Tim G.'s Public Library

With responses like these, one can not take anything Paul Krugman says at face value.

Reminded me of this passage from Jeff Riggenbach's review of James C. Scott's 'The Art of Not Being Governed' (http://mises.org/daily/4881):

"Yet James C. Scott, not only in his discussion of the refugees from the state who live in Zomia, but also in his more general remarks about the history of the state in human society, makes no distinction between government and the state. About half the time, he refers to the Zomians and to their counterparts in other areas of the world and in other eras of world history as 'ungoverned.' The other half of the time, he refers to these same groups of individuals as 'self-governing peoples.' But, of course, if they are truly 'self-governing,' they are not 'ungoverned.' They are governing themselves. They are not practicing 'the art of not being governed'; they are practicing the art of not being ruled."

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? Tom Woods briefly responds.

No biggie. I'll just buy three of 'em.

"I understand the frustration," he said. "The property owners are the last ones who want these buildings to sit and deteriorate."

Well, voters are clueless, by and large, so I don't really care what they think. Secondly, you might be shocked--shocked--to learn that not all economists agree on this. Here are some who disagree.

If you voted, and this was the result of your vote, then I hope you lose sleep tonight. I hope the federal chore police stalk your children in your nightmares.

Forget the command-and-control district structure. It's archaic and it doesn't work, officials said.

Just a guess, but I imagine they were catering to special interests in spite of the Constition and in spite of their constituents' natural rights.

Ditto dsimon in the comments section: "I think it's a dubious tactic to use laws passed by the Framers as a determination of their constitutionality. If we went that route, we'd have to conclude that the Sedition Act of 1798 which prohibited 'malicious' writing about the government was constitutional, even though it restricted core political speech that would be struck down as a clear First Amendment violation today."

"Arguments are like taxicabs. Take them as far as you actually plan to go and pay no mind to wherever else they might lead."

Hidden City weighs in on the police photography crackdown.

I kind of like the planet money team. Here they offer a nice graphic that lays bare the lie that rich people don't pay as much in taxes as the rest of us.

Uh oh. The First Amendment also protects science deniers. What'll we do?

Nah, sorry. The headline is inaccurate, based on the content. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear a state case is not to be construed as support for the state court's ruling. Basically, all the Supreme Court said was, "No comment." The state ruling does stand at least until the next challenge, so I guess that's good news....

Here is a new project from one of my all time favorite libertarian thinkers. It's bound to be fascinating.