tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post551254209622728065..comments2024-03-22T06:05:36.544-04:00Comments on Kids Prefer Cheese: My Dog Does Not Own My HouseMungowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-33876933092615631502012-07-26T14:23:07.545-04:002012-07-26T14:23:07.545-04:00I can see how this story would appeal to Social Da...I can see how this story would appeal to Social Darwinists. It's appeal comes from the fact that the story is framed as a story about dogs. And, of course, dogs don't own property.<br /><br />But change the term "dogs" to "slaves," and your story takes on a more sinister aspect.<br /><br />In effect, you are defending slavery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-62251236544911778752012-07-22T06:40:09.994-04:002012-07-22T06:40:09.994-04:00What is trying to say is that Obama can't spen...What is trying to say is that Obama can't spend a single penny until someone first goes out and generates wealth that can then be taxed. For him to spend it someone has to go out and earn it.Angry Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-70783553306830611872012-07-21T18:44:15.758-04:002012-07-21T18:44:15.758-04:00Sorry Mungo, but this is stupid. No one's argu...Sorry Mungo, but this is stupid. No one's arguing the dogs own your house. What the left says is that people with exceptionally high income should pay more because they benefit more from use of publicly provided goods. You don't agree with that, you think that these people already pay enough or too much - fine. But that's no reason to delve into garbage arguments like your dog story.Monkeymannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-34132166719367666002012-07-21T16:58:09.353-04:002012-07-21T16:58:09.353-04:00When he messed up and said the public sector is do...When he messed up and said the public sector is doing fine, his staff had the wisdom to take it back and say that's not what he meant.<br /><br />This time the argument seems to be that he is being misunderstood, but said nothing wrong. The unwavering supporters of the president are trying to twist what he said into something more moderate. <br /><br />Good grief, give it up people. The president said something stupid, don't blame us.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-74757966873448768512012-07-21T09:59:38.697-04:002012-07-21T09:59:38.697-04:00The State only pretends to be "us" when ...The State only pretends to be "us" when it benefits "them".<br /><br />The State proclaims itself the exclusive broker of a service the taxpayers want, negotiates the necessary contracts, collects the money, pays the vendors, and then takes credit for the creation.<br /><br />Even ignoring the toxic spills from their leaky bucket, the State awards itself handsome fees for providing this "service", as well as continuing revenue by awarding itself a perpetual maintenance contract. <br /><br />Given the States arrogance when self-appointing themselves as the sole arbiter of specific goods taxpayers choose to purchase -- such as schools and roads -- we shouldn't be too surprised to find out the State (as custodian) thinks they own these goods, and that the taxpayers only have use of them through the good grace of the State.<br /><br />Goodness gracious!<br /><br />Great story Mungowitz!SheetWisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13762534904369877435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-69207463856207644392012-07-21T06:52:10.384-04:002012-07-21T06:52:10.384-04:00The Warren Rant would be a reasonable answer to so...The Warren Rant would be a reasonable answer to someone who had said, "Successful people should pay NO taxes." But no one's saying that. <br /><br />The crux of why she's wrong lives in Dr. M's "even-steven" construct. Warren refers to roads, education, police etc. that "the rest of us" paid for. There's the fallacy.<br /><br />A more accurate statement would cite roads, education, police etc. that *everyone* paid for, including you, Mr. or Ms. business owner, who likely paid a disproportionately high share. <br /><br />Warren singles out a group that puts more than its share into the system, treats it as if it puts in nothing and only takes, and treats that group as an Other distinct from Us. There's your class warfare right there.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-85205023012417737582012-07-20T21:06:35.277-04:002012-07-20T21:06:35.277-04:00Well, I know there's been some recent neurosci...Well, I know there's been some recent neuroscience reports on how conservative and liberal brains differ. So with that in mind, how about you paraphrase Warren's comment in way that best illustrates your objection...<br />...because from my end of the spectrum, there is nothing objectionable to what she says. I 'get' it. I'd like to see why you don't.zimarollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-55611284094962870372012-07-20T19:45:43.108-04:002012-07-20T19:45:43.108-04:00About those precious roads and bridges the state m...About those precious roads and bridges the state maintains--what if it fails to maintain them, but still charges us for doing so? And law and order, too--if the state doesn't provide it, or provides it poorly, do we get a refund? What about if the state finds a cheaper way to build and maintain roads and enforce laws--will it return to us what's left of our taxes, or reduce them to reflect the savings? Or how about this: if poor state services yield depreciated assets like worn out roads and bridges and crime-ridden cities, will it charge us a rate reduced to reflect that depreciation? <br />Governments do build roads and bridges and they do keep the peace, but they are under no obligation to do any of those things in the best or most efficient way. That tells me the dogs do own our houses, at least to a degree greater than most people think.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09080250180517062211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-71049317134642160492012-07-20T16:26:51.104-04:002012-07-20T16:26:51.104-04:00Norman,
It is not that the contract can't be r...Norman,<br />It is not that the contract can't be re-negotiated, but rather it cannot be negotiated under coercion. The problem that every society faces is that a state that is powerful enough to protect your property adequately is also powerful enough to take your property indiscriminately. The trick is to find a way to limit that power and temptation.Cowboynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-25684935467475487022012-07-20T16:16:04.737-04:002012-07-20T16:16:04.737-04:00It's so disappointing when you descend into bo...It's so disappointing when you descend into bogus demagoguery. You know what he meant and how it differs from your dog story. <br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/obama-business-build-that_n_1688865.html<br /><br />Shame.<br /><br />Also, Adam Smith has President Obama's back:<br />http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/adam-smith-vs-mitt-romney.htmlMr. Overwaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-68140458512958047452012-07-20T12:59:01.810-04:002012-07-20T12:59:01.810-04:00So kill the mutant dog you created and don't b...So kill the mutant dog you created and don't breed another. Who owns the house now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-1862363141842344112012-07-20T12:12:18.911-04:002012-07-20T12:12:18.911-04:00The head dog's rhetoric is certainly unhelpful...The head dog's rhetoric is certainly unhelpful. But is the alternative you present that, because the dogs are providing a public good, they never have the right to renegotiate their price for future provision of services? <br /><br />Whatever level of taxes were in place under the previous head dog, or ten head dogs ago, must remain in place even if the service itself has changed? That doesn't sound any more free-market than the head dog's idea.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12866136113454261245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-85788242254965210042012-07-20T12:04:51.412-04:002012-07-20T12:04:51.412-04:00First of all, you are interpreting Obama's rem...First of all, you are interpreting Obama's remark as uncharitably as you can, and there's no real reason to do that. See this Language log post: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4078<br /><br />Second, it is striking how whenever you make this point (which is often), you never discuss the aspects of policy that are truly integral to market transactions: namely, a legal basis for contract, a sound currency, and a court system that resolves disputes. Are all these things no more relevant to market exchange than the dogs of your fable? I don't really buy it.<br /><br />Now, look, I agree that Obama's point does not prove what he says it does, but I think going to the other extreme (in which really you have to treat property rights as some kind of divinely-based property of human life, and not the result of a well-ordered society) isn't very productive. I don't really think it is a necessary part of the classical liberal position, either.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12097439698292161497noreply@blogger.com