>And speaking of libertarian
><...>
>So apparently, this whole thing is a form of latter day Net performance
>art. Someone mentioned "snarky"; yes, that just about covers it.
It's literature. A friend of mine, who studied Russian Lit in grad school, always said that the texts bore the visceral imagery and motifs present in some strands of Russian Lit.
Lawyers, Guns, and Money (DJW , Robert Farley , Scott Lemieux ) has had some good analyses of Conservatarians lately. Lemieux's been arguing that the Latest Unscandal is a litmus test of just how libertarian the libertarians are. (Absolutely, SD wouldn't defend the latest UnScandal. Indeed, he likely predicted it. :)
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2005/12/fake-conservertarianism-ends-in-camps.html Fake Conservertarianism Ends In Camps
What I found interesting about most Capitalist Libertarian screeds is the notion that your "wealth" is being robbed when you pay taxes.
Yet, don't even Miltonians, etc. economists use the terms "income" and "wealth" to signal the difference between income earned through a job (having to actually "work" to earn $) vs. wealth ($ earned through investment)
Why is that? Justin? Is there any good reason to reject the distinction? Is there a basis for it in Libertarian economic thought?
I mean, obviously, it's ideological rhetoric designed to make people believe they share something with rentiers. But, is there something worth taking seriously in the incessant conflation of wealth and income?
"Scream-of-consciousness prose, peppered with sociological observations, political ruminations, and in-yore-face colloquial assaults."
-- Dennis Perrin, redstateson.blogspot.com
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org