Demonopoly

From a comment  for this post [h/t Instapundit]:

This is also fun and educational for your kids:

Play Monopoly. Wait until some of the kids start to amass a nice pile of money. As they collect rent, take 36% and distribute it to the kids that aren’t doing as well.

If you’re a parent, you know that screams of “That’s not fair!!” are guaranteed.

Use this opportunity to explain the Democratic (mis)definition of the word “fair.”

I think I’ve just found my next computer game to program. I wonder how such rules would affect how many hotels get built on Baltic Avenue?

Why Socialism Will Not Die: Meat!

Despite all the death, misery and poverty that socialism has wreaked over the past century on all scales from Stalin to Detroit, one would think that a species capable of learning would figure out that socialism’s negatives eventually outweigh its positives. Worse, looking back across the history of humanity, we see   the core socialist idea of forced redistribution occurring again and again across culture after culture.  

Why do humans seem to have an in-built urge for socialism? Why won’t it die? I think socialism will not die because primitive humans lacked refrigerators.  

Read more

First Tobacco, Now Food

I was not happy with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for many reasons.

One of my main objections was that the entire premise behind the complaint against the tobacco industry was that they used advertising to control the minds of their customers. It seems extremely obvious that the dangers of using tobacco were well established long before my birth in 1964, yet it was claimed that tens of millions of Americans were too stupid or weak minded to pay attention. Consenting adults in this country could be trusted to choose political leaders in elections, but they were helpless to resist when confronted with a picture of the Marlboro Man.

One of the most moronic claims by the anti-tobacco crowd was that the cartoon advertising mascot Joe Camel was enslaving the youth of America. It was said that children recognized Joe more readily than they did Mickey Mouse, even though the cigarette ads only ran for 9 years and giant amusement parks featuring the anthropomorphic camel were never constructed. It looked to me to be a blatant attempt to demonize an industry in order to force them to pony up some cash.

The title of this article is “10 Things the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know”, and it shows that some people figure the same methods used against Big Tobacco will work just fine when applied to the food industry.

Click on that last link and all the same tricks are on display. Food companies target little kids to advertise unhealthy food. They sponsor studies that obscure the fact that unhealthy food is bad for you. The industry puts pressure on legislators to keep them from passing laws limiting consumer access to fattening and sweet foods. They bankroll front groups which fight anti-obesity laws. And so on.

This appears to me to be exactly the same tactics used against tobacco companies. They are evil, unconcerned with the health of their customers, and all too willing to employ Jedis working on Madison Avenue to use their powers on the minds of vulnerable little children. (“Broccoli is not what you want to eat! Ice Cream would be much nummier!”)

The author of the article claims that obesity is a major health concern, and I have no problem with that. But I do object to the idea that people in this country are so stupid that they just can’t figure out that eating unhealthy foods will make you unhealthy.

How long will it take before state legislatures combine resources to blackmail the food industry into making a huge payment? I figure about ten years on the outside.

I see the campaign against the tobacco industry, and now the food industry, as an attack on the free market system. Free markets means free choice, which means that individuals have to be allowed to make bad personal choices if that is what they want to do.

I mean, isn’t that the very basis of American society?

“The overall impression one gets is that the Senator doesn’t really care about the positions he takes, as long as he gets to be President.”

A comment on the latest presidential debate by Jonathan Lipow, Oberlin College, in a press release from Economists for McCain:

As for healthcare, Sen. Obama ceaselessly attacks Sen. McCain for advocating the elimination of tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance. It is difficult to square this position with that of Obama’s chief economic advisor, Jason Furman, who recently published a paper that argues that this tax break is a scam that benefits the rich while actually making it more difficult for lower income people to obtain insurance. Once again, it is difficult to understand why Obama is ignoring the views of his own advisors. The overall impression one gets is that the Senator doesn’t really care about the positions he takes, as long as he gets to be President.

Read the whole thing.

(If you google “economists for mccain” the top result is a link to a page on the Obama campaign’s web site. The real link to Economists for McCain is found only several links down the Google search results page. I don’t know if this happens because the Obama people are more search-engine savvy or because Google is biased in favor of Obama, but with Google politically-sensitive search results seem always to be either neutral or to break in favor of the Left. I’ll be interested to see if Google does some kind of celebratory logo change on the day after an Obama victory. No doubt Google would receive little anti-trust or other regulatory scrutiny under an Obama administration.)

Moral Shower

Sometimes I wish a thing such as a “moral shower” existed, some combination of water and magical soap that could remove the sense of moral taint and utter revulsion. Today is one of those times. I’ve got moral slime all over me and I can’t get it off.  

It started when I bought a used bicycle on Craigslist.

Read more