Archive for May, 2010

How Businesses abuse Government

Monday, May 17th, 2010

I was looking at web sites for a potential online venture, and I came across this lovely announcement from the American Massage Therapy Association. Now, on the surface you may think this is a good thing for both the consumer and for the Massage therapist. Think harder, it’s actually bad for both. What laws like this do is to implement an entrance fee for anyone that wants to give people a massage. Before this law, anyone could give someone else a massage. As a client, you could get a massage from anyone willing to give you one. With the passage of this law, if you want to be a massage therapist, you now have to pay an entrance fee (education and credentialing, etc, etc). For those entrepreneurs out there that don’t have the cash to pay the fee, they can’t play. For those that do have the cash to play, what do you think happens to their rates? Do you think they want to recoup the cost of the entrance fee? Who do you think is going to pay for that?

Laws like this are nothing short of legalized extortion. Doesn’t this sound like what the mob used to do to businesses? Hey, you want to do business in my town, you have to pay “protection” (now we call it licensing). Laws like this usually arise when a large company, or conglomeration of smaller ones (an “association”) start getting undercut by the (usually) smaller competition. Rather than try to be more competitive, they try to legislate the problem away. If that competition now has to pay entrance fees (for every employee), their rates are going to go up. Usually the members of the “association” already have whatever “license” is required by the law.

As the consumer what benefit are we gaining? Well, our MT is now licensed. What does that mean? Beats me. They can still be an asshole I bet. They can still overcharge you for their service, but now you’ve allowed them to eliminate their competition, so what are you going to do? Before if we didn’t like the MT, we go find another one, and keep looking until we find one we like. Now our choices are limited to only those that chose to go through “schooling” and “credentialing”. We as consumers need to be on the lookout for these kinds of laws so we aren’t unduly denied our choices in the marketplace.

The Gun is Civilization

Thursday, May 13th, 2010
This was sent to me by email today, I thought it was a great bit of reasoning and thought I’d share it.
The Gun is Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Virginia 2010 Primaries

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Cidates/Bulletins/2010PRI_HELD%20Cklist.pdf

Greatness

Monday, May 10th, 2010

This country was not made great by its leaders or its government, but by its people. We can be great again, but we the people have to take our country back from our “leaders”.