On this date in 1776, Adam Smith’s On The Wealth Of Nations was published. Back during the days of the free market in our nation, it was a very influential book. If it’s too forbidding a tome for you, you may enjoy P.J. O’Rourke’s introduction to it, from a few years ago. (Buy it through Jeff’s Amazon banner, while it lasts.) Here are some fair-use quotes:

Leftist critics of free markets assume that there is a fraudulent aspect to capitalism. They’re right. We tricked the feudal powers into setting us free, and we remained free by continuing to bamboozle them. We used chicanery and sharp dealing to found our cities, become rich bourgeoisie, and supply ourselves with creature comforts. We left the barbarian aristocrats in their drafty castles throwing chicken bones on the floor.
———-
Later economists, such as, in the early nineteenth century, J. B. Say, felt that Smith undervalued the economic contributions of service. And he did. The eighteenth century had servants, not a service economy. It was hard for a man of that era to believe that the semi-inebriated footman and the blowsy scullery maid would evolve into, well, the stoned pizza delivery boy and the girl behind the checkout counter with an earring in her tongue.
———–
Smith emphasized the “private frugality and good conduct of individuals” and “their universal, continual, and uninterrupted effort to better their own condition.” He argued that it was “this effort, protected by law and allowed by liberty…which has maintained the progress of England towards opulence and improvement.” But since England “has never been blessed with a very parsimonious government…[it] is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people.”
————–
Before totalitarianism had ever been tried, Adam Smith was prescient in his scorn for it:
“The man of system [...] is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.[...] He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.”

Barbed wire always seems to be needed to keep the chessmen on their squares.
————
Adam Smith did a lot of thinking about taxes, eighty-odd pages
worth. He began with four sensible maxims of taxation: taxes ought to
be inexpensive to collect, be levied when taxpayers are best able to
pay them, be proportionate to the revenue that taxpayers “enjoy under
the protection of the state,” and be “certain, and not arbitrary.”
The last maxim is the most sensible and therefore the least
observed. The boggling complexity of tax law and the ceaseless
fiddling with taxes, even by legislators who would lower them, violate
Smith’s principle that “a very considerable degree of inequality…is
not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.”
It’s a principle that applies to practically everything, as anyone who
is in love or waiting for a check in the mail knows.

Me: “Heya, deadbeat neighbor! Long time! How’s tricks?”

Deadbeat neighbor: “Beg pardon?”

Me: “– Oh, shit, that’s right. I moved a while back, didn’t I? Which means you wouldn’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about.”

Deadbeat neighbor New-ish neighbor: “No, I wouldn’t.”

New-ish neighbor: ” — And say, is that my newspaper you’ve got in your hand…?”

From “How to Deconstruct Anything — My Postmodern Adventure”:

Looking at the field of contemporary literary criticism as a whole also yields some valuable insights. It is a cautionary lesson about the consequences of allowing a branch of academia that has been entrusted with the study of important problems to become isolated and inbred. The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe the mind set of postmodernism is “epistemologically challenged”: a constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff. The language and idea space of the field have become so convoluted that they have confused even themselves. But the tangle offers a safe refuge for the academics. It erects a wall between them and the rest of the world. It immunizes them against having to confront their own failings, since any genuine criticism can simply be absorbed into the morass and made indistinguishable from all the other verbiage. Intellectual tools that might help prune the thicket are systematically ignored or discredited. This is why, for example, science, psychology and economics are represented in the literary world by theories that were abandoned by practicing scientists, psychologists and economists fifty or a hundred years ago. The field is absorbed in triviality. Deconstruction is an idea that would make a worthy topic for some bright graduate student’s Ph.D. dissertation but has instead spawned an entire subfield. Ideas that would merit a good solid evening or afternoon of argument and debate and perhaps a paper or two instead become the focus of entire careers.

It has of late become fashionable to sneer at literary criticism in general (and the rather trite use of “deconstruction” in particular) — and this piece does an admirable job on both accounts — but the tendency to sneer, while it can certainly feel liberating, is also something of a dodge these days, a kind of reflexive reaction to the “post modern” as it is generally (mis)used and (mis)understood, an affect adopted by conservatives that is not all too different from the kinds of affectations trafficked in by those on the left who, say, might almost reflexively “adore” a “film” simply because it has subtitles.

If anything should be clear from many of my attempts to tackle the way language is regularly misused it is that the faulty ideas about how language functions have become so institutionalized that they reinforce the epistemology they are ostensibly there to describe. And the fact of the matter is, many of those who happen to hold policy positions that track with conservatism nevertheless think in a way that can’t help but to bolster progressivism, because the linguistic assumptions that undergird that thinking are demonstrably leftist inasmuch as their uncritical acceptance can only lead to — dare I say it? — a deconstruction of the principles of classical liberalism, be it the subversion of individual freedom or the inversion of what “tolerance” means in the context of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

So while it is easy to sit back and take shots at literary critics (many of whom, it’s true, don’t much understand what it is they’re doing or why), it is far more difficult — and yet far more important — that we take a closer look at what it is we believe when it comes to how language functions and how interpretation works.

Otherwise, the joke is on us.

(h/t Lazarus Long)

Obama is on the road again, yesterday at Arcadia University, Glenside, PA tossing off his jacket, pointing his finger, sneering like a teenager who blames his parents for not curing all the perceived wrongs of the world before his anointed arrival and, in great snakeoil salesman tradition, promising to make insurance companies offer FREE! FREE, I tell you! preventive care.

Yeah, right.

Let us remember way back to 2008 when the candidates were touting preventive care as the cost-cutting miracle cure.

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. [...]

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

This hasn’t been just a “chicken in every pot” blather, but an outright promise of theft of someone else’s labor.
IF a person wants to purchase an insurance policy that would cover all doctor’s well-visits without a co-pay, then the person should pay more for that policy then the person who wants to pay for such visits out-of-pocket, possibly via a HSA.

A side note: an overlooked nugget in this video of George Will nailing Robert Reich is a snort-worthy bit from Donna Brazile about how unfair it is to charge women more for medical insurance just because women use more medical services due to “certain biological needs that need tending to from time to time. That’s unfair.”

Barry doesn’t believe in liberty. What other “vital” areas of the economy will he next declare “too important” to be left to mere individual choice? Certainly food is much more important to a person’s well being. Maybe a national “exchange” for groceries, farmers and ranchers? How unfair that one family’s grocery bill is higher than another just because one wants to eat steak every night?

FREE ARUGULA!!!

Dear Ezra,

Thank you for being so honest on what ObamaCare is

And those exchanges, regulations and subsidies will also create the core structure of a universal health-care system in this country, which should be comforting to progressives who look to the improvements in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and CHIP and the EITC and know that the history of American social policy is that, in general, we build on our imperfect foundations and make them stronger and fairer over time.

I don’t want to suggest this bill is all progressive victories. It isn’t. It isn’t single-payer and there’s no public option, and though I think the excise tax is a progressive tax, I grant that reasonable people disagree on this matter. But the fact of it is that this bill represents an enormous leftward shift for American social policy. It is not, in my view, a sufficient leftward shift, but it is unmatched by anything that has passed into law in recent decades.

Now, we both know whole point of ObamaCare is that healthcare is “too important” to be left to individual choice. For Progressives, liberty and medicine just don’t mix. So current anti-market, government restrictions and regulations still leave too much freedom and market forces in such an important social quarter.

In addition, you argue that even such a centralized, top-down, Federal imposed structure of how doctors will be allowed to practice, how and where insurance companies will be allowed to offer their policies and how those policies will have to be written, how the pharmaceutical and medical device industries will be allowed to practice and how much profit, if any, they will be allowed to keep, the rationing of medical care to seniors … is “not really” a takeover because:

The Senate health-care reform bill — which maintains private insurers, private doctors, private hospitals, private medical device companies, private pharmaceutical manufacturers, private nurses, and doesn’t even have anything to say about the insurance that medium and large employers provide — doesn’t “annex” anything, and calling it centralized planning suggests that Steyn doesn’t know what the words “centralized” or “planning” mean. But this is what people on the right are reading. No wonder they’re scared.

Somehow, because you are a journalist, you cheer this classic fascist economic paradigm for “healthcare”, perhaps believing you are immune because you had the great foresight not to become a doctor or nurse, pharmacist or even a scientist working in drug research and development.

But I would propose, based on both the ObamaCare you champion and the calls for Government assistance to news media accompanied by the sobs that newpapers cannot be allowed to fail and the column inches devoted to explaining what saps individual Americans are for “falling” for obvious journalistic malpractice by listening to “Hate radio” or watching FoxNews, that the time has come to propose ObamaPress based on the same assumptions behind ObamaCare.

Obviously, the media is too important to be left to individual choice. Market forces only lead to a “race to the bottom”, so Federal Press and Media standards need to be put in law and enforced.

Oh, this is not a take over of media. It’s only a secure core structure in which it can operate and people who currently are under informed can get the news they are entitled to. The Press serves an essential public service that must be protected and supported by tax money as needed. It must be protected from crass capitalism. Millions of people go every day without proper information! Millions, I say!

I’m sure you, Ezra, will happily support the licensing of journalists by Federally credentialed organizations in order to comply with new Federal Standards. And I’m sure you will be happy to write your columns according to Federal Fairness Guidelines. Of course, standardized salary rates, including caps, will be part of the mix. I mean, it might be less than you think you deserve, but we must fund the new Federal Media Department and its employees who will be monitoring your compliance and the compliance of your employer. And who are you to judge how your talents and abilities should be compensated? Ability and merit are so overrated.

Just keep telling yourself it won’t be a real take-over of the press. Perish the thought. It will just be a leftward shift. You’ll still be “free” to write what you want. You’ll still be a “private” journalist.

You’ll just have to do it according to the standards in the new 3000 page Federal law and under the supervision of Federal monitors.

Do it for the children, Ezra.

Yours in fairness,

Darleen

(h/t The Corner )

Dear Colorado-based Amazon Associate:
We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to inform you that the Colorado government recently enacted a law to impose sales tax regulations on online retailers. The regulations are burdensome and no other state has similar rules. The new regulations do not require online retailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clearly intended to increase the compliance burden to a point where online retailers will be induced to “voluntarily” collect Colorado sales tax — a course we won’t take.

We and many others strongly opposed this legislation, known as HB 10-1193, but it was enacted anyway. Regrettably, as a result of the new law, we have decided to stop advertising through Associates based in Colorado. We plan to continue to sell to Colorado residents, however, and will advertise through other channels, including through Associates based in other states.

There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way. As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators, including those who sponsored and supported the new law, we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly. The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitutional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or follow the constitutional approach to collection, we would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based Associates.

You may express your views of Colorado’s new law to members of the General Assembly and to Governor Ritter, who signed the bill.

Your Associates account has been closed as of March 8, 2010, and we will no longer pay advertising fees for customers you refer to Amazon.com after that date. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to March 8, 2010, will be processed and paid in accordance with our regular payment schedule. Based on your account closure date of March 8, any final payments will be paid by May 31, 2010.

We have enjoyed working with you and other Colorado-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you all the best in your future.

Best Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

Sandra Bullock won the Razzie one night, Oscar the next and showed up at both shows. What a good sport.

James Hudnall of Big Journalism has up Part 4 of a five-part series entitled “The New Fascists”. From today’s column:

Gramsci saw that Marx was wrong. Capitalism wasn’t folding as he predicated and people weren’t flocking to Marxism. He theorized that there was something he called a “cultural hegemony” preventing this. People who lived in a common culture were unified and comfortable with the status quo, especially if there was a large middle class. So Gramsci suggested that their values had to be portrayed as wrong. That their culture was neither “natural” nor “inevitable.” He suggested that their culture be undermined and subverted. He saw that middle class cultural values were tied to religion, so religion had to be discredited and undermined. That is largely why you see a relentless attack on Christianity in Western Culture now. It is seen as a “glue” holding our culture together. And thus, it must be broken. Gramsci’s theories are also the reason you see so much effort to trash conventional American values. Middle America is portrayed as stupid, racist, etc. in an effort to de-legitimize it. “Progressive” values are portrayed as “right-thinking.” Even though those values are constantly changing depending on what they consider good or bad at the time.

Oil is now up to $82 a barrell, but not one bit of movement on the part of the Obama Admin towards increasing American drilling. Nope, better for The Won to collude with George Soros on suppressing the evidence that “green jobs”, especially concerning wind power, are not as advertised.

Mock a vegan, go to jail.

Cylon with anime face.

Great moments in Socialized medicine.

Great moments in Pelosi’s Most Ethical Congress EVAH!!!1!!1 — Rangel stays, Massa goes cuz of teh healthcare.

Good news!

KARACHI, Pakistan – Pakistani intelligence agents have arrested Adam Gadahn, the American-born spokesman for al-Qaida, in an operation in the southern city of Karachi, two officers and a government official said Sunday.

The arrest of Gadahn is a major victory in the U.S.-led battle against al-Qaida and will be taken as a sign that Pakistan is cooperating more fully with Washington. It follows the recent detentions of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi.

Gadahn was arrested in the sprawling southern metropolis in recent days, two officers who took part in the operation said. A senior government official also confirmed the arrest.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

Maybe the practice of Anthropodermic bibliopegy can be reinstated for his published military tribunal transcript. (h/t sdferr and Pablo)

************************

Related: How soon will the Left try and cast Gadahn as a rightwing Teabagger?

************************

UPDATED Confusion over aliases, wrong person identified.

ISLAMABAD – An American member of al-Qaida was picked up in a raid in Pakistan’s southern city of Karachi, Pakistani officials said Monday, but reversed earlier assertions that the detained man was the terror network’s U.S.-born spokesman.

They identified the suspect as Abu Yahya Majadin Adam, but gave no details on his background or role within al-Qaida.

A name very close to that is listed on the FBI’s Web site as an alias for Adam Gadahn, the 31-year-old spokesman who has appeared in several videos threatening the West since 2001. The resemblance created confusion among officials Sunday, leading them to believe that the suspect was Gadahn, an army officer and a senior intelligence officer said.

“The resemblance of the name initially caused confusion but now they have concluded he is not Gadahn,” said an intelligence officer, who like all Pakistani intelligence agents does not allow his name to be used. “He feels proud to be a member of al-Qaida.”

Too much of the show has lost its appeal for me. TV viewership of the award show since 1974 hit its peak in 1998 and slid ever downwards after that.

Interestingly, ten films are now in the Best Film category this year. Was this a commercial decision in order to move those numbers up or one that acknowledges the blurring between live acting and animation? What is the difference between Avatar and Up? Save for one being a better film than the other?

I know she should just be ignored for the indecent excuse for a human being she is, but the failure known as Roseanne Barr crosses a line too far

Actress [sic] Roseanne Barr has sparked controversy by claiming that Marie Osmond’s son killed himself because he was gay.

The sitcom star made the allegations on her blog, and said that Osmond’s Mormon faith was to blame for the 18-year-old’s death.

Michael Blosil, the singer’s adopted son, was found dead outside his Los Angeles apartment building last week. [...]

Barr writes: ‘Marie Osmond’s poor gay son killed himself. He had been told how wrong and how sick he was every day of his life by his church and the people in it. Calling that “depression” is a lie!

‘Yet the Osmonds still talk lovingly about their church, saying nothing about it’s extremely anti-gay crusade. Marie also has a gay daughter!

‘Hey I want her and all the gay kids in the world to know that they are just fine being gay and that they deserve love and respect instead of insults and rebuke!

‘I have gay people in my family and my circle of friends and I am kicking bigot a** and taking names!’

From every report, Marie Osmond has been nothing but a loving and supportive mom of Jessica, her daughter who happens to be a lesbian.

And as far as bigotry goes, Roseanne doesn’t have a mirror big enough to include both her hate and her fat ass.

Roseanne is the definition of cunt.