Do you honestly believe that you can find a person who is so wise that they can direct not just you, but everyone on how to live their lives?
Isn’t that what you are doing when you vote for someone?
“But but, how will commerce happen? How will the road be built? How will the poor eat? How will we have hospitals? How will be _______?”
Lets break that down with my favorite example New York City. From their own website they didn’t start building roads until 1909 with the Highway act. Before then it was 1907 with regulating private transportation, and before then it was the canals and surveyor work. If you know your history, the early 1900s was the boom of New York cronyism. I have no doubt in my mind that since the most wealthy people were the newspaper owners, and owners of some of the privately owned transportation, that this played into the hands of the new job position of the Regulator, and the Inspector. Before then, the people who built the roads and rails where the people who owned the shops, and trollies.
Tell me, has the war on hunger really worked? Sure, millions of people have been feed, but a higher percentage of people are now “hungry” and below the poverty line than ever before. When you squelch business you kill jobs. Just go to Mises.org and Fee.org, and go from there. Those are just starting points. There are more solid information points than those.
So modern medicine that is forcing Quakers to escape from the US to keep their children from being stolen, or fight in court to liberate their children from asylums and abusive foster care is a good thing?
Note that the Quaker family wasn’t trying to stop the medical treatment, but to bring in other supporting natural treatments, to help boost the child’s body’s strength. But rather than cooperate, the hospital used the state to try to seize the child from the family. I have been in enough cases where the doctors were wrong about me that I can see this from the parents side.
Before the hospitals were forced to become agents of the insurance companies and the state, they used to have lower prices, work with patients, and in general have a better hospital patient relationship. If you want to restore that, remove all of the hospital regulations so that they can earn their customers via reputation, like they used to. And implement loser pays for law suites. This way frivolous lawsuits will disappear, and there will be a new industry for insurance policies for good cases. That is, if you are afraid that you are going to lose the case, then go to an insurance agent that caries a policy for that type of case. If he believes that you have a solid case, then he will insure your case, and at a reasonable rate. The less he believes in your case, the higher his rate will be. I suspect that the insurance company may even try to help prep the case, so that they can get keep their investment, and not payout if there is a surprising loss.
So let me ask this question again. If you live in New Mexico, do you believe that someone living in Northern California really can govern your life better than you? If they pass a law that helps another state, or a competing business, didn’t they just hurt you? If they push stimulus out to help a floundering business that is your competitor, didn’t they just steal from you to help your competitor?
If they jailed someone who was messing up their own life, for messing up their own life, are you not now paying the cost of caging that person? Think about that. We will call that person “Bob”. Bob shoots up heroin. Bob get caught shooting up by a cop. Bob get jailed by the court. Bob is now rotting away in a jail. You just paid for Bob’s arrest, the cop who arrested him, the judge who jailed him, the jail, the staff at the jail, the food for Bob while in jail. So Bob was costing you nothing, but he was destroying his own life. Now Bob is costing you tens of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars, and he is still not a productive member of society. And once Bob gets out of jail, he is now a criminal with a criminal record, and has nearly no chance at getting a decent job. Hey good job society, you have just made sure that a character flaw is now a criminal offense that will keep Bob poor, and maybe homeless. Yay!
Anyone who still supports criminalizing drugs for adults is either an idiot, or someone who just loves to create poor people through oppression. So do you still support criminalizing drugs for adults? Are you an idiot, or an oppressor?
So going back to this section’s theme, are you sure that you want to have someone rule over you?
Ah, so you think that because there was a vote that it is morally acceptable. Look at the Bob story again. That is the result of voting. Look at the Northern California vs New Mexico story again, that is the result of voting.
Lets try another one. You vote in people who say that they will only defend the borders. So they set up a surveillance system. Then they expand it, and show evidence that the people that they are trying to keep out have relative inside. And some of our neighbors, because they are outside of the US, are no longer protected by our laws, so they deem to terminate those individuals. And because some wealthy industrialist have found that it is cheaper to buy off people that you have voted for, than to be creative themselves, they motivate the elected representatives to use “claims” of threats to attack other sovereign nations, and wage wars for decades. All in your name. None of this is fiction. All of this is happening now. You voted for this. The people who attacked us were put into power by the CIA. You voted for the politicians that supported the CIA. You voted for this. You are at fault for letting this happen.
So tell me again how this is a good idea.
So you want to bring up guns, and mass shootings…
- http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2012/12/homicides-and-gun-onwership-what.html (Summary, gun ownership, high or low does not seem to equate to gun homicides. The filter of homicide type seems limited, but the study is good enough to include.)
- http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ (Interesting that Gun murders, gun aggravated assaults, and gun robberies went down.)[Please note that I am trying to not pun here, and if you know me, you know that resisting this pun is painful.]
- LCWK1_2010 (162 pages of tables) [PDF – 1.7 MB]
So let me put this straight, by the CDC numbers, of the non disease forms of death, for all races, genders, and ages, we should be outlawing accidents, since they are the top form of death that isn’t from a disease, followed by suicide (which is illegal, so we have done a bang up job on that one).
Another interesting fact is that on page 3 for the 20-24 age, number 15 for reason of death is Legal Intervention. The people were killed by the government.
I’ll give you that homicide hits number 2 and 3 for non-disease cause of death for several age groups. So lets look at that. FBI files http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls Ok, it looks grim, gun violence is by far the highest percentage on this chart. But removing guns doesn’t mean that the total numbers would go down, it does mean that percentage wise the other three columns would go up, so that means that this statistic is not really valid for this discussion since the totals should always add up to 100%. This is a more accurate reflection of number. http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/ However, would removing guns reduce the total, only if you ignore all of the other links that I have posted.
Here is another interesting article from the FBI http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/September-2010/shooting-feature. The conclusion is useless, and the article proves one thing, that the FBI plan of lockdown and wait is a failure. How many times do we have to Lock Down a school, just to find more dead students before we use more of what the FBI is afraid of ACRs (Armed Citizen Responders). There seems to be a fear of them, but yet we have no real study on their effectiveness. Hey, lets try something other than what has always failed, lets try arming the teachers.
And we now look at responders, this was about 2010, and we see http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html worst case cities were over 11 minutes, and the best city was below 9 minutes. It only takes seconds for your life to be removed from you by a criminal.
Am I against the police. No. I am against: Militarizing the police, Using them to enforce contract law, using them to block our natural rights, using them to jail people who are only harming themselves, for blocking free trade, etc.
If I had it my way, the clock would be rolled back to when the saying was, the cop had to pull the people off of the criminal, so that there would still be someone to put before the judge. We are ultimately responsible for defending ourselves. But we are also ultimately responsible for not causing direct harm to others, except in self defense. I am disregarding extremist arguments on this, because I have wasted too many hours in the past on that, and an irrational person will never have a rational argument, so why spend my time.
I’ll go one step further, lets privatize the institution, and then you can have the coverage you want for yourself. We already have this for some fire departments, which run as efficiently in the private sector as they do in the public sector, but cost less, because they seek deals with equipment suppliers, and understand that it isn’t cheap to stay on the payroll, so they have to be efficient. Generally, the services are either paid upfront at a lower premium, as an insurance, or at a higher rate, as a pay-as-you go plan. The difference can be in the tens of thousands of dollars.
I know I have gone way outside of the scope of why should you trust someone else to rule you. But I wanted to explore these topics, not just rant. And there is lots of room for more exploration. But I think you can see that I am firmly under the tact that we should be left to self rule, and keep our money in our pockets, unless we are doing equitable exchange, not theft via elected government.