Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”     John Locke,    Two Treatises of Government, Of Property

May 2, 2013

Two words…

by Quincy

Matthew Yglesias says:

What’s needed is a much more forceful, much more statist approach to forced savings, whether that’s quasi-savings in the form of higher taxes and more Social Security benefits or something like a Singapore-style system where “private” savings are pooled into a state-run investment fund.

It only takes two words to show that this is massively unwise: Chrysler bondholders.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2013/05/02/two-words/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

3 Comments

  1. [...] UPDATE: A reader emails this link: “It takes two words to show Yglesias’ statist approach is massively unwise: Chrysler [...]

    Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » MATT YGLESIAS SAYS 401KS SUCK. Instead he calls for “a much more forceful, much more statist approa… — May 2, 2013 @ 4:34 am
  2. And then there’s CALPERS.

    Comment by Sam L. — May 2, 2013 @ 7:05 am
  3. Here’s another two words: IRA taxes

    A similar policy was advocated by a group called themselves paternalistic libertarians (as oxymoronic as laissez-faire communists). The difference was that workers would be “encouraged” to save (not forced), and saving would be the default option if the worker didn’t choose.

    It’s ironic that many nanny-state supporters claim they want adults to be responsible citizens, but then they treat adults like toddlers.

    Comment by MingoV — May 2, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML