Elizabeth Warren: Resistance is Futile to the Collective

[AuH20]

This woman scares me. I agree with the underlying premise of a social contract in theory, but this particular viewpoint is insane.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/elizabeth-warren-on-class-warfare-there-is-nobody-in-this-country-who-got-rich-on-his-own/


“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

[gls]

Yeah, she is terrible, even for a Democrat. Hopefully she say something stupid about a Boston sports team that will destroy her chances.

[Graeme]

I've always wondered about the "public good" point.

But she's right, to a degree. We did use the roads and the police and the fire department. And I'd be willing to pay for those to be managed at NEAR A LOCAL LEVEL AS POSSIBLE.

But we also are paying for the regulation that makes it harder to succeed. We're paying for the people who don't want to work to sit on their butts instead of working in my factor, which means we're paying them NOT to buy my product. We're paying for bridges to nowhere, multiple wars fought in my name, executions, a war on drugs, terror and many other things at the high federal level.

So, yes. Roads, police, fire. All things I think most reasonable supporters of liberty would be willing to pay for ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. Especially if the police only protected people from force or fraud and that's it.

But the other part of that isn't really in the public good or interest. I don't think I can justify my money being used to murder brown people.

[wannaberocker]

This is something i expect from Liz Warren. This woman is a degree left of socialist.

[AuH20]

This is something i expect from Liz Warren. This woman is a degree left of socialist.

She sounds like a mobster lecturing us on the benefits of "protection fees". It's relatively the same concept. I have no problem with taking a particular, defined role in a community, which entail certain sacrifices, but we've gone far above and beyond that reasonable contract, in that this citizen-government relationship has become incredibly unbalanced and abusive.

[sailingaway]

We have a social contract, it is called the Constitution. There is a process for amendment, and she is free to follow it.

[Pericles]

We have a social contract, it is called the Constitution. There is a process for amendment, and she is free to follow it.

+rep

[trey4sports]

ok, it's now clear. Keep this lady out of Congress.

[Sentient Void]

So... Because you were taxed all your life to pay for these services which you may or may not have wanted, now that some of those services may or may not have provided some financial return you have volunteered for perpetual tax slavery. Yeah, that makes sense.

And she implies the factory owner doesn't pay for any of the things she mentions. It's the people who paid for them!

Sad thing is, I imagine she will probably defeat Scott Brown. Because Scott Brown ended up just being a liberal RINO, and the liberal/democrat base is energized against Scott Brown and those who have elected him. They won't stay home this time.

I live in MA, I'm not looking forward to having her as my Senator.

[reillym]

We have a social contract, it is called the Constitution. There is a process for amendment, and she is free to follow it.

yeah, and the Constitution says the government can collect taxes. Last time I checked at least...

[reillym]

I've always wondered about the "public good" point.

But she's right, to a degree. We did use the roads and the police and the fire department. And I'd be willing to pay for those to be managed at NEAR A LOCAL LEVEL AS POSSIBLE.

But we also are paying for the regulation that makes it harder to succeed. We're paying for the people who don't want to work to sit on their butts instead of working in my factor, which means we're paying them NOT to buy my product. We're paying for bridges to nowhere, multiple wars fought in my name, executions, a war on drugs, terror and many other things at the high federal level.

So, yes. Roads, police, fire. All things I think most reasonable supporters of liberty would be willing to pay for ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. Especially if the police only protected people from force or fraud and that's it.

But the other part of that isn't really in the public good or interest. I don't think I can justify my money being used to murder brown people.

What other part is there? She isn't defending the war, please reread.

Before that, she mentions the three things that are causing our debt problem: Bush tax cuts, bush medicare part d, and two wars. We must eliminate all three. Common sense says, if those got us in, to get out, we must get rid of them. Pretty simple.

She's right, completely. Not just to a degree.

[Graeme]

What other part is there? She isn't defending the war, please reread.

Before that, she mentions the three things that are causing our debt problem: Bush tax cuts, bush medicare part d, and two wars. We must eliminate all three. Common sense says, if those got us in, to get out, we must get rid of them. Pretty simple.

She's right, completely. Not just to a degree.

The "you MUST pay it forward to the next man" part is socialism.

Sorry, but it is. I'm the type who WOULD pay it forward, but saying I must? Or they'll come and put me in a cage?

I disagree with that force.

[reillym]

I love how all of you think you all made it completely on your own. Well, guess what. I paid for your education, the roads your car goes on, the safety you take for granted, etc etc. You owe debt to society, so stop trying to mooch off the system. Her argument was for the tax cuts for the rich, which have FAILED MISERABLY. 70% of american agrees. Rich people agree. Corporatist republicans? Not so much.

[reillym]

The "you MUST pay it forward to the next man" part is socialism.

Sorry, but it is. I'm the type who WOULD pay it forward, but saying I must? Or they'll come and put me in a cage?

I disagree with that force.

Then how the fuck does society exist at all? Sorry, but the very basic things this country has costs lots of money. If everyone had a CHOICE, how many would? Voluntary taxes do not exist in any country. Why? Because they don't work.

Yes, it is socialism. Too bad. There is no pure capitalist society and never will be.

You grew up depending on others. Fact. You used up tax money. You wouldn't be where you are without it. You owe a *SMALL* part of your success to society.

[AuH20]

I love how all of you think you all made it completely on your own. Well, guess what. I paid for your education, the roads your car goes on, the safety you take for granted, etc etc. You owe debt to society, so stop trying to mooch off the system. Her argument was for the tax cuts for the rich, which have FAILED MISERABLY. 70% of american agrees. Rich people agree. Corporatist republicans? Not so much.

No one is discounting that community is integral towards personal development and success, but the government has morphed into a criminal enterprise. I personally say "NO" to extortion methods.

[Graeme]

Society existed LONG before this government started taxing people and groping them in airports. Society will exist after this bloated beast of a government collapses and explodes under its own weight.

Separate government from society. You don't NEED a big government to "run society." And these basic things? I'm willing to pay for these basic things at a local level, where I have control of the politicians. I'm willing to pay schools locally. I'm willing to pay local taxes for roads, local taxes that I have a referendum under.

This country operated just fine for the first half of its existence with low taxes.

[klamath]

Yeaw I like how the factory owner never pad for anything and it was always somebody else that paid for it. That factory owner paid just as much as anyone else if not more for that infrastructure.
Oh and I see we have the refugee from the Democratic Underground on here defending her.

[Kords21]

That mauarding band she talks about sounds like the gov't to me.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Someone posted this on another site. I thought it was a very simply explanation of the flaw in her argument.


Roads, police, national defense - all things the wealthy are in favor of funding.
Has a liberal ever argued without using a strawman lie?

[wannaberocker]

Well i was born in a govt hospital. SO i guess according to Liz Warren , the govt owns me.

See old Liz's argument is that each and every citizen is in debt to govt. YOu made a factory? well the govt built the road. You dont have a mob at your factory door ? well thats because govt is there to protect you. In her mind anything and everything is thanks to the govt, in other words govt is the God. And "the govt gives and the govt takes it away" and that to Lizzy is Fair because it all belongs to govt anyways.


Which is why i wonder when will liz go and say "well person XYZ you were born in a hospital owned by the govt and without it you might not be here" So now the govt owns you.

[jason43]

The problem with partisans is that they only support getting rid of the stuff their opponents support. Notice she didnt mention Obamas healthcare, Libya, Somolia, Yemen, etc etc.

Another ironic thing is that the things she listed as things that support a business are almost all provided by state and local government. Police, schools, fire, etc...

I support getting rid of all federal involvement in those issues.

[Travlyr]

Society existed LONG before this government started taxing people and groping them in airports. Society will exist after this bloated beast of a government collapses and explodes under its own weight.

Separate government from society. You don't NEED a big government to "run society." And these basic things? I'm willing to pay for these basic things at a local level, where I have control of the politicians. I'm willing to pay schools locally. I'm willing to pay local taxes for roads, local taxes that I have a referendum under.

This country operated just fine for the first half of its existence with low taxes.

That's right. Before the fiat money system and the 16th amendment came along the country was quite vibrant, prosperous, and free. The people are well dressed, and you don't see any people standing around asking for handouts because everybody had something to do or someplace to be.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oubsaFBUcTc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oubsaFBUcTc

[pcosmar]

Another ironic thing is that the things she listed as things that support a business are almost all provided by state and local government. Police, schools, fire, etc...

I support getting rid of all federal involvement in those issues.

I support getting rid of them at the federal and state level. These are all things that are local community level.
Roads??
The Oregon trail was not built by the government. In fact roads were not built by the government till the 1900s. Roads were built by people that used and needed them, Towns and cities built the roads in and around them.
States maintained them and sometimes improved the roads between cities. It wasn't till the 50s that the Fed was involved at all and the Federal Highway system was designed as alternate landing strips for planes in the "Cold War".
Schools??
They started and were first maintained by parents. And still should be.

Police?? That concept should not even exist in a free society.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Fire?? They also started as a voluntary service. A Civic duty. And still should be such.

Liberty was the starting point. Socialism has screwed up every aspect of this country,, from the front door on.

[reillym]

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith, the GODDAMN FOUNDER OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM.

[Sola_Fide]

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- [B][SIZE=4]Adam Smith

What's your point? Adam Smith also taught the labor theory of value. He was wrong there too.

[pcosmar]

Adam Smith, the GODDAMN FOUNDER OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM.

Bullshit.
Capitalism has been around as long as mankind.
The first Shepard and Farmer that traded goods was 100% Capitalism.

[Sola_Fide]

Bullshit.
Capitalism has been around as long as mankind.
The first Shepard and Farmer that traded goods was 100% Capitalism.

Yeah. I seem to remember a people who received from God the command "You should not steal", which is the basis of the free market.

[Sentient Void]

FIXED:

http://i.imgur.com/ZInte.png

[emazur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSadCyMu_Dk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe5VKERMseI

[AbVag]

I love how all of you think you all made it completely on your own. Well, guess what. I paid for your education, the roads your car goes on, the safety you take for granted, etc etc. You owe debt to society, so stop trying to mooch off the system. Her argument was for the tax cuts for the rich, which have FAILED MISERABLY. 70% of american agrees. Rich people agree. Corporatist republicans? Not so much.

Guess what? I didn't ask for you to pay for any of that. You willingly paid into it so you can dictate my life, isn't that right, Mr. Tyrant? I owe nobody anything and I reject your elitist, pro-slavery views.

[AbVag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSadCyMu_Dk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe5VKERMseI

Peter Schiff. Never fails to keep my sanity in check. :)

[Aratus]

rep. mike capuano or newton's mayor seti warren would be edgier than her in a debate with scott brown.

[AuH20]

FIXED:

http://i.imgur.com/ZInte.png

So true. They'll take it regardless.

[Aratus]

unless the TEA PARTY EXPRESS people do their thing again like they did in 2010, we may see
scott brown with 2% less come the november of 2012 election. i am really hinting to people here
that ms. warren or mr. warren could be the Democrat since mike capuano is trying to be re-elected
to his district. if we want a better contender than sen. scott brown for the GOP it might not be
too late to rally behind a rEVOLUTIOn candidate up here. as it is, she might win the primary!!!

[jkr]

parasite

[Aratus]

seriously, she's being hyped. she may get the party nod and she's like a diplomatic martha coakley clone.
expect easily 48% of the vote to go to her because she has yet to look as menopausal and/or pms~ing!!!

[123tim]

you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

I thought that local taxes already paid for that big hunk?

[anaconda]

So, does Scott Brown have to run again? Cuz maybe that was a special election for Teddie's seat?

[Aratus]

yes! and after that in 2014 john kerry is up for re-election again! i may try to run in 2014 after doing campaign work now!

[One Last Battle!]

Frankly, Brown needs to be primaried. No way is he winning with his garbage record.

If he isn't, then I would advise you vote Libertarian, because they at least might be worthwhile if they won and the Democrat and Republican are both "greater evils" anyway.

[LibForestPaul]

I love how all of you think you all made it completely on your own. Well, guess what. I paid for your education, the roads your car goes on, the safety you take for granted, etc etc. You owe debt to society, so stop trying to mooch off the system. Her argument was for the tax cuts for the rich, which have FAILED MISERABLY. 70% of american agrees. Rich people agree. Corporatist republicans? Not so much.

You paid for my eduction? No you did not. And paying for it under the barrel of a gun gets no kuddos from me.
You paid for the roads I drive on? And the other choice I have been given?
Tax cuts on the rich. Because when mister fat cat ceo pays more and gets to keep less, I am sure he will eat it and not pass it forward onto his employees in reduced benefits and meager raises.

[DamianTV]

http://www.intercomm.com/biobob/images/DyslexiaOfBorg.jpg

[LayZayFaire]

Roads are a monopoly. You don't have a fucking choice! There is only one provider for the roads that you drive on, it's government. And they make their money from mob rule. You MUST pay for it. I don't care if it's federal, state, or local, that is basically how we fund our roads. There is no cooperation between good movers (drivers) and road owners (government). There is only coercion, between road owners (government) and road payers (the sheeple).

Public schools are worse than a monopoly (actually roads are too, now that I think about it). Think about it, if Dell was a monopoly provider of computers, I could at least avoid computers altogether to not pay into this monopoly. With public schools, even if you send your kids to private school, home school them, or even if you don't have any kids to put into school, it don't fucking matter, YOU STILL PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Leftists are completely against monopolies with one great exception, which is the greatest monopoly of all, THE GOVERNMENT.

Elizabeth Warren is a typical example of a loony elitist. I'm surprised she didn't say, "You built a factory. Who gave you a license to start a business? The government gave you a license. You're lucky they didn't put you in jail. You did it on your own......motherfucker, please."

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Let's break this down.

1) "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody." Hasty Generalization Fallacy

2) "You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate." Hasty and Cherry Picking Fallacies, respectfully.

3) "You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for." Appeal to Authority Fallacy

4) "But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. Appeal to Pity and Wishful Thinking Fallacies, respectfully.

[ClayTrainor]

This woman scares me. I agree with the underlying premise of a social contract in theory, but this particular viewpoint is insane.


And that scares me...

A contract requires the voluntary consent by all parties involved, and it cannot be imposed on anyone who does not consent to the terms of the contract. The Social "Contract" does not require the explicit and voluntary consent by all parties involved, and it can be imposed on anyone who does not consent to the terms of the "contract". It is a mandate or list of mandates, not a contract.

Here's a good illustration of Elizabeth Warren's hypocrisy and madness:


Source:http://lifeofjames.tumblr.com/post/10490562756/the-social-contract-by-elizabeth-warren#permalink-notes
(http://lifeofjames.tumblr.com/post/10490562756/the-social-contract-by-elizabeth-warren#permalink-notes)


There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you.



But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factor because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…Now look. You built a factor and it turned into something terrific or a great idea—God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.






One thing about politicians is that they lecture you with enough truth so that it covers up their lies. There is a genius in it, evil though it may be.

Nobody can disagree with the statements as they are put forward. After all, not one single person bears the entire cost of a road, of an education, of preventative and emergency services, and this is how it should be. That’s the whole “division of labor” thing. And I don’t think there’s a single person alive who would say that they should receive these services and benefits without somebody having to pay for it, and that it would be most fair (all things being equal) for the beneficiaries to bear the cost of the services.

The lie is in the expression, “… the rest of us paid…”First of all, this woman is a politician. She hasn’t paid for jack shit. Now, I’m not saying that she shouldn’t speak positively of politics as it is her bread and butter, but I’m just saying: she’s not being honest, at least not regarding her contributions.

Second of all, nobody has actually paid for any of these services. I can totally accept that they are necessary, but they are currently funded with stolen money. If it’s stolen, it’s not paid for. It’s stolen. It just doesn’t get any more basic than that.

To ask the question, “But who would pay for these services if we didn’t have this system?” is to miss the point. An unemployed, homeless man who is arrested for stealing food may protest, “But how am I supposed to eat if I cannot steal?” The answer is painfully obvious.

The road away from having to steal to survive is painful and difficult, and it is the road we are counseled to take by our parents, teachers, priests, and political masters. And, bless us, some of us do try very hard to do just that.

If only they would take their own advice.There is another glaring lie in Ms. Warren’s polemic: that the builder of the factory didn’t have to worry about marauders. I don’t know what world this woman is living in, but in addition to the other risks entrepreneurs have in this world, there is a major risk that the government will come in with its guns and carry everything away, including the person themselves!

As always seems to be the case with politicians, this lecture also embeds a threat.“[T]ake a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along,” … or else.






Realistically, this speech is superfluous—you don’t actually need to lecture somebody you’re about to steal from—that is, unless you want to keep stealing from them. However, the moralizing is another important part of the political process. It sets up the enemies that the government will doubtless have to punish for their greed. This propaganda is necessary to keep those eyelids nailed shut.

[ClayTrainor]

Adam Smith, the GODDAMN FOUNDER OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM.

lol, no. Capitalism is natural, even before we had a word for it.

"Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone" - Kenneth Minogue

[MJU1983]

http://i.imgur.com/sHUN2.jpg

[ClayTrainor]

http://i.imgur.com/sHUN2.jpg

Nailed it!

[Carole]

I love how all of you think you all made it completely on your own. Well, guess what. I paid for your education, the roads your car goes on, the safety you take for granted, etc etc. You owe debt to society, so stop trying to mooch off the system. Her argument was for the tax cuts for the rich, which have FAILED MISERABLY. 70% of american agrees. Rich people agree. Corporatist republicans? Not so much.

Taxing the rich at an unfairly high rate hurts the rest of us. Who will then pay more for products and services? The rest of us will. I cannot afford to pay more and more for what I need. These higher taxes are always passed on to the public.

The argument is based on a false dichotomy. Higher taxes are nover used to reduce the deficit or sized of government, The government will continue to spend us deeper into debt if given more money; even if not given more money.

1958 - Great Speech by Robert Welch Founder of John Birch Society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLhidgtu12o


If I were rich and felt I was being unfairly targeted with higher taxes I would do the whatever it took to avoid those higher taxes or leave the country taking my money with me.

I believe charity should be voluntary, not coerced. Protection payments are the tools of mobsters; they do not belong in government. We must reduce the size of government drastically because it has become a totalitarian monster.

[Sentient Void]

Article from the FreeMan: "Elizabeth Warren's Non Sequitur"

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/elizabeth-warrens-non-sequitur/


If you spend any time on a social network, you’re bound to come across this video of Elizabeth Warren, who’s running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. In her remarks she says:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Just goes to show, you can start with a valid premise and end up with an invalid conclusion.

She’s right: When you live in a society you benefit in countless ways, material and otherwise. The language you speak and think in is a social institution and would be impossible without the presence of others. So is custom, which regulates our interpersonal conduct far more than the edicts (mistakenly called “laws”) of legislatures. And the few valid ideas among those edicts had their origin in bottom-up custom. (See my “The Rule of Lore.”) How about money itself? It is also an organic social institution. Of course today money is fiat paper controlled by government, but even that system has a foundation in the institution described by Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises.

Social Animals

So we need not deny Warren’s premise. Human beings are social animals. We should revel in that fact. Frédéric Bastiat did in Economic Harmonies:

Let us take a man belonging to a modest class in society, a village cabinetmaker, for example, and let us observe the services he renders to society and receives in return. This man spends his day planing boards, making tables and cabinets; he complains of his status in society, and yet what, in fact, does he receive from this society in exchange for his labor? The disproportion between the two is tremendous.

Every day, when he gets up, he dresses; and he has not himself made any of the numerous articles he puts on. Now, for all these articles of clothing, simple as they are, to be available to him, an enormous amount of labor, industry, transportation, and ingenious invention has been necessary. . .

Next, he breakfasts. For his bread to arrive every morning, farm lands have had to be cleared, fenced in, ploughed, fertilized, planted; the crops have had to be protected from theft; a certain degree of law and order has had to reign over a vast multitude of people; wheat has had to be harvested, ground, kneaded, and prepared; iron, steel, wood, stone have had to be converted by industry into tools of production . . . — all things of which each one by itself alone presupposes an incalculable output of labor not only in space, but in time as well. . .

It is impossible not to be struck by the disproportion, truly incommensurable, that exists between the satisfactions this man derives from society and the satisfactions that he could provide for himself if he were reduced to his own resources. I make bold to say that in one day he consumes more things than he could produce himself in ten centuries.

What’s New?

Elizabeth Warren, then, has said nothing startling. This has been the (classical) liberal view of the market social order from time immemorial. But she places what should be a mundane observation in the service of a bad cause: higher taxes. That’s a non sequitur.

Let’s stipulate something before examining Warren’s mission. In today’s society, as in Bastiat’s, great wealth can be made by what Franz Oppenheimer, echoed later by Albert Jay Nock (pdf), called “the political means.” That is, many business people (preaching the gospel of “the free market”) make fortunes from government interventions that directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, obstruct entry into their industries or limit self-employment opportunities, allowing them to earn oligopolistic rents at the expense of consumers and workers. That’s a traditional classical liberal complaint about government and its connivance with business.

But that is not what Warren means. In the video she says nothing about corporate-state privilege or the long years of intervention that amount to the “subsidy of history.” She mentions only tax-financed roads, schools, and police. (Roads do entail a subsidy to long-distance shippers, but she seems oblivious to that.) There’s an easy remedy for State-granted privileges: repeal. But like a good corporate-liberal, she prefers regulation to repeal. And as we know, George Stigler’s theory of regulatory capture tells us that the rules will tend to be written with the regulated industries in mind, if not with their active participation. (Not that other-minded regulators would know what to do.)

“[Y]ou built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? . . . Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along,” she says.

Produce the Contract

Has anyone seen this social contract that obligates you to surrender a “hunk” of what you produce under penalty of violence? Sorry, I don’t trust unwritten open-ended so-called “contracts” into which any advocate of government power may read conditions ex post. (The idea of social contract can be construed more sensibly. See this.) Moreover, why aren’t honest production and exchange of valuable goods counted as payment forward? Just as our living standard is the fruit of previous generations’ production, so today’s producers are helping to raise the living standard of the next generations.

Boiled down, then, Warren’s argument is that since everyone has paid taxes to provide services without which wealthy people couldn’t have made their money, they should pay more. How does that follow? She’d first have to show that they are paying too little now. She only assumes this. (See Steven Horwitz’s discussion of this matter.) That’s not good enough. And maybe the services cost too much — wouldn’t we expect that from a protected monopoly?

She might respond that the presence of the deficit shows that not enough money is collected in taxes and therefore the wealthiest should pay more. Still not good enough. As she herself intimates, the George W. Bush years were marked by unfunded spending. That sounds like a problem of overspending, not undertaxation. Solution: Cut spending.

[Duckman]

Warren: "You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory"

Look, honestly even as a libertarian, I would be happy honestly if the government would just go back to roads, police, and fire, and stop policing the world, bailing out banks, trying to "redistribute" wealth, etc. :D

[Humanae Libertas]

http://i.imgur.com/sHUN2.jpg

I dare someone to post this up on Socialist-Liberal Reddit, and see what kind of responses people would leave.