"nationalize the doctors"
Thank you. An open admission that proponents of socialized health care are advocating involuntary servitude of the productive class.
..........................
Affordable Care Act – SCOTUS Open Thread
Scrutiny Hooligan
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Move To Amend Event In Asheville
Individuals have rights. They do not lose those rights when they organize and cooperate in groups; whether a corporation or a union.
"Citizens United dealt a serious blow to the further growth of campaign finance laws, supporters of which are determined and outspoken. But the controversy is shocking from the standpoint of the law at issue: It prevented a nonprofit group from distributing a film that criticized a candidate, Hillary Clinton, during her run for the presidency in 2008. During oral arguments in the case, the government admitted campaign finance laws could be applied to prevent corporations from publishing and distributing not only films but also books that said the wrong things during election cycles. Banning films and books? The First Amendment states: 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'”
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-spring/citizens-united.asp
"A lot of people (mostly on the left, but often on the right as well) view corporations, 'big business,' and the rich as having power over individuals that is similar to the power that governments possess, which is the power to compel. If you think spending money in voluntary transactions amounts to force, then you are going to want to control that spending, even when the money is used to buy speech that attempts to convince people to vote one way or the other."
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-summer/steve-simpson.asp
Move To Amend Event In Asheville
Scrutiny Hooligan
"Citizens United dealt a serious blow to the further growth of campaign finance laws, supporters of which are determined and outspoken. But the controversy is shocking from the standpoint of the law at issue: It prevented a nonprofit group from distributing a film that criticized a candidate, Hillary Clinton, during her run for the presidency in 2008. During oral arguments in the case, the government admitted campaign finance laws could be applied to prevent corporations from publishing and distributing not only films but also books that said the wrong things during election cycles. Banning films and books? The First Amendment states: 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'”
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-spring/citizens-united.asp
"A lot of people (mostly on the left, but often on the right as well) view corporations, 'big business,' and the rich as having power over individuals that is similar to the power that governments possess, which is the power to compel. If you think spending money in voluntary transactions amounts to force, then you are going to want to control that spending, even when the money is used to buy speech that attempts to convince people to vote one way or the other."
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-summer/steve-simpson.asp
Move To Amend Event In Asheville
Scrutiny Hooligan
Monday, June 25, 2012
Green Drivel
Green ‘drivel’ exposed
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
Scrutiny Hooligan
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.” -James Lovelock, author "Gaia"Agenda 21 – Sustainabilizing Your Freedom!
Scrutiny Hooligan
John Allison Installed at Cato Institute
Cato Institute and Shareholders Reach Agreement in Principle
The Cato Institute and its shareholders have reached an agreement in principle that would resolve pending lawsuits filed by Charles Koch and David Koch against Cato, its CEO, and several of its directors.
Under terms of the agreement, Cato will no longer be a stockholder corporation and John Allison (the former CEO of BB&T) will be replacing Ed Crane, who will be retiring as Cato's CEO. That represents a compromise by which both sides will achieve key objectives. For a majority of Cato's directors, the agreement confirms Cato's independence and ensures that Cato is not viewed as controlled by the Kochs. For Charles Koch and David Koch, the agreement helps ensure that Cato will be a principled organization that is effective in advancing a free society...
The Cato Institute and its shareholders have reached an agreement in principle that would resolve pending lawsuits filed by Charles Koch and David Koch against Cato, its CEO, and several of its directors.
Under terms of the agreement, Cato will no longer be a stockholder corporation and John Allison (the former CEO of BB&T) will be replacing Ed Crane, who will be retiring as Cato's CEO. That represents a compromise by which both sides will achieve key objectives. For a majority of Cato's directors, the agreement confirms Cato's independence and ensures that Cato is not viewed as controlled by the Kochs. For Charles Koch and David Koch, the agreement helps ensure that Cato will be a principled organization that is effective in advancing a free society...
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
NCGOP Budget & Election Integrity
Mr. Smith waxes meloncholy about the "foundation of our democracy" (which we are not) and the "power of the people to elect their representatives" and then voices objections to the ability of Buncombe County citizens to vote for representatives from their own district. It would appear that it is Mr. Smith who is advocating voter suppression. Perhaps he sees some advantage in it. Also, the apparent hysteria (thanks, Mike) over simply proving that you're an eligible voter causes me to think that Mr. Smith also sees some disadvantage in it, given that Mr. Smith reflexively divides humanity into two classes: My Tribe and Not My Tribe.
Mr. Dahm hastens to point out to us that "Voting is a right, not a privilege." If so, it is certainly a right possessed by actual citizens -- especially those who are still alive. If citizens, who supposedly have a right to vote, cannot be bothered to obtain some form of ID in order to validate the proper exercise of that right, I really can't be bothered to worry about it.
Action Alert – NCGOP Budget & Election Integrity
By Gordon Smith
Mr. Dahm hastens to point out to us that "Voting is a right, not a privilege." If so, it is certainly a right possessed by actual citizens -- especially those who are still alive. If citizens, who supposedly have a right to vote, cannot be bothered to obtain some form of ID in order to validate the proper exercise of that right, I really can't be bothered to worry about it.
Action Alert – NCGOP Budget & Election Integrity
By Gordon Smith
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Laissez-faire
The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure: Why Pure Capitalism is the World Economy’s Only Hope
By John Allison
Publisher: McGraw-Hill; 1 edition (September 25, 2012)
RELATED
John Allison Installed at Cato Institute
June 25, 2012
Under terms of the agreement, Cato will no longer be a stockholder corporation and John Allison (the former CEO of BB&T) will be replacing Ed Crane, who will be retiring as Cato's CEO. That
By John Allison
Publisher: McGraw-Hill; 1 edition (September 25, 2012)
RELATED
John Allison Installed at Cato Institute
June 25, 2012
Under terms of the agreement, Cato will no longer be a stockholder corporation and John Allison (the former CEO of BB&T) will be replacing Ed Crane, who will be retiring as Cato's CEO. That
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Amendment One
If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section:Sec. 6. Marriage.There are several good practical and legal cases to be made against Amendment One (Bothwell, Coalition to Protect NC Families). I oppose the adoption of Amendment One into the North Carolina Constitution on moral grounds.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.
1. Amendment One directly subverts government's only proper function in a free society, which is the protection of individual rights, and, instead, allows government to violate unalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness based purely on religious grounds.
2. Amendment One violates individual rights by preventing free adults from using their best judgment regarding social contracts. Individuals have the right of association, the right of contract and the right of freedom of action without interference by others or by the government.
3. Amendment One represents the conflation of church and state by codifying religious precepts in a law that forces everyone to adopt, in practice, the religious views of a majority. Law should at all times reflect a strict separation of religion and government.
4. Amendment One treats unequally under the law a segment of society based purely on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a subset of individuality and, as such, should be beyond the reach of the law. The individual human person is the primary category deserving of the legal protections of a limited government and no law should be made to single out subordinate characteristics for special, or unequal, consideration. A homosexual who injures no one else's rights is a FIRST CLASS CITIZEN. The rights of both heterosexuals and homosexuals should be protected in the same way the rights of both Buddhists and Christians should be protected.
5. Amendment One represents a resort to the use of force in human relations. Government should prevent and adjudicate the initiation of force in society and should not be the source of it. The initiation of force, in both the private and public spheres, is the abrogation of freedom and is an improper method of influence in a free society. Those objecting to gay marriage should attempt to use persuasion, not force, and let the arguments lie where they fall.
6. Amendment One appeals to mob rule to determine right and wrong by delegating the right to violate rights through an electoral process. Civil rights should not be subjected to a vote. No individual, no majority, no society, no government has the right to violate rights.
It is for these reasons that Amendment One is immoral and should be opposed by all defenders of liberty.
RELATED
NC Libertarian Party announces opposition to Amendment One
Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families
The North Carolina Libertarian Party today declared its formal opposition to Amendment One. The state’s third-largest party is encouraging its members, as well as all other voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote against the constitutional amendment on the May 8 primary ballot.
N.C. Libertarians Oppose Amendment One
Whereas, the great value of constitutions is the protection they provide for individual rights;
Yaron Brook discusses what's wrong with social conservatives.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Response to LTE on Profit
Tim Peck is a real card
Mountain Xpress | 3/28/2012
Tim Peck is fast becoming my favorite conservative, outpacing the always-entertaining Carl Mumpower. In his March 7 missive, “People and Profits Are in Harmony,” Peck explains the basics of capitalism as a fair exchange between a buyer and seller. And it's true: capitalism as a theory is a wonderful, productive enterprise, and I don't doubt profit as an effective motivator. However, it's just a theory. I could probably make a similar case for communism: In theory, it works great.
Peck is so colorful in his depiction of capitalism, even slipping "property" into the time-honored phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What a card.
Capitalism, however, isn't so wonderful in practice. When huge corporations use their financial power to sway markets (and now politics) in their favor . To put it simply (and to use one of Peck's examples), "when Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits." Actually, it profits more, because it pays some overseas workers less than a living wage so that you can pay a little less for your smart phone. Do we all profit from this?
In addition, we don't have a free market in the U.S., and it's not because of all those pesky government regulations protecting our land, air and water. No, it's because our government is either bailing out entire industries or sending subsidies (like the Farm Act) to corporations with no strings attached. Why is the government subsidizing oil companies? Why are banks giving their executives huge bonuses from the bailout funds? The list could go on and on.
One final comment: Corporations are not interested in the public's best interest, and they never will be. Heck, they aren't even interested in their employees' best interests. (If they were, layoffs would be a thing of the past.) They are interested in one thing only: short-term profits, and they will do anything, legal or otherwise, to get it. Now tell me, Mr. Peck, is that in line with "people and profits are in harmony?"
— Mark H. Bloom
Asheville
MY RESPONSE
"Tim Peck is fast becoming my favorite conservative"
I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.
"even slipping "property" into the time-honored phrase"
Yes, that's the original phrasing. And properly so. Property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all derivative of the right to life.
"Capitalism, however, isn't so wonderful in practice."
We don't have a capitalist economy. You say so yourself: "In addition, we don't have a free market in the U.S"
That is correct. We have a mixed interventionist economy. As you point out yourself. Subsidies and bailouts are the consequence of government interference in the economy and are not characteristics of a free market. In a free market, successful businesses succeed and failing businesses fail.
"'when Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits.' Actually, it profits more, because it pays some overseas workers less than a living wage so that you can pay a little less for your smart phone. Do we all profit from this?"
If I pay a little less for my iPhone then I profit a little more too. The buyer of an iPhone profits or they wouldn't buy one. Right? It's a voluntary transaction for mutual profit. Also, an overseas worker for the Apple Corporation profits by being offered a job that makes him better off. Or else he wouldn't take it. Right?
"Corporations are not interested in the public's best interest, and they never will be."
Corporations, in a free market, must be entirely concerned with the public's best interest. Otherwise they could not make a profit. Right? A corporation can't make a profit by ignoring the interest of its customers; unless the government interferes with anti-competitive legislation, subsidies, bailouts and regulatory capture.
"They are interested in one thing only: short-term profits, and they will do anything, legal or otherwise"
Being interested in short-term profits is perfectly moral. I want corporations to profit because that means they must please me with great products and services to get it. If a corporation, or any other entity, does something otherwise than legal, it is the government's proper role to protect my rights against fraud and any other crime against my person or property. Instead, the government subsidizes and bails out corporations. As you point out yourself. This is a violation of rights where the government forcibly confiscates my property (money) and gives it to someone else to whom it does not belong. Corporations in a free market, which we agree we do not have, are in perfect harmony with people, as I have shown.
The problem, as you have also pointed out, is with the government. Capitalists trade, government robs. It is not corporations, but the government and its interferences that are wildly out of harmony with people.
Mountain Xpress | 3/28/2012
Tim Peck is fast becoming my favorite conservative, outpacing the always-entertaining Carl Mumpower. In his March 7 missive, “People and Profits Are in Harmony,” Peck explains the basics of capitalism as a fair exchange between a buyer and seller. And it's true: capitalism as a theory is a wonderful, productive enterprise, and I don't doubt profit as an effective motivator. However, it's just a theory. I could probably make a similar case for communism: In theory, it works great.
Peck is so colorful in his depiction of capitalism, even slipping "property" into the time-honored phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What a card.
Capitalism, however, isn't so wonderful in practice. When huge corporations use their financial power to sway markets (and now politics) in their favor . To put it simply (and to use one of Peck's examples), "when Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits." Actually, it profits more, because it pays some overseas workers less than a living wage so that you can pay a little less for your smart phone. Do we all profit from this?
In addition, we don't have a free market in the U.S., and it's not because of all those pesky government regulations protecting our land, air and water. No, it's because our government is either bailing out entire industries or sending subsidies (like the Farm Act) to corporations with no strings attached. Why is the government subsidizing oil companies? Why are banks giving their executives huge bonuses from the bailout funds? The list could go on and on.
One final comment: Corporations are not interested in the public's best interest, and they never will be. Heck, they aren't even interested in their employees' best interests. (If they were, layoffs would be a thing of the past.) They are interested in one thing only: short-term profits, and they will do anything, legal or otherwise, to get it. Now tell me, Mr. Peck, is that in line with "people and profits are in harmony?"
— Mark H. Bloom
Asheville
MY RESPONSE
"Tim Peck is fast becoming my favorite conservative"
I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.
"even slipping "property" into the time-honored phrase"
Yes, that's the original phrasing. And properly so. Property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all derivative of the right to life.
"Capitalism, however, isn't so wonderful in practice."
We don't have a capitalist economy. You say so yourself: "In addition, we don't have a free market in the U.S"
That is correct. We have a mixed interventionist economy. As you point out yourself. Subsidies and bailouts are the consequence of government interference in the economy and are not characteristics of a free market. In a free market, successful businesses succeed and failing businesses fail.
"'when Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits.' Actually, it profits more, because it pays some overseas workers less than a living wage so that you can pay a little less for your smart phone. Do we all profit from this?"
If I pay a little less for my iPhone then I profit a little more too. The buyer of an iPhone profits or they wouldn't buy one. Right? It's a voluntary transaction for mutual profit. Also, an overseas worker for the Apple Corporation profits by being offered a job that makes him better off. Or else he wouldn't take it. Right?
"Corporations are not interested in the public's best interest, and they never will be."
Corporations, in a free market, must be entirely concerned with the public's best interest. Otherwise they could not make a profit. Right? A corporation can't make a profit by ignoring the interest of its customers; unless the government interferes with anti-competitive legislation, subsidies, bailouts and regulatory capture.
"They are interested in one thing only: short-term profits, and they will do anything, legal or otherwise"
Being interested in short-term profits is perfectly moral. I want corporations to profit because that means they must please me with great products and services to get it. If a corporation, or any other entity, does something otherwise than legal, it is the government's proper role to protect my rights against fraud and any other crime against my person or property. Instead, the government subsidizes and bails out corporations. As you point out yourself. This is a violation of rights where the government forcibly confiscates my property (money) and gives it to someone else to whom it does not belong. Corporations in a free market, which we agree we do not have, are in perfect harmony with people, as I have shown.
The problem, as you have also pointed out, is with the government. Capitalists trade, government robs. It is not corporations, but the government and its interferences that are wildly out of harmony with people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)