Monday, October 22, 2012

Perspective on an Advanced Idea: Foreign Policy and Blowback

An often repeated saying on why we're being attacked is: they hate us for our freedom.  Let us look at that, analogously. 

In a neighborhood there are families with different beliefs and cultural norms: some families may deny the women in their households the options of self-determination, while other families allow it; some families state there are topics forbidden to talk about, while others freely talk about anything.  There are of course many other aspects where families may disagree with one another.  Disagreements may emerge, but if those disagreements are only verbal there is not actual violence between the families, regardless of the animosity.

Not all cultures are equal, and the more liberty a culture has, the better it is enabling each individual to pursue the highest human potential and from that individual achievement, benefit the rest as a consequence.  This will be a source for continuing debate amongst the families, but again as long as words are used, there are no acts of violence.

Let's get beyond disagreement in words: say there was a troublesome raccoon in the neighbor's yard and we our sent our 'family pet', a guard dog out from our yard to get the raccoon and in doing so the dog injured the neighbor's children, killed their cat and tore up their yard.  Our neighbors would be upset.  If our response to their being upset was simply dismissing injured child, dead cat and destroyed property as collateral damage since the dog was trying to kill a raccoon that was hiding in a bush on their property - that'd be little comfort to them.  We'll give our neighbors an extreme sense of patience and say though they were angry, they 'understood' our goal and asked us to be more careful and control our dog.  However, after getting the one raccoon we saw another raccoon and we advised the neighbor that we'll keep sending our dog over to try and get the 'new' raccoon - a 'war on raccoons' and in that war our dog hurt more of their children, killed more of their pets and tore up their property.

Let's also add some other 'neighborly' actions such as propping up more distant neighbors around the neighbor with the raccoon; these distant neighbors try and beat the one with the raccoon into submission.  Our last 'neighborly' action is trying to get them to submit to our will directly by sabotaging their property, denying them electricity and water.

We are no longer having a verbal disagreement with our neighbor, but are actually destroying their property and putting their family at risk. 

Let's get out of the analogy and put this into perspective.

Just from drone strikes in Pakistan the civilian death count in the past few years range from near 500 to near 2,000 (US and Pakistani reported stats); injuries of course are much higher; men, women and children are among the victims with civilian deaths accounting from 50-80% (US and Pakistani reported stats).  Other areas being targeted by drone strikes include Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and Somalia.

As far as propping up one neighbor to rule over another, there was Mubarak being assisted in his rule in Egypt, as well as the Iranian Shah resulting in the oppression of the people of those respective countries.  Sanctions are cutting off the resources to the family, i.e. country.

If our neighbor was sending their dog into our yard and it killed our pets, harmed our children and tore up our property, would we be upset?  Beyond the analogy, this isn't about pets being killed - it's about men, women and children being killed.  We were appropriately angry with thousands of Americans being killed; is it reasonable to think that those in another country are not angry with hundreds, or even thousands of their people being killed?  Would the killing of those civilians, and especially children, spur the people in those countries to fight back? 

How about if they were propping up someone else who tried to overthrow us, or cutoff our ability to get our resources?-sanctions upon us.  This has been done, or is being done to them - would that spur them to fight back?

If war is needed, we have a process for it and it isn't at the whim of an individual politician who wants to get re-elected, but from the deliberation and vote of the entire Congress to approve war with a specific enemy, plan of action and exit plan - not the amorphous, never-ending 'war on terror'.  Afterward, the war is to be swiftly fought to not keep our soldiers in harm's way, to not continually bolster the resolution against them and not place great war costs on the taxpayers.

This plan of drone strikes (as an extension of the 'war on terror') is unconstitutional and a long-term action.  The Times Square bomber was foiled, as was the 'underwear' bomber in the plane; however, imagine if they succeeded and we had similar attacks periodically for years.  How would we feel and how would we respond?  We'd steel our resolve against, and then want to attack those who were perpetrating those attacks.  It wouldn't be about the beliefs of those attacking us - whether or not they embraced freedom or oppression - it would be about their attacking us, killing our citizens.

Our presence is unneeded all across the planet, does not benefit us and our actions of 'spreading democracy' do not help but actually harm our cause.  If we want to assist in the spread of liberty, it is by example for to force liberty defeats the purpose; liberty cannot be forced, but embraced.  Forced liberty is an oxymoron. 

Through peaceful interactions, our example will spur the people to assert their own self-determination and get rid of the oppression forced upon them.  Malala Yousufzai is an example of the individual standing against oppression as she is an adolescent standing against a theocracy denying her ability to get educated; she was attacked, shot twice for her opposition, but she survived.  The way the people in her country are embracing her and condemning her attackers shows how the people can direct themselves - if they only have the courage and example.  Imagine if Malala was killed by a drone strike; her spark trying to illuminate the darkness of theocratic oppression would be out, while her blood would bolster the people against those controlling the drones that killed her.

If our message of peace and liberty comes repeatedly with a bomb killing civilians, then there is not a message of peace and liberty, but a message of oppression and death.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

In Memoriam

Paul Kurtz

Another lost great thinker.

Monday, October 15, 2012

The Fallacy of the Capitalist Dragon

An often repeated villain throughout folklore and myth is the dragon.  The dragon is a giant and ferocious beast; it devours the innocent; it lays waste to the landscape; it tries to slay the hero; and the dragon hoards vast treasures of bountiful precious jewels and gold - not to mention the beautiful virgin.

With a quick examination of those characteristics, some of them are what we could say 'natural' to any large predator: a grizzly bear can be a giant and ferocious beast that has a voracious appetite and will fight those who come into its territory - just like any wild animal.  On a small-scale, even a field mouse can be a terror to organisms comparatively smaller to it as humans are to a grizzly bear.  Wild animals act as wild animals.

This leaves us with the hoarding aspect of the dragon.  Why would a dragon hoard?-and, especially why would it hoard treasure and virgins?  The dragon is not going to shop anywhere and is not going to attempt seduction.  There is no reason for the dragon to hoard the 'boons' it has.

As with any myth or fairy tale, the characters and items are all metaphors; the dragon is analogous to ideas or people in real life.  Let us look at the dragon.

What is it in the real world that gets ascribed as the victimizer, the devourer, the destroyer and the hoarder?-the rich.  They (individuals and businesses that are run by individuals) are the ones that need to have giant leashes placed upon them: leashes of regulations, licenses, taxes, quotas and such.  It is claimed that these leashes are needed for if the dragon was not restricted with them, the dragon would lay waste, consuming, destroying and hoarding without end.  There would be a Chernobyl and Deep Horizon oil spill happening regularly; the dragon would also be keeping the wealth, leaving the rest to starve.

Is that what the rich do?  Granted, there will be some who may - statistically, out of any group there are going to be those with malevolent intentions; however, that is not a necessary and sufficient characteristic of being rich.  Parasites exist in all classes.  What do the rich do?

(The rich, recently are called the millionaires, but that is a misnomer as the new calls for fairness and expanded rules begins at $250k earnings a year.  This 'rich' is only in respect to income, not assets already held.)

First, let us distinguish between those who create work against those who create wealth: the one who digs a hole and fills it back in against the one who creates a good for sale. 

Those who earn money do so by offering something to be sold.  What is this thing?-something that needed to be produced.  Produced how?-by combining resources, labor and expertise (at a minimum) into the given good.  What is does that mean?-through the interaction of individuals who choose (choice is a key component) to interact, they create something through which they each benefit: the one with the resources gets paid for the resources; the worker gets paid for the labor; the entrepreneur gets paid for getting the whole thing together.

This is true with a good being sold, or for resources to be combined with other resources to manufacture later goods - components need to be built before goods can be made from them, or for services.  It requires wealth to begin and wealth to maintain - maintaining meaning continuous interaction and therefore productive work to be performed by each party.

Does that sound like a dragon hoarding?

To add to the aforementioned, there are others who are also in the various fields of enterprise.  Those others may make their own and wholly different good, or create a similar good to compete.  With a whole new good, there is more to be had, and with a competing good there will be more pressure to invest wealth into production to make things more efficiently or of a higher quality so they can remain in business - still more for society. 

Some who do not succeed, or work in fields no longer needed may be out of work, but with production and people being open to create the new, those newly unemployed can find work elsewhere: e.g. we do not have a high demand for impact typewriter parts or service, but we do have a demand for those who can work on computers.

With all of this, the rich do not hoard.  Hoarding is taking what one has and not using it, not reinvesting it - the dragon only keeping treasure in its lair.  The rich do not do that. 

The aforementioned were references to businesses, but even a rich individual who puts the money in a bank is not hoarding it: it goes in a bank to earn interest.  Why does it earn interest in a bank?-because the bank uses the money in loans.  Banks put money to work.  The money in banks goes to loans for those who need help for anything ranging from purchasing a motorcycle to capital for starting a new business.  If the bank did not have the money placed in it, then it could not offer the loans and people would not be able to purchase the motorcycle or begin their business.

The Capitalist Dragon does not hoard, but makes sure its treasure is utilized.

Every dragon has its nemesis, and in the tales that is the noble hero.  We have an equivalent; however, as the dragon is not the same hoarder in the lore, neither is the hero so noble.

The 'hero' that wants to slay or control the Capitalist Dragon is the government.  That government hero does not see, or rather does not care the wealth that is 'hoarded' is not actually being hoarded, but is being put to use. 

Only what can be seen is what is important to the government hero; what cannot be seen is not relevant - the more distant a thing becomes, the less it directly affects the hero and those who praise him (for reelection); the more the long-term consequences will be ignored.  There is only the now: look at the treasure the dragon has - now let's take it, for it has too much.  The resulting harm to the interactions following taking the treasure by force is irrelevant, for it is a distant harm: the important thing is happy people dividing the spoils now.

The ways of taking the dragon's treasure include regulations, licenses, taxes and the like.  Each of these is a chain around the neck of the dragon, placed upon it by the threat of a sword.  These take from the dragon's treasure for now it has to spend its treasure on things not related to the actual production of a good, but to sate the government hero and those who praise him.

There are cries that if the government hero did not at least chain the dragon, that the dragon would lay waste to the people and the environment.  That is untrue: the only thing needed is to enforce property rights, and outside of that it is not anybody's business.  If there was actual harm, then with equal treatment of the law compensation could be made or activities halted.

Businesses would pay as little as they could?  Do not workers try and get as much as they can?  The free market allows people to exchange freely; if they can pay more (most jobs start above minimum wage), then businesses will pay more for a better worker.  And the one who is just starting a business, but cannot afford what the government hero said should be the minimum for employee wages, can still hire but for less - he is able to offer employment, and the employee is earning something where he was earning nothing beforehand, and gaining experience to earn more later. 

The same is true for the rich who puts the money in a bank; in the bank, the money is used for productive purposes; in the government hero's coffers, the money goes to sate bureaucracy where the money is not productive.  For the sake of creating work, one can be paid to dig a hold, and fill it back up; there is work, but not production.  Should the government hero's coffers actually produce anything it is first by the use of force taking it from where it already was productive and now first sating a bureaucracy before the remainder can be put to work.

There is a middleman between the Capitalist Dragon and the government hero.  This middleman is not to be confused with a moral middle-ground (there is no moral middle-ground), but merely as a go-between for pragmatic utility: gremlins.  Gremlins work in human society, but they do not create things - they destroy them.  However, at one time they were seen as beneficial.  With the illusion of beneficence, gremlins convince the people who praise the government hero and the government hero himself that chaining the dragon will bring prosperity.

The gremlins create bureaucracy of the government hero, and corporatism for him and fellow gremlins; they are never sated, never get enough of the dragon's treasure.  As parasites, they grow and continue to do so, feeding off the host, continuing to eat until they devour the dragon, and are left with nothing.

What are we left with?  The Capitalist Dragon does not hoard, but on the contrary, it produces.  There are monsters.  Those monsters are the government heroes who come in with their swords and chains to enslave the dragon or take its wealth, and the gremlins who act as humanity's friend, but work toward humanity's destruction.

Monday, October 8, 2012

New ad


Liberty lost, can be found again

America has been departing from its principles for some time, a trend that has escalated of late: more than $16 trillion in debt, the devaluation of the dollar, wars declared outside of the constitution, government expansion into more areas of the economy and attempts to take over healthcare. Even further into an Orwellian sphere is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), whereby the president may indefinitely detain American citizens without due process, and the TSA's attempts to go beyond the airports as they violate our rights as well.

To counter this disturbing trend, I offer new works embracing liberty, responsibility and the proper place of the State in the life of the individual.

A Social Carol is a modern-day twist on a literary classic. Angry with the system, young and idealistic Evan Sanders engages in a protest that turns violent--resulting in the death of his friend. Resolving to affect social justice on the corrupt capitalists, Sanders seeks the elimination of money to level the playing field for those less fortunate. Eventually arrested for his offenses, the young idealist is visited by the spirit of his deceased friend, warning him to change his collectivist course. To aid in that effort, the spirit advises Sanders that he will be visited by three spirits, sent to show him the inevitable conclusions of his misguided economic desires.

Photobucket Get A Social Carol at 40% off with coupon code MC52A.

The Gospel of Reason shows a world whereby the State has been hopelessly intertwined with religion, expecting to be obeyed without question. All aspects of life are directed by the ruling class: economic behavior, individual preference, learning and inquiry, among other aspects of life. Arenos travels among the people, instructing them with the aid of more than 60 parables of a way to better fulfill their lives. These unique lessons span a range of issues, including: economics, personal responsibility, critical thinking, morality, emerging tyranny and the dangers of dogma.

PhotobucketGet The Gospel of Reason at 40% off with coupon code YZ85P.

In short-story form, The Justified Trilogy disputes many notions of moral relativism that have become prevalent in today's society. I refer to these short-stories as 'philosophy in action' as each deal with a threat to good people and how they respond when attacked:

Necessary Means: Former special forces soldier Daemon Justice witnesses the kidnapping of his wife Dominique and their young daughter Danielle. When ransom demands are received, Justice will do whatever it takes to get his family back safely, by any means necessary.


Opposing Force: Dominique and Danielle find themselves in the center of a convenience store robbery by a gang of thugs. Fearing for her and her daughter's safety, Dominique refuses to comply with the criminals' demands. The young mother is soon faced with a grim choice to either keep her family safe or risk the death of another hostage being used as a human shield.


Preemptive Strike: The entire Justice family is set upon in their home by an assault team from a foreign nation. The mercenaries are dismissed as rogue elements by prevaricating politicians; Daemon must take it upon himself to discover and eliminate the source of the aggression. As Daemon leaves the country to eliminate the threat, a second attempt is made on his family's lives. When Daemon returns to tend to his family, he finds his freedom at risk for the sake of political expedience by self-serving bureaucrats. He must defend himself from the State that failed to defend him.


Finally, separate from The Justice Trilogy, Warning is the story of a developer in the midst of creating a technology that will revolutionize the world. He is thrust in a fight for his very survival by one who claims his creation will be used to bring about humanity's destruction.


The Justified Trilogy & Warning are available separately, or as a collection at a discounted price from buying separately. Photobucket

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Lion that Allowed Itself to be Devoured by a Rat

There is a fable that is increasingly relevant today: the mighty lion that was devoured by a rat.

The lion knew itself to be big and powerful, strong and mighty. It knew from its strength that it could trample, crush and devour its enemies. When a lowly rat came up to the lion, it was not frightened; the lion saw the rat of such little consequence and ignored it. The rat bit the lion, but with the lion's fur and mass, it was more amused than frightened or concerned. As the rat tried to nibble, the lion confident in its strength to always protect itself went to sleep.

However, as the lion slept, the rat continued to nibble; canyons are not created quickly, but by the slow wear of running water. The rat nibbled past the protective fur and began to burrow inside the lion. The lion awoke surprised its strength didn't protect it. Time was short for the rat burrowed quickly, but it was painful to try and reach in and get the rat. The lion tried to talk the rat out, but whatever words were used, the rat continued to burrow. Eventually the rat went past where even if the lion tried to reach in and pull the rat out it couldn't be reached.

The rat continued to burrow to the lion's heart, and killed the lion; it then ate the lion from the inside.

Collectively, the lion is America.

Overly confident in our strength, we have opened ourselves to threats and haven't done much of anything to protect ourselves. This is true on multiple levels, but most damaging in our interventionism, on being 'sensitive' and clamping down on our own expression, and in our politics. These are greatly intertwined.

The death knell of the lion is our participation (or lack thereof) in politics and by extension, elections. The Federal Election Commission statistics show election participation ranges from mid-30s (non-presidential election years) to up to around 60% (presidential election years).

The rat is the tyranny that emerges from inaction; this is the same regardless of the issue: crackdown on free speech as not to offend (someone or State), limiting the size of drink you can purchase, the drug war, extra-congressional declarations of war, and the like. From this, we end up with a presidential election between two front-runners getting the media coverage, but have little substantive differences and those are not highlighted.

With how many vote for one of the two front-runners because those are the only seen two choices available, and with how many do not vote at all, imagine the change that could happen if we are proactive and insist upon more than just the two candidates.

It is up to us to demand the media to stop assisting the rats from devouring us and to stop the politicians' own tyrannical actions and burdening debt for there will come a point where we cannot stop the burrowing and our hearts will be devoured and the lion will be dead - we are the lion.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

On being 'sensitive'

As Lenny Bruce advised "Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government." We can replace the government with any authority figure who wants to control our speech, and therefore our thought; whether that authority is Islamic, Christian, the Politically Correct, or anything else; the what they are is not as important as what they are trying to do - control others - that is the important part.  Fuck those who want to control our words and thoughts.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Advice to Gary Johnson

If you're not invited to participate in the debates, crash them.  By that, I mean go where the debates are being held - make sure to have TV/news crews with you (they'd enjoy a jab at their competition) and if you're turned away, lambast how complicit the moderator/network of the debate is as part of the corrupted election process as you are another option in all States.  If the debate host gives in, you're in the debate; if the host doesn't let you in, it will be broadcast and gain attention from other outlets on the R/D debate protectionism, making Obama and Romney look weaker.

Just my thought.

Cult of (Presidential) Personality

What is the President of the United States supposed to be?

Is he (or she for when it happens) to be someone relatable?  Is he to be someone you can have a laugh, or beer with?  Is the President someone whom after you've met, leaves with the feeling of, as Joseph Campbell said "good fellow well met"? 

We are bombarded with images of a smiling face responding to numerous questions, nominees stating what their 'guilty pleasures' are, appearing on network shows to joke and be 'eye candy', and of course shaking hands and kissing babies.  With all of this, it seems the President should be the good fellow well met.

Is that what the President should be?

The President of the United States is first and foremost the head of the executive branch of the government; the rest of the triumvirate includes the judiciary with the court, and the legislative with the congress.  The President is not to be the one passing laws, or ruling on laws, but to be the chief enforcer of the laws.

This brings us to: what are the laws?  As we have 'progressed' through the decades, there are numerous laws - thousands of pages - and in those pages, laws contradict, overlap and make exceptions.  With that, we must look at the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.  For example, where laws have been passed that may otherwise restrict free speech, we have Cohen V. California: Cohen was arrested for 'disturbing the peace' by wearing a shirt stating 'Fuck the Draft'.  Just over a word, Supreme Court Justice Harlan wisely observed in the court's opinion "This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitutional significance."

The Constitution was held as the supreme law of the land - that it should be held as - and Cohen's conviction was reversed.  There have been times of other violations and those violations come to the highest court to be ruled upon to check the constitutionality of those laws, policies and rulings.  Therefore, the President as the chief enforcer of the country has his first fealty toward the Constitution - it's in the oath of office when he is sworn in.

There is a difference between the power delegated to the President in the Constitution, and that which has become allowable in expanding precedent in actions taken by previous Presidents - and the Congress.  Congress passed the Patriot Act and NDAA, both of which violate Constitutional rights, but have not been heard by the Supreme Court (outside of one statute deemed 'anti-terrorism').  President Obama acted as jury and executioner with the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (Anwar's teenage son), both of whom were American citizens and had their rights violated. 

Constitutional rights of due process are not to protect the guilty, for if guilty and judged as such they will be punished as judged; constitutional rights are to protect everyone from being falsely convicted.  In a trial, we do not just let the prosecutor provide his evidence and not let the defense have their voice: why would we allow the power of judging to one who is pulling a trigger at the same time?

The President is in essence a magnified and glorified National Sheriff, charged with upholding the laws of the land, and acting as the legal representative of the country.  He is to be judicious and fair in following the laws passed, but most importantly upholding the base the laws come from, being the Constitution, and from that Natural Law. 

Does how much he can smile, or how many babies he can kiss have anything to do with how he will act in the role of President instead of appeaser to the masses to get elected?  Such superficialities may help get him elected, but they won't help him in the role of being President.  Do you want someone you can have a laugh or a beer with in the role, or should the President be more than that and be the chief enforcer of laws?-what is more valuable?

The carefully groomed and manicured front-runner nominees of Obama and Romney… how different are they?  Both want(ed) NDAA, the Patriot Act, auto bailouts, TARP, CISPA, healthcare mandates, the drug war, expanded military interventionism overseas, among various other shared interests.  What is the substantive difference between these two?  In the media, the difference is their personality: though both are rich, Romney is lambasted as out-of-touch and rich, while Obama is the likeable professor-type, but aloof.  However, they both make their rounds on television, their jokes, public contact eating where they can be seen to be 'one of us' and again, shaking hands and kissing babies.

According to the left/right media, Obama claims he'll help the poor more, while Romney will help 'the job creators' more; in either case, it's more of the government getting into the market - remember, both embraced the bailouts and other programs so they're not that different.  The media skips the similarities, focusing on how they each 'look' presidential.  Joseph Campbell advised it's a lessening of the role of the President to be the good fellow well met.

Their presidential look is a Potemkin village; in the role to uphold the highest law of the land, they both embrace policies and laws that violate the Constitution. 

It is up to us as citizens to elect someone that isn't just 'likeable', but is someone ready for the role; the role not to be a cheerleader, not to be someone's friend, but to be the chief enforcer of the supreme law of the United States.  This is true not just for the President, but also for those trying to get into Congress.  We must rise above the tricks and manipulations the politicians and their handlers try to use, and ensure the elected officials follow the Constitution.  If we do not follow the Constitution  and allow them to overlook it as well, then we'll have nothing to base our defense upon when we may be looked upon as the 'bad guy' and be scapegoated, having our property or even our lives taken - we will be Constitutionally insignificant, for the Constitution will be.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

More newly available

I have finished updating a collection of short-stories I had written a decade ago.  The stories include a single story Warning and The Justified Trilogy (Necessary Means, Opposing Force and Preemptive Strike).  All of these are available with free samples at

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Newly available

I have completed the formatting and now have two books available.  Both can be seen at my author's page

A Social Carol:  

As in A Christmas Carol with Scrooge's transformation, Evan Sanders is to be visited by three spirits to alter his original and narrow worldview. In a society where businesses and the State have combined, Evan is protesting the collusion. However, when he begins to get what he wanted, he finds out that it wasn't what he wanted after all.

The Gospel of Reason:

As Jesus walked amongst men to advance the Gospel Truth, so does Arenos to advance an objective & secular standard of the Good. Through numerous interactions, Arenos meets individuals & experiences situations testing existing systems of thought & beliefs. From examining sacred political & religious Goods, The Gospel of Reason looks at how some of those Goods are proper,& how some are not, & why.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Allowing our Amendments to be Picked Apart Piecemeal

As part of the expanding State there have been encroachments upon our rights - even ones formally listed in the Constitution and even among those in the Bill of Rights.  A couple of examples include on public schools the creation of 'free speech' zones even though with the first Amendment the country is a free speech zone; the Patriot Act violating numerous Amendments, most notably removing due process; one more in particular is how gun control laws violate the second Amendment.  I do not mean that there is a blanket policy being created (though there is that as well), what I'm referring to is how various municipalities are violating the second Amendment; this is not something that they are trying to do - it is something that has been done and is already law.

If we look at any Amendment in the Bill of Rights we'll see that there are not local separations from other Amendments.  In Utah it is not required by law to be a Mormon violating the first Amendment; in Miami, FL it is not required by law to make jaywalkers have their feet bound and have to pay a $10,000 fine violating the eighth Amendment; the same is true for any place that by law they can ignore due process, put a defendant in double-jeopardy, restrict the press or force citizens to house soldiers as each of these violate various Amendments.

With our not allowing other Amendments to be broken down and accepted as some elected officials say we may enjoy our rights, why do we allow it with the second Amendment?  The second Amendment has been broken down into various components on what is allowable in one part of the country against another part: is this a gun free zone?  Where am I allowed to carry a concealed weapon? (there isn't a concealed restriction in the second Amendment, but they had pistols and jackets back then as well).  Where (why) do I have to register my firearm?-what if I move to another state that has expensive registration fees?-a long and convoluted registration process and what happens if an issue arises during that time?  Where is it a misdemeanor to carry a weapon if it is loaded, but allowable if it is unloaded? (what is the point of carrying a firearm if it is unloaded?)  What types of guns are allowable at all?

Each of the aforementioned, and numerous other restrictions, is a way that the second Amendment has been made piecemeal and depending on what state or even what city you are in, a potential violation of the law.  Just by carrying a loaded firearm for your defense (as protected by the second Amendment), depending on where you are or go to, that act could be punishable by prison or jail time and fines. 

What is the consequence of all of this?-that those citizens who try and be law-abiding have more ways that they have to be concerned about violating, thereby making it nearly impossible to actually follow as the laws vary so much depending on where one is, and at a given time for the local laws may change (from time to time and place to place).  Those who are intent on using their firearms to violate another's rights already are set to violate the law, so making it illegal that they are carrying a loaded weapon means little to them as they are going to commit a greater violation anyway.  But,  the ones who try and be law-abiding are hamstringing themselves in how they carry their firearm (if they're allowed at all) and are just making it so they have less of a chance to defend themselves.  If someone standing in front of you wants to kill you and has their firearm ready, but yours is in an approved, locked security case as well as unloaded, you'll be dead well before you'd have a chance at defending yourself.

Let's stop allowing this division of our second Amendment right.  It is every bit as important to not allow these restrictions as it is to not allow any area to deny the political opinions of liberals/conservatives/libertarians.  Our second Amendment right protects us from anything ranging from a dangerous animal, a criminal or a tyrant who wants to impose restrictions on other Amendments.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Capitalism versus...

As far as a recognized political system, there are really just two choices: Capitalism or Statism.  Capitalism may have the necessary redundancy of laissez faire to mean no State control; Statism means State control in some form and to some degree whether it be private ownership with State dictates (Fascism), private ownership of property but State ownership of production (Socialism), State owning/controlling everything (Communism/Totalitarianism), and all nuances therein such as the newly bandied about private ownership and private production but public risk (Cronyism).  In principle, it is this simple: Capitalism versus Statism.

Capitalism is not just a political system.  What makes Capitalism what it is, is that it’s a philosophical system first, and politics follow.  The laissez faire aspect of Capitalism means that people may choose to act (have the liberty) how they wish as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’ rights.  This leaves people free to accept the risk and reward for their choices.  For good or bad, but with no rights violations individuals may act.  Others may join in the risk and reward, but they do so by the acts of their own liberty.  Capitalism is the liberty to act, and the responsibility for those actions.

To remove the liberty aspect, to mandate any action changes the whole and it is no longer Capitalism that is being discussed, but some form of Statism.  It is mutually exclusive as the principle is either we have liberty to direct our lives or we do not, regardless of degree.

It is not Capitalism to have State welfare, individual or corporate.  It is not Capitalism to have mandated anything, regardless of how good it may be for us as individuals or society.  The banks need to be protected as ‘they’re too big to fail’ is not Capitalism as when the State comes in and buys into the bank to save it, the system has blended Socialism with Cronyism.  The same is true for when it is mandated that by existing we have to purchase health insurance, have to put certain warning labels on certain products, have ‘sin’ taxes applied to certain items, have to get permits and licenses to begin or work in a business among various other ways the State deems it can control our interactions.

The principle is clear: we are sovereign in our lives or we are not.  This does not give us license to harm another as is a quickly bandied about retort to Capitalism; harming another violates their rights, their sovereign nature.  Working at a State-level, we individuals get classified into convenient classes to be pitted against one another and with that classism, and with the State’s approval of ‘helping’ us, it removes our sovereignty and makes us tools to sate someone else’s wants.  Where it is wrong to harm another on an individual level, Statism says the harm is part of the ‘greater good’ and it can take an individual’s resources and liberty.  If the principle is first not for the individual but that the individual may be dictated against for another, then society is a mass of those who may be commanded to serve another by threat of law: how is that for a greater good?

It is not for the greater good.  If the base is not solidly built on individual rights, then the structure of any State is built on sand and it will just be a matter of time before it crumbles.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

In Memoriam

RIP Ray Bradbury.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

New book coming soon

Along with a makeover for Passion of Man: Savior now becoming The Gospel of Reason, I'll be publishing another book in the next few months.  Stay tuned... or the on-line equivalent.

Draw Muhammad Day with thoughts and perspective

For the original Draw Muhammad Day, a letter from Muslims who are not tyrannical:

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Book title change

I am changing the title and 'Passion of Man: Savior' will be soon 'The Gospel of Reason.'

Saturday, April 14, 2012

A Businessman Versus a Politician, and You

Both a businessman and a politician have that which they are trying to get us to ‘buy.’ A businessman has a literal product to buy – a good or service – and seeks to earn monetary commensuration for what was sold; a politician doesn’t have a good or service to offer, but does offer legislation and wants to get your vote. Let’s analogize; whether as a businessman or a politician, what they have to offer is to be pictured as a bowling ball.

A businessman being in the market, not only wants you to buy the bowling ball he offers, provides quality bowling balls in order for you to purchase the ones he offers. He’ll let you take your new bowling ball as it is your property now, but he will also offer a bowling alley from where you’ll be able to bowl, to keep you as a paying customer. To keep you as a customer, the businessman will maintain his alley so that the alleys themselves are in good repair, services in the building are good and that you continually get your bowling back in good shape as to want to keep bowling. A businessman wants not just a customer, but a returning customer. A returning customer does so because he is a happy customer. If the product fails to be what the customer wants, there will be another businessman offering something better, or he’ll try and make better. Different businessmen sell varying types of bowling balls for their respective customers.

A politician wanting to pass legislation wants to create something new that will be static: a new law. A law once put into effect the law remains, until (more importantly if) it is repealed. A law now in effect, continues in the manner its nature requires regardless of the unintended consequences. The politician’s bowling ball is a glossy one, designed to make it look appealing in order for you to vote for it. After he has enough votes and has been able to get his law passed, it is his standing atop a hill and throwing the bowling ball down a mountainside – the ball rolls, bounces and careens according to its necessary consequences. It exists and cannot be brought back without great effort of many more to get in front, stop and bring back the bowling ball (repealed). Otherwise, it is gone, hitting what is in its path, and damaging that which it strikes. If the law fails or has negative unintended consequences, the law still remains. The same politician will be working on new, and may have passed other, similar laws.

It is up to us in the market, in the audience to remember that these two: the businessman and the politician, though they both come with offers of something for us, what they offer are not the same. A businessman creates wealth that we may partake and exchange with; a politician creates a law that imposes limitations. The businessman is constantly part of the process of his product, the politician is not. The politician will have left the area when the damage his actions are felt, and he will be trying to create again that which he may initiate and leave others to feel the consequences. The businessman continually wants and needs to try and keep his customers; the politician just needed the vote for the moment, and after he throws the ball down the hill the ball exists and continues on without further effort from him and he can leave. A businessman can be held accountable for fraudulent claims about his product, and the customer may be held accountable for misuse of the product. A politician cannot be held accountable for the harm his law may have caused, and the law will still remain as a law to continue harming society.

Bad as it is for someone to release a bowling ball to let it cause damage, and not be accountable for it as the damage will be caused after he has left, there is something worse. What is worse is when the politician teams up with a businessman; that is the politician creating that which remains but also has to be maintained and only maintained through what the co-conspirator businessman is selling. By threat of punishment, that is government fine or imprisonment, the people have to pay for a product not necessarily even wanted, that the businessman doesn’t have to maintain quality of good or service, have a low price as he’ll sell anyway. Other businessmen may even be prevented from competing from the co-conspirator politician.

Let us recognize exactly who is doing what and not allow those who create the damage we feel to get away with it.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

A Fable: Avalanche

One day, as I was walking along through the woods, I came upon a beautiful enclave of magnificent trees. A gentle, sweet smelling breeze called out to me from those trees to walk among them, and so I did. I walked among those trees, and seeing their beauty, I stayed there awhile. Not much longer after that, the sweet smelling breeze called me forth again, deeper among the trees of the beautiful enclave. I walked deeper, and as I walked deeper, I saw that the trees were just the base of a grand mountain.

The sweet breeze called me to start climbing the mountain, and so I did. Every step that I took, I continued to see such beauty, that I took my time to enjoy the walk. I continued to climb, but slowly. After awhile again, the sweet breeze called upon me to climb higher, and so I did. Each time that breeze called me, it moved me from one place of exquisite beauty to an even more beautiful area.

This continued, the sweet breeze calling me to climb higher, and my following the breeze, seeing more and more beautiful things. Many times as I ascended, I thought I had reached the peak, but it was only a ledge. There was more beauty up higher, and I would climb higher, the sweet breeze calling. Often, I would stop for a moment to fully take in all that I saw, and had seen. To rest and enjoy where I was. Especially at those ledges that I thought were peaks.

Seeing the continuing splendor I was heading toward, that I had moved beyond, and that I was in at that time, I felt such grandeur in myself. Only good emotions flowed through me: euphoria, happiness, awe and reverence. That I was called there made me feel all the more godlike, in that such a grand place called me to be there. Higher and higher I climbed, with the sweet breeze calling me. Being there and belonging there filled me with such joy, had me so elated, that I did not want to stop until I reached the peak, until I was on the summit of this glorious mountain.

On this journey I went, until I reached the timberline. There, the sweet breeze stopped calling me to climb. It was beautiful at the timberline, but I saw that there was more to climb. There were even more glorious areas to reach. When I stepped past the timberline, though, another breeze came to me. It was not the sweet breeze, but a cold breeze.

The cold breeze told me not to climb any higher, but to enjoy where I was. Where I was, beautiful above all that I had known before, was not the summit where I felt that the most beautiful of all things would be. So, even with the cold breeze blowing on me, I climbed anyway. I climbed higher and higher.

There was great beauty in those snowy regions, but also a sense of the sacred. I thought, god that I was as I was called there, it was sacred and mine, so higher I climbed. The cold breeze continued to blow. With the brilliance of the snow, forged with my determination to only see the summit, I became snow-blind; only the summit could I see. The cold breeze grew colder and colder, but I pressed on, no longer enjoying where I was, but rushing forward.

Well up high in the mountain, far above the timberline, deep in the snowy regions, I came to where I could see the actual summit. Claiming it as mine, I advanced. But then, no breeze came to me to tell me to stop. The mountain, beautiful as it is, showed me the cruelty of violating it. The mountain shrugged, and the snow came rumbling down from the summit.

I stood, snow-blind by my own doing, right in the path of the falling snow; right in its path for it was for me. Quickly, I was caught up in the avalanche. It went cascading down the mountain, tossing me about in its cold, snowy grasp. The avalanche came to the timberline, and while being tossed about in the snow, I was bashed against those trees.

The avalanche came to those ledges I had passed, and I was bashed against those rocks. Hitting that which was before the avalanche, and being struck by that which was taken up and rolling with the avalanche, I continued down to the bottom of the mountain; not near where I first ascended, but in another spot where, with the destruction brought by the avalanche, anything beautiful was distant, but still visible, for beauty did not leave the mountain.

The snow subsided, and I laid in it. Beaten, bruised, bloodied and broken, I lay prostrate. In pain, though still mercifully numbed somewhat by the cold, I could still move; I did not know when the full pain would be felt. In pain, I got up. In pain, I looked up at the mountain, its summit, its high ledges, its timberline and its glorious trees. The aching in me condemned me 'Look at what you have done! Look at what you lost!' And, in pain, I hung my head in shame. But I looked back up.

Looking back up at the mountain, where I had been, and remembering that which I had experienced on the journey, I looked at that mountain, and though in pain, felt awe and gratitude. It had called me. It did let me climb and experience such wonders that I did not think were possible, or existed. I saw such beautiful things, that I thought I must have been dreaming, but better than dreams those moments were for they were while I was awake, actually experiencing them.

Thinking back to crossing the timberline, I realized that where I thought I was becoming the god of the mountain, I was actually a blessed soul invited to partake in the wonders the mountain had to offer; I was not the god of it. The mountain had its own soul, and in crossing the timberline, I had invaded its soul's lair, trying to claim it as my own, and the mountain showed me that would not be done. It had given me warnings, but I failed to read them, at first ignorantly, but later because of my own blind avarice.

It allowed me to live as a god at one level, but not as a god to be a master of it. I had found where godhood could be touched, but tried to take it with me. In pain, I tried to walk toward it again. Not the sweet breeze greeted me, but the cold breeze told me to leave; regardless of my contrition so great was my sin against it. I do not think it will call me again.

In pain, though still mercifully numb somewhat, and not knowing when the full pain would be felt, I turned to walk away. I limped along, and looked at my wounds, and could see I would have great scars; those would serve as reminders. And so I walked again, through the woods, while trying to heal myself. Always keeping my senses keen for the sweet breeze, should it ever call me again, but, doubting it will. I walk on, keeping aware, knowing how to enjoy the mountain appropriately, but not thinking I will return to it. I still keep my senses keen.

Like, King Midas, who through his avarice became a menace and a danger to that which he loved, so did I. But, as Midas was a fool, his curse was lifted and his damage was undone as he was forgiven by the gods. I, however, am not a fool, though I acted as one. Mine is the greater sin. Youthful naiveté is a partial reason for my error, but it does not excuse the trespass. I should have known better; with all the warnings, I should have read them instead of focusing beyond them to what I wanted.

As I committed the greater sin, so my punishment is not to be lifted; the damage not undone, suffering the penalty. Let this be an admonition to those who walk in the woods, and smell the sweet breeze calling them forward: do not go beyond where the trees and mountain call you. When the breeze blows cold: stop. It may call you forward to a higher place later, and it may not; enjoy where it does call you. Intruding into where it is not ready to accept you will get you thrown down and away, left to wander, beaten, bruised, bloodied and broken, but healing, still able to move, as not to repeat the same mistake, maybe with it again, or elsewhere.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

How the Government can ensure 'Fairness'

There are numerous calls from some in Washington and some in society for the Federal Government to ensure fairness for all those in society. They decry how a minority child born to a single minority mother in a poverty-stricken area is at birth at an unfair disadvantage when compared to a white child born in a white two-parent family in a well-to-do area. Those who decry that those infants were born into unfair situations are correct. Nature is not fair; however, nature is not unfair. There isn’t a volitional force that looked at the combination of ovum and sperm to say ‘upon my reason and feelings, this combination will be X and this combination will be Y.’ In nature and how things come about in nature is the epitome of the saying: it is what it is.

A thief may steal property; a tornado may destroy property. A thief has to continually take into account his life, his environment, the interactions between the two, along with where he sees he should direct himself; this is consciously or (generally) unconsciously done. The tornado doesn’t take anything into account; it is just the result numerous forces that have no contemplation to them. It is wrong to conflate what Nature brings with what the State may bring. What is the difference?—it is the difference between what is chosen, against what just is. The thief chooses his actions. There is no will in Nature. Nature doesn’t act in the way men do. Men act from will; nature acts in material causation without any will. Fairness may exist in the world of will; fairness doesn’t exist in material causation. Only a hack will prevaricate the word ‘fair’ when comparing the fairness they want the State to provide against the fairness that Nature didn’t provide.

The government, regardless of how much those in it may desire, is not like Nature. Government isn’t just is; government is nothing more than a collection of individuals who have been entrusted with the legal use of force to ensure justice prevails in a society based on the laws therein. The laws are to reflect individual rights. If the government goes beyond the protection of individual rights (which are to pursue self-directed action) it is to giving things to the people (entitlements). Entitlements are ‘rights’ to that which someone else produced. The government doesn’t have its own means, is not self-sustaining, and it needs to be funded – primarily through taxes. To go beyond allowing free actions to entitlements, government ‘giving’ can only be done by someone else first producing something that is then taken by the government that has legal (not moral) use of force. After the government takes the product of one to give to another, the laws become unfair by definition – taking from one who invested their resources (time, energy, money and material goods) to be given to a third person who did not do the work for that given product.

How can governmental unfairness be implemented?—in two ways: in who is selected to have their resources taken; in who is selected to receive those resources. What is it that is unfair in such government actions?—it is the legal use of force to take from one to give to another. What must be done before the government may take from some in order to give to another?—there must be a legal division amongst people. Who can make and enforce such legal divisions?—only the government. The divisions possible are infinite. Common divisions are gender, income, ethnicity, sexual preferences, health/handicapped, immigrant status and on, and on; to add to the infinite combinations, groupings may be made such as physically (and/or not mentally) handicapped elderly, mentally (and/or not physically) handicapped Asians, Filipino homosexuals, single black mothers and on, and on where adjectives and nouns may be switched about easily. With so many divisions are made that the most quickly growing (i.e. shrinking group) minority group is that of the healthy individual. Who is going to provide for the rest?

Among our rights are the freedoms of speech and free association that are in the Constitution. The right to justly acquired property is not explicitly stated; it is implied for if one doesn’t have a right to their justly acquired property, then they have no means of sustaining their life, or to pursue any other actions.

Financially, utilizing the right of speech and association (and property) is how we proceed in the businesses we frequent, banks we store our money in and if deciding to be charitable, what charities we want to donate to: voting with our feet, or wallet. For example, a family with a child that has Downs Syndrome may decide to donate their money to a charity that helps like families, or frequent a private clinic that has treatment programs the family sees as best for their child. The same freedom of speech and association happens for the patron going to a restaurant owned by a member of like ethnicity, or for one who uses organic & free-range goods, as a matter of convenience for being nearby, and all other various options that any individual may use in justifying their preference for A over B.

At the individual level, it is an act of free speech and association with who we want to relate to, or not relate to in both business and professionally. This includes wise and foolish choices. Discrimination is good when properly applied; the one who wants to support a specific cause, team, family member does so by discriminating against the rest for not being the one they want. One who discriminates foolishly is to be given the same right to associate and speak as they choose, and suffer the necessary consequences. Nothing will remove stupidity as quickly as feeling the full force of the consequences of stupid decisions, such as the teams who refused to allow blacks to play losing to the teams that were integrated.

The government, using force, removes the free speech and association that are our rights; government officials pass and enforce laws that remove our decisions from us. Based on the whim of those in power, they take the resources taken by force and give those resources to a specific group. Through the force of a gun (don’t pay taxes and refuse the fines and see what happens), the bureaucrat will give your funds that you didn’t willfully give, and hand them over to those you don’t support. Where is the ‘fairness’ in that?

Even with this said, there is a way for the federal government to ensure fairness to the extent government can in its actions. It is obvious and being so, overlooked. The divisions that have been fostered from class-warfare, gender wars and all the various ethnic-hyphenated groups only seek to divide us, making us easier to rule for we don’t target the cause of the divisions. The way to ensure fairness in government actions is to not look at those divisions.

If we allow the federal government to make one division, the principle that dividing us is acceptable is made and all groups will seek to be the exception. If we denied the federal government this division, then most of the problems that exist in contemporary society would be gone. Don’t like ‘welfare mothers,’ or bank bailouts?—the federal government shouldn’t be looking at income. Don’t like different standards for minorities/whites/males?—the federal government shouldn’t be looking at skin color or gender (the government is the only one that can force segregation). Lobbyists would exist, but eventually become extinct for they wouldn’t be able to petition the government to act on the behalf of any one individual/group/industry over another. The problems with drug enforcement no longer exist for without rights-violations there is no crime to punish; the government couldn’t punish someone using heroin, smoking marijuana any more than someone drinking a beer (alcohol), or a soda (caffeine); regardless of what was ingested, the actions outside consumption would be the punishable offences for violating another’s rights, just as rights-violating acts are punishable when sober. Taxes would be the same percentage regardless of what was being purchased, or what one’s income may be; the government couldn’t say one was more sinful than another, or that one earned too much. The rich would still pay more, but not in percentage, and all would have ‘skin in the game.’ This lack of division would also apply to services, for the government shouldn’t be looking at who needs and uses (if uses how much) those services (health care, contraception, food) over those who don’t.

Charities help people more than government can. Charities are funded voluntarily. As being voluntarily funded, it was through individuals giving their resources they’ve earned and giving it to causes they believe in and want to donate. Charity is a gift those in society give its other members. It is to be recognized as a gift for when demanded and taken by the State, entitlements state that we are allowed to keep some of what we’ve earned, and the State will decide how much that may be. What is the fairness in having a third party deciding what you’re allowed to keep from the work you put forth?

The federal government doesn’t have any business separating us in society beyond what the census is for: have you been born?-are you still alive?-are you of legal majority (i.e. legally an adult)? How much anyone made, color of skin, gender, ethnicity and all other factors would be (as they should be) irrelevant to the government. What interest should the federal government have in any of these divisions?—in recognizing these divisions, the federal government codifies and buttresses the divisions as relevant. Is that a desirable result: legal division, of stating who is what type of an individual based on whatever collective-flavor-of-the-month is popular? If we denied the government that extra-constitutional liberty, then most all government abuses would be eliminated: no cronyism; no regulations protecting some/punishing others; no one who could see another as by a matter of existing, owing anything to anyone else.

Some will decry about some form of collective fairness: that some group suffered more by another and needs to be compensated. (as if fairness could be possible by lumping all individuals of a shared characteristic into the a group that a few members actually acted inappropriately; there is no fairness possible when crossing individual and group responsibility). But let us look at attempts at collective fairness, briefly. Some of us have proclivities and choose life paths that are more rewarding than others; think of the productive member of society who after years of training and hard work beyond a standard 40-hour work week, becomes a success and is targeted to have more taken from him in taxes to pay for the rest, and contrast that member with someone who works enough just to pay the bills, doesn’t devote themselves to bettering themselves beyond that, and contrast both of the aforementioned to the thief who wants to steal the first two’s property. They contribute, or even take away from society, differently. To have them treated equally would be unfair to society, for the one who works harder will not continue to do so as his efforts are not rewarded, and if the thief is not punished appropriately, he will continue to take from society. The lesser elements will thrive and the higher elements will starve. Is that fair for society as a whole?

If we allow the government to make such distinctions among us, and to try and help us, we not only not fix the issue of unfairness, but solidify it ever moreso in our lives for it is further codified in its dividing us amongst, and against each other. Absolute fairness is impossible. Miscommunications and abuses will still exist; they exist in the free market just as they do in government. The unfairness that may emerge in the free market may be more quickly remedied by the affected parties. With unfairness codified in the laws with divisions made amongst us, the law ensures we will be infighting, and the groups contesting against each other most will cycle so that we don’t look at the cause of our divisions: the State. To remove codified and systematic unfairness, it would require systematically having those groups divided as such to not compete against each other and unify against what created them.

Finally, fair is such an easily prevaricated term, it gets tossed about in conversations without a Stasis point, without an agreed upon definition. As such, where agreement is superficially made, there is still disagreement in principle. Worst of all, those who want to manipulate us use the word fair, intentionally prevaricating it, in order to push their agenda getting us stuck in their new system. With such problems following the word fair, it can be one of the worst four-letter words in the English language. It’s too important, the fields where the term fair may be used. Let’s make sure we know exactly what is being discussed when fair is used.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

In Memoriam

RIP Andrew Breitbart. Like with most people, I agreed with him on some ideas, disagreed on other ideas. Where he was an exemplar was in courage and dedication in his work.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Taking my lemon to the mechanic

I have this car that has numerous problems; it doesn’t run smoothly and makes numerous noises. When I took it to the mechanic, he looked at the carburetor (my car is an old model) and said it needed to be replaced. Among other problems there were leaking gaskets, the radiator has a leak that required, like the oil, to be filled nearly daily. The transmission sticks and the brakes grind. The windows don’t roll down or up, the dash lights don’t all come on and the windshield wipers are stuck.

The mechanic, looking over the car, at the wear on the vehicle could tell I also drove it hard. And, I did. I pushed the RPMs into the yellow, if not the red frequently as I like to accelerate quickly, drive fast, and brake hard. With respect to routine maintenance, I didn’t bother with it; keeping its gas tank full was good enough.

To get it fixed, the transmission will have to be wholly replaced, the pistons and rods have been damaged from low oil and they have to be replaced, the radiator, carburetor, numerous gaskets, hoses, and fittings all have to be replaced. As I didn’t replace the brake pads routinely the whole brake assembly had to be replaced. Many parts will be needed, and it will take a long time to take the car apart, remove the bad parts, install the new parts and finally put the whole car together again.

My mechanic, being well-trained and experienced said he could fix my car; he could get it working practically as good as new… as long as I’m willing to pay for the repairs. Can you believe that? There was this other guy who came in to have his car looked over; my mechanic only charged him the regular fee for maintenance. Granted, this other guy’s car was in good shape as he took care of it and only had the oil changed along with the air filter, but why should he not have to pay more? He could afford to pay more. My mechanic is being unreasonable and taking advantage of my needing to get my car fixed.

A confession: this isn’t about a mechanic looking over a car, but a doctor looking over the health anyone’s body.

Now, some will decry that there is no equivocating how one treats their car with the health of their body. And, they are mostly right, but this isn’t about that comparison; this is about the mechanic/doctor and how they are expected to act. Regardless of whether someone pushed their body hard, didn’t take care of it and it is having problems, or just had ‘bad luck’ from anything that wasn’t initiated by them, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the doctor, like the mechanic, has to invest his resources (time, experience, money and goods) into fixing the body of the patient, instead of a car.

For example, to replace the aforementioned transmission, amongst the other parts will require the manufacture of those parts, the assembly of the parts (each required an investment of research and development, and education to first formulate), the packing, shipping and installation of those parts. If the parts are to a newer car that has much more technological advancements, there will also be the advanced training on how to install those parts – then there is the installation itself, along with all the time that will take. It doesn’t matter if the breakdown came about how I drove it, or if it was a defect in the original manufacture; the mechanic has the same work to perform regardless of how mechanical faults came to be. With a body, for example in replacing a hip there is the manufacture of the part (and its first research and development), the collecting and transport of the rare materials to create the pieces, the manufacture of the machines that made those pieces and so on, along with all the other aspects that the mechanic must undertake to deal with automobiles… only with the much more expensive work that is medicine. For the doctor to treat the patient, it doesn’t matter how the maladies came to be, only that it is and there are requirements for treatment.

With the fact that the doctor has to go through extensive training, and for specialists even more training in their respective fields, along with the huge expense that exists in the medical field with respect to the equipment used, the upkeep and the very buildings all is housed within or based from, the costs are a necessary part of the service. To make the cost the same regardless of the patient’s in coming to use the service need (routine check-up or chemotherapy) is the surest way to make it so no one will be able to use the service for it will not be sustainable and shut-down. Every step in the process of treatment requires funding, and the funding is a necessary part for each step for without funding there is no way that the pieces could be shipped, created, researched, doctor to receive his training, et al.

To make everyone pay the same regardless of services needed is to deny the economic reality that there is a cost to everything, included medical services. A want to insure everyone not only doesn’t help everyone but will in the long-run end with hurting even more people for the medical system will regress to the lowest remaining services, and those will be in short-supply – those services will still be reserved for those with the proper connections. No one can remove the cost of production; the way to make it more affordable is to let the market come in and let the other, necessary forces come in – how prices change from changing supply-and-demand. If the market is removed, then the available services will be reduced greatly. The masses will be out again with less of a chance on receiving treatment.