Tuesday, April 20, 2021

The Pro-Looting Argument Brought to You by a BLM Activist

 She has zero understanding of the concept, outlined by Ludwig von Mises, of the reserve fund:

The idea underlying all interventionist policies is that the higher income and wealth of the more affluent part of the population is a fund which can be freely used for the improvement of the conditions of the less prosperous. The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution. Every measure is ultimately justified by declaring that it is fair to curb the rich for the benefit of the poor. 

 In the field of public finance progressive taxation of incomes and estates is the most characteristic manifestation of this doctrine. Tax the rich and spend the revenue for the improvement of the condition of the poor, is the principle of contemporary budgets...

It is not necessary to argue with the advocates of this deficit policy. It is obvious that recourse to this ability-to-pay principle depends on the existence of such incomes and fortunes as can still be taxed away. It can no longer be resorted to once these extra funds have been exhausted by taxes and other interventionist measures.

The justification for looting advanced by the BLM activist below is just a form of taxation and deficit spending on steroids. What are they going to do when everything is looted?

These are economic ignoramuses that fail to understand that the looting will only hurt them in the long run. 

Did I mention there is no good reason for libertarians to support BLM? 



  1. In life no one owes you crap. Particularly since you dont know the first thing about slavery personally.

    Hope you try your looting virtual signaling with a store owner willing to give you a few lead injections for your trouble.

  2. At its most basic level, looting and vandalism is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.