Insurance and Jobs...

Oregon State Law is making me give my girlfriend's car insurance information to my car insurance company, to omit her as my car's driver, in order for me to charged at a lower rate OR my policy is terminated?

Really?  

Not the insurance companies fault but THE GOVERNMENT'S fault….making it hard to not only run their business because they lose money as a result of this but I am losing my ****ing hair over this red tape ridden crap we call an economy. Pull the sand from your you-know-what's, open your freaking eyes and deregulate this useless crap. Our economy is already over-burdened with useless regulations! Ok, I will give some credit with a FEW parts of Obamacare (pre-existing conditions, for example) but the rest is just ridiculous!

Ask yourself, if not all regulation is good, but has good intentions but ends up not doing what it’s supposed to, then why don’t these policies get booted out?

Oh yeah…I forgot, because each time you create policy and it gets voted in, it creates another opportunity of a government worker to have more work, or to allow another government worker to be created.

I guess Obama really has created jobs, using this example!

Thought of The Day....

Philosophy is refreshing. It's as though the newer, or more ancient, method of articulating your thoughts presses the intellectual reset button. No wonder why the human mind works like a Windows-based computer :)

Regulating has it's uses for....?

     Knowing that more regulations will increase the costs on all consumers in any particular industry, are our policy-makers doing this on purpose? Knowing very well that this increase in regulations will decrease competition between businesses that would otherwise being driving their costs down, to gather more consumers? Doesn't this simply decrease available competition, making it more costly...?
Then what we're seeing now are potential consumers essentially being forced to use the public option instead of the private sector businesses because it costs too much (private health insurance is an excellent example)...
Funny, because the private sector funds the public sector and were making it harder for the private sector to produce goods and services....why?

Senator Joe McCarthy was right....

Interesting fun fact: Senator Joe McCarthy was regarded as one of the worst individuals of the 1950's mainly by his methods of accusing those in the government of being spies, and/or being communists (presumably influencing politics). He desperately tried to prove his points but due to many reasons and other influences (and a lack of belief from his fellow politicians) he was essentially ignored after creating numerous scares. 

He was cast out of the Senate and eventually died with problems associated with depression and alcoholism. Here's the catch: in the mid 1990's the former Soviet Union's KGB and United States FBI together released thousands of documents relating to the infiltration of communists in the American government. They were called the Venona papers. 

Free Market is not Pro Business. Here's why:

   Being pro free-market is different from being pro business because being pro-business would allow that multiple government agencies would support businesses (large, small, corporate, etc;) regardless of profits or losses. 

   This can include bailouts, subsidies and federal business loans, or condoning certain businesses but not others. 

   This takes away from the proper direction the "market" would lead into, in a normal, unfettered way. 

   Being pro free market would mean that the government ensures the playing field is level, and not one business or an industry is inhibited or condoned, in any way, shape or form.        

   This reduces the chances of corporatism/crony capitalism and ensures that businesses will succeed under their own weight and power. Lobbyists, anyone? 

   It is more beneficial to allow a business, regardless of it's size, to maintain it's own profits and losses. 

   If you take away the profit system, you can reduce that motivational drive, or incentives to maintain an actual free market. 

   If you don't allow the losses, then the same thing happens.... there is no incentive to reduce those mistakes that led the business to fail in the first place. 

   The consumers should have the choice...not the businesses.

Intolerance: Fallacies, Childish Behavior, Name-Calling and the works...

Intolerance comes in all forms. Either side of the fence is guilty. When it comes to discussing from a anti-religious/athiest standpoint, conservatives have expressed in a certain manner that would bother me. Of course, this has only happened a few times to me. 
When it comes to discussing the role of government, or federal power, the other side can be intolerant....claiming that "you're against the poor and elderly" and the works. Excellent example of Alinsky tactics: belittle your opponent, interrupt them constantly, name-calling, red herring fallacies, and other various other ways...

   Resorting to ad hominem and red herring fallacies = Nobody solved anything and nobody learned anything. The only thing that happened is that one person thought they have won the argument and other feels like other one missed the point entirely, with all do respect.

Technology. Information. Debating. Politics....

Political debates have been a major tradition in human culture since the ancient Greeks ruled part of the world. Usually, the news and information required for debate took a long time to spread amongst the people and this was typically by word of mouth. Mostly, these debates were about politicians, the policies and ideas they introduced, and whether or not people agreed with them. Debating has always allowed people of differing views to learn from each other, pointing out each other’s facts or fallacies in their argument.

Malcom X and the Civil Rights Movement...?

How would history be different if Malcolm X’s influence was greater than that of Martin Luther King Jr.? It is hard to say what would have happened, but Malcolm X influenced the civil rights movement in a different light as opposed to Dr. King. As King promoted peaceful discussions and protests, Malcolm X wanted something more. Malcolm and Martin had two very different approaches to advocating equality amongst Americans. As opposed to Malcolm, Martin wanted nothing to do with violence because he knew it would hinder their civil rights movement. Malcolm X was feared for possibly advocating violence to promote liberty and equality.  Malcolm X continued expressing these extreme views eve if it meant potential loss of help from Caucasian-American communities and possibly being disrespected by people in the African-American community.

Flag Burning. It's Legal....but NOT right....?

The Street vs. New York case had an immense impression on society, as well affecting the way we view our constitutional rights for the future. Sydney Street was convicted of burning the flag on the corner of a street, in response to a civil rights leading being murdered. Sydney Street had a large crowd in the road watching him burn the American flag as a protest and saying, “We don’t need an American flag.”

Communism’s Failures and Invasion in American Culture.

(An essay I wrote a while back. Not edited for your enjoyment)

Karl Marx and his theories have been an unfortunate influence in American culture and this left a burden to our society. During the midst of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. in the early 20^th Century, to fall of the Soviet Empire, it certainly left its mark. It certainly took a toll for those that witnessed the “McCarthy” era and Ronald Reagan’s “pro-liberty” policies. We have all heard the dreaded remarks of Senator Joe McCarthy or President Reagan in high school. I think these American leaders influenced our culture in a positive way, helping communism come to a dead stop on the political road…now curtailed into government cradle-to-grave thinking… I think it’s amazing how fast this uprising started, how fast it failed and how it’s dreadful legacy still exists within parts of America.

The Patriot Act. Safety versus Liberty. What's right?

       The Patriot Act may be controversial but what do ordinary, law-abiding citizens have to lose in order to maintain their freedoms? This new “act” of congress has been one of the most controversial, opposed, and celebrated forms of legislation ever produced by the United States Government. The Patriot Act was meant to give the FBI/CIA a better chance to fight against terrorism in the United States and overseas. This is still labeled as controversial because, while many Americans feel like this will help to stop terrorism, there is also fear that it will infringe upon their civil liberties. I think differently because not only has the Patriot Act been important for national security, it has also allowed authorities to prevent many acts of terrorism while many Americans have misconceptions about it.

What I'm Thankful For: The Free Market.

What am I thankful for? The free market…

Why I personally like the free market?  Uh, duh.I love economic freedom! Who doesn’t?  It defines us Americans and adds to the flavor of our culture. We’re an experiment in the making! Many attempts to a free country and free market were tried but usually resulted in people being concerned with things like income inequality while forgetting their opportunities.  Nothing brings a country and its people out of poverty and increases their standard of living across all income levels than a free-market. What about the role of government?

Creating Jobs, Who To Tax and My Poor Dog....

My rant for the day…

As the dog is begging me to walk her, I just remembered a conversation I had with a fellow student several months about our current economic system.  Yeah, here I go again…

“You believe in a deregulated economy, right? Doesn’t that make us slaves to the ‘man’? We’re slaves to the system we’ve adopted. Capitalism.”

I was pretty curious about this and sort of agreed with this person on certain terms but I mentioned this could not literally be true, right?

The Economic Way of Thinking | LearnLiberty

The Economic Way of Thinking | LearnLiberty


 Here is an interesting video of economics.

This website features many views from various economists around the world. Lay terms for those of us (like me) who sometimes cannot grasp these concepts....

A Controversial Review of Technology and Its Impact On Abortion

Desensitized From Infanticide

The human race has its views on abortion distorted and technology is to blame. This is because society, with the use of technology, has desensitized our beliefs about abortion. Many people have differing views about abortion and whether or not it should be legal. People in this world are having their views and morals distorted because of technology and how easily technology has made abortions possible. Technology used by the media is making abortions appear to be like nothing has happened, or nothing really is occurring. It’s as though technology has shut the curtains from the truth and it’s making abortion appear like it’s not a problem.