Today, while at work, really for the first time in a long time, I was fortunate enough to have lunch. And not just any lunch, but one which I had brought from home as leftovers from supper. After eating it, I thought to myself how nice it was to have gastronomical satiety. I had skipped so  many lunches that I forgot what a productivity boon it is to not have food on the brain.

It seems that the simple act of taking a little break can have dramatic reprecusssions.

Advertisements

With all the trillion dollar figures being thrown around these days, it’s a very good idea to remind ourselves just how much money that is.

One trillion, or, if it helps to see it written out: 1,000,000,000,000, is a lot of money. That’s one million times one million.  That’s $3333 per American. And the thing of it is, we aren’t just one trillion in debt; it’s more like 12 trillion. That’s $40,000 per American. I don’t have an extra $40K, do you? In fact, all my worldly possessions combined don’t total that much. So, just so we’re clear, the money to pay that bill simply doesn’t exist. What that means is that we’ll have to print more money, which makes the existing money worth less, which is by definition, inflation. Which means we’ll need more debt to sustain ourselves the next time. It’s a spiral that has no end until the economy crashes. The only question is whether it will be externally or internally triggered (that is, where in the spiral the cycle breaks under its own weight).

Ultimately, I can only see this ending one way: through collapse, and then the post-collapse rush to “do something” which will cause more freedoms to be restricted, more controls to be put in place, and more compromises to our sovereignty (both national and individual). It is almost as if the whole episode is being staged for that post-crisis power grab. However, I don’t think that is necessarily so; it is only that the most politically convenient route for the last 30 years has been to push the burden farther into the future, gradually piling up interest on someone else.

Ultimately, you can’t spend your way out of debt. You can’t inflate your way out of debt. The only way out is to pay the piper. For our country, that may mean a generation of lost income. Even so, it beats the alternative.

Congress has the Constitutional authority, and in this case, the responsibility, to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Military tribunals are not appropriate for this purpose, nor is the US Federal Court system. Whatever it is called, Congress can create this court, describe its purpose and makeup, establish its jurisdiction, and outline the exact rules under which it would operate. Convictions under this system would be subject to justified imprisonment, and not open-ended detention. Acquittals under this system could be extradited to their countries of origin.

There is no requirement to allow non-citizens, particularly those captured in foreign theaters of combat, to have the same rights of due process as Americans. Indeed, to do such would be to cheapen our own status as citizens. However, I do agree that some sort of structured process for trial should be designated. We are a nation of laws, and we believe in a trial for all accused. The distinction is actually rather simplistic: Federal courts have no jurisdiction outside the US, and military tribunals are meant for members of the military. These detainees’ cases do not fall into either category.

Why do we want health insurance? Let’s take an honest look at this and related questions.

Does it train new doctors? No, at least not directly.

Does it guarantee care? No. Even if everyone had health insurance, the health care industry is distinct from the health insurance industry. More insurance does not guarantee care.

Does it save money? That depends, but for most cases, in the long run, it doesn’t save money. This is obvious, of course, because profitable companies cannot spend more on claims than they take in.

What does the government get out of it? Money from insurance company lobbyists, of course. In a perfect world, that would be zero. But seriously, the thinking is that the more people  insured means a healthier populace which means more working and more tax revenue.

What does the health care industry get out of it? Insured patients are paying customers. Out of pocket customers often do not pay, leading to higher costs for everyone. This is akin to the effect of shoplifters on retail prices.

What if there was no health insurance? The money employers pay and that employees have held out of their paychecks could instead go to wages. This would result in more choice for the consumer. Medical bills could be paid in installments. Certainly, for some that could prove to be more expensive than their budgets allow; however, it should be noted that these are the same people that do not buy insurance anyway. In fact, since wages would be effectively higher, the poor would have more disposable income. Those expecting to have large medical bills could then plan ahead for treatment. Only unexpected medical issues would pose greater strain on the patient/consumer in this scenario.

What benefits arise from health insurance? Theoretically, health insurance offers the option of multiple plans tailored to meet multiple needs. Also, it converts a payment-after-treatment service into payment-anticipating-treatment service. This is the sole convenience that insurance companies sell, and it actually ends up costing more in the long term due to the fact that insurance companies must answer primarily to their stockholders.

Freedom and the right to self-rule is completely incompatible with a globalist policy of open borders and unimpeded trade. Think about it. Freedom includes the right of association (and disassociation). If everything is open and inter-dependent, there is no self-reliance. In a global scenario, no community stands on its own, and therefore is not free to peaceably cut relations with the outside. To do so is suicide.

Self-reliance is the way to go. Local control is always preferable to centralization. The closer the power structure is to those it serves, the better, as it places a greater disincentive on doing wrong and makes it harder for people to become disinterested in following their representatives’ actions. If self-reliance is not possible, then federation is an option. The point at which self-reliance is just possible is the key to striking a perfect balance between too large and just large enough.