Medical care, in all its manifestations is a good in economic terms and it is not a free good. Someone has to go to school for a long time, work, invest, take chances to create medical care. So, if we are not going to physically enslave all the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians and steal all the capitol equipment used for health care, someone has to pay for it.
Shall the user of the medical service pay for it or shall the government use its guns to make someone else pay for it? That is the stark reality of the situation. Which is the moral and ethical choice?
Calling it a right violates the very concept of rights. Most rights recognized by our founders and the constitution were negative rights-the right not to be interfered with. No one can interfere with your right to speech, religion, your decision to carry a gun and such. In each of these cases, no one has to supply you with anything. They just have to leave you alone.
But a right to medical care or food or a home is a positive right. It implies that someone owes you something that is not a free good. This is nothing less than armed robbery.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Freedom vs Tyranny-Your Choice
I see all sorts of letters to the editor where liberals blame conservatives for our problems and Democrats blame Republicans and vice versa. I am here to say that those terms do not mean very much. So-called conservative George Bush spent money like a drunken sailor on foolish wars and bailouts and then liberal Barack Obama spends money like two drunken sailors continuing the foolish wars and even more bailouts. The one thing they all have in common is growing the size and power of the government with one story or another. I rate them all as tyrants and not fit to run a free nation.
We need a new breed of politician who wants to shrink government to its proper size and function, as defined in the constitution. I would rate such a person as a freedom lover and that is the only type of politician that we should allow to run our country.
So you decide, tyrant or freedom lover-based on what they have done in their lives, not what they say in the heat of a campaign. And if the Democrats and Republicans both give you only tyrants to choose from, go to the third parties and don't worry about wasting your vote. A vote for either tyrant is much worse than wasting a vote.
The Libertarian Party is just waiting for you'all to understand that freedom is the most important value you have. No government giveaways or social control of others is worth giving it up.
We need a new breed of politician who wants to shrink government to its proper size and function, as defined in the constitution. I would rate such a person as a freedom lover and that is the only type of politician that we should allow to run our country.
So you decide, tyrant or freedom lover-based on what they have done in their lives, not what they say in the heat of a campaign. And if the Democrats and Republicans both give you only tyrants to choose from, go to the third parties and don't worry about wasting your vote. A vote for either tyrant is much worse than wasting a vote.
The Libertarian Party is just waiting for you'all to understand that freedom is the most important value you have. No government giveaways or social control of others is worth giving it up.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Is the Global Warming Hoax Defeated?
Those of us with some scientific background and a little historical perspective always understood that carbon emissions had nothing to do with global warming. A well documented natural cycle fully explains the warming that has been going on for four centuries and will continue for 5 more centuries, no matter what we do.
Last week's release of e-mails from climate researchers tell us that the scientists who claimed such a connection were not just wrong. They knew they were selling a hoax and did everything in their power to silence those pointing out the truth.
Those of you who were fooled by this hoax and don't want to be fooled again take note. When someone says that the science is finished and no further debate is warranted, the red flag should go up. That is an attempt to silence the opposition and an acknowledgement that they know full well that they are lying.
In the warming literature, they take much pleasure in showing us a chart that seems to say that average temperatures have been constant since the beginning of history until they suddenly spiked up 60 years ago. They call this the hockey stick graph. We know that is nonsense but it is a good lesson in how you can make numbers say anything if you manipulate enough. That is why, when you look at a graph of anything, be sure you understand what is being plotted. A true graph of temperature over time will display an approximate sinusoid shape with a period of 15 centuries and a peak to peak range of seven centigrade degrees. Our current temperature places us in the rough center of that range.
Based on the history, we can expect a period of 4.5 to 5 centuries of slow warming (0.8 centigrade degrees/century) with irregular deviations that might last for decades. We will then reach the same peak that the Earth reached in 1100 AD with no catastrophic results.
The hockey stick graph is some mathematical collection of deltas and derivatives that would make any number series do whatever the maker wished. It accomplishes only deception.
Now the question is, will this do the trick. Will the evidence of fraud stop our crooked politicians from imposing cap and trade or other similar devastating plans to put us all under the thumb of the bureaucracy in order to get the energy we need? Sorry to say I don't know the answer to that. When the growth of government is involved, the truth does not necessarily set you free.
Last week's release of e-mails from climate researchers tell us that the scientists who claimed such a connection were not just wrong. They knew they were selling a hoax and did everything in their power to silence those pointing out the truth.
Those of you who were fooled by this hoax and don't want to be fooled again take note. When someone says that the science is finished and no further debate is warranted, the red flag should go up. That is an attempt to silence the opposition and an acknowledgement that they know full well that they are lying.
In the warming literature, they take much pleasure in showing us a chart that seems to say that average temperatures have been constant since the beginning of history until they suddenly spiked up 60 years ago. They call this the hockey stick graph. We know that is nonsense but it is a good lesson in how you can make numbers say anything if you manipulate enough. That is why, when you look at a graph of anything, be sure you understand what is being plotted. A true graph of temperature over time will display an approximate sinusoid shape with a period of 15 centuries and a peak to peak range of seven centigrade degrees. Our current temperature places us in the rough center of that range.
Based on the history, we can expect a period of 4.5 to 5 centuries of slow warming (0.8 centigrade degrees/century) with irregular deviations that might last for decades. We will then reach the same peak that the Earth reached in 1100 AD with no catastrophic results.
The hockey stick graph is some mathematical collection of deltas and derivatives that would make any number series do whatever the maker wished. It accomplishes only deception.
Now the question is, will this do the trick. Will the evidence of fraud stop our crooked politicians from imposing cap and trade or other similar devastating plans to put us all under the thumb of the bureaucracy in order to get the energy we need? Sorry to say I don't know the answer to that. When the growth of government is involved, the truth does not necessarily set you free.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Libertarian vs. Conservative
I spend a lot of time at various public events manning what we call an OPH booth (Operation Politically Homeless). We ask people to take a short quiz and then use the results to place them on a chart that shows a political spectrum. Our point being that the simple left right line is totally inadequate to show most people. If interested, you can take the quiz online at www. self-gov.org.
I often hear the question-What is the difference between conservatives and libertarians? That question is getting harder and harder to answer because the definition of conservative is so fluid. It changed drastically during the administration of W.
Nevertheless, as a minimum we can say that Libertarians agree with conservatives on most economic issues and probably free speech and press. Beyond that, there is way to much variation among conservatives to make a definitive statement.
Do conservatives believe in due process. For the most part, sure but they were easily swayed to ignore that for alleged terrorists. Thus they gave a totally unacceptable power to government to name someone as a terrorist without the need to prove the facts. We still have hundreds of prisoners in GITMO and BAGRAM whose guilt is still unknown but whose time in prison is many years. Libertarians find this not just shameful but horribly dangerous.
How about gay marriage and all the other issues around homosexuality? Libertarians are true to the freedom philosophy here. Adults may make any living and/or loving arrangements they please without interference from the state. Conservatives apparently put their ideas of a proper society ahead of freedom on this issue.
The longest running debate is about the drug war. Libertarians have always advocated personal freedom. We recognize the massive damage done to people and society from attempting to prohibit the use of mind altering substances. We learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition all too well. Conservatives believe that they have a right to tell other people what they may use for enjoyment and apparently just refuse to learn from the alcohol prohibition disaster. Indeed, I am sure there are some that would want to try alcohol prohibition again, just with more police this time.
Right now, this looks like irreconcilable differences. One can only hope that people who are basically freedom lovers will realize that there is no compromise of freedom with tyranny possible.
If you would have freedom for yourself, you must grant similar freedom for all others!
Do you really think that your freedom to practice Christianity, for example, would survive if you allowed the government to ban some other religion that you found distasteful? Once such decisions are in the hands of the government, even a democratic one, the allowed religions become a matter for majority vote. That is definitely not commensurate with freedom.
I often hear the question-What is the difference between conservatives and libertarians? That question is getting harder and harder to answer because the definition of conservative is so fluid. It changed drastically during the administration of W.
Nevertheless, as a minimum we can say that Libertarians agree with conservatives on most economic issues and probably free speech and press. Beyond that, there is way to much variation among conservatives to make a definitive statement.
Do conservatives believe in due process. For the most part, sure but they were easily swayed to ignore that for alleged terrorists. Thus they gave a totally unacceptable power to government to name someone as a terrorist without the need to prove the facts. We still have hundreds of prisoners in GITMO and BAGRAM whose guilt is still unknown but whose time in prison is many years. Libertarians find this not just shameful but horribly dangerous.
How about gay marriage and all the other issues around homosexuality? Libertarians are true to the freedom philosophy here. Adults may make any living and/or loving arrangements they please without interference from the state. Conservatives apparently put their ideas of a proper society ahead of freedom on this issue.
The longest running debate is about the drug war. Libertarians have always advocated personal freedom. We recognize the massive damage done to people and society from attempting to prohibit the use of mind altering substances. We learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition all too well. Conservatives believe that they have a right to tell other people what they may use for enjoyment and apparently just refuse to learn from the alcohol prohibition disaster. Indeed, I am sure there are some that would want to try alcohol prohibition again, just with more police this time.
Right now, this looks like irreconcilable differences. One can only hope that people who are basically freedom lovers will realize that there is no compromise of freedom with tyranny possible.
If you would have freedom for yourself, you must grant similar freedom for all others!
Do you really think that your freedom to practice Christianity, for example, would survive if you allowed the government to ban some other religion that you found distasteful? Once such decisions are in the hands of the government, even a democratic one, the allowed religions become a matter for majority vote. That is definitely not commensurate with freedom.
Death Panels
Some have said that the phrase DEATH PANELS was a silly attempt to scare the daylights out of the public. The real problem is that it was immediately paired with a provision in the bill for end of life counseling. That muddied the water to where no one knows what anyone is talking about. Good trick for the media.
End of life counseling is not the provision that will cause the mass death of older folks with expensive illnesses. It will actually help them deal with things when that happens. The real problem comes from a provision for a study of "comparative effectiveness". Initially this will be a data gathering panel that will publish statistics on the cost and results (in terms of additional months or years of life) offered by many possible treatments. There are a bunch of problems with this.
First is the usual issue with anything done by government. It will not be updated very frequently and will not include newly developed treatments for years after they are available.
Secondly, and far worse is that it will become the standard of care. If it is shown that a particular treatment only buys an average of 12 months of additional life at a cost of more than some standard-let's use $20K per year, then it will be declared not sufficiently effective and be made unavailable under the government paid system. This will happen without regard to individual circumstances which might make it far more effective for you.
We know this is the intention of the plan. Obama has stated so. Howard Dean has stated so and our friends in England already do this in their wonderful public health plan. So, prepare to become like poor Bessy the cow who is too old to give milk anymore. Why should the farmer spend any vet money to keep her alive. When the government runs your health care, you are reduced to a farm animal who has to justify your continued life by productivity. If you can't work, no longer pay income tax, what is the point of spending money to keep you alive. After all, it is their money now.
Only idiots who think that are going to get something for nothing will give up this control of their lives.
End of life counseling is not the provision that will cause the mass death of older folks with expensive illnesses. It will actually help them deal with things when that happens. The real problem comes from a provision for a study of "comparative effectiveness". Initially this will be a data gathering panel that will publish statistics on the cost and results (in terms of additional months or years of life) offered by many possible treatments. There are a bunch of problems with this.
First is the usual issue with anything done by government. It will not be updated very frequently and will not include newly developed treatments for years after they are available.
Secondly, and far worse is that it will become the standard of care. If it is shown that a particular treatment only buys an average of 12 months of additional life at a cost of more than some standard-let's use $20K per year, then it will be declared not sufficiently effective and be made unavailable under the government paid system. This will happen without regard to individual circumstances which might make it far more effective for you.
We know this is the intention of the plan. Obama has stated so. Howard Dean has stated so and our friends in England already do this in their wonderful public health plan. So, prepare to become like poor Bessy the cow who is too old to give milk anymore. Why should the farmer spend any vet money to keep her alive. When the government runs your health care, you are reduced to a farm animal who has to justify your continued life by productivity. If you can't work, no longer pay income tax, what is the point of spending money to keep you alive. After all, it is their money now.
Only idiots who think that are going to get something for nothing will give up this control of their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)