About the corporate taxes -- Who pays the taxes of the unincorporated baker, if not his customers? Who pays the taxes of the employee if not the employer? This becomes a circular argument, and ends with either 'nobody should pay taxes' or 'everybody should pay taxes'. Only the second position seems to make sense, if you must tax income. I do think that dividends should not be taxed twice, but see no moral reason why a corporation's retained earnings should not be taxed. The retained earnings are earnings due to a shareholder, but just held in a different pocket. Tax them once, but do tax them. Or, tax the income of nobody, which is my preferred result.

William O. B'Livion 2010-05-08 10:51:00

A couple of nits to pick here:

"""

Socialism suffocates individuals. Marxism kills them. Communism annihilates them, By the tens of millions.

In its whole history, religion has killed fewer people than the rationalist political philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Tell you anything?

"""

These two ARE NOT obvious even to many interested individuals simply because our educational and media establishments have BURIED the information. You don't have to be "aware" to find it, you don't have to be interested to find it, you have to be deeply, deeply devoted to find it. You have to dig.

As such it is doubly worth the energy to promote, inform and prove.

Most people know Hitler's organization killed million Jews.

They don't know they killed another million gypsies, blacks, poles, etc.

Most people have NFC that Stalin killed as many or more. Heck, most people don't know Stalin killed ANYONE.

So while your statements are true, but these aren't obvious simply because the information has been hidden.

Ennui007 2010-05-04 06:43:00

Alfa, I grant that primary credit should go to Edward Jenner. Credit should also go to whoever (it's a crime that this name isn't taught in schools) had the insight that smallpox had nowhere to live besides human beings, and could thus be eradicated. Credit is also due to those who engineered and manufactured the specific vaccines, etc. In short, there's a lot of credit to go around.

But somebody had to put these insights to work. Call them bureaucrats or don't call them bureaucrats; as I understand it, they were paid functionaries of various government health services and the WHO. They had technical expertise in medicine and public health. They made decisions about how to allocate the public resources that had been made available to them. I call that class of people bureaucrats. If my definition is too broad, then well, it's too broad. What yours?

The larger point is that this is, at least on the surface, a kind of limiting case in the catalogue of the evils of officialdom - an instance of government do-gooderism that actually worked. That being said, it seems that smallpox was on the decline all through the 20th century in the developed world. How much of its eradication had to do with post-war prosperity is another question.

Alfa 2010-05-04 05:17:00

To Ennui007: You said "in the case of the elimination of smallpox, public health bureaucrats prevented a billion people from dying by - telling some people what to do. It suddenly occurs to me that that's the elixir vitae for the global warming hysteria"

I think you're missing an important point. Cures are found by scientists. At least in our country, our duly elected officials authorize departments or organizations to perform certain tasks by law. They are delegated for us. As such, they are then allowed to undertake their work as written. But it means work, not sitting at a desk pushing papers. There are doers and there are bureaucrats. The bureaucracy saved no one. The workers in the field who put into action their mandate saved lives. But the scientist discovered it and shared it.

unseen 2010-05-04 03:18:00

here is one:

government is a necassary evil.

Ennui007 2010-05-04 10:44:00

"... you have to give me malaria and the DDT scare, which has racked up a staggering body count of dead children and adults."

Indeed.

IP 2010-05-04 10:01:00

Don't think I'm ignoring you all. I'm not. I'm thinking. And looking stuff up

Doctor Zero wrote about the first proposition at his site and in the Green Room. Take a look. I might have something to add myself. Something simpler and more brutish. As is my way.

Ennui: I'll give you smallpox, but you have to give me malaria and the DDT scare, which has racked up a staggering body count of dead children and adults.

But there's another post in there all its own, based on your points: The Illusion of Rationality.

OVERALL: I still haven't figured out how to process all this stuff intelligibly through InstaPunk. Your suggestions are all welcome.

Ennui007 2010-05-04 09:41:00

... although now that I think about it, how do I know that the WHO eliminated smallpox? I wonder if anyone has written a "Forgotten Man" type critique of that proposition.

Ennui007 2010-05-04 08:46:00

"... all intent on destroying religion in favor of wonderfully rational Science."

Just to clarify, I assume that you're really talking about pseudoscience (e.g., Marxism) and not genuine science (the kind that learned how to fix nitrogen, resulting in the green revolution, allowing billions to live in the 20th century, or the kind that wiped out smallpox, saving about a billion people in the 20th century, etc)? I don't mean to be pedantic, it's just kind of a sticking point with me because I don't believe that those people got nearly enough credit for the benefits they conferred on the human race.

... btw, that smallpox example really sticks in my mind, especially because it seems to touch on the proposition that

"The greatest human injustices are always perpetrated by bureaucracies."

Mind you, I'm in broad, general agreement with this statement (too many reasons to mention). But would you need to add that the greatest benefits are also conferred by bureaucracies? That is, in my limited understanding, the smallpox campaign was carried out by the WHO, CDC, etc. Again, the estimates I've heard are one billion saved from the most horrible death imaginable (in the 1950s, wiki says deaths ran to 50 million a year). The only additional scientific breakthrough involved was a tactical one; the use of "ring vaccinations" to corner the virus.

This kind of weirds me out; the one instance where bureaucracies seem at least capable of conferring an unmitigated benefit (and one not likely to be taken up by private individuals - because they would lack the authority to, for instance, quarantine) is public health. And any measure could be justified as being necessary for public health.

To restate: in the case of the elimination of smallpox, public health bureaucrats prevented a billion people from dying by - telling some people what to do. It suddenly occurs to me that that's the elixir vitae for the global warming hysteria.

Peregrine John 2010-05-04 07:58:00

I'd be most grateful if either of the first two were tackled. They both come up frequently in my discussions, and I have a bugger of a time elucidating them. It's like trying to explain why your foot bruises when you drop a brick on it. Too freaking obvious and yet with specific mechanics that make it hard to describe to a childlike mind. Which is, of course, what we are required to do all too often.

Lake is (as usual) correct: seen as a list, these entirely self-evident truths are awesome. As is, when done well, the explanation of why 2 + 2 is probably going to be 4.

Bill 2010-05-04 07:34:00

Here's a nice simple nut:

What is truth?

Replace your question on Morality with this one for I believe truth to be the underpinnings of the Morality question. For if truth is relative, as some propose, then any "proof" you or the doc propose is just YOUR proof but not mine unless I choose to make it mine.

KendraWilder 2010-05-04 04:05:00

"But I ask, in all humility, how many obvious things do we have to prove and is it possible, in the end, to prove them to people who no longer reason, read, or ruminate?"

Problem is that we have younger generations being brought up through the public edjumication system that can't even spell, let alone read beyond a third grade level.

Independent thinking and rational thought processes are aggressively discouraged in public schools, and many independent thinkers among younger children are being suppressed via deliberate diagnoses of ADD and ADHD, followed by applied medications which suppress active thought processes.

By the time many of these poor kids graduate high school their brains have all but atrophied, and/or become so computer -games addicted that they're unable to stretch their minds to accommodate new concepts.

Fortunately, many of them also surf the Internet, and eventually stumble across the blogosphere. In the comments sections at Hot Air they are readily identifiable via their Twitter-stunted abbreviated comments. Yet if one pays attention to these short bursts of thought one can readily identify those who are questing for something "more" to challenge their budding intellects.

The obvious, while common sense conclusions for you and I and DocZero, are for many young people concepts that have never challenged them to stretch their minds because of an inadequate educational system that has left them intellectually stunted.

One of my favorite sayings (sorry, don't know the author): "Man's mind, once stretched by a new concept, can never return to its original dimensions."

Each generation's elders carries several mandates. One is to teach their children how to survive in life. Another is to teach those same children how to think for themselves lest they become the victims and/or slaves of the ever present parasitic predators that circle like vultures around human populations.

For you, repeating the obvious might be maddeningly boring. For the generation now reaching adulthood, you might just prove to be their DocZero, articulating ideas in a "user friendly" fashion which opens their eyes and minds to new concepts. :)

USS Ben 2010-05-04 03:46:00

BTW, excellent post, Instapunk!

This is a superb opportunity to learn more, or remember stuff I forgot.

USS Ben 2010-05-04 03:38:00

We hold these truths to be self evident.

Unfortunately (and by design) leftists do not, else they wouldn't be leftists to begin with.

Of course, I still like to see "these truths" articulated well, which is helpful with some leftists who ain't completely closed off to the light.

Not only that, but it helps to reinforce what I know. Although these truths you listed (and many more, including metaphysical truths) are self evident to me, the fact remains I received a public education, and even during the 60's and 70's, it was heavily laced with leftist agitprop, scientistic hysterics and all sorts of other leftist propaganda (thank God for the very few teachers who were sane).

Joining the Navy after high school saved me years of further indoctrination at the college level.

But despite that, I still missed out on a lot of good classical education, and I'm still filling in the blanks and catching up. So even though "these truths" are self evident to me I can't articulate them or communicate them as well as Doc Zero, you, or many other outstanding conservative/libertarian/classical liberal bloggers. So these posts help me, and are an invaluable resource.

Of course, most leftists could care less about the truth or the mountains of evidence to back it up, but there's always some that are close to the fence of reality, or on it, that might be swayed by a well said essay.

Besides, the more we all know of "these truths" the better off we will all be. Just don't ask me to prove it. :^)

I love Penny 2010-05-04 01:35:00

I'd love to see you lay into the "Corporate taxes are paid by individuals" idea.

It is an idea that feels right to me, that makes sense, and I could even articulate rough terms for business practices that demonstrate it; but I don't know specific figures or public examples to verify the truth behind the statement.

I'm a man of modest means so I don't pay a lot of taxes on Apr. 15. Most of my friends aren't either and they feel like tax increases don't affect them. They fail to see that the Tax Man cometh not only on the 15th day of April, but worketh mightily every hour of every day wherein from their pockets he renders unto Caesar the prices of all goodish government goodies everytime they passeth through the checkout counter or hitteth the [Pay Now] at Amazon.

They are very aware of how sales tax affects them and complain loudly about it frequently (and and also often); because sales tax is added in separately, right there above the bottom line. Perhaps if the portion of the retail price that goes to pay the corporation's taxes could be deliniated as well, then we'd all be a little more aware of how much corportate tax increases and tax hikes on the wealthy affect the consumer.

As the saying goes, "The crap runs downhill". (Unlike the clap, which goeth whithersoever his wanton mistress sends him.) At the bottom of Economy Hill are the consumers holding the tab with a bemused idiot grin.

*Penny, I'm sorry it's been a long time since you've been with a man...

I love reading half a sentence... or just looking at the illustrations of books...

Penny 2010-05-03 09:05:00

Guns and a gas mask?

Hm?

It's been a long time since I've been with a man that way, but sure! I can see the upside after a plate of deviled eggs.

Lake 2010-05-03 07:28:00

You're right: these are obvious, and really quite awesome when seen all together.

I'm hesitant to ask for expansion on any of them, much less proof, because it'd be easy enough for you to say, "Well look it up your own damn self," and you'd be right.

If you're willing, what I would like to hear about are a couple in your words, in your inimitable fashion. Because it's not just the truth -- it's how the truth is presented.

For instance, one clear truth for any student of history is, as you say, "In its whole history, religion has killed fewer people than the rationalist political philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Tell you anything?"

I have made this argument dozens of times in conversations with my bumper-sticker-philosophy wielding colleagues, and some students, all intent on destroying religion in favor of wonderfully rational Science. What I would love to hear is *you* (both or either of you) let loose on it... the facts speak for themselves, but I think the fact of how turned-around the argument has become is telling of our times and the state of the modern mind.

This, sadly, is a product of our education system, both at the university and my level. This is why this is my mission. But I digress. If you want to expand on any of these, I would love for you to start there.

To be clear, I don't want to make any extra work for you... but you asked.

If you would like to post a comment, please complete the following form. Keep your comments on point. Have fun. Thanks.