“The bigger the information media, the less courage and information they allow. Bigness means weakness.”
— Eric Sevareid (1912-1992) American newsman, journalist, author
This is right in line with the libertarian line of thought on small, competitive entities being better, all around, than larger, non-competitive ones. Your thoughts?
Rogel, at It Looks Obvious (newly added to the blogroll as well), followed up on my previous article about tax reform in Rhode Island. He did some research on migration related to taxes at the state level and that resulted in this article on his blog. The interesting part is, of course, this:
From 2000 through 2004, a net 1.3 million people moved out of states with taxes on ordinary income and into those without such taxes, says Richard Vedder, an economics professor at Ohio University.
The migration includes folks leaving California, Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Massachussets. It’s important to note that Vedder was only looking at the trend from states with taxes on income to those without income tax. Based on the changes occurring in New England’s tax structures, I would guess the data would be even more interesting if you looked at states with progressive income tax structures, in general, and where their citizens are going. Would you find that Massachussets had a net loss to New Hampshire until they enacted a flat tax structure? That’s what the Mass Legislature found.
The real question is what impact this new “tax revolt” will have on Federal tax structures.
“If newsmen do not tell the truth as they see it because it might make waves, or if their bosses decide something should or should not be broadcast because of Washington or Main Street consequences, we have dishonored ourselves and we have lost the First Amendment by default.”
— Richard Salant (1914-1993) former President of CBS News
Wulf, of Atlas Blogged, points out something interesting in The Cartoons are Symptom of a Problem, not the Cause. It is an interesting perspective, and one that should be developed further.
Jyllands-Posten’s publication of the cartoons [ed: the cartoons of Mohammed] is repeatedly called offensive. It should instead be seen as defensive. It would be appropriate to debate whether such defensiveness was warranted, but it must first be recognized as a defensive posture. Do so.
This is quite right, actually. There has been a campaign waged by Muslims in Europe and, to a lesser extent, North America to alter laws and cultural norms in order to remake Western culture to more closely resemble the culture these Muslims desire. Murder, terrorism and threats of murder and terrorism have been used to try and bring this about. Governments have been coerced into creating laws that protect religions from so-called hate speech (Great Britain, most notoriously). Editors of papers have been fired or sent on “sabbatical”. Plots of movies have been changed in response to pressure. News papers have refused to publish out of fear of reprisal.
These cartoons are not offensive, in the sense that they offend someone. The reality is, if these cartoons are offensive to you, then don’t read the paper that they are in, or browse the website displaying them. No, these cartoons are part of defending liberalism against totalitarians who use religion to motivate the masses.
For anyone that may have a question about how comments are handled here or who may think I am anti free speech, see the comment policy.
