We all have that initial thought, "more guns means more violence." It's intuitive that more guns in our society means the higher chance that some wacko starts shootin' up the place. I mean imagine if everyone had a gun, our society would turn into the wild west, a place of lawlessness that hardly is associated with a safe public.
However, time and time again, it's been shown through research and polling that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, means less crime. Perhaps the most conclusive study (and most frequently cited) was the one conducted by John Lott from the University of Chicago Law School in 1996, which examined all 3,054 counties in the United States and conducted over an 18 year period (1977-1994), determined that there is a negative correlation between violent crimes committed and gun permits issued. Why is this?
Criminals are cowards. Just like the middle school playground bullies, criminals rely on power over the weaker, whether this mean physical size, strength in numbers, or a deadly weapon. By allowing more law-abiding citizens to possess firearms--and even carry them on their person, cripples the criminals' advantage. Even if you have no desire to own a firearm, the laws that allow for concealed-carry benefit you as well, because criminals do not know who is or isn't armed.
But what about schools? Surely the last thing we in society should do is to grant hormonal, drunken college kids the ability to purchase and carry firearms around campus. However there is evidence that also supports the contrary, as reported by the not-so-conservative Boston Globe in the article "A Safer Society with Guns." The article explains that the Colorado Supreme Court struck down the firearms-ban at Colorado University, which was followed by an outcry of terror by some. And I can't blame them, as pro-gun as I am, I even have uneasy feelings about letting college kids carry firearms on them around campus. As a hopeful future neuroscience major, it's easy for me to point out that the pre-frontal cortex, the area of the brain responsible for executive function and decision making, is the last part of the brain to fully develop, which does not happen until the average person's mid-20's. With that said, bad decisions are often made by college-age kids, and the thought of college kids making bad decisions with a firearm is morbid. Add alcohol to the mix and that is a recipe for disaster. However, the article then went on to say that Colorado State University, which allows for students to possess and carry firearms on campus, has experienced a crime rate drop of nearly 60 percent since 2004, whereas Colorado University has experienced a crime rate increase of 35 percent in the same time frame. This research was conducted by the independent think-tank The Cato Institute. Many also point out that college students are sitting ducks without guns, as the nation watched in horror as national news outlets covered the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Many large universities (Virginia Tech included), have their own campus police department. This is to provide safety for the students, however, even on campus police can be minutes away, and when a crisis emerges, a minute can be the difference between a shooter killing a dozen people, and a shooter killing no one.
I cannot end this post without discussing the most recent tragedy of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Trayvon, a 17 year old black male went to the store, while walking back he was approached, shot, and killed by George Zimmerman, an appointed neighborhood watch captain, with a handgun. Trayvon was not armed, and Zimmerman's reasoning was due to "suspicious activity." Zimmerman pleaded self-defense, which, by all accounts seems very unlikely. This story has swept the nation within the last few days, and I'm sure many gun-control advocates will cite this story as a reason to ban guns. I would like to point out that stories such as these are far more likely to get reported. The number of attacks thwarted by the use of guns by law-abiding citizens ranges widely based off of reports, which is understandable, because people are not likely to report a crime that "almost happened." Unfortunately, "Robbers scared off by gun owner" is not a very exciting headline for media outlets, so it is easy to see all of the harm guns do.
Banning guns doesn't stop the bad guys from getting guns, like everything else that is illegal, if somebody wants to get it, they will, through the black market. All gun bans do is stop the law-abiding citizens, the ones who will use their firearms for self-defense, from equipping themselves with protection, while allowing criminals and thugs to prey on them. As gun sales continually increase across the country, I feel safer and safer. I only hope that one day all states, as our Constitution intends, allow for the concealed carry of firearms.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Government Lies: An Easy Guide to Deceiving the Public
Politicians
always promise new things to the people, most recently it was “free”
healthcare, other times it may be price ceilings or controlling supply to keep
prices low. However some politicians are just as good of actors as the
Hollywood celebrities, especially President Obama, who makes his living off of
looking into the camera and selling a speech that he most likely did not write,
straight from the teleprompter. You may argue that this is irrelevant but it’s
much easier to deceive the American public when you are not using your own
words. This comfort of President Obama looking into the camera creates a
feeling that he is connecting with you personally, and I can only wonder as to
how many votes he secured solely based off of this. What’s the key for these
politicians? Proper word-usage.
President
Obama is famous for this one: investment. It’s not increased spending because
those words have a negative connotation, nobody wants to “increase spending”
when the government is quickly racking up a large debt. Another one Mr. Obama
loves to use is “increase revenue” which is merely a sly way of saying raising
taxes. Frank Luntz, a Fox News pollster said one that Republicans dropped the
ball on was “Drill baby, drill!” He points out that this too has a negative
association, with dirty black oil oozing out of the ground. Instead, he says
they should have used the term “energy exploration.” Unfortunately, there exist
very few politicians left who say what they mean and mean what they say.
President
Obama, at the most recent State of the Union address, claimed: “We’ve already
agreed to more than two trillion dollars in cuts and savings.” Wow! That’s
great! The current federal budget is roughly four trillion, so that means
cutting government in half, that’s fantastic, this guy is like freaking
Jefferson! Well unfortunately, that’s not even close to the truth. He says he
has agreed to two trillion in cuts, but that only means two trillion in
proposed increases, not in real cuts. To quote Dan Mitchell from the Cato
Institute, “…what if I came to you and said, I’ve been on a diet for the last
month and I’ve gained ten pounds! Isn’t that great? You would say, woah, what
are you talking about? And I said no, no, I was going to gain fifteen pounds,
but I only gained ten, therefore my diet is successful.” This is the exact type
of manipulation of words with which politicians have become so adept, and the
media eats it up, and regurgitates it to the mindless public.
Another
manipulation occurs when a president tries to pass new legislation or start a
new war that will increase spending. For example, the Bush administration
projected the war in Iraq to cost between 50-60 billion dollars, so far the
cost totals over 800 billion dollars. When Medicare was created in 1990, the
government projected a 9 billion dollar cost, whereas the actual cost thus far
is about $67 billion. According to Dan Mitchell, this is because politicians
“low-ball” numbers and/or do not account for the change in demand for the
government hand-out, which is of course intentional. The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), which keeps track of the federal government’s spending,
originally gave Obamacare a price-tag of $940 billion over ten years. Which,
according to Obama, pales in comparison with the money spent overseas in
Afghanistan and Iraq (because you know, two wrong make a right, especially if
the Republicans wrong is worse). However, the CBO just announced that the new
healthcare law would now cost 1.76 trillion over the ten years, a small
miscalculation of—you know, a mere $820 billion.
Politicians
will continually employ these techniques, whether it’s to push for an
unfavorable war or conflict, or whether it’s to jam legislation through
Congress. Next time you hear a politician talk about new “investments” or “revenue
increases”, shake your head, and remember that you can always write him/her
nasty e-mails telling him/her what a scam-artist he/she is.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Government Theft: Eminent Domain
What's yours is yours, because thou shall not steal, right? Well, not exactly. At least if government is the perp, that is not always the case. For those of you who have not heard the term "eminent domain", it means that your private property, your house, camp, whatever--are all truly owned by the state and that if need be, they can be repossessed by the state for sale or destruction in times of extreme necessity or if the central planners determine that the repossessing of your property is ultimately for the public good (some states use the term "appropriation").
Let me give you an example. You have just received a notice from the government that your current home in which you were born and raised is going to be demolished in order to build a new strip mall. You are reassured that you will be refunded the market value of your house and are given six months to pack up and move out. However, to many, houses are more than just objects like a TV or computer, a house often has sentiment attached to it and now the government is offering you some price based on property value to get you out on their schedule.
But wait! That's my house! I paid for it!
No, no, silly, you only think you own it, but the reality is, the state of New York owns your four bedroom, two and a half bathroom paradise, not you. Plus think of all of the nice tax-money we'll get to make now from all of the incoming businesses! Plus, all of the new stores in the strip mall will create jobs, and if it expands maybe even could lower property taxes in the town because of all the revenue we make! This will help everyone!
This type of nonsense does happen, like in the town of New London, Connecticut, where a host of houses in a neighborhood were demolished against the will of the landowners in order to build a new Pfizer plant (what a surprise, a drug company with political pull). But here's the kicker, after the houses were demolished, the big shots at Pfizer decided they didn't want to build a plant there anymore, oops. This is another example of government failure, businesses are going to want to expand, and any type of handout from the government that they can get, they will take, in this case Pfizer was getting the land for free and huge tax abatements.
Government agencies, particularly the ones steered by the radical environmentalists, also are guilty of abusing eminent domain and disregarding property rights. In January, the EPA declared that the air quality of Matagorda county in Texas was sub-par and that the must halt new business and construction until the air-quality reaches a level that the EPA deems acceptable. All this, despite the fact that the agency in charge of environmental protection of Texas disagrees, citing a decline in both population and emissions in recent years, however the people of the county are at the mercy of the bureaucrats in Washington of the EPA and are unable to pursue business ventures or new construction until the county emission standards raise (I have a lot more to say about the EPA, they will get their own post).
A free society should never have property rights infringed upon, and is a staple if the people of the United States are to retain the freedoms granted by The Constitution. Thankfully, a bi-partisan bill was introduced last year "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011" to help protect the liberties guaranteed to Americans under The Constitution.
Let me give you an example. You have just received a notice from the government that your current home in which you were born and raised is going to be demolished in order to build a new strip mall. You are reassured that you will be refunded the market value of your house and are given six months to pack up and move out. However, to many, houses are more than just objects like a TV or computer, a house often has sentiment attached to it and now the government is offering you some price based on property value to get you out on their schedule.
But wait! That's my house! I paid for it!
No, no, silly, you only think you own it, but the reality is, the state of New York owns your four bedroom, two and a half bathroom paradise, not you. Plus think of all of the nice tax-money we'll get to make now from all of the incoming businesses! Plus, all of the new stores in the strip mall will create jobs, and if it expands maybe even could lower property taxes in the town because of all the revenue we make! This will help everyone!
This type of nonsense does happen, like in the town of New London, Connecticut, where a host of houses in a neighborhood were demolished against the will of the landowners in order to build a new Pfizer plant (what a surprise, a drug company with political pull). But here's the kicker, after the houses were demolished, the big shots at Pfizer decided they didn't want to build a plant there anymore, oops. This is another example of government failure, businesses are going to want to expand, and any type of handout from the government that they can get, they will take, in this case Pfizer was getting the land for free and huge tax abatements.
Government agencies, particularly the ones steered by the radical environmentalists, also are guilty of abusing eminent domain and disregarding property rights. In January, the EPA declared that the air quality of Matagorda county in Texas was sub-par and that the must halt new business and construction until the air-quality reaches a level that the EPA deems acceptable. All this, despite the fact that the agency in charge of environmental protection of Texas disagrees, citing a decline in both population and emissions in recent years, however the people of the county are at the mercy of the bureaucrats in Washington of the EPA and are unable to pursue business ventures or new construction until the county emission standards raise (I have a lot more to say about the EPA, they will get their own post).
A free society should never have property rights infringed upon, and is a staple if the people of the United States are to retain the freedoms granted by The Constitution. Thankfully, a bi-partisan bill was introduced last year "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011" to help protect the liberties guaranteed to Americans under The Constitution.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Why Free Market Medicine Works
Recently, President Obama signed into law "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", also known as "Obamacare." While many Americans do not agree with it, President Obama suggested that it was a law that would grow on even Republicans, and one that the whole nation would eventually get behind. However, Republicans have yet to get behind it with almost all calling for its repeal. Other than the obvious un-Constitutionality of the mandate, many Americans also have come to realize that government involvement in medicine will be terrible. As I don't like to play the parties game, it's fair to point out that government has been involved in medicine since 1943, when it first allowed insurance provided by employers tax-free. This trend continued with programs such as medicare, medicaid, social security, and now Obamacare.
You just graduated from college and are an extremely well qualified employee, graduating at the top of your class with much internship experience. Shortly after applying for jobs you hear back from a few businesses that are interested in what you can bring to the table. After discussing your salary and benefits with two of your potential future employers, you discuss benefits with the third. Yearly paid vacation? Sounds good. But no insurance coverage?! Is this guy out of his damn mind? Instead he offers you a Health Savings Account (HSA). He says that every year he will donate $500 dollars to your account, with which you can do whatever you want. Don't need to spend the money the first year? Great, because it builds up, so now for year two, you have $1000 dollars in the account. No insurance, no hassle.
What does that have to do with free-market medicine?
1) Many doctors love the system just fine the way it was. A lot of people who make doctor's office visits have insurance, so the patients just hand the receptionist their insurance cards and carry on. This allows the doctors to charge whatever they want, and then pass the cost on to the insurance companies. However, insurance companies are also in it for a profit, so they will then pass the cost on to the customers. This results in rising premiums and is part of the reason health care is so expensive. Now, with the mandate, since everyone is required by law to have health insurance, this problem is only going to get worse. HSAs would force doctors to compete, lowering prices, while increasing the quality of care. When was the last time you went to your doctor's office and asked: How much for a physical? If more patients did this and shopped around for the best combination of cheap/quality doctor, this would force doctors to expand care, give patients more bang for their buck and lower their overall prices. Prices adjusted for inflation have fallen in several markets while improving the quality of goods, with the exception of the car, where the price adjusted for inflation remains the same or slightly higher, however one must take into account that the cars nowadays do a lot more than the Model-T (GPS, OnStar, air-conditioning, anti-lock brakes, etc.), I digress.
2) HSAs would also encourage people to live a healthier life style. If I am given $500 dollars in my account yearly, maybe I won't go for medical care every time I get a bump on my arm. This is my own money that I'm dealing with here, maybe I should start eating healthier, exercising and getting more sleep. After all, I don't want to exhaust the money in my HSA. Now, I can foresee the argument, "What if someone is diagnosed with cancer and has tens of thousands of dollars in costs for treatment, and they don't have enough money in their HSA?" Well, a valuable employee is worth more to a company than the cost of the loss of a valuable employee, so in cases such as these, the employee/employer can work something out. Too many people think of a free-market as static, where if you don't have enough money to afford health care, you simply rot in the street. The employer can easily work something out with the employee, as can the hospital, and donations from friendly neighbors are always an option. Doctors have taken a hippocratic oath to help the sick, and by all means, most good doctors will. Why? Because if they don't the news can spread like wild fire, and there you see another benefit of the free-market: consumer choice.
HSAs are the most viable free-market option to health care and give the best results while lowering prices. They keep doctors honest, and can help to make for a healthier nation. Government involvement makes costs sky-rocket, and while supporters of Obamacare think it is the right thing to do, to provide insurance for everyone, it is the wrong approach. Health care's main flaw is it's cost. If the cost of health care dropped, more people could afford it, with or without insurance.
Sources/Inspiration:
http://mises.org/daily/4434
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/find-it-hard-to-defend-free-market-medicine/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm5jhguYJ0
Got questions, comments, or concerns? Feel free to contact me at ryanokonski@gmail.com
You just graduated from college and are an extremely well qualified employee, graduating at the top of your class with much internship experience. Shortly after applying for jobs you hear back from a few businesses that are interested in what you can bring to the table. After discussing your salary and benefits with two of your potential future employers, you discuss benefits with the third. Yearly paid vacation? Sounds good. But no insurance coverage?! Is this guy out of his damn mind? Instead he offers you a Health Savings Account (HSA). He says that every year he will donate $500 dollars to your account, with which you can do whatever you want. Don't need to spend the money the first year? Great, because it builds up, so now for year two, you have $1000 dollars in the account. No insurance, no hassle.
What does that have to do with free-market medicine?
1) Many doctors love the system just fine the way it was. A lot of people who make doctor's office visits have insurance, so the patients just hand the receptionist their insurance cards and carry on. This allows the doctors to charge whatever they want, and then pass the cost on to the insurance companies. However, insurance companies are also in it for a profit, so they will then pass the cost on to the customers. This results in rising premiums and is part of the reason health care is so expensive. Now, with the mandate, since everyone is required by law to have health insurance, this problem is only going to get worse. HSAs would force doctors to compete, lowering prices, while increasing the quality of care. When was the last time you went to your doctor's office and asked: How much for a physical? If more patients did this and shopped around for the best combination of cheap/quality doctor, this would force doctors to expand care, give patients more bang for their buck and lower their overall prices. Prices adjusted for inflation have fallen in several markets while improving the quality of goods, with the exception of the car, where the price adjusted for inflation remains the same or slightly higher, however one must take into account that the cars nowadays do a lot more than the Model-T (GPS, OnStar, air-conditioning, anti-lock brakes, etc.), I digress.
2) HSAs would also encourage people to live a healthier life style. If I am given $500 dollars in my account yearly, maybe I won't go for medical care every time I get a bump on my arm. This is my own money that I'm dealing with here, maybe I should start eating healthier, exercising and getting more sleep. After all, I don't want to exhaust the money in my HSA. Now, I can foresee the argument, "What if someone is diagnosed with cancer and has tens of thousands of dollars in costs for treatment, and they don't have enough money in their HSA?" Well, a valuable employee is worth more to a company than the cost of the loss of a valuable employee, so in cases such as these, the employee/employer can work something out. Too many people think of a free-market as static, where if you don't have enough money to afford health care, you simply rot in the street. The employer can easily work something out with the employee, as can the hospital, and donations from friendly neighbors are always an option. Doctors have taken a hippocratic oath to help the sick, and by all means, most good doctors will. Why? Because if they don't the news can spread like wild fire, and there you see another benefit of the free-market: consumer choice.
HSAs are the most viable free-market option to health care and give the best results while lowering prices. They keep doctors honest, and can help to make for a healthier nation. Government involvement makes costs sky-rocket, and while supporters of Obamacare think it is the right thing to do, to provide insurance for everyone, it is the wrong approach. Health care's main flaw is it's cost. If the cost of health care dropped, more people could afford it, with or without insurance.
Sources/Inspiration:
http://mises.org/daily/4434
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/find-it-hard-to-defend-free-market-medicine/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm5jhguYJ0
Got questions, comments, or concerns? Feel free to contact me at ryanokonski@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)