Follow on Twitter

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Net Neutrality is Bad

If you care about open internet and understand the basic principals of a free market you will understand Net Neutrality is bad.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Why Conservatives want Small Government and Liberals want Big Government

In the big government world, power is centralized in the federal government in a large bureaucracy where the power is held by a few people at the top of the government. A small government makes the power decentralized in the local communities that are affected by the decisions the power holders make. This provides accountability and oversight by the decision maker’s peers, a very secure form of government.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

People on the No-FLy Watchlist Should be able to Buy Guns

First, there is actually not one list, but several. The no-fly list is included here, but collectively they are known as the Terrorist Screening Database. Anyone put on these lists should not have any of their constitutional rights taken away.

Flying, that is not a constitutional right.

Buying a gun is, however.


Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Monday, June 13, 2016

The Left and Right on Islam

Both sides, left and right have their opinions on Islam. The  left generally will promote it and the right will generally either be neutral or discourage it. Each side has their own motives and reasons for their positions, but looking at the problem objectively, what is the truth?

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Radical Islamic Terrorism

The longer Obama and the progressive left refuses to say the words 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' the more people will die.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

The Left Requires BIG Government

If the Democrats want their large welfare state, then they must have big government. If Republicans want low taxation, they must have small government. This is another interesting iteration of the dichotomy between the liberal and conservative ideological standpoints. It is not for ideological reasons why they must have big or small government, it is for procedural reasons. Democrats cannot accomplish what they want if we have a 'small government' and Republicans cannot accomplish what we want is we have a 'big government'. 

Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative is a Myth

There is no such thing as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That is a false notion pushed by the left so that when they inevitably lose the economic arguments, they can fall back and still have some control in politics through the 'social' side of things. 

This is just a means of controlling the language. If you read any older political book, you will never hear the term, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The left has been trying to control the narrative through language for years, the right has not yet figured this out, although we have been doing better in the last couple of years as conservatives have gained a presence on social media.

The often percieved 'social' and 'fiscal' side of politics are actually different sides of the same coin. I'll bet you have never met anyone who said they were socially conservative yet fiscally liberal. That is because it is an oxymoron. A socially conservative view would naturally lead one to be fiscally conservative. In the same way, a socially liberal view naturally leads one to be fiscally liberal. The proof is clear. You have never heard someone say that they are socially conservative and fiscally liberal! This is because liberals are not pushing that narrative. Liberals do not want to push that narrative because that would lead people to be conservative, not liberal. 

The reason why socially liberal and fiscally conservative helps the liberals is because, if you are socially liberal, you must believe in the social programs that the left espouses, or, at the very least, calling yourself socially liberal lends itself to openness toward those types of things because the social wrongs that the liberals say are present in society can only be fixed, according to the liberal theory that socially liberal people are espousing, by government welfare. 

Also, socially liberal and fiscally conservative ensnares some conservatives by making them feel good because they say they believe in what is percieved to be good about the liberal agenda while also saying that they agree with what is perceived to be good about the conservative agenda all the while escaping the perceived bad stuff from each. But the bad stuff cannot be avoided. You are either a liberal or a conservative. Calling yourself both does not change the fact that the 'social' side of politics drives the 'fiscal' side of politics. 

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative is a wolf in sheep's clothing, claiming to be the best of both worlds while really leading one to advocate for liberal positions that ultimately drive fiscal issues to the liberal side.


What is Big Government? What is Small Government?

It is interesting that the term big government is thrown around so much but it is fairly difficult to define exactly what big government is. In fact it is equally difficult to define what small government is. It seems when either a liberal or conservative talks about what they want their government to look like, they will inevitably describe its size; big or small. The question of what exactly that would look like does not often come up. This is because most people have this vision in their mind of what they want the government to do. So this term or big or small government manifests itself in the vision of what exactly the government should look like. 

To define what either of these sizes of government would look like is impossible. A big government could look like one thing or it could look like a completely different thing. While the various possible small government will look more similar to each other, there will still be plenty of variation because even a small government is still big. That brings up the point of is the big vs small government actually talking about the physical size of the government? No. What this is not talking about is how many employees the government has or how many representatives or administrative agencies there are or even how many government buildings there are. Certainly those things do have an effect and will certainly play into the analysis, but what people are really talking about when they discuss big vs small government is how much they think government should effect their lives. When you put it in those terms, it becomes clear why conservative like small government and liberals like big government. 

When a person mentions small government, they are talking about how they do not want the government to change the way they live. Of course these people want the government where it is needed, but they really want to be able to make decision for themselves without government intrusion. The big government people are talking about a different level of reliance on the government. These people want the government to be noticeable on a daily basis. They want government services that they can utilize and rely upon in their daily lives. While the small government people will look at government services as a necessary evil that they have to participate in, the big government people will look at participation in these services as participation in the larger network of their government. It gives the big government people, a means of participating in the national self-determination process. The small government people do not want national self-determination, they want to be able to set their own path without reliance on government so view participation in the government national self-determination to be a distasteful thing. On the flip side, the big government people view the individual self-determination and self-reliance of the small government people as a scary thing. And none of this is to say that small government people do not participate in government, they do, they would just prefer government to be small and this does not go to say that the big government are incapable of doing things on their own, they are, but they would rather have more government telling people what to do.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Feminism is Marxism

Feminism is the same thing as marxism because they both have the same goal of denying the differences between people. Marxism is very broad while feminism is very narrow. Feminism only focuses on making men and women the same despite their inherent differences. This is marxism. Anything that seeks to make on thing the same as another thing when those two things just have inherent differences is marxism.


Feminism is not about making sure that women's inalienable rights are not infringed upon by the government or by other private citizens, that is what is known as 'first-wave feminism'. Feminism today is about tearing down the inalienable differences between men and women, which is, of course, impossible because they are inalienable. You cannot lose what is inherently, inalienably yours. (definition of inalienable: 'Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.') Freedom of speech is inherently yours and your 'possessory interest in freedom of speech cannot be taken away, it can only be hindered. Just because someone does not allow you to speak does not mean that you do not have the 'right' to speak. In the same way, the differences between men and women are inalienable. No matter how much the progressive left tries to legislate policy that denies the differences between men and women, there are differences.

When the left tries to say that women should be allowed into combat roles in the military, they are denying the basic differences in the biology of men and women. This is marxism. Marxism is all about creating a classless society. When there is a societal difference between men and women, that creates a 'class'. It creates a difference between two groups of people therefore you cannot have marxism where you have a society that recognizes the inalienable differences between men and women.





Friday, May 20, 2016

Marxists are Stupid

Marxism is all about creating a classless society. That means that everyone is the same as everyone else. Everyone makes the same amount of money, people are not treated differently because of their gender, everyone owns the same amount of property, and businesses are owned by the people who work there.

It is likely I will write another post about why feminism is marxism, but today's post is about why marxists do not understand business.


Marxists do not want to have 'owners' and 'workers' because they believe that it is fundamentally unfair for an owner (who apparently do not perform work or labor) to profit off the labor of the workers. If the workers are doing the labor they should also be getting all the profit. This is an absurd opinion.

Marxists deny the existence of risk. Whenever some investment is made, there is risk involved. If a business owner decides to build a building, there is risk involved that maybe the business wont work and he will lose money on the building. That is risk and there is risk involved with every business. Wherever money is invested there is a risk that the money will be lost. The marxists simply do not think about this risk. When a marxist says that it is not fair to the workers for the business owner to take part of their labor, the marxist is very stupidly denying the fact that the business owner has taken on risk where the worker has not.The business owner is risking that nobody will buy the product that the worker produced. The worker gets paid whether or not the product he produced gets sold.

Doesn't it make sense that the owner gets paid more than the worker? If they both make the same amount of money then who would choose to be a business owner and take on a greater risk for no greater reward? nobody would.

Marxists will also sometimes say that the business should be owned and operated by the people who work there. So, in other words, they believe everyone should be forced to invest their money in a business and to take on the extra risk that comes with owning a business. Even people who are risk averse and who do not want to take any risk (maybe because they have a family to feed) will be forced to take on that risk because the marxists think it is unfair for business owners to get paid for taking on that risk for their employees.

Marxists are stupid.

Monday, May 16, 2016

The Difference Between Republicans and libertarians

Without going into specific policies that each the Republicans and Libertarians support, what are the fundamental differences between the two?

Republicans seek to have a weak federal government and a strong state government whereas the Libertarians just want all government to be weak.

At a procedural level, this means that Republicans will generally support a decision made by the state. But it is important to remember that Republicans see a clear distinction between what is the state's responsibility and the federal government's responsibility. Things like national defense, border security and trade with foreign nations are to be left to the federal government according to the Republicans. Generally, this Republican procedural philosophy is coupled with a conservative substantive philosophy as opposed to the liberal side. This is because conservatism lends itself naturally to Republicanism. A Republican system is naturally a strong federalism perspective, i.e. Republicans want a clear separation between the federal government and the state. Conservatives like this system of government because it leads to a smaller government. A strong, centralized federal government like the liberals want would be to intrusive for the conservatives. If the federal government does not meddle in state issues, it would be a lot smaller.

The Libertarians, on the other hand, see the federal government and states in the same light. They believe it is the government vs the individual rather than, as Republicans see it, the federal government vs the states.

The reason for the Republican weak federal government/strong state government is because it is easy for an individual to have a voice in their state while it is not easy for an individual to have a voice in the federal government. Any individual can be involved in their municipality or go down to the state capitol. It is much more difficult to find a voice in Washington. Because there is a closer connection between the state and the individual than is between the federal government and the individual, it is more okay for the state to do something that the Libertarians would consider to be 'encroachment' than it is for the federal government. If you are encroached and have a voice, that is less bad than being encroached upon and not having a voice.

The Libertarians do not take any of that into account. It is simply, 'don't tread on me'. No more. While that is generally a good philosophy, it is more okay for the state to do something the Libertarians don't like than it is for the federal government because at the state level a remedy is easier to obtain.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Means to an End: The market and unlimited resources vs centralized distribution and limited resources

Means to an End: The market and unlimited resources vs centralized distribution and limited resources

Climate change and its effects on the modern world have been highly disputed in the political realm. Liberals say climate change is bad while conservative will be likely to say climate change is mostly political hype. There are some liberals, however, who say that climate change causes terrorism. President Obama, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and others have made this claim. It is a completely absurd idea. Climate change does not cause terrorism. The only exception of this are perhaps the environmentalists. Greenpeace, one of the most well-known environmentalist groups has been designated as a terrorist organization by the UN and is an anti-climate change organization that has gone to extreme measures to promote their cause. Considering the fact that there have been more terrorist attacks committed by environmentalist groups than actual terrorists on US soil, then I guess climate change does cause terrorism.
No, climate change does not cause real terrorism. I’m not saying the environmentalists do not commit real acts of terror, it’s just that they are the JV squad when it comes to murder and mayhem. I also do not intend to marginalize anyone who has been the victim of an environmentalist group, let’s just be real, it is hard to equate evil hippies to a jihadist with a bomb pack strapped on his back. Real terrorism is not caused by climate change.
            This analysis is not going to go into exactly why climate change cannot cause terrorism. In fact, we are not even assuming, like so many other people, that climate change even exists. We are moving forward while considering the fact that the data on climate change is shaky at best. What we will be exploring is the idealism behind why liberals can believe in such a thing and how exactly it fits into their worldview and not the worldview of a conservative. In fact, most conservatives should find the idea of climate change causing terrorism an absurd idea. But why is that? The liberals are rational in believing what they believe. In the liberal mind, climate change is a perfectly reasonable explanation for what is happening in the middle east. Conservatives also are rational in believing what we believe. The conservative mind is built such that climate change does not cause terrorism. It is the underlying assumptions of the liberals that lead them to believe such an absurd thing.
When you start looking at the underlying assumptions and reasons for a worldview, things do get interesting. The interesting thing is that most people have no idea this is the way they think. The objective here is to arrive at the base assumptions of each liberals and conservatives. We are looking for the underlying worldview that each group uses in arriving to their conclusions on this subject. That most basic worldview, you will see, is reason for much of the divide in our country today. Most political issues come down to this difference in worldview. This is the ideological war that is currently being waged between the left and the right. When you hear that term, ideological war, it speaks to the worldview that liberals and conservatives use when arriving at conclusions on a given topic.
We will start with the liberal mind and how they can believe such an absurd thing and then move on to the conservative mind. The liberal argument for climate change causing terrorism is rather simple. They say climate change causes the earth to lose resources through weather pattern shifts, temperature shifts and the like. We don’t need to go into the specifics of how they say it happens, it is only important that liberals believe that there are some areas of the world that are disproportionately and negatively affected by changes in the earth’s climate. The thing here is where those negative changes occur. Due to the global placement of most of the poorer nations, poor nations in the middle east would hypothetically be disproportionately affected by climate change.
If the middle east is disproportionately affected by climate change, this would clearly be a legitimate area of consternation for poor people in the middle east. The environmentalists all say that the west is causing climate change. If this is true, then the middle east is paying the price for the west causing climate change. Because the people in the middle east are oppressed by the western world, that is a motivation to turn to terrorism. Under the worldview of limited resources, terrorism is a legitimate opinion under the face of the evil capitalists.
            One of the most basic worldviews that liberals have is that the government is the most capable entity of making good decisions. They also believe the government has the authority and even calling to do this through a national self-determination. While these principles will be expanded upon later, basically national self-determination provides the justification for government to be the ultimate determiner in what is right and wrong in the world. As this turns the focus on utilizing current resources in the most equal way, the liberal will naturally focus on the distributing the earth’s limited resources in an equal manner. The liberal believes there are limited resources on the earth and that it is the job of the government to make sure everyone gets an equal share of those limited resources.
            When liberals talk about what is fair, they mean equality, they are talking about how some people have more than other people and that is unequal and therefore bad. When liberals say climate change causes terrorism, what they are really saying is that the (alleged) change in climate is caused by western civilization taking resources, namely oil, and expending them. When the climate changes, this disproportionately affects middle eastern nations who then do not have enough resources to go around. When they discover that they do not have enough resources to go around, the people, in their now justified hate and rage, turn to terrorism against the US who created the climate change. Liberals, using this thought process, can honestly say they believe that these terrorists have nothing better to do than blow things up for a living because there are now no longer the resources in their nation to sustain the population. Liberals truly believe that their jihad is justified against the US because the liberals truly believe that the US caused all the problems in the middle east.
            There are some real problems with this. A man named Louis Blanc coined the term capitalism. He used it as a dirty word. There is no difficulty is seeing why he thought capitalism was bad. Blanc was a liberal who thought that the government was the only entity capable of making good economic decisions. Capitalism, Blanc believed, was where certain people took more resources than they actually needed to the exclusion of others. So there was inequality of resources. The suggestion is that the capitalist nations effectively took resources from the middle east and that is unfair.
Socialism is the champion of limited resources and the antithesis of capitalism. Actually, the most basic premise of socialism is that there are limited resources and the government must stop the evil capitalists from stealing all the limited resources. It is explicitly said in socialism, and is a basic premise of liberal thought, that each person is currently working at their maximum capacity; that the current resources are equal to total possible resources. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Is a phrase usually attributed to Karl Marx, but was also coined by Louis Blanc. While this phrase is not always associated with socialism, it certainly applies. The phrase above clearly indicates that each person has a maximum potential, his ability, and that each person is actually producing at that maximum capacity. This is central to the teachings of socialism, that each person will be compelled by the greater good to work to their fullest potential. The second half of the phrase indicates that the resources created are sufficient for everyone to benefit equally to their need. The issue with this reasoning is that everyone will not work at their fullest potential unless there is an incentive to do so. The liberal world provides no incentive to work at one’s fullest potential.
As humanity progresses we increase our understanding of the various things that create surplus. The point of developing the various theories is to figure out a system that makes society better faster. While liberals believe equality is what makes society better, and their worldview reflects that, conservatives must believe that progress makes society better. Progress can only be achieved when there are surplus resources. Essentially, what the word surplus means is that there is more stuff to go around. A thousand years ago there was less surplus than there is today. Surplus is a good and desirable thing. If there was no surplus, then every action a person took would be centered on producing something for survival. To understand the idea of surplus it is important to think about what is necessary for survival. In a zero surplus world, each person would work until they created enough food to sustain themselves for a day and it would take them exactly 1 day to produce enough food (and any other necessities such as sleep or warm clothing) for 1 day. There would be no action taken for any other reason than to produce something that was needed for the next day. This is a zero surplus world. There would be nothing put back for later, nothing created or done for any other reason than to sustain one’s self.
A zero surplus world be very bland and a bad place to live because there would be nothing to live for except your own being. While it is good to live for yourself, most people would find life to be rather pointless if there was nothing else to live for. In a zero surplus world nobody would have children, because to raise a child you must have a surplus of resources to take care of the child. If each person is only producing what they need then there would not be enough resources to care for children. There would also be no holidays, because a big thanksgiving meal requires a surplus of food, and no new ideas or inventions because it takes a surplus of time and other resources to develop a new idea or invention. If there is no surplus of time or resources with which to develop the new idea or invention, then there will be no new ideas or inventions. Basically, a zero surplus society results in zero progress. Zero progress means that everything will stay the same. Nothing will get better.
Surplus and progress are in a symbiotic relationship.  When there is progress, there is more surplus and when there is more surplus there is more progress. Thousands of years ago, when fire was the greatest technology known to man, there was little progress and little surplus. The next greatest technology after fire, perhaps iron, was not developed for many hundreds of years after fire was developed. That is because the people at the time had very little surplus resources to use to develop iron. Most of their resources were used for survival. This was clearly not a zero surplus society, but an almost zero surplus society. Once iron was developed, that made life easier for people. The iron could be used to make a plow to make farming faster which opened up more surplus time for farmers to develop other farming technologies. Farming gets easier and easier, nowadays it only takes one person to harvest thousands of acres, more and more people go from working on things that are necessary for survival to working on things that create progress. The faster society is able to fill its needs, the more it can focus on using its surplus resources to develop more progress. When a society has a lot of surplus, it can do some pretty cool things. In 1492, Spain found itself with enough surplus to fund a sea voyage that discovered America. Hundreds of years later, America had enough surplus resources to fund a space voyage to the moon. Several decades after that, the first voyage to Mars was funded. A couple of years later, the first space ship landed on an asteroid. At this point in time, society is far from zero surplus. In fact, the western world is mostly a surplus society. Most of what people do is related to surplus not survival.
This is where the difference between the liberal and conservative views becomes important. The liberal view is anti-market. A market is undeniably the most effective way at creating more surplus and more progress. The conservative view is pro-market. There is a good reason why the liberal view does not place any importance on progress or surplus, the liberals believe in equality of outcome. In other words, it does not matter how well off society is, it only matters to them that every person in society is allotted an equal amount of resources. The conservative worldview is focused on ensuring that society is progressing. The idea is that, the faster society progresses, the fewer problems people will have. As society progresses, there is more surplus. If there is more surplus, then people will be able to use that surplus to be able to solve their problems. More surplus equals fewer problems.
Liberals would argue that there is no point in increasing resources if those resources are not going to be equally distributed. This is what the word capitalism was developed for, to point out that people at the top get all the newly created resources. Despite the fact that economics, history and every other metric would say that a properly regulated market ensures that resources are distributed so that each person gets the resources that are best able to help them create the most surplus, the liberals insist that there is an unfair distribution of newly created resources. In fact, considering the increasing access to resources over time, markets will bring the people at the bottom up faster than any other economic system. Capitalism, when used as a dirty word, is a very misleading term. A market ensures that the money goes where it will be best used as determined by all the people who participate in the market. If a person is not participating in the market then they cannot justly complain about that system and if a person is simply not worth expending resources on then they should not demand that someone else give them a share that would create an inefficiency that would result in less progress for society. In fact, it is seen as the duty of those conservatives who participate in the market to be as efficient as possible.
Because there are not enough resources to go around in the middle east, some evil capitalist must have taken an unfair share of the resources. This comes from one of the basic premises all liberal thought comes from, that all resources are limited and it is because of this limited nature that it is important to monitor how resources are distributed. When the resources in the middle east are taken and moved to the US, people are driven to terrorism.
Contrasted with the conservative viewpoint, this theory sounds a little nutty. Conservatives approach the problem from an entirely different viewpoint. In the conservative mind, there is no such thing as limited resources. While there is literally a finite amount of resources on this earth and even in the galaxy, functionally, the actual limit of resources does not matter. This is because conservatives rely on a free market worldview whereas the liberals use a centrally planned or governmentally controlled market worldview. This matters because depending on the system you use to interpret the world, the finite resources may or may not matter. When a conservative says there are finite resources, the conservative is talking about physical resources such as there is only a finite amount of oil on the planet. When the liberal talks about limited resources, it is from the perspective of access. The liberal does not really care about how much of something there is. If oil runs out, that is okay. What matters is that everyone equally has access to these resources. The common denominator or the thing you most want, for a conservative, is high quality of life. For a liberal, that common denominator is equal access to a particular quality of life. That particular quality of life will necessarily be lower than it would otherwise be because the focus is taken off producing and put on redistributing.
This is why a liberal, when they analyze the problem in the middle ease, calculates total resources. The liberal wants those current resources to be equally distributed among all current people. The conservative does not look at total resources. That is why, to the conservative, it does not actually matter how much of something there is. Essentially, the conservative does not believe that the problem is with lack of access to resources, but a lack of physical resources. Now this sounds like a contradiction, earlier I wrote that conservatives do not care about the number of resources so essentially assume there are infinite resources. This is true, what I am writing about here is now not physically how much oil (or any other resource there is), we have moved beyond that, what I am writing about here is why the middle east does not have as much as the west has. It is not a problem with lack of total resources as suggested by the liberal (climate change decreases total earthly resources and so then there are fewer resources to go around and the west consumes much of what little there is left), it is a problem with increasing current resources. The problem is that the middle east has not focused their efforts on progressing past where they are as much as the west has. While there are areas in the middle east that have progressed far, think Dubai, the majority of the middle east live just about the same as they did several hundred years ago. The west has expended considerable resources to progressing as a society and so the west have developed more than the middle east, it’s that simple. If the world was centrally planned, then that redistribution of current total resources would be rational, but that is not how it works, the free markets are the best force to control what we have. Looking at the problem through the free market lens, the conservative arrives at their basic assumption or most basic worldview. That what matters is increasing surplus and progress, not redistributing what we already have. It is a simple premise that (this is important because obviously there are limited resources in a literal sense) does not look to the present, but looks to the future. If every producing thing is used to its maximum potential, then that is our limit. We will never reach that limit because of inefficiency. This is another important thing to know. The free market is specifically designed, and perfectly designed when nobody is breaking the rules, to achieve high efficiency. A centrally planned bureaucracy can never achieve even a moderate level of efficiency which creates little surplus or progress. When it comes down to it, the conservative believes that the middle east is not successful because they are working at a very low efficiency. War tends to do that. It is a sad thing. These people are being held back from militant groups, oppressive government and a history of being unstable. The road to having high quality of life is not compatible with much of what the middle east is and until they start building a group of nations committed to what the west is committed, they will never achieve what the west has. 
So this is the contrast, the liberal viewpoint blames strife in the middle east on limited resources and limited resources on climate change and the conservative viewpoint blames the strife in the middle east on lack of resources and a lack of resources on inefficient production. The ideological war continues. It is essentially the metric that each side uses that differ. The right measures resources using potential. So they ask what a group’s potential is. If there are X people in the middle east, their potential would be Y. If a group of people uses the market and works on increasing their efficiency then they will not have to worry about taking what other people have, they will have enough themselves.
The left uses the metric of limited resources. They ask how the limited resources on the planet should be distributed among its various inhabitants. Under this theory, if there are X amount of resources, then each person should have a Y sized portion of these resources. This theory necessitates resources being taken from the west in the form of both money to combat climate change and in money to be redistributed to the middle east to compensate them for the wrong the west has done to them. It is only because of a wrong or injustice that the limited resources of this planet be distributed in such a way that not everyone would have what they need under the liberal theory, that is the excuse they use to redistribute. If the focus is on limited resources then it is not on producing more so we do not have to worry about limited resources. Time is spent on figuring out how to best apportion what we have which makes producing more inefficient. 
And that is the difference. Liberals want to redistribute because they belief there are limited resources that the evil capitalists want to hoard for themselves. They believe the market is a bad thing because in their fictional land the market is bad for poor people and good for rich people. Because the market is bad for poor people, the liberals take it upon themselves to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. The conservatives take a more factually accurate approach and believe that people should be allowed to participate in the market. This is because the market is the most efficient tool for creating surplus and progress. The conservatives want efficiency in their production because the more efficient the system is the more surplus there will be. The more surplus there is the more society will progress to be better than it was before and all people, rich and poor, will increase their standard of living faster than under the liberal system. The conservatives believe the market can do this because it can access and process more information than a centrally planned system and the more information you use and process the better decisions you will make.

It's A State Issue - Get The Fed Out!

The major difference between Republicans and Democrats is not the specific policy issues, but how each side believes the process for deciding those policy issues should work.

Democrats want a democratic form of government which leads to weak state governments and a strong centralized government manifested in the federal government that will decide the various issues for everyone in the country. Republicans want a republican form of government which leads to strong state governments and a weak federal government so the individual people of each state have more say in how issues are decided in their state. The Democrats want majority rule, the Republicans want the individual to have a say in the policy of their state.

We see this played out in the current presidential election. On the one side, you have bother Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton advocating for large federal solutions to local problems. On the other side, we have Donald Trump saying that certain issues are better left to the states.

The mainstream media has not picked up on Trump's attitude toward the federal government yet. On education, transgender issues, and minimum wage Trump has specifically stated that the state governments should decide these issues. Yet nobody has recognized the signifigance of the Republican nominee holding these positions. Trump has developed an Executive branch philosophy that promotes a strong view of the 10th amendment. This is a strong state's rights position which increases the decision making authority of the states.

The position especially refutes the often stated, emotional claim by leftists and #NeverTrump that Trump is an 'authoritarian'. You cannot be an authoritarian if you are giving power to other people (the states).

If we want to talk about authoritarianism, the White House has recently mandated that all school districts must allow boys and girls with the transgender mental illness into the bathrooms of the other gender or else lose their federal funding. While Obama might have the legal authority to make this demand, although critics of this decision say that Congress has already defined gender and that the Executive branch cannot spontaneously change that definition, that is not the point. Obama is imposing his will on the states. Trump wants states to make those decisions for themselves. Who looks like the authoritarian?





Friday, May 13, 2016

Libertarians Should Vote Trump

Libertarians should vote Trump because has created a process through which Libertarians will be able to channel their agenda in the future.


Prior to the Trump phenomenon, nobody other than the Republican establishment was able to get the Republican nomination. This was due to a host of reasons but mainly because rank and file Republicans had the mindset that we were supposed to fall in line and nominate whoever the establishment put in front of us. This is no longer the case. Unlike the Democrats,Republicans don't have procedural rule prohibiting non-establishment figures from getting the nomination (superdelegates). The only prohibition on non-establishment figures in the Republican party was a psychological one. That was Hope. We always hoped for a better candidate but knew that we had to vote for the substandard candidates the establishment put in front of us because, if we didn't, Republicans would lose power and it was game over.

Now we no longer need hope. We have nominated Trump, a decidedly non-establishment figure. Now we know that it can be done and how to do it. This is where the Libertarians come in. Previously, Libertarians had no hope of ever getting a Libertarian minded candidate nominated on the Republican ticket. Now, things are different. Because Trump has changed the nominating process and empowered the people to decide for ourselves who gets nominated, Libertarians now have a voice in the nomination process. Maybe not in this election because Trump is already elected, but in the future.

The reason Libertarians should vote for Trump is fairly simple. We don't want that process to be destroyed. If Trump loses this election, the process he created that will allow for non-establishment figures to be elected will be destroyed by the Republican elite just like the Democrats destroyed their open primary process with the creation of superdelegates. We don't want superdelegates in the Republican party because they destroy the voice of the people. We don't want any rules that inhibit the voice of the people, we want an open primary process where the people choose. If the Republican party continues to have a more open primary system that allows for non-establishment figures to have a chance at being nominated, this allows for Libertarian candidates to have their shot.




Thursday, May 12, 2016

Bernie Sanders (and the left) Believes Climate Change Causes Terrorism

Bernie Sanders honestly believes that climate change causes terrorism. Climate change causing terrorism is an absurd notion, but this issue truly demonstrates the difference in political mindset between the left and the right.



The left believes that climate change causes terrorism, the reason on the surface is fairly simple. First of all, the left believes climate change is having a tangible impact on the world and that whatever that impact is, it is a bad impact. And it doesn't really matter for our purposes here how climate change comes about, it only matters to the left that there is climate change and that climate change has some sort of negative impact. That negative impact manifests itself, in the mind of a leftist, in a reduction in the overall amount of resources available to the world. Because climate change, supposedly, causes drought, changing weather patterns and etc. this results in fewer of the limited resources available to the people of the world.

Terrorism mostly originates from poorer countries and the reason for this, according to Sanders and the left, is because of the limited resources. But it is not because there are fewer resources that they resort to terrorism, but that western society takes more than its fair share of the world's dwindling limited resources that people in the poorer countries feel the need to resort to terrorism. To someone on the left this sounds like a perfectly rational explanation of terrorism. To someone on the right, not so much.

It can be easy to get mixed up in the idea of limited resources. If you are an American Capitalism (a republican) then you do not see the world in light of limited resources, in fact you do not even believe there are limited resources. Of course there are technically limited resources in that the universe only has so much matter. Thus resources are limited to that amount of matter. Functionally, however, resources, in the mind of an American Capitalist, are unlimited.

It is all about mindset. The mindset of the right is to look at a problem and ask, what can we make/do/develop to solve that problem. The mindset of the left is to look at a problem and ask, how can we make these people have an equal amount of stuff as everyone else. The left is not concerned with producing more stuff and that is why they view the world through the lens of limited resources. The left wants to distribute. The right is concerned with how much stuff people have, they view the world through the lens of wanting people, all people, to increase their quality of life (or whatever metric you want to use to indicate the quality of people's lives).

People on the right cannot believe climate change causes terrorism because the right does not believe in limited resources. It is not climate change that affects the amount of resources we have, but production. It is not climate change that causes poor countries to be poor but a lack of production that causes them to be poor. And whether or not being poor drives people to terrorism is speculative at best because there are plenty of poor countries that do not breed terrorists like the islamic countries of the middle east do.




Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Coalgate

Hillary Clinton says that coal miners should be put out of business. She is probably correct in that coal miners will one day no longer be in business, but saying that coal miners should be put out of business demonstrates not that Clinton believes that coal mining will one day no longer be relevant to power production but that Clinton views coal miners as her enemy.


Yeah, one day coal will be replaced with something else. That is how industries grow, they change. Electricity will not always be generated with coal, but that day when the last coal mine shuts down is a long way away. Coal is still a viable energy source. Essentially, because coal (and fossil fuels in general) are so cheap, it allows us to expend resources on other things whereas solar and other so called 'clean' energy sources take more resources to produce the same amount of energy. Prager University has a convincing video on the subject. 

One point Clinton tried to make was that now is the time to shift from coal to 'clean energy'. Again, Prager University has a good video on this subject as well explaining why it is actually better for the environment and humanity in general to remain on coal and other fossil fuels. 

The point is not that one day coal mining will be a thing of the past in the energy industry. The point is that Clinton has specifically called out coal miners as people she wants to lose their jobs. This is clearly not based on some rational thinking that now is the time to switch from coal to 'clean energy', these are private businesses and the market will determine when the appropriate time to switch is here. Clinton wants to put coal miners out of business because she views them as her enemy.

Every politician needs an enemy. The political left does not like coal because they buy into the global warming hype. Clinton is part of the left so she has to name these people, who are doing nothing more than living their normal lives, as her enemies. The families, the lives and the jobs are just collateral damage.






America is Exceptional (The Greatest Country in the World)

America is exceptional. We are the greatest country in the world. Some people, those from George Washington University, do not believe so

One of these students cited a clip from the TV show 'The Newsroom' where a character impacts a group of young students by stating that America is not the greatest country in the world.

The YouTube video of the clip is here.

“'Can you say why America is the greatest country in the world?'
'It’s not the greatest country in the world. That’s my answer… [turns to a panelist] Sharon, the NEA is a loser. Yeah, it accounts for a penny out of our paycheck, but he gets to hit you with it anytime he wants. It doesn’t cost money, it costs votes. It costs airtime and column inches. You know why people don’t like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so goddamn always? [turns to another panelist] And with a straight face, you’re gonna tell students that America is so star-spangled awesome that we’re the only ones in the world who have freedom? Canada has freedom. Japan has freedom. The UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom! So, 207 sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom. [turns to the student who asked the question] And yeah, you… sorority girl. Just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there’s some things you should know. One of them is: there’s absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we’re the greatest country in the world. We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, number 4 in labor force and number 4 in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies. Now, none of this is the fault of a 20-year-old college student, but you, nonetheless, are, without a doubt, a member of the worst period generation period ever period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!
― Aaron Sorkin, The Newsroom Script Episode 1

America is the greatest country in the world and one statistic demonstrates that we are the greatest country. Immigration. America has more immigrants living within our borders that any other country in the world. Legal or illegal, these people choose to come to the US for a reason. It might have to do with how great of a country we have. If potential immigrants are the consumers in the market of nations, for what reason could it be that they always choose brand America? Because we are the brand that everyone wants. A consumer does not buy something that they do not want, they buy what they want. America is what immigrants want and so America is what they buy. We are what the immigrant/consumers choose. What sets us apart? Whatever it is that makes America the greatest country in the world.



Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Trump Will Win - ObamaCare

Obama's signature piece of legislation will also grant a boon to Republicans. It will make Trump the next President. As thanks, Trump will get rid of ObamaCare.

The reason why ObamaCare will win Trump the election is because open enrollment begins 1 week before the election. The ensuing sticker shock from the rate increases and people wanting better health care options will make them look for the alternative. For those people who are not already voting Trump, the alternative is Trump. That certainly won't help Clinton on election day.

Trump's website outlines a healthcare plan that any conservative would drool over. State control, free markets, no individual mandate. This is exactly the opposite of ObamaCare and once those new rates (rate hikes) come out any person who now has to shell out an extra percentage of their paycheck will want something different that puts the power in their hands to decide how their money is spent. Trump hit the jackpot on this one.


From Trump's website:

"Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers."

Bill's Sexual Abuse of Women is a Problem for Hillary

The Democrats want to make people think that Bill sexually assaulting women is a nonissue, that it shouldn't hurt Hillary in the general election, and that Hillary is the candidate for women.



Bill's sexual improprieties should hurt Hillary in the election. We all know Bill is a sleeze bag and that what he did to those women was wrong and that if anyone else had done those things, they would have been punished. But Bill was the President and the Presidency comes with the power to sweep things under the rug.

Hillary has been sweeping things under the rug her while life. From the Whitewater Controversy to Benghazi to the email scandal we all know the drill. Clinton's capers inevitably lead her to a having a good laugh with Bill about how much she could break the law without repercussion. The fact that both he and she are adept at avoiding repercussions for their actions should impress upon voters some negative attitudes of Hillary. In fact it does, Hillary's untrustworthiness numbers are very, very low. Just take a look at any one of these polls.

These numbers reflect the reason why Hillary is not a candidate for women. If she truly cared about issues affecting women she would not have perpetuated the ability of people like Bill to act as predators. This deal with Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women is not the real issue. The real issue is men in positions of power using that power to victimize women. Hillary and Bill Clinton have demonstrated that they are not only unwilling to back a cultural movement to fight back against men using positions of power to victimize women, but that they are willing to participate in the victimization by doing the very thing they should be fighting - using a position of power to prey on and victimize women who do not have the power to defend themselves.

Opposing Trump's Wall is Actually Racist

Opposing Trump’s wall is racist. Anyone who believes that the US/Mexico border should be left unsecured is a racist. Building the wall or, more directly to the problem, stopping illegal immigration, halting the drug trade and stemming the flow of U.S. dollars into the hands of the drug cartels is a major issue. If you believe that illegal immigration is good, you are a racist.

You are a racist for being pro-illegal immigration for several reasons. First, illegal immigration is racist because it favors people from South America at the expense of legal immigrants from other places. Any immigrant who enters the U.S. puts a strain on the system because they have not yet made the investments in labor or capitol to the country that everyone else has. Simply put, when illegal immigrants enter the country, that puts a strain on the economy. Congress sees the strain on the economy and makes the rational decision to limit legal immigration so as to not put even more strain on the economy. So, in other words, we would have more legal immigration if we had less illegal immigration. People from countries not in South America such as countries in Africa, do not have the luxury of immigrating illegally because they do not share a border with the US. We should not treat people unequally just because they share a border with us.

Second, if you want the border open you are allowing the illegal drug trade to continue. Cartels are bad, gangs are bad and people who support the cartels and gangs are bad. People who want open borders are supporting the cartels and gangs. For example, the Los Zetas cartel has a network of ovens that they use to incinerate their victims so as to leave behind no evidence. These are bad people who, in large part, are the reason why South America is such a shithole. Sure there are some nice places in South America, but if it was truly a good place to live then people would not be immigrating to the U.S in droves. The cartels are a major force that is holding the countries of South America from reaching their potential as first world nations. The corrupt socialist governments also play a part, but eliminating the cartels would be a major step forward that can only be achieved when the U.S. stops funding them. The only reason the cartels are a thing is because they get an inordinate amount of money from the illegal drug trade to the U.S. Cut off the drug money and the cartels eventually go away. So, to sum up, the reason why South America is a bad place to live is because of the drug cartels and the only reason why there are drug cartels is because of American money they get through the drug trade. Build the wall, cut off the money and South America gets better. But some people don't want to do that. They are racists. People who support the open borders are racists because they want to let a few people into America at the expense of the rest of South America. The supposed benefit of having open borders is that it allows people into the US. This thinking does not take into account the cost of open borders, which is the destruction of South America at the hands of the cartels. 

The one legitimate reason for opposing the wall is that you don’t think it will stop the problem so it will be an expensive way to not solve a problem. If you truly believe that a 50 foot high wall guarded by a well-funded border patrol cannot stop illegal immigration and the illegal drug trade, then do you have a better idea? I haven’t heard of a better idea than the wall, if I did then I would advocate for that idea instead.