OK, here is what I’m going to try to do. I’ll give what I feel is an objective and brief summary of what I read, set up the goal for next week and we’ll use the comment area for discussion. Please help me revise the summary in the comment area and join in the discussion.

Fourth Edition Forward:

Bettina B. Greaves appears to be an economics scholar affiliated with the Austrian school who edited this edition. I couldn’t find out much other info about her (him?). The forward does a nice job summing up the gist of the book and references things we won’t hit for weeks. It’s nice to know where it’s going.

Third Edition Forward:

Contains some updates and thank you’s by Mr. Mises. He talks about his usage of the terms psychology and liberal and mentions how nicely the book is bound. Too bad I’m reading it online.

Chapter 1 - Acting Man

• Action is defined as something someone does consciously and purposefully.
• It is easy to distinguish between conscious and unconscious action.
• Actions are measurable.
• We can’t get too mired down in worrying about what caused the actions or tacking value judgments onto those actions.
• People often act to decrease their uneasiness but human goals are very complex.
• There is a bunch of things other economists and scientists do that I’m not going to do.
• Without causality we couldn’t function in the world so it is fair to assume that most humans use the idea of causality to interact with other humans.

Next Installment: Both Forewords, Introduction, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 for Sunday 6/14. Once you finish Chapter 1 feel free to add your input to this thread of comments.

Bile was kind enough to forward me an email stating that A.804: The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act was going to be heard by the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee. The email suggested using this link to send an email (or letter) to the members of the committee. Now I thought short and fleetingly about whether or not I should send a letter. I ended up typing something up, but I’m not sure if it would help or hurt the cause. That’s where you guys come in. Based on this letter, which may or may not be emailed tomorrow morning, what do you think, help or hurt?

I am composing this letter to give you my opinion on the “NJ Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act”. I will be forthright. I think it is an egregious breach of my civil liberties that I am not allowed to do whatever I like with my body. I also think that for the majority of people marijuana has very limited medical use. Obtaining a government issued license (registry identification card) to use marijuana would highlight the infringement of my rights. This begs the questions, why am I writing you to support this act?

People’s opinions do not change overnight. It takes time for people to fully understand something. Society is slowly discovering the true effects of marijuana, both positive and negative. Any legislation that would make people more familiar with the actual effects of marijuana as opposed to the propaganda produced by the government could cause a shift in public opinion. For these reasons I think you should help pass this act.

I understand that for some of you this is exactly the opposite of what you wanted to hear. One of the major arguments I hear opposing medical marijuana is that it will cause people to think marijuana use is acceptable. My response to that is simple. It is. There are eleven of you on this committee. Though you may never admit it, chances are six of you have tried marijuana. Obviously you lived through the experience. I can think of far more lethal plants that are currently legal, Atropa Belladonna comes to mind. Passing this act could help the public to realize that our current policy of incarcerating people for choosing to use a drug that is relatively harmless is futile.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions or would like to speak to me in person I would be happy to oblige you. I live in Trenton so I can actually bike down to the state house. My address and phone number are attached.

Blog of Bile PS: Oh and for the record, my opinion changes overnight, but I’m a weirdo.

http://www.calcatholic.com/…

Even in the face of an estimated $20 billion budget deficit, a bill that would raise revenues by imposing a 25% tax on earnings of the pornography industry is meeting with stiff resistance in the California legislature, with opponents claiming it would drive a multi-billion-dollar industry out of the state.

The bill, AB 2914, authored by Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, would levy a 25% tax on gross revenues from the sale of pornographic magazines, photos, books, films and videotapes, and on the gross earnings of live sexually explicit entertainment and pay-per-view pornography provided to hotel guests.

According to a legislative analysis of the bill, it could raise up to $665 million a year in new revenues for the financially strapped state.

“AB 2914 would tax adult entertainment and adult entertainment venues in a manner similar to the way in which cigarettes and alcohol are already taxed in this state,” said Calderon in the legislative analysis. “Currently, these two products are taxed at higher rates, and the additional revenues are used to address the negative effects of their use. This measure would tax adult entertainment in a comparable manner, with the intent to use the funds to address the various secondary effects associated with the production and consumption of adult entertainment. The secondary effects of production are especially noteworthy as California is the capital of the adult entertainment industry in the United States.”

Money raised by the new tax would be used for “law enforcement, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, health care and mental health treatment,” said Calderon. “AB 2914 does not make a judgment on the adult entertainment industry. It merely asks the industry to help mitigate some of its ancillary effects in the state that is its production capital, not unlike the state already does with alcohol and cigarettes.”

At a May 12 hearing, opponents testified that imposing a 25% tax on porn industry profits could drive the business out of California, at a cost in jobs and other revenues of as much as $3.5 billion. It would have an especially hard impact, witnesses testified, on the San Fernando Valley, said to be the “porn capital of the world.”

Republicans in the legislature have indicated they would vote against the bill because it is a tax increase and they oppose any tax increase of any stripe. Under state law, tax increases require a 2/3 majority of both houses of the legislature.

Following the May 12 hearing, Calderon’s bill was referred to the “suspense file” of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Although theoretically the bill could be taken out of the suspense file and considered again, the move most likely means the measure is dead for this session of the legislature.

I like that super majority law. Though it’s likely a super majority of a quorum which is less than half of the membership.

Perhaps instead of raising taxes, borrowing or raiding some other funds… I have a suggestion for the California state government. Cut spending. It’s amazing how quickly your bills drop when you just stop taking on debt you don’t need.

As for the proposed tax. As with just about every tax it will harm the industry and likely push it out of state. It just wouldn’t make sense to stay. By some accounts a single DVD could be taxed upwards of 5 times in its creation. No one would stand for that. Then you revenue stream dries up and you’re strapped for cash again sometime down the road. These people have less economic sense then a cup of coffee.

This game gets better and better.

Right click and hit play.

Game play footage: http://www.telltalegames.com/strongbad