I am writing a newspaper column that may not get past the publisher this week. I can't really afford to have one rejected, but this is something that really needs to be said. And I've got to at least try to get it beyond "the choir" who visits here.
It concerns the rapist cops of Deming, New Mexico.
I have edited out all the references to disembowelment* and such, but it is probably still too strongly worded to be published. I keep trying, but how gently can one say what needs to be said?
And considering how badly the last column stirred up the citizens, they may not be willing to have another controversial column from the likes of me for a few weeks.
Either way, you'll be able to read it (I just may whine for donations to cover my lost pay if it's rejected). I guess you'll find out Friday.
Update: It passed, but some things are getting edited out, and an awful lot of "allegedly" is being added, to protect the newspaper's hiney from the same kind of violation the cops are accused of committing. You can read it this friday. In a month (December 24, 2013 to be exact) you can read my original version right on this blog. Stay tuned.
*In lieu of restitution...
.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Celebrity watching
Pretty often I see "serious minded" folk making fun of those who obsess over the latest celebrity trainwreck... while following what various puppeticians do as if it is important business.
How silly.
Paying attention to politics has as much real world value as obsessing over what Miley is smoking or who she's twerking.
Both are just cases of substandard people in far off places, with no real place of importance in your personal life, living in your head.
Your attention just feeds their ego and gives them reason to believe they really are as important as they imagine themselves to be. Sure you can say the politicians impose laws and taxes and have the power to destroy your life, but your compliance is really up to you. They have as much power over your life as you give them. Their local enforcers are the real problem, and yet, they still depend upon an illusion of legitimacy from their victims. Stop giving it.
In fact, of the two obsessions, I'd say it is less vacuous and trivial to pay attention to celebrities. At least they probably got your attention by doing something besides telling someone else to hold a gun to your head and steal your property and your liberty.
.
How silly.
Paying attention to politics has as much real world value as obsessing over what Miley is smoking or who she's twerking.
Both are just cases of substandard people in far off places, with no real place of importance in your personal life, living in your head.
Your attention just feeds their ego and gives them reason to believe they really are as important as they imagine themselves to be. Sure you can say the politicians impose laws and taxes and have the power to destroy your life, but your compliance is really up to you. They have as much power over your life as you give them. Their local enforcers are the real problem, and yet, they still depend upon an illusion of legitimacy from their victims. Stop giving it.
In fact, of the two obsessions, I'd say it is less vacuous and trivial to pay attention to celebrities. At least they probably got your attention by doing something besides telling someone else to hold a gun to your head and steal your property and your liberty.
.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
"Need" to be governed?
I don't need to be governed by anyone else, but even if I did, since everyone has the right to
defend themselves and their property from all violators, that is enough to govern me.
And the same goes for everyone else in the world.
People, exercising their rights, are the only government anyone needs, and the only kind of government that can actually work without becoming a bigger problem than that which it claims to be solving.
Obviously, some people have a pathological "need" to govern others, but even in that case they are not under the delusion that they need to be governed, themselves. Just that everyone else does.
I think we can discount the "needs" of those people as a sickness.
.
And the same goes for everyone else in the world.
People, exercising their rights, are the only government anyone needs, and the only kind of government that can actually work without becoming a bigger problem than that which it claims to be solving.
Obviously, some people have a pathological "need" to govern others, but even in that case they are not under the delusion that they need to be governed, themselves. Just that everyone else does.
I think we can discount the "needs" of those people as a sickness.
.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Shoe Goo!
Not a "primitive skill", but still a useful thing to know. This is a kinda, sorta product endorsement. No, I'm not getting paid for it and the company doesn't even know I am writing this... but I love Shoe Goo.
Originally I bought the stuff to do some shoe repairs, just as the stuff is intended for. Then, I realized it would stick to plastic toys better than anything else I had around, so my daughter's toys started getting repaired better, rather than just thrown away. She was going through tiaras too fast.
Then I started branching out to fix more and more stuff around the house. Stuff I had never been able to effectively repair before. Even fixed the side mirror on my dad's pickup with it.
The most useful thing I have found is that I can extend the life of my pants by 2 or 3 times. Maybe more. Actually, I haven't yet had to give up on a pair of pants that I have repaired with Shoe Goo.
I always wear out the left knee of my pants before anything else. Then the right knee goes, and then the seat of the pants gets holes (bike riding seems to be hard on the seat). I am not one to feel comfortable wearing holey pants, and never have been. But what I discovered is that I can rub some Shoe Goo on the inside where the wear is just about to break through and prevent it from happening for a few more months. If I get really ambitious I will cut a patch from an old pair of pants and glue it to the inside where the wear is and it lasts even better. I just keep an eye on where the next hole is going to form and nip it in the bud.
If you like saving money- and who doesn't?- try it. One tube of Shoe Goo pays for itself many times over at my house. The company might not approve of all my uses, but I just keep finding more. As soon as something needs to be fixed at my house, I don't grab the duct tape, I grab the Shoe Goo.
.
Originally I bought the stuff to do some shoe repairs, just as the stuff is intended for. Then, I realized it would stick to plastic toys better than anything else I had around, so my daughter's toys started getting repaired better, rather than just thrown away. She was going through tiaras too fast.
Then I started branching out to fix more and more stuff around the house. Stuff I had never been able to effectively repair before. Even fixed the side mirror on my dad's pickup with it.
The most useful thing I have found is that I can extend the life of my pants by 2 or 3 times. Maybe more. Actually, I haven't yet had to give up on a pair of pants that I have repaired with Shoe Goo.
I always wear out the left knee of my pants before anything else. Then the right knee goes, and then the seat of the pants gets holes (bike riding seems to be hard on the seat). I am not one to feel comfortable wearing holey pants, and never have been. But what I discovered is that I can rub some Shoe Goo on the inside where the wear is just about to break through and prevent it from happening for a few more months. If I get really ambitious I will cut a patch from an old pair of pants and glue it to the inside where the wear is and it lasts even better. I just keep an eye on where the next hole is going to form and nip it in the bud.
If you like saving money- and who doesn't?- try it. One tube of Shoe Goo pays for itself many times over at my house. The company might not approve of all my uses, but I just keep finding more. As soon as something needs to be fixed at my house, I don't grab the duct tape, I grab the Shoe Goo.
.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Officer paranoia
"Officer safety" has nothing to do with safety- it's all about officer paranoia.
If it really was about safety, then cops should be very relaxed and calm in any interaction with "the public". After all, they are heavily armed, and swagger around with the knowledge that their entire gang in blue will be at their back in any scuffle between them and normal folk. They know they have manipulated the "law" so that anything they do to you is "within departmental policy" and anything you do to resist their molesting hands is "assaulting an officer" and can be met with lethal force, "legally".
But cops aren't relaxed. They are frantic, paranoid, and trigger happy. They understand instinctively (even if they don't allow themselves to admit it) that their own actions have made them less safe than they would have been in the past. People in general are not worse- cops are. And there are real-world consequences that go along with that.
As I saw someone else say (sorry, I forget who said it) "There are no 'good cops'; there are 'nice cops'". But by choosing (yes, they do make a choice) to show up on the job each day to enforce counterfeit "laws", they are choosing to be the bad guys- the predators. Some can still afford to be "nice" while being the bad guys (just like the friendly neighborhood mafioso), but that number dwindles each day. They make themselves less safe and their frantic paranoia is evidence of this fact.
Don't trust them, and never forget that no situation is so terrible that it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the middle of it. You think it's dangerous to handle things on your own? Just wait til you call a cop and he shows up and immediately shoots down one of your family members who happened to twitch at the wrong time.
But you do what you want- just remember I warned you.
.
If it really was about safety, then cops should be very relaxed and calm in any interaction with "the public". After all, they are heavily armed, and swagger around with the knowledge that their entire gang in blue will be at their back in any scuffle between them and normal folk. They know they have manipulated the "law" so that anything they do to you is "within departmental policy" and anything you do to resist their molesting hands is "assaulting an officer" and can be met with lethal force, "legally".
But cops aren't relaxed. They are frantic, paranoid, and trigger happy. They understand instinctively (even if they don't allow themselves to admit it) that their own actions have made them less safe than they would have been in the past. People in general are not worse- cops are. And there are real-world consequences that go along with that.
As I saw someone else say (sorry, I forget who said it) "There are no 'good cops'; there are 'nice cops'". But by choosing (yes, they do make a choice) to show up on the job each day to enforce counterfeit "laws", they are choosing to be the bad guys- the predators. Some can still afford to be "nice" while being the bad guys (just like the friendly neighborhood mafioso), but that number dwindles each day. They make themselves less safe and their frantic paranoia is evidence of this fact.
Don't trust them, and never forget that no situation is so terrible that it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the middle of it. You think it's dangerous to handle things on your own? Just wait til you call a cop and he shows up and immediately shoots down one of your family members who happened to twitch at the wrong time.
But you do what you want- just remember I warned you.
.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Laws poor substitute for morality
Laws poor substitute for morality
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 11, 2013. Another "Huh?" headline from CNJ)
If you've been around computers much you know they tend to get slower over time as more junk builds up inside their programming, and as more processes get fouled. Some of this is due to spyware, malware, and viruses created to do you harm, and some is simply little glitches that tend to reproduce and spread.
Any complex system does the same sort of thing as time goes by.
Sure, you can keep applying patches, but the only solution is to wipe everything clean and start from scratch with a blank slate- or as blank as possible.
Such is the state of the body of laws in America. It's time to start over with a blank slate.
Even if you wipe the legislative slate clean, it will still be wrong to use force against anyone who isn't attacking someone else or stealing or damaging private property.
Laws against things that are truly wrong don't need to be imposed or enforced. Decent people will always recognize that murder is wrong, for example. It doesn't take a law to make it wrong, nor does it take a law to make it right to prevent a murder from happening or to permit you to seek justice for a murder.
That part is built into reality- it doesn't change, whether you write laws in that regard or not. Everything else needs to be carefully evaluated before being installed again.
Once the laws have been wiped away, and before imposing one to deal with some problem, look at history to see if previous legal attempts to address that issue fixed the problem, failed to fix it, or actually made it worse.
"Laws", against anything other than aggression or property rights violations, are harmful to the fabric of society. That's because to enforce them you must first violate life, liberty, or property.
The vast majority of laws are written as a patch- an attempt to fix a problem created by earlier laws. This just makes more problems that will need to be fixed later. This isn't a solution. Stop patching the flawed and broken code; that only makes things more twisted and problematic. Scrap it instead.
Install the recovery disc and start clean, and before enacting any law- even one that has a long history of being "common sense"- evaluate that law and see if it worked as advertised, or if its effects were misguided. Leave all your emotional baggage behind for this task.
And remember: If you need a law to make you do the right thing, you're already wrong.
.
If you've been around computers much you know they tend to get slower over time as more junk builds up inside their programming, and as more processes get fouled. Some of this is due to spyware, malware, and viruses created to do you harm, and some is simply little glitches that tend to reproduce and spread.
Any complex system does the same sort of thing as time goes by.
Sure, you can keep applying patches, but the only solution is to wipe everything clean and start from scratch with a blank slate- or as blank as possible.
Such is the state of the body of laws in America. It's time to start over with a blank slate.
Even if you wipe the legislative slate clean, it will still be wrong to use force against anyone who isn't attacking someone else or stealing or damaging private property.
Laws against things that are truly wrong don't need to be imposed or enforced. Decent people will always recognize that murder is wrong, for example. It doesn't take a law to make it wrong, nor does it take a law to make it right to prevent a murder from happening or to permit you to seek justice for a murder.
That part is built into reality- it doesn't change, whether you write laws in that regard or not. Everything else needs to be carefully evaluated before being installed again.
Once the laws have been wiped away, and before imposing one to deal with some problem, look at history to see if previous legal attempts to address that issue fixed the problem, failed to fix it, or actually made it worse.
"Laws", against anything other than aggression or property rights violations, are harmful to the fabric of society. That's because to enforce them you must first violate life, liberty, or property.
The vast majority of laws are written as a patch- an attempt to fix a problem created by earlier laws. This just makes more problems that will need to be fixed later. This isn't a solution. Stop patching the flawed and broken code; that only makes things more twisted and problematic. Scrap it instead.
Install the recovery disc and start clean, and before enacting any law- even one that has a long history of being "common sense"- evaluate that law and see if it worked as advertised, or if its effects were misguided. Leave all your emotional baggage behind for this task.
And remember: If you need a law to make you do the right thing, you're already wrong.
.
Car question
For the past two years- or getting close to that- I have been depending on other people for motorized transportation. I had a blowout in a blizzard and messed up my alignment (and obviously lost a tire) and can't afford to get that fixed. And now there are other problems my poor car has due to sitting unused for a couple of years.
But I am sick of depending on others when I need to get where I need to go- I use my bike in town, but this town lacks a lot of what I need to get to, and I also have other things I need a car for, even though I try to combine trips and eliminate them if possible. The "main town" is about 13 miles away, and not realistically a bikeable situation.
So, hypothetically, if I were ever somehow able to get enough money to fix the car (I'm estimating around $2,000), would it make sense to fix the car, or should I just buy another used car even if it cost me more? I'm tall enough, and my legs are so ridiculously long, that I can't fit in, or safely drive, a compact car of any kind. I have owned a standard transmission car but I despise standard transmissions with a red hot passion, but if I had no choice...
I'm not a "car guy", so your "Ford vs Chevy vs foreign car" stuff is meaningless to me. As is just about everything else of a technical nature. So I need it in "Captain Dummy talk".
It's not likely that I'll be doing anything soon due to finances, but I guess I should be thinking which way to go. And I suppose I should go ahead and sell my car if I'm never going to fix it. Any advice?
.
But I am sick of depending on others when I need to get where I need to go- I use my bike in town, but this town lacks a lot of what I need to get to, and I also have other things I need a car for, even though I try to combine trips and eliminate them if possible. The "main town" is about 13 miles away, and not realistically a bikeable situation.
So, hypothetically, if I were ever somehow able to get enough money to fix the car (I'm estimating around $2,000), would it make sense to fix the car, or should I just buy another used car even if it cost me more? I'm tall enough, and my legs are so ridiculously long, that I can't fit in, or safely drive, a compact car of any kind. I have owned a standard transmission car but I despise standard transmissions with a red hot passion, but if I had no choice...
I'm not a "car guy", so your "Ford vs Chevy vs foreign car" stuff is meaningless to me. As is just about everything else of a technical nature. So I need it in "Captain Dummy talk".
It's not likely that I'll be doing anything soon due to finances, but I guess I should be thinking which way to go. And I suppose I should go ahead and sell my car if I'm never going to fix it. Any advice?
.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Government terrorist ID training
My in-depth research skills have paid off. Here, for the first time anywhere, is the newest training material the US government uses, and orders the states to use, to identify terrorists:
Honor the Stormtroopers- Serving The Empire
I'm sure they believe they are fighting for the right side- the "good guys". After all, they are fighting "rebel terrorists" who destroyed a military base. They are probably held in high regard among their peers and praised by those who use them as tools. Their sacrifice and selflessness is apparent.
I suppose we should "honor" them... right? Without regard to the actual effects of what they did and are doing.
You go right ahead. I'll sit this one out.
.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Undiscovered Planet
What if you lived on a newly discovered planet somewhere and, unbeknownst to you, someone decided to make agreements among themselves claiming all the land, and then started selling the land back and forth under your feet. In that case, would you really be a trespasser?
Because, at some point in the past, that's exactly what happened.
I am not one of those claiming "we" should "give the land back to the original owners", because those people are long dead, and there is no way to know who would have owned that land now had the original theft never taken place.
It's just something I was thinking about. I guess it just means you had better stake a claim, and be willing to defend it with violence, in the event of new land becoming available.
.
Because, at some point in the past, that's exactly what happened.
I am not one of those claiming "we" should "give the land back to the original owners", because those people are long dead, and there is no way to know who would have owned that land now had the original theft never taken place.
It's just something I was thinking about. I guess it just means you had better stake a claim, and be willing to defend it with violence, in the event of new land becoming available.
.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Knocking CEOs
My CNJ column explained why raising the minimum wage won't solve anything. But, what then is the solution?
What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?
Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true. But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes. Don't like how much he is paid? Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.
Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees. One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**. I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway. This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.
I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.
I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him. Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite. I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.
*Corporations are a government-created fiction. They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion. I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.
**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores). So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.
Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.
.
What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?
Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true. But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes. Don't like how much he is paid? Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.
Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees. One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**. I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway. This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.
I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.
I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him. Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite. I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.
_
*Corporations are a government-created fiction. They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion. I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.
**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores). So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.
Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.
.
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Just a vector
Should I be disturbed that the most blog visits I have gotten in ages- even more than my post about the death of Chris Kyle, or the recent one pointing out that cops are cowards, or even my consistent "top post" of the past 3 months about Edward Snowden- was just a link to someone else's work?
Whether I should be bothered or not, I am. Just a little.
I suppose any page views are good. Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes. Eventually.
So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.
.
Whether I should be bothered or not, I am. Just a little.
I suppose any page views are good. Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes. Eventually.
So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.
.
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Supporters are awesome!
Just a quick note to say "Thank you!!" to all those who have made donations to help keep me blogging and eating. And to help me keep KentForLiberty online.
It's because of your support that I can afford to speak my mind without fear of losing a job for extreme "political incorrectness".
If you haven't pitched in, but you'd like to, the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons are there on the left.
Thanks again!
.
It's because of your support that I can afford to speak my mind without fear of losing a job for extreme "political incorrectness".
If you haven't pitched in, but you'd like to, the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons are there on the left.
Thanks again!
.
If it makes you feel good, it's probably illegal
Often, after I read some really inspiring anarchist or libertarian writing, I feel so good it's amazing. I feel taller, stronger, better than I was before. The day seems sunnier, other people seem nicer. Everything just looks and feels clearer. More focused and sharper. I feel happy.
So, I wonder if statists get the same rush after reading Mein Kampf or Mao's Little Red Book, or after visiting the Daily Kos or FOX News.
.
So, I wonder if statists get the same rush after reading Mein Kampf or Mao's Little Red Book, or after visiting the Daily Kos or FOX News.
.
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Healthcare best off in free market
Healthcare best off in free market
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 4, 2013)
If someone has a broken ankle you can't solve their problem by shooting them in the kneecap. If the problem is the cost of medical care you can't solve it by socializing medicine and giving government even more control. Government interference is what drove the price up to begin with.
The way to bring the price back down is to ensure a separation of medicine and state.
This would mean an end to ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, to the FDA and the DEA (and the DEA's war on politically incorrect drugs), and the end of state licensing (and therefore rationing) of medical professionals.
There are people who can't afford health care. The proper way to solve the problem is two-fold: reduce the cost of medical care and then help those who still can't afford it. Charities have always been an excellent solution to the latter problem- except when driven out of the market by coercive welfare.
The way to reduce the cost of health care is incredibly simple, but requires letting go of some carefully crafted misconceptions. The biggest of those is that only government can adequately oversee safety and protect the patients.
The FDA wouldn't necessarily have to be abolished, but it shouldn't be the only game in town, nor should it have the final say. Let independent labs determine the safety and effectiveness of new medications, putting their reputations behind the release of the new treatments they approve. Let doctors and patients decide what treatments they want to try.
On the other hand, the DEA needs to die a quick death and be forced out of the business of driving up the price of drugs through prohibition and the prescription scam. Drug abuse is bad; drug prohibition is worse by every measure.
No one needs multiple years of medical school to set a broken arm or to diagnose and treat a flu. Allow those interested in practicing the healing arts to be certified by competing agencies. If you've heard good things about the doctors trained or certified by "Docs R Us", and have less confidence in the doctors turned out by "Bob's Skool of Medasin", make your decisions accordingly. Let people hang up a shingle and compete for patients. If a medical condition is beyond the healer's ability, make it easy for them to admit this and refer the patient to a more skilled provider.
You are smart enough to decide where to buy a car, or who to marry, and you are mature enough to live with the consequences of a bad decision. Medical care is no different.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 4, 2013)
If someone has a broken ankle you can't solve their problem by shooting them in the kneecap. If the problem is the cost of medical care you can't solve it by socializing medicine and giving government even more control. Government interference is what drove the price up to begin with.
The way to bring the price back down is to ensure a separation of medicine and state.
This would mean an end to ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, to the FDA and the DEA (and the DEA's war on politically incorrect drugs), and the end of state licensing (and therefore rationing) of medical professionals.
There are people who can't afford health care. The proper way to solve the problem is two-fold: reduce the cost of medical care and then help those who still can't afford it. Charities have always been an excellent solution to the latter problem- except when driven out of the market by coercive welfare.
The way to reduce the cost of health care is incredibly simple, but requires letting go of some carefully crafted misconceptions. The biggest of those is that only government can adequately oversee safety and protect the patients.
The FDA wouldn't necessarily have to be abolished, but it shouldn't be the only game in town, nor should it have the final say. Let independent labs determine the safety and effectiveness of new medications, putting their reputations behind the release of the new treatments they approve. Let doctors and patients decide what treatments they want to try.
On the other hand, the DEA needs to die a quick death and be forced out of the business of driving up the price of drugs through prohibition and the prescription scam. Drug abuse is bad; drug prohibition is worse by every measure.
No one needs multiple years of medical school to set a broken arm or to diagnose and treat a flu. Allow those interested in practicing the healing arts to be certified by competing agencies. If you've heard good things about the doctors trained or certified by "Docs R Us", and have less confidence in the doctors turned out by "Bob's Skool of Medasin", make your decisions accordingly. Let people hang up a shingle and compete for patients. If a medical condition is beyond the healer's ability, make it easy for them to admit this and refer the patient to a more skilled provider.
You are smart enough to decide where to buy a car, or who to marry, and you are mature enough to live with the consequences of a bad decision. Medical care is no different.
.
The Caprock people
Libertarians are really radical compared to "the majority" today.
It wasn't always that way; not to the degree it is now.
The libertarian is like a stone that stays in place as the landscape around it erodes. A caprock. Over time, people on the eroded land look up and say "That stone is getting higher all the time!" They don't realize that the stone hasn't moved; the ground they are standing on has kept getting lower.
This is why libertarians are now considered so "radical" when observed by the degraded people around us. Of course, they are also standing on their heads so they see us as the degraded ones, but I suppose that's a topic for another day.
.
It wasn't always that way; not to the degree it is now.
The libertarian is like a stone that stays in place as the landscape around it erodes. A caprock. Over time, people on the eroded land look up and say "That stone is getting higher all the time!" They don't realize that the stone hasn't moved; the ground they are standing on has kept getting lower.
This is why libertarians are now considered so "radical" when observed by the degraded people around us. Of course, they are also standing on their heads so they see us as the degraded ones, but I suppose that's a topic for another day.
.
Monday, November 04, 2013
Compromise means you lose
Excellent! And, the same thing I've been saying for years. (H/T to Robert's Gun Shop)
And, thanks for your support!
.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Fun with spammers
Here's one of the best spam comments I have gotten in a long time:
Yeah... not really sure what was being "communicated" there, other than the spammer's link. But it was sure hilarious to read. You have to watch out for those unpredicted emotions.
.
"What a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious experience concerning unpredicted emotions."
Yeah... not really sure what was being "communicated" there, other than the spammer's link. But it was sure hilarious to read. You have to watch out for those unpredicted emotions.
.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Do I hope ObamaCare doesn't work?
I read a silly rant by someone claiming that ObamaCare's critics are just scared it will work. What tripe.
I hope ObamaCare does work. Just like I hope hyperinflation never hits America and like I hope the US government's "leaders" never get genocidally tyrannical. Just like I hope no one I know and love ever gets sick, injured, or dies.
But I know that's an impossible wish. And every nation with socialized medicine is already a failure by my definition.
America has already dodged too many bullets that "no nation in history has ever __ and not had __ happen to it". That "luck" can't hold out forever, and some day, when we least expect it, the bill will come due. The piper will be paid.
But how can ObamaCare "work"? Well, it depends on how you define "work", and whether you ignore larger issues.
Wanna improve "health care"? Just kill everyone who gets sick. Magically- no more sickness! That would be just as ethical as theft-funded ObamaCare. You can't accomplish good by doing evil.
.
I hope ObamaCare does work. Just like I hope hyperinflation never hits America and like I hope the US government's "leaders" never get genocidally tyrannical. Just like I hope no one I know and love ever gets sick, injured, or dies.
But I know that's an impossible wish. And every nation with socialized medicine is already a failure by my definition.
America has already dodged too many bullets that "no nation in history has ever __ and not had __ happen to it". That "luck" can't hold out forever, and some day, when we least expect it, the bill will come due. The piper will be paid.
But how can ObamaCare "work"? Well, it depends on how you define "work", and whether you ignore larger issues.
Wanna improve "health care"? Just kill everyone who gets sick. Magically- no more sickness! That would be just as ethical as theft-funded ObamaCare. You can't accomplish good by doing evil.
.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
A new investment opportunity!
No, not sending me all your money- although if you want to, I won't stop you.
This is about something really silly I saw in a "news" article.
It quoted someone who made the claim: "...each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy."
That's a pretty good return!
If that were true, grocery stores could profit by printing and handing out their own "food stamps". There would be no need of coercive and dangerous "welfare", since stores would gladly fund this type of profitable charity. I suppose it wouldn't even count as "charity" since it would be an investment and you could get rich by printing and accepting your own, brand name food stamps. And if food stamps are so great, gas stations should print their own gas stamps, and hardware stores should print tool stamps, and car dealerships could make a killing on car stamps! The possibilities are endless. You can't lose.
Unless what the person claims* isn't true.
Do statists really believe the ridiculous things they say?
Or, does this just show an utter lack of understanding of basic economy and where the money to pay for things like food stamps actually comes from?
*(Yeah, that's assuming the article quoted her accurately, which is quite an assumption to make. Yet, based on experience listening to statists make claims...)
.
This is about something really silly I saw in a "news" article.
It quoted someone who made the claim: "...each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy."
That's a pretty good return!
If that were true, grocery stores could profit by printing and handing out their own "food stamps". There would be no need of coercive and dangerous "welfare", since stores would gladly fund this type of profitable charity. I suppose it wouldn't even count as "charity" since it would be an investment and you could get rich by printing and accepting your own, brand name food stamps. And if food stamps are so great, gas stations should print their own gas stamps, and hardware stores should print tool stamps, and car dealerships could make a killing on car stamps! The possibilities are endless. You can't lose.
Unless what the person claims* isn't true.
Do statists really believe the ridiculous things they say?
Or, does this just show an utter lack of understanding of basic economy and where the money to pay for things like food stamps actually comes from?
*(Yeah, that's assuming the article quoted her accurately, which is quite an assumption to make. Yet, based on experience listening to statists make claims...)
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)