We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Destroying wealth Scott Wickstein notes a priceless piece of bureaucratic imbecility in New Zealand:
A New Zealand council has taken itself to court and successfully been fined $4,800 […] it will pay itself the fine, minus the court’s 10 per cent cut. It has already stumped up $3,000 for pre-trial “outside legal opinion”.
I also enjoyed an anonymous comment left on the post at Scott’s:
I wouldn’t be surprised if they lodge an appeal
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
James,
This is not about destroying wealth, but moving it from the many to the few.
And thus its multiplier effect is largely negated.
Consequently, wealth is destroyed by omission – an entirely unnecessary opportunity cost.
I forgot to hat tip Michael Jennings for that- he spotted it and alerted me via email.
This is insane. A waste of taxpayers money.
Hopefully the people who voted for these nut jobs will remember this come the local elections.
It is not a question of the multiplyer effect (an idea of Major Douglas taken up by Lord Keynes) or even of moving money from the many to the few (although this mad court case does do that).
It is a matter of moving money from its rightfully owners (the taxpayers) to the state (the council officials and the court) and its hangers on (in this case the lawyers).
This does have a bad economic effect – but it is also just wrong in-its-self.
Astonishing. I’m certain it could happen here.