Thursday, August 26, 2004

FT.com / Home UK - Rival prescriptions for health costs

FT.com / Home UK - Rival prescriptions for health costs

And on the other side of the Republicrat fence (you do know Republicans and Democrats are just two factions of the same politcal party, right?), John Kerry thinks people who make over $200K a year are "super-rich".  I guess that includes congressmen and public officials, right?  Covenient number, since rank and file Congressmen make about $150K a year in salary (not counting benefits).  Majority and Minority leaders in both houses make a little more at $175K (how does being voted captain of the team warrant an extra $25K a year?), while the Speaker of the House make over $200K a year.

How much would he make as President?  Over $400K, plus free room and board, free security, free travel anywhere, with an extra $50K for expenses.  The VP gets a little over $200K a year.  Both are eligible for a $150K a year pension with an extra $150K for an office and staff for that office.

Like I said, $200K is a convenient number, and while it appears "super-rich" to people on welfare, it should strike people like Kerry and Edwards and simply being a pay raise for winning a popularity vote.

Of course, as members of government, neither Kerry not Edwards (nor Bush nor Cheney) need worry about public health care - they have a government benefits plan that covers them very well indeed, as well as a retirement program they donate into, just like I do at my place of business.  The difference here is that my company makes it's money by inventing, manufacturing, and selling things - Kerry's employer makes it's money by holding guns to people's heads and taking a third of what they earn.

FT.com / Home UK - Bush's speech to focus on owners' society

FT.com / Home UK - Bush's speech to focus on owners' society

Why do I get the feeling that, while Bush talks a good game about people owning things, he's really after fictional entities owning things, like the RIAA, MPAA, and so on.  This sounds like lip service to libertarian ideals as a way of beefing up the Justice Department to crack down on file sharers - in other words, another neocon holy war to centralize and enhance power in the capitol.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long

Long but worth the read...

Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long

Lincoln's 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice by Thomas DiLorenzo

Another nail in the coffin of the Lincoln myth.  Point of fact - Lincoln was not a great man.  He was a tyrant who's main purpose in waging war against the Confederacy from 1861-1865 had nothing to do with slavery, but everything to do with consolidating supreme federal power in Washington D.C.  Don't believe me?  After reading the article below, read DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln" listed at the bottom of the essay.

LincolnĂ¢??s 'Great Crime': The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice by Thomas DiLorenzo

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Snitch: The rights stuff: What to do

This is a very interesting editorial.  The writing smacks of a college junior or senior in journalism, but the issues are good and so is the information.  I've got some argument points with the author on certain things, like where power flows from and to (he alludes that it flows from the federal down to the states, when in fact it wasn't that way until Tyrant Lincoln made it so) and he puts a lot of faith in the 9th and 10th Amendments, but other than that, I like this author.

Snitch: The rights stuff: What to do