Just a short blurb/response to people stating that Bin Laden's death makes him a martyr in the eyes of his followers.
I understand your point. However, what you have to ask yourself is what was the alternative solution? Two, that I saw:
1. We captured him and prosecuted him in court. This would have been a joke, as I don't believe that anyone wouldn't be biased against Bin Laden. The prosecuting attorney would have the easiest win of his career, as he makes his opening statement. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's Osama Bin Laden. Your Honor, I rest my case." Guilty. A trial would be not only a smack in the faces off the families who lost loved ones to 9/11 and other disasters masterminded by Bin Laden, but it would cost taxpayers to process, hold, and try him in our courts. In addition, us trying him as guilty and then sending him to death row would still make a martyr of him.
2. Let him live in fear for the rest of his life, and die of natural causes. This is the one to compare to the martyrdom, because this one will send a different message to his followers. It would send them the message that they can launch full-scale attacks against America, or any other nation in the world, and get off scott free.
Now which one would put the fire in their bellies more, a martyr dying for their cause or the belief that they can commit any act of terror and get away with it?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Sunday, October 31, 2010
My plan to an economic recovery in the US
1. Eliminate minimum wage. (I never claimed it would be popular.) This coupled with getting rid of govt imposed red tape (unnecessary licensing and regulations) for aspiring entrepreneurs would make starting a business much easier, and unemployment would be at record low numbers with companies bidding up the price they pay their workers to whatever their true worth was. With the Information Age, any company found exploiting their workers would be recognized and their business would be affected accordingly. (Not only that but there would be so many jobs available that someone would have to willingly be exploited for this to even occur.) Also being employed for a low wage is better than not being employed at all. This would also work as an incentive to keep businesses from moving overseas.
2. Add a line in the W-2 Tax Form giving the citizen the opportunity to opt out of Social Security. Social Security is a textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme, the only difference is the whole nation is forced into it. Giving people the opportunity to actually use that money however they wish is better than forcing them to put it in a tax pot that government dips it's hands into every year for spending programs.
4. Eliminate laws discouraging competition. Things like bans on flavored cigarettes, the war on drugs, and prohibiting medical insurance sales across state lines. This would allow the free market to properly work without giving one company a government-regulated advantage over another.
5. Eliminate the War On Terror. It's hypocritical to have a war against an idea while at the same time promoting freedom. We can punish those responsible for acts of terrorism, which is morale and more economically efficient. This would also cut military spending drastically.
6. Audit the Fed. Printing a limitless money supply itself is fiscally irresponsible, and we need deflation to occur. Yes it might make things tight at first, but in the long run we would benefit in the form of a stronger dollar that has greater purchasing power.
7. Cut off guaranteed government funding for college. This would lower tuition costs that ALWAYS rise whenever the government raises the max amount that can be borrowed. If this amount was lowered, in the short term colleges across America would see a drop in enrollment and would have to lower tuition in order to bring new students (supply and demand.)
8. Abolish the Department of Education. This program has been a proven failure since its creation and is a sinkhole for tax dollars that families could spend on charter/private schools where teachers and the schools themselves compete for students.
2. Add a line in the W-2 Tax Form giving the citizen the opportunity to opt out of Social Security. Social Security is a textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme, the only difference is the whole nation is forced into it. Giving people the opportunity to actually use that money however they wish is better than forcing them to put it in a tax pot that government dips it's hands into every year for spending programs.
4. Eliminate laws discouraging competition. Things like bans on flavored cigarettes, the war on drugs, and prohibiting medical insurance sales across state lines. This would allow the free market to properly work without giving one company a government-regulated advantage over another.
5. Eliminate the War On Terror. It's hypocritical to have a war against an idea while at the same time promoting freedom. We can punish those responsible for acts of terrorism, which is morale and more economically efficient. This would also cut military spending drastically.
6. Audit the Fed. Printing a limitless money supply itself is fiscally irresponsible, and we need deflation to occur. Yes it might make things tight at first, but in the long run we would benefit in the form of a stronger dollar that has greater purchasing power.
7. Cut off guaranteed government funding for college. This would lower tuition costs that ALWAYS rise whenever the government raises the max amount that can be borrowed. If this amount was lowered, in the short term colleges across America would see a drop in enrollment and would have to lower tuition in order to bring new students (supply and demand.)
8. Abolish the Department of Education. This program has been a proven failure since its creation and is a sinkhole for tax dollars that families could spend on charter/private schools where teachers and the schools themselves compete for students.
Monday, November 9, 2009
How big business exploits 3rd world nations
I once talked to a friend of mine (left leaning) about how badly America needs to go from a service-based free market economy to a manufacture-based free market economy (this would cause our exports to meet/exceed our imports.) My friend said that he believes America will be fine, as our country is number one in the world when it comes to advancing technology. Now, I was at a bar, hence I didn't want to argue with him there, so I didn't press the issue. He also declared that manufacturing companies would come back to America because they've "exploited all they can in other parts of the world."
This got me thinking, "I wonder what his definition of exploitation is?" I am sure he would compare the rate of pay those workers got to America or some other nation with high-wage workers. Now in my mind, exploiting an impoverished nation (on the part of a business) would be extremely hard to do. First you'd have to find a nation where the unemployment rate is, oh I don't know, let's say 20%, or whatever is enough to where people will take any kind of job. Then the company would have create a, let's say widget factory, to hire these workers that and pay them significantly less than what they would be payed anywhere else in that nation using the same skillset. Even if they managed to do this, holding on to this "exploitative-natured business model" would be difficult. As unemployment dropped other businesses within the country would grow (since the previous unemployed would be employed, and spending their money) and need more employees. They would also have to entice employees to leave their job at the widget factory, so they would have better wages. So the widget company would have to raise wages to keep the workers , and eventually the market would balance out this "exploitation."
Therefore it is my opinion that no business can permanently exploit a nation's peoples, and in the end their attempt at exploitation would actually foster wealth for the nation, as long as the nation's government doesn't impede the free market. This is also why if I had money that I was encouraged to donate to a charity supporting a third world country, I would instead invest it into a company native to the impoverished nation. If I had enough money, and I saw a way to use that nations resources in a way that would grow wealth within that nation, I would go there and do just that. In the end, it comes down to teaching a man to fish vs. giving a man fish.
This got me thinking, "I wonder what his definition of exploitation is?" I am sure he would compare the rate of pay those workers got to America or some other nation with high-wage workers. Now in my mind, exploiting an impoverished nation (on the part of a business) would be extremely hard to do. First you'd have to find a nation where the unemployment rate is, oh I don't know, let's say 20%, or whatever is enough to where people will take any kind of job. Then the company would have create a, let's say widget factory, to hire these workers that and pay them significantly less than what they would be payed anywhere else in that nation using the same skillset. Even if they managed to do this, holding on to this "exploitative-natured business model" would be difficult. As unemployment dropped other businesses within the country would grow (since the previous unemployed would be employed, and spending their money) and need more employees. They would also have to entice employees to leave their job at the widget factory, so they would have better wages. So the widget company would have to raise wages to keep the workers , and eventually the market would balance out this "exploitation."
Therefore it is my opinion that no business can permanently exploit a nation's peoples, and in the end their attempt at exploitation would actually foster wealth for the nation, as long as the nation's government doesn't impede the free market. This is also why if I had money that I was encouraged to donate to a charity supporting a third world country, I would instead invest it into a company native to the impoverished nation. If I had enough money, and I saw a way to use that nations resources in a way that would grow wealth within that nation, I would go there and do just that. In the end, it comes down to teaching a man to fish vs. giving a man fish.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)