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.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Obama's Goal
In politics, things are rarely done in a straight forward manner. By that I mean the goals stated are usually not the whole story. There is almost always another motive that they don't dare state. You have to divine this from the details of the proposal as it relates to the stated goals.
So for example, we are told that we need health care reform because we have 47 million uninsured. No discussion how many of those have made an intentional choice to save the premium costs. For the purposes of this discussion, let's take that number as correct. That is roughly 15% of the population. That means that 85% of the population is insured and probably satisfied with their insurance coverage.
So now, is the new plan the best and cheapest way to get that 15% insured. Clearly not!! The dictum "First do no harm" should be kept in mind always. It seems pretty foolish to upend the whole system and mess around with the satisfied 85% when we need only subsidize the 15% and be done. To understand what I am saying, think how we help those who cannot buy enough food. The government did not take over the food industry. They gave money to poor people who met certain criteria, via the mechanism of food stamps. They buy their food like everyone else, in a free market with all the efficiency and innovation that comes with it.
The equivalent method for health insurance is "HEALTH STAMPS. Just set up a needs based requirement for getting a voucher which I like to call health stamps and the stated problem is solved and the 85% are not affected or disturbed.
So the stated reason is not the true reason for this massive 'reform'. What might the true reason be? I am assuming that there are two driving forces for this. We know that Obama has spent his whole life espousing big government intervention and the Marxian dictum, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs". Apparently he wants a monstrously expensive system that will justify raining taxes even further on the already most taxed group of high income earners. When experience shows this as still inadequate, let's go after those comfortable middle class folks. Let's share every one's poverty. Socialists do not understand incentives and disincentives very well.
Rationing is also inevitable in an always cash short system so this will give the leaders the power of life and death over the populace. I hope that is not a driving force but it cannot be discounted.
In any case, the plan is idiotic since the problem can be solved much more simply with "health stamps".
Please don't take this as an endorsement of a broadening of the welfare state. I merely point out that health stamps would solve the problem without creating a disaster. A still better but longer term solution is eliminating the state and federal laws and rules that make health care more expensive than it needs to be. Thus I offer as an alternative the HEALTH STAMPS PLAN as a short term fix with a deregulation move to follow. That will have a goal of lowering the costs so that nearly everyone will be able to afford good insurance and fewer will need health stamps.
So for example, we are told that we need health care reform because we have 47 million uninsured. No discussion how many of those have made an intentional choice to save the premium costs. For the purposes of this discussion, let's take that number as correct. That is roughly 15% of the population. That means that 85% of the population is insured and probably satisfied with their insurance coverage.
So now, is the new plan the best and cheapest way to get that 15% insured. Clearly not!! The dictum "First do no harm" should be kept in mind always. It seems pretty foolish to upend the whole system and mess around with the satisfied 85% when we need only subsidize the 15% and be done. To understand what I am saying, think how we help those who cannot buy enough food. The government did not take over the food industry. They gave money to poor people who met certain criteria, via the mechanism of food stamps. They buy their food like everyone else, in a free market with all the efficiency and innovation that comes with it.
The equivalent method for health insurance is "HEALTH STAMPS. Just set up a needs based requirement for getting a voucher which I like to call health stamps and the stated problem is solved and the 85% are not affected or disturbed.
So the stated reason is not the true reason for this massive 'reform'. What might the true reason be? I am assuming that there are two driving forces for this. We know that Obama has spent his whole life espousing big government intervention and the Marxian dictum, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs". Apparently he wants a monstrously expensive system that will justify raining taxes even further on the already most taxed group of high income earners. When experience shows this as still inadequate, let's go after those comfortable middle class folks. Let's share every one's poverty. Socialists do not understand incentives and disincentives very well.
Rationing is also inevitable in an always cash short system so this will give the leaders the power of life and death over the populace. I hope that is not a driving force but it cannot be discounted.
In any case, the plan is idiotic since the problem can be solved much more simply with "health stamps".
Please don't take this as an endorsement of a broadening of the welfare state. I merely point out that health stamps would solve the problem without creating a disaster. A still better but longer term solution is eliminating the state and federal laws and rules that make health care more expensive than it needs to be. Thus I offer as an alternative the HEALTH STAMPS PLAN as a short term fix with a deregulation move to follow. That will have a goal of lowering the costs so that nearly everyone will be able to afford good insurance and fewer will need health stamps.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Government Run Health Care Part 4
Today, let's talk about tactics. In the mid 1990s, when the Clinton clan decided to save the world from freedom, they presented their health care reform as a complete package. All the details were available with all the flow charts, payment methods and new crimes defined fully. They were so proud of their monstrosity, they published a book with all the details.
Obviously, this gave the opposition the opportunity to read, understand and explain the contents. A lot of people thought it was unstoppable, so they started making plans to live through it. Several entrepreneurs announced plans to build floating hospitals several miles offshore all around the US to treat people who could not or would not wait for the system to care for them. The main lesson that Obama took from this was to go lightly on the details. Sell it as a somewhat vague concept and maybe you will get it through. It is very difficult to fight a phantom plan that can change or redefine terms as the opposition attacks.
That is why I feel we need to battle the basic assumptions, not the details. Let us stress the basic idea that some bureaucrat will decide if we get a particular treatment based on our life expectancy is a horrible idea and no matter how they laugh, rationing is inherent in any government run system. It cannot be otherwise because all our money has been placed in one pot and it is not bottomless. It is suddenly of no consequence that we scrimped and saved all our working lives to have a comfortable retirement with good medical care. Our resources got thrown into that same pot with the person who was a spendthrift all his life and we will get the same care, for better or worse. We might point out that this puts us in the position of pets brought to a vet. The vet and the owner decide if the treatment is cost effective or if the patient should be put down. Is that how you would like to be treated-like a pet or farm animal?
Another important issue for us is to decide what alternate we propose. We could take the position that the Status Que is far better than this plan. This is true but the Status Que is not great. I have seen alternate plans from so-called conservatives that astound me. I have seen plans that include full price controls and mandated purchase of insurance actually suggested by these so called conservatives. I have seen a Republican plan that is mostly double talk, i.e. platitudes about taking care of yourself.
My favored solution is, of course, individual freedom. We know that the system currently suffers under reams of state and federal regulation that drastically increase the cost of medical care and medical insurance. The direction to go is to undo those regulations.
One other thought. Have you all noticed the logical contradiction that we hear all the time from the politicians pushing this? We have to pass this to control costs but we also have to raise taxes to pay for this cost saving improvement. Makes by cognitive dissonance (BS) alarm sound.
Obviously, this gave the opposition the opportunity to read, understand and explain the contents. A lot of people thought it was unstoppable, so they started making plans to live through it. Several entrepreneurs announced plans to build floating hospitals several miles offshore all around the US to treat people who could not or would not wait for the system to care for them. The main lesson that Obama took from this was to go lightly on the details. Sell it as a somewhat vague concept and maybe you will get it through. It is very difficult to fight a phantom plan that can change or redefine terms as the opposition attacks.
That is why I feel we need to battle the basic assumptions, not the details. Let us stress the basic idea that some bureaucrat will decide if we get a particular treatment based on our life expectancy is a horrible idea and no matter how they laugh, rationing is inherent in any government run system. It cannot be otherwise because all our money has been placed in one pot and it is not bottomless. It is suddenly of no consequence that we scrimped and saved all our working lives to have a comfortable retirement with good medical care. Our resources got thrown into that same pot with the person who was a spendthrift all his life and we will get the same care, for better or worse. We might point out that this puts us in the position of pets brought to a vet. The vet and the owner decide if the treatment is cost effective or if the patient should be put down. Is that how you would like to be treated-like a pet or farm animal?
Another important issue for us is to decide what alternate we propose. We could take the position that the Status Que is far better than this plan. This is true but the Status Que is not great. I have seen alternate plans from so-called conservatives that astound me. I have seen plans that include full price controls and mandated purchase of insurance actually suggested by these so called conservatives. I have seen a Republican plan that is mostly double talk, i.e. platitudes about taking care of yourself.
My favored solution is, of course, individual freedom. We know that the system currently suffers under reams of state and federal regulation that drastically increase the cost of medical care and medical insurance. The direction to go is to undo those regulations.
One other thought. Have you all noticed the logical contradiction that we hear all the time from the politicians pushing this? We have to pass this to control costs but we also have to raise taxes to pay for this cost saving improvement. Makes by cognitive dissonance (BS) alarm sound.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Government Run Health Care Part 3
It amazes me that this Health Care discussion has simply ignored the constitution. This is our founding document and creates the pact between the people, the state governments and the Federal government. In fact, this is what brought the federal government into existence. Its every word and phrase is designed to clearly limit the authority of the federal government to a short, explicit list of functions, leaving all else to the states or the people.
That short list, embodied in Article 1 Section 8 absolutely does NOT contain health care as a federal function. Of course, that has never stopped them from doing the myriad things they do under the "elastic" clause as they have misnamed the commerce clause. Most of the things they have done in this vein have been terrible for the nation and it is time we started demanding compliance with the founding charter of the government. A government that ignores its founding charter is not a legitimate government but just a gang of thieves writ large.
Are the following things appropriate for a nation that considers itself free?
1. Force, at gun point, all employers to buy health insurance for all employees or pay a large penalty fee based on payroll.
2. Force, at gun point, anyone not otherwise covered to buy a government approved health insurance policy or pay a penalty tax.
3. Take money from people, deemed to rich to complain, at gun point, extra taxes, over and above what everyone else pays to supply health insurance to others.
4. Prevent people, at gun point, from spending their own money to buy health care if refused by the government system. Refusal based on something called comparative effectiveness or, in effect, setting a maximum payout per year of extended life. (I think this is what Sarah Palin meant by death panels except there will be no panel to argue with. Just a bureaucrat with a calculator.)
That short list, embodied in Article 1 Section 8 absolutely does NOT contain health care as a federal function. Of course, that has never stopped them from doing the myriad things they do under the "elastic" clause as they have misnamed the commerce clause. Most of the things they have done in this vein have been terrible for the nation and it is time we started demanding compliance with the founding charter of the government. A government that ignores its founding charter is not a legitimate government but just a gang of thieves writ large.
Are the following things appropriate for a nation that considers itself free?
1. Force, at gun point, all employers to buy health insurance for all employees or pay a large penalty fee based on payroll.
2. Force, at gun point, anyone not otherwise covered to buy a government approved health insurance policy or pay a penalty tax.
3. Take money from people, deemed to rich to complain, at gun point, extra taxes, over and above what everyone else pays to supply health insurance to others.
4. Prevent people, at gun point, from spending their own money to buy health care if refused by the government system. Refusal based on something called comparative effectiveness or, in effect, setting a maximum payout per year of extended life. (I think this is what Sarah Palin meant by death panels except there will be no panel to argue with. Just a bureaucrat with a calculator.)
Government Run Health Care Part 2
Now let us assume you are adamant that the government must DO SOMETHING about the 10 or 15% of the population that does not have health insurance. Shall we revamp the entire system and put it all under government control, even for the 85% that is happy with what they have?
If we had followed that same plan when we were worrying about food security, we would have handed the entire food industry over to the government and then we would all get our food from government run warehouses. I am sure it would be delicious. Instead we gave money (via food stamps) to the poor and disabled so they could buy their food where everyone else does. We did not bother the self sufficient very much at all (except for the taxes) and did not interfere with normal market forces that create good quality and innovation.
The equivalent function in the health care realm already exists-Medicaid. It seems we should only be discussing changes to the qualifications to receive Medicaid.
Now I in no way endorse Medicaid, food stamps or any other aspect of the welfare state. I am just pointing out the total lack of necessity to revamp the whole system when small and comparatively cheap adjustments will meet the goal. The fact that the welfare state and the high taxes it causes is a self perpetuating disaster should be obvious to all. But that is how government grows. It messes things up with a foolish intervention and then uses the consequences of that intervention to justify the next. And so it goes on a spiral into fascist or socialist hell.
If we had followed that same plan when we were worrying about food security, we would have handed the entire food industry over to the government and then we would all get our food from government run warehouses. I am sure it would be delicious. Instead we gave money (via food stamps) to the poor and disabled so they could buy their food where everyone else does. We did not bother the self sufficient very much at all (except for the taxes) and did not interfere with normal market forces that create good quality and innovation.
The equivalent function in the health care realm already exists-Medicaid. It seems we should only be discussing changes to the qualifications to receive Medicaid.
Now I in no way endorse Medicaid, food stamps or any other aspect of the welfare state. I am just pointing out the total lack of necessity to revamp the whole system when small and comparatively cheap adjustments will meet the goal. The fact that the welfare state and the high taxes it causes is a self perpetuating disaster should be obvious to all. But that is how government grows. It messes things up with a foolish intervention and then uses the consequences of that intervention to justify the next. And so it goes on a spiral into fascist or socialist hell.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
The political goons at the Town Hall meetings
The Democrats just seem to know that all the demonstrators and Town Hall Attendees who think the health plan is a bad idea are all hired goons. Must be how they normally handle a problem.
The truth is that the people who are against the health care plan are in fear for their lives, and justifiably so. No one has to pay me to demonstrate against this health care plan. We have all the notice we need that rationing for older people will be a feature. It is already in place for Medicare and there is no other way to limit the spending when everyone is covered.
I have a passion for and a self interest in stopping this plan. I don't mind if some group helps to get all us political amatuers organized. We need all the help we can get finding where our congress Critters are hiding.
It has occurred to me that this might be part of the plan to cure the Social Security bankruptcy in our future-just knock off the Baby Boomers early by denying them care. The plan includes bureaucrats that will make decisions on denying care to older folks if the cost of keeping them alive exceeds some unnamed standard for the additional years of life. I want to make that decision. Otherwise, we are no better than farm animals where the farmer decides how much it is worth to keep Bessy alive after she no longer gives milk.
My preferred alternative is not just do nothing but rather undo all the regulations that make health care and insurance far more expensive than they need to be.
The truth is that the people who are against the health care plan are in fear for their lives, and justifiably so. No one has to pay me to demonstrate against this health care plan. We have all the notice we need that rationing for older people will be a feature. It is already in place for Medicare and there is no other way to limit the spending when everyone is covered.
I have a passion for and a self interest in stopping this plan. I don't mind if some group helps to get all us political amatuers organized. We need all the help we can get finding where our congress Critters are hiding.
It has occurred to me that this might be part of the plan to cure the Social Security bankruptcy in our future-just knock off the Baby Boomers early by denying them care. The plan includes bureaucrats that will make decisions on denying care to older folks if the cost of keeping them alive exceeds some unnamed standard for the additional years of life. I want to make that decision. Otherwise, we are no better than farm animals where the farmer decides how much it is worth to keep Bessy alive after she no longer gives milk.
My preferred alternative is not just do nothing but rather undo all the regulations that make health care and insurance far more expensive than they need to be.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Government Run Health Care Part 1
The prospect of health care reform brings up many issues. It will need to cover several blog posts to keep matters clear. Today we shall look at the basic assumptions involved. In future posts we will look at the economic forces on the rest of the economy and the constitutional issues.
It seems apparent that many of the people who voted for Obama thought they were going to get something for nothing. In their magical thinking, the health care system was going to be just like it is now, but FREE. Those of us who have grown up understand the first rule of reality: THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!! (TANSTAAFL)
Medical care, in all its manifestations is a good in economic terms. 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?
Now, let's say that you decided for the use of government guns and you still want your "free" health care. How might this work? The government has to collect taxes from everyone under some rule or another. Maybe you will be in a less taxed group, maybe not but, in any case, the government will take a pile of money from us and then pay for our health care-right?
Well, they have a budget. For any given year they have a sum allotted to health care. There is, after all, a limit to what you can steal from a productive person before he decides to stop producing. What if the demand for services exceeds that budget amount? They have to deny services to someone. By what standards do people get denied and who decides? AYY-there is the rub. Your money has been taken from you. You no longer have it available to pay for care. Some government functionary decides who gets care and who doesn't.
In Canada, it is just waiting lists. Let's see if you survive with your 90% occluded coronary arteries until your name comes up on the list. Or maybe it will be something like they are already doing with Medicare patients. How many of the government's dollars is it worth to extend your life? Notice that money became their dollars now-not yours any longer. Is there anything more foolish than giving up control of your very life?
It seems apparent that many of the people who voted for Obama thought they were going to get something for nothing. In their magical thinking, the health care system was going to be just like it is now, but FREE. Those of us who have grown up understand the first rule of reality: THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!! (TANSTAAFL)
Medical care, in all its manifestations is a good in economic terms. 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?
Now, let's say that you decided for the use of government guns and you still want your "free" health care. How might this work? The government has to collect taxes from everyone under some rule or another. Maybe you will be in a less taxed group, maybe not but, in any case, the government will take a pile of money from us and then pay for our health care-right?
Well, they have a budget. For any given year they have a sum allotted to health care. There is, after all, a limit to what you can steal from a productive person before he decides to stop producing. What if the demand for services exceeds that budget amount? They have to deny services to someone. By what standards do people get denied and who decides? AYY-there is the rub. Your money has been taken from you. You no longer have it available to pay for care. Some government functionary decides who gets care and who doesn't.
In Canada, it is just waiting lists. Let's see if you survive with your 90% occluded coronary arteries until your name comes up on the list. Or maybe it will be something like they are already doing with Medicare patients. How many of the government's dollars is it worth to extend your life? Notice that money became their dollars now-not yours any longer. Is there anything more foolish than giving up control of your very life?
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Economic Crisis
People, please stop falling for all the excuses that the government and its subservient media is handing you. This is not a matter of too little regulation, greed, stupid homeowners or whatever.
Those are consequences of the root cause-excessive money and credit creation by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did this to keep interest rates artificially low in the face of massive government deficits and borrowing.
Normally, the borrowing, being so huge to finance both the welfare state and two nonsensical wars, would have driven interest rates very high. By creating new money, they bought back much of that debt and pushed interest rates back down.
The consequence of all that is a rapidly increasing money supply and higher prices for everything. Now how could an ordinary person not notice how the prices of real estate kept going up and interest rates stayed low. It was like manna from heaven and people took advantage of the situation to make money on a "sure thing". Tell me that you did not think that real estate only goes up in price.
This is the classical bubble described in text books for hundreds of years. It is an old game played by government that ALWAYS bursts giving drastically lower prices and bad debts.
The best solution is drastically reduce government spending so no new borrowing is needed, lower taxes and get out of the way. The economy will recover in a year or so.
But instead, our brilliant leadership (both the R and D kind) think that the hair of the dog is the solution. Let's spend even more and inflate the money supply even more to get things back where they used to be, Let's try to reinflate the bubble.
That can't work and never has though it has been tried. The 1930s was an example of further money creation (and they even raised taxes and tariffs) causing the economy to stay bad for a decade. That is right folks, the New Deal did not work. The New New deal will fail just the same.
If you don't learn from history, you get to repeat it!
Those are consequences of the root cause-excessive money and credit creation by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did this to keep interest rates artificially low in the face of massive government deficits and borrowing.
Normally, the borrowing, being so huge to finance both the welfare state and two nonsensical wars, would have driven interest rates very high. By creating new money, they bought back much of that debt and pushed interest rates back down.
The consequence of all that is a rapidly increasing money supply and higher prices for everything. Now how could an ordinary person not notice how the prices of real estate kept going up and interest rates stayed low. It was like manna from heaven and people took advantage of the situation to make money on a "sure thing". Tell me that you did not think that real estate only goes up in price.
This is the classical bubble described in text books for hundreds of years. It is an old game played by government that ALWAYS bursts giving drastically lower prices and bad debts.
The best solution is drastically reduce government spending so no new borrowing is needed, lower taxes and get out of the way. The economy will recover in a year or so.
But instead, our brilliant leadership (both the R and D kind) think that the hair of the dog is the solution. Let's spend even more and inflate the money supply even more to get things back where they used to be, Let's try to reinflate the bubble.
That can't work and never has though it has been tried. The 1930s was an example of further money creation (and they even raised taxes and tariffs) causing the economy to stay bad for a decade. That is right folks, the New Deal did not work. The New New deal will fail just the same.
If you don't learn from history, you get to repeat it!
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Meaning of Words
Words like liberal, conservative, progressive, change over time. Parties like Democrats and Republicans change their principles over time, sometimes by takeover by stealth, sometimes by natural evolution. The main lesson for us plain folks is to never get married to the name of a philosophy or a party, blindly following it after it has abandoned the principles that brought us to it in the first place.
I decided that I was a conservative in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran for president. I recognized that, despite what I was told during my upbringing in New York City, it was not a good idea for poor folks to be Democrats and liberals. What was best for everyone was a small, unobtrusive government that let you keep the fruits of your labor. I registered Republican at the first opportunity (age 21 at that time). Today, I have noted that the Republican Party that nominated Barry Goldwater does not exist any longer. It has drifted into something very different.
A lot of folks who spent their lives saying they were conservative apparently did not notice when a group that called themselves neoconservatives took over their movement and changed it drastically. Today, when you say you are conservative, people don’t think of a freedom lover. Today, to be recognized as a conservative, you need to support the Iraq war and future wars that the neo-cons think is right and proper. You must stand silent to the violations of due process that are everyday doings of the Bush administration. You must be in favor of government interference in interpersonal relationships. Today, if you are against the war, you must be a liberal. If you think that the government should not tell people whom to love, you must be a liberal. And you certainly cannot be a conservative, if you think that sick people can use that devil weed, marijuana to ease their suffering.
Well, I am against the war and I am not a liberal (as currently defined). I believe that the most important value of this nation is its tradition of individual freedom. We have a constitution that protects that freedom. I will support a candidate who supports individual freedom and is obedient to the constitution, no matter what his party label. I will not support a candidate who thinks that obeying the constitution is optional, no matter what his party label.
I am a Libertarian now, because it is the only party that actually takes individual freedom seriously. To prevent long term drift of the party away from this basic principle, We require a simple pledge of new members-
I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
We also have a statement of principles that requires a 7/8 vote at convention to change. We are well aware of the danger of drift and infiltration and have taken steps to slow or prevent it. Apparently the Republicans did not.
I supported Ron Paul for president and I have joined The Hope for America Coalition because these actions help to further my desire for a restoration of the individual freedom that used to by the primary feature of this nation. I care about this because I want my kids to spend their lives in freedom, not in tyranny.
I urge you all who are conservative, to ask yourselves if the Republican Party deserves your support any longer. Please don't answer that the Democrats are worse. Choosing the lesser evil, election after election, gets you the evil that is happening today. Open your mind to the Libertarian Party and its principles.
I decided that I was a conservative in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran for president. I recognized that, despite what I was told during my upbringing in New York City, it was not a good idea for poor folks to be Democrats and liberals. What was best for everyone was a small, unobtrusive government that let you keep the fruits of your labor. I registered Republican at the first opportunity (age 21 at that time). Today, I have noted that the Republican Party that nominated Barry Goldwater does not exist any longer. It has drifted into something very different.
A lot of folks who spent their lives saying they were conservative apparently did not notice when a group that called themselves neoconservatives took over their movement and changed it drastically. Today, when you say you are conservative, people don’t think of a freedom lover. Today, to be recognized as a conservative, you need to support the Iraq war and future wars that the neo-cons think is right and proper. You must stand silent to the violations of due process that are everyday doings of the Bush administration. You must be in favor of government interference in interpersonal relationships. Today, if you are against the war, you must be a liberal. If you think that the government should not tell people whom to love, you must be a liberal. And you certainly cannot be a conservative, if you think that sick people can use that devil weed, marijuana to ease their suffering.
Well, I am against the war and I am not a liberal (as currently defined). I believe that the most important value of this nation is its tradition of individual freedom. We have a constitution that protects that freedom. I will support a candidate who supports individual freedom and is obedient to the constitution, no matter what his party label. I will not support a candidate who thinks that obeying the constitution is optional, no matter what his party label.
I am a Libertarian now, because it is the only party that actually takes individual freedom seriously. To prevent long term drift of the party away from this basic principle, We require a simple pledge of new members-
I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
We also have a statement of principles that requires a 7/8 vote at convention to change. We are well aware of the danger of drift and infiltration and have taken steps to slow or prevent it. Apparently the Republicans did not.
I supported Ron Paul for president and I have joined The Hope for America Coalition because these actions help to further my desire for a restoration of the individual freedom that used to by the primary feature of this nation. I care about this because I want my kids to spend their lives in freedom, not in tyranny.
I urge you all who are conservative, to ask yourselves if the Republican Party deserves your support any longer. Please don't answer that the Democrats are worse. Choosing the lesser evil, election after election, gets you the evil that is happening today. Open your mind to the Libertarian Party and its principles.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Group Guilt
In the last few weeks I have met two different people with the same fantastic opinion. They both stated proudly and loudly, with no shame, that it is right and proper for us (the United States) to kill millions of Muslims. They believe that the attacks of 9-11 and all the insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan are caused by religious zealots and that this justifies our killing them by the millions.
In their opinion, it doesn't matter that only a few hundred crazies were responsible for the 9-11 attacks and the prior attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole and the various embassy bombings. It doesn't matter that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are merely getting revenge for the deaths of their relatives at the hands of our military invasion and occupation forces.
Mass murder based on group guilt spread liberally without cause to all Muslims is just fine by them. This is mass murder, no different in kind from what Hitler had the German army do to the Jews and Gypsies during WW2. Again there, a whole religion or ethnic group was judged guilty for the crimes of a few.
How can this happen? How can Americans go along with this. It is massively evil and shameful! Yet they do not see this.
So, the next time you are thinking about the Holocaust and wondering how it happened, how the German people let it happen, you will know the answer. With sufficient propaganda and a sufficiently dumbed down populace, you can sell anything. You can convince a strong and powerful nation that they are in mortal danger from a few hundred crazies with minor weapons. You can attack a nation without cause and thereby create new enemies and use their revenge tactics as a causus belli for the next advance in your war plans and get away with it.
I just want to remind those advocates of mass murder that Germany was defeated and was forced to admit their horrible and evil wrongs and pay massive reparations. The world looks upon that period of history with horror and disbelief. Do you really want to try it again? This time against a target religion not of a few million like the Jews but a few hundred million Muslims.
In their opinion, it doesn't matter that only a few hundred crazies were responsible for the 9-11 attacks and the prior attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole and the various embassy bombings. It doesn't matter that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are merely getting revenge for the deaths of their relatives at the hands of our military invasion and occupation forces.
Mass murder based on group guilt spread liberally without cause to all Muslims is just fine by them. This is mass murder, no different in kind from what Hitler had the German army do to the Jews and Gypsies during WW2. Again there, a whole religion or ethnic group was judged guilty for the crimes of a few.
How can this happen? How can Americans go along with this. It is massively evil and shameful! Yet they do not see this.
So, the next time you are thinking about the Holocaust and wondering how it happened, how the German people let it happen, you will know the answer. With sufficient propaganda and a sufficiently dumbed down populace, you can sell anything. You can convince a strong and powerful nation that they are in mortal danger from a few hundred crazies with minor weapons. You can attack a nation without cause and thereby create new enemies and use their revenge tactics as a causus belli for the next advance in your war plans and get away with it.
I just want to remind those advocates of mass murder that Germany was defeated and was forced to admit their horrible and evil wrongs and pay massive reparations. The world looks upon that period of history with horror and disbelief. Do you really want to try it again? This time against a target religion not of a few million like the Jews but a few hundred million Muslims.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Sound Money
Dr Ron Paul has been advocating a return to sound money. If you don't want to be paying a continuous inflation tax, you should want sound money as well. Historically, the only way to prevent inflation is to strictly limit the amount of money in circulation. How do you do that? Why you make the money warehouse receipts for some commodity. That way, there can be no money printed that is not matched by stocks of the monetary commodity available at all times for redemption of the paper money.
Again, history teaches us that gold or silver have been the best commodity to use as a medium of exchange. They each have intrinsic value because of their usefulness (jewelry, electronics, chemistry) and can easily be made into coins and subdivided endlessly. The key to sound money is the concept of a commodity that is interchangeable with the paper money. It is less important what the commodity is, so long as there is a limit on the issuance of paper money (or its electronic equivalent).
Today, the Federal Reserve Bank can create new money at whim to lower interest rates, bail out defaulting financial institutions, buy votes or finance wars. The result of this money creation is exactly the same as when Uncle Vinnie down the block prints up his really good counterfeit $50s. The money supply goes up and all the money becomes worth less. Did you get that? There is no difference to you whether the Fed issues the money or Uncle Vinnie issues the money. The effect on the economy is the same.
It only makes a difference to the guy who gets to spend the money the first time. Either Uncle Vinnie gets to buy his new car or the political cronies of the Fed get the money. Either way, after that first spend, it is just more money in circulation.
So now let's look at some evidence to back this up. Oil has gotten very expensive lately. It is running between $90 and $100 per barrel. But that is when you measure it in terms of dollars. If you measure it in terms of gold, it is still about 1/10 ounce of gold per barrel-mostly unchanged. So the price increase you see is really the lower value of the dollar caused by all that counterfeit money, mostly from Uncle Fed.
So next time you hear some media expert laughing at Dr Paul for advocating the gold standard, you give him a good laugh. He is the idiot!
Again, history teaches us that gold or silver have been the best commodity to use as a medium of exchange. They each have intrinsic value because of their usefulness (jewelry, electronics, chemistry) and can easily be made into coins and subdivided endlessly. The key to sound money is the concept of a commodity that is interchangeable with the paper money. It is less important what the commodity is, so long as there is a limit on the issuance of paper money (or its electronic equivalent).
Today, the Federal Reserve Bank can create new money at whim to lower interest rates, bail out defaulting financial institutions, buy votes or finance wars. The result of this money creation is exactly the same as when Uncle Vinnie down the block prints up his really good counterfeit $50s. The money supply goes up and all the money becomes worth less. Did you get that? There is no difference to you whether the Fed issues the money or Uncle Vinnie issues the money. The effect on the economy is the same.
It only makes a difference to the guy who gets to spend the money the first time. Either Uncle Vinnie gets to buy his new car or the political cronies of the Fed get the money. Either way, after that first spend, it is just more money in circulation.
So now let's look at some evidence to back this up. Oil has gotten very expensive lately. It is running between $90 and $100 per barrel. But that is when you measure it in terms of dollars. If you measure it in terms of gold, it is still about 1/10 ounce of gold per barrel-mostly unchanged. So the price increase you see is really the lower value of the dollar caused by all that counterfeit money, mostly from Uncle Fed.
So next time you hear some media expert laughing at Dr Paul for advocating the gold standard, you give him a good laugh. He is the idiot!
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Why I Support Dr Ron Paul for President
What follows is a transcript of a speech that I gave on 12/07/07 at a caucus held under the auspices of the National Presidential Caucus. It was designated as a Republican Caucus for Johnson County, KS
Dr Paul is the only Republican candidate who is unequivocally against the Iraq War and who pledges to bring the troops home with all deliberate and safe speed. He understands that the war in Iraq was pointless, illegal, unconstitutional and a moral horror.
The vast majority of the US public agrees with this. What chance does any other Republican candidate have to beat the Democrats while arguing for continued war?
The war has brought us only bad. We have lost roughly 4000 US soldiers, killed Iraqis totaling close to a million and displaced more than 2 million. This has won us no hearts and minds. Rather it has made us new enemies. Every dead Iraqi has an extended family who wants revenge.
How do the other Republican candidates, who wear their pro-life credentials proudly when it comes to abortion, have no problem with killing innocent Iraqis?
We have increased our national debt by almost $1 trillion to achieve these dubious results. This huge increase in the debt, coupled with runaway spending at home, has placed our economic future in grave peril. The dollar is collapsing before our very eyes. The Federal Reserve is out of options. Their trick of creating new money out of thin air doesn’t fool the suckers any longer.
Dr Paul understands that money only works as a store of value if it is commodity based. Fiat money, like we have now, has a 100% historic failure rate. It always, eventually, inflates away to nothingness.
Conservative Republican candidates always tell us they want a small government and strict constructionist judges. This is their talk, but that is not their walk. Violations of the constitution are an every day event.
Where in the constitution does is say that:
• The president can lock people up without charge or trial
• Wiretaps can occur without search warrants
• People can be kidnapped from one country (without extradition) and sent to another for torture
• The Federal government can have anything to say about anything not on the short list of functions in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution
Our freedom is melting away as we look. We are significantly less free than 6 years ago. We can not stand idly by. We owe it to our children to give them as much freedom as we inherited from our parents. The only candidate who will help us get that freedom back is Dr Ron Paul.
Dr Paul is the only Republican candidate who is unequivocally against the Iraq War and who pledges to bring the troops home with all deliberate and safe speed. He understands that the war in Iraq was pointless, illegal, unconstitutional and a moral horror.
The vast majority of the US public agrees with this. What chance does any other Republican candidate have to beat the Democrats while arguing for continued war?
The war has brought us only bad. We have lost roughly 4000 US soldiers, killed Iraqis totaling close to a million and displaced more than 2 million. This has won us no hearts and minds. Rather it has made us new enemies. Every dead Iraqi has an extended family who wants revenge.
How do the other Republican candidates, who wear their pro-life credentials proudly when it comes to abortion, have no problem with killing innocent Iraqis?
We have increased our national debt by almost $1 trillion to achieve these dubious results. This huge increase in the debt, coupled with runaway spending at home, has placed our economic future in grave peril. The dollar is collapsing before our very eyes. The Federal Reserve is out of options. Their trick of creating new money out of thin air doesn’t fool the suckers any longer.
Dr Paul understands that money only works as a store of value if it is commodity based. Fiat money, like we have now, has a 100% historic failure rate. It always, eventually, inflates away to nothingness.
Conservative Republican candidates always tell us they want a small government and strict constructionist judges. This is their talk, but that is not their walk. Violations of the constitution are an every day event.
Where in the constitution does is say that:
• The president can lock people up without charge or trial
• Wiretaps can occur without search warrants
• People can be kidnapped from one country (without extradition) and sent to another for torture
• The Federal government can have anything to say about anything not on the short list of functions in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution
Our freedom is melting away as we look. We are significantly less free than 6 years ago. We can not stand idly by. We owe it to our children to give them as much freedom as we inherited from our parents. The only candidate who will help us get that freedom back is Dr Ron Paul.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Ron Paul vs the Establishment
We are seeing some interesting politics these days. It will be something to tell our grandchildren about. After decades of the two party system handing us a pair of really bad candidates, over and over again, so bad that sometimes we really could not discern who was the lesser evil, we finally have a potential candidate who actually knows the rules.
Ron Paul has apparently read the constitution and knows what the federal government is not supposed to do. Unfortunately, if he wins, he will upset quite a few apple carts. There are many special interests that have made careers and fortunes from the idiotic and tyrannical (not to mention unconstitutional) actions of the government. This has been going on for so long that the average Joe cannot conceive of the nation operating without all these expensive and wasteful federal programs. I guess that multiple generations of public schooling is part of that problem.
Folks-When the government takes money from you in the form of taxes approaching 50% of your earnings and promises you benefits in exchange, do you really think this will be beneficial to you in total? Do you think that someone else will pay for your benefits and you will profit? You know that is not going to happen! The average Joe will surely lose on that deal. The majority will surely lose on that deal. You will lose control of how your money is spent.
Consider a single segment of socialism to see that is cannot be good on balance. Let us say that the government takes on the job of every one's health insurance company. They do not charge actual premiums but rather raise some tax to cover the cost. Now federal medical spending becomes a matter of congress passing budgets. Let us suppose that in some future year, they want to fight another pointless war to profit some contractor friends. They decide that the risk from the current demon is so great that we have to cut health spending to pay for it. They set up rationing such as waiting lists for expensive operations. Maybe they decide that folks over age XX have very little life left anyway, so why waste the government's money on them. Let them languish on the waiting list till they die. So now that older person, who paid plenty of taxes toward health care has no control over that money that he needs to save his life. It is now the government's money, not his.
Nevertheless, after a few years of that program, people will get used to it and be unable to conceive of medical care without the government as intermediary.
Most everything the government does for you could be better done for yourself if you had control of the tax money back.
If Ron Paul wins, we will start the long process of ending these programs, which are doomed in the long term in any case.
I have heard people say but what about medical care for the poor. Do you how many fewer poor there would be if there were no income tax? How much better every one's standard of living would be without the income tax and the inflation tax?
Support Ron Paul for president if you want:
Ron Paul has apparently read the constitution and knows what the federal government is not supposed to do. Unfortunately, if he wins, he will upset quite a few apple carts. There are many special interests that have made careers and fortunes from the idiotic and tyrannical (not to mention unconstitutional) actions of the government. This has been going on for so long that the average Joe cannot conceive of the nation operating without all these expensive and wasteful federal programs. I guess that multiple generations of public schooling is part of that problem.
Folks-When the government takes money from you in the form of taxes approaching 50% of your earnings and promises you benefits in exchange, do you really think this will be beneficial to you in total? Do you think that someone else will pay for your benefits and you will profit? You know that is not going to happen! The average Joe will surely lose on that deal. The majority will surely lose on that deal. You will lose control of how your money is spent.
Consider a single segment of socialism to see that is cannot be good on balance. Let us say that the government takes on the job of every one's health insurance company. They do not charge actual premiums but rather raise some tax to cover the cost. Now federal medical spending becomes a matter of congress passing budgets. Let us suppose that in some future year, they want to fight another pointless war to profit some contractor friends. They decide that the risk from the current demon is so great that we have to cut health spending to pay for it. They set up rationing such as waiting lists for expensive operations. Maybe they decide that folks over age XX have very little life left anyway, so why waste the government's money on them. Let them languish on the waiting list till they die. So now that older person, who paid plenty of taxes toward health care has no control over that money that he needs to save his life. It is now the government's money, not his.
Nevertheless, after a few years of that program, people will get used to it and be unable to conceive of medical care without the government as intermediary.
Most everything the government does for you could be better done for yourself if you had control of the tax money back.
If Ron Paul wins, we will start the long process of ending these programs, which are doomed in the long term in any case.
I have heard people say but what about medical care for the poor. Do you how many fewer poor there would be if there were no income tax? How much better every one's standard of living would be without the income tax and the inflation tax?
Support Ron Paul for president if you want:
- To get our freedom back from the rapidly expanding police state,
- To end the idiotic war in Iraq and prevent an even more idiotic war in Iran
- To stop the debasement of the dollar and return to a sound currency
- To stop imprisonment without trial
- To stop torture in our name
- To stop extraordinary rendition (outsourced torture)
- To stop wiretapping without warrant
- To stop the empire from bankrupting us
- To ensure a future of freedom rather than tyranny for our posterity
- To stop some horrible civil liberties violations just too numerous to list here.
We find ourselves at a key turning point in the history of our nation. For many decades, we allowed the government to grow in power and take much of our wealth to support welfare programs. It has been a continual loser for us but many of us know nothing else and cannot conceive of freedom. But we owe it to our posterity to preserve and restore freedom. Otherwise they will curse us for our apathy, for putting them in the position of having to physically fight for their freedom back. We can still get it back with a vote. Let's not pass this opportunity by. We won't have another in our lifetimes.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
An Epidemic of Taser torture and death
In the last week, there have been two incidents of police brutality using a Taser in circumstances where it was completely unnecessary. In the two incidents in Florida and California, a peaceful person was arrested for questionable reasons and then tasered for insufficiently quick compliance with police orders.
I am particularly scared by this since in the past, police would be careful to have no witnesses when they used excessive force. In both instances, they did this in front of numerous witnesses and did not mind multiple people video taping close up. This means to me that they believe that the police state is so far advanced that they no longer have to worry about consequences.
I watched three separate videos of the incident in Gainesville FL from different angles. The victim was asking questions politely of John Kerry when, quite suddenly, he was pulled away forcibly by police. He was clearly astonished. I guess he thought that we still live in a free country where there was no penalty for asking a politician an embarrassing question. Well I guess he now knows better. The police state is upon us and torture is OK, not just for Muslims in GITMO but for US citizens as well.
The other astonishing item is that Kerry appeared totally unaware of what was happening. He was actually answering the student's question as he was being tasered in the back of the room. I don't think that he heard the answer.
I think that it is our responsibility right now to visit our respective city councils, county commissions, etc to be sure that they put rules in place to prevent this casual use of Tasers. Police have got this story that they are not lethal and can be used freely. Torture or pain compliance is OK with them. Well torture or pain compliance is not OK with me.
We also have to stress that deaths have occurred and they are not entirely non-lethal. There is risk based on the health of the victim. The officer will likely not know the health of his victim at the time so using a Taser should be considered the use of lethal force. It should not be used except where lethal force would be clearly justified.
One more important point. The neo-con talk radio and TV contingent: Hannitty, O'Reilly and Glen Beck are all laughing at "Taser Boy". They are all down with the police state.
I am particularly scared by this since in the past, police would be careful to have no witnesses when they used excessive force. In both instances, they did this in front of numerous witnesses and did not mind multiple people video taping close up. This means to me that they believe that the police state is so far advanced that they no longer have to worry about consequences.
I watched three separate videos of the incident in Gainesville FL from different angles. The victim was asking questions politely of John Kerry when, quite suddenly, he was pulled away forcibly by police. He was clearly astonished. I guess he thought that we still live in a free country where there was no penalty for asking a politician an embarrassing question. Well I guess he now knows better. The police state is upon us and torture is OK, not just for Muslims in GITMO but for US citizens as well.
The other astonishing item is that Kerry appeared totally unaware of what was happening. He was actually answering the student's question as he was being tasered in the back of the room. I don't think that he heard the answer.
I think that it is our responsibility right now to visit our respective city councils, county commissions, etc to be sure that they put rules in place to prevent this casual use of Tasers. Police have got this story that they are not lethal and can be used freely. Torture or pain compliance is OK with them. Well torture or pain compliance is not OK with me.
We also have to stress that deaths have occurred and they are not entirely non-lethal. There is risk based on the health of the victim. The officer will likely not know the health of his victim at the time so using a Taser should be considered the use of lethal force. It should not be used except where lethal force would be clearly justified.
One more important point. The neo-con talk radio and TV contingent: Hannitty, O'Reilly and Glen Beck are all laughing at "Taser Boy". They are all down with the police state.
An American History Teachers asks
A comment from a teacher of American History
As a teacher of American history I never cease to be impressed with how little the American people understand their history, particularly the relationship between government and society. Many citizens equate "freedom" with the unfettered right to "do their own thing", and that government regulation constitutes an abuse of personal liberty. To me, this is not "liberty", but "license"; excessive undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty. Our freedom as a people has always been tempered by the government's "power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.) I would submit that regulating where smoking is permitted falls within the province of protecting the "general welfare" of society. We would all do well to heed the whole of the U.S. Constitution's provisions, rather than employing a selective "buffet table." Instead of picking and choosing of those liberties which emphasize individual rights we should not subordinate the best interests and general welfare of the whole society.
That a teacher of American History has these opinions is not surprizing. It is also not surprizing that our freedoms are melting away like a snowball in the Florida sun when our kids are taught this.
In so far as the powers of the federal government, they are strictly limited by Article 1 Section 8. It was the intent of the founders to ensure that ordinary citizens would have little contact with the federal government or its laws and that most areas of daily life would be regulated by the states. This desire was reinforced in the Tenth Amendment.
It is certainly true that the government has been able, through disengenuous arguments, to slip the leash of the constitution and we suffer as a result. I remember, even lo these many years later, when I was in the sixth grade, reading an American history book that extolled the virtues of the "elastic clause". They were refering to the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8 and how just about everything could be turned into commerce and thus regulated. The courts ran with that and concurred that congress could even regulate what a farmer planted on his land for his own use and call it commerce.
The intention of the founders and the definition of freedom is that the default position is that people did what they wanted and it was not the business of government, at any level, to interfere unless others rights were being violated in the process. This left some grey areas, but they were to be resolved at the state or lower lever. Certainly not at the federal level.
They also set up a system with checks and balances. Every power had a check, and no law which contradicted the constitution had any effect. Those laws would provide no protection and impose no penalties.
So what was the check they had in mind for silly laws passed by the legislature? It was the twice repeated right to trial by jury for ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS (no deminimus) and ALL CIVIL TRIALS (where more than $20 was at stake). Is that in effect today? Do juries know that they are supposed to judge the law as well as the facts? Of course not! They have never been educated in the basics of what our freedom means and how we are to maintain it. Most don't even know that it needs maintenance.
Now. moving on to the states and their sub divisions, we again have some limits imposed by the Federal constitution and some limits imposed by the state constittuion. We also have the same checks and balances between the Governor, the legislature, the courts and the people through the ballot box and the jury box.
Now to the specific matter of smoking limitations: We have specific protections for our property rights. In both the 5th and 14th amendment. We were promised that we would never be deprived of our property without due process. When the city or county government tells the owner of a bar, restaurant, or such how he may use his property, they diminish its value and deprive him of property without his having committed any prior crime. The proposed statute and that in other cities in the area impose fines for violating this law that will be adjucated in municipal court without benefit of trial by jury.
Yes, I am saying that every single charge needs to be adjudicated by a jury so that the people will have their check on what I consider an unjust law. Will it be very hard to get a conviction? You bet! That is because there is a significant minority that will defend the rights to property and hung juries will be the order of the day. Prosecutors will stop bringing charges and the law will melt away. That is what is supposed to happen to unjust laws. That is how minorities can protect themselves from overbearing, politically driven, majorities. It is a key ingredient to keeping a government in check and governments must be kept in check.
History shows us that, with the passage of time, power leaves the people and goes to government. Government must protect us from all manner of evil. This is why we must always have some demon to fear. In my lifetime it was communists, terrorists, Kadaffi, Saddam, Osama, Islamofascists, druggies, homosexuals, foreigners in general and on without end. Government makes new laws to violate our rights in order to protect us from the demon of the day and the people cheer. "Thus is freedom lost, to wild applause."
Do you teach about the function of juries in your American History class? WHY NOT?
As a teacher of American history I never cease to be impressed with how little the American people understand their history, particularly the relationship between government and society. Many citizens equate "freedom" with the unfettered right to "do their own thing", and that government regulation constitutes an abuse of personal liberty. To me, this is not "liberty", but "license"; excessive undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty. Our freedom as a people has always been tempered by the government's "power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.) I would submit that regulating where smoking is permitted falls within the province of protecting the "general welfare" of society. We would all do well to heed the whole of the U.S. Constitution's provisions, rather than employing a selective "buffet table." Instead of picking and choosing of those liberties which emphasize individual rights we should not subordinate the best interests and general welfare of the whole society.
That a teacher of American History has these opinions is not surprizing. It is also not surprizing that our freedoms are melting away like a snowball in the Florida sun when our kids are taught this.
In so far as the powers of the federal government, they are strictly limited by Article 1 Section 8. It was the intent of the founders to ensure that ordinary citizens would have little contact with the federal government or its laws and that most areas of daily life would be regulated by the states. This desire was reinforced in the Tenth Amendment.
It is certainly true that the government has been able, through disengenuous arguments, to slip the leash of the constitution and we suffer as a result. I remember, even lo these many years later, when I was in the sixth grade, reading an American history book that extolled the virtues of the "elastic clause". They were refering to the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8 and how just about everything could be turned into commerce and thus regulated. The courts ran with that and concurred that congress could even regulate what a farmer planted on his land for his own use and call it commerce.
The intention of the founders and the definition of freedom is that the default position is that people did what they wanted and it was not the business of government, at any level, to interfere unless others rights were being violated in the process. This left some grey areas, but they were to be resolved at the state or lower lever. Certainly not at the federal level.
They also set up a system with checks and balances. Every power had a check, and no law which contradicted the constitution had any effect. Those laws would provide no protection and impose no penalties.
So what was the check they had in mind for silly laws passed by the legislature? It was the twice repeated right to trial by jury for ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS (no deminimus) and ALL CIVIL TRIALS (where more than $20 was at stake). Is that in effect today? Do juries know that they are supposed to judge the law as well as the facts? Of course not! They have never been educated in the basics of what our freedom means and how we are to maintain it. Most don't even know that it needs maintenance.
Now. moving on to the states and their sub divisions, we again have some limits imposed by the Federal constitution and some limits imposed by the state constittuion. We also have the same checks and balances between the Governor, the legislature, the courts and the people through the ballot box and the jury box.
Now to the specific matter of smoking limitations: We have specific protections for our property rights. In both the 5th and 14th amendment. We were promised that we would never be deprived of our property without due process. When the city or county government tells the owner of a bar, restaurant, or such how he may use his property, they diminish its value and deprive him of property without his having committed any prior crime. The proposed statute and that in other cities in the area impose fines for violating this law that will be adjucated in municipal court without benefit of trial by jury.
Yes, I am saying that every single charge needs to be adjudicated by a jury so that the people will have their check on what I consider an unjust law. Will it be very hard to get a conviction? You bet! That is because there is a significant minority that will defend the rights to property and hung juries will be the order of the day. Prosecutors will stop bringing charges and the law will melt away. That is what is supposed to happen to unjust laws. That is how minorities can protect themselves from overbearing, politically driven, majorities. It is a key ingredient to keeping a government in check and governments must be kept in check.
History shows us that, with the passage of time, power leaves the people and goes to government. Government must protect us from all manner of evil. This is why we must always have some demon to fear. In my lifetime it was communists, terrorists, Kadaffi, Saddam, Osama, Islamofascists, druggies, homosexuals, foreigners in general and on without end. Government makes new laws to violate our rights in order to protect us from the demon of the day and the people cheer. "Thus is freedom lost, to wild applause."
Do you teach about the function of juries in your American History class? WHY NOT?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Pro-War Libertarians?
Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Randy Barnett, a self proclaimed libertarian in which he chided anti-war libertarians as giving libertarianism a bad name. He specifically had it in for Ron Paul whose candidacy, he thought, would set back the cause of libertarianism by scaring off the pro-war folks.
The logic was so perverse that I was moved to write a Letter to the Editor. Alas, my letter was not published so I am reproducing it below for your reading pleasure.
Start letter:
Randy Barnett in "Libertarians and the War", (7/17/2007) sure has a funny idea of Libertarian philosophy and moral standards.
The first principle of a libertarian is non-aggression. One must never initiate force against another. Clearly this leaves plenty of room for self defense, where the other party initiated the force. So, to determine the morality of the Iraq War, we must ask ourselves if the force we applied to Iraq and its people was, in fact justified as self defense. If it was not, it is mass murder.
Mr. Barnett attempts to paint a picture where our nation, having been attacked by a handful of Muslims on 9/11 and some earlier incidents where the number of aggressors was small, can now attack all or any of 800 million Muslims in the world and call it self defense.
I think not! This is using the principle of group guilt. This is the same principle used by Hitler to massacre Jews and Stalin to kill any anti-communists he could find. This is not a fit principle for this nation or any nation that claims the moral high ground.
We also know that the first excuse given for the invasion, to defend ourselves against the imminent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction was not just false, it was known false by our government as it was being claimed. We are probably approaching one million dead souls from this war and all that blood is on the hands of this administration.
Anyone who self identifies himself as a Libertarian but thinks the invasion of Iraq was justified needs a refresher course in our principles. Congressman Paul understands these principles quite well and none of the other Republican candidates even comes close.
The logic was so perverse that I was moved to write a Letter to the Editor. Alas, my letter was not published so I am reproducing it below for your reading pleasure.
Start letter:
Randy Barnett in "Libertarians and the War", (7/17/2007) sure has a funny idea of Libertarian philosophy and moral standards.
The first principle of a libertarian is non-aggression. One must never initiate force against another. Clearly this leaves plenty of room for self defense, where the other party initiated the force. So, to determine the morality of the Iraq War, we must ask ourselves if the force we applied to Iraq and its people was, in fact justified as self defense. If it was not, it is mass murder.
Mr. Barnett attempts to paint a picture where our nation, having been attacked by a handful of Muslims on 9/11 and some earlier incidents where the number of aggressors was small, can now attack all or any of 800 million Muslims in the world and call it self defense.
I think not! This is using the principle of group guilt. This is the same principle used by Hitler to massacre Jews and Stalin to kill any anti-communists he could find. This is not a fit principle for this nation or any nation that claims the moral high ground.
We also know that the first excuse given for the invasion, to defend ourselves against the imminent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction was not just false, it was known false by our government as it was being claimed. We are probably approaching one million dead souls from this war and all that blood is on the hands of this administration.
Anyone who self identifies himself as a Libertarian but thinks the invasion of Iraq was justified needs a refresher course in our principles. Congressman Paul understands these principles quite well and none of the other Republican candidates even comes close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)