Category Archives: Libertarian thought

Coyote’s Retirement Rant

A Reader enjoys reading Coyote’s blog, as his business forces him to interact with governments constantly, creating a never ending stream of reasons for A Reader to stay out of government-contractor jobs.

First, I will say that I am perfectly happy for folks who are either good earners or good savers or both and who choose to use their accumulated wealth to stop working at some age. — My Retirement Rant | Coyote Blog.

No question that this would be a good thing, except that that accumulated wealth is too tempting for the people in power to seize, either directly as was done with privately held gold in a number of countries in the mid-20th century and through bank action like just recently in Cyprus, or indirectly via inflation.

 And that was what Social Security initially was — the age 65 was chosen as a retirement age not because it guaranteed 10-15 years of senior leisure but because it matched the life expectancy at the time.  The equivalent age would be well into the 70’s today.

All good Ponzi schemes must come to an end. A Reader has zero expectations of getting paid anything after decades of contributing to Social Security.

While they are proposing higher taxes to support this, my guess is that it will not be long before a wealth tax is suggested. […] I would be willing to bet him that within the decade, it will become a mainstream idea in the progressive community to fund shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare with a full or partial seizure of 401K’s.

There’s already a wealth tax, inflation. But A Reader agrees with Coyote that savings and other financial vehicles are just too tempting for the powers that be. It’s almost as if we’re in Bizarro World: work and save, and all you get in the end is forced to pay for the people who don’t work and don’t save.

California, boldly adopting 19th century transportation ideas

People on the Left Coast voted for economic suicide, at the local, state, and national levels, so few things coming from that side of the country surprise A Reader. California’s decision to build a “high speed” rail connection between Frisco and LA was just another example of massive stupidity to add to the collection. It seems that they also have administration problems, as the Antiplaner reports:

The real problem is not that they may hire poorly trained workers but that few of the people in charge really have any idea what they are doing. This would be by far the most expensive state public works project in history, and it is dubious whether any public bureaucracy can effectively handle this much responsibility.— More California HSR Follies | The Antiplanner.

The real problem, in A Reader’s opinion, is that California would be (will be?) making an investment in the 19th century transportation model, as if the 20th century one, the newfangled tech of “aeroplanes,” wasn’t much faster and cheaper to extend.

Trains are great tools of the centralizer, the collectivizer, as they require fixed infrastructure, limit flexibility, and require people to surrender individuality in many ways (schedule, privacy, convenience). Some of these also apply to planes, especially to commercial aviation, but not to private cars, which is why leftists hate the car so much.

Roosh interviews Captain Capitalism

Read The Whole Thing.  A Reader especially likes the end:

I will continue to point out the absurdity of both religions (leftism and feminism) not just to increase the blood pressure of their adherents, but do what I can to help the younger generations avoid the fate that most leftists and feminists suffer. I also plan on living my life to it’s maximum level of enjoyment and fun. Not just for my sake, but to lead by example and provide people not so much “hope” as much as it is some general guidelines or advice that will make their lives easier. Besides, nothing angers a feminist or a socialist more than a bachelor who refuses to work, refuses to pay taxes, refuses to have children, refuses to “work for the commune,” and instead lives life solely for himself, achieving things they never will. —via 5 Questions With Captain Capitalism.

A Reader keeps declining “consulting” gigs (on top of his job), since he’d keep only half of the pay, he doesn’t need much money for the same reason as the Captain, and he’d rather spend his free time building stuff in his workshop and learning new skills.

This is what passes for Science these days

Climate change, the proof that what is called peer review is really pre-publication veto of non-compliant research:

This paper took some proxies that showed rapidly increasing warming a thousand years ago – during the Medieval Warm Period – and redacted them so that they show rapid warming now.  They arbitrarily added 1000 years to each data point, showing ZOMG industrial Thermageddon caused by burning carbon in today’s factories when in reality the carbon would have been burned by monks in the day of William the Conqueror — via Borepatch: The “Hockey Stick” climate graph has been proved!.

Real peer review happens when papers are published first and everyone in the field can review them, with the cost of a wrong review being borne by the reviewer not the author. This is what used to happen in the early days of science.

As for “climate change,” it’s basically a way of giving power hungry regulators, governments, and busybodies an excuse to meddle into all production processes and uses of energy; in other words, to control the supply side of the economy (and some of the demand).

Interestingly, the other great government program of our time, “free health care,” is the way these same power-hungry entities regulate what individuals can do, that is the demand side of the economy. After all, if the collective is paying for your health care, your personal decisions are everyone’s business.

What a happy coincidence that control is being asserted over both sides of the economy at the same time. But trust these people, they would never abuse their power.

Papieren, bitte!

Heather Mac Donald, defending the police-state:

The suit, Floyd v. New York, has the potential to shut down one of the NYPD’s most important crime-fighting techniques—proactive policing, whereby officers are expected to stop crime before it happens by questioning individuals engaged in suspicious behavior — Color Them Blind.

The problem is not the profiling; the problem is the concept of “proactive policing,” which allows the police to harass people who are not breaking the law and is a few short steps away from PreCrime (arresting people who, according to a statistical model, were very likely to commit a crime). A Reader wonders what Heather Mac Donald will think when the NYPD start frisking people who write for City Journal.