I won't say much here. Former government employee wants to own a large dog. In fact, he owns two which are considered by the government of China to be owned illegally. Illegal because of their size. The court system has stopped his crusade this far, but as he tells it, he will continue according to the laws of China and take it to the Supreme Court.
This is a man determined to own his large dogs against a government who rules against ownership of not only large dogs but also more than one. This is not even going into the topic of internet censorship.
Good article. Good man.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
For those who fought with the war cry "Freedom" President Lincoln was not one.
ORIGINALLY POSTED ON GMUECONSOCIETY.BLOGSPOT.COM
I am sure everyone has heard it by now since the outcry of
most Americans was an uproar at a statement by Ron Paul on President Lincoln.
Last year, the GMU Economics Society was fortunate to have a lecturer, Thomas DiLorenzo on this issue. Unfortunately we do not have any audio or video of the lecture, but I will link to support the argument as best as I can. I wish only to place some evidence to those looking to comprehend Ron Paul's statement. Not endorsing any politicians as the Econ Society, although the members may have full support for whomever they wish, but do wish to clarify a statement in which many Americans seem to be growing upset towards.
What is taught to children?
I end with a link to a blog by Mister Snitch! Who does a great job of linking to valid sources to go with his argument on the bad press for Lincoln.
I am sure everyone has heard it by now since the outcry of
most Americans was an uproar at a statement by Ron Paul on President Lincoln.
Last year, the GMU Economics Society was fortunate to have a lecturer, Thomas DiLorenzo on this issue. Unfortunately we do not have any audio or video of the lecture, but I will link to support the argument as best as I can. I wish only to place some evidence to those looking to comprehend Ron Paul's statement. Not endorsing any politicians as the Econ Society, although the members may have full support for whomever they wish, but do wish to clarify a statement in which many Americans seem to be growing upset towards.
What is taught to children?
- That President Lincoln's nickname was Honest Abe, yet we understand that most politicians do lie. Why should we view him differently?
The American Indians are led to believe so... - Lincoln saved the Union therefore denying the South the right to secession, yet when Jefferson had installed an embargo on trade with the British the Northeastern states met in convention for secession led by U.S. Senator Timothy Pickering
- Note: Lincoln states he is against state secession in his first Inaugural Address:
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
- Lincoln had abolished slavery, yet in his first Inaugural Address he states:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
I end with a link to a blog by Mister Snitch! Who does a great job of linking to valid sources to go with his argument on the bad press for Lincoln.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Saving the Environment: No need for government
If you did not know, today the U.S. government had passed their energy bill. This is supposed to jumpstart the use from petroleum fuel to bio-friendly fuels. Thank you government for all your hard work in passing a bill that is useless except to halt the choices of your own citizens.
PETA's efforts have failed in halting the amount of middle class citizens from buying chicken from KFC; should the U.S. government get involved in order to promote the practice of fast food chicken services? If your answer is no, then what is the difference between the government passing a law with chickens to passing a law with fuels.
There have always been alternatives to oil. We may not use these alternatives, but the reason is that it is too costly. The same reason why PETA's effort fail with KFC. Their chicken is cheap and to go to PETA friendly substitute is more costly. If their celebrity friends such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson would pay me the difference I would happily stop eating at KFC; THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES IN ANY MANNER. Notice that Pam nor Paul HAVE NOT given money to me or anyone else to stop eating only raised their voice in a cheap protest that hardly costs them.
The new law makes it costlier to maintain of life that we have; the cheaper one and replaces it with the more costly. Is this the work of business lobbying allowing for government rules to go in favor? It appears so since we know through Ludwig von Mises that
From this we can judge that the government must be giving the blessing to one at the cost of the others. Thank you government.
Why do we have alternatives? Naturally, businesses want to make money and are always searching for the best method; at least, this is the popular stereotype. Thus there must have been alternatives although not cheap alternatives since no one was using them. This law allows for the more expensive alternatives to be cheaper only because their is a law made up by certain individuals to solve a problem that they define.
No, there is no need for such laws. This is just a disgrace and an abuse of power.
Note: this does not necessarily mean that the government is hurting one business at the cost of the others such as in oil giants. Rather, it may be the case that they all agreed to this law as it keeps each in line to searching for alternatives away from foreign oils. This would mean that the cost was transferred to the average citizen who must now PAY more for his fuel. Bio-friendly fuels were coming. It was inevitable, but the law is a disgrace. Atlas Shrugged could be rewritten with Hank Rearden as the bad guy, with his Rearden Steel benefiting from the government law that benefit the few at the cost of the Many.
Shame, Shame on you U.S. Government for increasing the costs to the many rather than having the product improved to be better suited for us all. Shame.
I did not discuss the issues with lightbulbs or most of the energy, but I think the broad case here makes its case in each argument.
PETA's efforts have failed in halting the amount of middle class citizens from buying chicken from KFC; should the U.S. government get involved in order to promote the practice of fast food chicken services? If your answer is no, then what is the difference between the government passing a law with chickens to passing a law with fuels.
There have always been alternatives to oil. We may not use these alternatives, but the reason is that it is too costly. The same reason why PETA's effort fail with KFC. Their chicken is cheap and to go to PETA friendly substitute is more costly. If their celebrity friends such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson would pay me the difference I would happily stop eating at KFC; THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES IN ANY MANNER. Notice that Pam nor Paul HAVE NOT given money to me or anyone else to stop eating only raised their voice in a cheap protest that hardly costs them.
The new law makes it costlier to maintain of life that we have; the cheaper one and replaces it with the more costly. Is this the work of business lobbying allowing for government rules to go in favor? It appears so since we know through Ludwig von Mises that
[r]estrictive action on the other hand is always advantageous for the privileged group and disadvantageous for those whom it excludes from the market. It always raises the price per unit and therefore the total net proceeds of the privileged group. The losses of the excluded group are not taken into account by the privileged group.
From this we can judge that the government must be giving the blessing to one at the cost of the others. Thank you government.
Why do we have alternatives? Naturally, businesses want to make money and are always searching for the best method; at least, this is the popular stereotype. Thus there must have been alternatives although not cheap alternatives since no one was using them. This law allows for the more expensive alternatives to be cheaper only because their is a law made up by certain individuals to solve a problem that they define.
No, there is no need for such laws. This is just a disgrace and an abuse of power.
Note: this does not necessarily mean that the government is hurting one business at the cost of the others such as in oil giants. Rather, it may be the case that they all agreed to this law as it keeps each in line to searching for alternatives away from foreign oils. This would mean that the cost was transferred to the average citizen who must now PAY more for his fuel. Bio-friendly fuels were coming. It was inevitable, but the law is a disgrace. Atlas Shrugged could be rewritten with Hank Rearden as the bad guy, with his Rearden Steel benefiting from the government law that benefit the few at the cost of the Many.
Shame, Shame on you U.S. Government for increasing the costs to the many rather than having the product improved to be better suited for us all. Shame.
I did not discuss the issues with lightbulbs or most of the energy, but I think the broad case here makes its case in each argument.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Tyranny of the Majority in the New Testament
We saw it best on The Passion of the Christ. The masses cried out for crucifixion. "Crucify him" the answer shouted in unison when asked by Pilate on what they wanted him to do. It is the same words recited every Easter at a Roman Catholic mass and yet many Christians still believe in majority rule, at least it appears so through what I have seen.
The tyranny of the majority is not a new concept. John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville were only two of many who had spoken on the topic. Christians had read of this tyranny since the Church began. There it was written, spoken, even viewed (as in the Passion) for us to see, the Crucifixion of Christ. The masses had called for it. They threatened and Pilate to complete his duty as governor completed what the masses demanded in order to keep his own position. What else do we expect of a politician? To do the right thing and not kill an innocent man? It was either crucify an innocent man or have a mob on his hands which would cause him to lose face in Rome. Naturally, we would expect the politician to choose his own selfish needs and condemn an innocent man to his death.
Is the innocent's death the fault of the politician or the fault of the tyranny of the masses? Perhaps it is both, but the event has passed and the innocent man had died only to be born again. Thanks to the murderous mob that persuaded a Roman governor to crucify an innocent man. A man heralded by many today as the savior. Even through evil, Good arises.
The tyranny of the majority is not a new concept. John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville were only two of many who had spoken on the topic. Christians had read of this tyranny since the Church began. There it was written, spoken, even viewed (as in the Passion) for us to see, the Crucifixion of Christ. The masses had called for it. They threatened and Pilate to complete his duty as governor completed what the masses demanded in order to keep his own position. What else do we expect of a politician? To do the right thing and not kill an innocent man? It was either crucify an innocent man or have a mob on his hands which would cause him to lose face in Rome. Naturally, we would expect the politician to choose his own selfish needs and condemn an innocent man to his death.
Is the innocent's death the fault of the politician or the fault of the tyranny of the masses? Perhaps it is both, but the event has passed and the innocent man had died only to be born again. Thanks to the murderous mob that persuaded a Roman governor to crucify an innocent man. A man heralded by many today as the savior. Even through evil, Good arises.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Weakness of Enlisted Leadership (USMC) [long post]
It is the Non-Commissioned Officers(NCO) which are the backbone of the military.
When Marine officers and Staff Non-Commissioned Officers (SNCO) were all killed during the Battle of Chapultepec, it was the NCOs who led the charge getting the Marines to the Halls of Montezuma. It is the NCO who carries out the orders and makes sure that the Marines are capable of completing their mission. Yet how are these NCO's chosen; how are they promoted through the enlisted to move up in rank?
The U.S. Marines pride themselves in their physical attributions that stand out above the other branches of the United States military, but a major flaw within the Marines is their promotion system to become a NCO.
I will save you the trouble of reading the whole thing. I conclude that the promotion system promotes people who do not have leadership skills which does not ready the Marines for battle, but in fact depreciates the Marines ability to do their best.
The Marines are promoted through a point system. This is the Marine way of knowing when a Lance Corporal (LCPL) is ready to be promoted to Corporal. This is the method of creating a leader for the troops who is able to make a decision through tough times.
Naturally, we must assume that the points must be given by certain accomplishments which are:
The Command then has the duty of assigning a score to be met for different jobs or Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) due to the amount of enlisted in each rank.
The point system does not promote due to a Marine's leadership skills or for a Marine's productivity.
Throughout the private sector, individuals receive in an increase in their wage according to their productivity. Yet in the military, marines only receive a wage increase according to their grade, and wage level determined by time in service. At times, the government may increase the Marine's wages.
In the Marines, there is no incentive for a Marine to be a leader. To be promoted they want an individual who is fit. Physical Fitness does not dictate strong leadership otherwise why not have the Strongest Man as our President. Even in sports, the coaches lead while the individuals who are stronger physically are the players following the coaches instruction.
Rifle Marksmanship has a strong attachment to the Marines as Marines are first Riflemen, yet if a Marine has the best shot, wouldn't we wish to have him to where he is most useful; firing his weapon? A great shot does not dictate strong leadership skills.
Proficiency and Conduct marks are the closest that the military constructed to annotate a Marines productivity yet these Pros and Con marks are dictated by the NCO's above the Marines. Therefore the Marine's productivity is accountable to the perception of the NCO's above him, there is no system provided to show the impact of the Marine. This an important problem since it allows the NCO's to promote friends or Marines they like more than others easier without any penalty of not promoting the Marine who deserves it.
Recruitment points, well, this speaks for itself. Does an individual who can bring more individuals into the service prove he has the leadership skills needed to make decisions during a period of high stress?
What does this tell us? That the backbone of the Marine Corp is filled with many individuals who do not have the capability to lead the junior Marines through tough times. This is not to say that there are not great NCOs serving now in the Marine Corp, but rather the amount of poor NCO's is vastly greater than great NCOs.
A quick look for proof, while serving in Iraq I was a Corporal under a Sergeant. The desert allows one to see the weather coming from miles away. The Sergeant who was promoted meritoriously, meaning given rank for certain accomplishments (in this case, driving a Colonel and barracks manager), wanted to keep the sides of a tent rolled up rather than down during a sandstorm allowing for the Marines living in the tent to have their positions (weapons included) filled with sand. The Sergeant gives a great demonstration of the poor leadership skills of a Non Commissioned Officer who does not have the leadership capabilities to accomplish the mission under stress. Get back to driving Miss Daisy, Sergeant.
When Marine officers and Staff Non-Commissioned Officers (SNCO) were all killed during the Battle of Chapultepec, it was the NCOs who led the charge getting the Marines to the Halls of Montezuma. It is the NCO who carries out the orders and makes sure that the Marines are capable of completing their mission. Yet how are these NCO's chosen; how are they promoted through the enlisted to move up in rank?
The U.S. Marines pride themselves in their physical attributions that stand out above the other branches of the United States military, but a major flaw within the Marines is their promotion system to become a NCO.
I will save you the trouble of reading the whole thing. I conclude that the promotion system promotes people who do not have leadership skills which does not ready the Marines for battle, but in fact depreciates the Marines ability to do their best.
The Marines are promoted through a point system. This is the Marine way of knowing when a Lance Corporal (LCPL) is ready to be promoted to Corporal. This is the method of creating a leader for the troops who is able to make a decision through tough times.
Naturally, we must assume that the points must be given by certain accomplishments which are:
- Physical Fitness Test
- Proficiency and Conduct Marks
- Self Educated Bonus [Marine Corp Insititute (MCI's), College Classes, Etc]
- Time in Grade as a LCPL, Time in Service
- Rifle Marksman Score
- Recruitment Bonuses
- Drill Instructor, Recruiter, Marine Security Guard
The Command then has the duty of assigning a score to be met for different jobs or Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) due to the amount of enlisted in each rank.
The point system does not promote due to a Marine's leadership skills or for a Marine's productivity.
Throughout the private sector, individuals receive in an increase in their wage according to their productivity. Yet in the military, marines only receive a wage increase according to their grade, and wage level determined by time in service. At times, the government may increase the Marine's wages.
In the Marines, there is no incentive for a Marine to be a leader. To be promoted they want an individual who is fit. Physical Fitness does not dictate strong leadership otherwise why not have the Strongest Man as our President. Even in sports, the coaches lead while the individuals who are stronger physically are the players following the coaches instruction.
Rifle Marksmanship has a strong attachment to the Marines as Marines are first Riflemen, yet if a Marine has the best shot, wouldn't we wish to have him to where he is most useful; firing his weapon? A great shot does not dictate strong leadership skills.
Proficiency and Conduct marks are the closest that the military constructed to annotate a Marines productivity yet these Pros and Con marks are dictated by the NCO's above the Marines. Therefore the Marine's productivity is accountable to the perception of the NCO's above him, there is no system provided to show the impact of the Marine. This an important problem since it allows the NCO's to promote friends or Marines they like more than others easier without any penalty of not promoting the Marine who deserves it.
Recruitment points, well, this speaks for itself. Does an individual who can bring more individuals into the service prove he has the leadership skills needed to make decisions during a period of high stress?
What does this tell us? That the backbone of the Marine Corp is filled with many individuals who do not have the capability to lead the junior Marines through tough times. This is not to say that there are not great NCOs serving now in the Marine Corp, but rather the amount of poor NCO's is vastly greater than great NCOs.
A quick look for proof, while serving in Iraq I was a Corporal under a Sergeant. The desert allows one to see the weather coming from miles away. The Sergeant who was promoted meritoriously, meaning given rank for certain accomplishments (in this case, driving a Colonel and barracks manager), wanted to keep the sides of a tent rolled up rather than down during a sandstorm allowing for the Marines living in the tent to have their positions (weapons included) filled with sand. The Sergeant gives a great demonstration of the poor leadership skills of a Non Commissioned Officer who does not have the leadership capabilities to accomplish the mission under stress. Get back to driving Miss Daisy, Sergeant.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Control: Is it ever achieved?
Recently, I have entered into a debate with many individuals over the topic of control.
Control defined in Dictionary.com as "to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command."
I do not believe we can ever achieve control. To me this is proven by action. If we were ever in control why would we act? By acting we would be changing the situation causing us to lose control. In acting, we are trying to get closer to being in control.
What do we want control in? Control of a situation, of our actions, of nature.
We can never have control of a situation since there are outside factors that influence our actions. Those outside factors cause us to act but do not allow us to have control on the outcomes of our actions. We can act causing an effect that was not perceived before the action was taken place therefore taking any control away from our actions as we caused an unwanted outcome.
There is no system in the world that can ever let us be in control. Socialism fails as it never obtains control, but socialism is not alone; No One can ever obtain control; except the Lord.
For this do we have religion, control is only obtained through our faith in God. Socialism was man's attempt at achieving Heaven on Earth. The attempt of a world full of control with no fears upon need, yet as control can never be obtained thanks to socialism's failure to many economic problems such as imitating the price and money system, we find that there is only one way to achieve control which is through faith.
To overcome sin we must pray for strength, for courage, for self control. It is through God's will that we are able to drive without an accident interfering in our desired end. Control can be achieved, but to achieve it you must have faith otherwise we are just blind with hands outstretched in hopes that we do not walk off a ledge. To say you have control is to believe that you are in control; belief is a matter of faith which is a gift from the Holy Spirit.
In the end, Man can not have control except through the Lord, our God
Control defined in Dictionary.com as "to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command."
I do not believe we can ever achieve control. To me this is proven by action. If we were ever in control why would we act? By acting we would be changing the situation causing us to lose control. In acting, we are trying to get closer to being in control.
What do we want control in? Control of a situation, of our actions, of nature.
We can never have control of a situation since there are outside factors that influence our actions. Those outside factors cause us to act but do not allow us to have control on the outcomes of our actions. We can act causing an effect that was not perceived before the action was taken place therefore taking any control away from our actions as we caused an unwanted outcome.
There is no system in the world that can ever let us be in control. Socialism fails as it never obtains control, but socialism is not alone; No One can ever obtain control; except the Lord.
For this do we have religion, control is only obtained through our faith in God. Socialism was man's attempt at achieving Heaven on Earth. The attempt of a world full of control with no fears upon need, yet as control can never be obtained thanks to socialism's failure to many economic problems such as imitating the price and money system, we find that there is only one way to achieve control which is through faith.
To overcome sin we must pray for strength, for courage, for self control. It is through God's will that we are able to drive without an accident interfering in our desired end. Control can be achieved, but to achieve it you must have faith otherwise we are just blind with hands outstretched in hopes that we do not walk off a ledge. To say you have control is to believe that you are in control; belief is a matter of faith which is a gift from the Holy Spirit.
In the end, Man can not have control except through the Lord, our God
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Trinity of the Market Price
Have to love the end of a Sunday in the middle of football season.
Yes, Football, great weather, and papers to write for so many classes evolve into late nights... ok only until two because I my cost - benefit analysis tells me that sleep is greater than staying up to finish editing a paper.
The point, the Trinity of the Market found in Mises' Human Action.
Check it out page 338.
Just as the Holy Trinity in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The pricing process is broken down only to allow our feeble minds to better understand it.
Yes, Football, great weather, and papers to write for so many classes evolve into late nights... ok only until two because I my cost - benefit analysis tells me that sleep is greater than staying up to finish editing a paper.
The point, the Trinity of the Market found in Mises' Human Action.
Check it out page 338.
The pricing process is a social process. It is consummated by an interaction of all members of the society. All collaborate and cooperate, each in the particular role he has chosen for himself in the framework of the division of labor. Competing in cooperation and cooperating in competition all people are instrumental in bringing about the result, viz., the price structure of the market, the allocation of the factors of production to the various lines of want-satisfaction, and the determination of the share of each individual. These three events are not three different matters. They are only different aspects of one indivisible phenomenon which our analytical scrutiny separates into three parts. In the market process they are accomplished uno actu. Only people prepossessed by socialist leanings who cannot free themselves from longing glances at socialist methods speak of three different processes in dealing with the market phenomena: the determination of prices, the direction of productive efforts, and distribution.
Just as the Holy Trinity in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The pricing process is broken down only to allow our feeble minds to better understand it.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Incentives matter, even Birds think so
You can spend a lifetime discovering things on the internet. Luckily for me, it took me a short time while browsing through videos for good laughs on YouTube.
As always, life finds a way. Amazing what an incentive will cause someone or thing to do.
The birds wanting to crack nuts with ease and safety had devised an interesting system by using their surroundings
Yet we find other birds who find a better way to adapt with no need to inconvenience themselves with a high cost upon their lives. Everywhere and in everything we find incentives. The bird steals but does not think of it as stealing only for the fact that it has received food. For the birds there is only one incentive, to eat.
We are faced everyday with our own decisions to make facing incentives and it is our job to find the easiest way of obtaining what it is we want. Anything can be done... you just need the right incentives to do it.
As always, life finds a way. Amazing what an incentive will cause someone or thing to do.
The birds wanting to crack nuts with ease and safety had devised an interesting system by using their surroundings
Yet we find other birds who find a better way to adapt with no need to inconvenience themselves with a high cost upon their lives. Everywhere and in everything we find incentives. The bird steals but does not think of it as stealing only for the fact that it has received food. For the birds there is only one incentive, to eat.
We are faced everyday with our own decisions to make facing incentives and it is our job to find the easiest way of obtaining what it is we want. Anything can be done... you just need the right incentives to do it.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Silly Bolivian; Why I stopped watching the Daily Show...
I flipped the channel to Comedy Central and found an interesting person being interviewed by Jon Stewart. None other than the Nationalist Bolivian President, Evo Morales.
It is easy to speak about life and caring for mankind, yet asking for government intervention is not the answer to salvation. The lower class look towards government to assist them with the complaints that society is holding them down and Evo is unlike any of the lower class. He dreams that government is the savior and empowered with his position as President has nationalized the gas industry, subsidized other industries, and believes in the end the money will end in the hands of the poor natives of Bolivia. This is not the first time it has been tried Evo get over yourself and learn to be a better farmer so that you can produce more food as PRODUCTION increases worker wages, not government subsidization.
Jon Stewart appeared to support Evo in his performance as President of Bolivia. Applauding and commenting that Evo had completed the promises he had made while campaigning within 8 months of his election; promises filled with the nationalization of Bolivia's resources.
Evo sat proud of his accomplishments even commenting on how much money was now in the hands of the government due to the nationalization of the gas industry. Of course there is an increase of money going to the government since it now owns most of the industry. What kind of idiot would have expected less?
I am not impressed with Evo. I feel for my family still in Bolivia and hope that one day they can all become citizens of the United States; the nation in which Jon Stewart liked to say holds 'rigged' elections. Thanks Jon, we know that elections are flawed haven't you heard of the field of public choice?
Yes, I no longer watch the Daily Show. The show is not dull only to much to left for my own taste although the Colbert Report is incredibly fun to watch as it has broken wrists and water fights with billionaire guests. In the end it all goes back to the Bolivian. Silly Bolivian, government intervention takes away individual rights... to think he said that he knew about rights at the beginning of the interview.
It is easy to speak about life and caring for mankind, yet asking for government intervention is not the answer to salvation. The lower class look towards government to assist them with the complaints that society is holding them down and Evo is unlike any of the lower class. He dreams that government is the savior and empowered with his position as President has nationalized the gas industry, subsidized other industries, and believes in the end the money will end in the hands of the poor natives of Bolivia. This is not the first time it has been tried Evo get over yourself and learn to be a better farmer so that you can produce more food as PRODUCTION increases worker wages, not government subsidization.
Jon Stewart appeared to support Evo in his performance as President of Bolivia. Applauding and commenting that Evo had completed the promises he had made while campaigning within 8 months of his election; promises filled with the nationalization of Bolivia's resources.
Evo sat proud of his accomplishments even commenting on how much money was now in the hands of the government due to the nationalization of the gas industry. Of course there is an increase of money going to the government since it now owns most of the industry. What kind of idiot would have expected less?
I am not impressed with Evo. I feel for my family still in Bolivia and hope that one day they can all become citizens of the United States; the nation in which Jon Stewart liked to say holds 'rigged' elections. Thanks Jon, we know that elections are flawed haven't you heard of the field of public choice?
Yes, I no longer watch the Daily Show. The show is not dull only to much to left for my own taste although the Colbert Report is incredibly fun to watch as it has broken wrists and water fights with billionaire guests. In the end it all goes back to the Bolivian. Silly Bolivian, government intervention takes away individual rights... to think he said that he knew about rights at the beginning of the interview.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sunday Mass is for self prayer?
So perhaps I am misunderstanding the Catholic Church; I must be since all those who are not Catholic usually tell me that they do not have to be at Church to pray to God that they can pray wherever they like. As I understand it, that is the point. We should pray everywhere and anywhere not just behind the closed doors of the church. That is the point of being a Christian by loving God and living by his Word.
The next question I encounter is why then must we attend Sunday Mass?
We attend to receive Holy Communion, to listen to the scripture, to pray in unity as the children of God. Mass, from my perception, appears to be less of an individual prayer than a group prayer. We adore, love, and ask for forgiveness from the Lord before we receive him together as a group as the whole Church.
Immediately after receiving communion, many individuals enjoy being in the presence of the Lord. They kneel in silent reflection. I am beginning to believe when kneeling following the communion we should join the choir in song to help all celebrate in their communion. In this moment we are as a whole filled with the Lord and able to pray and glorify him more fully. This leaves for that moment of reflection to be a short enjoyment from when the Priest is purifying the vessels and sits down in his own reflection to when he stands for ending prayer. In fact, at the end of Mass is when the individual prayers should begin. I like to end it with a Prayer to St. Michael to combat the devil, but that is for the individual to decide....
The next question I encounter is why then must we attend Sunday Mass?
We attend to receive Holy Communion, to listen to the scripture, to pray in unity as the children of God. Mass, from my perception, appears to be less of an individual prayer than a group prayer. We adore, love, and ask for forgiveness from the Lord before we receive him together as a group as the whole Church.
Immediately after receiving communion, many individuals enjoy being in the presence of the Lord. They kneel in silent reflection. I am beginning to believe when kneeling following the communion we should join the choir in song to help all celebrate in their communion. In this moment we are as a whole filled with the Lord and able to pray and glorify him more fully. This leaves for that moment of reflection to be a short enjoyment from when the Priest is purifying the vessels and sits down in his own reflection to when he stands for ending prayer. In fact, at the end of Mass is when the individual prayers should begin. I like to end it with a Prayer to St. Michael to combat the devil, but that is for the individual to decide....
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The Market's Answer to Animal Cruelty
The media is calming down its firestorm that it reigned down upon Atlanta quarterback, Michael Vick. The government prosecution had taken him to court on charges taken a great amount of time before he pleaded guilty. Yet who responded first?
The police found evidence of dog fighting in Michael Vick's home. The prosecution at that point began. Throughout the summer the court system carried on with protesters outside calling for Vick's own blood to be spilled. Yes, this was it what all people want, the government response.
Yet is the government punishing Vick for his actions? He has to pay a fee, face court time, has a jail sentence. No, I do not see the government as a punishment at all. The government in its will to punish Vick is actually saving him from his punishment. Yes the view point of society is that the government announces punishment, yet I say who responded first?
By the time the uproar of disgust arose around Vick's actions, Nike had canceled their deal, Reebok had canceled their deal, and the NFL had declared him ineligible to play. The market had retaliated. Call for blood if you like but it was his own wants that would drive his pain. The want to keep his home, the want for luxury goods, the want for hanging out at a club; they all cost money. Money he would begin to lose and his lifestyle would decline. Would Reebok, Nike, any other business give him a deal? Perhaps, when the public calms, but would the public calm if Vick were among the living? Or would the public be more calm as Vick is housed in a jail cell where our tax dollars pay for him to live leaving him to spend none of his own funds. In the jail cell, Vick is no longer in the view of the public giving them the opportunity to remember why they dislike him. Would anyone buy his jersey again? Probably, but no where near the amount that had before.
Yes, it was the Market not the Government who had first responded. While the government took its time in prosecution waiting for a chance to prove guilt, the market did not care and reacted with a swift hand. Sometimes the market over reacts, but blessed is the market and it adjusts giving more in return for the pain it had caused. Market vs Government is a clean shutout, or in tennis term 6 - love. Love for minimal government perhaps...
The police found evidence of dog fighting in Michael Vick's home. The prosecution at that point began. Throughout the summer the court system carried on with protesters outside calling for Vick's own blood to be spilled. Yes, this was it what all people want, the government response.
Yet is the government punishing Vick for his actions? He has to pay a fee, face court time, has a jail sentence. No, I do not see the government as a punishment at all. The government in its will to punish Vick is actually saving him from his punishment. Yes the view point of society is that the government announces punishment, yet I say who responded first?
By the time the uproar of disgust arose around Vick's actions, Nike had canceled their deal, Reebok had canceled their deal, and the NFL had declared him ineligible to play. The market had retaliated. Call for blood if you like but it was his own wants that would drive his pain. The want to keep his home, the want for luxury goods, the want for hanging out at a club; they all cost money. Money he would begin to lose and his lifestyle would decline. Would Reebok, Nike, any other business give him a deal? Perhaps, when the public calms, but would the public calm if Vick were among the living? Or would the public be more calm as Vick is housed in a jail cell where our tax dollars pay for him to live leaving him to spend none of his own funds. In the jail cell, Vick is no longer in the view of the public giving them the opportunity to remember why they dislike him. Would anyone buy his jersey again? Probably, but no where near the amount that had before.
Yes, it was the Market not the Government who had first responded. While the government took its time in prosecution waiting for a chance to prove guilt, the market did not care and reacted with a swift hand. Sometimes the market over reacts, but blessed is the market and it adjusts giving more in return for the pain it had caused. Market vs Government is a clean shutout, or in tennis term 6 - love. Love for minimal government perhaps...
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Why Transformers was better than 300
Yes, I said it. Transformers was better than 300. A little late to write this but lets have it, I am never on time as it is.
300, the movie about Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans. Disappointing as it lacked storyline as it was extremely predictable filled with sex scenes that were pointless. I'll give it to them for the scene at the Oracle, that is how the Oracle originally worked, but the marital sex was pointless as he was not turned on by her but to the mere fact he was a "free man". A "free man" who did not choose to be a fighter nor a Spartan. A "free man" who only had one choice throughout the movie, bow down to Xerxes or have to fight for his kingdom. Hey have to call it. When you have no choice towards your profession or lifestyle, it is not freedom. A shame for everyone to believe that only through the State can you achieve Freedom.
Transformers, corny throughout the movie, but more depth in the storyline than 300. Why did the car choose Sam should have been the question in the beginning? What is it the Decepticons are after should have been the next question. Of course, we should have been able to foretell what they were since the displayed it in the beginning of the movie with Sam. Yet the plot of Transformers had something that 300 lacked. Cooperation, innovation, and a better message.
Let us define the different versions of Freedom
In 300, Freedom is to live under the state you are used to.
In Transformers, Freedom is the ability to choose b/w life and death; between good or evil and not allowing others to make that decision for you.
How about Innovation?
300, Innovation was to fight at Thermopylae as to create a small pass where the 300 could hold off the entire Persian Army.
Transformers, the military overcame and adapted to the situation learning from each battle with the Decepticons of what they could do to cause harm to the giant robots; changing the battle area from one place to another to allow themselves a strategic advantage. Heck even the Decepticons overcame their disadvantages by shutting down the communications link throughout the world. This isn't to say that Xerxes never overcame anything, but according to the movie he had to wait until a crippled Spartan had leaked information about a pass so that he could attack the Spartans in a new fashion.
As for the message,
300 claimed that men died for a reason which would be Freedom thus encouraging all of Greece to unite to fight against the Persian Army.
Transformers completely took all the work 300 and worked it into 300's ending. Instead of their being death to cause people to unite, they found their was one cause that those with differences can unite for; Freedom.
Truth is the actual history of Thermopylae is a time when Greece unified itself to overcome the Persians. The true story was that like the movie Transformers. The most disciplined force of ancient times, the Spartans, with only a handful of themselves assembled with other Greeks and held the land battle. The Athenians, greatly outnumbered in the sea, led a sea attack against Persian ships to curtail them from sending reinforcements behind the land units on the pass.
Face it, 300 was disapointing, so they gave us Transformers.
300, the movie about Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans. Disappointing as it lacked storyline as it was extremely predictable filled with sex scenes that were pointless. I'll give it to them for the scene at the Oracle, that is how the Oracle originally worked, but the marital sex was pointless as he was not turned on by her but to the mere fact he was a "free man". A "free man" who did not choose to be a fighter nor a Spartan. A "free man" who only had one choice throughout the movie, bow down to Xerxes or have to fight for his kingdom. Hey have to call it. When you have no choice towards your profession or lifestyle, it is not freedom. A shame for everyone to believe that only through the State can you achieve Freedom.
Transformers, corny throughout the movie, but more depth in the storyline than 300. Why did the car choose Sam should have been the question in the beginning? What is it the Decepticons are after should have been the next question. Of course, we should have been able to foretell what they were since the displayed it in the beginning of the movie with Sam. Yet the plot of Transformers had something that 300 lacked. Cooperation, innovation, and a better message.
Let us define the different versions of Freedom
In 300, Freedom is to live under the state you are used to.
In Transformers, Freedom is the ability to choose b/w life and death; between good or evil and not allowing others to make that decision for you.
How about Innovation?
300, Innovation was to fight at Thermopylae as to create a small pass where the 300 could hold off the entire Persian Army.
Transformers, the military overcame and adapted to the situation learning from each battle with the Decepticons of what they could do to cause harm to the giant robots; changing the battle area from one place to another to allow themselves a strategic advantage. Heck even the Decepticons overcame their disadvantages by shutting down the communications link throughout the world. This isn't to say that Xerxes never overcame anything, but according to the movie he had to wait until a crippled Spartan had leaked information about a pass so that he could attack the Spartans in a new fashion.
As for the message,
300 claimed that men died for a reason which would be Freedom thus encouraging all of Greece to unite to fight against the Persian Army.
Transformers completely took all the work 300 and worked it into 300's ending. Instead of their being death to cause people to unite, they found their was one cause that those with differences can unite for; Freedom.
Truth is the actual history of Thermopylae is a time when Greece unified itself to overcome the Persians. The true story was that like the movie Transformers. The most disciplined force of ancient times, the Spartans, with only a handful of themselves assembled with other Greeks and held the land battle. The Athenians, greatly outnumbered in the sea, led a sea attack against Persian ships to curtail them from sending reinforcements behind the land units on the pass.
Face it, 300 was disapointing, so they gave us Transformers.
Too long forgone
So I have been away for too long. I have been in seminars throughout the summer. Don't worry I will comment on each so that others may learn about each institution their summer seminar and whether it is worth the time or not.
My summer of seminars began with the History of Economics seminar at George Mason University followed by the History of Economics Society annual conference which was held at George Mason University this year. The summer ended with a weekend conference in Connecticut held by the Acton Institute. Over all, I spend most of my days in lectures arriving back to the room only to debate roommates and others who wished to express their views.
My experience and critiques of the seminars will be blogged on the GMU Economics Society blog which is beginning soon. Not that I am an expert, only wish to share the info to allow others the chance to attend these great events that promote economics, ethics, philosophy, politics, individual rights(which included separate from philosophy just to add emphasis), and even religion.
My summer of seminars began with the History of Economics seminar at George Mason University followed by the History of Economics Society annual conference which was held at George Mason University this year. The summer ended with a weekend conference in Connecticut held by the Acton Institute. Over all, I spend most of my days in lectures arriving back to the room only to debate roommates and others who wished to express their views.
My experience and critiques of the seminars will be blogged on the GMU Economics Society blog which is beginning soon. Not that I am an expert, only wish to share the info to allow others the chance to attend these great events that promote economics, ethics, philosophy, politics, individual rights(which included separate from philosophy just to add emphasis), and even religion.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Can not be Pro-Life and Pro-War
So I slack on my blog entries. Luckily for me this is not a popular blog. Perhaps because my arguments have been said over and over again. I have never said anything new, only things I had read elsewhere.
But I am bothered. The religious are Pro-Life therefore against any action that takes away life. For this reason abortion is an important political issue which I completely understand, but for the same people who are against abortion yet support any type of war seems to be a contradiction. Can you support a war and be Pro-Life? Wars bring death, and war is promoted by those politicians who we vote for. As war is the decision of those elected officials it only makes sense for war to be a major political issue for the religious. Yet abortions, with laws or without are always at the hands of the woman in labor. If she is going to choose to have an abortion she will find a way, there is hardly anything law can do to prevent this. Yet, war which brings death is caused by the elected officials.
You can not be Pro-Life and Pro-War. If you support life then you support all life, you can not pick and choose between which lives you support.
But I am bothered. The religious are Pro-Life therefore against any action that takes away life. For this reason abortion is an important political issue which I completely understand, but for the same people who are against abortion yet support any type of war seems to be a contradiction. Can you support a war and be Pro-Life? Wars bring death, and war is promoted by those politicians who we vote for. As war is the decision of those elected officials it only makes sense for war to be a major political issue for the religious. Yet abortions, with laws or without are always at the hands of the woman in labor. If she is going to choose to have an abortion she will find a way, there is hardly anything law can do to prevent this. Yet, war which brings death is caused by the elected officials.
You can not be Pro-Life and Pro-War. If you support life then you support all life, you can not pick and choose between which lives you support.
Monday, June 11, 2007
History of Economics Society
On Friday evening, the History of Economic Society's annual conference kicked off with a lecture from Professor and Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan. For the past two days, the Johnson Center 3rd floor has been filled with economists from around the world, to meet, greet, discuss, or to seek feedback on topics they are interested in. From 8:30 in the morning until early evening, the economists sit in rooms usually filled with student groups. Books are sold at a reduced price where you can purchase the complete collection of Ricardo for $76 or the complete set of Buchanan for less than a $100.
If you ever get a chance to attend a conference for any economic society, my advice is to take it, even if you must pay a price to attend. This conference was worth its price Friday evening when we received the blessing of listening to James Buchanan.
If you ever get a chance to attend a conference for any economic society, my advice is to take it, even if you must pay a price to attend. This conference was worth its price Friday evening when we received the blessing of listening to James Buchanan.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Easter Special: Religion and Economics
It is Good Friday. Easter is among us, and we continously face scarcity.
What am I implying? That the free market is God's gift. Many Christians believe that God would want us to live in socialism as we should share everything, but I ask you, IF this was the case, why would God have written the Ten Commandments to include property rights. Oh yes, property rights for how else can you covet your neighbor's property unless it is your neighbor's property and not your own. Private property is one of the foundations upon the free market.
Free market is not a thing that was created by man, but a gift that functions on its own. Man does not cooperate with one another and bring about a society when all is shared and given to one another, but this rather allows for free riders. A society that cooperates is one that trades for one action for another. Trades between their own private property.
Think of this, the Holy Trinity, is three entities in one God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We break them into three entitites in order to better comprehend God.
"Competing in cooperation and cooperating in competition all people are instrumental in bringing about the result, .... the determination of prices, the direction of productive efforts, and distribution.... These three events are not different matters. They are only different aspects of one indivisible phenomenon which our analytical scrutiny seperates into three parts."(Mises)
Similar by coincidence or is the free market a gift? Capitalism is the means. A peaceful society is the end to the means. Thank God for Capitalism
What am I implying? That the free market is God's gift. Many Christians believe that God would want us to live in socialism as we should share everything, but I ask you, IF this was the case, why would God have written the Ten Commandments to include property rights. Oh yes, property rights for how else can you covet your neighbor's property unless it is your neighbor's property and not your own. Private property is one of the foundations upon the free market.
Free market is not a thing that was created by man, but a gift that functions on its own. Man does not cooperate with one another and bring about a society when all is shared and given to one another, but this rather allows for free riders. A society that cooperates is one that trades for one action for another. Trades between their own private property.
Think of this, the Holy Trinity, is three entities in one God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We break them into three entitites in order to better comprehend God.
"Competing in cooperation and cooperating in competition all people are instrumental in bringing about the result, .... the determination of prices, the direction of productive efforts, and distribution.... These three events are not different matters. They are only different aspects of one indivisible phenomenon which our analytical scrutiny seperates into three parts."(Mises)
Similar by coincidence or is the free market a gift? Capitalism is the means. A peaceful society is the end to the means. Thank God for Capitalism
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Smoking
I do not point fingers or say any politician is at fault, but what is it with government wishing to impose upon more on our lives. To ban smoking from restaurants as if they owned the restaurants. Next they will ban smoking in our own homes. What is the use of owning a property if you do not get to do what you wish with it? Is the government not to protect our property? If its duty is to protect our property, why does it seem they continuously invade our homes with all their organizations? (FDA, FCC, etc)
This is short because there is not much to say on it only the few questions asked. Why shouldn't the restaurants decide on their own what their customers value more smoking or non. If the customers would rather have nonsmoking wouldn't we expect the greedy restaurants to cut away with their smoking section in order to increase their profits? Just a thought... or an outburst.
This is short because there is not much to say on it only the few questions asked. Why shouldn't the restaurants decide on their own what their customers value more smoking or non. If the customers would rather have nonsmoking wouldn't we expect the greedy restaurants to cut away with their smoking section in order to increase their profits? Just a thought... or an outburst.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Government Rights on War
I have been quiet due to a crazy spring semester. Crazy on terms that there are plenty of things to accomplish, but I had been too quiet. Bout time for some expression.
I had been conflicted with myself for a while now. I have blogged on government intervention for a while now and had been bitten by the notion that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." If you recall that is an old quote from Thomas Jefferson. He saw the problem with governments and how they imposed upon the rights of the people. So I am just reiterating what it is we know. My conflict fell upon the military. Should or could the military be privatized. Many have said yes, but I could not understand it. If it was privatized then he who owned it could impose his rules on to us by force. Therefore it leaves that military must lie in the hands of the government, but if the government has a military it can then cry out for war sending our military to any corner of the world.
The answer to this was simple, and I owe a gratitude to Economics PHD student at GMU for the insight. I can also attribute it to a few books, but it is mainly due to the PHD student. So simple is the notion although he believes in privatizing the military. The government can simply never proclaim war upon any other nation. The military's use is only to protect the rights of the citizens from any foreign force trying to enforce themselves upon them. By taking away the governments power in declaring war, we take away the politicians use of the country's military for their own gain. By the loss of declaring war, we allow those in the military to live longer more productive lives. By the loss of declaring war, we earn an edge, for a military that fights for the protection of their own family fights best. Yes, the Constitution needs a new amendment. That the government can no longer declare war.
Now there will be cries for help from across the world. Could there not be a privatized team to assist them? Perhaps former military who are experts in their field will join together constructing a privatized military. With this, companies oversees can pay former Marines, soldiers, airmen, or sailors for protection. Foreign governments would pay these privatized military men for aide. They would receive the market wage they should be earning rather than the underpaid government wages. In other jobs, the riskier the job the higher the pay. Why is it the military is underpaid? Government control. An open market privatized military would be able to receive top dollar for their labor. Yes, let there be an end to government force. Let there be an end to government's abuse. Let there be an end to declaring War.
I had been conflicted with myself for a while now. I have blogged on government intervention for a while now and had been bitten by the notion that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." If you recall that is an old quote from Thomas Jefferson. He saw the problem with governments and how they imposed upon the rights of the people. So I am just reiterating what it is we know. My conflict fell upon the military. Should or could the military be privatized. Many have said yes, but I could not understand it. If it was privatized then he who owned it could impose his rules on to us by force. Therefore it leaves that military must lie in the hands of the government, but if the government has a military it can then cry out for war sending our military to any corner of the world.
The answer to this was simple, and I owe a gratitude to Economics PHD student at GMU for the insight. I can also attribute it to a few books, but it is mainly due to the PHD student. So simple is the notion although he believes in privatizing the military. The government can simply never proclaim war upon any other nation. The military's use is only to protect the rights of the citizens from any foreign force trying to enforce themselves upon them. By taking away the governments power in declaring war, we take away the politicians use of the country's military for their own gain. By the loss of declaring war, we allow those in the military to live longer more productive lives. By the loss of declaring war, we earn an edge, for a military that fights for the protection of their own family fights best. Yes, the Constitution needs a new amendment. That the government can no longer declare war.
Now there will be cries for help from across the world. Could there not be a privatized team to assist them? Perhaps former military who are experts in their field will join together constructing a privatized military. With this, companies oversees can pay former Marines, soldiers, airmen, or sailors for protection. Foreign governments would pay these privatized military men for aide. They would receive the market wage they should be earning rather than the underpaid government wages. In other jobs, the riskier the job the higher the pay. Why is it the military is underpaid? Government control. An open market privatized military would be able to receive top dollar for their labor. Yes, let there be an end to government force. Let there be an end to government's abuse. Let there be an end to declaring War.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Universal HealthCare
I had promised a post on this subject last week, unfortunately I am not able to post throughout the week. Therefore I apologize that I will only be able to post on Sundays.
Universal HealthCare is defined as every citizen to have healthcare. For a government to uphold this claim, they must supply healthcare to those who are unable to afford it. Sounds caring; health care for the poor. Who would not want to support those in need?
When said that the government shall provide health care for those without it, we enter a realm of assumptions. Most people assume that the government has infinite supply of money therefore has the ability to provide the healthcare to all in need. The amount of citizens without healthcare is also assumed since it is assumed that others would spend their money on their own healthcare. These two assumptions are completely false and have no data to support their claims. Governments do not have an infinite supply of money. In fact, if the government continues to print money they cause inflation with the large increase of money in circulation. This means the dollar loses its value. Therefore government, just as any entity, only has a limited amount of money to spend on anything. Will it have enough money to give healthcare to all in need? Seeing how our National Debt is continuously increasing I see no funds for a universal healthcare plan.
Now the governement is not outlawing private healthcare. Therefore those who wish to pay for their own healthcare are more than welcome. Problem does not lie with the private healthcare but with the government's policy itself. Most college students do not have healthcare since they cannot afford it or do not wish to borrow more money in order to have it. Students see themselves as young and able to take the risk. Therefore students who are not under their parents' health plans will now receive the universal healthcare. Those who do not receive a high wage as in employees of low paying employers, i.e. McDonalds, Wendy's, Walmart, Etc. will also wish to receive this universal healthcare. They will want to keep as much of their wage as possible therefore would love to receive the free government provided healthcare. Let us not forget that some companies who do not wish to pay for the employees to have healthcare will use the universal healthcare as well.
The amount of people who will want this government provided healthcare has drastically increased. The amount of money the government has continuously decreases. The government will need money. As the government only has a limited amount of ways to receive money, they will do the one that enables them to have the largest increase. Raise Taxes. Everyone has to pay for others to have healthcare. Those who wished to have the free government provided healthcare do not realize that they are paying for it through taxes. Furthermore, those who chose to have private healthcare which they pay for out of their pocket will have to pay a higher tax in order to provide others with healthcare.
Universal Healthcare is not free. The money has to come from somewhere. The amount of people who might be able to afford their own healthcare will choose to receive the universal healthcare since they are paying for it in taxes already. If private healthcare is worth a certain market price, paying the market price and higher taxes decreases your want of the private healthcare. Is universal healthcare the answer to this nations problem? No. The next question to be asked will be who will then provide cheap healthcare? If there is a profit, there will always be someone willing to provide such a service. If the government intervenes causing the cost for cheap healthcare to increase, there will be less of companies to provide such services.
Just to note, I did not include the lists of abuses people, doctors do since they are not paying for it. I.E. Doctors in Florida who paid taxi drivers to pick up retirees in retirement homes. The retirees only want their medication to be refilled. The doctors give them prescriptions for refills but also add tests they never performed to the bill, thus increasing the amount they are paid for services never provided.
Universal HealthCare is defined as every citizen to have healthcare. For a government to uphold this claim, they must supply healthcare to those who are unable to afford it. Sounds caring; health care for the poor. Who would not want to support those in need?
When said that the government shall provide health care for those without it, we enter a realm of assumptions. Most people assume that the government has infinite supply of money therefore has the ability to provide the healthcare to all in need. The amount of citizens without healthcare is also assumed since it is assumed that others would spend their money on their own healthcare. These two assumptions are completely false and have no data to support their claims. Governments do not have an infinite supply of money. In fact, if the government continues to print money they cause inflation with the large increase of money in circulation. This means the dollar loses its value. Therefore government, just as any entity, only has a limited amount of money to spend on anything. Will it have enough money to give healthcare to all in need? Seeing how our National Debt is continuously increasing I see no funds for a universal healthcare plan.
Now the governement is not outlawing private healthcare. Therefore those who wish to pay for their own healthcare are more than welcome. Problem does not lie with the private healthcare but with the government's policy itself. Most college students do not have healthcare since they cannot afford it or do not wish to borrow more money in order to have it. Students see themselves as young and able to take the risk. Therefore students who are not under their parents' health plans will now receive the universal healthcare. Those who do not receive a high wage as in employees of low paying employers, i.e. McDonalds, Wendy's, Walmart, Etc. will also wish to receive this universal healthcare. They will want to keep as much of their wage as possible therefore would love to receive the free government provided healthcare. Let us not forget that some companies who do not wish to pay for the employees to have healthcare will use the universal healthcare as well.
The amount of people who will want this government provided healthcare has drastically increased. The amount of money the government has continuously decreases. The government will need money. As the government only has a limited amount of ways to receive money, they will do the one that enables them to have the largest increase. Raise Taxes. Everyone has to pay for others to have healthcare. Those who wished to have the free government provided healthcare do not realize that they are paying for it through taxes. Furthermore, those who chose to have private healthcare which they pay for out of their pocket will have to pay a higher tax in order to provide others with healthcare.
Universal Healthcare is not free. The money has to come from somewhere. The amount of people who might be able to afford their own healthcare will choose to receive the universal healthcare since they are paying for it in taxes already. If private healthcare is worth a certain market price, paying the market price and higher taxes decreases your want of the private healthcare. Is universal healthcare the answer to this nations problem? No. The next question to be asked will be who will then provide cheap healthcare? If there is a profit, there will always be someone willing to provide such a service. If the government intervenes causing the cost for cheap healthcare to increase, there will be less of companies to provide such services.
Just to note, I did not include the lists of abuses people, doctors do since they are not paying for it. I.E. Doctors in Florida who paid taxi drivers to pick up retirees in retirement homes. The retirees only want their medication to be refilled. The doctors give them prescriptions for refills but also add tests they never performed to the bill, thus increasing the amount they are paid for services never provided.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Politicians and the things they say
It is said "Economists do not vote". The reasons why are numerous. You can ask many on how do you vote and they may answer that they choose the lesser of the two evils. If it is evil why should we vote on it? Evil is evil no matter how much.
I think I am officially tired of politics. Those who are part of the party in power will always say "Stay the course". If they say we need change, then they are dividing their party which will harm their political career. Those who are not in the party in power will run with the slogan of change. What else is new? We expect it, but how much can we be lied to?
I was at a rally and heard that we need to discontinue the politicians supporting special interest groups. Furthermore, we need to end the politicians supporting their own agendas. I have heard it dozens of times before. Yet, here was the rally for change. A movement that was meant to be a beginning, and yet the politician spoke to a special interest group. The topics he touched related to this special interest group.
The politician was Senator Barrack Obama, whose heart is in the right place, but so caught up in caring he may in reality hurt those he wishes to help. How? Why? I will briefly discuss the items that were discussed yesterday which were universal health care and education, but we shall save that for my next posts as they deserve to be the topic of their own posts.
I think I am officially tired of politics. Those who are part of the party in power will always say "Stay the course". If they say we need change, then they are dividing their party which will harm their political career. Those who are not in the party in power will run with the slogan of change. What else is new? We expect it, but how much can we be lied to?
I was at a rally and heard that we need to discontinue the politicians supporting special interest groups. Furthermore, we need to end the politicians supporting their own agendas. I have heard it dozens of times before. Yet, here was the rally for change. A movement that was meant to be a beginning, and yet the politician spoke to a special interest group. The topics he touched related to this special interest group.
The politician was Senator Barrack Obama, whose heart is in the right place, but so caught up in caring he may in reality hurt those he wishes to help. How? Why? I will briefly discuss the items that were discussed yesterday which were universal health care and education, but we shall save that for my next posts as they deserve to be the topic of their own posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
