Sometimes I think society understands some things, but they end up not. It disappoints me because it really is sad. What comes first? Individual rights? or The will of society?

The way it is supposed to work in our country is individual rights, but a lot of people think the will of society comes first. It's this thought process that sends us down the road of collectivism from the moral system that recognizes a person's individual rights.

The greatest prosperity ever created in the history of mankind was created on the principles of individual rights. People came to America with absolutely nothing and turned this country into the most prosperous ever. It grew on the ideals that the individual has the right to choose their path and that the individual's right to do that came before the will of society.

Collective thought exists, but when it comes to collective thought in government it is dangerous. We're not supposed to be in a country where free speech is fine, if it is approved, where your right to privacy exists, if society wants to give it. Seriously, what could be next that society would approve of? I've heard people that would support KGB style kidnappings in the middle of the night.

The will of society always comes off as something we should follow, but I truly don't like it because it is dangerous. The will of society can't determine what is best for me, only I can do that. We need to step back from this collective thought process and embrace the ideals of individual rights and allow people to live their lives.


Posted by Christopher | 11:25 AM | 0 comments »

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that police can't randomly dog search people to find drugs and other things in public places(except airports). The court ruled 6-3 that these random searches violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada which protect against unlawful searches.

This ruling came out from two cases where evidence was seized with the use of sniffing dogs. They ruled that the police didn't have grounds to use the sniffer dogs at their whim. They need to have probable cause to use them.


I'm glad to hear this since people's personal rights are very important. No one should have to put up with random searches. We are free people and we don't need to be degraded with this kind of treatment.

What I find scary is the comments on the source page of most people saying there has been an injustice done... to the law enforcement. It makes me sad that Canadians don't have a sense of individual rights. There are people demonizing civil right groups. Scary stuff.


Posted by Christopher | 1:35 PM | | 1 comments »

It often amazes me how there is such a movement of people that are opposed to tax cuts. They view it as letting the rich not pay their "fair share", whatever that is supposed to mean. I think these people lack the foresight of basic economics and I think they already are content with their life, and they don't see the need to change.

Well, there are other people out there that aren't content with their life. It's not where they want to buy. They could be saving up for a home, but it would take less time if they had more of their money going into their pocket rather than the government's pocket.

Tax Cuts Benefit The Rich

Yes they do. This allows the people that create jobs, that create luxury, that make the new and exciting products that we use have more capital to invest in these types of projects. What does this do? It creates jobs, it creates luxury and it creates a higher standard of living.

It's not like the rich take all their money and hide it under a big mattress, so society can't have any. Most people that have excess money lying around invest it in new projects and businesses, creating new jobs for the ordinary person.

Tax Cuts Benefit The Middle Class and Poor

The middle class and poor benefit greatly from tax cuts. Not only is the economy booming with more new, exciting and higher paying jobs, but the ordinary Joe is allowed to keep more of the money they earn. When people have more expendable income, that leaves them in the position to raise their standard of living. This happens completely independent of government.

Tax cuts are the best form of building prosperity in a capitalist society. The more we cut taxes, the more money people have for themselves to increase their standards of living. If the government would allow people to earn what they produce for a living, we could eliminate poverty and homelessness.

When the ordinary people are allowed to have more of their own money, independent of government, they naturally use it to benefit their life; rich or poor.


Posted by Christopher | 11:20 AM | | 0 comments »

Socialists would often say that you are "more" free in a socialist state. I'm not really sure how that would work, but they have a twisted view on morality.

Socialists and communists have a nice sounding ideology. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. It sounds good, but if you've ever talked to a socialists and ask how it works, you get into the dark twisted views.

The Difference between Capitalism and Socialism

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes individual rights. In this system, it has the most important property right, and that is of yourself. You can choose to live your life and produce as you choose. You also get the fruits of your labor. You are not required to live for the life of another person, nor are you allowed to force someone to live their life for you.

Socialism works on the idea that there is no individual rights. The only form of morality is that told to you by society. Your job is to do exactly whatever you're told to do, by society. Your desires and motivations have to be to serve the needs of society. Individuality is a sin and the fruits of your labor are the property of society.

The idea of freedom in a socialist state is the freedom not to have to work for a boss. I'm not sure how that is a freedom, since it seems to be a freedom at the expense of someone else's freedom. You're also free to have someone else provide for you.

Socialism is a system that is a system of enslaving people to mob rule. There are no such things as individual rights or morality. You're property of the state and your needs are to serve society, instead of yourself. This breeds a society where the hardest people work, is as hard as the slowest person. This society will encourage people not to be smart, not to be innovated because you have to do twice as much work without any reward for it. There is no freedom with socialism, only slavery to society.


Posted by Christopher | 11:55 AM | , | 5 comments »

I've always been amazed at the people wear the Che Guevara shirt. What message are they trying to convey?

I used capitalism to stick it to this communist!

I love communist killers!

I think too many people get caught up in these stupid ideas and assume this guys intentions were good, therefore he is a good guy. I'm not sure how that works, but there are a lot of things about people I don't get.

Che Guevara was a mass murderer. This is undisputed fact. Anyone that disagreed with him were executed. It was like he was part of a religious cult picking off the infidels. Of course he has his loyal band of religious followers wearing his t-shirt.

Here is the deal with Che. He was a communist fanatic. He was willing to kill anyone to achieve his goal. If you didn't agree, you were tied up, gaged, blind folded and executed. He did not believe in freedom or any ideals of individual freedom. He believed in a system of government where people were property of other people. That people were born to serve the needs of others. This moral compass gave him the permission to be a mass murderer. No one should wear his shirt. They should go out and buy one, just to burn it.

Communism is dangerous. I'm not oblivious to the fact that communists would lynch me during their so called "revolution". So, as you can tell, I'm a little offended by such t-shirts. They're more than just some guy on a t-shirt, they're a representation of ideas of mass murder, slavery and eliminating freedom.


Posted by Christopher | 9:12 PM | | 0 comments »

It is surprising how many people out there hate ideas like capitalism with the overwhelming evidence that individual and economic freedom of capitalism bring people's standard of living up. I support the Fraser Institute's Free The World project. They put out a report every year where they rank countries by the amount of individual and economic freedom. These reports show that these basic economic freedoms give countries huge standards of living. Click here for the latest report.

What is Economic Freedom?

  • Personal Choice
  • Voluntary exchange coordinated by markets
  • Freedom to enter and compete in markets
  • Protection of persons and property from aggressions by others
*This is the breakdown given in the 2007 report.

A lot of people tend to confuse democracy with economic freedom and the two are completely unrelated. Democracy is the ability for all adults in a country to make political decisions, which include participating, voting, lobbying, criticizing, etc. Economic freedom is an individuals freedom to decide how they'll use and develop their abilities, exchanges goods and services with others, compete in the market, and keep the fruits of their labor. Countries like Israel and India from 1960 to 1990 had democracy, but very restrictive economic freedoms. A country like Hong Kong hasn't had very much in democratic freedom, but massive amounts of economic freedom.

Top Countries of 2007
  • Hong Kong(8.9)
  • Singapore(8.8)
  • New Zealand(8.5)
  • Switzerland(8.3)
  • Canada(8.1)
  • United Kingdom(8.1)
  • United States(8.1)
  • Estonia(8.0)
  • Australia(7.9)
  • Ireland(7.9)
Worst Countries of 2007
  • Zimbabwa(2.9)
  • Myanmar(3.8)
  • The Democratic Republic of the Congo(4.0)
  • Angola(4.2)
  • The Republic of the Congo(4.3)
  • Central Africa Republic(4.6)
  • Venezuela(4.9)
  • Burundi(5.0)
  • Chad(5.1)
  • Niger(5.1)
To conclude, there is only one moral social system of government that recognizes individual freedom and that is capitalism. Not only is it the only moral system, it allows people to have high standards of living with the highest amount of freedom. Don't let anyone tell you capitalism is bad or evil, it is the only social system that is compassionate that cares about the well being of it's people to pursue the life they choose.

PS: If you ever hear someone tell you about the greatness of Cuba, you should probably not associate with them. The fact that capitalism and communism live side by side, the standard of living difference is huge, so huge that large sums of people will hop in a tiny boat just for a chance to make it into the United States. Cuba is not a beacon of greatness. It's a country that cracks down on freedoms, rules people's lives and rules them into the ground.


Posted by Christopher | 8:43 AM | , | 0 comments »

People seem to have a negative demeanor when it comes to oil companies today due to the high price of oil. It's understandable to want to place blame, but this isn't the oil companies fault. I think people need to have a better sense of "don't bite the hand that feeds". If you start increasing taxes on oil companies, you're probably going to be effected.

Exxon is making record profits. I think of a lot of that has to do with dealing with a global product and having a US dollar in the dumps, but I'm digressing. Just look at how much tax Exxon pays.

This is an insane amount of money. To get a grasp of how much that is, think about this. Exxon pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of American taxpayers. If you're looking for the data on that, you can check the 2004 IRS data(which was the last released) showing that 130 million Americans payed taxes and the bottom 65 million payed a grand total of $27 billion.

These ideas that oil companies "owe us" and that we should put a windfall tax on them is completely ludicrous. They do not owe us. They pay a very high tax rate when they could just easily move to Ireland or another tax haven country and not pay a cent to American government.

Think of this from an economic point of view. You're doing all the work and the government comes in and takes 41% of your total profit. It did absolutely zero work for it. What a slap in the face? Does this encourage oil companies to work harder? No!

Most people think that these rich oil guys get together and think up prices in a smoke filled board room. "Yes, let's gouge the Americans." Do most people understand how difficult it is to get oil? Do most people understand that there is a huge demand for oil with China and India entering the market?

I'm sure if you've been at a gas station, you should of noticed a sticker on the gas pumps. It shows a breakdown on gas prices. Profit makes up very little. Sorry, if Exxon gave back all it's profits, you might save 20 cents. The cost of producing crude oil, refining it into gas and taxes make up the biggest expenses. Here's the funny thing, the government is profiting from oil and gas at a faster rate than the oil companies.

Let me break it down point by point why gas is expensive:

  • The US dollar has taken a nose dive. It requires more dollars to buy the same amount of oil.
  • Prohibition of drilling oil in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico that limit supply while demand has skyrocketed.
  • Instability in countries that contain oil. The Middle East is unstable, Africa is unstable and Venezuela. In fact, Chavez stole oil companies oil fields. There will be absolutely no foreign investment into the Venezuela oil fields because there is no concept of property rights.
  • Environmental regulations on the refining of oil to gas. In fact a new refinery hasn't been made in the last 30 years, yet the amount of gas consumed has gone up.
  • Environmental regulations have hindered other energy sources like nuclear and coal, leaving us mainly dependent on oil, which drives up the price.
  • Taxes on gasoline aren't flat, so as gases go up, you pay more taxes on it.
  • Excessive taxes on the oil companies themselves leaves them with less profit to reinvest in finding new oil to produce.
The process of producing oil isn't easy. Oil companies are some of the most regulated, the most pestered, the most that are limited with regulations and environmental laws that hinder them from producing enough oil to meet the demand of the world. We shouldn't want to tax oil companies or hate them. They produce a product that makes just about everything in the world go round and they charge less than a bottle of water for it. With the difficulties of drilling oil, with research, finding oil, drilling oil, distributing oil, refining oil, distribution of gas, franchising, taxes, regulations and doing this every single day of the year, I'm amazed. I thank you oil companies for doing such a great job.


Posted by Christopher | 9:27 AM | , | 0 comments »

With all the talk on biofuels like ethanol, it is often lost in the hype of the media whether this is a sound move or another government forced failure. I see a huge negative impact on our economy from this, but it isn't discussed much on the main stream mediums.

Ethanol is a biolfuel produced from corn. The Federal government has regulated that so much biofuel has to go into regular gasoline. Currently it is set at 5.9% of the total make of gasoline. The problem I see here is that it costs a lot more to produce ethanol than it does to produce regular gas. This has causes huge sums of corporate welfare to go out to farmers because they can't produce cheap enough. This leaves tax payers footing the bill to pay for something that does absolute nothing to the cost of gas. In fact, it's very difficult for farmers to even come up with the supply to meet the demand of gas, so it is in fact bringing the price up.

There is also another side effect to the ethanol and that is the supply of other grown foods. Since it's profitable and you'll get a big government check no matter what, farmers are moving into growing corn. This means other foods are not being grown. The demand for this food is the same, but the supply is going down. This leaves us with higher prices on basic things like corn(for eating), rice, wheat, etc. But it doesn't stop there. Flour, which is made from wheat is in a lot of other foods you buy at the store. It's in our bread, in our pasta, in most things and the price keeps going up. There are people in South East Asia that are starving now because they can't afford to buy rice.

As much as I disagree with environmentalists, they all agree 5.9% ethanol in gasoline will not solve global warming. We'll never have enough ethanol available to put in gas to stop global warming. Why do we do it than? There's no point. All it does is drive prices up, make us pay more in taxes and get absolutely no benefit.

What's the point? I don't know, but it sure doesn't benefit the economy or the people in it.


Posted by Christopher | 12:46 PM | | 0 comments »

With Earth Day just finishing I thought I'd take the time and share with you why I detest it. The main reason is that it's anti-Mankind. It's a movement that hates what made us great. It hates mankind's accomplishments, success, luxury and standard of living.

Let me first say that I'm not advocating trashing the Earth. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep the air clean and water safe to drink, but most of the harmful pollutants have been taken care of long ago. Yes there is pollution going up in the air everyday, but it really isn't that bad. Consider the time before we started polluting to now. Our lifespans have doubled. I think that shows that pollution can have a positive effect on us.

With that said, we have eco-extremists that us for it. The idea of driving a car is like a sin. The fact that we can move food from one side of the world to here to feed people is a bad thing. They believe that mankind is not an animal and we're not part of this Earth. They seek to acquire a world that would exist if weren't here. Despite their desires, we are part of this Earth and we have every right to use it to our advantage.

Do eco-extremists attack beavers for making beaver dams even though they change the environment to their benefit, even if it means killing fish and other animals? No, because that is natural, but if a human does it, it is unnatural.

The Earth Day movement is an anti-mankind movement. The idea is that birds and flowers are more important than humans. I disagree. I believe we are more important than animals. We have done more with this Earth. We are capable of increasing our standards of living. We are capable of sustaining a huge population. We are able to rationalize and make sound choices.

I think people need to stop demonizing mankind for its success. Instead of painting the "Earth" as a victim, we should embrace it as something we use for our betterment. It is here for us to use and we should use it. I think it's immoral and wrong to leave potential sitting there on the Earth, refusing to use it. We should be more concerned about people starving rather than trying to ban plastic bags. If eco-extremists put as much energy into solving hunger as they do trying to demonize mankind, we would live in a world without starvation.


Posted by Christopher | 1:58 PM | , | 0 comments »

I'll admit that there are a lot of things I don't understand. One of the biggest things is this environmental movement against the plastic bag, I just don't get it. It's sort touching close to home since cities close to me are banning them and I don't know why.

Plastic bags are great. They are convenient, sanitary and very cost effective. I love them, I reuse every bag in my house for the little garbage cans. I've always feared these "environmental bags" they sell at the grocery store. These people probably feel pretty good, but probably buy a box of plastic bags for their little garbage cans around the house.

Currently the state of Maine is looking to do a plastic bag ban. The most apparent reason I'm gathering here is that they are an eye sore. Granted some bags get blown into the woods. I don't really see why looking at it is so bad because I can think of a lot of things that I don't like to look at.

Dave Littel from Maine's Department of Environmental Protection stated the following, "Plastic account(s) for more than 1 million bird deaths and 100,000 marine mammal and sea turtle deaths." I just don't understand why I should care. Millions of birds die from windmills, why don't we ban them too? I'm a big believer in Darwinism and Evolution. I can safely say, animals die. It's part of life and if they can't adapt, they should die.

I would think that environmentalists would be happy that we have cheap plastic bags. I'd say around 90% (probably more) reuse them. Not only do people get groceries in it, they also use it for small trash cans, carrying lunches, temporary gym bag, etc. They carry almost everything. What's the point of banning them and forcing people to use these "environmental bags"? People are just going to go buy more plastic bags because they use them everyday.

I don't get environmentalists. Plastic bags are good and they raise the standard of living for everyone.


Posted by Christopher | 12:47 PM | | 0 comments »

The advantages of globalization are numerous and extremely beneficial to everyone that is involved. It is the most extensive form of prosperity building, anti-poverty policy the world has embraced. Yet, there are people that still hate it.


  • The economy becomes more efficient since there is more competition. Businesses that cannot compete fail. Countries that cannot compete in one sector are forced to get into a more efficient market.
  • The consumer always wins. Despite the rhetoric about protecting jobs, there are more consumers than job takers. Forcing someone to buy from an inefficient business and pay more for it, is immoral.
  • Prosperity grows for everyone. Look at China and India. They used to be horrible places to live. But with the globalization movement and the opening up of markets to foreign competition has pushed these two countries into huge booms. People are having higher standards of living because of this. People that couldn't even afford a car are driving them now. If only countries in Africa could get on the globalization movement, could we start to build prosperity there and stop aids.
  • Freedom prevails. Free market capitalism is the only moral political system. It is the only one that embraces individual freedom. People are now allowed to compete globally, to buy globally as they see fit. They no longer need the governments permission. I can hire a web designer in India for half the cost of one here. I don't need permission to do so. And I and the guy I hire in India are both better off for our exchange of money for services.
Even with all the known facts on the greatness of globalization, there are still opponents, mainly from the socialist side of things. Unions hate them, college kids hate them and of course there will be politicians to play the emotional violin. I believe the true reason that globalization is so hated by socialists is because it creates competition between countries. This forces countries (just like business) to compete against each other to have the best corporate environment.

Socialists want the border closed and free trade ended, so they can control the market. With this control they can force business to pay unbelievably high taxes and go through phone books full of red tape. Now countries are forced to compete for businesses. They need to create environments for business to come. That means lower taxes and less red tape.

The advantages of globalization are amazing and beneficial for all. It is extremely anti-poverty and pro-prosperity. There are no disadvantages overall for globalization. Of course there will be people that whine about it, since it's basically a loss of control for them. Overall, people have higher standards of living in all countries involved.


Posted by Christopher | 10:45 AM | , | 0 comments »

It's no secret that both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton both hate free trade. They say they want to protect the interest of Americans and jobs. Which, as I discussed before is a form of corporate welfare. The bandwagon they stand on is the "fair trade" ideal. Fair? Ironic. If you think of the United States as "the world", than effectively there is free trade all around it. That isn't bad, it's good. What if states started putting up barriers? Starting taxing goods coming over its borders? Or stepping in to protect its businesses? The market would sour, good entrepreneurs would leave the market, the state and corporations would start to mold into one force with excessive lobbying and bribery.

The best way to understand why free trade is the best is to look at the individual in the market. You are able to buy the whatever product you want from any country. You aren't forced to buy "American". This often means a product that is higher quality or cheaper in price, often both. The most efficient industries will be in the market. No longer will inefficient businesses be able to stay afloat in the market place. This keeps the best labor doing the best work that the economy needs.

You'll often hear Obama/Clinton crying about all the lost manufacturing jobs. Why don't they talk about the millions of jobs created? Because that's too logical. They need to tap into people's emotions.

Manufacturing jobs just aren't viable anymore in America. It's cheaper to make them somewhere else. This is a good thing for consumers. If you work manufacturing, well tough luck. Your labor is better serving in a sector of the economy that needs it.

A lot of people don't understand how the anti-free trade ideal can be detrimental because we never get a chance to see the "what could of been". Just think of the time when 95% of the economy was agriculture. People worked on farms and some guy invents the tractor. A lot of people are going to lose their job because of this great tool. Barak and Clinton would be chanting "Ban the tractor, save jobs!" If Barak, Clinton and the rest of the anti-free trade crowd had their way back then we would all be working on a farm.


Posted by Christopher | 6:12 PM | | 0 comments »

The ideas of corporate welfare exist in high doses today. Sometimes it is hidden in other words, but essentially it is the same thing, corporate welfare.

  • We need to protect the consumers.
  • We need to protect jobs.
  • We need to protect our economy.
They're all different and sound like a really nice thing to do, but it's all just doublespeak for corporate welfare.

Let's look at an example where consumers are getting bailed out; the sub prime issue. People do get bailed out, but most of the bailing out goes directly into the banks pockets. People ended up getting $500,000-$1,000,000 houses only making $30,000 a year. Of course you're not going to be able to pay that.

Protecting jobs is the most common one used. Money is handed out to failing businesses that can't even stay afloat because they have such a poor business model. Taxpayers are forced to keep some business afloat, so a small minority of people can hold onto jobs that are usually lost within a year.

Protecting the economy has to be about the most entertaining one. Farmers get a nice chunk of cash because they simply can't compete with foreign farmers. We need to give free money to farmers, so they can continue to run their inefficient business. I even heard Obama suggesting that businesses be given compensation for keeping jobs in the country. Just another form of corporate welfare.

This is all corporate welfare and it is bad for the economy. All it does is build an economy where businesses don't act smartly because they know the government will bail them out. Failure is a tool that can drive success. There is no need to waste resources on business models that don't make money. Let them fail and let the successes grow.


Posted by Christopher | 1:51 PM | | 0 comments »

Ask yourself, what happens when a business is successful? I'm not talking about a little successful, but big time successful? The government comes into punish it. We all strive to do our best and be the best. We all want more wealth and to live a higher standard of living, but the government doesn't play by those rules.

We've all heard it from different angles. It doesn't matter how the business is done or how many customers they serve or how much profit they make or how many businesses they run out of business. There will always be upset politicians ready to loot them.

  • Become too successful, than you are a monopolist.
  • Prices are too high, you're price gouging.
  • Prices are too low, it's unfair competition.
  • Prices are the same, it's a cartel.
I have a lot of respect for businesses because they're the ones that go out there everyday doing great things and they are hated for it. Exxon invests time, capital, labor, etc into pumping oil out of the ground and delivering it to the consumers. People are pumping their cars up right now that are working to elect politicians to undermine Exxon. The very people that shop at Walmart, secretly hate it and wants them to pay their workers more(when they already pay more than a lot of businesses out there).

Businesses are in a losing battle. They hold the world on their shoulders. They make the products that give us luxury. Yet, there are people that spend their time consuming this luxury, all the while, working to undermine the businesses out there by treating them as slaves.


Posted by Christopher | 7:57 PM | , | 0 comments »

The privacy of our visitors is important to us.

At this site, we recognize that privacy of your personal information is important. Here is information on what types of personal information we receive and collect when you use visit this site, and how we safeguard your information. We never sell your personal information to third parties.

Log Files

As with most other websites, we collect and use the data contained in log files. The information in the log files include your IP (internet protocol) address, your ISP (internet service provider, such as AOL or Shaw Cable), the browser you used to visit our site (such as Internet Explorer or Firefox), the time you visited our site and which pages you visited throughout our site.

Cookies and Web Beacons

We do use cookies to store information, such as your personal preferences when you visit our site. This could include only showing you a popup once in your visit, or the ability to login to some of our features, such as forums.

We also use third party advertisements on this site to support our site. Some of these advertisers may use technology such as cookies and web beacons when they advertise on our site, which will also send these advertisers (such as Google through the Google AdSense program) information including your IP address, your ISP , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether you have Flash installed. This is generally used for geotargeting purposes (showing New York real estate ads to someone in New York, for example) or showing certain ads based on specific sites visited (such as showing cooking ads to someone who frequents cooking sites).

You can chose to disable or selectively turn off our cookies or third-party cookies in your browser settings, or by managing preferences in programs such as Norton Internet Security. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with our site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.


Posted by Christopher | 9:31 AM | 0 comments »