Bar Stool Economics

I found this surfing over at American Warmonger, so I'll shamelessly repost here because it deserves to be seen.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:



The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.



The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'



Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free, but what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.



But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'But he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen,
Ph.D.Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

A good explanation of why Obama and his Democratic Congress' policies will turn our recession into a Depression... or worse.

Outstanding Op-Ed in Miami Herald

How refreshing

Some of my favorite excerpts

A student who speaks up about the right to own or carry a gun stands a good chance of getting suspended or even arrested:

When a Central Connecticut State University senior fulfilled a communications-class assignment by giving a presentation on why students and professors should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, his professor reported him to the police, who called him in for questioning. Professor Paula Anderson, questioned by a reporter from the school paper, was unrepentant: The student was a ''perceived risk'' and she had a ``responsibility to protect the well-being of our students.''

• Like old Soviet commissars clapping dissidents into psychiatric hospitals, administrators at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., responded to a student's e-mail criticizing school policy on concealed weapons by suspending him and ordering him to undergo a ``mental health examination.''

...

Tarrant County College, near Fort Worth, took the no-mention policy a step further, banning a student from wearing an empty holster to protest the campus ban on concealed guns. ''We're protecting the learning environment,'' explained Juan Garcia, the school's vice president for student development and, clearly, a devoted scholar of academic doublespeak.

...

Of course, their definition of ''offensive'' has a distinct political overlay. I've never heard of a college student being suspended for calling George Bush a moron or Dick Cheney a war criminal. But making fun of feminists (Colorado College), opposing gay marriage (Los Angeles City College) or reading a book -- a critical book -- about the Ku Klux Klan (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis) will bring down the wrath of administrators in a politically correct heartbeat.

I shudder to think of the reaction of my school administrators if they found out about this blog (not that it deters me in the least).

JMU's campus carry policies

As I mentioned in my last post, SCCC's "Empty Holster" protest is ruffling some feathers in academia, including a nearby Virginia public university, James Madison University. Some professors are aghast that college students are using their freedoms of speech and peaceable assembly to protest the infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights. You know, kinda how the Founder's of our Republic intended.

An e-mail from a professor to a student leader for 2A rights

Dear Mr. :

As a faculty member I received your message, forwarded by Chief Schifflett, about the SCCC's plan to wear holsters next Thursday, the 23rd, though the Chief listed the 24th as the date. I have a couple of questions and comment.

First, is it the 23rd or 24th?

Second, I asked my students this morning if they new about the planned protest. They did not. Are you planning to make sure the JMU community is notified that some students are planning to wear holsters while on campus? I know you notified the Chief, but are you sure the message will get to the majority of the students? Can you imagine the level of fear if it doesn't? Wouldn't do your cause much good.

Third, even after I explained to my students that the holsters would be empty and, using SCCC's website, the reason for the protest, my students did not think the holster wearing was a good idea. It scares them, makes them feel less safe, as does the idea of students carrying concealed weapons on campus. So you may want to consider if a significant number of your peers support your cause. You and other SCCC members certainly have a right to feel safe in your daily lives, but so does every other citizen.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Wright

Dr. Kenneth R. Wright
Associate Professor
Writing, Rhetoric, and Technical Communication
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-6162

This guy's attitude boggles me. Apparently you can only protest if a "significant number of your peers" support your cause. For a professor of "Writing, Rhetoric, and Technical Communication" his comprehension sucks. The entire purpose of the protest is to raise awareness and garner support!

It gets better.

Anecdotal evidence is that some professors are planning to cancel classes or bar students with empty holsters from class.

Which leads me to JMU's Student Handbook - Student Rights and Responsibilities. It starts off well enough, with a refreshing affirmation of student rights, which would seem to leave any anti-Empty Holster professors with no ground to stand on.

The student as a citizen has the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of political beliefs and freedom from personal force and violence, threats of violence and personal abuse.

(bold added)

and

Students who hold opinions about basic policy matters of direct concern to them have the right to have them heard...

However JMU Policy 1105 is just the opposite, and denies students, faculty, and even visitors basic human rights.

Some excerpts

No person shall carry, maintain, or store a weapon, concealed or otherwise, on any property owned, leased, or controlled by James Madison University. This policy applies to weapons carried about the person and maintenance or storage of any weapon in any university facility or within any parked vehicle on university premises.

Victim disarmament zone... check.

6.1 Weapons discovered on university premises in violation of this policy will be seized by the police or the Office of Public Safety, and the owner will forfeit ownership.

Waive your 2nd and 4th amendment rights...

Any visitor violating this policy will be subject to being barred from campus.

...and then get barred from public property that YOU own as a citizen of the state.

This policy does not apply to law enforcement officials duly authorized to carry such weapons.

The "Only Ones" exception. You (law-abiding citizen) can't be trusted.

The authority to interpret this policy rests with the President, and is generally delegated to the Chief of Police.

Zero democratic oversight... and judicial interpretation granted to law enforcement... nice.

So I know I'm missing some but here's the Top 5 laws that this policy violates.

1. 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

2. 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

3. Section 10, Virginia Bill of Rights

That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

4. Section 13, Virginia Bill of Rights

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

5. Virginia Preemption Law

No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by � 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute.

The list could go on, but I think that's enough. I still can't understand why college administrators still think their doctorates and reserved parking spaces somehow grant them the authority to supersede the US Constitution, the VA Constitution, and the authority of the state legislators.

Empty Holster protest

This week (April 20-24) is the SCCC's "Empty Holster" protest. Pretty simple idea, openly wear an empty holster around campus and to class to protest your universities policy against carry on campus (nearly all have them).

Sadly, but predictably, this has ruffled some feathers in academia. The blowback has ranged from angry e-mails to campus organizers (from professors), cancelled classes, and at least one anecdotal instance of a professor barring students from wearing holsters to class. Apparently the often vaunted freedom of speech, expression, and political protest that is supposed to be fostered in an academic environment only applies if you conform to the liberal agendas pervasive to academia.

A blog to watch

No not this one... I've been slacking lately.

This one.

I started this in July, 1968. My friends and I have examined every American gun control law, and every law that permits, allows, encourages, or requires citizens to own guns. All 22,309 of them. On the way, we gathered 26 four drawer filing cabinets of information on crime reporting, crime statistics based on crime reporting, and a host of other things. At the end, I intend to bring it all together and explain why I describe gun control advocates in just two words and a prefix. Pro crime activists.