Thomas Sowell Interview (Part 6)

Thomas Sowell Interview (Part 5)

Thomas Sowell Interview (Part 4)

Thomas Sowell Interview (Part 3)

Thomas Sowell Interview (part 2)

Thomas Sowell Interview 1 of 6

Preferencial Policies

Ayn Rand on Capitalism

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.” “The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

Adam Smith on the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth

This is the Conclusion to Book V in, The Wealth of Nations.

The expence of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.

The expence of the administration of justice, too, may, no doubt, be considered as laid out for the benefit of the whole society. There is no impropriety, therefore, in its being defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. The persons, however, who gave occasion to this expence are those who, by their injustice in one way or another, make it necessary to seek redress or protection from the courts of justice. The persons again most immediately benefited by this expence are those whom the courts of justice either restore to their rights or maintain in their rights. The expence of the administration of justice, therefore, may very properly be defrayed by the particular contribution of one or other, or both, of those two different sets of persons, according as different occasions may require, that is, by the fees of court. It cannot be necessary to have recourse to the general contribution of the whole society, except for the conviction of those criminals who have not themselves any estate or fund sufficient for paying those fees.

Those local or provincial expences of which the benefit is local or provincial (what is laid out, for example, upon the police of a particular town or district) ought to be defrayed by a local or provincial revenue, and ought to be no burden upon the general revenue of the society. It is unjust that the whole society should contribute towards an expence of which the benefit is confined to a part of the society.

The expence of maintaining good roads and communications is, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without any injustice. be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. This expence, however, is most immediately and directly beneficial to those who travel or carry goods from one place to another, and to those who consume such goods. The turnpike tolls in England, and the duties called peages in other countries, lay it altogether upon those two different sets of people, and thereby discharge the general revenue of the society from a very considerable burden.

The expence of the institutions for education and religious instruction is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. This expence, however, might perhaps with equal propriety, and even with some advantage, be defrayed altogether by those who receive the immediate benefit of such education and instruction, or by the voluntary contribution of those who think they have occasion for either the one or the other.

When the institutions or public works which are beneficial to the whole society either cannot be maintained altogether, or are not maintained altogether by the contribution of such particular members of the society as are most immediately benefited by them, the deficiency must in most cases be made up by the general contribution of the whole society. The general revenue of the society, over and above defraying the expence of defending the society, and of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, must make up for the deficiency of many particular branches of revenue. The sources of this general or public revenue I shall endeavour to explain in the following chapter.

Thomas Sowell and Dennis Prager Interview: 2008

This is an interview from January 29th, 2008, between Dennis Prager and Thomas Sowell. I will bring more as I can.

Dennis Prager: The next charge that is made: We have greater income inequality, the gap between the rich and the poor, than ever before in America.

Thomas Sowell: That is the number one big lie of our time. And it’s based on abstract statistical categories rather than flesh and blood human beings. Right after my book went to press some data came out which reinforces what I said even more so. If you follow specific individuals over time you discover, for example, that the bottom 20% of tax payers in 1996 had their income increase by 91% by 2005. Meanwhile, the top 1% of taxpayers had their income decline by 26% over that same time period. Now, it’s true that the top bracket has a higher percentage of the income than the bottom bracket by a greater percentage at the end than the beginning (of that time period).  But they are wholly different people in these brackets.

Prager: There are wholly different people in these brackets, meaning?

Sowell: Over half of the people who were in the bottom 20% in 1995 were not there in 2005.

Prager: Oh I see, I see. That’s right.

Sowell: If you get it into the top one hundredth of one percent of income earners, which presumably are the rich everyone talking about, the turnover is 75%. Three-quarters of the people who were in that bracket in 1996, were no longer in that bracket in 2005.

Prager: So you and I have a chance to enter that bracket Tom?

Sowell: I wouldn’t be surprised if we haven’t at one point or another. (Both chuckle) Its usually people who have a spike in income one year, that puts them in that bracket. You know you sell your house in California, well good heavens you’re way up there that one year. Now, unless you have a second house that sells a second year, that’s a one year wonder.

Prager: So your answer to the Democrats refrain, that the inequality is greater than ever, is that those groups fluctuate; and that in fact since ’96, in any event, the income of the bottom fifth has risen far more and the top one percent has declined?

Sowell: Absolutely!

Russian Approval Polls

I recently read an article about Russia in The Economist. In the article it gives the results of a poll conducted by Pew Global in the spring of 2011.
I don't know what is more disturbing to me personally, whether they would rather have a dictator or the state controlling things. If this is how they want to live that is fine with me; however, I don't ever want to live under that kind of a system. I have a friend who lived in the Ukraine for a while and he said people didn't like to work, they liked to sit back and have things given to them. That's why the USSR went broke, nobody would work and everybody wanted to be hand fed. The laziness is bred into them and the majority do not have another way of looking at things. Communism, which fell 20 years ago to the month, has instilled in these people this type of attitude, and current propaganda from Putin and his government keep it there. I don't blame the people I blame the officials and bureaucrats who have indoctrinated the people with these principles.

	Yes	No
Are you satisfied with the way things are going in Russia?	32	60
Would you describe the current economic situation as good?	29	64
Is it a great misfortune that the Soviet Union no longer Exists?	50	35
Have the changes since 1991 helped ordinary people?	25	69
Have they improved the standard of living?	28	61
Have they enhanced pride in our country?	19	67
Have they had a good influence on public morality?	24	55
What should we rely on to solve Russia's problem?
Democratic Government: 32%  A strong Leader: 57%
What is more important to society?
Freedom from state interference: 25% State ensuring no one is in need: 68%

Adam Smith Quotes

Defense is superior to opulence.

Happiness never lays its finger on its pulse.

I have never known much good done by those who affected to trafe for the public good.

It is not by augmenting the capital of the country, but by rendering a greater part of that capital active and productive than would otherwise be so, that the most judicious operations of banking can increase the industry of the country.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.

The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.

The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations.