In the letter copied below, Don Boudreaux smashes the ridiculous WaPo columnist Dana Milbank to bits. Milbank thinks that the Tea Party movement is about “violent thoughts, expressed non-violently.” Why can’t people like Milbank understand that there is nothing violent in the desire many Americans have for the government to stop taxing them and dictating what they must or must not do?
Here is Don’s demolition job on Milbank.
Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071
Dear Editor:
Dana Milbank ridicules Tea Partiers as malcontents “expressing violent thoughts,
peacefully” (“Gun-toting protesters voice violent thoughts peacefully,” April
20).
I leave to each reader, and to history, the task of assessing Tea Partiers’
propensity for violence. One useful comparison would be with, say, the
anti-globalization protestors of a few years back (who likely fancied themselves
as expressing peaceful thoughts, violently).
But a more relevant comparison is with the institution that the Tea Partiers
protest: Uncle Sam. THAT outfit – government – is the very embodiment of
gun-toting force. If I don’t buy health insurance, government will threaten
violence against me in order to compel me to do so. If I refuse to answer
intimate questions from the Census Bureau about my personal life, such as about
the number of nights that I sleep away from home, I will be fined – and
imprisoned if I refuse to pay the fine – and violently apprehended if I struggle
to avoid imprisonment.
Government cloaks itself in magnificent titles, marble buildings, and majestic
ceremonies. Behind this glorious fa?ade, though, is a fusillade of brute,
deadly force, ready to be violently unleashed against anyone who disobeys the
commands of ruling politicians.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
