I wanted to keep going

Well, I would rather be getting more seat time in my new toy. Such is life. I took it to Idaho and back on Sat.

Good Morning

Over all not too bad Suz. Heading out to another field trip today. Off to Dallas. Not so much liking all this travel.

Hows you?

I wish Democrats still spoke this way of our country as opposed to the way they speak of America today.....

"Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house."

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

~John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Friday, January 20, 1961

(((Suz)))

" And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."

~ John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address, Friday, January 20, 1961

How did we lose this way of thinking?

Morning all!

Good luck Cindy

Never get out alive

Happy Easter

Happy Easter!

Spectacular!

Frankly no, you have not hit a nerve. I am not so easily rattled. I merely offer you some facts, rather than emotion. I will agree when you are correct, and will counter when you are incorrect. Simple as that.

OMG! I am having so much fun today it should be against the law.

And really, do you have to use such foul language? Oh, wait, I forgot that is often the tactic used by those without a valid argument. So is name calling.

And lastly, you are NOT and American. You must be a citizen of The United States of America to be an American. This is accepted worldwide.

See, you have no idea what you are talking about. South America is a CONTINENT, not a COUNTRY.

A continent is one of several major land masses on the earth. There is no standard definition for the number of continents but you will commonly find that the numbers six or seven are used.

By most standards, there are a seven continents - Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Most students in the United States are taught that there are seven continents.

In Europe and other parts of the world, many students are taught of six continents, where North and South America are combined to form a single continent of America. Thus, these six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and Europe.

Many scientists now refer to six continents, where Europe and Asia are combined (since they're one solid geologic landmass). Thus, these six continents are Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North America, and South America.

Geographers divide the planet into regions for ease of study. Various geographers have various definitions of these world regions.

This Official Listing of Countries by Region divides the world into eight regions: Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, Europe, North America, Central America and the Caribbean, South America, Africa, and Australia and Oceania.

Asia

There are 28 countries in Asia; Asia stretches from former "stans" of the USSR to the Pacific Ocean.
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brunei
Cambodia
China
India
Indonesia
Japan
Kazakhstan
North Korea
South Korea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Malaysia
Maldives
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Thailand
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam

Middle East and North Africa

The 22 countries of the Middle East and North Africa include some countries not traditionally part of the Middle East but their cultures cause their placement in this region.
Algeria
Azerbaijan*
Bahrain
Egypt
Iran
Iraq
Israel*
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Syria
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

* The former republics of the Soviet Union are typically lumped into one region, even 15 years after independence In this listing, they've been placed where most appropriate.

* Israel may be located in the Middle East but it is certainly an outsider and perhaps better belongs attached to Europe, like its seaward neighbor and European Union member state, Cyprus.

Europe

With 48 countries, there aren't many surprises on this list. However, this region stretches from North America and back to North America as it encompasses Iceland and all of Russia.

Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland*
Ireland
Italy
Kosovo
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*
Vatican City

* Iceland straddles the Eurasian plate and the North American plate so geographically it is halfway between Europe and North America. However, its culture and settlement is clearly European in nature.

* The United Kingdom is the country composed of the constituent entities known as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.


North America

Economic powerhouse North America only includes three countries but it is most of a continent and thus a region onto itself.

Canada
Mexico
United States of America


Central America and the Caribbean

There are no landlocked countries among these twenty countries of Central America and the Caribbean.

Antigua and Barbuda
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Nicaragua
Panama
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago


South America

Twelve countries occupy this continent that stretches from the equator to nearly the Antarctic Circle.

Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela


Africa

There are 47 countries in Africa. This region of Africa is often called Sub-Saharan Africa but some of these countries are Intra-Saharan so Sub-Saharan Africa just won't work as a name. Africa will have to do.

Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe


Australia and Oceania

These fifteen countries vary widely in their cultures and occupy a large swath of the world ocean although (with the exception of the continent-country Australia), do not occupy much land.

Australia
East Timor*
Fiji
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Federated States of Micronesia
Nauru
New Zealand
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu

* While East Timor lies on an Indonesian (Asian) island, its eastern location requires that it be located with the Oceania nations of the world.

Happy Easter!

Often the loudest are the biggest hypocrites, i.e.: Al Gore et al

I get attacked in the political threads all the time. I also get a few kudos here and there. As long as it makes people think, rather than react, it's all good.

I really should start a blog and put all of my stuff in one place.

Top 16 Government Attacks

1. Protectionist Trade Policy

Capitalism is based on a system of free exchange, on free trade. Under this system, people voluntarily engage in trade because it is mutually beneficial. That is, trade is a positive-sum game, not a zero-sum game, as anti-globalization activists would like us to believe, because if it were not, one or both parties would have no reason to trade in the first place. Thus, under a true free-market system, no one can tell you what to produce, how to produce it, whom you can trade with, how much you may pay your workers, or how much you may sell. These are all determined by the "invisible hand" of the laws of supply and demand.

Now enter the government. When the government is given power over trade laws, trade is no longer influenced merely by voluntary action, but by the force of those in power, who are themselves influenced by special interests. Through tariffs and quotas and anti-dumping laws, the government protects certain industries, companies, or even powerful individuals. This is all done at the expense of the consumer, who has to pay higher prices for inferior goods because the government has thwarted competition, either by increasing the costs of doing business (tariffs) or by outright prohibiting it (quotas, anti-dumping laws).

2. Antitrust Policy

One of the most egregious examples of government meddling in business and free trade is that of antitrust policy. There is this myth that there was a golden era of "trustbusting" under President Theodore Roosevelt, during which industrial raiders guilty of exploiting the poor for their own profit were brought to justice and conglomerates were broken up so that competition could once again thrive. The truth is that the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914, like future antitrust laws, were special-interest laws, not public-interest laws. The "landmark" antitrust cases, Standard Oil, Alcoa, and now, perhaps, Microsoft, have all been brought under false pretenses.

It should come as no surprise that 90 percent of antitrust cases are brought not by wronged consumer groups or a benevolent government bent on public service, but rather by firms that are losing market share to their more successful competitors. As in other areas where government exercises its power and influence, things (usually money) are taken from the most productive members of society and redistributed to whichever groups or individuals are favored by those in power at the time.

Monopoly is not a thing to be feared or broken up in a free market. Firms that obtain "monopoly power" have done so because they were the most successful at providing the goods and services that consumers need at the best quality and the best prices. They, too, started out as small firms once. This "power" is not immune to market forces, however, and wherever an opportunity to better serve consumers exists (i.e., wherever there is a chance to make money), other firms will jump in and try to eat away at that market share. Where monopoly is protected by government, however, through burdensome licensing or regulation, or through franchise agreements that completely prohibit other firms from competing, there truly is no chance for full competition, and little incentive for protected firms to innovate. Thus, the only harmful monopoly is a government monopoly.

3. Tax System (Double taxation / capital gains taxes)

We all know how convoluted our tax structure is. It is said that a simple law is a good law, because everyone can understand it and abide by it. But who knows how many laws each of us may be "breaking" (they are, after all, subject to IRS "interpretation") by filling out our tax forms every year? What's worse is that some of our assets are taxed twice.

First, companies are taxed on their revenues. Then, those net profits that are distributed as dividends are taxed again. Likewise, capital gains from stock market transactions are taxed on the individual shareholder, even though the additional earnings (or other increases in the value of the company) have already been assessed at the corporate level. This is not merely a case of taxing everyone the same to pay for government services, it is a case of milking productive companies and risk-taking investors in order to give money to public agencies that will not create one dollar of wealth, or to the least productive members of society, so that they will not have to earn their keep on their own.

4. Medicare / Medicaid

Health care and health insurance are usually very important services that most everyone may benefit from at some point in his life - but that does not mean that there is an unalienable right to having health care or health insurance! In 2001, Medicare made up $237.9 billion of the federal budget, Medicaid $129.4 billion. Together, they comprise nearly 20 percent of federal outlays. Far from providing affordable health care to the masses, government regulations have done nothing but stifle innovation in medical industries and increase the costs of providing health care, leading to higher prices for consumers. So not only do you have to pay more tax dollars to subsidize unwed teenage mothers, drug and alcohol addicts, or other victims of the week, but you have to pay even more of your dollars to get coverage of your own.

People react to incentives. When you provide something for "free" (even when it is with other people's money) or subsidize something, the recipients are going to use more of whatever you are providing. This is no less true for health care. In countries that have socialized health care, people see doctors for things they would not have seen them for and seek more expensive treatments than they would have if they had had to pay directly for it out of their own pockets. The results: ever-increasing costs of health care and long waiting lists to see doctors and undergo surgeries. Thus, those with the most urgent need for health care either die during the waiting process or come to more capitalist countries, such as the United States.

5. Social Security

The government can no better manage the retirement plans of 270 million Americans than it can their health care plans. Yet, through a Ponzi scheme established in the days of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the young are taxed to pay for the retirement of the old. This is paid through a tax of between 7.5 and 15 percent. I give a range here because 7.5 percent is paid by you, the employee, and 7.5 percent is paid by your employer. In the absence of your employer's 7.5 percent "contribution," he would have higher profits and some of that money would be going into your pocket in the form of higher wages. (This would vary by industry and firm.)

When the Social Security Act was passed in 1935, people became eligible for benefits at 65 years of age. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 67 years. Even Roosevelt claimed that it was to be a program primarily for widows and orphans - and a temporary one at that. In 2001, Social Security spending totaled $429.4 billion, making up roughly one-quarter of a nearly $2 trillion budget.

It should be pointed out that there are no retirement accounts under the current system. The Social Security Trust Fund is not a fund that divides up money into the accounts of those paying into the system. Furthermore, the government uses accounting tricks so that Congress can routinely raid the Social Security coffers whenever it needs a little extra spending money. The accounting tactics used by Enron and Worldcom are nothing compared to those used by the federal government. You see, since intra-governmental agency transfers are not recorded as debt by the government, Congress can take $100 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund and it will be counted as a "transfer," not a debt. Never mind that $100 billion has nevertheless been taxed and spent, and will need to be replaced somehow to restore the Fund to its prior levels.

People were able to survive somehow without the federal government providing them with retirement benefits before Social Security, and they can survive - even thrive - without it today.

6. Accounting Practices

If you think that the Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing accounting scandals are examples of serious fraud and deception, you ain't seen nothing yet! The truth is, the federal government cooks the books in ways that would be inconceivable in the private sector. If government was held to the same Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as private sector firms, all of our elected officials and bureaucrats would be in prison - which might not be such a bad thing. It is time we held them to more reasonable standards.

Social Security is one of the most blatant examples of government bookkeeping fraud. Politicians would like us to believe that Social Security taxes go into the Social Security trust fund, which is used to pay our retirement pensions in the future, but this is not true. Trust fund money is used to buy government bonds, which reduces the national debt and disguises the deficit. The disguise works like this: trust fund money has been used to buy bonds, so the trust fund now has a deficit. However, Congress has defined "debt" in such a way that money owed from one government agency to another is not considered debt. The money must come from somewhere sometime, though, and we, the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill in the end. (For more on this see the article "America's Biggest Crook" by economist and syndicated columnist Walter Williams.)

Government debt figures are always grossly understated. Though the national debt numbers quoted by politicians and administration officials typically fall into the $3.5 trillion to $6 trillion range, the actual figure is a whopping $33 trillion.

Other tricks include setting up "off-budget" programs, including Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, and Sallie Mae. Then there is all the money that cannot be accounted for in the first place.

We will not be able to check the size and growth of government until we can see where our tax dollars are going - and how they are being wasted. While the accounting exploits of the private sector are checked by a legal system that punishes fraud, there is no such restraint on the government. There is a need for greater ethical standards and accounting reform - in the government.

7. Use and Abuse of Eminent Domain

For there to be economic growth and a just social order, there must be a strong sense of property rights. Without the protection of private property, exchange cannot effectively take place, for the state could expropriate property at any time, making it impossible for people to guarantee the production and delivery of goods and services. Without property, a person cannot build, cannot acquire, cannot produce more. He does not have his own money to save, spend, or invest, and he does not have his own house to live where and how he pleases. In effect, he is a slave.

Though the Founding Fathers took many measures to make sure that private property would be protected as well as possible, a loophole exists in the form of the "just compensation" provision of the Fifth Amendment ("… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.") This provision was supposed to ensure that property was taken only in the most pressing of needs or emergencies, and that those from whom property was taken were made whole by monetary compensation. In practice, however, it has been used by governments of all levels to take property for purposes that range from designating national parklands to building schools to granting contracts for car dealerships and minimalls.

Furthermore, the whole notion of "just compensation" is a myth. When property is condemned, the owner is forced to sell it to the government at whatever appraisal value the government deems, opening the door to gross corruption and injustice. People are often forced to sell their own property for pennies on the dollar because it is not worth the litigation costs to go up against the government.

Eminent domain powers have always been prone to abuse and injustice. They are so damaging to capitalism because they strike at the core of the free-market system, at private property rights. If these rights are to be preserved, eminent domain has got to go, even though it will take a constitutional amendment to do it.

8. Price Controls

Few things make economic conditions worse than when government tries to control the operations of the market. Artificial controls on supply and demand are just that - artificial. When government tries to prevent things from being produced that there is a demand for, a black market appears. Since engaging in such activity is by definition illegal, business is risky, leading to higher prices, and often dangerous, since methods other than use of the legal system must be used to enforce contracts. (Take a look at the illegal drug trade, for instance.)

Government has nevertheless frequently resorted to price controls in attempts to enforce its socially engineered plans. But, as any reputable economist will tell you, price controls create shortages. Let's look at the example of rent control. Government prevents landlords from charging higher than a certain price for rent, supposedly so that poor people can afford housing. This price cap, or ceiling, is lower than the market price of rental housing; otherwise, even legislators would see no point in imposing them. But not only poor people like lower prices! So now there are more people seeking rental housing than there are apartments at the new (artificially low) price. This eliminates the incentives of landlords to keep their properties clean and offer certain amenities, since they no longer have to outcompete rivals. It also means that there will be discrimination since landlords cannot "discriminate" based on price anymore and must resort to other means to choosing some tenants over others. Finally, for the lucky few that do get their apartments at the rent-controlled price, this is a good deal. But many more people, including poor people, will not be able to get housing as a result. This type of economic meddling clearly constitutes an attack on capitalism.

9. Minimum Wage Laws

Government tinkering with the forces of economics extends not only to controlling the prices at which firms can sell things, but also to controlling the prices that business owners pay to their workers in wages. Minimum wage laws are simply price controls in another form. Instead of setting a maximum price at which sellers can sell, there is a minimum price that businesses must pay to employees, but the effect is still the same - shortages. In this case, wage price controls cause employment shortages. Employers must pay higher prices to employees than their labor would otherwise be worth. This increases the costs of doing business to employers, eating into profits and leaving less money for hiring new labor.

As with the rent control example above, those whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage, but who get jobs anyway, will benefit. However, since employers are hiring fewer workers, many equally or more qualified people will not be able to get jobs. What's worse, the law prohibits them from competing with others looking for jobs by offering to work for less than the minimum wage. This interferes with the individual's freedom to contract, which is every bit as important in negotiating one's employment contract as it is for negotiating contracts for goods and services.

10. Farm Subsidies

We've all heard of the supposed plight of farmers and of the need to provide them with subsidies so that the family farm can stay in business. This rationale contains two fallacies. First, neither the farming industry nor any other important industry is in danger of failure. There are millions and millions of people in America and around the world and they all need to eat, so there is no shortage of demand for food products. The only farms being "protected" are those that are the least efficient and the least productive, and thus are failing only because other farms are doing their jobs better.

Second, most subsidy dollars are not really going to small family farms, but to large corporate farming companies that have a strong lobbying presence on Capitol Hill. But do we really need to subsidize Ted Turner's buffalo ranches? Never doubt the strength of an entrenched lobby, though. After the Republican revolution of the 1994 elections, we were promised that farm subsidies would be abolished. After making some reductions, however, Congress gave in to the farming lobby and passed, with George W. Bush's approval, a plan to increase farm subsidies $180 billion over ten years, a $73.5 billion increase over existing programs. So farm subsidies are just more wasted money and special interest redistribution. Left to its own forces, the free market will allow farmers (and businessmen) to utilize the resources available to them, produce their goods, and sell those goods according to their value to consumers.

11. OSHA Regulations

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was created during the Nixon administration under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Its stated mission is "to save lives, prevent injuries, and protect the health of America's workers." In reality, it is a busybody agency that causes businesses to waste billions of dollars per year in regulatory compliance costs for its 4,000-plus regulations. These red tape costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Not only are such regulations wasteful, they are unnecessary and often even counterproductive. Seat belt laws, for example, may have reduced fatalities when they were introduced, but they increased the total number of accidents taking place and the number of serious accidents involving motorcycles. Why? Because people felt safer and started driving more aggressively. The problem with these types of laws, and all laws that meddle with capitalism, is that they fail to realize that people respond to incentives and will change their behavior when the laws change.

12. EPA Regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done more to damage the environment through command-and-control tactics than unregulated business ever could have done. It is endorsed by irrational environmental activists, and its decisions are "justified" by junk science. Then again, where politics is involved, it is not truth, but appearance and influence, which matter.

The best protection against environmental pollution is a return to emphasis on common law property rights. When someone owns something, he makes sure to take care of it - especially if he is using it to make money. When the government owns something, no one has an incentive to take care of it because it does not "belong" to anyone. Under a property rights system, if you pollute the stream and it damages my property, you have wronged me and I can sue you. Setting maximum levels of soot concentration or carbon dioxide production, however, has no significant effect on the environment and actually diminishes the quality of life by wasting billions of dollars of wealth in the process.

13. Americans With Disabilities Act Regulations / Abuse

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) has impinged on business decisions varying from architectural design to hiring and promotion decisions, and has invited widespread fraud. Rather than allow businesses to decide how to accommodate their handicapped customers, if they have or likely will have any, the government has mandated that all buildings must be designed with wheelchair ramps and parking lots must contain special handicapped-only spaces located conveniently near building entrances. This, once again, leads to lower profits for businesses, which, in turn, leads to lower wages for employees and higher prices for consumers.

Because of the ADA, employers may not even question job applicants about a broad range of "disabilities" that may include forgetfulness, drug or alcohol problems, reading proficiency, violent tendencies, or even sanity! Furthermore, the level of accommodation that must be provided to the disabled means that dealing with disabled people exposes firms to potentially costly litigation, so businesses have decided, rationally, to minimize their risk by not hiring disabled people to begin with. So after the noble law was passed, unemployment for authentically disabled people is higher than it was when the law was passed in 1990. In a free economy devoid of government regulation, people will be able to find work where they are most valuable. This includes the disabled, who would be recognized as assets to their employers instead of liabilities. The ADA represents an affront to the freedom of contract and should be seen for what it is - a political tool to exploit productive firms for the special interests of yet another favored group.

14. Misguided Tort Laws

The United States has tragically moved from a system of common law - established law that is based on customs, precedent, and principles of protecting the rights of individuals and their property from intrusions by other individuals or the state - to a system of civil law, which is created by legislators and rulers.

"The two systems of law began at opposite ends of the legal spectrum. The Common Law was developed by the common people and was imposed on the rulers of the country. The civil law was developed by the rulers and imposed on the people." (Neil C. Chamelin and Kenneth R. Evans, Criminal Law For Policemen, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976)

The shift to civil law has necessarily led to the politicization of the law, in which decisions are reached primarily through emotional pleas instead of rational arguments. The most telling examples of this are in the areas of product liability and malpractice law. Juries now typically award millions - even billions - of dollars in punitive damages because they are encouraged by prosecutors to "send a message" to the company that made the cup of hot coffee that a woman spilled on herself, or to the doctor who was unsuccessful at attempting a risky medical procedure. This is not justice. In the case of product liability, it rewards careless or stupid behavior. Such medical malpractice decisions merely raise the cost of health care (since doctors' insurance premiums go up and are then passed on to patients) and stifle the incentive of doctors to perform risky, but potentially life-saving, measures.

Another problem is that plaintiffs have nothing to lose by suing. As a result, the courts are flooded every year with groundless cases. A "loser pays" provision, which would require the loser of a lawsuit to pay the attorney fees of the winner, would force potential plaintiffs to take costs into account and only bring cases that have legitimate legal merit. Individuals or businesses facing bogus suits that might otherwise have settled to avoid even higher legal costs would then be permitted to have their day in court and justice would be served.

15. Inflationary Monetary Policy

Governments have a tendency to grow and grow. But how do they pay for all the social programs they put into place, especially when taxpayer dollars are not enough to cover the bill? When you have a monopoly on the production and management of money, the answer is simple: you print more. This paper, or "fiat," money is backed only by the promise of the government, however. In addition, now there is more money chasing fewer goods, so the dollar you held before the central bank increased the money supply is now worth less, and there you have inflation. This leads people to save less and buy more goods today, since money will be worth less in the future than it is today. Furthermore, as economists of the Austrian school of thought have predicted, monetary tinkering by the central bank (the Federal Reserve here in the United States) leads to boom-and-bust cycles as the economy must adjust from artificially-created levels back to its "natural" levels. Thus, inflationary monetary policies are just one more means by which government reduces your wealth.

By contrast, under a specie standard (gold would most likely become the medium of exchange, but this would be determined by supply and demand in the free market), government must restrain its spending or else it will lose real value as its gold stock depletes. A gold standard would necessitate government accountability and eliminate the arbitrary decisions of the Fed that manipulate the value of money. I, for one, would much rather place my trust in the laws of supply and demand than on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.

16. Public Education

In a free society, the government has no place in providing educational services, for there is a clear conflict of interest whenever the state gets involved in education. How many people who depend on the government for their paychecks are going to be critical of the government and encourage their pupils to question its activities? No wonder the culture of dependency and political correctness has continued to grow year after year.

Education, like health care, is important, but it is not a right. Those who provide education are providing a service, and education should be treated like any other service. If you want your kitchen remodeled, you do your research, figure out what type of appliances, cabinets, and flooring you want, compare prices, and have the job done by the contractor that best meets your requirements. You do not nationalize all kitchen contractors, force them to remodel all kitchens the same way, and pay them with other people's money.

A fully privatized educational system would allow choice. If you think it is best for your kid to have a background in music, send him to an arts school. If you think he would be better off with computer skills, send him to a technical school. If you don't like the fact that your child's school is distributing condoms to students, take your business somewhere else. If you think your child is being indoctrinated, not educated, go somewhere else. Parents should have the freedom to choose how their children will be raised and taught. These options would exist in a true capitalist society because businesses will emerge to satisfy such demands wherever there is a market, wherever there is money to be made.

Moreover, competition among schools for student enrollment dollars would lead to increased services and a higher quality of education. For those that think that this is unfair because the poor would not be able to afford education for their children, consider that not all education would be the same. There are BMWs and there are Hyundais. Some would be more expensive and some would be cheaper. But unlike cars, students represent an investment to schools. The best and brightest graduates increase a school's reputation, which brings in more business and more profits. Thus, there would be scholarships to help defray the cost of education, not to mention all the tax dollars that people could save instead of pouring them into the current bureaucracy.

The most important thing to remember is this: in a capitalist society, ability is recognized sooner or later, and hard work and a positive attitude will be handsomely rewarded. With the freedom to live and achieve, take pride in your work and there is no limit to the success you can attain.