Social security was created because it was a moral imperative that every senior citizen is provided for, at least at a minimum level. Every working person pays social security first, they may be exempt from income taxes but not from social security. Because it was considered a moral imperative, every working person pays into social security, with the only exception being clergy who may choose to opt out. This moral imperative is so great, that we insist that everybody make a sacrifice so that the old and infirm don’t suffer.
The solutions liberals offer to pay for universal health care are; to tax those who earn more than $500K per year, a Cadillac tax on those who purchase good health insurance, and/or borrow the money and let our grand children figure out how to pay for it. Liberals insist that universal health care be paid for by "the rich", instead of being borne by everybody equally. If universal health care is a moral imperative, shouldn't the payment of universal health care be borne by everybody equally, just like social security?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
It's A New Year
Happy New Year everybody! Thanks for reading my blog, from comments in emails, FB, and other places it has become increasingly evident that a lot of people are libertarian and don't know it, and an significant number of people don't understand libertarian ideas, and some people really don't understand what bigger and bigger government does to liberty. Since reading dry political books, papers, articles and even blogs, on ideas that are new or you don't agree, is not going to happen. I've created a short list of fun books, all with action, good characters, and interesting commentary on liberty and government. Here is my New Years Recommended Fiction reading for understanding libertarian thought and the results of Too Much Government. Because some of you are like me, Frugal, (the quote some of my friends use is "cheap bastard"), these books can be acquired on the web as an eBook for free.
Little Brother - Cory Doctorow
Freehold - Michael Z. Williamson
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein
Rebel Moon - VoxDay
I don't expect them to change anybody's political view, but hopefully you can enjoy a good read, and gain some understanding on libertarian thought.
Have a Happy New Year
2Bfree
a.k.a Tom Rhodes
PS: To bring in the New Year, I leave you with a few random quotes, by people with much more gravitas than I, on Liberty and Government:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ~ Thomas Jefferson
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place(d) under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? ~ Thomas Jefferson
“To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.” ~ Otto von Bismark
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. ~ Mark Twain
A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it. ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill
No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. ~ New York Judge Gideon Tucker
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. ~ John Quincy Adams
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ~ Thomas Jefferson
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. ~ Thomas B. Macaulay
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ~ Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. ~ Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson
There ought to be one day - just one - when there is open season on senators. ~ Will Rogers
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. ~ Thomas Jefferson
All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. ~ John Adams
Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. ~ John Adams
Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power. ~ John Adams
Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws. ~ John Adams
While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill - little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago. ~ John Adams
Little Brother - Cory Doctorow
Freehold - Michael Z. Williamson
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein
Rebel Moon - VoxDay
I don't expect them to change anybody's political view, but hopefully you can enjoy a good read, and gain some understanding on libertarian thought.
Have a Happy New Year
2Bfree
a.k.a Tom Rhodes
PS: To bring in the New Year, I leave you with a few random quotes, by people with much more gravitas than I, on Liberty and Government:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ~ Thomas Jefferson
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place(d) under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? ~ Thomas Jefferson
“To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.” ~ Otto von Bismark
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. ~ Mark Twain
A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it. ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill
No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. ~ New York Judge Gideon Tucker
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. ~ John Quincy Adams
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ~ Thomas Jefferson
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. ~ Thomas B. Macaulay
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ~ Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. ~ Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson
There ought to be one day - just one - when there is open season on senators. ~ Will Rogers
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. ~ Thomas Jefferson
All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. ~ John Adams
Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. ~ John Adams
Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power. ~ John Adams
Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws. ~ John Adams
While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill - little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago. ~ John Adams
Monday, December 28, 2009
Obama Orders End to Individual Rights
Two weeks ago, President Obama signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law. Until then Interpol's property and assets were subject to search and seizure, and it was bound by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans. These limitations prevent the government authority from becoming tyrannical.
Consistent with his Marxist actions, following the historic practices of other Socialist/Marxist leaders, on Wednesday, December 16, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13524 to do an end run around the constitution and eliminate the constitutional restrictions that protect individuals in the United States. This single Executive Order allows a government agency that is not accountable to the US citizens the right to ignore constitutional limits and have virtual unlimited authority over the people of the United States. Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives can no longer be touched by the US citizens. Interpol's U.S. headquarters are in the Justice Department in Washington D.C., Why would our government allow or want police data to be stored in the Justice Department and not be suject to US Constitutional restraints? Why is it necessary to have a government agency (not a US agency), to be exempt from constitutional limitations? How can any "police" be exempt from the protections the constitutions offers to it's citizens? Interpol can now use illegal means to gather “evidence” against US citizens, arrest US citizens, and prosecute us without any of our normal constitutional protections.
This has to be the scariest disregard for the individual rights of people of the United States thus far Obama has shown. Obama took an oath swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This action not only doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; it clearly weakens and is designed to get around the constitutional restrictions on government authority.
This can only be described as a violation of his oath and an act of treason.
Consistent with his Marxist actions, following the historic practices of other Socialist/Marxist leaders, on Wednesday, December 16, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13524 to do an end run around the constitution and eliminate the constitutional restrictions that protect individuals in the United States. This single Executive Order allows a government agency that is not accountable to the US citizens the right to ignore constitutional limits and have virtual unlimited authority over the people of the United States. Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives can no longer be touched by the US citizens. Interpol's U.S. headquarters are in the Justice Department in Washington D.C., Why would our government allow or want police data to be stored in the Justice Department and not be suject to US Constitutional restraints? Why is it necessary to have a government agency (not a US agency), to be exempt from constitutional limitations? How can any "police" be exempt from the protections the constitutions offers to it's citizens? Interpol can now use illegal means to gather “evidence” against US citizens, arrest US citizens, and prosecute us without any of our normal constitutional protections.
This has to be the scariest disregard for the individual rights of people of the United States thus far Obama has shown. Obama took an oath swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This action not only doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; it clearly weakens and is designed to get around the constitutional restrictions on government authority.
This can only be described as a violation of his oath and an act of treason.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Arbitrary Power, Dictatorship, and Health Care
Arbitrary Power, Dictatorship, and Health Care
Posted By John David Lewis On December 22, 2009 at Pajamasmedia.com
The essence of a dictator's method is not to write harsh laws and enforce them rigidly. The world's most destructive thugs have wanted something different. They have wanted to impose their wills on a compliant populace using arbitrary power -- power not limited by laws or constitution, but power that was open-ended, ill-defined, and could be expanded based on the whims of the moment.
Well-written laws are the enemy of the dictator. As philosopher Ayn Rand put it, “When men are united by ideas, i.e., by explicit principles, there is no room for favors, whims, or arbitrary power: the principles serve as an objective criterion for determining actions and for judging men, whether leaders or members.” Laws, properly formulated, are based on principles, and serve to translate those principles into firm criteria for judging particular cases. What a dictator wants is to be free of such principles and to use his power as he wishes.
This provides a good basis for judging legislation today. Does a law or a bill constrain the power of officials -- both elected and appointed -- by the principles of the law? Or does it empower the officials to define the meaning of the law as they wish, to apply it in an open-ended manner, and to write regulations in order to expand their power?
Consider one example today: H.R. 3962, the ‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act” recently passed by the House of Representatives. Even a summary perusal of its 1,990 pages shows an enormous scope for arbitrary definitions, applications, and regulations according to the decisions of unelected administrators. Here are a few passages to illustrate:
To determine what constitutes the “satisfaction of health care coverage participation requirements” under the 1974 ERISA rules, “the secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this part-- (Sec. 421). Readers of the bill who try to discover what constitutes an “interim final rule” will find that this is up to the secretary -- i.e., the bureaucrats -- to determine.
With respect to the so-called “temporary high-risk pool program,” a program to be run until the so-called health care exchanges are established: “If the secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists” (Sec. 101). Who gets care, and what it will cost, will be up to the secretary.
Officials may gather whatever taxpayer information they decide is necessary. “The secretary shall collect such data as may be required to establish premiums and payment rates for the public health insurance option and for other purposes under this subtitle -- (Sec. 321). Section 412 requires employers to submit “such information as the commissioner may require” to multiple federal agencies.
The bill institutionalizes such coercions by establishing over one hundred new commissioners, boards, committees, and programs, each with its own area of control. (For a list, see here.)
America is not a dictatorship. These bills are available for us to read, and we are able to discuss them openly, to agree or to disagree, and to speak and write about them in forums both public and private. But we will not be free to escape either the regulations which a faceless bureaucracy will write in order to enforce its edicts, or the decisions made by such bureaucrats over our lives.
If you are an employer, you will not escape punishment if a bureaucrat decides that your health plan is not “acceptable” and that you must be fined for your failure to meet his decision. If you are an individual who does not want to purchase full-coverage health insurance, but would rather buy catastrophic insurance that covers hospitalization only, your decision will not be “acceptable” and you may face a government audit and a new tax.
Do you have a serious disease? Does your doctor wish to readmit you to the hospital? A bureaucrat will decide whether or not you get treatment, based on a statistical analysis of the number of such readmissions by the bureaucrats: “excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital” (Sec. 1151).
The scope of power here extends to the very definitions of terms within the law. This leaves the meaning of the law fluid and subject to the will of the bureaucrats. Section 1151 continues: “The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the secretary among conditions and procedures for which (i) readmissions (as defined in subparagraph (E)) that represent conditions or procedures that are high volume or high expenditures under this title (or other criteria specified by the secretary).”
No, America is not yet a dictatorship. But we can ask ourselves whether the essence of such a dictatorship -- and its institutional foundations -- are not being built into federal law now. The scope of action available to federal administrators is widening today at a blinding speed. No proper reform of health care -- or any other area of life -- can be accomplished by the progressive, open-ended empowerment of government officials against defenseless American citizens.
Dr. John David Lewis is Visiting Associate Professor in the Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program at Duke University. His most recent book is Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History (Princeton, 2010). His website is johndavidlewis.com
[Blogger's Note] Interesting way to look at it.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Copenhagen, The UN War Against Free Enterprise
In my past blogs, in the news, and on the net it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Previous posts listed quotes of environmental leaders that clearly noted that the science didn’t matter, that it was an “opportunity” for social justice.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world," Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, Calgary Herald, Dec. 14, 1998.
Copenhagen was not about saving the planet, or global warming, or climate change. It is the majority of UN nations (dictators, despots, socialist juntas, and all), wanting to end free market economics. The majority of less fortunate countries have significantly less economic freedom than the wealthier countries. Read the Handbook on Economic Freedom, or Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report.
Comparing the countries on the ranking chart for economic freedom to the activities at Copenhagen, it is clear that what they are trying to do at Copenhagen is transfer money from economically free countries to mostly economically un-free countries. Proof that Copenhagen is a war against capitalism, not a science based reaction to mans activities, comes from the words spoke to the general audience at Copenhagen.
“…our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” ~ Hugo Chavez, COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference, December 7-18, 2009.
From the writings and speeches of the proponents of dramatically changing the way everybody lives to stop “global warming”, the obvious agenda is against free market economics. The hostility towards free markets is based on some unfounded assumptions. 1) Since free markets allow some people to get “rich,” while others remain “poor,” the free market system is itself unjust; 2) The accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means; 3) The re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is the only means of attaining “social justice”. These are the same tired old Marxist arguments for socialism that history has repeatedly proven to be false, detrimental to society, and lead to more deaths in the last century than all the religious wars in history combined.
The first assumption that because some people receive more than others in a free market society, that it is unjust doesn’t take into consideration individuals. Societies are made of individuals not groups. Some individuals are smarter, more industrious, stronger, and/or more charming than others. In a free market, society rewards individuals based on the benefit they offer their fellow man. Tiger Woods is a charming, good looking, man who can hit a golf ball better than anybody else, and does it with style, and has a reputation for putting in more hour practicing and improving his craft than anybody else. Other individuals in society are willing to pay to watch him or have him promote their product, literally millions of individuals in society pay extra for products, or pay directly to watch him, thus he was richly rewarded. No person, or any corporation was forced to give Tiger money, he was rewarded voluntarily. His rewards were commensurate with what the rest of society voluntarily thought his work was worth. Tiger has now greatly hurt what society is willing to pay him to watch him hit a ball. Individuals in society have determined that his actions in breaking his marriage contract with his wife, that they no longer are willing to pay to see him hit a golf ball. Is that fair, why should he be paid less to hit a ball than he used to be paid? Because the benefit he provided to society is not as valuable. He was paid huge sums of money because the combination of skills, talent, work ethic, and charm he cultivated were rare and valuable. The same reason a schlepping tacos is paid little, the skill, talent and charm required to prepare a taco are low, and common. Would you pay $100 to for a taco? Of course not, but millions pay $100 or more to see a play, a sporting event, or go to a concert, because we feel it is worth the money, and are willing to exchange $100 of our labor, for the labor of some other to entertain us. This is a free market voluntary action. People are rewarded based on what other are willing to reward them for their service. Why should a person who is unwilling to take advantage of the education offered, un willing to do what has proven to lead to success and independence, be giving the fruits of the labor of people who do?
The second assumption that the accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means is even sillier. Again Tiger Woods has accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars. How did he unjustly accumulate that wealth, nobody nor any company has ever been forced to give him a dime. The only unjust means I currently see in our US economy is large corporations buying off government officials to create laws to stifle completion. Our current system can and should be referred to as “Corporatism” not free enterprise, as the government has created huge hurdles for new business to get into any market thru excessive regulation.
Attaining “social justice” through the re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, exactly what Copenhagen is calling for, has been proven to only benefit the ruling elite, and send the remaining part of society into relative poverty. Look at the average Cuban for proof. Better yet, look at the Chinese, who have shown that as they move their economic system towards capitalism their standard of living is increasing. A final example Zimbabwe, which was called the breadbasket of Africa, exported huge amounts food until the Land reform in Zimbabwe redistributed wealth from “rich” is now starving and dependent on food aid.
AGW is just another excuse for Marxist elitists and despots of the world to try and gain control, and punish countries that are successful.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world," Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, Calgary Herald, Dec. 14, 1998.
Copenhagen was not about saving the planet, or global warming, or climate change. It is the majority of UN nations (dictators, despots, socialist juntas, and all), wanting to end free market economics. The majority of less fortunate countries have significantly less economic freedom than the wealthier countries. Read the Handbook on Economic Freedom, or Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report.
Comparing the countries on the ranking chart for economic freedom to the activities at Copenhagen, it is clear that what they are trying to do at Copenhagen is transfer money from economically free countries to mostly economically un-free countries. Proof that Copenhagen is a war against capitalism, not a science based reaction to mans activities, comes from the words spoke to the general audience at Copenhagen.
“…our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” ~ Hugo Chavez, COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference, December 7-18, 2009.
From the writings and speeches of the proponents of dramatically changing the way everybody lives to stop “global warming”, the obvious agenda is against free market economics. The hostility towards free markets is based on some unfounded assumptions. 1) Since free markets allow some people to get “rich,” while others remain “poor,” the free market system is itself unjust; 2) The accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means; 3) The re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is the only means of attaining “social justice”. These are the same tired old Marxist arguments for socialism that history has repeatedly proven to be false, detrimental to society, and lead to more deaths in the last century than all the religious wars in history combined.
The first assumption that because some people receive more than others in a free market society, that it is unjust doesn’t take into consideration individuals. Societies are made of individuals not groups. Some individuals are smarter, more industrious, stronger, and/or more charming than others. In a free market, society rewards individuals based on the benefit they offer their fellow man. Tiger Woods is a charming, good looking, man who can hit a golf ball better than anybody else, and does it with style, and has a reputation for putting in more hour practicing and improving his craft than anybody else. Other individuals in society are willing to pay to watch him or have him promote their product, literally millions of individuals in society pay extra for products, or pay directly to watch him, thus he was richly rewarded. No person, or any corporation was forced to give Tiger money, he was rewarded voluntarily. His rewards were commensurate with what the rest of society voluntarily thought his work was worth. Tiger has now greatly hurt what society is willing to pay him to watch him hit a ball. Individuals in society have determined that his actions in breaking his marriage contract with his wife, that they no longer are willing to pay to see him hit a golf ball. Is that fair, why should he be paid less to hit a ball than he used to be paid? Because the benefit he provided to society is not as valuable. He was paid huge sums of money because the combination of skills, talent, work ethic, and charm he cultivated were rare and valuable. The same reason a schlepping tacos is paid little, the skill, talent and charm required to prepare a taco are low, and common. Would you pay $100 to for a taco? Of course not, but millions pay $100 or more to see a play, a sporting event, or go to a concert, because we feel it is worth the money, and are willing to exchange $100 of our labor, for the labor of some other to entertain us. This is a free market voluntary action. People are rewarded based on what other are willing to reward them for their service. Why should a person who is unwilling to take advantage of the education offered, un willing to do what has proven to lead to success and independence, be giving the fruits of the labor of people who do?
The second assumption that the accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means is even sillier. Again Tiger Woods has accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars. How did he unjustly accumulate that wealth, nobody nor any company has ever been forced to give him a dime. The only unjust means I currently see in our US economy is large corporations buying off government officials to create laws to stifle completion. Our current system can and should be referred to as “Corporatism” not free enterprise, as the government has created huge hurdles for new business to get into any market thru excessive regulation.
Attaining “social justice” through the re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, exactly what Copenhagen is calling for, has been proven to only benefit the ruling elite, and send the remaining part of society into relative poverty. Look at the average Cuban for proof. Better yet, look at the Chinese, who have shown that as they move their economic system towards capitalism their standard of living is increasing. A final example Zimbabwe, which was called the breadbasket of Africa, exported huge amounts food until the Land reform in Zimbabwe redistributed wealth from “rich” is now starving and dependent on food aid.
AGW is just another excuse for Marxist elitists and despots of the world to try and gain control, and punish countries that are successful.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thomas Jefferson: Fortune Teller
If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied … I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. ~ Thomas JeffersonJefferson was a true Renaissance man, probably a genius. He was a noted inventor, archaeologist, arechitect, scholor of history, political philosopher, and masterful politician. What I didn't know was he was also a fortune teller. If he couldn't see the future how else could he have written so accurately a description of todays monitary environment?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Stupid Stuff the Legislature is Doing
I can’t believe it, consider the mess we’re in, the economy is in the tank and like FDR’s New Deal, the obscene spending by Obama is driving us into depression. Jobs are still going away, and my paycheck is worth a lot less. If I were getting paid in gold not dollars I receive 33% less than I did before I ever head of Obama. So what are our legislatures doing? They are wasting time, and costing us all money, creating regulations to control the volume of TV commercials. The House bill is H.R.1084 and the Senate bill is S.2847. The stupidity and arrogance of the people in Washington is beyond ludicrous.
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said "It's an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., created the bill when she heard that the FCC had been getting complaints about commercial volumes being louder than program volumes for year. Don’t think that this is just more of the Democrats trying to regulate everything we do, the Republicans are just as guilty. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., when asked a reasonable question on why Congress is involved said, "You can say, 'Well, that's fine. Just turn it off, but it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up."
Now Congress can and is regulating anything that’s “annoying” or irritating. It’s annoying that I have to wait in line at the grocery store because there are only 3 checkout clerks when the store has registers for up to 10, it’s irritating that I can hear children playing in a nearby park at 8am on Saturdays when I’m trying to sleep in, it’s really annoying having to watch and listen to airplanes flying over the beach towing signs advertising drink specials at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You don’t have a right to not be annoyed, my desire to not wait in line doesn’t create a reason for the federal government to force a private business to hire more clerks, nor to make kids soccer games start after 10am on weekends, nor does my desire to have a serine day at the beach uninterrupted by advertising allow the federal government to limit others to expressing their views in that public place (even commercial views).
If you don’t want commercials louder than the rest of the TV show, then use PPV for your games, use the internet for your TV, etc. If you want free convenient, inexpensive TV entertainment, you have to put up with commercials, they pay for it not you, so the guy paying the bills should be able to determine how the commercial he wants his commercial displayed and heard. Your non-right not to be “annoyed” does not supersede his real first amendment right of freedom of speech. In as much as watching TV is truly a voluntary thing, and nobody is forced to watch commercial TV, and you are free to choose PBS or other non-commercial TV venue, or any of the for pay TV channels via cable or satellite, what possible justification can there be for congress passing a law abridging the freedom of speech, and it is abridging the freedom of speech of the advertiser.
This is another example of Too Much Government and very stupid legislation and clear disregard for constitutional limits to the federal government. It is obscene for or federal government to be doing stupid stuff like this.
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said "It's an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., created the bill when she heard that the FCC had been getting complaints about commercial volumes being louder than program volumes for year. Don’t think that this is just more of the Democrats trying to regulate everything we do, the Republicans are just as guilty. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., when asked a reasonable question on why Congress is involved said, "You can say, 'Well, that's fine. Just turn it off, but it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up."
Now Congress can and is regulating anything that’s “annoying” or irritating. It’s annoying that I have to wait in line at the grocery store because there are only 3 checkout clerks when the store has registers for up to 10, it’s irritating that I can hear children playing in a nearby park at 8am on Saturdays when I’m trying to sleep in, it’s really annoying having to watch and listen to airplanes flying over the beach towing signs advertising drink specials at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You don’t have a right to not be annoyed, my desire to not wait in line doesn’t create a reason for the federal government to force a private business to hire more clerks, nor to make kids soccer games start after 10am on weekends, nor does my desire to have a serine day at the beach uninterrupted by advertising allow the federal government to limit others to expressing their views in that public place (even commercial views).
If you don’t want commercials louder than the rest of the TV show, then use PPV for your games, use the internet for your TV, etc. If you want free convenient, inexpensive TV entertainment, you have to put up with commercials, they pay for it not you, so the guy paying the bills should be able to determine how the commercial he wants his commercial displayed and heard. Your non-right not to be “annoyed” does not supersede his real first amendment right of freedom of speech. In as much as watching TV is truly a voluntary thing, and nobody is forced to watch commercial TV, and you are free to choose PBS or other non-commercial TV venue, or any of the for pay TV channels via cable or satellite, what possible justification can there be for congress passing a law abridging the freedom of speech, and it is abridging the freedom of speech of the advertiser.
This is another example of Too Much Government and very stupid legislation and clear disregard for constitutional limits to the federal government. It is obscene for or federal government to be doing stupid stuff like this.
Socialism in Stages: Governments Produce Poverty
Note: This is a great article on the influence of socialism on our capitalistic society and a good basic document on economics.
Enjoy
2Bfree
Socialism in Stages
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.
By Dan Oliver Jr.
America debated three strategies during the Cold War. The Right wanted “roll back” — dreams of Patton driving his tank into Red Square. The Left wanted détente — which is French for “surrender.” The country loosely followed containment, a program outlined by George Kennan in 1946, which argued that the political contradictions of the Soviet state would eventually cause its own demise. America had but to be patient.
Kennan may have been the first to realize that a society based on Communism would not survive politically, but it was Ludwig von Mises, in his 1922 work Socialism, who demonstrated that any such society could not survive economically.
When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.
Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.
If the hard socialism of Communism produces economic and societal collapse quickly, Mises theorized, the soft, incremental socialism of the West — popularized again recently as the “Third Way” by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton — would produce poverty in stages. Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.
Health care is a perfect example of the incremental socialization process. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid began by providing limited assistance to the old and the indigent. As health-care costs rose, these programs were expanded and new ones, such as S-CHIP, were added. The government now pays 32 percent of all non-military health-care bills, up from 6 percent in 1960. The remaining private expenditures are heavily regulated, resulting in the anticipated economic chaos. Under Obamacare, the situation can only grow worse. As P. J. O’Rourke quipped: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Housing provides another example. Today, 71 years after Fannie Mae was founded, the central government provides a stunning 90 percent of the liquidity in the mortgage market, enabled by the Federal Reserve’s repurchase of 85 percent of new mortgages with freshly printed money. Banking is next.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was the zenith of the conservative movement’s attempt to defeat Communism and limit government. Internationally, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and military support of anti-Communist movements gave teeth to containment. Nine years later, the Soviet Union fell. Domestically, Reagan promised to get government off our backs by reducing taxes to starve Leviathan. Instead, politicians made up the shortfall with deficits, which soared as government grew relentlessly under both political parties. Twenty-nine years after Reagan’s election, the federal government spends 37 cents of every dollar in the economy. Operation Rollback as applied to the federal government has failed.
The economic laws described by Mises that brought down Communism apply equally to the American brand of soft socialism. Market forces will soon lay waste to American central planning just as surely as they did to the Soviet version two decades ago. The crises in housing, health care, and banking, the inevitable results of government intervention, are but harbingers of greater instability in our way of life. If Republicans wish to stay relevant, they must return to their conservative roots.
— Dan Oliver Jr. is Founder of Myrmikan Capital, LLC. He has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an MBA from INSEAD.
Original Article
Enjoy
2Bfree
Socialism in Stages
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.
By Dan Oliver Jr.
America debated three strategies during the Cold War. The Right wanted “roll back” — dreams of Patton driving his tank into Red Square. The Left wanted détente — which is French for “surrender.” The country loosely followed containment, a program outlined by George Kennan in 1946, which argued that the political contradictions of the Soviet state would eventually cause its own demise. America had but to be patient.
Kennan may have been the first to realize that a society based on Communism would not survive politically, but it was Ludwig von Mises, in his 1922 work Socialism, who demonstrated that any such society could not survive economically.
When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.
Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.
If the hard socialism of Communism produces economic and societal collapse quickly, Mises theorized, the soft, incremental socialism of the West — popularized again recently as the “Third Way” by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton — would produce poverty in stages. Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.
Health care is a perfect example of the incremental socialization process. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid began by providing limited assistance to the old and the indigent. As health-care costs rose, these programs were expanded and new ones, such as S-CHIP, were added. The government now pays 32 percent of all non-military health-care bills, up from 6 percent in 1960. The remaining private expenditures are heavily regulated, resulting in the anticipated economic chaos. Under Obamacare, the situation can only grow worse. As P. J. O’Rourke quipped: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”
Housing provides another example. Today, 71 years after Fannie Mae was founded, the central government provides a stunning 90 percent of the liquidity in the mortgage market, enabled by the Federal Reserve’s repurchase of 85 percent of new mortgages with freshly printed money. Banking is next.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was the zenith of the conservative movement’s attempt to defeat Communism and limit government. Internationally, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and military support of anti-Communist movements gave teeth to containment. Nine years later, the Soviet Union fell. Domestically, Reagan promised to get government off our backs by reducing taxes to starve Leviathan. Instead, politicians made up the shortfall with deficits, which soared as government grew relentlessly under both political parties. Twenty-nine years after Reagan’s election, the federal government spends 37 cents of every dollar in the economy. Operation Rollback as applied to the federal government has failed.
The economic laws described by Mises that brought down Communism apply equally to the American brand of soft socialism. Market forces will soon lay waste to American central planning just as surely as they did to the Soviet version two decades ago. The crises in housing, health care, and banking, the inevitable results of government intervention, are but harbingers of greater instability in our way of life. If Republicans wish to stay relevant, they must return to their conservative roots.
— Dan Oliver Jr. is Founder of Myrmikan Capital, LLC. He has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an MBA from INSEAD.
Original Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
