Balancing the Federal Budget: What Would Jesus Cut? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

Balancing the Federal Budget: What Would Jesus Cut? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Those on the religious left tend to miss the distinction between moral and political imperatives. Many of them are admirable individuals who live their principles, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to force others to live by those same principles. Which is typically what government is about.

For instance, there's no doubt that Christians (and Jews, who set practices upon which the early Christians relied) must be concerned about the poor. But no one should mistake taxation as compassion. In this regard the religious left shares much with President George W. Bush, who believed that giving away other people's money made him a 'compassionate conservative.'"

"Unfortunately, many government programs don't work. Food Stamps, foreign aid and Head Start are not exempt from problems. Any system based on spending someone else's money suffers from limited accountability. Indeed, government agencies often profit — i.e., received increased budgets — if they fail to solve problems."

"many anti-poverty programs are really welfare for the better off. For instance, federal housing programs are notorious for aiding developers. So-called 'Food for Peace' was created to dump domestic agriculture surpluses overseas, inadvertently routinely ruining poor farmers in other lands."

Lessons from the States | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Lessons from the States | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If Congress adopted the 'no fundraisers while Congress is in session' rule, it would have two desirable results: The first is that our federal elections would probably not be as expensive, and the other, more important, result is that Congress would in all likelihood spend far less time in session, which would benefit our pocketbooks and our liberties."

OMG! There's Discrimination in the Modeling Industry! - Ben O'Neill - Mises Daily

OMG! There's Discrimination in the Modeling Industry! - Ben O'Neill - Mises Daily: "there is no difference in principle between the characteristics which are presently protected (race, gender, nationality) and those that are not (height, weight, intelligence, beauty). And further, the characteristics we have so far considered are only the tip of the iceberg of those upon which people discriminate.
In addition, to mention only a few more, there is hair color, the side of the head upon which people part their hair, fastidiousness, neatness, strength of handshake, biliousness, loudness, shyness, considerateness, reliability, left or right handedness — the list goes on and on."

"Without discrimination on the basis of the superficial traits that make a model a model, she would be just another face among three billion women. She would not be capable of earning a living with her looks if not for the fact that people often judge others on the basis of superficial physical traits and like to look at physically attractive people. This discrimination is her bread and butter; she benefits directly from these superficial judgments, since her appearance puts her in a superior position compared to most other women. Though she complains of race discrimination in the present case, it is only because of similar kinds of discrimination, equally capricious, that she is special — that she can be a model, and other women cannot."

Pro-gun rights activists outbid cops for 'buy back' guns

Pro-gun rights activists outbid cops for 'buy back' guns: "While the Austin, Texas, police were offering grocery cards in exchange for unwanted firearms over the weekend, local activists showed up to outbid the men in uniform, insisting liberty would be better served if the guns were in the hands of law-abiding citizens instead.

At the 'no-questions-asked' event held at Oak Meadow Baptist Church in South Austin, the Austin Police Department offered, for example, a $100 Visa grocery card for an unwanted handgun. The activists offered $110 in cash."

Winning Whose Future? | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Commentary

Winning Whose Future? | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The question is, whose future? In a society based on individual liberty, each of us should decide what our goals are and what constitutes a life well lived."

"We don't need politicians winning the future for us — whatever that may mean. As Americans become ever more dependent on a bankrupt, intrusive and inept government, what we need is to liberate the future."

Should Governments Subsidize Health Insurance? | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary

Should Governments Subsidize Health Insurance? | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The natural way to balance these concerns is to subsidize health insurance for the poor, but for no one else. Roughly, this mean eliminating Medicare, Obamacare, and the tax-subsidy for employer-provided insurance, but retaining a (scaled down) version of Medicaid.

This approach insures everyone against the worst case scenario in which poor health makes it impossible to earn income. This approach also means that even among the non-poor, some people will pay higher health insurance premiums than others."

Creating Palestine on the Slit Throat of a Baby? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary

Creating Palestine on the Slit Throat of a Baby? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "'Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in ... Itamar. ... residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy 'is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank.''

I join the curt response to the Gaza delight in the blood-soaked bedrooms in Itamar that Bret Stephens wrote in the March 15 Wall Street Journal:

'Just what kind of society thinks it's 'natural' to slit the throats of children in their beds?'"

Campaign For Liberty — Middle Class

Campaign For Liberty — Middle Class: "If tough labor laws, pro-union government, and wealth redistribution were the pathway to prosperity, then it would be Mexico building that wall on our southern border, not us. Skills, not union propaganda, are the pathway to the middle class"

Clarence Darrow on Freedom, Justice, and War - Jeff Riggenbach - Mises Daily

Clarence Darrow on Freedom, Justice, and War - Jeff Riggenbach - Mises Daily: "the emphasis in punishment must be not on paying one's debt to 'society,' whatever that may mean, but in paying one's 'debt' to the victim. Certainly, the initial part of that debt is restitution. This works clearly in cases of theft. If A has stolen $15,000 from B, then the first, or initial, part of A's punishment must be to restore that $15,000 to the hands of B (plus damages, judicial and police costs, and interest foregone). Suppose that, as in most cases, the thief has already spent the money. In that case, the first step of proper libertarian punishment is to force the thief to work, and to allocate the ensuing income to the victim until the victim has been repaid. The ideal situation, then, puts the criminal frankly into a state of enslavement to his victim, the criminal continuing in that condition of just slavery until he has redressed the grievance of the man he has wronged.

We must note that the emphasis of restitution-punishment is diametrically opposite to the current practice of punishment. What happens nowadays is the following absurdity: A steals $15,000 from B. The government tracks down, tries, and convicts A, all at the expense of B, as one of the numerous taxpayers victimized in this process. Then, the government, instead of forcing A to repay B or to work at forced labor until that debt is paid, forces B, the victim, to pay taxes to support the criminal in prison for ten or twenty years' time. Where in the world is the justice here? The victim not only loses his money, but pays more money besides for the dubious thrill of catching, convicting, and then supporting the criminal; and the criminal is still enslaved, but not to the good purpose of recompensing his victim."

Should We Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary

Should We Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Thus the entire narrative about the embargo and the need to protect ourselves against foreign policy blackmail was never true. Nor is it true today. The development of an oil futures market, which did not exist in 1973, allows consumers and firms to insure against the financial consequences of oil shocks through contracting."