Licenses

Schumpeter: Rules for fools | The Economist

Good article. Milton Friedman, in his Book "Capitalism and Freedom," makes an argument for the abolition of licensing laws for all jobs, even for doctors and lawyers and dentists.

This would allow people without the time and money to enter the field and provide services inexpensively. The government and schools are just using licensure laws to make money, win over special interest voters, and control more aspects of public life and business to increase and perpetuate their own power.

The argument against de-licensure is that people would be harmed by people who have no idea what they are doing, but such a rebuttal is short-sighted and ignorant of the common sense of people. Would you go to a Doctor if they did not have a Diploma from a medical school hanging on their office wall? Would you have your cancer treated by such a person? Just because a person does not need a license to enter a field, does not mean the inherent value and insurance instilled in the customer, afforded by a diploma, will disappear or become meaningless. Furthermore, this would allow for certain functions to be performed much more cheaply, for instance some aspects of a profession requiring licensure are completely detached and meaningless for certain roles performed, such as discovery in the legal field.

If licensing requirements were abolished, schools exorbitant prices, often acting as obstructions from practicing, will be diminished as their monopoly power as an institution would be destroyed. People will be able to make knowledgeable decisions in regards to the services they want done. Services would be more affordable. I personally would have cancer treated by the best doctor I could find, and I can assure you he would likely have a diploma from a medical school, but I would go to a cheap "doctor" without a diploma/license to check my throat for strep throat (a blotchy paint splatter on the back of the throat is difficult to miss).

Furthermore, allowing people to practice without license will not mean they are immune from the laws of negligence and medical malpractice. It will not mean that a person's credentials will be secretive. The rules of justice and disclosure are separate from the issue of licensure.

Get the government, special interest groups, and the education institution out of the business of creating roadblocks to a free market of fair, affordable, exchange between consenting individuals.

From the article:

-- 30% of US occupations require a license

-- Florida requires hair-braiders and interior decorators to get a license!


NOTE:
Law School, the ABA, and the legal institution as a whole purposely perpetuate their field. Obstacles are abundant to enter law school. It is elitism and drives up the prices of legal services. It is unneeded. Law school makes this all the more apparent. (I hate the Bluebook!)

What is a right? FDR's second Bill of Rights.

Walter Williams, an Economics Professor at George Mason University, explains the basic but difficult concept of what a right is.

This is FDR's proposed new rights. Take note that they are not rights at all. They are what modern liberals think of as rights, also called positive rights, whereas traditional rights are negative rights.

Liberty Quote

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Thomas Jefferson

threat to free speech quote

"the greatest threat to free speech is any person or any entity who thinks that their idea is more powerful and important than yours and tries to take it by force"

Cyan Banister
Zivity.com

This girl had a great quote above regarding what is a threat to free speech, went to go check out her website, assuming it may be political in nature, it was a semi-softcore porn/artistic website. I was surprised.

Ron Paul v. Barack Obama

So what if Ron Paul were to win the Republican Primary. This is not so far-fetched to imagine. He has name recognition other candidates do not. He has an incredibly loyal and supportive base. He is intelligent, can deliver his message well, at least better than Gary Johnson (who has similar principles but could not deliver at the Presidential debate). Furthermore, currently in the country, social issues are not at the forefront, they are not big talking points. When the country faces real problems, social issues take a back-seat to economic, security, and foreign policy decisions (Social issues were important prior to 9/11 and the economic crisis, since then security and jobs have come to the forefront). So my belief is that it is possible for Paul to win the Primary on the issues the Republican base cares most about. Unfortunately, the social conservative Evangelicals and such that Karl Rove employed to great effect in electing George Bush will not come out for Paul, they will not vote for him, and if they do it will occur begrudgingly whilst mumbling under there breath of the lack of suitable candidates (c'mon, Donald Trump,... really!, Fox consideres him a frontrunner, this is infuriating and scary...Mitt Romney, Pawlenty! please!).

So what if it were Ron Paul and Obama in the Presidential election?

First lets look at Obama and what he has done

1. promised to have a more transparent government and to be more visible to the electorate, he promised "an unprecedented level of openness in government."
• secret negotiations for Obamacare
• never came through with 48 hour online viewing period for bills before voted on...
• secret military operations
• lobbyists and others have met with the President and their meetings have not been recorded
• secrecy surrounding Fed Reserve, and the bailouts of the Financial Sector
• Did not release evidence Osama was killed, even if he did not reveal photo of Osama, he should have widely dispersed the image as proof to multiple agencies and people...
2. Foreign Policy
1. increased military presence in Afghanistan
2. dedicated military to operations in Libya
3. Has made attacks on Yemeni's
4. Drone strikes continue...
5. supported EGYPTIAN DICTATORSHIP before realizing the rebels were going to prevail, then switched policy
6. oh, and he killed Osama as he lived a half-mile away from the west Point of Pakistan in a freaking Mansion which screamed he lives there!
3. Liberty & Freedom, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit" of happiness for all
1. tortures and continues to torture Bradley Manning, wiki-leaks kid
2. did I mention Guantanamo Bay is still open
3. OBAMACARE, tried to pass a public option, doesn't want free choice, would rather control what we can get in the form of healthcare.
4. unprecedented corporatism
1. photo shoots with GE and political donors (GE owns MSNBC side note)
2. GE paid no taxes btw
3. huge subsidies for farms (not his policy, but a continued policy), ohh and the largest bailout ever! Obama chose who to save (Morgan Stanley) and who did not donate enough so could fail (Lehman Bros.)
5. NLRB takes freedom of Businesses to move capital to non-unionized states
6. Disclose Act (which failed) was to exempt the powerful enough lobbies who did not want to disclose their donors 
7. stopped off-shore drilling, all off-shore drilling, and still has not lifted ban, it is incredibly difficult for Oil companies to extract american oil, so we need to import more oil, all adding to speculation and more instability, and destroying American Jobs
4. Jobs
1. I cant even continue with this list anymore
5. those stupid signs on public works projects with his logo and name all over them piss me off...

Ok, did not realize how long of a lost that was going to be. I left out tons of things the President did that I forgot to mention I am sure. To be honest though, I do not blindly attack Obama. I am not a Republican, who would attack him no matter what he does and blame him for any ill which befell the country. Not all the problems are his fault. Furthermore, Bush was really no better. I truly disagree with the stances Obama has made. I agree with him on his stance on social issues mostly... ya but it ends there, can't currently think of anything else...

Back to the main point (or intended main point of this), Ron Paul v. Obama
Bulleted ideas

• Republican base will NOT vote for Obama, even if the Republican nominee was for the legalization of drugs.
• the hype and grassroots excitement for Obama has abated, reality has set in, there has not been change, the fervor of support from the black community may diminish
• The liberal base MAY leave Obama, especially for Ron Paul, Paul is more democratically inclined on some issues, which were historically the stalwart positions of the GOP (anti-interventionism)
• Ron Paul has an incredibly strong and active base
• Ron Paul has said many extreme things, but he has always been principled, he has never changed his mind
• RP can push his family (married over a half-century) and doctor credentials to win over healthcare and "good family man/public image" battle
• RP would win JOBS issue, most important issue
• RP would win healthcare issue, 2nd or 3rd most important issue (likely, not if a majority of the public is for socialized healthcare, I'd have to check polls on that though)
• PROBLEMS
• old age (75)
• will be labeled "extreme" and unbelievable scare tactics would be directed against him
• does not look presidential
• Mainstream Media despises him (Fox to Rachel Maddow to neo-con talk radio hosts

Any thoughts, list things I have missed. disagree?

Strassel: Obama's 'Gangster Politics' - WSJ.com

Strassel: Obama's 'Gangster Politics' - WSJ.com

This will have a chilling effect on freedom of business.

Government needs to get out of business.

This article makes me think of the Boeing Company trying to move its excess production to S. Carolina. If Boeing has to report its donations, might the democratically appointed NLRB allow the move if Boeing gives Democrats money???

dangerous precedent. scary.

When the government knows all, and when so many rely on the government, than politics can be abused to keep the current political power in place. rent-seeking handouts by government can be used for votes. its machine politics. its wrong.

OK, got to study....

Republican Presidential Debate on Fox 5/5/11

First GOP presidential debate: Was Pawlenty too 'Minnesota nice'? - CSMonitor.com

So I caught the end of the debate today after I left the library and went to the gym. Although I have no time, I want to write down some brief initial impressions of who was there, and other notes as well.

Rick Santorum

This guy is an over-inflated bag of conceited douchery. He is generic. He is a standard-bearer "politician," from the way he looks, to his answers, to his body language. Stiff, insincere, and cookie-cut directly from the social conservative cookbook. He is like a Mitt Romney, he is unneeded, and he will fizzle...

Gary Johnson

OK. Johnson is the former governator of New Mexico, I believe, and he is a libertarian leaning Republican. He did a good job in New Mexico and was re-elected there. I love his thinking and his ideas. I love his logic. He is a champion for drug reform, to legalize pot, and to save money from that policy through less time in prison (it costs a TON to keep someone in prison for a year, well over 30k, not to mention health benefits more public employees with pensions and I could go on a tangent here but will stop...), less police use for the punishment of drugs and more police use for actually keeping the streets safe and solving real crime.

Although I really like Johnson, he is not presidential. He did not look comfortable on stage. His voice trembled slightly like he was nervous. He SEEMED unsure, not confident, and overall I did not see him on stage and picture this tall down-to-earth guy as our President. Didnt provide good sound bites. I dont think he will win, and dont think he would get elected. BUT, I could be wrong, and hope I am, because I like his policy, and that is what matters.

Tim Pawlenty

I really dont know what to say about Pawlenty. Nothing made me dislike him (as was the case with Santorum if you could tell), but nothing about him stood out, got me excited, or more importantly probably got the rest of the republican primary electorate excited either! FOX News didnt give him the time of day which I would assume means they dont like him... (FOX hates libertarians, Hannity made sure not to debate candidates when he met with them after the debate, yet when it came time to talk to Johnson he argued with him regarding his foreign policy stance the entire time, damn Fox News). So there you go, no real opinion on the guy and dont know much about his stance on policy issues of concern.

Ron Paul

Ron, Ron, Ron, I love you Ron. Ron is undoubtedly "the man." He was the tea party back when the tea party was too busy gay bashing to be the tea party, Ron Paul was liberty before the Patriot Act took more of it away, Ron Paul was warning of the size of government back when the size of government wasnt even a talking point, Ron Paul has been called "the founding Father" of the legislature and he deserves it. He is principled, he gives the electorate sound bites, he is a true libertarian (perhaps more so than myself, I'm not sure), he is non-interventionist. Our country needs a man like Ron Paul. Furthermore, unlike Johnson, he seemed more presidential to me. He was joking a little, at one point impersonating a person fearful of drug deregulation, which I think will turn-off social conservatives.

Ron Paul was asked about social issues during the debate, he cannot win over social conservatives talking about social issues, so long as the debate stays to economic, regulatory, fiscal issues and stays away from social issues he may have a chance to win. The Tea Party loves him. His foreign policy will also turn of the neo-conservative hawks.

Herman Cain

Who the hell is Herman Cain. Cain, my friends, is the former CEO of a pizza place. He is a conservative talk radio host from Atlanta. He is an enthralling speaker, he is funny and likeable. He is black, which has a ton of implications worthy of an entire blog. I dont know very well what his policy stances are, but the Fox focus group wants to adopt him immediately (ironic that they rail on President Obama for a lack of experience being a Senator and "only being a community organizer," as if being a community organizer is not an experience-building endeavor, but then they support a never-been-elected pizza guy because he speaks concisely and eloquently, has a Presidential theme to him, and wooed them with his words). I personally found him likeable, and what he said made sense. I do not think he should win the primary, but if it is between him and Trump, then I would back him, then move to Europe, because Canada woudnt be far enough away, or perhaps, dare I say, I would vote for Obama over Trump in a second, a mili-second. once again thats another horror scenario which will not happen though.

OVERALL:

I am excited for the Republican Primary. I hope libertarianism can sink its teeth into this raging, misguided Elephant and show it its way again.

btw, Santorum just seemed like such a dick...

Obama's Empty Transparency Rhetoric - WSJ.com

Obama's Empty Transparency Rhetoric - WSJ.com

If I were not in the middle of my 1st year law school finals right now I would like to talk to the issue of transparency briefly made in this opinion article.

O, also gotta talk about Osama's death.

for another day.

How To Make Awesome Pet Names

I am in love...

Every Action Has An Equal And Opposite Reaction

“Recognize that Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilizational world.”

  Larry Diamond


The United States, in a precision attack upon Gadhafi's Mansion, failed to kill the maniacal dictator but successfully killed one of his sons and three of his grandchildren. The government supporters, who are beginning to lose what was once a deadlocked civil war have now begun to call the Gadhafi family as "martyrs" and shouted "Oh Youth, this is time for Jihad." (CNN "Libya says Gadhafi's son killed in airstrike, vows death to invaders") Of course, the rebels reveled in the news of the air strike. 


This is an interesting problem. There are opposed principles at play here. 1) The United States should not involve itself in the affairs of other country, we should avoid entangling alliances and mingling in the affairs of sovereign nations, & 2) the United States should promote and encourage Democracy.


I do not believe the interest in democracy outweighs the interest in non-interventionism. I do believe Gadahfi is a lunatic mass-murdering tyrant, but it is the not the role or mandate of the US to intervene in the rebels affairs. Doing so will create backlash, blowback, as can be seen by the war cries for insurgency by pro-government forces, as they call for insurgency. History has repeatedly taught us, oftentimes quite harshly, that intervention inexorably leads to unintended consequences. 


We overthrew Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran, through a CIA clandestine concocted coup, the Iranians have not forgotten this and animosity exists to this day. We supported, armed, and provided financial support to Saddam Hussein as he invaded Iran after the Iranian US backed murderous Shah was overthrown and Iran had instated their Ayatollah Khomeni. So we backed the murderous and unprovoked opportunistic offensive of the madman Saddam Hussein against the Iranians. Only to have the Iranians enraged by our interference, and as we can tell we did not ingratiate ourselves too well with the Iraqi people. The point of this little history lesson is that if the past is not looked at, it will be repeated. Ignorance is not a feasible policy plan. 


Gadahfi is a madman, he is murderous, but who are the rebels? I personally hope the rebels win and create a democracy for Libya, so everyone can have a voice. BUT, I do not support the intervention of the status quo. 


The United States should practice more restraint and humility.... to be continued....& edited