Google this (Bjørn Lomborg) and a million hits will come up on the phony GW hoax. Think about it, who profits from GW? Try GE, auto manufacturers, Honeywell, and etc. Why? Well, these entities will sell to you the new appliances the gov’t mandates that must you buy to replace your so-called eco-unfriendly appliances and cars.
What was it that was said by P. T. Barnum? Oh yea, now I remember: A sucker is born every minute.
Here Here Rosie! Our children won’t have to worry about emissions because they will be paying back all the debt wrung up by the current admin and congress. And don’t even get me started on the UN and the countless times they have slapped the hand that feeds them!
Why Joe are you actually saying that certain companies and industries use the enforcement powers of government to procure certain advantages for themselves? That these same companies/industries want to escape the rigors of the free market by using the violence of government?
Please tell me it isn’t so! Governments are perfect and would never cooperate in such a scheme! Don’t you realize that if the free market were left alone that we would have total chaos? Don’t you realize that virtually every person on the planet would start raping, pillaging and snapping chickens’ necks if government wasn’t around? Why, you don’t murder your neighbors because you know that it’s wrong, correct? You only refrain from such acts because the government tells you not to, right?
Heroes? Not the word I would use for global socialism and dictatorship. They don’t care about anyone but themselves and the power they have. “Global warming” changed to “Climate Change” once the earth naturally started to cool. The climate bills are just a way to scare people into buying stuff they don’t need and paying more taxes. If Obama really cared about the planet and CO2 levels, why does he have steak dinners every Wed. at the White House?
Good for you Rosie (or whoever you really are). Just be aware that China, India, Pakistan etc. will not be a part of any effort to reduce greenhose emissions so your children will choke on their fumes. Be happy.
Anti-Huckster If you are looking for more examples of where “certain companies and industries use the enforcement powers of government to procure certain advantages for themselves? That these same companies/industries want to escape the rigors of the free market by using the violence of government,” you need look no further than the insurance industry.
Notice how many types of insurance are mandated by the government. Are you looking to eliminate all the mandates or, since they put money in your pocket, are you ok with them?
To paraphrase T. Jefferson: ‘A gov’t that has the power to give to you anything, also has the power to take from you everything.’
Paraphrasing B. Franklin, in response to a question about what if the citizens of the fledging democracy voted to have the gov’t take from the most productive to give to the less productive, replied, ‘Those that seek such security over freedom will end up with neither.’
An ancient Greek philosopher wrote that all democracies contain within them the seeds of their own destruction, because, eventually, those who don’t have what they want will vote in a gov’t to take from others to give to them. This, he added, will result in civil strife, because exalting the least productive over the most productive will impoverish all and doom such a democracy to oblivion.
Definition of a liberal: Someone who’s willing to give away everything that he or she doesn’t own.
O.K., Just Curious, thank you for your fair question; I feel that in the spirit of open debate I should answer it.
I work in commercial property & casualty for small to medium sized businesses. Some of these companies might seek the insurance due to government mandates; some might seek it due to contract requirements (for landlords, clients, etc.) and some might want it just because they think it’s a good idea. We don’t write workers comp, auto, and health insurance which are the three most prominent examples of government-required insurance (as far as I know). If I had to estimate I would say that most of our insureds are not buying insurance due to government mandate.
In closing, I’ll reference an article by Gary North, “We’re All Piano Players in the Whorehouse” (google it and you’ll find it in 2 seconds; he certainly has a way with words). His point is that the web of government mandates, regulations, laws, etc. reaches into so many areas of society that it’s almost impossible to escape them either from the consumer or producer side. But I’m perfectly willing to remove all government coercion from the marketplace and let the chips (possibly cow chips?) fall where they may. Some would suffer temporarily, some would benefit but I’d be willing to bet that economic conditions would turn out much better for the vast majority of people, particularly those who want to produce in an honest manner.
I’ll sign off now & welcome any more intellectually honest queries.
Two great minds at work, Ban Ki Moon and John Kerry. The U.S. will be so hog tied in the marketplace with this cap and trade legislation we will be a third world country before you know it.
And those doing the lobbying aren’t ins. co. lobbyists. They’re lobbyists hired by industry orgs for chiropractors, docs who specialize in in-vitro fertilization, psychologists, psychiatrists, drug counselors, & etc. If the gov’t didn’t have the power that it does over commerce, then these lobbyists would be gone, b/c there’d be no reason to lobby the gov’t.
This reasoning also applies to many other civil and criminal laws. The more involved is gov’t in commerce, the more it is lobbied by special interests. So, less gov’t is good in almost all instances.
Take, for example, drug laws. Who wants stringent drug laws? Well, the criminals who sell illegal drugs (because this keeps the price high), banks (who get large deposits from illegal drug dealers), and police and correction officers’ unions, for obvious reasons.
Make all drugs legal, but allow employers to decide if they want to hire employees who use drugs or who use certain drugs on their own time. The point being that no employer would allow any employee to use or be under the influence of any drug – including alcohol – while on the job, as this would be grounds for immediate dismissal.
So, allow any employer to test any employee at any time, w/ or w/o cause, to determine if the employee uses drugs banned by the employer. If yes, allow the employer to fire the employee and the employee wouldn’t be eligible for unemployment benefits. Also, don’t allow gov’t disability (SSD or any other gov’t pension type) for disability caused by drug use for specified drugs that formerly were controlled substances (e.g., heroin, marijuana, & etc.).
Also, allow life and health insurers to charge more for users of such specified drugs, or refuse to cover such drug users, or be allowed to deny coverage for such specified drug-related health problems or such drug-caused death. Some would agree to cover such health problems/AD&D/death at a higher cost, some would refused to cover it. So, some insurers would insure the drug users, but charge more.
Some employers would hire drug users, but pay them less. Some employers may allow employees to use some drugs, but not others. For example, airlines might prohibit their employees from using any type of drug. Pro sports teams might prohibit the use of analbolic steroids, but might allow the use of other drugs that currently are illegal. You get the picture, there’d be true diversity.
This way, the US wouldn’t spend $100B a year on drug enforcement/incarcertation and it’d be one less area of intrusive gov’t involvement in the lives of its citizens, not to mention the impact this has on US foreign policy. This is the perfect free-market, libertarian solution to the drug problem and it doesn’t cost a cent of the taxpayers’ money.
Having blogged on the IJ for about one year, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a large group of very dumb people who also are very opinionated. For these reason, let’s bring back poll tests.
For example, no citizen s/b allowed to vote, if, w/in 2 seconds, the citizen couldn’t answer the following question:
When one buys something on credit (including a home, car, or jar of pickles), does this transaction:
a. Increase the money supply,
b. Decrease the moey supply, or
c. Have no affect upon the money supply?
isn’t it wonderful to have world leaders who actually give a damn about our planet and our childrens future
Google this (Bjørn Lomborg) and a million hits will come up on the phony GW hoax. Think about it, who profits from GW? Try GE, auto manufacturers, Honeywell, and etc. Why? Well, these entities will sell to you the new appliances the gov’t mandates that must you buy to replace your so-called eco-unfriendly appliances and cars.
What was it that was said by P. T. Barnum? Oh yea, now I remember: A sucker is born every minute.
Here Here Rosie! Our children won’t have to worry about emissions because they will be paying back all the debt wrung up by the current admin and congress. And don’t even get me started on the UN and the countless times they have slapped the hand that feeds them!
Why Joe are you actually saying that certain companies and industries use the enforcement powers of government to procure certain advantages for themselves? That these same companies/industries want to escape the rigors of the free market by using the violence of government?
Please tell me it isn’t so! Governments are perfect and would never cooperate in such a scheme! Don’t you realize that if the free market were left alone that we would have total chaos? Don’t you realize that virtually every person on the planet would start raping, pillaging and snapping chickens’ necks if government wasn’t around? Why, you don’t murder your neighbors because you know that it’s wrong, correct? You only refrain from such acts because the government tells you not to, right?
Heroes? Not the word I would use for global socialism and dictatorship. They don’t care about anyone but themselves and the power they have. “Global warming” changed to “Climate Change” once the earth naturally started to cool. The climate bills are just a way to scare people into buying stuff they don’t need and paying more taxes. If Obama really cared about the planet and CO2 levels, why does he have steak dinners every Wed. at the White House?
Good for you Rosie (or whoever you really are). Just be aware that China, India, Pakistan etc. will not be a part of any effort to reduce greenhose emissions so your children will choke on their fumes. Be happy.
That’s exactly right, anti-em of the Wizard of Oz.
Anyway, this is why you want companies to compete in the free market and not for gov’t assistance. So, the gov’t shouldn’t regulate anything.
To quote Tacitus (I’m sure that you know of him, b/c you strike me as a real smart guy or gal): “The more corrupt a gov’t, the more it legislates.”
So, fewer gov’t regs is the best way to end the influence of lobbyists.
Anti-Huckster If you are looking for more examples of where “certain companies and industries use the enforcement powers of government to procure certain advantages for themselves? That these same companies/industries want to escape the rigors of the free market by using the violence of government,” you need look no further than the insurance industry.
Notice how many types of insurance are mandated by the government. Are you looking to eliminate all the mandates or, since they put money in your pocket, are you ok with them?
Just curious.
To paraphrase T. Jefferson: ‘A gov’t that has the power to give to you anything, also has the power to take from you everything.’
Paraphrasing B. Franklin, in response to a question about what if the citizens of the fledging democracy voted to have the gov’t take from the most productive to give to the less productive, replied, ‘Those that seek such security over freedom will end up with neither.’
An ancient Greek philosopher wrote that all democracies contain within them the seeds of their own destruction, because, eventually, those who don’t have what they want will vote in a gov’t to take from others to give to them. This, he added, will result in civil strife, because exalting the least productive over the most productive will impoverish all and doom such a democracy to oblivion.
Definition of a liberal: Someone who’s willing to give away everything that he or she doesn’t own.
O.K., Just Curious, thank you for your fair question; I feel that in the spirit of open debate I should answer it.
I work in commercial property & casualty for small to medium sized businesses. Some of these companies might seek the insurance due to government mandates; some might seek it due to contract requirements (for landlords, clients, etc.) and some might want it just because they think it’s a good idea. We don’t write workers comp, auto, and health insurance which are the three most prominent examples of government-required insurance (as far as I know). If I had to estimate I would say that most of our insureds are not buying insurance due to government mandate.
In closing, I’ll reference an article by Gary North, “We’re All Piano Players in the Whorehouse” (google it and you’ll find it in 2 seconds; he certainly has a way with words). His point is that the web of government mandates, regulations, laws, etc. reaches into so many areas of society that it’s almost impossible to escape them either from the consumer or producer side. But I’m perfectly willing to remove all government coercion from the marketplace and let the chips (possibly cow chips?) fall where they may. Some would suffer temporarily, some would benefit but I’d be willing to bet that economic conditions would turn out much better for the vast majority of people, particularly those who want to produce in an honest manner.
I’ll sign off now & welcome any more intellectually honest queries.
Two great minds at work, Ban Ki Moon and John Kerry. The U.S. will be so hog tied in the marketplace with this cap and trade legislation we will be a third world country before you know it.
And those doing the lobbying aren’t ins. co. lobbyists. They’re lobbyists hired by industry orgs for chiropractors, docs who specialize in in-vitro fertilization, psychologists, psychiatrists, drug counselors, & etc. If the gov’t didn’t have the power that it does over commerce, then these lobbyists would be gone, b/c there’d be no reason to lobby the gov’t.
This reasoning also applies to many other civil and criminal laws. The more involved is gov’t in commerce, the more it is lobbied by special interests. So, less gov’t is good in almost all instances.
Take, for example, drug laws. Who wants stringent drug laws? Well, the criminals who sell illegal drugs (because this keeps the price high), banks (who get large deposits from illegal drug dealers), and police and correction officers’ unions, for obvious reasons.
Make all drugs legal, but allow employers to decide if they want to hire employees who use drugs or who use certain drugs on their own time. The point being that no employer would allow any employee to use or be under the influence of any drug – including alcohol – while on the job, as this would be grounds for immediate dismissal.
So, allow any employer to test any employee at any time, w/ or w/o cause, to determine if the employee uses drugs banned by the employer. If yes, allow the employer to fire the employee and the employee wouldn’t be eligible for unemployment benefits. Also, don’t allow gov’t disability (SSD or any other gov’t pension type) for disability caused by drug use for specified drugs that formerly were controlled substances (e.g., heroin, marijuana, & etc.).
Also, allow life and health insurers to charge more for users of such specified drugs, or refuse to cover such drug users, or be allowed to deny coverage for such specified drug-related health problems or such drug-caused death. Some would agree to cover such health problems/AD&D/death at a higher cost, some would refused to cover it. So, some insurers would insure the drug users, but charge more.
Some employers would hire drug users, but pay them less. Some employers may allow employees to use some drugs, but not others. For example, airlines might prohibit their employees from using any type of drug. Pro sports teams might prohibit the use of analbolic steroids, but might allow the use of other drugs that currently are illegal. You get the picture, there’d be true diversity.
This way, the US wouldn’t spend $100B a year on drug enforcement/incarcertation and it’d be one less area of intrusive gov’t involvement in the lives of its citizens, not to mention the impact this has on US foreign policy. This is the perfect free-market, libertarian solution to the drug problem and it doesn’t cost a cent of the taxpayers’ money.
Live free or die.
Having blogged on the IJ for about one year, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a large group of very dumb people who also are very opinionated. For these reason, let’s bring back poll tests.
For example, no citizen s/b allowed to vote, if, w/in 2 seconds, the citizen couldn’t answer the following question:
When one buys something on credit (including a home, car, or jar of pickles), does this transaction:
a. Increase the money supply,
b. Decrease the moey supply, or
c. Have no affect upon the money supply?