Monday, July 24, 2017

Flip Your View on Foreign Affairs and Environmentalism

Herein lies the key to understanding why I believe government can never be the answer.
“Here is the lesson in all of this: since the New Deal, progressives have told us that if the government gains control of an industry, it will be made equal so that there are no winners and losers. But, instead, there are still winners and losers—the only thing that changes is who chooses them. And if we have learned anything from the past several years, it’s that the government is never neutral.”
Please take just 2 minutes to think about world affairs from a non-US perspective.  I am not saying take the interests of other countries – just consider them so as to understand strategy.  It makes perfect sense for Kim Jong Un to want nukes and to act crazy.  It is the only thing that has prevented the US from taking him out and/or declaring war on North Korea like we did with Saddam in Iraq and Gadhafi in Libya amongst 5 or so other similar countries.  The quote below is written as if from the perspective of Kim Jong Un…
“The advantage of the guy who makes others think he is crazy is that he alters their expectations. Had I not seemed insane, just like my father, the great Kim Jong-il, the evil bourgeois Westerners would have launched a devastating surgical attack on my nascent nuclear program. But my nuttiness served as a deterrent. What they believed to be dementia was nothing more than my ‘Juche’ ideology, a nationalist self-confidence, my grandfather Kim Il-sung’s glorious contribution to socialism, which makes us indecipherable to foreigners.”

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Take the time to read this – it is critically important.

“It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those that are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”

– Thomas Paine


Civil asset forfeiture is the most barbaric part of our government.  A very slippery slope …
“It really is the perfect way to steal. No need to go to Congress and seek a tax increase. Just stop people traveling on the highways and take whatever cash they happen to be traveling with.

And that’s the way asset-forfeiture or, more accurately, asset-stealing works — by simply taking money from people against their will, like with robbery.”

A better solution, Stossel points out, lies in legalizing the ownership of these protected animals, treating them as private property, aligning the incentives of the sellers with the animals themselves.  This is similar to those criticizing the cutting down trees in the rainforest not realizing the best thing they can do for this is to use more paper – not less.  People fail to understand markets at even the most basic level. 
Stossel sums it up brilliantly:

 “Market-hating environmentalists will love endangered animals to death.”

A Different Direction on Foreign Policy

“During this time, it became clear that the Swiss had fought too many wars on too many sides to be able to safely pick one for the long haul, especially when all the big powers wanted Switzerland for themselves because of the country’s strategic location guarding the Alps. So when the Congress of Vienna met in 1814–15 to sort out European peace after the French Revolutionary War (during which the Swiss had continued to serve as hired bodyguards for the French monarchy, including the last king, Louis XVI) and the Napoleonic Wars (during which the French invaded Switzerland and broke up the old confederacy), the Swiss put forth an elegant win-win solution for the whole continent: let us be neutral. This validation was key. As Goetschel points out, ‘Neutrality only makes sense if the other powers recognise you.’"

“… there’s actually a definition of the neutrality policy on the Swiss government website … In addition to focusing on the country’s humanitarian bent, it lists some of the rules: The country must refrain from engaging in war, not allow belligerent states to use its territory and not supply mercenary troops to belligerent states.”
Switzerland has been largely neutral in many past and ongoing conflicts.  Also notice Switzerland doesn’t have terrorism issues.  Interesting….




AV - - As a side note, I fully support every common sense American who has begged for Maxine Waters to run for President.  Waters’ campaign would be the greatest thing ever for this country.  She provides more comic relief than Louis CK every time she speaks.  

Freedom

Audit the fed.  I can’t decide if Janet Yellen is a moron, evil or both.  Considering she works in government, she is most likely both.

Experts have been proven wrong time and again.  Trust entrepreneurs and capitalism every time. 

Can you distinguish the difference between your right to read whatever book you so choose with your right to spend your money however you choose? Think it all the way through.
Three quotes from the article:
1.  “Consider what people read. Should it be subject to democratic vote? Liberals-progressives correctly respond: ‘Of course not, Jacob. People should be free to read whatever they want, even if the vast majority of people disagree with what is being read.’”
2.  “The liberal-progressive blind spot comes into play with respect to people’s money. They cannot see that what people do with their honestly acquired wealth is no different in principle from what books people choose to read.”
 3 “Suppose John has $1,000 that he has received at his job. It’s his money. It’s his right to do what he wants with it. Let’s say that a local minister approaches him and asks for a $100 donation. John has the right to say yes and the right to say no. If he says no, the minister cannot rob him. That’s partly what freedom is all about — the right to decide what to do with your money.
Liberals-progressives (and, for that matter, conservatives) agree with that but also believe that what a person does with his money should be subject to the vote of the majority. So, if the majority decides that John should donate $100 to the minister, even though he doesn’t want to, they see nothing wrong with using the state’s taxing power to forcibly take the money from him and give it to the minister. They say that this is what democracy is all about. In fact, for statists ‘freedom’ is measured by the extent to which the state is empowered to control and dispose of people’s wealth. In the liberal-progressive mind, the more power the state has to control the disposition of people’s money, the ‘freer’ that society is.
So, in the liberal-progressive mind, freedom is a democracy in which the majority lacks the power to determine what a person reads but, at the same time, wields the power to determine what a person does with his own money. Like I say, it’s a warped and perverted view of democracy and freedom. Hypocritical too.”


Add this to the laundry list of reasons why Obama is the worst president we have ever had (maybe with the exception of FDR).  Trump is on pace to be worse than Obama, I do admit.  

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Healthcare Reform

AV -à Republicans have a dilemma – pass a watered down bill to partially repeal Obamacare or completely repeal it and start over.  My view is COMPLETE REPEAL. 
I concede the points given by Dennis Prager and those who agree that the most important thing is we repeal Obamacare, even if it means doing it in steps. 
On the other hand, I agree that when the system fails (and let’s be clear – there is quite literally 0% it will succeed in aggregate) republicans will get blamed, whether they partially repeal or take no action.
That however is not my main qualm with the strategy of repealing even with a piece of shit bill.  The main issue is republicans have been using this strategy since I was born and it has not worked once.  Conservatives always give in to moderates on tough political moves.  What happens?   The size of government always grows – every single year in the past 20 years.  Bush doubled the size of the debt only to have Obama double that.  Trump now wants to do the same.  In every single political category, America has moved left. 
We have politicians claiming the Senate Bill is blood money repeal – a disgustingly inaccurate statement.  Had the Senate passed this bill eight years ago, it would have been the biggest entitlement program in US history.  Government is forever and always growing and if we keep conceding to the middle ground between moderate and increasingly extreme left wing views, we will move increasingly left, continuing to grow the size of government, and our debt.  This strategy cannot and will never work.  As soon as you give the imbeciles on the regressive left any ground they double the distance they move left.  This is a losing strategy and at some point we need more Rand Paul’s that grow a pair and stand up to the most regressive political landscape in the history of the United States.
“This essay was originally published in The Free Market in April 1993.

It’s true that the US health-care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls.”
For more on healthcare here are the four best steps for the getting cheap high quality healthcare to the common people.
1.       Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, medical doctors and other health-care personnel.
2.       Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.
3.       Deregulate the heath-insurance industry.

4.       Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy.  You get more of anything you subsidize. 

Monday, July 17, 2017

Check the Data



Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs in 2001.  Note Portugal did not legalize all drugs. Fines and treatment programs replaced criminal records and incarceration    Fast-forward to 2017 when the number of drug induced deaths per million population between ages 15-64 is 6 in Portugal.  Comparably, the same statistic in the USA is 185.more than 30 times the rate in Portugal.  So much for America’s “War on Drugs” … 



See Chart III.  Annual US CO2 emissions per capita are at the lowest levels they have been since 1959.  The free market will solve the global warming problem.  It has in the past and it will in the future.  We have no place for fear-mongers.

Change Your Perspective

“One of the most frustrating things in debate is when you decisively win the initial point of contention, only to have your opponent ‘move the goalpost’ to a different claim. To be sure, this is a human failing, not unique to any particular political perspective. I’m sure I myself do this too. But I have certainly noticed it when people use it against me, and so in this series of posts I’ll review three times that interventionists moved the goal posts in a political debate.”
 This is why we cannot win in politics.  The goalposts will always move when the left loses. 
We need to get rid of the government so there is nothing to debate.
Analysts can manipulate data to “prove” both the successes and the failures of Obamacare, depending on their intentions.
BUT, we fail to admit that Obamacare was designed to implode and lead to single payer. 
This is a GREAT article!  Please read it.  It will open your eyes.
There is no denying taxation is theft and the government having the force to take our money is in fact slavery …
“Would an 80 percent take by the IRS constitute slavery for Americans? The question misses the point. The percentage is irrelevant. What matters is that when the state wields the power to seize whatever portion of a person’s income it wants, it becomes the sovereign and the person becomes the serf or the slave.”
… even when those monies are used for politically-correct social programs.
“Here is another funny part about the Times article: To buttress its slavery argument, it points out that the North Korean government takes out even more money ‘to cover living expenses, mandatory contributions to a so-called loyalty fund and other “donations.”’
It’s particularly funny that the article places the word “donation” in quotation marks. That’s undoubtedly because the Times doesn’t view them to be genuine donations given the fact that the state mandates them.
But would the Times recognize that the same principle applies to the money that is taken out of the paycheck of American workers to cover Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Homeland Security, or other U.S. welfare-warfare programs? Of course not. The Times would undoubtedly say that unlike the North Korean exactions, those U.S. “donations” are what freedom and free enterprise are all about.”



AV  à It is truly one of my favorite things in the world to watch Larry Elder confront someone who says we still have institutionalized racism.  He starts out by asking for one example and then no matter the example given he refutes the case with facts and numbers.  I have never seen him fail to do this and I have never seen someone do it better than he does.  I commend this work.  We all need to work towards this ability.  READ UP PEOPLE.   And not just headlines or social media posts.  Read from independent researchers.  Read from diverse perspectives.  READ.

Pentagon Fake News

I do find this curious.  Think about the lunacy of the Pentagon with Secretary of Defense Mattis making statements claiming the success of US threats against against Syria for thwarting an imminent “chemical attack” without any evidence of the attack.   

“Either way, Mattis seems happy enough with the results. Most days go by in Syria with no chemical weapons attacks, of course, but on this rare occasion US officials seem to feel like they can take credit for that fact, despite another idle US threat clearly being wholly unrelated to the result.”