We don’t need to tax the rich to pay for social justice. What we need to do is to make them richer.
Or at least think they’re getting richer.
I had this epiphany last week after getting a press release from the International Chess Federation. These are people who think ahead. Literally.
The release announced that the federation has partnered with something called TON Labs to create “a new, holistic chess non-fungible token (NFT) ecosystem.”
No, I have no idea what that means either. I think it has something to do with protecting animals who want to watch grandmasters.
I don’t have a whole lot of money. (I’m doing fine — don’t pity me.) I’m not the least bit tempted to purchase an NFT. Who would be tempted to buy a chess NFT or an NFT of almost anything else?
Yep. People with more money than they need. The rich will dominate the NFT market because they can and because they think it will make them richer.
So why isn’t the government issuing NFTs? There’s no need to tax the rich who will find a way to avoid the taxes if you can get them to gladly pay you for something they think they want.
Let’s think like the chess masters who, according to the release, are “bringing utility to both chess players and fans through the digitalization and gamification of iconic match moments, unique collectibles, chess related art and many more exciting opportunities.” Now substitute government and politics for chess — they’re not all that different.
Consider the many historic moments that should be commemorated in NFT form. I have a few I’d like to see (and would buy if I had a pile of dough). There are scenes to appeal to both the liberal and conservative rich.
Jan. 6. You can picture these being promoted on Fox.
Ted Cruz at the airport going to Cancun. You can picture these being promoted on MSNBC.
The fly on Mike Pence’s head. This will appeal to both Pence fans and fly fans.
The impeachments. Collect them all.
Stormy Daniels. There could be R- and X- rated versions.
I could go on and on. This will solve our budget problems.
Bar standards. I’ve often — really, really often — wondered whether bar exams and ethics courses are doing the trick when it comes to making certain that all lawyers are competent, ethical and at least marginally sane.
I’ve stopped wondering. They’re not doing the trick.
The latest proof of this can be found in a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in which we learn that “a licensed attorney” filed a 104-page complaint that included “allegations of a wide-ranging global conspiracy involving Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Jeffrey Epstein.”
No China or Hillary Clinton? Clearly, this guy is nuts.
Subscribe to our columns
Want new op-eds sent directly to your inbox? Subscribe below!