Posts Tagged ‘government’

Cash for Convicts?

August 27, 2009

You heard it. Your hard earned tax dollars are even being spent on convicts. Second source.

Health Care and Competition

August 25, 2009

John Stossel writes about competition and health care.

Fear Tactics? I’m ‘Afraid’ You Have The Wrong Approach, Mr. President…

August 16, 2009

American citizens are being pointed out to the government as right wing extremists(a.k.a. people who disagree with this administration’s radical agenda), and are receiving unsolicited emails from David Axelrod at the White House. Fear is the tactic of this administration. Apparently there is a ‘list’, and the White House is required to keep all information sent to it in emails(including a ‘right wing extremist’s’ email address), and release it to the public record later.

That’s one way to stifle free speech: Spam the email boxes of your opponents with propaganda! As Hitler put it, “If you say a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it.”
And isn’t that the truth. The White House is trying it now, and are ranking themselves among bot nets and spammers. Remember what that ‘report spam’ button is for? Yea, they will be blocked from Gmail soon.
Get the story on Fox News:

That’s one way to stifle free speech: Spam the email boxes of your opponents with propaganda! As Hitler put it, “If you say a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it.”

The White House administration is trying it now, and is ranking itself  among regular low life spammers. Remember what that ‘report spam’ button is for? With any luck, Google will stop them from spamming Gmail users soon!

Get the story from Fox News. Second source from the American Thinker. Third source from Hot Air.

Cato Institute Commentary on Obama’s Regulations

July 3, 2009

President Obama thinks the solution to every problem is more government… but that theory breaks down against a problem caused by government regulations.

Check out Cato Institute’s commentary on our financial problems.

Recovery and reform

January 20, 2009

Many people attribute Franklin D. Roosevelt with recovery from the Great Depression. However, the United People tend to disagree with this view. A renowned economist, John Stossel, says that FDR actually slowed recovery by attempting reform:

“This is not the first time a president chose reform over recovery. Franklin Roosevelt did it with his New Deal, and the result was long years of depression and deprivation. Roosevelt’s priorities were criticized not just by opponents of big government but by none other than John Maynard Keynes, the British economist whose theories rationalized big government. Before FDR had been in office a year, Keynes wrote him an open letter, which was printed in the New York Times:

“You are engaged on a double task, Recovery and Reform; — recovery from the slump and the passage of those business and social reforms which are long overdue. For the first, speed and quick results are essential. The second may be urgent, too; but haste will be injurious. … [E]ven wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action. … Now I am not clear, looking back over the last nine months, that the order of urgency between measures of Recovery and measures of Reform has been duly observed, or that the latter has not sometimes been mistaken for the former.””

Just because the economy recovered from the Great Depression does not mean that FDR’s new deal was the cause. Just because the whole is good does not mean the part contributed to it. The economy always recovers, given time, freedom, and basic human protections. Economies that don’t recover, such as the Soviet Union’s, fail because of socialism and centralized planning. No single human being can make decisions to supply everyone’s needs in a country; to think so is foolish.

The Environment

December 24, 2008

The United People firmly hold that the government needs to protect peoples’ lives, property, and freedom from one another. In order to do that, the government must regulate the environment. However, though it is very easy to draw the line of lives over property, drawing the line between environmental groups’ freedom and someone else’s property rights is a different matter. Let’s illustrate with a few examples.

There is a village in China, called the ‘Cancer Village’, because 73.1% of deaths are caused by cancer. The village’s main source of water, the Laza River, is polluted upstream by a government owned mining corporation, the Dabaoshan Mining Company. This leads to a shortage of water for the villagers to drink, and poisonous crops for the farmers.

The United People would solve this type of problem by regulating air, land, and water, with the guideline of protecting one person’s life over another person’s property. In this case, scientific evidence clearly shows that many of the deaths in the village are caused by cancer, and can be linked to the cancerous river. The United People would then place limitations on the offending company, and enforce those limitations by taking away the company’s land if it fails to cooperate.

However, in cases such as the Clean Air Act, the United People would require extensive research and double blind experiments from multiple private institutions over several years to prove that such an act is necessary. Also notice that in the Clean Air Act,   research was proposed with restrictions at the same time – educating and deciding in the same piece of legislation. Such an approach is both naive and counter intuitive. The United People firmly hold that such decisions hurt the economy and American lifestyles(as they require private institutions to allot more resources to processes that do not earn either the consumer or the producer any profit), and should only be made after extensive research, or during a national emergency. Since neither situation had arisen prior to the passing of the Clean Air Act, the United People oppose it.

Another reason the United People oppose over-zealous environmental regulation, is that we as a nation simply do not have enough information to make such large decisions. Several examples illustrate this point. As recently as the 1990s, scientists believed in global cooling, but now they believe in global warming. Proponents of the global warming movement cite things such as ‘scientific consensus’ as basis for their argument… but so did global cooling proponents. The problem is that human beings have just not been recording data long enough to make any sort of regulatory decision yet. The United People does not oppose regulation in and of itself – but it does oppose blind regulation, such as what is going on today.

Another case of human failure in environmental knowledge are Biosphere 2 and BIOS-3. In both cases, humans attempted to create a miniature environment on a small scale, and to regulate it themselves. In the case of biosphere 2, the experiments were failures. The first mission lasted two years, but only with oxygen injections from outside, and the humans inside constantly reported hunger due to scarcity of food. The second mission dissolved prematurely due to management conflicts.

In BIOS-3, the longest experiment was only about half a year, and dried meat was imported from the outside to support the inhabitants.

So to conclude; mankind is simply not prepared to regulate or understand a small environment, much less the global environment. And because of this, the United People is extremely skeptical of environmental regulations without scientific evidence that provides a direct link between cause and effect.

Congress, progress, and failure.

December 6, 2008

Failure. It’s a word people use to describe lots of different things in life. If a company venture doesn’t work out, they call it a failure. If the economy is bad during an administration, they call it a failure. If the pizza comes out of the oven burnt, they call it a failure. And if the cake at the wedding reception falls all over the floor, they call it a failure.

Our Congress and President often try so desperately to stop failure, but what they don’t realize is that countries which try to prevent failure end up halting progress. And just like trying to stop a vehicle on a steep hill covered in ice, not moving forward often leads to moving backward.

Failure is a sign that ‘you’re doing something wrong’. If a beekeeper goes out to the hive and picks up the honey combs without any gloves, he receives a few bee stings and learns to wear gloves next time. The United States did not succeed at every thing with the very first try – we have adapted through failure.

All that anger directed at the private industry for ‘greed’ and ‘bad decisions’? It’s actually the government’s fault. It’s a little known fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were actually created by the government. And now the government wants to reward foolish behaviour both in the GSEs and in the private industry? Rewards for failure, regulation against success. People often talk about the government taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as if  they are not government controlled already, which is simply not true. There were many attempts over the past few years for reform in the two GSEs, but an agreement was not reached.

Here is an interesting book from 2004 that argues to privatize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Failure happens. Alot of questioning goes on, as it should. Americans have a right to know why the failure happened and where it happened. But commonly spread rumors that go unresearched are both dangerous to our economy, and to our freedom.

Education, Theories, and the Scientific Method

November 19, 2008

First of all, the United People firmly believe in a state organized and funded public education system. Since the 1950s, the federal government has controlled more and more in our public schools throughout the states, but only paying for between 5% and 15% of the cost, and making in the ballpark of half of all the decisions. Which begs the question: Who is more capable of the decision making in our public schools? The United People firmly hold that the person closer to an issue is more capable of spending funds in an efficient manner, and of making wiser decisions. And thus the United People support removing the federal government’s funding, and control, from our education systems and allowing the states to make the rules.

There are two prominent ‘scientific’ theories today. The first to discuss is the Theory of Intelligent Design. This theory has not been proven using the scientific method. The scientific method goes like this:

  1. First, the scientist, or one conducting science, asks a question. Let us say he asks the question of “How did the world get here?”
  2. Then he does research on the subject. “What have people believed in the past?” is a good example of a question he might research.
  3. He then constructs a hypothesis. “People have believed that a God or gods created the universe for a long time. I believe that from all the information I see around me that they must be right.”
  4. He then tests his hypothesis with an experiment. “Dear God / gods, please strike this loaf of bread with lightning.”

Uh oh. You can’t test the Theory of Intelligent Design with an experiment. It falls apart right here, because there is no repeatable test to prove or disprove the idea of an intelligent designer. This is why, as far as the United People are concerned, Intelligent Design should be observed as a philosophy, idea, or religion that some people have faith in. However, just because something cannot be tested does not mean it is or is not true. It simply means that it cannot be proven conclusively, and because of that, the United People believe we should not teach it as conclusive truth.

The second theory, and perhaps backed more by the federal government, is the Theory of Evolution. Many people consider the Theory of Evolution to be science, or to be fact. In a way, they treat it like law. But yet we still call it the Theory of Evolution. Why is that? A majority of scientists believe in it, right? Doesn’t that prove it is law, and not theory? No, it does not. But to start with, let’s break up the Theory of Evolution into two parts. The first part, micro evolution, and the second, macro evolution. Now let’s use the scientific method on the first.

  1. A scientist, by the name of Charles Darwin, asks about the origin of species. He wants to know how the species of animals we have today came to be so varied.
  2. Mr. Darwin then traveled to the Galapagos islands, and looked at various types of finches on the islands, to research them.
  3. He made a hypothesis that the birds’ beaks changed over time and over generations.
  4. As for a repeatable experiment, he essentially collected more data, and looked at more birds.
  5. Analyzing the results he decided his hypothesis was true.
  6. The theory of micro evolution has been proven.

However, the place Mr. Darwin went wrong was when he claimed that he could prove macro evolution using the same data set. It is most assuredly true that a species makes minor adaptations to its environment throughout the generations. Anyone can observe this is true at any time, simply by looking at different colors of dogs, and at how the skin color of human beings can change depending on the sun exposure of the human. Tanning salons, for example, are a way of forcing a human’s body to develop a tan through the use of micro evolution. Micro evolution can be repeatably tested to be true, and observed today. Macro evolution, however, cannot. Let’s apply the scientific method to macro evolution.

  1. The question, the origin of species, is asked.
  2. A scientist does research on what others believe, and find a perceived majority to believe in macro evolution.
  3. He constructs a hypothesis that macro evolution is the origin of the different life forms we have today.
  4. He tests it with a repeatable experiment. He lives for billions of years, and watches millions of species change either through leap evolution or over time to form completely new types of lifeforms. Animals evolving new limbs proves to him that macro evolution is truth.

Uh oh. That’s where it falls apart. Digging up a set of bones is wonderful, and carbon dating them is better yet. But there aren’t types and sizes of bones in existence to prove that macro evolution is true, and carbon dating cannot be proven without recording data over thousands of years. Making a hypothesis is wonderful, to be sure, but the problem is that to prove the hypothesis we have to take data over thousands and thousands of years, and the fact of the matter is that we have not been recording data for that long.

So what do the United People intend to do? We intend to take all the unproven scientific theories and to teach them as philosophy or religion. Evolution is a good theory for people who don’t believe in God, and Intelligent Design is wonderful theory for those that do. But what the United People intend to do is to stop either side from forcing their views on the other side’s children. We don’t want to brainwash others, but rather, we wish to allow people raise their own children, and to have their own belief systems. The United People don’t want to completely separate religion and state, or else no human being could be involved. We would no longer have a democracy. We would have to create robots to govern us. Every human being has a religious or, as it may be, an anti religious view on the world. Does that mean they should not be able to help govern? Of course not! If they are voted in, it is fair because the people chose through democracy. They are representative of their constituency. However, should a person be able to force his beliefs on others and on others’ children? No. Can the person have his belief mentioned in a public school? Sure. Just so long it is not taught as law that cannot be disproven(when in fact, the theory itself cannot be proven in the first place!)

The United People believe we, as a nation, should stop trying to purposefully step on one anothers’ toes. Everyone has a right to their own belief, and to have that belief taught to their children. Freedom of expression and religion is the core of this nation, but yet both the major parties(Republicans and Democrats) seem to not understand that.

Affirmative action and hate crime legislation

October 26, 2008

Affirmative action and hate crime legislation are both designed to eliminate racism and discrimination, and they both fail.

Affirmative action essentially means forcing a business to hire party 1 instead of party 2 for the job, even if party 2 is more qualified for the job, simply because party 1 is in a minority group. People may think this will eliminate racism in the business world, but it does not. Not only does this type of law interfere with the rights of the employer, it interferes with the rights of the employed.

If you think about it, it’s just creating a new racism, only instead of the racism being against minorities, it is against majorities. So if you are a majority class person who has worked hard at a business a long time, and your employer was planning on promoting you to a supervisor position because of your qualifications, he could potentially be forced to promote a less qualified minority class person instead, due to affirmative action. Affirmative action does not eliminate racism, it promotes racism.

Hate crime legislation allows a party 1 to be punished more severely if the person he commited the crime against a party 2 that is part of a minority. This is supposedly designed to prevent crimes against minority parties. However, a person cannot be tried for motivation. Not only does it waste tax dollars to try to ‘percieve’ party 1’s motiviations; it is also immoral. A person should not be tried for their motivation, they should be tried for their crime. If party 1 is thoroughly convicted of killing someone in cold blood, then party 1 should be given the appropriate penalty. The fact that not all party 1s who are convicted of this crime are given the appropriate penalty shows that something is fundamentally wrong with our judicial methods.

The fundamental flaw with this type of legislation is that it treats American citizens with different levels of care, which actually causes the very thing it is trying to prevent. This unequal treatment is not only immoral, but is also unconstitutional: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States(…) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And that is why the future United People party will not support any hate crime or affirmative action legislation.

Cake

October 21, 2008

Government is like cake. Everybody has it, and those who don’t wish they did. Besides, of course, those who get stuck with the lesser flavors, like carrot cakenand almond. The government’s cake is usually just one political flavor. Communist, socialist, capitalist, democratic, anarchic, monarchic, etc. And from an economic viewpoint, there are even more different varieties!

But these cakes all share one thing in common: Everyone is forced to eat them. Whether you’re an atheist, Buddhist, Christian, conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, Islamic, gay, straight, agnostic, or anything else, you have to eat the cake of your country’s government. You don’t like it? Tough luck. The only ways to avoid eating it are changing it or overthrowing it(like into a clown’s face on a comedy routine). And if you want to change it, you’d better hope there’s a majority of people who feel the same way as you and who possess the means necessary.

America has many different types of people in it, all of whom want the cake to be their flavor. Not only that, but the USA’s cake is bigger than many other countries’ cake, with taxes rising to 30% or more. People in the government have the same job incentives as anyone else: Expand, enlarge, and grow, which leads to higher taxes and more inefficient government programs. So now not only is the flavor of the cake not one of your choosing, you have to eat more of it by paying more taxes, and by obeying more laws…. and the government favors the voice of the minority rather than the majority. They listen to the voice of the select few more often than the hundreds of thousands. So now the cake is big, of a flavor that you didn’t choose, and on top of it all they are adding in funny textures like peanuts and raisins.

As you can see, this situation causes alot of conflict. Republicans yelling at Democrats, Democrats yelling at Republicans, and Libertarians trying to swipe some votes from both parties. One huge cake, and everyone is trying to pour their own particular flavor into the batter.

Obviously there cannot be a simple solution to such a huge problem, right? It’s too complex. Too many parties involved, too many people… Well, I beg to differ.

Here’s a question: What if the cake was smaller? What if we allowed people to spend their own money the way they want to? What if we got rid of government health, welfare, federal education, and research? Obviously you can’t get rid of some government programs for fear of anarchy, like police enforcement and military, but there are plenty of other things that the individual could choose for himself. What if we paid half the taxes we do now? You’d have alot of extra money sitting around. You could send your children to private schools, even college, and maybe buy yourself a healthcare plan that isn’t so expensive, because healthcare would cost alot less without the government’s FDA paperwork eating up time and money.

So what would you spend your money on? Vanilla or chocolate? Carrot cake or almond? Orange or cherry?

I, for one, would buy a small lemon cake… Mmm, delicious.