« Clutch hitting | Main | Filthy coal» Russell Roberts
April 27, 2007
If Rents Can Be Created, They Will Be Sought
Don Boudreaux
Here's a letter that I sent yesterday to USA Today:
To the Editor:
Drummond Drew writes that "We need to find a way to get money out of politics" (Letters, April 26). He mistakenly supposes that carts push horses. Money is in politics only because politicians confiscate and control so much of our money.
The only way to free politics from the influence of money is to free our money from the influence of politics.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Or, as my friend George Leef asks in an e-mail that he sent to me, "is it better to spill sugar all around and then devote lots of effort to trying to keep ants out, or just not to spill the sugar in the first place?"
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200d834cd352f69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If Rents Can Be Created, They Will Be Sought:
Comments
Sounds like a bunch of political chiasmus to me.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 27, 2007 2:20:15 PM
Uhm, I thought it was antimetabole, myself
Posted by: tarran | Apr 27, 2007 4:19:29 PM
If you want to get money out of politics or make politics as economically efficient as possible I recommend:
1 - Eliminate all present taxes at all levels of government.
2 - Enact new tax system that divides the government cost burden on a per-capita basis.
3 - If you can't pay your taxes you can't vote.
"You can say that I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one" - Lennon
"What ever it is I'm against it" - Marx
Posted by: Reid | Apr 27, 2007 4:25:14 PM
"What ever it is I'm against it" - Marx
That would be Groucho Marx, not the infamous Karl. Groucho Marxism is compatible free markets.
Posted by: Reid | Apr 27, 2007 4:36:55 PM
I especially would approve of a constitutional amendment that would make taxes non-discriminatory, including on the basis of one's productivity (e.g., income tax "progressivity'), or allow people to disenfranchise themselves by refusing to pay discriminatory taxes.
Posted by: M. Hodak | Apr 27, 2007 9:01:56 PM
http://angry-economist.russnelson.com/money-out-of-politics.html
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Apr 28, 2007 2:21:17 AM
Oh, and as for Marx:
http://angry-economist.russnelson.com/marxs-grave.html
Bet you never knew that Herbert Spencer and Karl Marx were buried across the path from each other?
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Apr 28, 2007 2:24:36 AM
Unless you want to completely privatize services provided by government such as national defense, fire and police protection, there will always be a need for government to raise money and that'll mean taxes of one sort of another since I assume this group isn't in favor of tariffs.
Of course, there is always another option. We could turn government services into profit centers. Do like the Roman Empire and start judging a General's performance not only by battles won, but by the wealth secured (or stolen!) from our enemies. Needless to say, this last paragraph was written tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by: David P. Graf | Apr 28, 2007 8:35:38 AM
No one is saying we should privatize national defense. But there are an awful lot of other things our federal government does, and not as well as a private business that has to please it's customers or go out of business (think the post office vs Fedex). The main purpose of the parts of the federal government is to make sure their budget does not get cut from one year to the next because in their world, it's how much money they are appropriated, not the results of spending that money, that matters.
Posted by: Donald Zeiter | Apr 28, 2007 11:46:26 PM
Does a poor person receive less defense from our armed forces than a rich one? Is a poor person more likely to suffer in an attack on our shores?
9-11 holds the answer, I believe.
Posted by: True_Liberal | Apr 29, 2007 5:09:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
