Nick Gillespie debate highlights lost freedoms with government health care

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care, Video | Posted on 31-01-2010

2

Nick Gillespie was on Stossel and got into a heated exchange with a lady who thinks she knows how to live your life better than you do. Underlying her entire argument is that you do not have the right to choose what to eat or what is best for you. You gave up that right when our government decided they had a role in our health care system. While food is the main focus, if we have socialized health care for all, this will spread into every aspect of our lives.

YouTube – Nick Gillespie pwns Blond Health Nazi.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Man(government) Made Unemployment

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics | Posted on 30-01-2010

0

I found this article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. by way of the EconomicPolicyJournal. It explains that our unemployment issues are not just a matter of animal spirits. It comes from government intervention in the free decisions of employers and those looking for jobs.

All this talk of unemployment is preposterous. Think of it. We live in a world with lots of imperfections, things that need to be done. It has always been so and always will be so. That means that there is work to be done, and therefore, always jobs. The problem of unemployment is a problem of disconnect between those who would work and those who would hire.

What is the disconnect? It comes down to affordability. Businesses right now can’t afford to hire new workers. They keep letting them go. Therefore, unemployment is high, in the double-digits, approaching 17% or more. Among black men, it is 25%. Among youth, it is 30% or higher. And the problem is spreading and will continue to spread so long as there are barriers to deal-making between hirers and workers.

Again, it is not a lack of work to be done. It is too expensive to pay for the work to be done. So ask yourself, what are those things that prevent deals from being made?

Let me list a few barriers:

  • The high minimum wage that knocks out the first several rungs from the bottom of the ladder;
  • The high payroll tax that robs employees and employers of resources;
  • The laws that threaten firms with lawsuits should the employee be fired;
  • The laws that established myriad conditions for hiring beyond the market-based condition that matters: can he or she get the job done?;
  • The unemployment subsidy in the form of phony insurance that pays people not to work;
  • The high cost of business start-ups in the form of taxes and mandates;
  • The mandated benefits that employers are forced to cough up for every new employee under certain conditions;
  • The withholding tax that prevents employers and employees from making their own deals;
  • The age restrictions that treat everyone under the age of 16 as useless;
  • The social security and income taxes that together devour nearly half of contract income;
  • The labor union laws that permit thugs to loot a firm and keep out workers who would love a chance to offer their wares for less.

Now, that’s just a few of the interventions. But if they were eliminated today, and it would only take one act of Congress to do so, the unemployment rate would collapse very quickly. Everyone who wanted a job would get one.

Read the Full Article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/fix-jobs-problem140.html

Definitely click on the full article above. The rest of the article is as good as what’s above.

Think about it just on a very small scale. You don’t even have to take it to the extent of long term employment. Imagine if you are cutting your lawn. You look over, and you see your neighbor is replacing his roof. You yell over “Hey Jim. What are you doing home today?” He replies, “I got laid off last week.” You, “I didn’t know you knew how to replace a roof. Where does a computer engineer learn how to work on roofs?’ Jim replies, “I used to work on roofs during summers while in school. Speaking of, it looks like your roof is about due.” You, “Yeah, I’ve been meaning to get it done, but since they cut back my hours I haven’t been able to afford it. I can’t believe how much they charge for roofing.” Jim, “Yeah, there is a lot of money in roofing. I’d probably be better off it I stuck with roofing instead of computers. It’s been a bumpy ride.” You, “Jim, maybe we can help each other. Since I can’t afford to hire a roofing company, and you just got laid off, maybe I could hire you to do my roof. What do you say?” Jim, “Sorry bud. Have you seen all the laws and regulations in the construction trade now. You need a contractor’s license. You have to buy all kinds of special equipment for OSHA. Trying to meet all those requirements for one job would make me more expensive than the guys you already can’t afford. It’s almost like they errected these barriers to prevent competition from guys like me.” You, “Well maybe no one needs to know. It’s not like we’re selling crack here. Maybe we just say you are helping me with my roof, and no one needs to know I’m paying you.” Jim, “Six months ago, I would have done that, but I personally know a guy who almost went to jail because he paid people cash to work on his house. The IRS, damn gustapo, and the problem is you’d have to pay me cash if no one was going to know about it. It’s not worth the risk. I’ll just keep collecting my unemployment check, and hopefully I’ll find another job.”

So here you are. You need work done, which  you can’t afford because your hours have been cut back. Your neighbor needs work, but the two of you can’t come to an agreement because the tyrannical government we have puts a road block between every avenue of negotiation you attempt. Still think this is a Free Market?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 9.8/10 (5 votes cast)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur exposes Tim Geithner

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, Video | Posted on 29-01-2010

0

I love this video I found on The Daily Paul. It reminds me of a court room drama, where the cross examiner just destroys the witness.

Of course, we are supposed to just trust Geithner. He loves the common folk and is only looking our for their interest. The fact that Goldman Sachs made their biggest profit ever was just a side issue. It was just a symptom of his love for the people.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur Smashes Geithner | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtwVRM0OG58

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

“What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?”

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 29-01-2010

0

Just the other day I was having a discussion with my dad, where I said I don’t trust either party. I  said both parties want to take our liberties and control us. They are both bought and paid for by some special interest group. To this, my dad said I was becoming too cynical. In typical Neo-con fashion, he told me how evil the Democrats are and how Republicans are so much better.

A couple days later, I come across Bob Murphy’s post highlighting how George W. Bush and Barack Obama, a Republican and a “anti-war” Democrat, can care less about our Constitution. Despite the Bill of Rights, they believe all they have to do is label someone a terrorist, and they have the right to imprison the person without cause or trial. Now to take it one step further, they have the right to kill that person (could be you one day) based on their judgement alone. All they have to do is label you a terrorist or say you are helping terrorists and put you on their “hit list”. Considering how horrible they are at the no fly list, I hate to see how this list pans out.

Here’s Bob’s post.

What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?

I was having lunch with someone today (name being withheld in case he doesn’t want this broadcast) and we were musing over the contradiction in the average American’s mind. On the one hand, if you asked Americans to rate professions in terms of their morality or decency, politicians would come in at or near dead last, and if they beat out lawyers, that wouldn’t be much help–most politicians are lawyers.

But at the same time, when it comes to the life-and-death decisions that U.S. politicians make, most Americans give them the benefit of the doubt–often ridiculously so. Sure, they might have made a mistake in, say, invading Iraq, but it really was always about protecting Americans and freeing Iraqis from a brutal thug. The CIA guys just goofed, that’s all.

So anyway, my buddy asked something like, “At what point are Americans going to wake up and realize they can’t trust their government?”

My answer, “When it’s too late for them to do anything about it.”

Note that I wasn’t just trying to say something dramatic, at which point the snare drums kick in and lightning cracks in the background. I meant it quite seriously: The people in charge have to keep up appearances so long as it’s necessary for the overwhelming majority to actually trust that the system basically works. In contrast, in more totalitarian regimes, a large portion of the population knows full well that the rulers are evil, and they are kept in place by fear and helplessness. (They also might think there are no better alternatives.)

So with that in mind, let’s quote from today’s post by Glenn Greenwald. We have already learned that Americans won’t revolt–heck, won’t even vote against an incumbent–just because of worldwide CIA secret prisons and systematic torture of POWs. OK fine. What about this?

The Washington Post’s Dana Priest today reports that “U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people.”…

But buried in Priest’s article is her revelation that American citizens are now being placed on a secret “hit list” of people whom the President has personally authorized to be killed…

Read the full post at Free Advice: What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?.

So back to the question Bob posed in his title, “What Would It Take For Americans to Realize They Are Not Free?”  I am hoping that people are waking up to what our government has become, a corrupt, over grown, oppressive government of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers.

It’s funny how people like my dad (his counterparts on the left do the same thing) will ascribe the most horrendous intentions to Democrats (some are justified), but he does not see the intentions of the Republicans. When I mentioned this article to him today and how easy it would be to label anyone a terrorist, he said, “Yeah, I can’t see that ever really happening.” Do you think it is just coincidence that our government found the perfect boogie man to get US citizens to give up their liberty, condone the suspension of habeas corpus and now kill off Americans at the President’s behest?

Like I said in my post about us living in the real world Matrix, this Democrat vs Republican scam is setup to get people to ignore what is really happening. By cheering on your team, you become too invested in winning to notice your team has the same intentions. Both teams want to take your liberty, enslave you to Washington and Wall Street, and all the while make you think it’s your choice.

So are you really free just because you get to choose between one party or the other, but you get the same result from both? Imagine if I said the following to you.  “You are free, baby. I don’t want to take your rights away. You are free to choose. I don’t care what three days a week you work for me, it’s your choice. Oh, and don’t worry about this gun pointed at you. It’s here to protect you from those evil people trying to harm what we got going on here. You sure are a lucky sum bitch to have me here protecting you like this. Ok, decide which days and get to work. I know I had to shoot one of our workers, but he was helping those evil people. I just know it. It was completely justified. Trust me.”

Would you still think you are free?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (5 votes cast)

Meltdown by Thomas E. Woods Jr – The best explanation of our current financial crisis

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics, Video | Posted on 28-01-2010

0

This is from a lecture Tom Woods gave about his book, Meltdown. Tom is an awesome presenter and makes boring topics entertaining. By the end of the lecture, you will understand exactly who caused the mortgage meltdown, the financial crisis and our current recession.

This is a Youtube playlist, so the next part will automatically start. It’s a little over an hour for the full lecture.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CB9B817C147AEC7B

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

What is in that 2000 page health care bill?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care, Video | Posted on 28-01-2010

0

A buddy of mine sent this to me. This is very bad if this passes. Government will have real time access to your finances, be able to take money out of your bank account at any time, and on and on. You will not be anywhere near a free citizen if this passes, not that you are now.

YouTube – Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200 – Key Points.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The perfect is the enemy of the good

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 27-01-2010

0

While commenting on Paul D. Ryan’s op-ed, I was told “The perfect is the enemy of good.” The op-ed was talking about cutting taxes, having tax credits for health care insurance purchases, moving towards medical savings accounts, and other Republican ideas. While I think these ideas are better than Obama’s if I have the false choice of one or the other, they still are based on the premise that government has a role of telling or enticing us into living life the way they believe we should live. This is the problem I see with the Republicans. By saying we should have these other policies and programs, they have already conceded defeat to progressives that government is empowered to tell us how to live. From that point, progressives have already won. The argument then comes down to who has the best policies to force society into the stated policy goal.  Here was the comment and my response.

Lloyd Morton replied: Jason, read the above post, The perfect is the enemy of good.

Jason Vanzin replied: (your comment) Lloyd, saying we should be free from coercion is asking for perfection? It is asking for what is moral. It used to be what this country was based on.

If someone robs my house, and the police know who it is and that he has my stuff, would you say the perfect is the enemy of the good when I say I want it all back? Should the police say, just be happy the robber is giving you your toaster back? That robber sure is a good guy.

Perfect is not the enemy of good. Evil is the enemy of good, and government becomes evil when it moves from protecting liberty to coercion.

Grant Ellis replied: Well said!

Carlos Sierra replied: I wish I’d said that. Well done, Jason Vanzin!

via Paul D. Ryan: A GOP Road Map for America’s Future – WSJ.com.

I must say it was nice to see two people approving my comment, since it is a libertarian comment.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The Stimulus Tracker on CNNMoney.com – Track the economic stimulus package in detail

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 27-01-2010

0

If you just ate lunch, do not look at this link. It will probably make you sick.

The Stimulus Tracker on CNNMoney.com – Track the economic stimulus package in detail.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Democracy is everyone fighting to get control of the gun

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, History | Posted on 27-01-2010

3

George Washington warned us that “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.”, but we Americans forget that. Government is nothing but a gun. It maintains a monopoly on force, and it uses that monopoly on anyone who would challenge it.

We don’t realize that all our elections are is different special interest groups fighting it out in the polls to gain control of the gun. Each special interest group runs commercials, writes op-eds and trys to convince the general public that the gun is better off in their hands. They will use the gun to make things right, to make them better for everyone. Do not pay attention to who they are pointing the gun at, because they promise not to point it at you.

This warning should have been ingrained in us, coming from a man who could have been King. Our founders knew the government was a gun, so they wrote the constitution to limit the instances in which that gun could be employed. This is why they wrote the constitution in the first place. There were issues under the articles of confederation that made it extremely hard to be a nation. These were things like trade wars between states, states printing their own currency making it impossible to have a medium of exchange, etc. The founders reluctantly handed a gun to the federal government and said, “Here is the gun, and we want you to only address these specific items with this gun.” In order to protect citizens from the gun, they wrote specific rights that could not be trampled by the gun, which we know as the Bill of Rights.

Fast forward to the early 1900s, and you have a group of people, progressives, with ideas that they think they can create society based on their ideology. They realize they can achieve their vision, despite the fact that most people do not want to live out their vision. People prefer to live life as they themselves see fit, but the progressives know that if they can gain control of the gun, the people will have no choice.

This vision has come from both sides of the isle, and both sides love wielding the gun in the direction that they see fit. It has become unfathomable to them and increasingly to us as a people to think that people can possibly make intelligent, rational decisions for themselves. They have convinced us, through government schools, propaganda and their media accomplices, to believe that the gun is there to protect us. They are only pointing the gun as us to make sure we aren’t harmed. It is not government that needs to be limited as the founders believed, but it is freedom that needs to be limited to make sure no irresponsible decisions are made. People don’t even questions who’s defining responsible.

We let the government, an immoral institution if you believe violence is immoral, define our morals. If government says milk is now illegal, we automatically would assume all milk farmers are criminals if they continue milking cows. Then when government decides that they can coerce more taxes by allowing some government controlled milking, they tell us they will allow some milking with strict regulation and licensing. If this sounds far fetched, how is this different than alcohol and gambling. You can’t play a card game in your basement, but you can go to a government sanctioned casino to feed your money to their rich friends.

All this craziness in our society and every societal ill we have comes from this gun being wielded about and forcing upon society decisions and values that would otherwise not be what people would choose for themselves if they were free to choose for themselves. To rephrase Reagan, “The gun isn’t the solution, it is the problem.” It’s time freedom makes a come back, and it’s time we start taking bullets out of the gun. No person or institution is moral if it uses violence to coerce you.  No one weilding a gun can make better decisions for you and your family than you could. It’s time for us get back to what our founders believed, which is people should be free to live out their lives in pursuit of happiness free from coercion.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 8.9/10 (8 votes cast)

The Misesian Vision by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics, Government | Posted on 26-01-2010

0

This is a must read. Click the link at the end to read the entire article. It is definitely worth the time.

I’m finding it ever more difficult to describe to people the kind of world that the Mises Institute would like to see, with the type of political order that Mises and the entire classical-liberal tradition believed would be most beneficial for mankind.

It would appear that the more liberty we lose, the less people are able to imagine how liberty might work. It is a fascinating thing to behold.

* People can no longer imagine a world in which we could be secure without massive invasions of our privacy at every step, and even being strip-searched before boarding airplanes, even though private institutions manage much greater security without any invasions of human rights;

* People can no longer remember how a true free market in medical care would work, even though all the problems of the current system were created by government interventions in the first place;

* People imagine that we need 700 military bases around the world, and endless wars in the Middle East, for “security,” though safe Switzerland doesn’t;

* People think it is insane to think of life without central banks, even though they are modern inventions that have destroyed currency after currency;

* Even meddlesome agencies like the Consumer Products Safety Commission or the Federal Trade Commission strike most people as absolutely essential, even though it is not they who catch the thieves and frauds, but private institutions;

* The idea of privatizing roads or water supplies sounds outlandish, even though we have a long history of both;

* People even wonder how anyone would be educated in the absence of public schools, as if markets themselves didn’t create in America the world’s most literate society in the 18th and 19th centuries.

This list could go on and on. But the problem is that the capacity to imagine freedom – the very source of life for civilization and humanity itself – is being eroded in our society and culture. The less freedom we have, the less people are able to imagine what freedom feels like, and therefore the less they are willing to fight for its restoration.

This has profoundly affected the political culture. We’ve lived through regime after regime, since at least the 1930s, in which the word freedom has been a rhetorical principle only, even as each new regime has taken away ever more freedom.

Now we have a president who doesn’t even bother to pay lip service to the idea of freedom. In fact, I don’t think that the idea has occurred to Obama at all. If the idea of freedom has occurred to him, he must have rejected it as dangerous, or unfair, or unequal, or irresponsible, or something along those lines.

To him, and to many Americans, the goal of government is to be an extension of the personal values of those in charge. I saw a speech in which Obama was making a pitch for national service, the ghastly idea that government should steal 2 years of every young person's life for slave labor and to inculcate loyalty to leviathan, with no concerns about setting back a young person’s professional and personal life.

How did Obama justify his support of this idea? He said that when he was a young man, he learned important values from his period of community service. It helped form him and shape him. It helped him understand the troubles of others and think outside his own narrow experience.

Well, I’m happy for him. But he chose this path voluntarily. It is a gigantic leap to go from personal experience to forcing a vicious national plan on the entire country. His presumption here is really taken from the playbook of the totalitarian state: the father-leader will guide his children-citizens in the paths of righteousness, so that they all will become god like the leader himself.

To me, this comment illustrates one of two things. It could show that Obama is a potential dictator in the mold of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, for the presumptions he puts on exhibit here are just as frightening as any imagined by the worst tyrants in human history. Or, more plausibly, it may be an illustration of Hannah Arendt’s view that totalitarianism is merely an application of the principle of the “banality of evil.”

With this phrase, Arendt meant to draw attention to how people misunderstand the origin and nature of evil regimes. Evil regimes are not always the product of fanatics, paranoids, and sociopaths, though, of course, power breeds fanaticism, paranoia, and sociopathology. Instead, the total state can be built by ordinary people who accept a wrong premise concerning the role of the state in society.

If the role of the state is to ferret out evil thoughts and bad ideas, it must necessarily become totalitarian. If the goal of the state is that all citizens must come to hold the same values as the great leader, whether economic, moral, or cultural, the state must necessarily become totalitarian. If the people are led to believe that scarce resources are best channeled in a direction that producers and consumers would not choose on their own, the result must necessarily be central planning.

via The Misesian Vision by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr..

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (4 votes cast)