Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

OA240: Libertarianism is Still Bad & You Should Still Feel Bad (Patreon)

Published:
2019-01-01 02:21:24
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

Today's special, hangover-free New Years' episode follows up on some of the things we discussed during our Episode 238 interview with Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast, including the never-controversial subject of libertarianism.  Strap in; it's been an interesting year!

We begin with a listener question from Ricardo, who asks some follow-up questions to our original hot take on libertarianism waaaaaay back in Episode 22.  Is there a robust theory of property rights that serves as a side-constraint on government action?  You'll have to listen and find out!  (Hint:  no.)

After that, Andrew further explains the "Are You A Cop?"-style segment from Episode 238 regarding whether Brett Kavanaugh "voted with the liberals" in an abortion case.  (Hint:  no.)  You'll figure out all you need to know about the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Gee v. Planned Parenthood and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood... as well as getting a deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent and an explainer on the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a!

After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (and Matt) Take The Bar Exam #107 regarding defamation.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Check out Matt & Mattingly's Ice Cream Social podcast!
  2. We first discussed libertarianism back in Episode 22.
  3. You can click here to read Clarence Thomas's blistering (and inaccurate) dissent from the Court's denial of cert in the Planned Parenthood cases; click here to check out 42 USC § 1396a(a)(23), the statute at issue; and click here to read the Washington Examiner article discussed on the show.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Files

Comments

Anonymous

That wouldn’t apply, because the requirement is that you mix your labor with something unowned. A child is not unowned, because self-ownership

Anonymous

You say that estate taxes are good because taxing death doesn't discourage it, but amazingly, that's not completely true. A 2001 study found that, at times when estate taxes were lowered, fewer rich people died right before the lower rate kicked in and more died right after. The authors call this "death elasticity": <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w8158" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.nber.org/papers/w8158</a>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>>18702806

That's interesting. To add to that the discussion on the podcast took a very narrow view of the impact of estate taxes. If they're sufficiently high people with enough resources would e.g. move their assets and family abroad to a lower tax regime in anticipation of their death. So you'd get some tax avoidance as the rate approaches 100%, as well as straight up tax evasion.