Karma is an oft misunderstood concept.  It’s actually quite simple.  It’s just the law of cause and effect.  One thing happens and that in turn produces effects.  It is, also the, a little less directly, evidence for the interconnectedness of everything, as everything effects everything else and this feedback loop has no end.  But, that is a different subject.

 Anyway, karma is life.  Nothing is free or apart from Karma, be it good or bad Karma.

Some Buddhists do argue that deep meditation and complete stillness of mind is the only “act” free of Karmic consequence, but once again this is a digression. 

Karma is obviously problematic.  Suffering and joy arise from any act.  People don’t like the suffering part.  And they look to god, well, not any more now they look to government to offer a solution.  Our friend, Government, says to you trust in me, give me your vote, give me your power and endorse my taking others’ power and I will reward you with the cessation of suffering caused by Karma (Nirvana in Buddhist terms).  That is to say, I, government, will turn on its head the law of cause and effect.  So, you don’t like the burden of being the master of your own destiny?  Well, there, there, I’ll shield you from it.  You don’t like that you might not be able to provide for yourself through service to others in the free market, I’ll shield you from that cause/effect dynamic.   Thus you’ve made a deal not with god, but with the devil.

Now, of course there is no way of bucking the law of cause and effect, but there is the illusion of it, which is such a delicious prospect.  This is the empty promise offered by gov.  But, the cost is always more, in terms of human suffering, than the more wholesome approach of leaving it up to the individual to work out his own karma.

———————————–

Gov. is the devil.

The leftist ideology of bucking Karma (the law that states the actions have consequences have actions) is the devil

Thinking that someone else can do it for you is the devil.

Resisting the structure of reality is the devil.

The most classic example of making a deal with the devil is that deal you make where, you get out the easy way, where you cheat the structure of reality, where you make the “easy money.”

You hear “the deal” being made everyday on the radio or see it on the TV, “you’ve got problems, buy this and it all goes away.”  This “omni-salve” is sold by Government, as well.

But, the really creepy part about the deal offered by government is that you are MADE to be part of the lie, whereas, in the free market when these creeps make you the promises, well, maybe you buy into it and get burned and learn a lesson or maybe you are already wise enough not to get involved, but you ARE free to engage in the delusion or not.

In America’s past there was greater belief in the existence of the devil and, I think, there was, thus, greater familiarity and caution about the promises he always makes.  But, now in our more secular world, we no longer worry about the devil, we are no longer wary of his promises and thus we are more likely to naively make a deal with him and sell our souls.

To quote the movie “the Usual Suspects” the greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince people that he doesn’t exist.

Florida Courts recently ruled against a law that Bans a Gay Couple from adopting children.  The Judged ruled that there is no rational argument against allowing Gay Couples to adopt.

Being a Libertarian I am completely against any and all forms of government impedance into civil liberties.  If an Adoption Agency chooses to let a Gay Couple adopt, then by all means, adopt away.  On the other end, an Adoption Agency run by a Fundamentalist Southern Baptist uber-Christian wahoo that completely hates and loathes Gays has just as much of a right to deny adoption to a Gay Couple.

I started thinking even further about the argument.  The premise of the objection against Gay adoption being that if a Homosexual Couple raises a child then those values will be passed down to that child.  The supporters of Gay Adoption, though, believe that those values won’t be passed down.  A person’s sexual preference is an inborn and genetic trait, i.e. there is no “choice” to smoke pole, it’s just naturally delicious to that person.

This is the typical Nature versus Nurture argument.  The more I think about it, the more I get turned off by the whole debate.  I find both arguments subjective and irrational.  I understand that there are on-going studies that are trying to identify a “gay” gene but they have mostly been inconclusive.

In the pursuit of truth I refuse any argument that is essentially subjective.  Randomly deciding if a person’s sexual preference is passed down through behavioral mimicry or due to an unchanging internal magical elf is too flexible for there to be a claim of truth to it.

If sexual preference is passed from parent to child, how is it measured?  Can you sense the exact moment it happens?  Can you tell how much of a percentage comes over (especially since there is no research that suggests that 100% of all children who live with homosexual parents become homosexual)?  Is there something like The Ghostbuster’s Psychokenetic Energy Reader that reads the amount of “gay particles” in a room that the kid breathes in?  More than 2,000 parts per million turns a child gay?

Additionally is the twisted use of statistics to back arguments against Gay Adoption.  “One out of every fifty children raised by a gay person ends up gay” or eight-five percent or four pencent, or whatever.  It is a weak argument.

Really, it’s all just smoke and mirrors and nonsense.  Unless someone invents a multi-universe travelling device that allows a child to be observed simultaneously between two universes where the only difference between them is that he is being raised by a straight couple or a gay couple, then we have to accept that it is an impossible question to answer, and again falls on the subjective “I believe unmeasurable and unobservable gay particles pass on to children” versus “I don’t believe unmeasurable and unobservable gay particles pass on to children”.  From that point forward opinion and hysterics reign and the argument falls into who can yell at each other the loudest.

I think that this needs to be dug in even further.

Suppose there is a child who is adopted by a family of Athletes.  Do people get all up in arms that the kid may have a higher probability of becoming an Athlete?

Of course not.  Most people would say that being an Athlete isn’t a moral decision and possibly quite positive for the child. I would argue that it absolutely could be.  A child raised in a house that puts a heavy emphasis on Athletics has an increased chance of Sports Injuries.  That increased probability, by the reasoning of Anti-Gays, should therefore cause a denial of adoption to the Athletic family.

Which is ridiculous. 

Even further it lacks any form of consistency.  Who determines the arbitrary line of moral justice of who has a right to adopt?  If a midget, nazi Eskimo takes political office and he determines that midget, nazi Eskimos are the only people who have a right to adopt, then what argument does someone have against it?

It’s really easy to infringe the fundamental rights of the population as long as it isn’t their own rights being infringed.  I guarantee that second a law gets passed banning heterosexual adoption all those people doing the chastising of homosexuals would be up in arms.

The answer, as always, is Liberty and Freedom.

As a strict adherent to the moral foundation of respect for all people’s negative rights, I MUST acknowledge that the adoption of a baby to a homosexual or heterosexual couple is absolutely none of my business and only a matter between the parties involved: the Adoption Agency and the couple doing the adoption.

Additionally, getting involved in the Nature versus Nurture argument is admitting that Homosexuality is wrong.  By trying to argue that a child will not turn gay just because they’re parents are is subtly admitting that you are holding out hope that their Gay parents won’t pass on gay particles to the child turning them gay.

Which I think rings true in the following statement: Gays are inherently Evil and Bad.

This mentality makes me absolutely sick.  Not because of the bigotry, because people have a right to be hateful if they so choose without impeding on another person’s rights, but because of the forced values on another human being.

I fully support a person’s right of belief.  A belief is never right or wrong.  Only infringement or impedance of Freedom is wrong.

From this point forward I refeuse to play the game of the close minded citizenry who hold that their beliefs are better than my beliefs and therefore have a right to suppress them.

They will say, “Gay Couples shouldn’t have the right to adopt because the child has a higher probability of being gay.”  The traditional response is to play into the Nature versus Nurture argument but now I think there is a much stronger, logical, and rational argument:

“Who cares if they become gay?”

You see how powerful that statement is?  It says, ‘I respect and acknowledge your beliefs that a child being raised with gays may have a higher chance of being gay, but I refuse to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with that.  It’s not a moral issue.’

By using that argument the only recourse that the other person has is to admit that there is something Evil, Wrong, and Bad with Gays.  Once they admit that then their arguments can be taken to their ridiculous conclusion:

“Ok, if you think they are Evil then we should just kill them.”

Hopefully at this point the person will at least get a glimpse at the error of their logic.  Being against Gay Adoption means that they believe that being Gay is some how Wrong and Evil and therefore should be murdered.

SUPPORT ALL RIGHTS EQUALLY.

From the AP, through Yahoo.com, Obama names budget director, promotes restraint.

President-elect Barack Obama pledged to make deficit reduction a goal of his administration Tuesday — but only after recovery from the financial crisis is well under way.

“When it comes to the budget, people don’t want to continue argument about big government or small government, they want smart government and effective government.”

Then, he urged Congress to prepare an economic stimulus program for him to sign as soon after Inauguration Day as possible. Estimates of the measure range from $500 billion to $700 billion over two years.

Is any human being better at contradicting themselves in one sentence then this man?  We need smart government or do we need to do a stimulus?  Do we need to be smart and effective or do we need to create a whole bunch of bureocracy for new programs?

What a douche!

From AP, through Yahoo.com, Government announces new loan programs.

At what point are people going to realize that Henry Paulson is a total moron?

“It is naive for any of us to think that when you are dealing with a situation of this magnitude that a bill could be passed or a single action taken to make all the issues go away,” Paulson told reporters at a briefing on the new programs.

Isn’t this the guy who a couple of months ago was saying that a bill would be the exact thing to make all the issues go away?  How many times does this guy have to change his mind, back out of statements, change facts and statistics, or whatever else he’s done to manipulate the system before the public takes him out of the Capitol Building and hang him from a tree?

Is this apparent only because I know Austrian Economics?  I would be very curious for a Democrat’s take on this whole mess and if they think that Paulson actually seems like someone that is trust-worthy.

[EDIT] Just to add, what does this say?  Hey, fiscally irresponsible people, here is a bunch of free money that we stole from a bunch of fiscally responsible people.  God, it makes me sick.  It is so immoral.

This is a little late, but I HAD to comment on it.  From the AP: Dems delay auto bailout vote, seek plan from Big 3.  (Let me note here, that I ABSOLUTELY do not support a bailout of the Auto Industry, this post has more to do with the gall and idiocy of politicians).

“Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a hastily called news conference in the Capitol.

This woman makes me want to yank my hair out and set myself on fire.

Since when is Nancy Pelosi an EXPERT ON THE AUTO INDUSTRY?!?!

This woman’s unbelievable ego makes me want to vomit.  Can you just imagine her going over financial reports, cost-benefit analysis, financial outlook, alternative studies, etc.?  What the hell can this woman possibly get from this and give back to them?

This is worse than the Simpson’s episode where Homer ruins his long lost brother’s Car Business because he’s a layman trying to get his two cents into a very complicated business.

Maybe GM should ask Nancy Pelosi to design a car, "The Nancy". What do you think the features would be?

She has a friggin’ Bachlor’s Degree in Political Science, what the hell can she possibly get from a “plan” from the auto industry?

Even worse, now the “Big 3″ have to waste a TON of resources to impress Nancy Pelosi’s dumb-ass so that they can rape the American Public with the help of this idiot.  Wouldn’t it be a lot more efficient if they used those resources to FIX THEIR BUSINESS!!!!!

Unbelieveable.  This woman needs to be impeached from office.  She could single handedly ruin this country.  What a moron.

From the AP, reported through Yahoo.com, Economy’s tumble even worse than expected in 3Q.

It’s no surprise to anyone that the market is shrinking back to a “real” level, yes, believe it or not, there is pain associated with bloating.

Worst of all is:

To help revive the economy, the Federal Reserve is expected to lower interest rates when its meets on Dec. 16, its last session of the year. Last month, the Fed dropped its key rate to 1 percent, a level seen only once before in the last half-century.

Holy crap!  The Fed is going to push interest rates down below 1 percent??  Unbelieveable.  What happens when people don’t want to use money to buy goods and services (i.e. being fiscally responsible, paying off bad debts, and saving money, which last time I checked was a good thing?) and the Quasi-Government Counterfeiting Presses, aka The Fed, keeps printing money?

That's right, that's money she's throwing in the fire. Germany, 1920s and 30s.

After posting about Amendment 8 in Florida’s Constitution, I got into a very excellent back and forth debate with reader Christopher Dell.  I thought it would be great to post up the back and forth because there is so much good information that came out of it.

By: Christopher Dell

I would love to hear an argument for the elimination of public education.

Are you talking about all education? or just higher education? Wouldn’t that ensure that the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich? How would poor children afford private education?

—————————————–

Christopher,

Let me say first off, that it is great to have an ability to have an open debate with another person, be it of different viewpoint or not. Questioning each other’s ideologies can only lead to positive things, so I appreciate the questioning and the open discourse.

This reminds me of a conversation that I was just having with a person at my job, who was making the same statement that you were. That free education benefits the poor.

I do believe that education benefits everyone (rich and poor – even Adam Smith said that an educated public is essential to bettering a country), but I do not agree that PUBLIC education benefits anyone – besides politicians and people who can rape the government.

A basic libertarian view point on ANYTHING Government related has to deal with Coercion and Force, which I morally believe is wrong. I completely do not agree with the policies of government theft to “help” others – i.e. helping some by hurting more. Everything the government creates, in this case, public education, has come from forcefully stealing resources away from others. I would even say that poor people are more apt not to pay their taxes, or even be more greatly affected when they DO pay their taxes. So in that sense, no, poor people do not benefit from public education.

Additionally, I think we can all admit that government waste is seen in all government entities. I actually believe that I read somewhere that for every dollar that goes into the government, only 20 cents is returned in an actual service. So government waste goes at an 80% clip, and even for arguments sake I’m willing to say 50%.

Let’s relate it back to a comparison back to Free Market Capitalism versus Socialism. I think a quote by Economic and Political Philosopher Murray Rothbard puts it all in place: “On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers.” So a private school system has an obligation to provide better services because they are trying to get your money by choice, while public education has zero incentive to do better by you besides the mythical “altruistic” motive, which doesn’t work.

If you look at simple statistics, average tuition per student in private schools (primary and secondary) is approximately $3,000, while public education is about $6,000 – these are national averages. The difference is answered by an understanding, again, of Free Market versus Planned System Economies. Competition creates cost saving, which benefits the consumer.

You mention that private education, would hurt the poor because they wouldn’t be able to afford it, but I think that you have that wrong.

No longer would it be a public burden for everyone to pay for a public institution. It would solely be based on if a person chooses to use the system. That would benefit the entire economy, poor people included, by reducing taxes overall and allowing that money that was otherwise stalled in public education to be used in other ways, such as creating jobs, that would benefit poor people.

Also, the FREEDOM in the type of learning would benefit children as well. I can give a personal experience on this one, that I think does show the overall system. I have friends who are teachers in “low-income” area schools. They basically tell me that it is impossible to teach their classes because the misbehaved children GREATLY outnumber the well behaved children. And, unfortunately because the majority of their day is spent dealing with the misbehaving children, the well behaved children often go untaught.

This, of course, comes from the fact that Public Education MUST be altruistic and taught to ALL people. But what if you are one of those kids who are from a poor area, have themselves together, and have the ability to excel in school?

Again, this doesn’t benefit the poor, it only inhibits them.

Even more so, imagine a landscape in which competition in schools were allowed. Not only competition, but freedom to teach in whichever way would benefit the child the most. Not all kids benefit from learning Colonial History, but can get much greater utility out of learning how to change a car’s motor oil.

This would end the day of the mega-gigantic school, whose only determining entry would be if you lived close enough to it. Now there would be schools that would be more flexible in being able to teach children based on their skills and not based on a single set of predetermined cirriculum.

Again, I would say this would be a case that would benefit the poor.

Another issue is “what about the kids who misbehave? Shouldn’t they be afforded an education?” But my answer is why would you distrupt children who want to learn with children who don’t want to learn? With these kids aren’t there bigger fish to fry in their lives besides forcing them to sit through school?

Lastly, and this is my biggest moral argument against public education: http://libertyisthemiddlepath.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/broward-county-school-system-proposes-felony-for-address-falsifiers/

When dealing with another person (in business, which therefore is by contract), when you break their “rules” then at worst you go to court and have to maybe pay some damages. When dealing with the government, when you break their rules, ultimately they may punish you with jail time or DEATH, if it is so deemed. Remember, government is the only entity with a monopoly on legalized violence. That alone should make people keep government as far out of their lives as possible.

Anyways, the point is that I absolutely do not agree with the idea that public education is better at educating children then private education. It would be much better for the macroeconomy, it would be much easier on people’s pockets, it would be more flexible and therefore serve people more efficiently, and more than anything, it wouldn’t be able to be used as a political tool.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Ric

—————————-

While I wholeheartedly believe there are flaws in the public school system, I can’t subscribe to a right/wrong answer to solving the problem.

I think that the government, in implementing public school policy, has taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way. Their need for measurments of success of school systems has lead to standardized testing, which in theory, I think is a good idea, because it can help the placement of students where they can be helped the most. But it has lead to a desire of schools to become competitive. Ultimately, teachers are teaching students how to pass tests, not actually build knowledge.

I think a better, albeit possibly out of reach, solution would require a drastic change to the structure of the education system in general. Children/people have different learning styles. If, from a young age, the education these children received depended on the child, rather than what the gov decided should be mandated, the education system would be more successful. I think that this would address these ‘misbehaved’ children and also include the idea that some people would benefit from learning how to ‘change oil in a car.’

As far as poor people being able to afford education, consider a family with an income of 30 thousand dollars a year. As an estimate, the income tax withheld from that income is about $5100 (at 17%). If we’re assuming that a private education annually costs 3000 per year, that would require that the income tax be lowered to 7%. Somehow I don’t think that that would be possible, and these families with children would not be able to afford education. Even if they could, what if they had two children? Unplanned twins? Would they have to choose one child to receive the education? To me, that makes social mobility basically impossible.

I’m a firm believer that education should be provided to every child/person. While our current system may be flawed, I don’t believe that eliminating public education is an option that would benefit anyone. A radical redesign, in my mind, would be the best option, but that seems as likely as America not being a two-party political system anymore.

Worth reading, if you’re interested: http://www.thecalltobrilliance.com/

—————————————–

Christopher,

Let me point out that first of all, Income Taxes do not pay for education (at least not in the state of Florida) mainly Property Taxes do. While Income Taxes may pay for Federal Departments such as the Federal Department of Education, the majority of statewide education is paid for by Property Taxes.

Additionally, your assumption of 17% tax paid by low-income families is wrong. The average is about 23%, and I can tell you that I pay 27% in taxes (and I don’t make over 40k). Throw on top of that Income Tax, Sales Tax, Tolls, Capital Gains Taxes, etc., etc. and most people paying over 30% of their income in taxes (according to the Tax Foundation).

Anyway, the point is that you can’t look at it in a vacuum. IF policies of spending and taxing restraint were shown by the government, and somehow they managed to reign in all the insane amount of spending that they do, then the estimated amount of taxes that most people will end up paying will be about 2-5% at the most.

Also, your argument that “most people can’t afford $3k in schooling” is not accurate. Take for example Technical Institutes versus Public Education. Public Education runs the same amount no matter what program you enter, what major you decide upon, etc. While in Technical Institutes run some courses for as low as $500.

Again, another case where the Free Market is more flexible, and therefore more able to meet the needs of the individual consumer.

Which leads me to your third paragraph. Your solution is completely unreasonable and could never be accomplished within a government program. The amount of bureaucracy would be unbearable. Schools can barely manage the needs of 40 to 50 kids in a classroom, what makes you believe that they would be able to better handle a much smaller size, or even one child’s needs?

The costs would skyrocket uncontrollably, not to mention those sacred “regulations” that statists love to throw around would additionally need to be expanded. Making it even more difficult to accomplish what you are suggesting.

The irony in what I find you saying is that you ARE advocating exactly what I am advocating. Except your thoughts of it being accomplished by government (while not causing taxes and costs associated with education exploding out of control) are illogical, while a Free Market Economy has time and time again shown an ability to meet the needs of its consumer with a much greater efficiency and cost-savings than anything the government can accomplish (look at the USSR versus the United States in medicines – over the 70 years of Communist rule only one new medicine was developed in the USSR while the United States created thousands in that same time period).

Your claim that “education should be provided to every child/person” is noble. But I don’t like the logical conclusion of what you are saying. What if someone doesn’t WANT their child to be educated in schools? Even worse, what if someone is completely against the educational system in this country such as me? What if I full heartedly believe that education in this country not only would ruin my child’s mind, but I see it as a use of statist manipulation of the public and don’t want to take part. So I decide I won’t pay my taxes in proportion to how much would go to education. Well, before I know it, my door is being broken down by IRS Agents, who are pointing guns in my face demanding their money (and if I still refuse to pay, they will throw me in jail and forcibly TAKE my children!)

Essentially, a large gap between statist/leftists and libertarians is this “utopian” message. Libertarians don’t claim to solve all problems. As a matter of fact a big part of Libertarianism is coming to terms with the fact that not every problem IS solvable and ESPECIALLY not solvable with government interference. Rather, the best solution is to let people be free, have their negative rights protected equally, and let them be adults and make decisions for themselves in their own best interest. Will people make wrong decisions? Of course. But no amount of regulation, government intervention, policing, jail time, etc., will prevent that.

You can’t FORCE someone to better themselves. Which brings me to yet another point, what if someone just believes differently than you do? Do you realize the elitism and unadulterated classism that is associated with the left? If someone disagrees with your education plan, your answer is “well they just don’t know what’s good for themselves, but I know better than they do, so they’ll have to do what I say no matter what (and of course with the punishment of jail time).” Liberty affords people the right to have a different view point. If you and a large group of your friends believe in pooling your money together, starting a school that is based on nothing more than living within the boundaries of a city that you all choose to live in – well, then by all means, go off and do it. The problem is that your views don’t allow room for different opinions. People MUST be part of your plan whether they want it or not, because… well, you just know better than they do.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Ben Franklin

In other words, in your attempts to “educated the population” or “insure that everyone is educated” you are sacrificing your (and everyone around you) essential liberties (right to property being a main one, and right to freedom if you don’t pay your taxes) for the Temporary Safety of educating the masses.

I hope that you reconsider your position. I used to be “left” as well, because I thought how marvelous it is to believe that the government should do everything it can to help everyone, but in the end, the Unintended Consequences are much more gruesome than anything or anyone that can be “helped”. (And don’t even get me started on how politicians use education as a tool of manipulation to achieve their goals – not because they’re bad people, but because that is what they do).

Ric

——————————————————–

I never really thought of the left as elitist etc. I do agree that most people (left or not) hold their beliefs to be the best, but I never considered that elitest.

By saying that ‘people must be part of your plan’ do you mean that any government program forces its citizens to take part in it? Such as the required education system.

I’m not sure if what I thought was a good idea would work out, but I just can’t believe that eliminating public education wouldn’t leave people behind. I think some sort of government involvement would be necessary to ensure that the child (or children) of a single parent who works full time (lets say 10$/hr) would be able to afford education after paying for rent,phone,utilities,groceries, medical insurance etc. How would you propose that this happens? Scholarships? How would a scholarship be aquired for a child who has no proof of merit? I just don’t see how it could reasonably be accomplished without any sort of government involvment.

Would the elimination of public education also eliminate federal student loans? I relied on student loans throughout college, I couldn’t depend on my parents at all.

I based my tax comments on the amount of tax that is taken from MY paycheck every two weeks, which is between 17-18% (although this includes social security). I make rougthly 30k per year and am not a homeowner. I’m was unaware how public education was funded and I’ll have to ask you to excuse my ignorance.

I want education to be successful. I want the poor child to be able to become better off than their parents. I’m not saying the HAVE to, I’m saying they NEED to be able to, should they choose.

I know that there isn’t just one way that everyone should follow. I knew plenty of people who dropped out of highschool, obtained their GEDs, went to community colleges and either moved on to a 4 year college or obtained a technical degree.

I’m not so stuck in my beliefs that I can’t be convinced differently. I just don’t believe in this whole good vs bad, black vs white (pardon the cliches) solution to everything.

————————————————–

Christopher,

No problem about the proofreading, you thoughts are still well put together, and I’m glad that you have put thought into it, while most people just accept the status quo without question.

Actually, one of the biggest things that turned me away from being a Democrat and a Leftist was the realization that their self-portrayal is completely contradictory to reality. Democrats portray themselves as the “party who cares” and the the “party who wants everyone happy” and are utopian, but again, it is the Unintended Consequences of trying to help everyone that I have a major problem with.

Let me put it in a different angle. I fully, 100% believe in charity. I fully intend to give at least 20% of my income to charity when I move up in my pay. Charity is voluntary. It is a beautiful thing when people, by choice, give money, clothes, food, etc. to something they believe in to help others.

But then you take it from the direction of a Leftist. They want to give off an impression of charity and entitlement by “government help”, but look at the cost. The thought of forcibly and coercively collecting taxes at the point of the gun seems completely contradictory to me. If you don’t agree with certain Social Programs you have no choice. There is no freedom. It is perverted.

Then take it even further when it is handled by Politicians. Again, government waste is enormous and also the people who are in the positions of power (and therefore have high income that is paid for by that collected money) benefit more than ANY poor person ever will.

Take United Way, for example. I never, ever give money to United Way. It has been cited time and time again that they have extremely high paid executives as well as high paid employees. I am free not to give money to United Way, because that is the beauty of a free and private society, while on the other hand I always turn to Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders who are mainly volunteer organizations.

So, in essence, the left perverts and distorts the beauty of giving by making it mandatory. You have no freedom of choice or freedom to not take part or to take part. Not only do you not have freedom, but the unintended consequence of not wanting to take part ends in penalties, incarceration, or death.

Also, with mandatory social programs comes huge amounts of oversight. One consequence is that other charities have to go through an enormous amout of time and trouble to establish a charity, which therefore de-incentivizes people to establish charities. As a personal example, I threw a benefit concert for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and when I went to bring the proceeds to Red Cross, not only did they say they couldn’t take it, but I had to go through an enormous process to be able to give them the money, clothes, and food that I’d collected for them.

Even worse is what the poor people, that you rightly have a lot of sympathy for, have to go through to receive the benefits of those programs. I’ve read some estimates that it takes between 20 to 30 hours of work a week to be able to collect Welfare or Unemployment Benefits (paperwork, waiting in lines, etc).

Think about that for a second. A person worked their asses off at a job, only to have 20-30% of their income forcibly taken by the government (which by the way takes a lot of work by a company to be able to fulfill the requirements to do), so that when you need those benefits you paid into, you have to work just as hard to get back out. They take YOUR money, then make you WORK to get it back.

Again, these are all just unintended consequences of “trying to help” the poor. And then compound that with the fact that some people may not even WANT the help.

I know this is off the topic, so let’s bring it back to education.

Now, you talk about protecting the single parent who is making $10/hour with multiple children. Basically your argument is that you want to save her (and her children) from herself. She made a decision to be uneducated which led her to a crappy job, she made a decision to have lots of unprotected sex and have children, she made the decision to not give her children a chance.

Let me take it to an extreme level then. If you are saying that it is the government’s responsibility to “insure” this woman should give her children a better life, then why don’t we just take her children? I mean, she obviously isn’t properly fit to have children. And you want to protect her from herself.

I know it is extreme to look at it like that, and I totally agree with you, I fully 100% want a person to have a better life as well, but there is no way to do that without letting a person make decisions for themselves.

Let’s say this woman has a bunch of kids, works a crappy job, and she is completely irrisponsible with her life. I would say this person is probably not going to be able to raise her kids that well, do you agree? So her kids misbehave, they’re trouble makers, they probably don’t give a crap about education or schooling, etc.

But leftists are totally determined that this child has a right to education (which is a positive right by the way – if you don’t know the difference between positive and negative rights wikipedia explains it pretty well). So they throw these kids into a classroom with other children who ARE determined to do well. The kids of the irresponsible parent are distractions, trouble makers, make life impossible for the kids who WANT to learn, not to mention that teachers have to deal with them as well.

So by wanting to provide a benefit for a person who doesn’t want it, you punish all the people who do want it.

Let’s look at it from another direction. Let’s say this mother despite her terrible situation, she is totally determined that her children will lead a better life. She teaches them from a young age that education is very important and they need to work their hardest to make something of themselves.

Do you think then that person needs the government to come down and spoon feed them benefits? Of course not, because they see the importance of doing it themselves.

In a Free Market Economy that’s called a “void in the market”. You have a consumer who is determined to get something, and the market responds by providing the service or product that person wants. Going back again to the Technical Institute versus Public Education.

Also, you were concerned if people will provide scholarships based on no merrit, but I would say that it’s been shown in countries (and our country before the 1970’s) when there are great deals of expendible money, which would happen with lower taxes, people are more apt to give to charities. Since there would be more charities, there would be more scholarships or people who are willing to support people coming from difficult situations. Ron Paul talks about how in the 60’s he used to work in a Charity Hospital, which have completely disappeared because of Hospital regulations and the rising costs of Healthcare administration (due to medicare and medicade).

So less gov’t, less taxes, less regulations leads to more charity, more options, more availability, more expendible income.

But it all starts with the recognition that you can’t make people do something they don’t want to do. If the mother is unmotivated then all the government incentive won’t chage that, while others have to pay for that “help”. But if the mother is motivated, then she wil make it happen in the face of all odds and a free market can respond to that will much better than government ever can.

Ric

This is most of a response letter I wrote one of my former finance professors.

Hum, some of your comments seem to suggest that the fundamentals of the econ are still good, and that there is an irrational fear that has brought down the stock market.

I happen to disagree. I think that the fundamentals are bad. Saving rates are extremely low in the US.

There has been HUGE growth of money supply over the last few years. Yes we have had inflation to account for that, but still I think there is much inflationary correction in store (the dollar is still completely over valued), http://www.safehaven.com/images/hewitt/8030_c.png

Fundamentally all you can buy with dollars are American goods/services. Think how many dollars there are versus those goods/services to be bought with them. Here, I don’t think securities count because, from the stand point of the investor/saver, they invest in securities, as a postponement and, hopefully multiplication of future consumption.

The further lowering of interest rates or even just keeping interest rates low as they are will just postpone the needed liquidation of mal-investment, (as that retard Bernanke is doing now). Think to Japan’s 10 year recession of the 1990’s.

Interest rates must go up and liquidity must dry up so that the weak be destroyed and then, confidence will return to the markets as it will be easy to tell what businesses are strong, but now weak businesses are being sustained by below market interest rates, so everyone reticence to get in to the market and buy is being heightened and prolonged by this propping up of bad businesses through these artificially low interest rates.

The Austrian position is that artificially low interest rates cause MAL-investment, and overconsumption, (over investment/consumption of houses would be the prime example.) and the resulting boom-bust cycle.

About a month ago I read “America’s great depression” by Murray Rothbard. It is excellent. It focuses on the causes and further aggravation of the great depression. So, it has been very useful in my trying to understand the current issues in the market/government, etc. Also, this was a useful link http://mises.org/story/3128

Markets are generally rational, in as much as, for the most part, it boils down to the individual having his own interest at heart. The problem comes in with government intervention. Government is moral hazard, as the reigns are in the hands of politicians whose job is to keep their jobs, i.e. buy votes with others’ money. It is a scam! It seems to me that this moral hazard is clearly worked out in the dysfunctional/immoral government meddling in markets.

The reasons I like the Austrian school’s reading on the econ, is because it is internally consistent (it uses the same logic with macro and micro, so much so that it doesn’t even distinguish between the two.), also it is totally pro-markets and extremely critical of state which, I agree with, as markets are honest, Government is usually all empty promises and moral hazard. And just to top it all off the Austrian school predicted the Great Depression. (“Ludwig von Mises (the most prominent economist of the Austrian school) expected this financial catastrophe, and is quoted as stating “A great crash is coming, and I don’t want my name in any way connected with it,”[19] when he turned down an important job at the Kreditanstalt Bank in early 1929”, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression .

I just keep getting bothered with the entire election process in the United States right now.  It seems so fundamentally counter to what this country was founded on.

Here you have these two people who are arguing points opposite to each other.  They are both trying to convince a majority of the people to agree with them, so that they can then turn around and then oppress the minority group that is opposed to their thoughts.

Wasn’t it this thought process that the Founding Fathers were trying to escape?  These upper classes and elites in England who were oppressing the freedoms (be it civil or religious) of the Colonies, so they therefore declared independence?  Is it coming to that?  Should there be another War of Succession?

Statism!  Socialism!  Fascism!  Loss of Freedom!  Horray!

And people are right when they call this one of the biggest and most important Presidential Elections to ever occur.  It bothered me a lot when George W. Bush was elected to office, and supporters of his said it was “unpatriotic if you didn’t support him”, but now with the Obamessiah taking the reigns, you will literally be the object of zealots and fanatics.

Also, a leftist rule now means logic, reason, and anything else that resemles anything that makes sense is completely out the window.  Example, Florida, Amendment 2.

For those of you who don’t know the proposed change to Amendment 2 in Florida’s Constitution changed the language of marriage to be limited solely to a Man and a Woman.  A “conservative” revision, as, for whatever reason, conservatives feel that it is the government’s responsibility to be involved in the business of marriage between two people.

Even before I learned about the libertarian philosophy, this absolutely baffled me.  To me the perfect compromise is to completely keep government out of this sphere.  Take, for one, the Metropolitan Community Churches.  A Christian denominational church that is specifically geared towards homosexuals.  These people, who are Christian, are completely Pro-Gay Marriage, while another denomination, such as Southern Baptists may be completely Anti-Gay Marriage.

It was my understanding as a free nation that separates church and state and also grants equal liberty to all wouldn’t have a problem here.  If gays want to marry through the MCC, which also agrees to marry gay couples, then that’s great.  While Southern Baptists who don’t want to marry gay couples, should have as much right to deny them a Southern Baptist marriage.

I just don’t see the problem here.

But, unfortunately, Amendment 2 was passed overwhelmingly in Florida, 62% to 37%.  How is this possible?  Florida (last time I checked) was an “Obama state”, giving him 51% of the vote.  How can Democrats, who claim to be the party of happiness, love, and puppy dogs have voted for an Amendment that limits a Personal Rights and Liberties?

A typical voting trend amongst Blacks is that while they tend to vote Democrat they also tend to vote Anti-Homosexual.

But how is this possible?  How can a group of people vote for a particular party on the claims that the party will protect their minority rights, while simultaneously giving legal credence to suppress the rights of other minorities.

Unfortunately, leftist and statists show their true colors in this matter.  It’s not that they CARE about the philosophy of freedom and liberty, what they care about is THEMSELVES.  But not in a respectful way, such as Libertarians (who say everyone has the right to be left alone), but rather, it takes form as “I want all the rights for myself, screw everyone else.”

This hypocrisy and insane thought process has to end. 

I know that my desire to inform, spread, and protect the beauty of freedom and liberty will not end with this election.  I hope everyone who was and is fearful of an Obama presidency will not stop now that he is in office.

This country was built on civil disobedience and a strong will against an authoritarian state.  Stand by your morals, your beliefs and do everything you can to keep freedom alive in this country.  A slow erosion can easily be solved with a steadfast desire to rebuild (or in this case tear down a corrupt institution) the beliefs and principles this country was founded on.

Do not lose faith.