Skip to content

Driving Off a Cliff – Obamacare as the Final Lurch Forward

I’m always mystified how intelligent individuals can so feverishly support the hallmark of Obama’s presidency. As if we haven’t played with socialism enough. Hasn’t the last century taught us anything about the merits of capitalism, or the destruction of socialism? Haven’t the authoritarian regimes of the past contributed in the slightest to our understanding of markets? Einstein was correct: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Unfortunately for Einstein, we’ve arrived at the day and age where upwards of 50% of individuals could be considered politically insane. Government created the healthcare problem. And as always, government will only make it worse.


What’s the problem with healthcare?

Healthcare’s been a mess for upwards of 50 years now. Remember when medicare and medicaid were propelled into the “marketplace”? The number of people paying out of hand plummeted, in converse with government and private insurance.


So that’s how government got its foot in the door. For many people, government became the third party when it came to paying for healthcare. Forget about making price-conscious decisions when it comes to medicine. For the most part, government would do all the paying. Of course, the trend of third party payment doesn’t stop there.

The problem was only exacerbated by the trend of employers paying their workers in the form of health insurance. What began as a small tax incentive in the 1940s continued to grow into the health insurance dominated system we have today. And over time, government regulations forced insurance companies to cover virtually everything under the sun. Remember the birth control controversy? That was just the tip of the iceberg. Glasses, massage-therapy, blood tests, etc are all examples of non-insurable things health insurers have been required to cover.

The problem with such excessive third party payment has to do with the nature of the free market. In a market absent these third-party payment shenanigans, consumers are free to discriminate and choose based on price. That’s the element that drives prices down. When you have somebody else paying for your services, however, consumers are no longer price-weary. And that’s how doctors get away with charging exorbitant amounts of money.

What’s Wrong with Obamacare?

Here’s the problem with Obamacare: it doesn’t address the fundamental problems behind American medicine. Instead of shifting away from the horrendous system of third party payment, it forces it upon everyone. Instead of embracing a free market absent of government distortions, it only distorts the market further. The medical system in the United States is an enormous, convoluted thicket of bureaucracy. I haven’t even given due time to address some of the other prevailing obstacles to low-cost healthcare, like licencing and regulations. And yet, we’ve seen that Obama doesn’t address these true problems in the slightest. Instead, he perpetuates the already failed, broken system we have today. The soaring costs of healthcare as I write are only a vindication of what I’m saying.


Assault Rifle? I Don’t Think So

All the news networks are reporting James Holmes had an assault rifle. Only there’s a catch.

He didn’t.

Holmes had what is commonly referred to as the AR-15. Wikipedia’s take on the situation:

“Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable.”

From what I can see, this was a deliberate attempt to rile up the anti-gun fervor. Many will be left to wonder why a madman was legally able to acquire an assault rifle. And that will only cause people to question the legitimacy of guns themselves. As if we don’t have enough brain dead, left wing loonies already.

Good thing honest, independent media is taking society by a storm. With truth at the fingertips of virtually every American, lies like these will not go undetected.

Get Ready – the Gun Control Fanatics are Crawling out of their Caves

I’m sure everyone heard the news this morning. Some megalomaniac by the name of James Holmes burst into a Colorado movie theater armed with a smoke bomb, shotgun, assault rifle, and two pistols, shooting upwards of fifty people and leaving twelve people dead. It’s an enormous tragedy. And you’d hope that the left wingers would hold off a little before launching into the usual left wing hogwash. But no, they’ve immediately decided to polarize the issue. And I guess I have no choice but to engage.

My favorite Mayer, Michael Bloomberg, stated,”I can tell you I don’t think there’s any other developed country in the world that has remotely the problem we have. We have more guns than people in this country.”

Piers Morgan remarked, “America has got to do something about its gun laws. Now is the time. More Americans will buy guns after this, to defend themselves, and so the dangerous spiral descends.”

Now, we all know the morality argument. It’s wrong for a group of people called government to tell peaceful individuals what they can and can’t buy with money they stole in the first place. What’s perplexing is that if I took out the words “called government” from the above statement everybody would agree. And yet when we give that group of people a name, people suddenly raise objections. “Government”, for the vast majority of Americans, is a magical term. If I print money, it’s “counterfeiting”. When the federal reserve does it, it’s “monetary policy”. It makes no sense. So technically, if people put their presuppositions about government aside, the moral argument would suffice. But since I know people have preconceived notions of the morality behind government, let’s look at the data.

Straight from (note that all data from this site is cited and verified):

– “During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.”

– “The British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.”

– “Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.”

– “Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.”

– “Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.”

– “Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.”

I’m not saying such findings are necessarily universal. But if you do look at the data, most cases show that leaner gun laws are followed by lower crime rates, and more stringent gun laws are accompanied by higher crime rates. So why should I leap at the opportunity to relinquish my gun rights, defile the second amendment, and stand powerless at the hands of the State? Why do the loonies on the left so eagerly continue to tout nonsense in light of so much evidence to the contrary? It’s madness. And at a time of great tragedy and peril, it’s nothing short of deplorable.

Socialist-in-Chief: “If You’ve Got a Business – You Didn’t Build That. Somebody Else Made That Happen.”

I hate being put in this position. Obama says something stupid, the republicans pounce on his every word, and I reluctantly side with the republicans. Don’t get me wrong. Obama is an ignoramus of the highest regard. I just don’t like being in the same boat as the republicans. Been there, done that. Listening to Mitt Romney’s “Believe in America” second grade doublespeak seems to lower my IQ by the minute.

But this has got to be one of Obama’s dumbest remarks. Spoken by the divine king himself::

“Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

So Obama thinks people aren’t successful because of supreme intelligence or immeasurable hard work. It’s because they got lucky. No Steve Jobs, you don’t deserve any praise or admiration or respect. You were just a product of probability. And what made his “luck” possible?

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

I saw that one coming from a mile away. Yes, the government made it possible to think and create and innovate. Public schools make it possible for kids to learn and grow intellectually. Roads and bridges allow the framework for the free market to operate. The internet (which only the government was capable of creating, of course) deserves all the glory of entrepreneurship. Yes Mr. Obama, the government makes all things good and worthy and virtuous.

I can only imagine what Obama would be saying if government was granted the responsibility of providing food to its citizens. The reason you’re still alive? Government. Ha! That proves people can’t survive without government, right? Obama’s operating on the exact same mode of logic.

If you impose a host of government services on the population, the vast majority of people will use them. The money’s already been forcefully extracted from society. And as the case is with roads, there’s no alternative. It’s nearly impossible to avoid the roads on which 40,000 people die each year.

But that’s no justification for forcing people into the system in the first place; the private sector would been able to accomplish significantly more. And considering the egregious quality of these government services, crediting government for the successes of entrepreneurs in the free market is like crediting a pedophile for teaching kids about the dangers of premature sexual activity. It’s a moot point.

Nothing Wrong with Murder, Apparently

New story out today: authorities kill an innocent man in Florida after mistakenly arriving at the wrong house.

Actually, this isn’t really what troubles me. People make mistakes. And sometimes, those mistakes lead to tragedy. That’s just the way the world is. The real problem has to do with the government’s callous response to the situation.

Take, for instance, Lieutenant ‘asshat’ John Herrell, who didn’t seem to express the slightest regret. According to him, “it’s just a bizarre set of circumstances. The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or police office, you’re going to get shot.”

Did everybody catch that? This is the guy with an innocent man’s blood on his hands. Where is the contrition? The sadness? The shame? The guilt? The regret?

If we had a free market in security, people would be flocking to some other security agency in droves. Virtually nobody would want to stand behind such an insensitive and immoral institution and it would go out of business almost immediately. That’s what the free market does; it weeds out those that provide poor services and replaces them with those that provide good ones. A government monopoly, however, is subject to no such market forces. In fact, it doesn’t even abide by its own universal laws. That’s how government crooks are able to commit atrocities with minimal repercussions. And that’s why the killers who murdered Andrew Scott in cold blood will unfortunately be immune from the rightful consequences.

Rest in peace, Andrew.

Debating with Statists

“I could write out a huge, detailed response to all your points but it would be an enormous waste of time. Until we can come to the agreement that forcefully extracting money (through taxation) is immoral, I won’t be able to change your mind. Unfortunately you’ve been convinced so strongly of the necessity of a government that you’ll hastily brush aside the moral dilemma. You’ll tell yourself there’s nothing wrong with taking someone’s property, or forcing people to conform to the wants and desires of the State. Until you cross that threshold and stand up against these violations of basic, moral principles that you and I both follow in our daily lives, we won’t get anywhere.”

This seems to be the inevitable conclusion to my political debates.

Typically, the debates I have with statists go like this. Before I even get a chance to explain the morality behind anarchism, I’m accused of being impractical, idealistic, and naive. My opponents bring up one misconception after another and remain hopelessly persistent until I realize that even if I do succeed in convincing them of the economic lunacy of the minimum wage, for instance, that’d just be the tip of the iceberg. Then I’d have to deal with everything else, from the supposed failure of the free market during the Industrial Revolution to the supposed legitimacy of laws pertaining to grass length. Upon consideration, I give up. It’s impossible to argue on a thousand different fronts without your adversary even acknowledging the moral superiority of non-aggression. You can probably attest to this: it’s incredibly frustrating.

Any suggestions for achieving more success?

It’s a Food Stamp Epidemic

I never thought I’d be saying this, but Newt Gingrich was right. Obama is, in fact, “the best food stamp president in American history.” In 2008, 28.2 million people received food stamps. In 2009, it was 33.5 million. And now, that figure has soared to a staggering 46 million (source).


But that’s not enough. A new government initiative is underway to further increase food stamp usage. You heard me correctly. Forget the fact that our public debt stands at $16 trillion, or that the unfunded liabilities are nearing $120 trillion (source). The government just came up with a brilliant new idea. Let’s waste money for food stamp commercials so that we can waste even more money. Make sense? The question answers itself.

If there was ever any doubt that the United States was a full-fledged welfare state, this is the nail in the coffin. 46 million Americans on food stamps. Think about it. That’s about 15% of the entire US population. One out of every seven people in America is dependent on the government for FOOD. Of all things. The most elementary of all survival necessities. Isn’t it pathetic? A seventh of the US population needs the government’s assistance in putting food on the table.

The food stamp problem is a perfect example of government intervening to fix problems it created in the first place. Who’s fault is it that people aren’t allowed to work for less than the legal minimum wage? Who’s responsible for the regulatory thicket of hell? Who’s to blame for saddling corporations with a 35% income tax? If government wasn’t such an impediment to job creation, everybody who wanted to be employed would have that opportunity. You wouldn’t have bums lying on their couches, without a care in the world, stealing dollars from the taxpayer. You’d actually have people working and paying their own bills. People growing and expanding an economy that finds itself in the doldrums.

Once again, this reflects the distorted paradigm in American society. It’s wrong for a drifter to put a gun to my head and take $100 dollars out of my pocket for food. And yet, somebody like this would be perfectly justified in doing so. The inevitable question proceeds: why? What makes one forceful taking of money fundamentally different from the other? I have yet to hear an adequate response from a statist.