.

    Not my argument. Yours. Your argument is missing the actual criteria (’cause it’s not consent) for how you would argue against bestiality. The actual argument/reason needs to tell us why the one is wrong and not the other. ‘Cause if “lack of consent” is the actual reason, as I pointed out, there’s lots of activities, which if the pets were kids (which also cannot consent to have sex with you) that you can’t do for you kid but can for your dog.

  6. You can consent, on your kid’s behalf, to various things like medical treatment but not sex. Likewise you cannot just ‘put your pets down’. Legally you are limited in when you can kill a pet and what methods you can use to kill it. Likewise we are allowed to exploit animals to fulfill various needs we may have (food, clothing, research etc.) but even there our legal ability to do so is limited. A researcher just can’t, say, set dogs on fire because he’s curious about how loud they will bark. Before such ‘needs’ are permitted to be fulfilled by exploiting an animal the person must submit to having them weighed by their benefits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>