Category: Scott Mayer

Did David Hogg just call for increased gun sales?


We’ve clearly reached peak foolishness in the U.S. when adults at certain media outlets feed us a steady stream of lectures from children about how we need to surrender our constitutional rights in the name of safety.  The most recent example is the fawning treatment of the anti-gun versus the pro-gun kids from the Parkland school massacre.

The kid who’s hogging up most of the media attention, thanks to his anti-gun views, is David Hogg.  And his handlers appear to be keeping him well stocked with an arsenal of tweet-ready rhetoric.  

In a recent tweet taunting President Trump, he ventured into economics and said:

He then doubled down on his tweet:

Reasonable minds can debate the merits of placing tariffs on certain goods entering the U.S.  (I’m generally against but am open to the idea that Trump intends to use tariffs only as a temporary negotiating tool.)  But in suggesting a tax on the sale of firearms (what amounts to a sin tax), Hogg fails to realize that his idea (assuming that it was his idea to begin with) would have a very different effect from what he might expect on his original crusade to reduce the number of guns in the U.S.

If David Hogg’s #guntax (let’s call it the Hogg Tax) were enacted, money from the sale of guns would eventually flow into government coffers and then be used to “harden schools, create new manufacturing jobs and save lives.”  (Keep in mind that this new tax would punish the poor and their ability to protect themselves and their families disproportionally.)  To make that happen, new government employees would need to be hired, new office space taken up, and recipients of this newly created tax identified and ultimately subsidized.

Once in place, the newly created bureaucracy would be filled with busy government employees, all creating programs (surely wrongheaded and inefficient ones) with the tax dollars collected from the sale of those “evil” firearms. 

But human nature will have something to say about this, as explained by Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: 

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:


First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.  Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.


Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.  Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teacher’s union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.


The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.  It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

Keeping in mind that David’s original mission was to have fewer guns on the streets, once the bureaucracy and government programs (made possible only by the Hogg Tax) were in place and doing “wonders for humanity,” would either group as described in the Iron Law of Bureaucracy now prefer that gun sales decrease?  Would the politicians who control all this money, the government employees (who have bills to pay like everyone else), and the recipients of this redistributed wealth really want gun sales to suddenly dry up or even slow down?  After all, their very livelihoods would be tied directly to a steady flow of firearms sales.

In fact, not only would the Iron Law’s second group fight to protect its existing bureaucracy, but it would actively attempt to grow it in the wake of any declining sales due to the high taxes – just as we saw bureaucrats advertise in Mexico to help grow the food stamp program during the Obama administration. 

Of course, why make our society poorer by instituting the silly Hogg Tax when David Hogg and his ilk in the mainstream media have done more to increase firearms sales than even the most seasoned bureaucrats could ever dream of doing?

Follow Scott on Twitter: @Politiseeds.

We’ve clearly reached peak foolishness in the U.S. when adults at certain media outlets feed us a steady stream of lectures from children about how we need to surrender our constitutional rights in the name of safety.  The most recent example is the fawning treatment of the anti-gun versus the pro-gun kids from the Parkland school massacre.

The kid who’s hogging up most of the media attention, thanks to his anti-gun views, is David Hogg.  And his handlers appear to be keeping him well stocked with an arsenal of tweet-ready rhetoric.  

In a recent tweet taunting President Trump, he ventured into economics and said:

He then doubled down on his tweet:

Reasonable minds can debate the merits of placing tariffs on certain goods entering the U.S.  (I’m generally against but am open to the idea that Trump intends to use tariffs only as a temporary negotiating tool.)  But in suggesting a tax on the sale of firearms (what amounts to a sin tax), Hogg fails to realize that his idea (assuming that it was his idea to begin with) would have a very different effect from what he might expect on his original crusade to reduce the number of guns in the U.S.

If David Hogg’s #guntax (let’s call it the Hogg Tax) were enacted, money from the sale of guns would eventually flow into government coffers and then be used to “harden schools, create new manufacturing jobs and save lives.”  (Keep in mind that this new tax would punish the poor and their ability to protect themselves and their families disproportionally.)  To make that happen, new government employees would need to be hired, new office space taken up, and recipients of this newly created tax identified and ultimately subsidized.

Once in place, the newly created bureaucracy would be filled with busy government employees, all creating programs (surely wrongheaded and inefficient ones) with the tax dollars collected from the sale of those “evil” firearms. 

But human nature will have something to say about this, as explained by Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: 

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:


First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.  Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.


Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.  Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teacher’s union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.


The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.  It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

Keeping in mind that David’s original mission was to have fewer guns on the streets, once the bureaucracy and government programs (made possible only by the Hogg Tax) were in place and doing “wonders for humanity,” would either group as described in the Iron Law of Bureaucracy now prefer that gun sales decrease?  Would the politicians who control all this money, the government employees (who have bills to pay like everyone else), and the recipients of this redistributed wealth really want gun sales to suddenly dry up or even slow down?  After all, their very livelihoods would be tied directly to a steady flow of firearms sales.

In fact, not only would the Iron Law’s second group fight to protect its existing bureaucracy, but it would actively attempt to grow it in the wake of any declining sales due to the high taxes – just as we saw bureaucrats advertise in Mexico to help grow the food stamp program during the Obama administration. 

Of course, why make our society poorer by instituting the silly Hogg Tax when David Hogg and his ilk in the mainstream media have done more to increase firearms sales than even the most seasoned bureaucrats could ever dream of doing?

Follow Scott on Twitter: @Politiseeds.



Source link

Adolescent Jack-booted thugs vs. 'Dead White Guys'


The progressive infotech barons at Twitter, Google, and Facebook have seized the moral high ground and taken it upon themselves to “save” the world from exposure to free expression by those on the political right through the use of censorship and manipulation. This attempt by the left to control speech is not new, as the entertainment/media complex has been engaged in a similar process for decades. That group includes a growing list of leftists who are currently being exposed with allegations of sexual misconduct, rape, and even pedophilia. One must inquire how is it that the most progressive, tolerant, and fair-minded people on the planet in the universe could be capable of such intolerant and/or wicked behavior?

If we’re to accept the narrative of the left (and let’s face it, the left controls the narrative), it creates the image that the political right is the home of racism, sexism, greed, and every other societal ill that one can dream up. Alternatively, on the political left, we’re led to believe there exists only kindness, acceptance, fairness, equality of outcome, and all else that resides within their imagined realm of rainbows and unicorns.

But what is the actual difference between left-wing and right-wing and why does it matter? The only consistent definition I find is that on the far right there is zero government control — anarchy — and on the far left there is 100% government control — totalitarianism. Sure, groups like Antifa and BLM may utilize anarchy, but they’re just a proxy for the left as their goal is to smash our existing republic and bring about total government control from the ashes.

The reason it matters is because while the political spectrum is clearly variable, the one constant in the equation is human nature. This means that while progressives would claim otherwise, throughout the entirety of the political spectrum exists the potential for all the good and simultaneously all the bad that human nature is capable of (Just imagine a Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner having total control over an agency formed for the protection of young aspiring actresses).

With that said, what could a group of right-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes accomplish at the helm of a representative republic such as the United States? No matter what the adolescent jack-booted thugs say, these right-wingers wouldn’t have the power to extinguish peoples’ liberty en masse. They would need to openly bypass the Constitution to move forward with whatever evil agenda they had in mind. In other words, they would need to become left-wingers to do so.

Alternatively, what could a group of left-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes do to the people if in control of our government? Fortunately, the “dead white guys” of yesteryear fully understood that power tends to attract the worst elements of human nature, hence, our right-of-center republic with a well-defined main purpose of protecting the inalienable rights of the people. This makes the adolescent jack-booted thug’s aspirations much more difficult. The freedom to conduct voluntary transactions within a free market, protected by the rule of law may be imperfect and sometimes progresses much slower (see Hollywood) than so-called progressives would prefer, but it’s still the best option available to humanity as Milton Friedman often argued.

But progressives and adolescent jack-booted thugs alike loathe the Constitution for its lack of positive rights among other reasons and have pushed the U.S. further and further to the left after having gained a strong foothold in media, academia, Hollywood, government, and now the info-tech world.

Again, you get all the good with all the bad and every time progressives have forced the pendulum leftward in the U.S., the results have enabled oppressions such as the Sedition Act of 1918; Jim Crow laws; the internment of Japanese; the targeting of conservatives by the IRS under Obama and most recently: the cover up of Hillary’s email and Uranium One scandals and attempted coup on the Trump presidency by the previous administration and its current holdovers.

Sure, there are racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes on both sides of the political isle — because of human nature. To be clear: atrocities committed by individuals who happen to be right-wing will always be unacceptable within a civil society, but the key is that their actions would be inconsequential on a societal scale under the protections of our right-of-center republic. On the other hand, the very same left-wing “progressive” promises have been tried repeatedly and consequentially, during the 20th century alone, more than 100 million people perished under Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and others.

So, why do progressives direct all this hatred, fear and lies toward those on the right side of the political spectrum? It’s about the fear of losing control (think money-skimming, cronyism and power) and a hatred for an individualism that allows the freedom to ignore the “suggestions” of really, really, smart progressives.

Fortunately, adolescent jack-booted thugs must still operate within a voluntary marketplace and have no dictatorial power beyond their fancy boardrooms. Piss off enough customers and they will seek alternatives, which is why fully mature jack-booted thugs require total government control over the masses. That control is only derived from the left side of the political spectrum and needs to be prevented at all costs as those “dead white guys” figured out more than two centuries ago.

Scott blogs at www.politiseeds.com

The progressive infotech barons at Twitter, Google, and Facebook have seized the moral high ground and taken it upon themselves to “save” the world from exposure to free expression by those on the political right through the use of censorship and manipulation. This attempt by the left to control speech is not new, as the entertainment/media complex has been engaged in a similar process for decades. That group includes a growing list of leftists who are currently being exposed with allegations of sexual misconduct, rape, and even pedophilia. One must inquire how is it that the most progressive, tolerant, and fair-minded people on the planet in the universe could be capable of such intolerant and/or wicked behavior?

If we’re to accept the narrative of the left (and let’s face it, the left controls the narrative), it creates the image that the political right is the home of racism, sexism, greed, and every other societal ill that one can dream up. Alternatively, on the political left, we’re led to believe there exists only kindness, acceptance, fairness, equality of outcome, and all else that resides within their imagined realm of rainbows and unicorns.

But what is the actual difference between left-wing and right-wing and why does it matter? The only consistent definition I find is that on the far right there is zero government control — anarchy — and on the far left there is 100% government control — totalitarianism. Sure, groups like Antifa and BLM may utilize anarchy, but they’re just a proxy for the left as their goal is to smash our existing republic and bring about total government control from the ashes.

The reason it matters is because while the political spectrum is clearly variable, the one constant in the equation is human nature. This means that while progressives would claim otherwise, throughout the entirety of the political spectrum exists the potential for all the good and simultaneously all the bad that human nature is capable of (Just imagine a Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner having total control over an agency formed for the protection of young aspiring actresses).

With that said, what could a group of right-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes accomplish at the helm of a representative republic such as the United States? No matter what the adolescent jack-booted thugs say, these right-wingers wouldn’t have the power to extinguish peoples’ liberty en masse. They would need to openly bypass the Constitution to move forward with whatever evil agenda they had in mind. In other words, they would need to become left-wingers to do so.

Alternatively, what could a group of left-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes do to the people if in control of our government? Fortunately, the “dead white guys” of yesteryear fully understood that power tends to attract the worst elements of human nature, hence, our right-of-center republic with a well-defined main purpose of protecting the inalienable rights of the people. This makes the adolescent jack-booted thug’s aspirations much more difficult. The freedom to conduct voluntary transactions within a free market, protected by the rule of law may be imperfect and sometimes progresses much slower (see Hollywood) than so-called progressives would prefer, but it’s still the best option available to humanity as Milton Friedman often argued.

But progressives and adolescent jack-booted thugs alike loathe the Constitution for its lack of positive rights among other reasons and have pushed the U.S. further and further to the left after having gained a strong foothold in media, academia, Hollywood, government, and now the info-tech world.

Again, you get all the good with all the bad and every time progressives have forced the pendulum leftward in the U.S., the results have enabled oppressions such as the Sedition Act of 1918; Jim Crow laws; the internment of Japanese; the targeting of conservatives by the IRS under Obama and most recently: the cover up of Hillary’s email and Uranium One scandals and attempted coup on the Trump presidency by the previous administration and its current holdovers.

Sure, there are racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes on both sides of the political isle — because of human nature. To be clear: atrocities committed by individuals who happen to be right-wing will always be unacceptable within a civil society, but the key is that their actions would be inconsequential on a societal scale under the protections of our right-of-center republic. On the other hand, the very same left-wing “progressive” promises have been tried repeatedly and consequentially, during the 20th century alone, more than 100 million people perished under Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and others.

So, why do progressives direct all this hatred, fear and lies toward those on the right side of the political spectrum? It’s about the fear of losing control (think money-skimming, cronyism and power) and a hatred for an individualism that allows the freedom to ignore the “suggestions” of really, really, smart progressives.

Fortunately, adolescent jack-booted thugs must still operate within a voluntary marketplace and have no dictatorial power beyond their fancy boardrooms. Piss off enough customers and they will seek alternatives, which is why fully mature jack-booted thugs require total government control over the masses. That control is only derived from the left side of the political spectrum and needs to be prevented at all costs as those “dead white guys” figured out more than two centuries ago.

Scott blogs at www.politiseeds.com



Source link