Pretty interesting thoughts, as a vet who served with a couple gay guys and knew several more from other MOSes and as a flaming libertarian I have no problem at all with repealing DADT. As a side note I love the internet there are so many different ideas you get to look at.
Actually, Jonah, in taking on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ Obama is saying to gays, ‘bite me’ — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian
Posted using ShareThis
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Jews In The Attic Test
Another gem from Joe Huffman Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death? Although I pretty much made everything up on the spot I told them I called this test my "Jews In The Attic Test". Furthermore I told them that if it fails this test no further discussion is really needed, the law must be opposed in the most vigorous manner possible. There really isn't much else to say, read it it's short.
The Jews In The Attic Test
Posted using ShareThis
The Jews In The Attic Test
Posted using ShareThis
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Has Capitalism Failed? -- Seeking Alpha
Has Capitalism Failed? -- Seeking Alpha
It hasn't and our current version isn't very at levels above the retail market.
H/T to Robert V. on facebook for aiming me to an interesting website.
It hasn't and our current version isn't very at levels above the retail market.
H/T to Robert V. on facebook for aiming me to an interesting website.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Transparency Reality Check
A Transparency Reality Check
It would be nice if the administration actually followed through on occassion.
I am not a fan of the president or most of his cabinet but I did hope to see something more than empty promises.
Posted using ShareThis
It would be nice if the administration actually followed through on occassion.
I am not a fan of the president or most of his cabinet but I did hope to see something more than empty promises.
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, August 10, 2009
Hypocrisy
SayUncle » Grassroots
So why are paid protesters okay for the Progressives and unpaid Conservative protesters bad? A second question is when will Oberman and Maddow express outrage over that.
So why are paid protesters okay for the Progressives and unpaid Conservative protesters bad? A second question is when will Oberman and Maddow express outrage over that.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The irony
The Liberal Sweatshop - Page 1 - The Daily Beast
The irony and hypocrisy from some on the leftward edge of stupid is amazing.
The irony and hypocrisy from some on the leftward edge of stupid is amazing.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Never again
The Holocaust museum shooting illustrates a couple things, one those bent on violence are undeterred by those cute little gun free zone signs, in fact many seem drawn to them as it give a ready supply of victims and that good people should be armed to repel and deter the previously mentioned psychotic assholes.
From my friend Andrew, Molon Labe
Don't be prey.
From my friend Andrew, Molon Labe
Don't be prey.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
"Top Ten Civil Liberties Abuses of the Income Tax" by Chris Edwards (Cato Institute: Daily Commentary)
"Top Ten Civil Liberties Abuses of the Income Tax" by Chris Edwards (Cato Institute: Daily Commentary)
Probably the most concise explanation of why I think our current tax system sucks. Not too long ago I thought the worst part was the inequality of it in that some not only pay no taxes but get money back.
What I think now is there are altogether too many ways the IRS can invade your privacy and in some cases ruin people with little to no accountability.
I am a big fan of user fees and consumption taxes as being more transparent and egalitarian not too mention it is much harder to be arbitrary in enforcement. The fact that I spent 3 years arguing with the IRS and still haven't got it completely straightened out versus Tim Geithner and the other privileged tax cheats we see in government.
Probably the most concise explanation of why I think our current tax system sucks. Not too long ago I thought the worst part was the inequality of it in that some not only pay no taxes but get money back.
What I think now is there are altogether too many ways the IRS can invade your privacy and in some cases ruin people with little to no accountability.
I am a big fan of user fees and consumption taxes as being more transparent and egalitarian not too mention it is much harder to be arbitrary in enforcement. The fact that I spent 3 years arguing with the IRS and still haven't got it completely straightened out versus Tim Geithner and the other privileged tax cheats we see in government.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Che
Okay here we go all my leftish friends are gonna disown me. I have never really paid much conscious attention to Che Guevara beyond commie=bad but after finding some friends belonging to a facebook group called Che Guevera was a murderer and your t-shirt isn't cool I started doing some reading and I am not sure why anyone would be enamored of a serial killer/mass murderer. I am not seeing much difference other than scale between him and Himmler or Lenins hatchet man who's name escapes me. He was also apparently capable of fucking up anything he was put in charge of.
Some linky goodness Biography, the workers paradise he helped create , a list.
I continue to not be a fan of oligarchys which is really what your typical Communist, Socialist, Fascist state or the people who create them.
Some linky goodness Biography, the workers paradise he helped create , a list.
I continue to not be a fan of oligarchys which is really what your typical Communist, Socialist, Fascist state or the people who create them.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor - What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? - NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Contributor - What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? - NYTimes.com
I like Mr Carter's Habitat for Humanity thing, I like that he is a man of faith though not mine. He also gets a bunch of bonus points for being a former US president so it pains me to have to tear his editorial apart. Some quotes and my commentary.
"I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office."
That's great sir I am pleased to hear you hunt even though I don't quite get the killing of our furry woodland brothers. I personally have weapons of self defense, target shooting and very occassional pest control.
"But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives."
Oh boy now I am being equated with mass murderers because I own semi automatic rifles that look like an M16 or AK. Sweet. Do I really have to kill people, can't I just keep shooting bulls eye targets at 200 to 600 meters like I have been. Oh wait they are also useful as militia weapons which is part of the reason for the 2nd amendment, some would say the whole reason.
"An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
Sir you cannot say you want to ban a class of firearm and then turn around and tell us there is no threat to our constitutional rights and expect us to believe it. It's like you banning Playboy and then saying you aren't infringing on Hughes 1st amendment rights. Actually you can't say a majority of Americans support any bans because Americans belief in gun control is at an all time low according to Gallop. It is also unfortunately true that the VPC and Brady Campaign has never seen a gun they liked. They are too small or too big or too accurate or bayonet luggy.
" What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths."
Oddly enough of those 30,000 (less than 1/1000th of a percent of the nations population) according to the FBI 12,000 were homicides, of that somewhere around 2.5% were committed with a rifle or shotgun and again by FBI stats less than 1% of those long arms were "assault weapons". About 17, 000 were suicides which wouldn't be affected by a ban on scary looking guns because handguns are used overwhelmingly in suicides just like in crime and because if you take away the gun there is still rope, cliffs or bridges or razor blades.
"In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide."
It's good he got the teenager (actually up to and including 25 year olds) part in there because that statistic relies on gang violence fueled by the prohibition of drugs and the drug war you and your replacements continue to prosecute in the face of overwhelming evidence it does no good at all. Let me repeat that the War on Some Drugs does no good at all. None.
" Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows."
I will leave aside the drift our former President is doing, he's getting old after all.
Any and I do mean any modern centerfire rifle bullet will penetrate normal police body armor. In fact the ubiqutis 30.06 or 30-30 round will do it far better than the 5.56 mm round out of an AR. We won't even mention how incredibly rare it is for a police officer to be shot in the first place, nor that the vast majority of cops who are shot on the job are shot with their own firearm after it has been wrested from their control by a bad guy.
I would also like to point out that private gun dealers do not exist. What he is referring to is a guy choosing to sell a firearm where the interested people are, much like cars get sold at cars shows. If there was someone who was dealing firearms without a license it's already against the law. One of the 20,000 that the BATFE is pretty aggressive about enforcing.
"Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States"
Why am I supposed to give up one of my fundamental civil rights because some people don't follow laws in another country? Maybe Mexico could split the cost of a wall with us then the drugs could stay on their side and the guns on ours.
The machine gun thing has already been debunked so many times I can't believe these people are still using it but since they are.... You can't buy "advanced weaponry" as a civilian in the US without involving your local sheriff, the FBI and BATFE and a 6 month wait before taking possession period. Machine guns, grenade launchers and grenades are heavily regulated by the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and last but not least the supply of them was choked in 1986 by FOPA at which time the ATF machine gun registry was closed, fixing the supply to those on the list as of May 1986. Drug cartels aren't stupid the machine guns they possess are from defecting Federales and Military (150,000 in the last 6 years) and from countries further south such as Nicaragua, El Salvador and Columbia because that's where you can get a couple crates for what a single M16 would cost in the US.
" The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend."
What former President Carter fails to understand is the text of the 2nd amendment is even more restrictive upon government to leave a basic human right alone than the 1st and that some of us are tired of compromising because it does no good.
It does no good because the Brady's are back in a couple years asking for more restrictions and because criminals don't follow laws. Honest they don't, if they did there would not be 26,000 murders a year 50 % of which are done with knives, baseball bats, hands and feet or whatever else comes to hand. If they followed the law we wouldn't have a drug cartels, if they followed the law rape wouldn't happen. If they followed the law there would be no gun violence in Britain, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico, South Africa, Sudan, Dar fur, Germany all places where guns are heavily restricted or banned.
Like I said at the beginning I like some of what Mr Carter has done with his life but he has never shown a whole lot of understanding of thugs and criminals. Why should I listen to him now?
I like Mr Carter's Habitat for Humanity thing, I like that he is a man of faith though not mine. He also gets a bunch of bonus points for being a former US president so it pains me to have to tear his editorial apart. Some quotes and my commentary.
"I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office."
That's great sir I am pleased to hear you hunt even though I don't quite get the killing of our furry woodland brothers. I personally have weapons of self defense, target shooting and very occassional pest control.
"But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives."
Oh boy now I am being equated with mass murderers because I own semi automatic rifles that look like an M16 or AK. Sweet. Do I really have to kill people, can't I just keep shooting bulls eye targets at 200 to 600 meters like I have been. Oh wait they are also useful as militia weapons which is part of the reason for the 2nd amendment, some would say the whole reason.
"An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.
Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case."Sir you cannot say you want to ban a class of firearm and then turn around and tell us there is no threat to our constitutional rights and expect us to believe it. It's like you banning Playboy and then saying you aren't infringing on Hughes 1st amendment rights. Actually you can't say a majority of Americans support any bans because Americans belief in gun control is at an all time low according to Gallop. It is also unfortunately true that the VPC and Brady Campaign has never seen a gun they liked. They are too small or too big or too accurate or bayonet luggy.
" What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths."
Oddly enough of those 30,000 (less than 1/1000th of a percent of the nations population) according to the FBI 12,000 were homicides, of that somewhere around 2.5% were committed with a rifle or shotgun and again by FBI stats less than 1% of those long arms were "assault weapons". About 17, 000 were suicides which wouldn't be affected by a ban on scary looking guns because handguns are used overwhelmingly in suicides just like in crime and because if you take away the gun there is still rope, cliffs or bridges or razor blades.
"In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide."
It's good he got the teenager (actually up to and including 25 year olds) part in there because that statistic relies on gang violence fueled by the prohibition of drugs and the drug war you and your replacements continue to prosecute in the face of overwhelming evidence it does no good at all. Let me repeat that the War on Some Drugs does no good at all. None.
" Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows."
I will leave aside the drift our former President is doing, he's getting old after all.
Any and I do mean any modern centerfire rifle bullet will penetrate normal police body armor. In fact the ubiqutis 30.06 or 30-30 round will do it far better than the 5.56 mm round out of an AR. We won't even mention how incredibly rare it is for a police officer to be shot in the first place, nor that the vast majority of cops who are shot on the job are shot with their own firearm after it has been wrested from their control by a bad guy.
I would also like to point out that private gun dealers do not exist. What he is referring to is a guy choosing to sell a firearm where the interested people are, much like cars get sold at cars shows. If there was someone who was dealing firearms without a license it's already against the law. One of the 20,000 that the BATFE is pretty aggressive about enforcing.
"Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States"
Why am I supposed to give up one of my fundamental civil rights because some people don't follow laws in another country? Maybe Mexico could split the cost of a wall with us then the drugs could stay on their side and the guns on ours.
The machine gun thing has already been debunked so many times I can't believe these people are still using it but since they are.... You can't buy "advanced weaponry" as a civilian in the US without involving your local sheriff, the FBI and BATFE and a 6 month wait before taking possession period. Machine guns, grenade launchers and grenades are heavily regulated by the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and last but not least the supply of them was choked in 1986 by FOPA at which time the ATF machine gun registry was closed, fixing the supply to those on the list as of May 1986. Drug cartels aren't stupid the machine guns they possess are from defecting Federales and Military (150,000 in the last 6 years) and from countries further south such as Nicaragua, El Salvador and Columbia because that's where you can get a couple crates for what a single M16 would cost in the US.
" The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend."
What former President Carter fails to understand is the text of the 2nd amendment is even more restrictive upon government to leave a basic human right alone than the 1st and that some of us are tired of compromising because it does no good.
It does no good because the Brady's are back in a couple years asking for more restrictions and because criminals don't follow laws. Honest they don't, if they did there would not be 26,000 murders a year 50 % of which are done with knives, baseball bats, hands and feet or whatever else comes to hand. If they followed the law we wouldn't have a drug cartels, if they followed the law rape wouldn't happen. If they followed the law there would be no gun violence in Britain, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico, South Africa, Sudan, Dar fur, Germany all places where guns are heavily restricted or banned.
Like I said at the beginning I like some of what Mr Carter has done with his life but he has never shown a whole lot of understanding of thugs and criminals. Why should I listen to him now?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
I sent this to the DOJ the other day
Mr. Holder,
With all due respect sir why do you keep pushing this "assault weapons" ban? According to the FBI long arms of any sort are less than 2% of gun crimes. Do you believe taking firearms from those who would abide by law will deter criminals from using them? It hasn't so far, so what is your point by continuing the farce? Out of curiosity sir when the president says the second amendment is different in Cheyenne than Chicago does that mean the 14th and 15th amendments are different in LaCrosse and Atlanta? Which other civil rights are different for some than others? Shall we deny 4th and 5th amendment protections to Arab Americans in airports? I find it surprising that a man of African American decent whose fathers and grandfathers were denied the right to arms even after the passage of the 14th amendment would even think to further restrict the rights of American citizens. Is there a part of shall not be infringed that is unclear sir?
I also sent similar missives to both my senators and congressman. I doubt Mr. Holder will ever get it but my congress critters seem to.
With all due respect sir why do you keep pushing this "assault weapons" ban? According to the FBI long arms of any sort are less than 2% of gun crimes. Do you believe taking firearms from those who would abide by law will deter criminals from using them? It hasn't so far, so what is your point by continuing the farce? Out of curiosity sir when the president says the second amendment is different in Cheyenne than Chicago does that mean the 14th and 15th amendments are different in LaCrosse and Atlanta? Which other civil rights are different for some than others? Shall we deny 4th and 5th amendment protections to Arab Americans in airports? I find it surprising that a man of African American decent whose fathers and grandfathers were denied the right to arms even after the passage of the 14th amendment would even think to further restrict the rights of American citizens. Is there a part of shall not be infringed that is unclear sir?
I also sent similar missives to both my senators and congressman. I doubt Mr. Holder will ever get it but my congress critters seem to.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Brady lying again
I don't think I want to live in a state the Brady Campaign gives an A to it seems a sure recipe for disaster.
Hat tip to my facebook friend David Moore
Hat tip to my facebook friend David Moore
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Travis McGee Reader: So Much for Ethic Cleansing
The Travis McGee Reader: So Much for Ethical Cleansing
Huh, another politician who thinks he is exempt from taxes.
Huh, another politician who thinks he is exempt from taxes.
Continued ideas
Crash,
I agree in theory but frequently we have little or no choice but to buy from a corporation. I'm not a fan of big government either but we can elect new people if we don't like their policies. True the election process weeds out the best people prior to the elections but we can still elect new people. We just did. We never get a vote in the corporate world except in cases where we buy from a different company. Many, if not most, of the things we really need we get from mega-corps over which we have no control at all. We don't get to vote for oil company executives, or set their salaries, and it doesn't matter much if I guy from one station or another they are all mega corps.
I'd like to be able to vote for both government offices and corporate officers. My main point is not that I prefer big government but rather that I dislike, and fear, the ruthless avarice of big corporations. Until Bush I never felt that the government would kill me just for some private agenda. I don't think it would happen now unless I do something really criminal or stupid. I do think that a corporate board would murder me and sell my pieces on ebay if they could make a buck and not get caught.
Response
I think I am becoming less of a fan of government as I get older, I have become considerably more cynical since first voting in 1980.
Would you prefer business to be state owned or controlled? Has that worked well for Russia or China? Did it work out well in Cambodia? Can you give me an example of something that I need that I have to buy from one company? It seems I may choose from several different oil companies or even choose to live close enough to work that I could ride a bicycle or walk. With computer operating systems I can choose Microsoft, Mac or Linux with 20 or 30 others having at least a little market share. If I don't like Super Value I can buy from Econo foods or Wal Mart or even grow my own. Will I trade some inconvenience for moral peace yes. No one is forcing me to live 60 miles from a job market that will pay me what I want to earn, I choose to. Should Brian be required by democratic vote to hire me and pay me the 28.00 an hour and health insurance I think I am worth? What if his business model won't support that? Or worse what if it could but he wants to keep that profit for himself so he can save expand his business or for his retirement? Is that fair of him, should he be forced to?
Your wanting to vote for corp officers confuses me a little bit, if you are a shareholder you can vote for the officers and have at least as much of an affect as your individual vote does in a general election. If you aren't isn't it kinda like wanting to vote in Canadian elections because they share a border with us?
I guess I think the greed of corporations is moderated by their need to sell product which makes them conform to the morals of the society they sell to. Several examples of this are at this link http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/Boycotts/successfulboycotts.aspx .
I don't think there is much other that will curb the bad behavior of government. Again a local example I wrote congressman Kind in October to state my opposition to any Wall Street bailout, he wrote back saying "although the district is overwhelmingly against the bailout I voted for it..." yippee that's exactly what I want in an elected official, someone who ignores the will of the people in his district. We should also remember when discussing the election process the incumbent has a huge advantage which has only grown with every campaign finance law that is passed. An incumbent is almost guaranteed to be re-elected unless found in bed with a dead girl or live boy.
I agree Bush/Cheney sucked big donkey dick as did McCain that doesn't mean I am giving a pass to Democrats or President Obama (as cool as I think it is we elected a guy who proves the promise and ideals of America and I think it is really damn cool). Government won't kill us over a private agenda, it will kill out of indifference to the individual or bureaucratic mistake or because it has a plan to improve lives and you are in the way or don't want to get with the program. Witness the 35 million Mao killed to fulfill his dreams. Or what of the millions of educators and the middle class killed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge chasing an collectivist agrarian utopia.
Sure we could shrink government too far and end up with a Somalia but on the whole I am more a proponent of privatizing government functions, I am of the opinion (I know every one has one and they all smell) that it would cost me way less in the long run and I may even get a kiss or two first.
Oh no I'm going anarchist,
Scott
I agree in theory but frequently we have little or no choice but to buy from a corporation. I'm not a fan of big government either but we can elect new people if we don't like their policies. True the election process weeds out the best people prior to the elections but we can still elect new people. We just did. We never get a vote in the corporate world except in cases where we buy from a different company. Many, if not most, of the things we really need we get from mega-corps over which we have no control at all. We don't get to vote for oil company executives, or set their salaries, and it doesn't matter much if I guy from one station or another they are all mega corps.
I'd like to be able to vote for both government offices and corporate officers. My main point is not that I prefer big government but rather that I dislike, and fear, the ruthless avarice of big corporations. Until Bush I never felt that the government would kill me just for some private agenda. I don't think it would happen now unless I do something really criminal or stupid. I do think that a corporate board would murder me and sell my pieces on ebay if they could make a buck and not get caught.
Response
I think I am becoming less of a fan of government as I get older, I have become considerably more cynical since first voting in 1980.
Would you prefer business to be state owned or controlled? Has that worked well for Russia or China? Did it work out well in Cambodia? Can you give me an example of something that I need that I have to buy from one company? It seems I may choose from several different oil companies or even choose to live close enough to work that I could ride a bicycle or walk. With computer operating systems I can choose Microsoft, Mac or Linux with 20 or 30 others having at least a little market share. If I don't like Super Value I can buy from Econo foods or Wal Mart or even grow my own. Will I trade some inconvenience for moral peace yes. No one is forcing me to live 60 miles from a job market that will pay me what I want to earn, I choose to. Should Brian be required by democratic vote to hire me and pay me the 28.00 an hour and health insurance I think I am worth? What if his business model won't support that? Or worse what if it could but he wants to keep that profit for himself so he can save expand his business or for his retirement? Is that fair of him, should he be forced to?
Your wanting to vote for corp officers confuses me a little bit, if you are a shareholder you can vote for the officers and have at least as much of an affect as your individual vote does in a general election. If you aren't isn't it kinda like wanting to vote in Canadian elections because they share a border with us?
I guess I think the greed of corporations is moderated by their need to sell product which makes them conform to the morals of the society they sell to. Several examples of this are at this link http://www.ethicalconsumer.
I don't think there is much other that will curb the bad behavior of government. Again a local example I wrote congressman Kind in October to state my opposition to any Wall Street bailout, he wrote back saying "although the district is overwhelmingly against the bailout I voted for it..." yippee that's exactly what I want in an elected official, someone who ignores the will of the people in his district. We should also remember when discussing the election process the incumbent has a huge advantage which has only grown with every campaign finance law that is passed. An incumbent is almost guaranteed to be re-elected unless found in bed with a dead girl or live boy.
I agree Bush/Cheney sucked big donkey dick as did McCain that doesn't mean I am giving a pass to Democrats or President Obama (as cool as I think it is we elected a guy who proves the promise and ideals of America and I think it is really damn cool). Government won't kill us over a private agenda, it will kill out of indifference to the individual or bureaucratic mistake or because it has a plan to improve lives and you are in the way or don't want to get with the program. Witness the 35 million Mao killed to fulfill his dreams. Or what of the millions of educators and the middle class killed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge chasing an collectivist agrarian utopia.
Sure we could shrink government too far and end up with a Somalia but on the whole I am more a proponent of privatizing government functions, I am of the opinion (I know every one has one and they all smell) that it would cost me way less in the long run and I may even get a kiss or two first.
Oh no I'm going anarchist,
Scott
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obvious truths
Government produces nothing, zip, zilch, zero, the very most it can do is redistribute something someone else made or possessed. When we talk about trillion dollar bailouts the government isn't paying because it has nothing to give without taking from us first. You might argue that the money is being borrowed from China or Saudi Arabia or wherever but at some point it needs to be paid back at which time we the people pay it not government and we do it because if we do not the State will force payment through confiscation or by using force.
I suggest this is ethically and morally wrong. A government operating with the consent of the people has no need to force payment, the people will voluntarily pay for it's operation. It is only when it oversteps it's proper bounds that force become necessary to use ensure compliance.
I have no problem with user fees, license fees for things not protected by the BoR such as freedom of speech and assembly or the right to keep and bear arms, I don't mind consumption taxes such as sales tax or gas tax because I have a choice whether or not I consume. I do object to the confiscation of my money by my empoyer at the behest of government before I see it. I think it allows government to expand without being accountable to the people it is meant to serve and that is just not right.
I suggest this is ethically and morally wrong. A government operating with the consent of the people has no need to force payment, the people will voluntarily pay for it's operation. It is only when it oversteps it's proper bounds that force become necessary to use ensure compliance.
I have no problem with user fees, license fees for things not protected by the BoR such as freedom of speech and assembly or the right to keep and bear arms, I don't mind consumption taxes such as sales tax or gas tax because I have a choice whether or not I consume. I do object to the confiscation of my money by my empoyer at the behest of government before I see it. I think it allows government to expand without being accountable to the people it is meant to serve and that is just not right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
