Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolution. Show all posts
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Please Watch These
I know he takes some criticism and sometimes seems inconsistent; but, he is pretty much the only guy saying the things that need to be said. You would think self-avowed "Communists" being appointed to positions of power in government would make newspaper headlines, heck that should be the lead story, but the mainstream media is far too cozy with government, fears losing "access" to celebrity politicians and their credibility, importance and necessity suffer as a result.
Friday, August 7, 2009
This gentlemen, is my profound conviction: I believe we are at this moment sleeping on a volcano.
The political dialogue in America is starting to get riotous. But to highlight the justness of those opposing ever larger government, consider the following:
You must first understand that people have a natural right to their life, property and freedom and that this is regardless of the protection of any formal legal framework ... these are inherent rights that you have as a human being. And that no action or inaction on the part of one person should create a liability on the part of any other unless they have voluntarily contracted to be responsible. For example, if my neighbor falls off the roof of his house and breaks his arm, what part of his medical bill should I be forced to pay for? If I am in a car accident and in a wheelchair for life, what part of my lifetime care should YOU be now FORCED to pay for? Would it be okay if I came to your house with a gun and forcibly demanded or took the money? Is it okay if I get someone else to do it on my behalf? Is it okay if they have a badge when they do it?
In any group of ten people, not even six (a majority) or nine has the right to take away any other's life, property or freedom except as just compensation for damages created by someone first violating one's rights. (ie: you can't take somebody's property away except as compensation for some harm they have first done to you and even then only with due process of law). So, even if you mean to do great things with someone else's money, it gives you no right to forcibly extract it from them (taxes, for example, are government force: threat of confiscation of your property, threat of violence, threat of destruction of your life, career, reputation, family or revocation of your freedom.)
The Health Care debate is bringing thousands of people out of the wood work to fight back against ever encroaching government control of our lives and our economy. Most people don't know the difference between Health Insurance or "prepaid Healthcare". Health insurance is typically intended for those things that might happen just like auto insurance is in case you have an accident. Auto insurance doesn't cover keeping the car operating well, replacing the tires or changing the oil. Nor can you get auto insurance to cover an accident AFTER you've had the accident (that is a pre-existing condition).
Prepaid healthcare is just that. You're prepaying ahead of time (generally as part of a collective group who have volunteered to participate in a plan) for your doctor visits, shots, prescriptions, eye glasses or whatever else. A third party typically administers the program and that third party has their own needs to pay staff, have computer systems and offices and earn a profit. Thus, you're paying somebody else to 'take the bet' that you'll, on average, spend less in health care than you are paying them to cover on your behalf.
Very few know the tax preferences to employers, that Democrats regularly and routinely have voted down giving tax incentives for medical savings accounts to citizens or that Congress actually mandated HMOs in the 1970s. Few know that Democrats have blocked attempts for years to increase competition for health insurance which would have lowered costs. Few consider the employer provided health coverage was at one time a "benefit" used to lure the best talent to such employer and the practice generally spread, via the free market competition for labor resources, to the point where now everyone expects somebody else to pick up and cover their medical bills.
Few understand that government provided healthcare currently doesn't pay market rates and this transfers the shortfall and additional administrative expense to the rest of us. Or that when there is less money to be made as a doctor or in inventing some new life saving drug, there will, indeed, be fewer of them to help us. Senator Jim Demint recently commented that this cost transfer increases everyone's health care costs by as much as 33%.
This issue is very complex and demands an understanding of history, technological advance, the regulatory environment, economics and human nature. I trust very few of our elected popularity contest winners, who are constantly besieged by lobbyists, special interests or the "rationally greedy" (as my friend Matt Nettleton recently pointed out) to be educated and principled enough to properly put all of these things in perspective. This is not because they are unintelligent; but, perhaps more so because a main reason for keeping government small and unobtrusive is that the free market always works better at absorbing and responding to these things than any one individual could ever possibly orchestrate from on high. Central planning doesn't work, just ask the U.S.S.R ... oh, you can't now. It is unfair to expect our politicians to be 'omniscient experts in everything' and able to foresee and correct for all unintended consequences.
The two things that have skyrocketed in cost over the past few decades are education and health care. Both things that government is deeply involved in not only via policy, but via subsidy. Do you really think a college education could cost what it does today if the government didn't subsidize people mortgaging their future with low interest, guaranteed loans? Do we really think government complexity, regulation and massive reliance on third-party payers has lowered the cost?
My initial thought in going down this path was this. Those who do not wish their rights taken away by out of control government and its elected, appointed or 'hired bureaucrat' representatives are starting to stir, and I am reminded of this great excerpt from a speech given by Alexis De Tocqueville in 1848.
------
as an addendum - please see the following link to see an example of the increasing tensions:
http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2009/08/07/seiu-thugs-attack-black-conservative/
You must first understand that people have a natural right to their life, property and freedom and that this is regardless of the protection of any formal legal framework ... these are inherent rights that you have as a human being. And that no action or inaction on the part of one person should create a liability on the part of any other unless they have voluntarily contracted to be responsible. For example, if my neighbor falls off the roof of his house and breaks his arm, what part of his medical bill should I be forced to pay for? If I am in a car accident and in a wheelchair for life, what part of my lifetime care should YOU be now FORCED to pay for? Would it be okay if I came to your house with a gun and forcibly demanded or took the money? Is it okay if I get someone else to do it on my behalf? Is it okay if they have a badge when they do it?
In any group of ten people, not even six (a majority) or nine has the right to take away any other's life, property or freedom except as just compensation for damages created by someone first violating one's rights. (ie: you can't take somebody's property away except as compensation for some harm they have first done to you and even then only with due process of law). So, even if you mean to do great things with someone else's money, it gives you no right to forcibly extract it from them (taxes, for example, are government force: threat of confiscation of your property, threat of violence, threat of destruction of your life, career, reputation, family or revocation of your freedom.)
The Health Care debate is bringing thousands of people out of the wood work to fight back against ever encroaching government control of our lives and our economy. Most people don't know the difference between Health Insurance or "prepaid Healthcare". Health insurance is typically intended for those things that might happen just like auto insurance is in case you have an accident. Auto insurance doesn't cover keeping the car operating well, replacing the tires or changing the oil. Nor can you get auto insurance to cover an accident AFTER you've had the accident (that is a pre-existing condition).
Prepaid healthcare is just that. You're prepaying ahead of time (generally as part of a collective group who have volunteered to participate in a plan) for your doctor visits, shots, prescriptions, eye glasses or whatever else. A third party typically administers the program and that third party has their own needs to pay staff, have computer systems and offices and earn a profit. Thus, you're paying somebody else to 'take the bet' that you'll, on average, spend less in health care than you are paying them to cover on your behalf.
Very few know the tax preferences to employers, that Democrats regularly and routinely have voted down giving tax incentives for medical savings accounts to citizens or that Congress actually mandated HMOs in the 1970s. Few know that Democrats have blocked attempts for years to increase competition for health insurance which would have lowered costs. Few consider the employer provided health coverage was at one time a "benefit" used to lure the best talent to such employer and the practice generally spread, via the free market competition for labor resources, to the point where now everyone expects somebody else to pick up and cover their medical bills.
Few understand that government provided healthcare currently doesn't pay market rates and this transfers the shortfall and additional administrative expense to the rest of us. Or that when there is less money to be made as a doctor or in inventing some new life saving drug, there will, indeed, be fewer of them to help us. Senator Jim Demint recently commented that this cost transfer increases everyone's health care costs by as much as 33%.
This issue is very complex and demands an understanding of history, technological advance, the regulatory environment, economics and human nature. I trust very few of our elected popularity contest winners, who are constantly besieged by lobbyists, special interests or the "rationally greedy" (as my friend Matt Nettleton recently pointed out) to be educated and principled enough to properly put all of these things in perspective. This is not because they are unintelligent; but, perhaps more so because a main reason for keeping government small and unobtrusive is that the free market always works better at absorbing and responding to these things than any one individual could ever possibly orchestrate from on high. Central planning doesn't work, just ask the U.S.S.R ... oh, you can't now. It is unfair to expect our politicians to be 'omniscient experts in everything' and able to foresee and correct for all unintended consequences.
The two things that have skyrocketed in cost over the past few decades are education and health care. Both things that government is deeply involved in not only via policy, but via subsidy. Do you really think a college education could cost what it does today if the government didn't subsidize people mortgaging their future with low interest, guaranteed loans? Do we really think government complexity, regulation and massive reliance on third-party payers has lowered the cost?
My initial thought in going down this path was this. Those who do not wish their rights taken away by out of control government and its elected, appointed or 'hired bureaucrat' representatives are starting to stir, and I am reminded of this great excerpt from a speech given by Alexis De Tocqueville in 1848.
...I am told that there is no danger because there are no riots; I am told that, because there is no visible disorder on the surface of society, there is no revolution at hand.
Gentlemen, permit me to say that I believe you are deceiving yourselves. True, there is no actual disorder; but it has entered deeply into men's minds. See what is passing in the breast of the working classes, who, I grant are at present quiet. No doubt they are not disturbed by political passion, properly so-called, to the same extent that they have been; but can you not see that their passions, instead of political, have become social? Do you not see that there are gradually forming in their breasts opinions and ideas which are destined not only to upset society itself, until it totters upon the foundations on which it rests to-day? Do you not listen to what they say to themselves each day? Do you not hear them repeating unceasingly that all that is above them is incapable and unworthy of governing them ... And do you not realize that when such opinions take root, when they spread in an almost universal manner, when they sink deeply into the masses, they are bound to bring with them sooner or later, I know not when nor how, a most formidable revolution?
This, gentlemen, is my profound conviction: I believe that we are at this moment sleeping on a volcano. I am profoundly convinced of it.
------
as an addendum - please see the following link to see an example of the increasing tensions:
http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2009/08/07/seiu-thugs-attack-black-conservative/
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
On-Line Polls, Drugs, Economics and Other Ramblings.
(this started out going down one path and ended up letting me get a few things out of my system - it's basically a rant and it's probably not the last).
I take a lot of on-line polls. A lot of people do I think because our opinions are so darn important after all. One of the polls I took today was about Guns in St. Louis. And this question struck me as missing at least one important answer:
The availability of guns
Availability? Nah, even if outlawed people would own them in violation of the law. I mean, drug dealers still deal drugs, people still speed on the highway, cheat on their taxes, drive without a safety harness on, buy alcohol for underage drinkers.. all illegal. So we know that just making something illegal will not make it go away.
The way children are raised. While I'll admit this is probably a contributing factor, it's not the core reason I don't think. There will always be children that raised either improperly, or who just plain grow up to be bad seeds despite the best efforts of their loving, well educated parents.
The influence of TV, movies, video games or the Internet. Again, perhaps something else that influences people to some degree. But let's face it, watching Han Solo shoot Stormtroopers or Dirty Harry blow away bad guys did not turn me into some mass crazed killer. Congress destroying the financial soundness of our country or the Federal Tax Code might yet do it, but not popular culture.
Anger. Well, yeah, usually somebody got mad or at least had their ego bruised to shoot somebody. I love Chris Rock's skit about high priced bullets. The premise being that if you saw someone laying bleeding in the street you knew they made someone REALLY mad to make them put thousands of dollars of bullets in them.
The answer that was immediately missing to me was drug prohibition. Now I know this can be an unpopular topic, and it's not one I tend to spend much time focusing on; BUT, how many people are shot, killed, beat up, intimidated or who knows what else over territorial distribution rights for drugs. High priced, profitable drugs because the government eliminates most legal, natural competition through legislation thus creating a risk-based profit incentive to get in the drug business? Remember Al Capone? You wouldn't even know that name if not for alcohol prohibition prior to repeal.
How much more harm is done by failed war on drugs than is done by the drugs themselves? Yes, drugs destroy families, careers, savings but so do the the IRS, DEA, ATF and other organizations from time to time. What would happen to the distribution network and the price of pot for example if it was no longer an illegal plant (a plant! if you're religious that would be a plant, placed here by God) that got destroyed on sight by officials of the government? The price would fall out of the bottom if everybody could just grow their own, don't you think? I mean, really, if they want to destroy plants I have some pesky dandilions every year they can pull up and burn - bet they won't stand so close to THAT fire though.
What about those frogs that people can lick to get high? Are government officials going to purposely hunt and destroy them out of existence? I'll bet the Endangered Species folks would have something to say about that. Where are the Endangered Plantlife folks? I guess trees are too big to fail but not smaller plantlife?
And I don't have a horse in that race, it all just seems silly, wasteful and ineffective to me.
So anyway, back to the polls. I especially get miffed when asked in a poll things like:
Who did you support for president?
(o) Barack Obama
(o) John McCain
... huh ... I didn't know I only had two options (I know most people thought so). I didn't support either of the media promoted, status quo, statist candidates who (neither one) knows jack about economics.
(THE WHEELS ON THE TRAIN START WOBBLING)
What about Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin or Ralph Nader. Or in the primaries Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel or Hillary Clinton? By the way, if you missed Mike Gravel in the debates you missed "how the hell did the rest of them get here" and "I'm ashamed at you Hillary" it was totally worth the time spent to watch.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the news article that points out that if we'd listened to Ron Paul's economic advice years (if not decades) ago we probably could have avoided the big mess we're in now. Make fun of him all you want, he's been right about almost everything but he does lack that certain "American Idol" popularity contest attraction that we now hire our leaders based on. Instead of loud proclamations that, "oh, sorry, yeah he was right" they just have had him on the cable news channels a few times each week whereas BEFORE the election they wouldn't promote him at all.
For me, by the way, economics is probably the most important thing these guys need to understand, mostly so they know to stay out of the market and the economy since all they can do is screw it up, misallocate resources, create bubbles, destroy the value of currency or otherwise frustrate legitimate economic progress.
(AND NOW WE LEAVE THE TRACKS COMPLETELY)
What is it going to take to get everyone mad enough? I think there is a large but silent minority of people, afraid to do much "outside the box", if you will, that are mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore. Are you tired of the nonsense, overspending, trade deficits, wrecked economies, endless warfare (not one declared since World War II I don't think?)? Are you tired of your spouse having to work just to cover your tax liability, tired of having to earn $2.00 just to put $1.00 in the bank and then having the FED devalue that remaining dollar by 3 to 5% (or more) each year or tired of bickering about same-sex marriage or other issues that shouldn't have anything to do with the government, at least not Federally, while our country goes down the tubes. Are you fed up with politicians like Barnie Frank or John McCain standing up and saying "everything is okay" when in fact, things are totally NOT okay? What is it going to take? Do we sit idly by while the promise of America evaporates away from our Children (current our future)?
I think like many, I'm searching for the answers here as well. There is no place left on the planet for those who want to live free in a capitalist, free market society to go live. Heck, even this place wasn't really ours for the taking, but something has to change. As a friend of mine recently pointed out, BLOG posts and Internet jockey activities aren't going to get it done. I would add that writing books won't do it either and apparently producing DVDs doesn't do it. Do we need a prime-time special for two hours and all the networks? Wonder what that would cost?
The problem is we all have jobs, careers and two-income families. Can't quite put the plow up for the day and venture to D.C. for a few days to give Congress a piece of our mind without asking for time off, finding baby-sitters or who knows what else. Of course, if we wouldn't endlessly centralize stuff in D.C., in complete violation of our Constitution, we could make shorter trips down to our statehouses or county government centers to make our voices heard.
For starters, I invite everyone to visit and sign up for The Campaign for Liberty or to support Atlas!Liberty. I'm not sure what passes for pitchforks and torches these days, but I'm open to suggestions on that angle as well. First, though, in the immortal words of Howard Beale, if you're not already, "You've GOT TO GET MAD." And if you aren't going to get Mad then you're probably part of the problem and need to stay out of the way (and the voting booth). Go watch the scaled down version of I.O.U.S.A at YouTube, mad yet? $53 trillion reasons to be ... and counting.
I take a lot of on-line polls. A lot of people do I think because our opinions are so darn important after all. One of the polls I took today was about Guns in St. Louis. And this question struck me as missing at least one important answer:
Which of the following conditions do you think is the most important cause of gun violence in the US?
The availability of guns
The way children are raised
The influence of TV, movies, video games, or the Internet
Anger
Availability? Nah, even if outlawed people would own them in violation of the law. I mean, drug dealers still deal drugs, people still speed on the highway, cheat on their taxes, drive without a safety harness on, buy alcohol for underage drinkers.. all illegal. So we know that just making something illegal will not make it go away.
The way children are raised. While I'll admit this is probably a contributing factor, it's not the core reason I don't think. There will always be children that raised either improperly, or who just plain grow up to be bad seeds despite the best efforts of their loving, well educated parents.
The influence of TV, movies, video games or the Internet. Again, perhaps something else that influences people to some degree. But let's face it, watching Han Solo shoot Stormtroopers or Dirty Harry blow away bad guys did not turn me into some mass crazed killer. Congress destroying the financial soundness of our country or the Federal Tax Code might yet do it, but not popular culture.
Anger. Well, yeah, usually somebody got mad or at least had their ego bruised to shoot somebody. I love Chris Rock's skit about high priced bullets. The premise being that if you saw someone laying bleeding in the street you knew they made someone REALLY mad to make them put thousands of dollars of bullets in them.
The answer that was immediately missing to me was drug prohibition. Now I know this can be an unpopular topic, and it's not one I tend to spend much time focusing on; BUT, how many people are shot, killed, beat up, intimidated or who knows what else over territorial distribution rights for drugs. High priced, profitable drugs because the government eliminates most legal, natural competition through legislation thus creating a risk-based profit incentive to get in the drug business? Remember Al Capone? You wouldn't even know that name if not for alcohol prohibition prior to repeal.
How much more harm is done by failed war on drugs than is done by the drugs themselves? Yes, drugs destroy families, careers, savings but so do the the IRS, DEA, ATF and other organizations from time to time. What would happen to the distribution network and the price of pot for example if it was no longer an illegal plant (a plant! if you're religious that would be a plant, placed here by God) that got destroyed on sight by officials of the government? The price would fall out of the bottom if everybody could just grow their own, don't you think? I mean, really, if they want to destroy plants I have some pesky dandilions every year they can pull up and burn - bet they won't stand so close to THAT fire though.
What about those frogs that people can lick to get high? Are government officials going to purposely hunt and destroy them out of existence? I'll bet the Endangered Species folks would have something to say about that. Where are the Endangered Plantlife folks? I guess trees are too big to fail but not smaller plantlife?
And I don't have a horse in that race, it all just seems silly, wasteful and ineffective to me.
So anyway, back to the polls. I especially get miffed when asked in a poll things like:
Who did you support for president?
(o) Barack Obama
(o) John McCain
... huh ... I didn't know I only had two options (I know most people thought so). I didn't support either of the media promoted, status quo, statist candidates who (neither one) knows jack about economics.
(THE WHEELS ON THE TRAIN START WOBBLING)
What about Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin or Ralph Nader. Or in the primaries Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel or Hillary Clinton? By the way, if you missed Mike Gravel in the debates you missed "how the hell did the rest of them get here" and "I'm ashamed at you Hillary" it was totally worth the time spent to watch.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the news article that points out that if we'd listened to Ron Paul's economic advice years (if not decades) ago we probably could have avoided the big mess we're in now. Make fun of him all you want, he's been right about almost everything but he does lack that certain "American Idol" popularity contest attraction that we now hire our leaders based on. Instead of loud proclamations that, "oh, sorry, yeah he was right" they just have had him on the cable news channels a few times each week whereas BEFORE the election they wouldn't promote him at all.
For me, by the way, economics is probably the most important thing these guys need to understand, mostly so they know to stay out of the market and the economy since all they can do is screw it up, misallocate resources, create bubbles, destroy the value of currency or otherwise frustrate legitimate economic progress.
(AND NOW WE LEAVE THE TRACKS COMPLETELY)
What is it going to take to get everyone mad enough? I think there is a large but silent minority of people, afraid to do much "outside the box", if you will, that are mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore. Are you tired of the nonsense, overspending, trade deficits, wrecked economies, endless warfare (not one declared since World War II I don't think?)? Are you tired of your spouse having to work just to cover your tax liability, tired of having to earn $2.00 just to put $1.00 in the bank and then having the FED devalue that remaining dollar by 3 to 5% (or more) each year or tired of bickering about same-sex marriage or other issues that shouldn't have anything to do with the government, at least not Federally, while our country goes down the tubes. Are you fed up with politicians like Barnie Frank or John McCain standing up and saying "everything is okay" when in fact, things are totally NOT okay? What is it going to take? Do we sit idly by while the promise of America evaporates away from our Children (current our future)?
I think like many, I'm searching for the answers here as well. There is no place left on the planet for those who want to live free in a capitalist, free market society to go live. Heck, even this place wasn't really ours for the taking, but something has to change. As a friend of mine recently pointed out, BLOG posts and Internet jockey activities aren't going to get it done. I would add that writing books won't do it either and apparently producing DVDs doesn't do it. Do we need a prime-time special for two hours and all the networks? Wonder what that would cost?
The problem is we all have jobs, careers and two-income families. Can't quite put the plow up for the day and venture to D.C. for a few days to give Congress a piece of our mind without asking for time off, finding baby-sitters or who knows what else. Of course, if we wouldn't endlessly centralize stuff in D.C., in complete violation of our Constitution, we could make shorter trips down to our statehouses or county government centers to make our voices heard.
For starters, I invite everyone to visit and sign up for The Campaign for Liberty or to support Atlas!Liberty. I'm not sure what passes for pitchforks and torches these days, but I'm open to suggestions on that angle as well. First, though, in the immortal words of Howard Beale, if you're not already, "You've GOT TO GET MAD." And if you aren't going to get Mad then you're probably part of the problem and need to stay out of the way (and the voting booth). Go watch the scaled down version of I.O.U.S.A at YouTube, mad yet? $53 trillion reasons to be ... and counting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)