The voters of Washington State crushed an attempt to levy new income taxes on the rich. The viewers of <i>60 Minutes</i>, however, were just told that such taxes are a great idea. Who is right? Robert Murphy explains the economic rationale behind the voters' choice.
The trouble with nullification is not that it is too "extreme," as the enforcers of opinion would say, but that it is too timid. But it gets people thinking in terms of resistance, which has to be a good thing, and it defies the unexamined premise of the entire political spectrum.
How would appeals work in a voluntary system of private law? Would defendants be able to appeal clearly outrageous convictions? If so, then what's to stop a murderer from indefinitely appealing his cases?
Everyone knows something is wrong here. Everyone. Except perhaps for patent lawyers, federal judges, and Orrin Hatch. I take that back. I think even most patent lawyers know something is wrong.
What if a president took a different direction and sought popularity by expanding rather than reducing liberty?
"Finally, everything fell into place, primarily from Rothbard and Misesian theory. I found that this issue is difficult, but once you see it, it's one of these issues that sets peoples' minds on fire. It frees you to think about other things in different ways."
What if a president took a different direction and sought popularity by expanding rather than reducing liberty? There is a model here they could follow, but it is not one you have thought of. It is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Recorded at the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Auburn, Alabama; 9 October 2010.
Many elected officials are already wealthy by most people's standards. What makes the wealthy and otherwise successful want to hold office? Is it an overweening ego and an insatiable hunger for public adulation?
The government creates "jobs" that are destructive. Because there is no feedback of profit and loss, the only thing that can eventually end a harmful bureaucracy is a massive public outcry.
