What “Public Option” Really Means

Obama and the Democrats tell us that public option will foster competition. As is always the case with political promises, the opposite is the case. Public option will put insurers out of business. Yes, even the big ones. Remember, the government does not produce products or services, but they do have tons of plundered money. Since we are not talking about goods and services but the financing of healthcare, the government has an advantage here. Businesses are bound by things like having to get money by offering a product or service and making a profit. The government has no such bounds as it gets it money by taxing the people and printing it. How can a business compete with an entity that takes over half of what the American people earn every year and prints fake money? If Insurers took over half of the American people’s money by force and left the printing presses running all night  than it could possibly compete with the government. I think you see my point. Of course there is another problem; The government can and does regulate it’s supposed competitors. If company A had the power to regulate its competitor, company b, how long do you think company b would be in business.

For an example of this, in Florida, State Farm is not accepting new customers and is dropping existing ones because of government regulations on rates. They say in their own words that this regulation makes it impossible to pay existing claims and stay in business.

So when you hear all this talk of competition from politicians, the truth is that the government wants competition just as the mafia wants competition.

This is not a super accurate quiz; It’s not that far off, though.

Anarchism 97% Libertarian 97% Democrat- 67% Republican 33% Socialism 13% Fascist 0%

Cass Sunstein on Negative vs. Positive Rights

I remember when Cass Sunstein spoke at The Cato Institute on the book he co-authored,  “Nudge.”  Now, he is the talk of mainstream media. He makes some arguments that undercut any defense of Libertarianism, although in his book he claims that libertarian goals can be achieved through statist means. One of his core beliefs, a belief that poisons his whole political philosophy, is the pernicious believe that there is no essential difference between negative and positive rights. To not understand the difference between negative rights, i.e., the right to be left alone and positive rights, i.e., the “right” to take someone else’s money is to not understand the difference between living freely and languishing in a concentration camp. It makes so much sense that Obama would pick this man for Regulation Czar.

“…this time in our nation’s history, where athletics is becoming more of a fleeting opportunity. Funds dry up so it becomes harder for kids to engage in sports, to learn how to swim, to even ride a bike.”
-Obama’s baby momma

So we need government funding to learn how to ride a frigging bike? What color is the sky in her world?!?

Individualism or Collectivism: Which Values Life More?

Individualism ascribes value, infinite value, to each and every human life; Collectivism only ascribes value to the collective whole and not to the individual constituents who make up that whole. With collectivism, the individual person is as a cell is to a biological organism. An individual is expendable just as a single cell of an organism is expendable. An organism can survive without a cell; The collective “organism” can survive without a single individual. If one person dies society still goes on. If a million people die society still goes on.

You can see why collectivism demeans and devalues individual human life. It is a monstrously evil ideology and its only antidote is individualism.

Resisting Arrest

When cops arrest someone for “resisting arrest,” does no one see the circular logic here? If you are arresting someone for resisting an arrest, would there not have to be an antecedent arrest, i.e., the one that the person was resisting in the first place? What happened to the initial arrest, The first charge? Where did it go? I guess the cops don’t care because their only intent was to arrest you by hook or by crook.

The Fraud of Psychiatry

To prove that The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is not based on objective science,  Notice  that in the 1950’s the DSM listed homosexuality as a metal disorder along with many other behaviors that were looked down upon at the time. As popular morals change, so does the DSM.  It simply reflects the mores of the time. But Science is supposed to be value-free. Today, more and more behaviors are being classified as diseases and are making their way into the DSM. Mental disorders are being added to the DSM literally every day!

does it make sense that a behavior that some dislike has as its cause a diseased area of the brain? Could it be that people just have different preferences and different beliefs?  Could it be that different doesn’t mean diseased?

In the wordview of Psychiatry, If someone doesn’t go along with the status quo, He or She has a brain disease. If someone displays emotions, He or She has a brain disease. If someone eats more than some think they should, He or She has a brain disease. Emotions and beliefs are subjective states; Diseases, by definition, are physical. Modern Biological Psychiatry reduces consciousness to the brain. It is therefor no surprise that they view everything through the schema of brain chemistry and ignore thinking and feeling and the effects that they have on our behaviors. Check out Dr. Szasz to find out what hocus pocus Psychiatry really is.

Talking Tree at Shop on the Boardwalk

But then again, all trees talk to me!