ThanQ Baker!
Why things never get done.
The Founding Fathers didn't foresee a professional political class. Perhaps they had greater faith inhumanity than deserved.
No one is with us, but us
Repudiate the Debt
Murray Rothbard
https://www.rothbard.it/articles/repudiating-national-debt.pdf
Although largely forgotten by historians and by the public, repudiation of public debt is a solid part
of the American tradition. The first wave of repudiation of state debt came during the 1840's, after
the panics of 1837 and 1839. Those panics were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom
fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States. Riding the wave of inflationary credit,
numerous state governments, largely those run by the Whigs, floated an enormous amount of debt,
most of which went into wasteful public works (euphemistically called "internal improvements"),
and into the creation of inflationary banks. Outstanding public debt by state governments rose from
$26 million to $170 million during the decade of the 1830's. Most of these securities were financed
by British and Dutch investors.
Some thought the he pardoned everyone. So they had to commit the crimes again so we could catch them.
https://fee.org/resources/liberties-response-to-government-debt-pay-back-or-repudiate/
The case for repudiation stands on the desire to reduce the power and size of government. The disgrace of repudiating the debt would fall on our government, drastically reducing the government’s ability to continue such spending behavior. Historically, repudiation brought a widening circle of benefits. Governments became wary in investing and spending money, investors are cautious to deal with government borrowing. Negative consequences to repudiation certainly exist but tend to be short lived as the market, if allowed to operate, would sort these out relatively quickly.
Repudiation, however, could be called a breach of contract and therefore unjust. But if we wish to pay back the debt we have two options. The first is to increase taxation and the second is to cut spending. Certainly we could achieve this through a mix of the two but the former is inconsistent with classical liberalism. Why? Taxation is coercive and the tax money is being taken from individuals who have a legitimate claim over the money. Cutting spending is perfectly consistent, albeit difficult, means of paying back the debt.
Burgers are awful, but the soup is pretty good.