But still, perhaps it’s inevitable that politicians are going to badly over-simplify moral arguments. And I suppose that if I had to choose, I’d much rather have a Senator who over-simplified in the direction of Murray Rothbard than, for instance, whatever moral philosopher Al Franken is butchering.

The problem, as always with liberals’ “tax the rich” policies, is that there aren’t enough rich people to go around. A three percent surtax on incomes over a million dollars is a pittance that wouldn’t make a dent in the country’s fiscal disaster. As the budget debate continues, it will become increasingly obvious that the price of the Democrats’ refusal either to make significant cuts in discretionary spending or to reform entitlements is a gargantuan tax increase–not on the “rich,” but on all taxpayers.

It might feel good to go after speculators, but speculation is only a symptom of the problem. The real problem is central bank policy (Fed and Central Bank of China) that is far too loose. In 2006, loose money fostered housing speculation, now it fosters commodities speculation.

Looking casually as an outsider at the unappealing economics of electric vehicles (the need for a new and immensely expensive infrastructure, cars that cost much more than either traditional gas engines or hybrids, limited ranges and long recharging times), I find it hard to understand why the Obama administration is pushing electric cars. One argument I’ve heard is “national security,” the idea being that electric vehicles would make the United States less dependent on imported oil. Be careful what you wish for, however, because if electric cars become a mainstay, we may be trading one dependence for another that is even more troubling. Ninety-five percent of the world’s output of rare-earth metals today comes from one country: China. By some estimates, demand will outstrip supply within five years. At least with oil we know there are fifty years of oil reserves readily available. Moreover, oil is produced all over the world, limiting the monopoly power of any one country.

Maybe folks understand their own self-interest lies in avoiding an energy-impoverished future. The point is, it is rich people who get to worry about global warming half a century from now. The key to environmental protection is understanding that the affluent society doesn’t want to be the effluent society. But you have to be affluent first. People in the developing world get this. Posh American and European environmentalists don’t

It’s interesting how even many economists don’t seem willing to apply the same filters to spending in medical care that they apply to other goods. It’s not about risk of death per se. People, after all, are allowed to buy cheaper lighter cars in which, ceteris paribus, they’re more likely to be killed in an accident. I think it’s more that we’ve had such extensive government involvement in medical care and health insurance for so long that people think of unlimited health care as some kind of right.