It’s a topic of long debate and longer longevity: “Who should have the authority to set prices, the free market or the state?”
Although many people could spend hours thumping fists on the table about this, there is actually a very simple answer: If the state had the power to set prices, it would only set them to benefit itself.
That’s it. Now, elaborate.
If the state arranges prices according to its own benefit, it would not benefit the customer, the every day citizen. But if the free market were to regulate prices, it would benefit the consumer because businesses cannot survive without customers. The state can afford to regulate prices selfishly. Businesses cannot. Continue reading
The question for this essay is this: “If the state is strong enough to do something good for you, can it also do something bad to you?”
This statement is very, very true. The state claims it’s doing the best it can by providing welfare and food stamps, etc. All this (made worse by the Obama years) simply and inexcusably makes the people worse off than before.
By providing welfare and all that other stuff that makes people dependent, you are essentially setting a mindset: you are telling the people that the government is your only hope, that you can never make it on your own and that you cannot make your fortune or money or whatever it is that they are providing, yourself.
That is one of the biggest, fattest lies I’ve ever heard. Continue reading
The question is this: “Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control?”
It’s the old theory of “no strings attached”. In a very few rare cases, there are no strings attached. Most of the time there are so many strings you can’t count them all. Such is the case with state subsidies.
If you get a subsidy, you can be sure the government will call on you at one point or another and say, “Hey, I gave you a subsidy three years ago. Now I want you to do this for me.” What can you do? Commit political, monetary and social suicide and say no? Or say yes and sacrifice honor, integrity and morals? It’s what they call “being in between a rock and a hard place.” Continue reading
Thanks to Luna for nominating me!
Question 1: How tall are you?
5′ 11 1/2″ I’m pretty tall for my age.
Question 2: Do you have a hidden talent?
An inner pianist?? 😀
Question 3: What’s your biggest blog-related pet peeve?
When people say the’re going to do something and never do it.
Question 4: What’s your biggest non-blog related pet peeve?
Texting and iPhones. They drive me nuts. People can’t live without them nowadays! They don’t even talk to each other any more.
Question 5: What’s your favorite song?
I have too many to name, but one of my favorites is “God Bless the USA” by Lee Greenwood.
Question 6: What is your favorite social media website?
I don’t go on social media, but if YouTube counts, I definitely pick that one. Continue reading
The question for this essay sounds very simple: “Online education is bad for society because it puts classroom teachers out of work.” At first glance you say, “Yeah, that’s right. Teachers don’t have work anymore.” But if you look closer, you see more possibilities that may outweigh this fact.
For instance: Someone has to make the information in the online curriculum. That person has to be knowledgeable. In all probability, this person will be a teacher, or someone who could potentially function as a teacher. That replaces one or more of the jobs which would be taken away.
Also, online curriculums are not mainstream. Therefore, the education is not mainstream. In all likelihood, this means that the education will be more complete and far less biased than the run-of-the-mill education which is taught in public schools. In this case the children will be better educated and will produce more economic benefit for society in general by producing more high-skill jobs. Continue reading