After all of the talk in my previous two posts about the growing trend of socialism in this country I have come up with an idea to please all parties involved, Optional Socialism. The concept is simple, every five years you are given a choice, I want to live in a socialist society or I want to live in a free market society. For those who choose to live in the free market society things are the same as they are now except with less taxes, you buy what you need and if there is money left over you can buy what you want. For those who chose the socialist society route you would be pooled with all of the other Americans who choose to do it and all of your yearly income would go to a branch of the government set up to regulate this group of people.
The income of the people in the socialist group would go strait from their employer to the government who would deduct the standard taxes that were charged to the people in the free market group and then forward the rest to the regulation branch who would then divide the total amount of money by the total number of people in the program evenly. Every one in the program would then get the exact same goods in the exact same quantity every month. The same food, the same medical care, the same housing, the same clothes, ect. The total amount of goods disbursed would be based on the total amount coming into this program not on what people wanted.
Again people would be able to freely move between the programs every five years if they wanted to. My personal belief is that over time these people would begin to want the things that they were no longer getting. Every one would want something different because as humans our needs are different, which is why socialism cannot work effectively. Different needs and wants lead to trading of goods, trading of goods leads to the development of currency, and the development of currency leads to a free market economy. Maybe after all of the fools in this country who join the socialist program spend five years in a poverty stricken socialist hell they will finally pull their heads out of their collective asses and stop trying to turn the U.S.A. into the U.S.S.R. with all these damn socialist bills.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Where Increasing Socialism Will Take This Country
Let me explain my take on the story in the previous post. In my opinion taxes should be used for only the necessities such as maintaining a military, courts, disaster relief, economic stability, intelligence agencies, police, fire departments, schools, and various other bureau’s and departments that work for the common good of every one. In stead of letting the people in this country put their money into stocks and investments that help us expand economically we just keep siphoning it off it to things such as welfare and all of these other government subsidies. As I have said in my post on my Theory of Emigration, over time there will be fewer and fewer jobs in this country due to increased automation and mechanization. That being so we can keep increasing government payments to the people without jobs, watch those numbers continue to grow and carry an increasing deadweight around, a massive economic burden for those with jobs or we can simply say no and allow our country to flourish economically.
For those of you who have heard the old adage “Give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for a year” I believe the teaching has been done, we have public schools, collages give scholarships, student loans are available, any one with some motivation can get the education they need to bring in all the fish they want. So keeping in line with the adage, rather than force hard working fishermen to give out more and more of their catch every day until they are brought down to the level of those getting the free fish, we can stop giving them out. Without free fish (government subsidies) people will be motivated to fish for themselves (get a job) and for those who find it to difficult to fish in this pond (America) they can go somewhere else (another country, emigrate for a better life just like the ancestors of everyone who migrated here).
Why do people immigrate to America? Cause we kick ass? While some may say so I don’t think people move around the world just to live in a country that they consider cool. How about because we are a democracy? For some one living in the lower societal rungs of another country our concepts of democracy and personal liberty are intangible, so why? Because of the fair system we have for social mobility, an honest shot to make a better life for your self and your family. We are not the only country where people live comfortably, even in 3rd world countries there are people living high above the rest. However in those countries the system for social mobility is not fair and it is very hard to move up. The class system in the US is like a mountain, our laws and regulations make sure that everyone is allowed to climb up or down at their own pleasure. We educate people in public schools and give people the opportunity to learn how to effectively scale this social mountain.
In the case of the mountain, if all of the people at the bottom cling to the ropes of those on the top they will pull them down and then no one will reach the summit. Let us continue to have a free and socially mobile America, every one has a fair shot to climb the economic mountain, and no one is forced to be pulled back down by some one who doesn’t fell like climbing it themselves.
For those of you who have heard the old adage “Give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for a year” I believe the teaching has been done, we have public schools, collages give scholarships, student loans are available, any one with some motivation can get the education they need to bring in all the fish they want. So keeping in line with the adage, rather than force hard working fishermen to give out more and more of their catch every day until they are brought down to the level of those getting the free fish, we can stop giving them out. Without free fish (government subsidies) people will be motivated to fish for themselves (get a job) and for those who find it to difficult to fish in this pond (America) they can go somewhere else (another country, emigrate for a better life just like the ancestors of everyone who migrated here).
Why do people immigrate to America? Cause we kick ass? While some may say so I don’t think people move around the world just to live in a country that they consider cool. How about because we are a democracy? For some one living in the lower societal rungs of another country our concepts of democracy and personal liberty are intangible, so why? Because of the fair system we have for social mobility, an honest shot to make a better life for your self and your family. We are not the only country where people live comfortably, even in 3rd world countries there are people living high above the rest. However in those countries the system for social mobility is not fair and it is very hard to move up. The class system in the US is like a mountain, our laws and regulations make sure that everyone is allowed to climb up or down at their own pleasure. We educate people in public schools and give people the opportunity to learn how to effectively scale this social mountain.
In the case of the mountain, if all of the people at the bottom cling to the ropes of those on the top they will pull them down and then no one will reach the summit. Let us continue to have a free and socially mobile America, every one has a fair shot to climb the economic mountain, and no one is forced to be pulled back down by some one who doesn’t fell like climbing it themselves.
The Beginning of Socialism in America
Over time I seem to have noticed that in this country more and more often laws are passed that take more and more of our money in the form of taxes and use that money to pay for other people to live comfortably. The other day I received an email about a foreign man who had come to America from some country in which socialists were trying to overthrow the government. Part of this story was an analogy that I found very interesting so I have decided to post it.
In the story the man is talking and asked the question, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs? You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, then you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The man in the story says that it is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, Medicare, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
In the story the man is talking and asked the question, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs? You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, then you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The man in the story says that it is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, Medicare, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
The Smoking Ban
Indiana has no state-wide law against smoking in public places. However, in West Lafayette you can only smoke in your house, tobacco stores, private clubs, and outside. This means no smoking in any bar or restaurant. A few cities in California are even trying to ban people from smoking in public areas outside.
Here in good old West Lafayette, it all started back in '06 when Ordinance 8-06 was introduced in March and passed in April. However, it didn't take effect until July of this year. Since then, there has been no legal smoking in Harry's, no smoking B-Dubs, and no smoking in any place of employment. This is all part of a large country, if not world, wide movement towards the prevention of passive smoking. The idea is that anyone who takes in the smoke let off by smokers absorbs an assortment of toxins that can lead to heart disease and lung cancer, not to mention do harm to people who have asthma or an allergy to cigarette smoke.
So what’s my opinion on the whole deal? I'm on the fence. I've heard from many people and studies that second hand smoke is nearly as harmful as the act of smoking itself. I've also heard that it is only a small fraction as harmful. I've even heard some studies go so far as to say it is harmless to most people. Personally, I don't believe it to be very dangerous unless you are exposed to it on a regular basis, but my opinion shouldn't hold much weight since it isn't exactly backed up by scientific data. Then again, a lot of "studies" aren't exactly backed up by real unbiased data either.
It is when it comes down to the areas in which a ban prevents smokers from lighting up that I get a strong opinion. When cities start banning people form smoking outside and in bars I start getting upset. As a self-described Libertarian, I believe people should be allowed to do basically anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. (Don't take me too literally on that, there are many exceptions.) You would be hard pressed to convince me that people smoking outside, where there is such a huge area for the toxins to disperse, have a significant negative effect on non-smokers around them. People who don't want to be exposed to smoke in bars and restaurants can simply eat and drink somewhere else, like a no smoking section or your own house.
I don't believe in a smoking ban in any of the areas mentioned above, but I do believe in a smoking ban in some places. For instance, people can easily choose a different area to eat dinner that doesn't expose them to smoke, but finding a new job where the employees don't smoke is a different story. Likewise, smoking in an area such as a hospital is totally unacceptable; half the people in there can't even walk to get fresh air, let alone the fact that they are already sick. Apartments and dorms are up in the air, perhaps there could be a small section of an apartment complex that allows it or a certain dorm on campus that lets people light up.
I'm very skeptical about jumping onto the no smoking bandwagon, and I believe smokers are undeservingly being shunned. However, some of the ideas being thrown around do hold some merit, such as banning smoking in the work place. All in all, I don't believe second hand smoking is really that dangerous, people are being too anal about the entire ordeal, and banning smoking in restaurants and bars is a serious infringement on our rights as Americans. But, I ask, what are your opinions? Do you think there should be a total ban everywhere, no where, certain places? Do you think that second hand smoke is the next plaque, a joke, or some kind of middle ground? Please, comment, elaborate, and share your facts and opinions.
Here in good old West Lafayette, it all started back in '06 when Ordinance 8-06 was introduced in March and passed in April. However, it didn't take effect until July of this year. Since then, there has been no legal smoking in Harry's, no smoking B-Dubs, and no smoking in any place of employment. This is all part of a large country, if not world, wide movement towards the prevention of passive smoking. The idea is that anyone who takes in the smoke let off by smokers absorbs an assortment of toxins that can lead to heart disease and lung cancer, not to mention do harm to people who have asthma or an allergy to cigarette smoke.
So what’s my opinion on the whole deal? I'm on the fence. I've heard from many people and studies that second hand smoke is nearly as harmful as the act of smoking itself. I've also heard that it is only a small fraction as harmful. I've even heard some studies go so far as to say it is harmless to most people. Personally, I don't believe it to be very dangerous unless you are exposed to it on a regular basis, but my opinion shouldn't hold much weight since it isn't exactly backed up by scientific data. Then again, a lot of "studies" aren't exactly backed up by real unbiased data either.
It is when it comes down to the areas in which a ban prevents smokers from lighting up that I get a strong opinion. When cities start banning people form smoking outside and in bars I start getting upset. As a self-described Libertarian, I believe people should be allowed to do basically anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. (Don't take me too literally on that, there are many exceptions.) You would be hard pressed to convince me that people smoking outside, where there is such a huge area for the toxins to disperse, have a significant negative effect on non-smokers around them. People who don't want to be exposed to smoke in bars and restaurants can simply eat and drink somewhere else, like a no smoking section or your own house.
I don't believe in a smoking ban in any of the areas mentioned above, but I do believe in a smoking ban in some places. For instance, people can easily choose a different area to eat dinner that doesn't expose them to smoke, but finding a new job where the employees don't smoke is a different story. Likewise, smoking in an area such as a hospital is totally unacceptable; half the people in there can't even walk to get fresh air, let alone the fact that they are already sick. Apartments and dorms are up in the air, perhaps there could be a small section of an apartment complex that allows it or a certain dorm on campus that lets people light up.
I'm very skeptical about jumping onto the no smoking bandwagon, and I believe smokers are undeservingly being shunned. However, some of the ideas being thrown around do hold some merit, such as banning smoking in the work place. All in all, I don't believe second hand smoking is really that dangerous, people are being too anal about the entire ordeal, and banning smoking in restaurants and bars is a serious infringement on our rights as Americans. But, I ask, what are your opinions? Do you think there should be a total ban everywhere, no where, certain places? Do you think that second hand smoke is the next plaque, a joke, or some kind of middle ground? Please, comment, elaborate, and share your facts and opinions.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance
I heard this the other day on the radio, and I really thought it was something we need to be reminded of from time to time. As we say the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes, we don't really think about what we are saying, but rather just say the words we have known since elementary school. Here is Red Skelton's version of the Pledge, and it is well worth the four minutes to listen to it:
This video was made several years ago, but it still applies very much today. I think Americans get caught up in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, and they forget to remember the simple freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America. I am very thankful for each and every person that has fought to grant me these freedoms, and as an American, I will support every effort to give these freedoms to those in other countries (i.e. Iraq) that who are literally dying to have what we have.
As for Red's last statement, "Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said (the Pledge) is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools too?" I could not agree more. There are a lot worse things to be exposed to in this world besides religion, and I think it is good that kids in school grow up knowing the foundation of beliefs set up by our founding fathers, since they even engaged in a prayer they day before and the day after they voted to approve the First Amendment.
This video was made several years ago, but it still applies very much today. I think Americans get caught up in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, and they forget to remember the simple freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America. I am very thankful for each and every person that has fought to grant me these freedoms, and as an American, I will support every effort to give these freedoms to those in other countries (i.e. Iraq) that who are literally dying to have what we have.
As for Red's last statement, "Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said (the Pledge) is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools too?" I could not agree more. There are a lot worse things to be exposed to in this world besides religion, and I think it is good that kids in school grow up knowing the foundation of beliefs set up by our founding fathers, since they even engaged in a prayer they day before and the day after they voted to approve the First Amendment.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Why do we vote on Tuesday?
I'm not exactly sure either. Here is a video from an organization who is trying to get this outdated law changed:
This is absolutely embarrassing. The United States is supposedly the greatest country on the planet, and yet people are too lazy to take an hour out of one day during the year to get out and exercise their civil duty. I think changing the voting day is an intriguing idea that needs to be seriously looked at by Congress. Anything has to be better than a measly 48.3%.
However, I think the only other alternative would be to have the vote on Saturday, because one day during the week is just as bad as the other. Would people take time out of their weekend to go vote? Let's hope so. I think it would lead to some improvement, just because many people are not permitted by their employers to take off work to go vote. But that decision has to be made by Congress and the citizens of America, and we already know how eager most Americans are to change.
And after watching the video, I will make a challenge myself: To all of you, Republican or Democrat, who have criticized the President and his administration for doing a lousy job during the past seven years, take the initiative to go out and vote at the primaries to elect someone who you think will do a better job. I know I will be there, and you should too. Put your vote where your mouth is, and go make a difference, because the only way to get something done your way is to do it yourself.
This is absolutely embarrassing. The United States is supposedly the greatest country on the planet, and yet people are too lazy to take an hour out of one day during the year to get out and exercise their civil duty. I think changing the voting day is an intriguing idea that needs to be seriously looked at by Congress. Anything has to be better than a measly 48.3%.
However, I think the only other alternative would be to have the vote on Saturday, because one day during the week is just as bad as the other. Would people take time out of their weekend to go vote? Let's hope so. I think it would lead to some improvement, just because many people are not permitted by their employers to take off work to go vote. But that decision has to be made by Congress and the citizens of America, and we already know how eager most Americans are to change.
And after watching the video, I will make a challenge myself: To all of you, Republican or Democrat, who have criticized the President and his administration for doing a lousy job during the past seven years, take the initiative to go out and vote at the primaries to elect someone who you think will do a better job. I know I will be there, and you should too. Put your vote where your mouth is, and go make a difference, because the only way to get something done your way is to do it yourself.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid Resorts to Lying to Discredit Rush Limbaugh
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went out of his way today to write a letter to the CEO of the company that syndicates Rush Limbaugh's radio program, requesting that he denounce Limbaugh for comments he made last week about how soldiers in Iraq are "phony soldiers." So why am I not upset with Rush, since I am a supporter the war? Because Sen. Reid made the entire thing up. Rush Limbaugh's radio program is the most highly listened-to program in the country, and Sen. Reid thinks he can get away with making up what Limbaugh said.
Reid stated, "Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, 'phony soldiers.' This comment was so beyond the pale of decency, and we can't leave it alone."
The "phony soldier" (singular) that Limbaugh was referring to was of a person telling the stories of the horrendous things he had seen in Iraq and how the United States should leave immediately. The only problem: the person has never been in the military and has not been to Iraq (hence, phony soldier). So, somehow, by rightfully calling this person a phony, Sen. Reid deduced that Rush Limbaugh, who fully supports the troops and continuing the success we have achieved in Iraq, does not believe the American troops there are "real soldiers." Are you kidding me? Why are we even wasting the time of the United States Senate? There are so many problems going on in the United States right now, and we waste the Senate's time with garbage like this.
Limbaugh responded on his radio program by saying, "He's gotta be a nut. I cannot believe that they are actually going this far with this...If anybody in this country has been trying to demoralize the troops, it is you, sir, and your members of the Democrat Party. You have waved the white flag of defeat. You have claimed that they cannot win. You are trying to shift the focus from your perception, the perception, accurately, that people have of you and your party, to me, who everyone who has listened to me any length of time whatsoever knows that these allegations are just totally untrue."
I completely agree with Rush on this one. Sen. Reid and the rest of the Democratic Party have done our troops of disservice by threatening to cut off funding in Iraq and debating bringing the troops home before the job is finished, and now they want to act tough and defend them. It sounds awfully two-faced to me, and I can't sit back and let it happen. No wonder Congress' approval rating is so low right now (25.3%, yes, much lower than President Bush's). If they waste our tax dollars by getting paid to talk about crap like this, that rating will only continue to plummet.
Reid stated, "Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, 'phony soldiers.' This comment was so beyond the pale of decency, and we can't leave it alone."
The "phony soldier" (singular) that Limbaugh was referring to was of a person telling the stories of the horrendous things he had seen in Iraq and how the United States should leave immediately. The only problem: the person has never been in the military and has not been to Iraq (hence, phony soldier). So, somehow, by rightfully calling this person a phony, Sen. Reid deduced that Rush Limbaugh, who fully supports the troops and continuing the success we have achieved in Iraq, does not believe the American troops there are "real soldiers." Are you kidding me? Why are we even wasting the time of the United States Senate? There are so many problems going on in the United States right now, and we waste the Senate's time with garbage like this.Limbaugh responded on his radio program by saying, "He's gotta be a nut. I cannot believe that they are actually going this far with this...If anybody in this country has been trying to demoralize the troops, it is you, sir, and your members of the Democrat Party. You have waved the white flag of defeat. You have claimed that they cannot win. You are trying to shift the focus from your perception, the perception, accurately, that people have of you and your party, to me, who everyone who has listened to me any length of time whatsoever knows that these allegations are just totally untrue."
I completely agree with Rush on this one. Sen. Reid and the rest of the Democratic Party have done our troops of disservice by threatening to cut off funding in Iraq and debating bringing the troops home before the job is finished, and now they want to act tough and defend them. It sounds awfully two-faced to me, and I can't sit back and let it happen. No wonder Congress' approval rating is so low right now (25.3%, yes, much lower than President Bush's). If they waste our tax dollars by getting paid to talk about crap like this, that rating will only continue to plummet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)