Indiana high school student faces expulsion over bringing stun gun to school to ward off bullies | Fox News

Indiana high school student faces expulsion over bringing stun gun to school to ward off bullies | Fox News: "Young says he's been bullied for a while at the school. He says he's been called gay slurs and has been the target of thrown bottles and rocks. The bullying has gotten so bad, Young says he considered killing himself.

Young's mother, Chelisa Grimes, told the station that she armed her son with a stun gun after complaining to school administrators several times about the bullying."

Zero-tolerance weapons polices are simplistic, don't address the problem (violence), and punish behaviour that is ok.

Christie the Prophet | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Christie the Prophet | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "In 1965, just 22 percent of all federal spending was transfer payments. Today it has doubled to 44 percent. That means that nearly half of all federal spending is simply government taking money from one person and giving it to another.

Or look at it another way: In 1965, transfer payments from the federal government made up less than 10 percent of wages and salaries. As recently as 2000, that percentage was just 21 percent. Today, transfer payments are more than a third of salary and wages. Worse, if one includes salaries from government employment, more than half of Americans receive a substantial portion of their income from the government."

" The welfare state started with small programs targeted toward a small number of genuinely needy people. But as politicians figured out the electoral benefits of expanding programs and people realized they could let others work on their behalf, those programs grew until the point at which, today, every problem in society prompts calls for government action, response, or funding.

At the same time, as Governor Christie also noted, this implicitly tells people, “stop dreaming, stop striving.” We demonize those who do succeed, damning them as part of the evil “1 percent.”

This is the real danger of the welfare state. It’s not that it will bankrupt us — though it will. It is that it slowly and insidiously destroys our national character, saps our will to be great, and makes us content with the way things are rather than how they could be."

Marching toward Taxmageddon | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

Marching toward Taxmageddon | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "It is hard for most Americans to imagine, but government in America once was small. In 1900 [Tax Freedom Day] fell on January 22. Americans paid just 5.9 percent of their incomes to government at all levels."

CIA derails plot with al-Qaida underwear bomb | Fox News

CIA derails plot with al-Qaida underwear bomb | Fox News: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said: "The device did not appear to pose a threat to the public air service"

If it wasn't a threat then why the big announcements?!?

From Innovation to Rent Seeking - Doug French - Mises Daily

From Innovation to Rent Seeking - Doug French - Mises Daily: "It is possible that companies would have an even greater incentive to innovate if they could not rely on a near twenty-year monopoly.
Instead of spurring innovation, IP appears to be a rat's nest of litigation. For example, Google's chief legal officer, David C. Drummond, estimates that a modern smartphone might be susceptible to as many as 250,000 potential patent claims.

In a study published in 2008, James E. Bessen and a colleague, Michael J. Meurer, professors at the Boston University School of Law, concluded that the costs of litigation were twice the benefits in the areas of software and telecommunications, where "the claims are often so broad and vague that it is completely unpredictable what the patents cover and don't.""

Why Inflation Isn't a Moral Issue | Timothy B. Lee | Cato Institute: Commentary

Why Inflation Isn't a Moral Issue | Timothy B. Lee | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The problem with this line of argument is that even stable money is a bad long-term store of value. That’s because modern capital markets offer you the opportunity to not just preserve the value of your money but dramatically increase it by investing in productive assets. You can buy stocks, bonds, or real estate, all of which generate a stream of income that increases the value of your investment."

Those options have more risk (than zero inflation money), variability, are harder to convert, and have higher barriers to entry. Those options are great for rich but not for poor.

"If I invest my life savings in oil, and then Saudi Arabia discovers a massive new oil well that causes the price of oil to drop by 10 percent, it would be silly to say that Saudi Arabia has stolen 10 percent of my life savings. I just made a bad bet. Exactly the same point applies to money."

Money inflation is different. For one, it is government arbitrarily increasing the money supply.. No one has the ability to just increase the oil supply. Two, the government gets to use all of the benefits of the increased money supply. In effect it is a tax on people who hold money. Three, a massive increase in the amount of oil would hurt owners of oil but would help buyers of oil and would be good for the economy. But since the rate of inflation doesn't matter (as you say) there is no benefit to the economy from inflation. The only benefit is to the organization that inflates.

"if there aren’t enough dollars to go around, people start cutting back on their spending and the economy goes into recession"

There is plenty of money around -- people hardly worry about keeping pennies anymore because they have such little value. If there were problems where people needed to split a penny in order to do a transaction then you could say that there isn't enough money.

Why High Taxes Will Never Soak Rich | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary

Why High Taxes Will Never Soak Rich | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary: "trying to get more money from upper-income taxpayers is like playing whack-a-mole. So long as tax rates are high, rich people will figure out ways to protect their income.

It doesn’t take a tax genius; any rich person can make a phone call or hit a few computer keys and shift his or her investments to tax-free municipal bonds. It’s not good for the economy when capital gets diverted to help finance the excess spending of Detroit or California, but it’s an effective way of stiff-arming the IRS.

Or the rich can play the green-energy scam, getting all sorts of credits to offset their tax liabilities. That’s one way General Electric made lots of money and kept it all for shareholders."

"When the government taxes income, it raises the price of work compared to leisure. And because the tax code penalizes capital gains with higher rates, it also raises the price of saving and investment compared to consumption.

Yet work, production, saving and investment are how we generate national income, so it doesn’t make sense to discourage taxable income with higher tax rates."

"In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70 percent, rich people (those with incomes of more than $200,000) reported about $36 billion of income; the IRS collected about $19 billion of that amount. So what happened when President Ronald Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 28 percent by 1988? Did revenue fall proportionately, to about $8 billion?

Folks on the left thought that would happen, complaining that Reagan’s “tax cuts for the rich” would starve the government of revenue and give upper-income taxpayers a free ride.

But if we look at the 1988 IRS data, rich people paid more than $99 billion to Uncle Sam. That is, because rich taxpayers were willing to earn and report much more income, the government collected five times as much revenue with a lower rate."

Failed plot to blow up Ohio bridge highlights potential 'Occupy' link to violence | Fox News

Failed plot to blow up Ohio bridge highlights potential 'Occupy' link to violence | Fox News: "According to the Occupy Threat Center, a database established by data analytics company ListenLogic to analyze social media posts for threats to corporations from those associated with the 'Occupy' movement, leaders have called for physical destruction of buildings and violent action, and associated "hacktivist" groups have targeted financial and law enforcement institutions. Speakers at rallies around the nation have called for an uprising similar to the French Revolution."

I couldn't easily find any documentation of that. Is there documentation?

Buffett Rule's Deceitful Consequences | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Buffett Rule's Deceitful Consequences | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The president and many in his party keep telling us that the government needs more money, but if they believe this, why are they taking charitable deductions? I expect the reason is that most of us implicitly believe (for good empirical reasons) that private charities and other tax-exempt groups spend our money more wisely and carefully than the government."

"Even if the Buffett tax ever passes, it was crafted by members of Congress to hit few of their own. Very rich members of Congress, such as Sens. John F. Kerry and John D. Rockefeller IV, receive much of their income from tax-exempt state and local bonds and from trust funds, which largely avoid the tax. Members of Congress generally are restricted from entrepreneurial activities. So, of course, they have decided to increase the tax on entrepreneurs — the capital gains tax — which is a tax on becoming rich, not a tax on being rich."

"By increasing the tax on capital gains and marginal rates, the government makes it more difficult to move into higher income brackets, thus actually reducing income-class mobility."

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

The Libertarian Manifesto on Pollution - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily: "The vital fact about air pollution is that the polluter sends unwanted and unbidden pollutants — from smoke to nuclear radiation to sulfur oxides — through the air and into the lungs of innocent victims, as well as onto their material property. All such emanations which injure person or property constitute aggression against the private property of the victims. Air pollution, after all, is just as much aggression as committing arson against another's property or injuring him physically. Air pollution that injures others is aggression pure and simple. The major function of government — of courts and police — is to stop aggression; instead, the government has failed in this task and has failed grievously to exercise its defense function against air pollution."

"American courts, during the late — and as far back as the early 19th century made the deliberate decision to allow property rights to be violated by industrial smoke. To do so, the courts had to — and did — systematically change and weaken the defenses of property right embedded in Anglo-Saxon common law. Before the mid and late 19th century, any injurious air pollution was considered a tort, a nuisance against which the victim could sue for damages and against which he could take out an injunction to cease and desist from any further invasion of his property rights. But during the 19th century, the courts systematically altered the law of negligence and the law of nuisance to permit any air pollution which was not unusually greater than any similar manufacturing firm, one that was not more extensive than the customary practice of fellow polluters.

As factories began to arise and emit smoke, blighting the orchards of neighboring farmers, the farmers would take the manufacturers to court, asking for damages and injunctions against further invasion of their property. But the judges said, in effect, "Sorry. We know that industrial smoke (i.e., air pollution) invades and interferes with your property rights. But there is something more important than mere property rights: and that is public policy, the 'common good.' And the common good decrees that industry is a good thing, industrial progress is a good thing, and therefore your mere private property rights must be overridden on behalf of the general welfare." And now all of us are paying the bitter price for this overriding of private property"