❝❝It's not that capitalism produces no losers, it's that the free market produces fewer losers by a couple of orders of magnitude.

Notice that I am distinguishing between capitalism and the free market.

Again, I'm talking about a "bottom-up" self-organizing exchange versus a "top-down" system imposed by force. In a free market, the way to get ahead is providing what others want. In any other system, it's about controlling the system.

ANY artificial controls will be exploited by the most powerful at the expense of the weaker. Resources are diverted into controlling the rules rather than producing value.

"Moral obligations" will be used to shut competition out of the marketplace in the name of compassion, and it will be backed by government force, diverting still more resources away from the market and into government and control.

The free market has only one real justification, it has produced more wealth and more freedom for more people than anything else we have tried. The key is individual choice, not controlling the system.

In a free market, competition keeps us honest and choice is the only control that works.

---

The two most important phrases in human history:

“Let me help.”

“I can do better than that!”

---

It's not the tools, it's the results.

The free market is an example of people choosing for themselves. Government is controlling people by force.

And yes, the world is changing. It's embracing choice. That doesn't mean that the politicos and technocrats will give up power willingly. But they can't control everything that happens. Who could have foreseen the world wide web, Snicker's bars, or topless maid services? What government agency would have tolerated those things? What Congress critter would have sponsored legislation creating flash mobs, radar detectors, or fantasy football?

I want more freedom for more people today. I want more of the same tomorrow. Choice is the best way to get freedom. That's it, plain and simple. That's my objective.

---

See, you're still talking politics. "Arrange." "Cap." That's about controlling others, implying that government force will be involved sooner or later.

Why should their choice control my action? Why should my choice control your action? Why should your choice control their action?

It's not about creating the framework or tweaking the system. They've got something I want, so I have to find something they want. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, and no third party taking a cut or dictating rules.

---

Freedom and wealth. The Apaches could not produce steel knives, antiseptics, or a horseshoe. In one sense they were free, but they didn't have wealth. What freedom and wealth they had was taken at the expense of others.

Freedom taken at the expense of someone else is privilege and is generally recognized as a Bad Thing. Perhaps the keystone to Western Civilization is the Ethic of Reciprocity. This is what makes freedom more than a privilege grab. It also can't be imposed by another.

I'm proposing that the free market makes freedom and wealth possible while making things mostly better today than they were yesterday. So we have steel tools, paracord, duck tape, battery drills, and lights at the flick of a switch. These and seven million and thirteen other things weren't even a possibility with a hunter/gatherer culture.

Freedom is only one part of the payoff.

---

Nice things result in greater freedom.

I grow stuff in my garden, but that is not my source of food. I can go to the grocery store and find a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than I could ever hope to grow myself. My choices are increased by the store, and it couldn't happen without the free market.

A few years back I was looking at an aquaponics set-up. Beyond the design and construction, it would have taken about twenty hours a week and between two and three hundred dollars more per month. And that is if everything went right and I never left town.

Is it necessary that I use the supermarket? No, but it's a better use of my time and resources than if I tried to do it on my own. It lets me use the labor and skills of others at a minimal cost to myself.❞❞

Tags: losers ∙ capitalism ∙ bottom up ∙ self-organizing ∙ exchange ∙ top down ∙ force ∙ system ∙ resources ∙ moral obligations ∙ competition ∙ compassion ∙ wealth ∙ let me help ∙ I can do better than that

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ Facebook ∙ Microsoft ∙ Yaron Brook ∙ Ayn Rand Institute ∙ Orrin Hatch ∙ Janet Reno ∙ Justice Department ∙ regulation ∙ control ∙ Mark Zuckerberg ∙ First Amendment ∙ competition

❝❝People are looking for something, and some of them are not finding it in churches. Some are, but there never was a one-size-fits-all solution. Competition keeps us honest. It works for peanut butter, smart phones, and politics.

And it most certainly works for religion.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community News: Twin Cities man charged with child exploitation, SCOTUS decision, and more!

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ competition ∙ honest

❝❝First, let's acknowledge that almost no one becomes a billionaire without active government intervention. Whether it's a patent, the existence of a corporation, or the exclusive right to sell colored sugar water, you can't concentrate money on a large scale without government.

Second, money depends on movement. Money stuffed in a mattress is just lumpy nesting material. It's cashflow that makes economies work. Yes, that dingus sells for $350, but there is the raw material cost, the manufacturing costs, the overhead costs like salaries and government fees, and so on. Very few things have a profit margin of ten percent, and most are well under five. So that dingus sells for $350, but most likely it cost the company about $333 to make and distribute. Money has to circulate or there is no value anywhere.

Third, you can't overlook competition. Well, at least not without government suppressing it anyway. A company has to compete for employees, just as employees have to compete for jobs. Multiple employers mean better wages and benefits. Regionally, multiple employers means that a town or city is less subject to the whims of a single company or the demands of a single industry.

As far as there being too few jobs, that kicks into government intervention again. In a healthy economy, there will usually be more jobs than employees.

Fourth (and this is the really important bit), companies expand by providing better quality goods and services cheaper, faster, and with more distribution than the competition. This instability is the keystone to the whole process. If a company can't compete, it loses money. More accurately, resources (including employees) are freed to other companies.

Companies want shortcuts, so they lobby and change the law rather than create new products and services. If a large company can pull it off, it's usually much cheaper. Again, this is government intervention. Short of government protection and favor, the only way a company can stay in business is by being at least as good as it's competition.

---

I should add that digital services and products throw a spanner in the works. On the one hand you have companies like Google offering "free services" by selling your data. On the other hand you have companies like Disney selling movies produced 25, 30 years ago for $20 a pop. We're still working out how all this will work in the long run.❞❞

Tags: billionaire ∙ government intervention ∙ patent ∙ corporation ∙ exclusive right ∙ money ∙ movement of value ∙ cIrculate ∙ competition ∙ employees ∙ better wages and benefits ∙ healthy economy ∙ cheaper ∙ faster ∙ distribution ∙ lobby ∙ Disney ∙ Google

❝❝There's also climate change. Some treat it very much as a religious issue, right down to attacking dissenters as heretics. Using the law to compel belief is wrong.

After all, if it is Divine Will, how can mere humans dare question it? Which gives non serviam some very interesting implications. By some interpretations, the absolute demands of monotheism may be less about the Divine and more about the political power of princes, potentates, and priests.

It's easy to laugh at those crazy monotheists until you see some demands of the RadFems, the trans activists, the environmental groups, the redistributionists, and anti-hate speech types. Always, Always, ALWAYS there is a Grand Cause that demands total submission and absolutely no denial "for the greater good."

Anytime you see "thou shalt not dissent," it should be a flashing red strobe and a triple siren.

---

Kosher certification for restaurants is one private alternative for food safety that has worked. One author, L. Neil Smith, suggested in one of his novels that insurance companies would do a better job with driver's licenses because they are liable if something happens. Obviously these are not the only possibilities. But with government, we end up with only one Official Solution® allowed.

Personally I prefer the free market and competition. And by free market, I mean no government to pick winners or losers, and no government to give advantages over others. Just voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. Many companies especially international ones owe their competitive advantages to special privileges from governments and/or government regulation and control.

The only times I think government should intervene is to protect life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, the only role I see for government is enforcing contracts and agreements, but even that could be done privately.

But that is just me.

I do believe that Meddling in Other's Lives For Their Own Good is one of the great evils unleashed on humanity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ religious ∙ beliefs ∙ dissent ∙ Divine Will ∙ non serviam ∙ mere unbelievers ∙ monotheism ∙ absolute ∙ princes ∙ potentates ∙ priests ∙ RadFem ∙ trans activists ∙ environmental crusade ∙ redistribute wealth ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ kosher ceritificaiton ∙ insurance companies ∙ driver's license ∙ food safety ∙ competition ∙ government ∙ winners or losers ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults ∙ special privileges ∙ government regulation ∙ life ∙ liberty ∙ property ∙ enforce contracts ∙ meddle ∙ for your own good

This is the problem.

Tags: guest content ∙ The Hated One ∙ video ∙ competition ∙ Google ∙ Duck Duck Go ∙ Claire Wolfe ∙ censorship ∙ search engines

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: internet ∙ fiber optics ∙ Satanist ∙ poseur ∙ MIT ∙ robot ∙ nanotech ∙ security ∙ tablets ∙ GM ∙ data mining ∙ smart phone ∙ troops ∙ transgender ∙ social media ∙ competition ∙ cryptocurrency ∙ Japan ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ YouTube ∙ Apple ∙ police ∙ hacking ∙ public schools ∙ currency manipulation ∙ drugs ∙ 3D printing ∙ purged

Tags: John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ video ∙ Sweden ∙ Johan Norberg ∙ sociaism ∙ welfare ∙ pensions ∙ privatized ∙ competition ∙ taxes ∙ school choice ∙ wealth

I'm not something less, I'm something else.

Tags: bureaucrats ∙ power ∙ government ∙ voters ∙ exploit ∙ government is not your friend ∙ advances ∙ culture ∙ technology ∙ plastic surgery ∙ kidney machine ∙ capitalism ∙ poverty ∙ competition

❝❝No, they are not monopolies.

When I sit down at a computer, I don't have to go through Facebook to check the weather or see what is happening at this site. If I wanted to message someone on my iPod or iPad, I don't have to use Twitter.

With AT&T, if you were in an area covered you had no choice. It was your regional Bell company and AT&T or nothing. The breakup fixed that, you could choose your phone company. And today, if I am not in range of the right cell tower, my phone still works as long as I am in range of a cell tower.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, all got big by offering something the competition did not have. No one was forced. Competition is the only way to reduce their hold. And the competition, like all competition, has to offer something more than "just as good as."

For a while, iOS and macOSX had software hooks so that Facebook and Twitter had easier access. That's no longer necessarily true, some of Apple's customers didn't want their data shared by companies that weren't trustworthy.

Government intervention is the last thing we need. There are already politicos who complain about "fake news" that isn't fake, it's just not what the politicos want you to think about. From the news in the last couple of days, it seems Twitter is going after conservative and libertarian users. Do we really want a world where government decides what may and may not be said?

Oh, one other thing. Monopolies rely on government support and intervention. Start regulating and you just planted a monopoly.

---

I agree it's a mess.

To get a site, you have to register a domain name. Then you have to get server space. If you use a company like Wordpress, you agree to carry their ads on your site in exchange for a reduced rate or free use on their server space. If you go on your own, you find a web host (like MacHighway) and you have more control over the site and advertising.

Think of it like a storefront that you have to rent. Depending on the terms of the lease, that is how much service your "landlord" provides and how much you provide to your visitors.

If Twitter provides the ability to block people you don't like, I agree that it should be available to ALL users. But the platform is not public property. The "landlord" can block out who they want when they want. But they shouldn't be shielded from the consequences of their actions. They are liable if they provide different services and benefits to their users. If it's a "free" service, then all "free" users should have the same benefits as all other "free" users. The "landlord" can ban conservatives, but if they allow conservatives (or one specific high profile conservative), then that person should have the same rights and benefits.

ETA: The real question is if the platform should ban offensive content and how that should be defined.❞❞

Tags: virtue signaling ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Apple ∙ server space ∙ Google ∙ iOS ∙ domain name ∙ macOSX ∙ competition ∙ government intervention ∙ fake news ∙ politicos ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ Wordpress ∙ MacHighway ∙ lease ∙ offensive

Tags: memes ∙ guest content ∙ capitalism ∙ corporatism ∙ competition ∙ company ∙ goverment

❝❝You are aware that you just tried to shame me into keeping quiet and not offer a dissenting opinion, aren't you?

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I did not deny that discrimination and oppression takes place.

Now, let's look at what I actually did.

I said people had tried to shame and shun me because of my sexuality, faith, and politics.

You know, like you tried to do.

I didn't proclaim my victimhood gave me the power to command others.

You know, like you tried to do.

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I refuse to give blanket special privilege because of proclaimed victimhood.

If an individual wants help, I'll give what I think I can. If a vague class demands constant unquestioned deference because of some poorly defined list of potential offenses that may have been committed on alternate Tuesdays, I'll probably laugh.

The World needs heroes more than it needs victims.

I despise the politics of victimhood. That always ALWAYS means a hierarchy and oh so carefully deciding who has it worse. It's never about injustice, it's about injustice shown to a particular class. Injustice against other groups gets downplayed if not ignored entirely.

For example, I gave three reasons. You picked sex sexuality. Not just sex sexuality, but sexual politics as it applies to your letter salad. So heterosexual feminists don't rate high on your victim scale. And you treated all those carefully defined letters as One Monolithic Block, as if the needs and desires of the transfolks matched those of the gay bears.

You're not a hero because someone hurt your feelings or didn't give you what you thought you deserved. Heroes overcome adversity.

---

Yes, you did attempt to shame me. It's kafkatrapping, specifically invoking model A and model C. It was old when Alinsky wrote about it, under a different name of course. The goal of shaming is to morally prevent me from speaking or writing. It attempts to manipulate guilt of both the target and the spectators.

You're right, I don't know you. Nor should what you have experienced have any influence on my behavior. Unless you're expecting my guilty pity to overcome my beliefs and self-interest.

Even now you are ranking comparative victimhood as if that is what defines people. That is what intersectionality does, isn't it? It's all about the victimhood. Emphasizing the victimhood isn't going to do anything except create a pity party. It's not particularly healthy and it isn't a practical solution.

There are radical feminists who routinely try to shame and shun men all the time. Starting with allegations that America is a "rape culture" and that any PIV sex is rape by it's very nature.

You'll never get social justice because people don't agree on what it means.

You obviously don't know me or you'd know that I carefully think about everything I write. I pride myself on it. You have a problem in that my thoughts don't slavishly follow what you think is important.

I've seen people called heroes over hurt feelings. So have you. I've also seen people cashing in on the ordeals of others. So have you.

You chose to respond to my post. I had done you no harm. All I did was challenge your belief. You don't know who I am or what I've done. You don't know who I've helped or who I've hurt. All you know is that you think I should not be allowed to speak or write my opinion.

---

Pardon, but you're deigning to respond so you can prove a point. You're not doing me any favors and the act comes across a little hollow.

Yes, you did try to shame me. You're not the first or thirteenth or thousandth person to try. You don't get to set the terms of my shame.

Of course I want a better world. What I may not want is a better world on your terms. That's not because of my politics, it's because I'm human.

Yep, I did bring up self-interest because it's a major reason for people's behavior. You're not having this discussion because you're feeling selfless. You've convinced yourself you're doing it for the Greater Good.

Speaking of self-interests, one reason why private alternatives become better, cheaper, and faster is because of competition. A public program doesn't have the incentive to improve so it can keep and get more business. But that is a long subject well beyond the scope of this discussion. I will point out that if something is cheaper and more available, that means that more people can get it if they want it.

I'll also point out that the free market, voluntary transactions between consenting adults, has done more to raise people out of poverty than anything else in history.

Just so you know, I was born on the Navajo reservation and I've spent much of my life near it or the Hopi reservation. I've also lived in Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, Provo, and Albuquerque among other places. I know about "people of color," but mine go beyond your definition.

And that brings us up to women, doesn't it? I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. Your issue here is not that I don't have empathy, it's that I don't have the empathy that you approve of. Actually the radical feminists I was talking about called themselves third and fourth wave. When I can, I regularly seek out people who disagree with me. No one person and certainly no one group has all the answers.

I didn't pass judgement on sexual assault and harassment. I said that power from victimhood is not a good thing and heroes overcome adversity.

You yourself cited the experiences of others to justify fighting injustice. So yes, you're cashing in and you know people who have done so.

You chose to confront my "hypocrisy" but you haven't proven it. It may not match your opinion, but that is a different issue.

By the way, asserting that I have a "privileged position" is kafkatrapping Model P.

Isn't it interesting how you can tell me that my ideas are flawed but you think I can't tell you the same?

Before you proclaim that US Aid is the answer to all the World's problems, you might ask yourself how much of it actually gets through the many corrupt levels of government? That's the essence of libertarianism you see. It's not that we don't care, we just don't see government as an effective way to deliver what needs to be done.

If I see a victim, I don't want them to stay a victim.

I didn't put the web addy up for you. ❞❞

Tags: shame ∙ shame game ∙ competition ∙ Navajo reservation ∙ Phoenix ∙ Provo ∙ Albuquerque ∙ Tucson ∙ Los Angeles ∙ kafkatrap ∙ victimhood ∙ social justice ∙ self interest ∙ empathy

We're so conditioned to accept public schools as a Good Thing™ that we resist looking at options.

Tags: public schools ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ private alternative ∙ private sector ∙ competition ∙ school year ∙ internet ∙ education ∙ quality of life ∙ Alexis de Tocqueville ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ Clinton administration ∙ Obama administration ∙ affordability ∙ private companies ∙ choice ∙ truth

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Second Amendment ∙ Pennsylvania ∙ dental care. ∙ islamist ∙ jihadist ∙ Palestine ∙ census ∙ citizenship question ∙ Syria ∙ Rex Tillerson ∙ Mitch McConnell ∙ Senate ∙ FirstEnergy ∙ Skripal ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ regulation ∙ competition ∙ Andrew McCabe ∙ DoJ ∙ FBI ∙ gun control ∙ David Hogg ∙ free range kids ∙ hemp ∙ Congress

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Facebook ∙ reddit ∙ dissent ∙ California ∙ FOSTA ∙ Mark Zuckerberg ∙ competition ∙ bitcoin ∙ NSA ∙ sactuary cities ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Cambridge Analytica ∙ gaslighting

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: San Francisco ∙ vagrancy ∙ Amazon ∙ censorship ∙ War on Drugs ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ consumerism ∙ Novichok ∙ Russia ∙ penguins ∙ climate alarmist ∙ student ∙ walkout ∙ aIrlines ∙ competition ∙ Florida ∙ cops ∙ gun seizure ∙ due process ∙ 2nd Amendment ∙ New Orleans ∙ pre-crime ∙ Donald Trump ∙ wuss ∙ New York Times ∙ Iran ∙ war ∙ distillary ∙ Native American ∙ land

No one person and no one group has all the answers. No one group should be vested with THE moral authority to decide who is and is not a hate group.

The SPLC needs competition.

Tags: Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ hate groups ∙ competition ∙ religion ∙ authority ∙ FedGovs ∙ press ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ KKK ∙ Nation of Islam ∙ pro-life Christian ministries ∙ militias ∙ hate crime ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Mark Potok ∙ hypocrites

The American extended childhood is a post WWII phenomena. That's also what gave us the Baby Boomers, the less said about the better.

Tags: WWII ∙ extended childhood ∙ labor force ∙ industrial base ∙ parents ∙ kids ∙ generations ∙ social engineering ∙ competition

I reserve the right to tie anyone in semantic knots if I can do it with truth.

Tags: truth ∙ semantic knots ∙ anti-gun ∙ gun control ∙ victim disarmament ∙ news ∙ balance ∙ progressive ∙ conservative ∙ institutions ∙ top down ∙ competition ∙ Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ political parties ∙ racketeering ∙ government is not your friend

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: tech companies ∙ CIA ∙ propaganda ∙ classified intormation ∙ global warming ∙ James Comey ∙ judge ∙ landlords ∙ tenants ∙ evict ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Steele Dossier ∙ Pledge of Allegiance ∙ strip clubs ∙ Houston ∙ George Soros ∙ social media ∙ populism ∙ First Amendment ∙ Mueller indictment ∙ election ∙ shenanigans ∙ extremist ∙ offensive ∙ FBI ∙ Florida shooter ∙ white nationalists ∙ public schools ∙ competition ∙ Koch brothers ∙ Arizona

Tags: net neutrality ∙ competition ∙ Donald Trump ∙ NFL ∙ stadium scam ∙ rape ∙ FEC ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ DNC ∙ Sweden ∙ Germany ∙ Jews ∙ Matt Damon ∙ propaganda ∙ dictionary ∙ sexual harassment ∙ Ben Carson ∙ War on Drugs ∙ war on poverty ∙ HUD ∙ Common Core ∙ Evergreen State ∙ Massachusetts ∙ social justice ∙ education ∙ infrastructure reforms ∙ consume ∙ overspend

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Christian ∙ campus ∙ mass shootings ∙ Las Vegas ∙ shooting ∙ The Satanic Temple ∙ lawsuit ∙ State Department ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ religion ∙ surveillance ∙ Congress ∙ net neutrality ∙ competition ∙ University of Iowa ∙ Faith organization ∙ humanist ∙ atheist ∙ climate change ∙ hate crime

Courtesy goes a long way

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ FCC ∙ cable TV ∙ Time Warner Cable ∙ Comcast ∙ Adelphia ∙ radio spectrum ∙ morality ∙ competition ∙ change the channel ∙ fiber optics

The toy manufacturer was caught by surprise at user's ingenuity

Tags: Arizona ∙ Real ID ∙ competition ∙ broadband ∙ Reality Winner ∙ war on leaks ∙ facial tracking ∙ Communism ∙ repressive ∙ dangerous ∙ encryption ∙ backdoors ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ California ∙ traffic cameras ∙ Wyoming ∙ police wavier ∙ lawmakers ∙ UK ∙ pornography

A pet peeve

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ clipping ∙ skimmed ∙ John Flint ∙ Sonny Perdue ∙ Weston ∙ Florida ∙ Oliver Porter ∙ Sandy Sprints ∙ Georgia ∙ competition ∙ provide services

As it exists right now, local, state, and Federal governments allow and protect area specific telecommunications monopolies.

Tags: net neutrality ∙ cable service ∙ telephone ∙ network ∙ unused capacity ∙ monopoly ∙ goverment ∙ regulation ∙ competition ∙ Facebook ∙ Google ∙ Twitter

❝❝Competition breeds progress and encourages honesty.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ competition ∙ progress ∙ honest

❝❝The best thing that government can do to lower the prices of medical care is get out of medical care and medical insurance. There's a lot of reasons, but at it's core politicos and technocrats have no incentive to contain costs, make a profit, and get a bigger market share. Competition means that companies have to make things cheaper, faster, and more available or they will lose business. Today's smart phones have more computing capacity than the Cray 2 did in 1985, they are more reliable, more capable, cheaper, more available, and a lot more profitable. That's what 30 years of the free market and competition without government interference will give you. Government has shielded the medical industry and the medical insurance markets from the very things that would make medicine better.❞❞

Tags: government ∙ medical care ∙ medical insurance ∙ market share ∙ competition ∙ smart phone ∙ Cray 2

❝❝OK, taxes. According the the OMB, the top 20% of taxpayers pay 95% of income taxes. In 2015, the WSJ reported that the top 20% paid 84% of income taxes. In 2015, the top .1% (yes, that's one-tenth of one percent) of families paid 39.2% of income taxes. In 2015, all but the top 20% of taxpayers paid more in payroll taxes than they owed in Federal income tax, effectively giving the Federal government an interest free loan. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% of taxpayers have the Earned Income Tax Credit, a negative income tax. The government pays them. The thing is, smart rich people don't stuff their money in mattresses. They put it to work. If their money doesn't earn more than the rate of inflation, they've lost money. So they look for ways to maximize returns. Stocks, bonds, and mutual funds are the most common methods. This pumps money back into the economy. Lower prices, more companies hiring, and better distribution of goods and services are direct results. In other words, cutting taxes at any level gives people more choices and more economic power. It's not cutting taxes for the rich, it's cutting taxes. If you like, I can show how a progressive tax system locks people into income tiers and suppresses the natural movement up in income.❞❞

Tags: OMB ∙ Wall Street Journal ∙ income tax ∙ Federal government ∙ inflation ∙ competition ∙ progressive tax systems

❝❝I believe that the free market is the most potent force for organizing and creating yet discovered by humans. It cannot be managed, predicted, directed, or controlled.

It rests on choice without coercion. And to keep customers happy, you have to at least do as well as your competition, better if you want to expand.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: free market ∙ organize ∙ create ∙ managed ∙ predicted ∙ directed ∙ controlled ∙ choice ∙ coercive power ∙ competition ∙ maxims

❝❝I believe that competition makes us honest. I believe that the "free market" applies more to just products and services, it applies to ideas and creeds and politics and practically anything else human. I believe that no one person and no one group has all the answers.

And yes, I know I've said all that before. But for me, it's as certain as the Earth beneath my feet and the stars above my head.

We need our ideas challenged. We need to argue with each other and wave our fingers under each others noses.

We don't need violence in the streets.

We don't need scapegoats.

And we don't need people using some undefined Moral Authority to prevent others from speaking.❞❞

Tags: competition ∙ honest

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: speech wars ∙ webmaster ∙ smart phone ∙ security ∙ Antifa ∙ AfDI ∙ PayPal ∙ Pamela Geller ∙ climate change ∙ competition ∙ healthcare ∙ Venezuela ∙ Russia ∙ oil assets

The internet is the last, best hope for freedom.

Tags: speech wars ∙ American freedom ∙ internet ∙ freedom ∙ competition ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ Donald Trump ∙ politicos ∙ election

Competition drives the free market, to keep customers companies have to make things better than their rivals and better than what they themselves did yesterday.

Competition is what the "single payer" eliminates in the name of efficiency, yet over time competition means that products and services will be better, faster, and cheaper.

There is no incentive to improve under a government controlled system. There is overwhelming incentive to pay off legislators and technocrats for favorable treatment.

---

I'm usually correct.

Except when I'm wrong… *grins*

Jokes aside, you probably agree with me on economics, smaller government and (most) individual rights. We won't agree on religion, personal morality, and sexuality. I hope we can agree on honor.

I hang out here to keep me honest and so I can see how conservatives think. And occasionally to keep you honest *wink* and keep you from taking yourself too seriously.

---

I just get very tired of watching people who should know better lump all members of a group into a monolithic block who is out to destroy their way of life and must be Stopped for the Good of Humanity™

The ironic thing is many of the people who complain loudest about it being done to them are only too willing to turn around and do it to someone else.

I've seen pagans do it to Christians, "blacks" do it to "Hispanics," Republicans do it to Democrats, and women doing it to men.

And vice versa.

You know what? It's not the label shouting and doing things, it's the individual person. Until you deal them as individuals rather than as a subset of a label, you have walled yourself off.

Not them. You.

---

Thinking about it just now, that raises a fascinating question.

Which is worth more, a moral code handed to you or one earned through personal experience?

---

I'm not asking you to follow my code.

I'm not even asking you to allow me to follow my code.

I'm telling you that I won't follow your code just as you would tell me that you won't follow mine.

Now we could find what we agree on and work from there, or you could spend effort telling me why your enlightenment requires my sacrifice.

I think the former would be more productive, but I would enjoy your frustration at the latter too.

Tags: competition ∙ make things better ∙ rivals ∙ yesterday ∙ incentives ∙ government ∙ economics ∙ smaller government ∙ individual rights ∙ religion ∙ personal morality ∙ sexuality ∙ honor ∙ honest ∙ conservatives ∙ monolithic block ∙ Christians ∙ pagans ∙ blacks ∙ Hispanics ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ women ∙ men ∙ moral code ∙ enlightenment ∙ sacrifice ∙ Crux Files

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: clipping ∙ Karl Bode ∙ net neutrality ∙ throttle ∙ Verizon Wireless ∙ T-Mobile ∙ Wall Street ∙ competition ∙ Sprint ∙ FCC ∙ reddit

❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.

Assume for a moment that you ran a bookstore. Should you be required by law to carry the Bible even though you were not Christian and did not believe Christianity was a valid faith? What if someone complained because you didn't have it?

Should a vegan restaurant be required to sell pulled pork BBQ?

Should a health food store be required to sell pipe tobacco?

---

Except we know that government does mandate that some products and services be sold or provided.

Let's take another example or two, shall we?

Imagine you are a lawyer or accountant. You know a specific businessman is crooked and can't be trusted. Should you be required to provided services?

Imagine you are an employer. Should you be required to verify the immigration status of each of your employees?

Most importantly, why should prior marginalization get a higher priority when it comes to the rule of law? Doesn't that lead to abuse of it's own when the formerly victimized class games the system?

---

Ah, so you are going to stick to "class of people." That's the problem. People aren't their labels. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Someone doesn't have higher moral authority because their group has been marginalized in the past.

And just in case you hadn't noticed, "American identity politics" is all about oppressing everyone else. All of which is predicated on the guilt of the former oppressor.

---

Black Lives Matter. All too ready to go after "white" cops, but doesn't want to address the problem of "black on black" crime. Nor does it want to address the major underlying problem, single parent families. Something that was encouraged by government, effectively relegating inner city families to poverty. Nor do they accept any criticism of their movement.

Much of third and fourth wave feminism. Apparently feminism is no longer about equality, it's about forcing men to sit down and shut up. And if a man complains, he's accused of rape.

The recent kerfuffle over the "redesigned" rainbow flag that put black and brown stripes at the top so that "people of color" had "representation." Literally "my victimhood is more important than your victimhood."

Identity politics is built on a carefully maintained hierarchy of victimhood. You're not allowed to speak unless you rank high enough with your victimhood or have demonstrated sufficient "compassion," usually by drawing attention to the "problem." But never actually solving anything.

And you are not allowed to question the victimhood.

---

Stop.

Step back. You are excusing their behavior.

Look at what has been done, not at the justifications.

Look at what is allowed within the groups.

Your enabling is just one example of what has locked people into their victimhood.

---

What you've given is excuses why people can't be held accountable.

Black Lives Matter is pushing a narrative that all police interactions with minorities but especially with "blacks" are racist. That's not true. And as I said, they overlook "black" on "black" crime that does not fit with the narrative.

It's victimhood I don't like, especially when perpetuated by bad government policy and "community outreach" that exploits the victims by keeping them victims.

---

And the courts were wrong.

Not because interracial marriages were wrong (they aren't). But because government can't be trusted to make individual moral decisions for you.

If you didn't choose your morality and if you do not commit to your morality, is it really yours?

Or did it just get sacrificed for the greater good?

---

Remember, most of the complaints against the current President are because he is doing the wrong moral things. Or at least, according to some people. Such as pulling out of the Paris accord.

Frankly there are people I want to discriminate against. There are evangelical Christians I want nothing to do with. There are radical feminists that I also don't want anything to do with. My list also includes some of the climate alarmists, the man-boy love crowd, anyone associated with a child beauty pageant, the extra-devout followers of Silver Ravenwolf, pretty much any organized political party, and a few dozen others.

Should government protect those people from my discrimination?

---

Actually we don't know that pulling out of the Paris accord is dangerous for the planet.

Here's what we do know. The "debate" about climate change has been heavily weighed on one side. A recent study has some of the most prominent climate alarmists admitting that the predictions didn't match the reality. President Obama committed the US, but the G20 and Obama didn't call it a treaty so it wouldn't have to go to the US Senate for approval. These aren't exactly moral actions.

Commerce is based on voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults. There's no “public service” about it. A company improves it's product or service (and lowers the price) because it wants to keep business from the competition. The "moral good" is based on pure greed. Nothing government demands from a business won't impose greater costs on the customer. Government relies on force. When government acts against people, it distorts the economy and morality.

It's not about public service, and commerce shouldn't answer to corrupt politicos.

---

The data was fudged. The people who fudged it knew it. The people who sought to make it a political issue beyond the control of any single government knew it.

If it's not about "saving the planet," then you have to ask what it is about. Especially when there is an everchanging deadline and No One Is Allowed To Question the failed predictions.

The entire movement is built on computer models, not science. I can't emphasize that enough. Models, not science. If the models have bad assumptions and/or if the data has been changed, the models aren't accurate.

But, "the science is settled." So you aren't allowed to dissent. You wouldn't accept that from a Creationist, why accept it from people who benefit financially and politically from forcing their agenda?

---

That wasn't what I said.

The models haven't been accurate in more than a dozen years. Even before that, the models had to be "goosed" to show a link between the past and the present.

I've said before that I can create a spreadsheet that makes me a millionaire in a week. That doesn't mean that the spreadsheet is accurate. And it sure doesn't mean I should wave cash around.

If the model isn't accurate, if we know it's not accurate, and if the people pushing the model hardest know that it's not accurate, don't you think it's time to ask why we should use the model?

---

No, that is what you have been told that the model is.

I strongly urge you to take a closer look. And I would remind you that there is no science in history that has ever been considered holy writ and beyond criticism.

For example, if I wanted to know the average global temperature right now this very minute, I'd have to accept that most land based measuring stations are in developed areas, many in highly urban areas that influence the readings. Satillite measurements are better, but don't go back further than about sixty years. And most of the ocean is a mystery below a mile deep.

So what exactly is the global average temperature?

---

I'm not shy about it. I don't approve of their life choices. I especially don't approve when *insert group name here* demands that it is not enough for to acknowledge their words and actions, it must be celebrated as the only accepted truth.

I don't want them on the ballot. I don't want to do business with them. I don't want them in my town.

And I think they are corrupting society.

Again, should government protect them from my discrimination?

---

I may not be a pure libertarian when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, but I don't usually initiate force. It's sloppy and takes too much energy.

“How many NAMBLA neighbors do you have, anyway?”

One.

Once.

---

I've been a corporate VP and I've run my own business.

Can you point to the spot in the Constitution where it defines the powers of the Federal government to control who I can and can't do business with? How about the spot where it defines that I must do business with everyone who wants to do business with me? Because under the Tenth Amendment, there isn't one.

If government isn't defending my ability to choose as long as I accept the consequences, then government has failed.

Even if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

Especially if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

If I am not free to discriminate as I choose, then government is discriminating against me. And that is what we see now. Some choices are more equal than others.

---

Not really.

That clause is the most abused in the Constitution, largely because it does not place significant restrictions on the Federal government. By some interpretations, the government can do what it wants when it wants and despite what people want. When you consider that everything from FDA approval to requiring transgender bathrooms is shoved through that loophole, it's a wonder that there is anything left of the rest of the Constitution.

Even in your flawed interpretation, public accommodation only applies in certain cases. Some are more victimized than others, remember?

---

Volumes have also been written against it. For generations in fact, right back to to the Anti-Federalist Papers

And then there is always the practical common sense approach. Here's the clause straight from Article 1 Section 8.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

I can tell you know many Diné, Hopi, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache who think that "Great White Father speaks with forked tongue." Just look at what the Interior Department did when it came to mineral rights.

You've tried to tell me what the consensus says, but you haven't disputed my conclusions. The commerce clause has been used to expand Federal power far beyond the scope of the rest of the Constitution. The only other comparable Federal power grab in American history has been the USA PATRIOT Act and the open-ended declaration of hostilities that happened after 9-11.

---

Or we could just stop handing out government grants and do something radically different like lower taxes, reduce government spending, and let people decide what to do with their own money.

---

Church playgrounds aren't national religious issues unless government is funding them.

The First Amendment is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Neither help nor hinder. It's the only way to win this particular battle. Otherwise you have things like a Faith Based Initiative (for certain faiths approved by law) and school prayer.

---

I think we do. And it's right there in the First Amendment.

Don't.

If there is one thing worse than a politico wrapping themselves in the flag, it's a politico standing on religion wrapping themselves in a flag.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ grants ∙ religion ∙ business ∙ bookstore ∙ Bible ∙ vegan ∙ pulled pork BBQ ∙ health food store ∙ pipe tobacco ∙ government mandate ∙ immigration ∙ marginalization ∙ rule of law ∙ moral authority ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ third wave feminism ∙ fourth wave feminism ∙ equality ∙ rape ∙ rainbow flag ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ identity politics ∙ compassion ∙ interracial marriages ∙ moral decisions ∙ greater good ∙ Paris accord ∙ Christians ∙ RadFem ∙ climate alarmist ∙ man-boy love ∙ beauty pageant ∙ Silver Ravenwolf ∙ discrimination ∙ G20 ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Senate ∙ commerce ∙ commerce clause ∙ improves ∙ competition ∙ voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults ∙ computer models ∙ global temperature ∙ climate change ∙ Zero Agression Principle ∙ NAMBLA ∙ neighbors

We could do more for addiction and to stop violence and corruption by stopping the war on drugs.

Tags: War on Drugs ∙ Prohibition ∙ armed distribution networks ∙ cost of production ∙ U.S. drug policy ∙ drug gangs ∙ narco-state ∙ corruption ∙ addiction ∙ purity controls ∙ portion controls ∙ free market ∙ competition ∙ Peter McWilliams ∙ Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do ∙ author ∙ photographer ∙ non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ∙ medical marijuana ∙ disabling nausea ∙ Federal government ∙ cannabis ∙ independent research ∙ consensual crimes ∙ society's morality

Which raises the question why should care be publicly funded?

Tags: healthcare ∙ health insurance ∙ public funding ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ prices ∙ competition ∙ government ∙ free market ∙ libertarian ∙ Obamacare ∙ insurance ∙ private sector ∙ Milton Friedman ∙ direct primary care

And this would be a bad thing how?

I know what CNN is saying.

But realistically, why would a government shutdown be bad?

We know what Milton Friedman said.
Pretty much everything else could be done better by the states or the private sector.

If your local grocery store closed because they forgot to order, you'd go somewhere else. If the plumber you called couldn't come because his truck got repossessed, you'd call another. If your favorite coffee place had no one to work and was closed, well, there are other options.

But with government services, there aren't options.

Government doesn't like competition.

Every year, statists tell you How Important Government Is and how the "other party" is about to screw up your life.

It's political theater.

There isn't even a budget.

The last time there was officially a budget was 2009. But it was pretty much a budget in name only. Even if there was a budget, it would be several thousand pages long, incredibly detailed on some things and disturbingly vague on others. It's meant to be abused. I don't want to examine the Federal budget process here but I will tell you that even if Congress makes no changes, each agency gets the same amount it had the previous year plus an automatic increase. This is the so-called discretionary spending.

That's right. It takes an act of Congress to keep spending at the same level it was in the previous year.

The default setting is more government and more spending.

Then there is the mandatory spending which isn't part of the budget process. Congress may revisit the rules every few years on mandatory spending qualifications, but it usually rolls along on it's own. Mandatory spending is about two-thirds of the budget, Social Security alone is about one-third.

And I haven't even gotten to earmarks.

Government doesn't like competition so it locks private interests out of the services it provides. It manipulates you into blaming the other party so it can tax and spend more of your money. And it expects thanks for it's hard work.

Government shutdown.

This would be a bad thing how?

Tags: government ∙ government shutdown ∙ Milton Friedman ∙ picture ∙ competition ∙ Congress ∙ budget process ∙ political theater ∙ budget ∙ discretionary spending ∙ mandatory spending ∙ Social Security ∙ earmarks

corporatism

❝A politico-economic system in which most power is held by large corporations, often mistakenly called capitalism. This is the current governing system of most of the world❞
     ➣ www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=corporatism

If your business model depends on government intervention, you'll ignore the "customer" and focus on manipulating and controlling the government. That's how to get a bigger profit under corporatism.

corporate social responsibility

❝economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations with society has of it's corporations and institutions at any given point in time❞
     ➣ www.academia.edu/419517/Corporate_Social_Responsibility_Evolution_of_a_Definitional_Construct

As hard as it may be for some to believe, corporations have absolutely zero social responsibility. A corporation is responsible to it's shareholders first and last. The way that a company keeps and makes more customers is by selling what the people want in a way that is equal to or maybe a bit better than the competition. That brings more profit which means the owners are happy. Anything else is literally the price of doing business.

Companies don't care, people should. If you don't like what a company sells or how it does business, go to the competition. Under no circumstances should you get government to make a company do what you want. That leads to corporatism, and that means neither the government nor the company has any reason to listen to the likes of you.

There are three rules that companies should keep in mind. If done right, following these rules can put a company in the top twenty percent.

• Competition keeps us honest.
• Always do what you promised.
• Try to deliver more than you promised.

A company is responsible to it's ownership. Customers are the ones who pay the bills. Sometimes the real customer is the government, see corporatism.

Just some things to think about.


p.s. It looks WAY better on the other site.

Tags: corporatism ∙ corporate social responsibility ∙ competition ∙ promise

America’s internet doesn’t have the problem you think.

Tags: skimmed ∙ internet ∙ competition ∙ "last mile"

The last, best hope for freedom

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ internet ∙ competition ∙ Apple ∙ classic ∙ Network Solutions ∙ Amazon ∙ MacHighway ∙ Google ∙ LibraryThing ∙ sex ∙ informed choice ∙ internet ∙ favorites

Competition breeds progress and encourages honesty

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ classic ∙ competition ∙ Microsoft ∙ Apple ∙ favorites