Saturday, June 09, 2007
In Total Agreement
It's rare that I agree with everything in a 500 word op-ed, but I do with this one by Walter E. Williams. Every. Single. Word.
Williams sometimes is the guest host (oxymoron) on Rush's show where he is a treat. Since he's black he can actually talk about race. One time the subject of The Bell Curve came up and somewhere along the line a caller made the suggestion that we give up on SATs and ACTs and go with just the grades. Williams thought about two seconds and asked: "If I'm a track coach looking at a prospect, do I want to know where he placed in his races, or do I want to know his times?" Very impressive for a real world comparison that ended any further debate.
Money quotes from his recent work:
Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation. Let's examine just one reason for the superior morality of free markets.
Say that I mow your lawn and you pay me $30, which we might think of as certificates of performance. Having mowed your lawn, I visit my grocer and demand that my fellow men serve me by giving me 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're demanding that your fellow man, as ranchers and brewers, serve you; what did you do to serve your fellow man?" I say, "I mowed his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it!" That's when I hand over my certificates of performance -- the $30.
[...]
Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.
There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
Williams sometimes is the guest host (oxymoron) on Rush's show where he is a treat. Since he's black he can actually talk about race. One time the subject of The Bell Curve came up and somewhere along the line a caller made the suggestion that we give up on SATs and ACTs and go with just the grades. Williams thought about two seconds and asked: "If I'm a track coach looking at a prospect, do I want to know where he placed in his races, or do I want to know his times?" Very impressive for a real world comparison that ended any further debate.
Money quotes from his recent work:
Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation. Let's examine just one reason for the superior morality of free markets.
Say that I mow your lawn and you pay me $30, which we might think of as certificates of performance. Having mowed your lawn, I visit my grocer and demand that my fellow men serve me by giving me 3 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer. In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're demanding that your fellow man, as ranchers and brewers, serve you; what did you do to serve your fellow man?" I say, "I mowed his lawn." The grocer says, "Prove it!" That's when I hand over my certificates of performance -- the $30.
[...]
Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That's a perverse usage of the term "right." A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person.
There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
Labels: Walter E. Williams; Tax as Theft
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:19 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hmmmm.
Tax as theft. I am just wondering exactly how Mr. Williams believes we should pay for government services, you konow like the military? Perhaps a truly "all volunteer army." Warren Buffet's next charitable enterprise should be to buy the AF some F-18s rather than giving all his hard won free market cash to that Harvard dropout who wants to eradicate those entrepeneurial diseases.
Then of course there is the big caveat: "Free markets characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange with respect to property rights and the rule of law." Yes that would indeed be Utopia but history has proved that such is more like the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Guess what Mr. Williams? If I am to take a short perusal of 3000 years of the history of homo sapiens, I doin't think I would find much respect for proprerty rights or the rule of law.
As a matter of fact, wouldn't you say that most of the last eight centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence was a result of someone's failure to respect another's property rights or, in the alternative, a result of the need to define property rights in the face of advances in technology or societal changes?
But, Mr. Williams, let me lay this on you. America's favorite multi billion dollar entertainment industry is the antithesis of free market practices. I am, of course, referring to the NFL.
Let's see, the NFL shares TV revenue; shares gate receipts; strictly licenses its products, jerseys, hats, etc.; dictates what games can be shown when and where; has a commmissioner w/ extradinary powers; has a salary cap to prevent competitive advantage; pays owners and players so much more than the average citizen, kind of like affording party memebers and their daschas.
No Mr. Williams, for free market practices, see MLB.
Regards,
T
Tax as theft. I am just wondering exactly how Mr. Williams believes we should pay for government services, you konow like the military? Perhaps a truly "all volunteer army." Warren Buffet's next charitable enterprise should be to buy the AF some F-18s rather than giving all his hard won free market cash to that Harvard dropout who wants to eradicate those entrepeneurial diseases.
Then of course there is the big caveat: "Free markets characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange with respect to property rights and the rule of law." Yes that would indeed be Utopia but history has proved that such is more like the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Guess what Mr. Williams? If I am to take a short perusal of 3000 years of the history of homo sapiens, I doin't think I would find much respect for proprerty rights or the rule of law.
As a matter of fact, wouldn't you say that most of the last eight centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence was a result of someone's failure to respect another's property rights or, in the alternative, a result of the need to define property rights in the face of advances in technology or societal changes?
But, Mr. Williams, let me lay this on you. America's favorite multi billion dollar entertainment industry is the antithesis of free market practices. I am, of course, referring to the NFL.
Let's see, the NFL shares TV revenue; shares gate receipts; strictly licenses its products, jerseys, hats, etc.; dictates what games can be shown when and where; has a commmissioner w/ extradinary powers; has a salary cap to prevent competitive advantage; pays owners and players so much more than the average citizen, kind of like affording party memebers and their daschas.
No Mr. Williams, for free market practices, see MLB.
Regards,
T
# posted by 
: 9:30 AM
: 9:30 AM
"A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference."
Truly a quote worthy of preservation.
Truly a quote worthy of preservation.
If you read the whole post, Tony, you see the theft is taking it from one person to give it to another for nothing, not pay for being in the armed services or part of the bureauocracy. Also you seem to be thinking of the NFL teams as in a 'free market' struggle against each other. It's one enterprise. Say it's in conflict with the NHL (and beating the crap out of it) and you get closer to free market. You didn't reach me with the counterexample.
It is a good quote, Eric, but I liked the whole thing.
Post a Comment
It is a good quote, Eric, but I liked the whole thing.
<< Home
