Re: Consumption 2: The Return (With New and Improved Definitions and Proofs!)

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Fri Mar 30 2001 - 08:24:47 PST wrote:

> while it's not the "job" of taxation to redistribute wealth, neither is it
> the "job" of government to "help families" (cough) with exemptions for
> children or marriage (funny that to tax married people singly is considered a
> "penalty" (and all the hype over this tax when it applies to a very small
> percentage of couples anyway - just lots of good "pro-family" press for the
> states' electeds)).

Finally, we agree on something. ;-) More, not only is it not the "job" of the
gov't, in my moral formulation it's not even a good thing for the gov't to do.

> there is recognized somewhere by people with a more
> elegant grasp of positive reciprocity (the economic building block of even
> the most primitive societies) that what's good for one group returns to the
> other group in ways not mathematically projectable.

Free markets = positive reciprocity. Necessary AND sufficient. End of story.

> i am convinced that libertarians are posessed of (or by) a special brain
> chemistry that is complexity averse (wayne exepted).

It's a good thing *someone* is.

Only the irrational and the complacent accept *unnecessary* complexity without
challenge. Unfortunately, those folks appear to be in the majority.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:16 PDT