This is another weekly installment of my capitalist posts of the week. It's the time where I share what I liked around the net.

You should check out my post on the entitlement attitude of some people that makes them think they can steal intellectual property.

I've always hated Apple, and a lot of it had to do with the type of customers they had and the fact that they steal to make their products, but Apple wants a Ma Bell monopoly.

Google is working with the Lunar X prize to the first privately funded group that can land a robot of some sorts on the moon and have it transmit information back to earth.

John Stossel calls for ending the drug war, not because he wants to get high, but because he believes in the most important property right, owning your body.


Posted by Christopher | 6:29 AM | 2 comments »

I enjoy hanging out at Digg to hear the stories. I've just got active again after a year of absence. The site has really gone down in quality. It seems to be over run with Barak Obama and environmental propaganda.

There has been a lot of action internationally with government with regards to beefing up intellectual property rights. The main two on Digg are from Canada and France.

You'd think they'd be digging(voting) for these stories because it protects intellectual property from people that steal. Well, that isn't the case. Everyone there feels entitled to steal music, movies, software and whatever else they can get their hands on. When did this become right? These people feel so entitled to these things. Software, music and movies cost a lot of money to build. Taking it and benefiting it without compensating the owner is stealing. There is no other way around it.

Of course all my comment get buried(Voted down) because I express these views. I hear these common rebuttals and I thought I'd take the time to address them.

It isn't stealing

These people hold up the idea that it isn't stealing if nothing tangible is taken. The idea is that you must deprive another. That is just a poor view. Stealing, is benefiting from another's property or work without permission or compensation.

Just imagine this example: You work two weeks at your job, your boss walks in and says, "I'm not going to pay you. I feel entitled to take your hard work (which isn't tangible) and use it to benefit myself without compensating you."

Just shows you that these people feel entitled to rationalize like that.

Fair Use

Looks like these people caught a term from trademark law. I mentioned Digg on this site. That is fair use. They own it, but I'm using it without their permission. It's a little different than STEALING movies, software and music. You don't have fair use to BENEFIT from it.

My rights are being violated

These people are usually complaining that their rights are being violated by these laws. Well, they're not. For most file sharing, they can figure out who is downloading them based on the fact that they can directly connect to you. As for other smaller forms of digital theft, like newsgroups, they can get warrants for the ISP to remove them.

I think these people get caught up with the idea of "rights". You have rights, but not the right to steal.


Just stop downloading pirated intellectual property. It's just not right. People work hard, they invest time and money into these things and they're not looking for some people just to steal it.


Posted by Christopher | 4:00 PM | | 6 comments »

When the FCC was first created it was supposed to have a few simple tasks. The first was setting industry standards for electronic devices. The second was to handle leasing out frequencies to businesses like radio stations. Somewhere along the way, they decided they had more power to do other things like censorship and regulate.

Cell phones have a very simple thing they do; if you sign up for a contract for a designated period of time and break it, you will have to pay a standard fee. This is based on the concept that they gave you a free or cheap phone, as long as you got service with them for a specific point in time. If you break that contract, you had to pay a standard $200 fee.

The FCC wants to change that and make a more "fair" system of repaying back. Unfortunately, the government doesn't have know what the concept of fair is and will ultimately help people that break contracts.

Here are the facts: Consenting adults are allowed to enter into contracts. Cell phone companies clearly spell it out that you will get this "new" phone as long as you keep the service for a predetermined amount of time. If you, the consenting adult, choose to break the contract than you have every reason to pay a fee. The FCC doesn't need to come in a act as your parents.

The FCC rides on top of "good intentions", but here is what is going to happen. People that act dishonest and break contract will get off easy. Good people that follow their contract and use a cell phone service will have to make up the difference. It is just what will happen. "Good intentions" usually degrade to helping the bad and hurting the good.

I hear people whine when I tell them this. They say, "All cell phone companies want a contract. There's no way of escaping it." It's pretty obvious these people are not looking hard enough. You can find plenty at Walmart. You can even buy them off of eBay and get no contract service.


Posted by Christopher | 8:00 AM | 0 comments »

Time for all the great capitalist goodies for this week that I've seen. I first would like to start out and share my article on the Anti-Knowledge Dogma which seems to think knowledge isn't possible.

Did you hear? With all the "evil" pollution and "evil" privatized health care in America, the life expectancy just keeps rising. Life expectancy surpasses 78 years.

Canada is currently proposing stronger property rights over intellectual property which can be distributed over the internet. Strong copyright laws in Canada.

Idiot, Lou Dobbs, may run for Governor of New Jersey.

Are you smart? Well, apparently the government doesn't want you to be a police officer.

The thought police are alive and active in Canada. As much as I disagree with this persons thoughts, I do believe he has a right to express them.


Posted by Christopher | 8:00 AM | 0 comments »

For some reason in society, people take environmentalists seriously. Science is the core of what makes our society so prosperous. They inevitably try to use science (or science talk) to get points across.

Look at that guy above. What comes to mind? No job, lives with mom, high and takes arts courses at his local university. As an engineer, I never seen anyone like this in any of the classes I took. I only saw them when I took the occasional arts course.

Why do people listen to them? I think deep down people feel guilty for owning two cars and having a home. Either way, people feel guilty for enjoying the luxuries created by man for man. But that is enough digressing, back to science.

A local environmentalist is up at the podium giving a speech about acid rain, he chants loudly with immense passion in his voice, "We need to lower the PH level to zero!!" The crowd erupts in screams of support. Everyone chants, but no one realized this person just called for rain that is like battery acid.

If you're familiar with Penn & Teller's show on Showtime, you'd know that they tried to demonstrate how stupid environmentalists are. They decided to see how many people they could get to sign a petition for banning water. They called water by it's chemical name, dihydrogen monoxide, and gave accurate information about water. They'd say, "they use it on crops", "it's in our drinking water", "excessive amounts can cause you to vomit and even die". All true about water.

Every single environmentalist they asked at a rally to save the rain forest signed the petition. Not a single person questioned, objected or had the scientific intellect to figure it out. These people allied to this idea this antiman movement naturally.

Why do people feel the need to demonize the greatness of man?

I think that is a good question. We we supposed to live in the woods along with the animals?


Posted by Christopher | 8:00 AM | , | 0 comments »

I was having a discussion with some people online about global warming. I'm not a believer in it due to having a fundamental understanding of science and heat transfer. I often wonder why people believe in it, since there is absolutely no proof.

I usually have the discussion and I work it down to the believers to present the "proof" that CO2 causes warming. I always knew environmentalists were dogmatic in the first place, but this really took the cake, in science there is no way to make proofs, but it's happening and I should just take his word for it.

Yes, this is by far the craziest thing I've ever heard. The only "science" you can't make proofs in is "soft" sciences, like psychology. The reason is because you can't measure anything. There really isn't nothing to measure on people to know if they're a serial killer or not.

I just hate the anti-knowledge people. It's so degrading to the minds of men that made this world great. I wonder if they get upset when they drive over a bridge thinking that there is no proof on why it stands up. What a joke.

Science was my only refuge from the dogma crowd and it seems they're trying to infest this place too. I think they need to go back to their religion, believe in their pixies and angels, and let the real minds work on that "proof" you hate so much.


Posted by Christopher | 1:09 PM | | 2 comments »

I know it sucks having to pay for gas at this time, but I think it is apparently obvious that things are heading into a bubble. Should the price of oil be up? Yes. We have more demand than ever before, but this isn't prices going up with respect to demand, it's going up by speculators.

Prices are determined by speculators and they're really getting creative with thought. The oil market is really out of place and no one can seem to find equilibrium. That is fine, the market will find it. It will suck in the mean time, but it will go back to a normal level.

We are in a bubble because things are just acting weird. It's going up very high for minor issues and this is what is going to happen. POP!

I saw this over at the CNN website, so at least the mainstream media is at least starting to get it.


Posted by Christopher | 8:00 AM | | 0 comments »

Most people view environmentalism as great caring people, that are looking out for "mother nature". I call it dangerous environmentalism.

The fact of the matter is that environmentalism is a movement of damning mankind. Think about it. Anything that is done that adds benefit and a higher standard of living to people is "evil". They view nature, in itself, as value. I guess this where I differ because trees, rocks, rivers, etc aren't really of value to me. It's when these things are used that value comes to people.

This would be the simple ideological differences:

Environmentalist: Using the Earth is evil.
Humanist: The Earth is here for us to use to better ourselves, just as every other animal uses it to better themselves.

Environmentalist: Stopping starvation only hurts the Earth.
Humanist: Saving lives is a good thing.

Environmentalist: Putting anything into the air is wrong.
Humanist: Putting a little pollution into the air has allowed us to more than double our lifespan, increase our standard of living and help more people than ever before.

You maybe thinking I'm being a little one sided with these comments. Dangerous environmentalism isn't what really exists. It's just something in my corrupt mind. Well, I thought it would be fair to allow the to environmentalists speak for themselves.

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. —Paul Ehrlich

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. —John Davis, editor of Earth First!

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world. —John Shuttleworth

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. —John Davis, editor of Earth First!

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation. —Lyall Watson, The Financial Times

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem. —Lamont Cole

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. —Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. —Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

The last one is the most scary one. I wonder if Dave Forman would volunteer to be at the top of the killing list? Probably not.

This is a very scary ideology. It is an anti-man movement. Everything that makes our life great, is hated. It's scary because people follow these people, even after they make these comments.

We shouldn't be ashamed of what makes our lives great. We shouldn't look at vehicles as "evil" tools destroying the Earth. We should look at them as the tools created by the mind to allow us to prosper and grow. Never feel guilty for living your life, like an environmentalist would like you to. Be proud to be a human.


Posted by Christopher | 8:00 AM | | 0 comments »

I thought this could be a fun little thing to do. Instead of doing a regular post on Saturdays, I'll post some of the best articles I seen around related to capitalism and individual rights.

1. Only in France could the idea of nationalizing line dancing float. If you want to dance, you're going to need to get a diploma.

2. When are YOU going to die from global warming? Find out here.

3. What you need to know about "just" prices.

4. There is a one minute case against global warming.

5. Is Obama a Marxist?


Posted by Christopher | 8:00 AM | , | 0 comments »

Chavez has recently used his powers to turn Venezuela into a spy on your neighbors country. This comes right out of George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four, which is Orwell's take on the communist Soviet Union.

For me, this isn't news. I knew this guy was a power crazy communist that doesn't care about free markets or individual rights, but the alarming part is that there are people that support him. I remember talking to a friend about how Chavez nationalized all the oil fields in the country. He order the army to come in and steal the property of oil companies. He thought it was great. Those oil companies "deserved" it. Than Chavez went a little further and started going after private television stations that present opposing views. I'm told by my friend, "he's making the country a better place. It is necessary because of the problems caused by American involvement in the past." The story goes on with more horrible news coming out about Chavez.

I realized something, people that claim to be compassionate, good people, that care about the "little guy", don't care about freedom. They don't care about rights, or due process. They don't have a problem with dictators as long as their man is in power.

This sickens me that people hold this ideal. I don't support dictators that put my policies in place. I don't support governments that take away my rights and run my life the way I want. Do people have a moral constitution anymore? A principle they live by? I don't know anymore.

Chavez is not a good man. He's seizing more power each day and turning Valenzuela into another poverty ridden socialist state. He appears to be extremely paranoid, probably because everyone in the country wants him dead. He now has the police and intelligent agencies coercing people to spy on their neighbors. Don't want to do it? You goto jail for 4 years.

No one should follow such people. He has tried to take control of this country through a military coup, he's taking over everything, imposing restrictions on people's rights. If this isn't the definition of a megalomaniac, I don't know what is.

Danny Glover, it is time to divorce Chavez.


Posted by Christopher | 6:00 AM | , | 2 comments »

Intellectual property is something I thought about for many years. I had many different views on it and I keep coming to one conclusion. It's a lot easier when you look at this from a moral stand point of right and wrong.

What is intellectual property?

Intellectual property are rights granted to people over ideas and other intangible objects. These are best known as patents and copyrights. The whole basis boils down to the fact that the hard work of someone, even though it is intangible, is the property of the creator.

I ran into a lot of conflict with my views on this because I use to think of ways of efficiency instead of right and wrong.

The Moral View

The moral view is very simple. The hard work a person, even though it is intangible (like music or software), is the owner of the creator. If a person wants to benefit from this creation, they need to compensate the creator of it. As simple as that. That's the only thing that is right.

You just can't morally steal someone's hard work. Most of us don't deal with intellectual property in our life, but if we were making a living off of it we would be furious if someone stole our hard work and used it to their benefit without fairly compensating us.

I see websites on the internet that have Hollywood movie exchanges. That is illegal and bad enough, but these sites make a profit from their sites by charging memberships. They are making money off the hard work of movie makers. Even though I think most of the movies are horrible, but these people spend millions of dollars on this and people are just ripping them off. That is wrong.


The criticism comes down to efficiency for the consumer. Think of a business created the cure for cancer. They would essentially own that cure. That in itself isn't a good or bad thing. The main concern is that people can monopolize ideas.

Personally, I think they have every right to monopolize it. They created it. If a business created a cure for cancer they would of spent years and millions of dollars developing it. They would of spent even more money on testing it. If it hit the shelves for people to take home and cure themselves, there would be a "looter" there waiting to steal the product and start selling it. They didn't spend the millions to develop and test it. They just stole it, and that is wrong.

What is intellectual property? It is rights granted over intangible ideas such as music, software and ideas. The correct way of looking at this is from a moral point of view. Ideas, even though they are not tangible, are still the property of the creator. We can't have people sitting around looking to steal people's ideas. That is my take on intellectual property.


Posted by Christopher | 11:00 AM | | 0 comments »

I'm a person that likes simplicity, so that is why I'm pro flat tax. I have taxes taken off my pay check before I even get my money, but I still have to file taxes. I don't enjoy filling out 9 pages of information on taxes I've already paid, but this is how the government works.

To show you the magnitude of how complex our progressive tax system is, think of the amount of jobs people have to just do government tax work. Just think of every business out there that has 1, 2 or 3 payroll employees working full time. Think of how big a department of a large corporation has working, just on payroll. That doesn't even include taxes. Huge sums of people have these jobs that produce absolutely no benefit to the world. All they do is go through the red tape of government.

Think of how many good paying jobs that would be created for people if we had a simple tax system. These jobs would now be more important to the economy because they add benefit to people, not just wasting time following government guidelines.

I'm pro flat tax because it is so simple. You pay a flat percentage of what you make, no matter what. Let's say it's a 10% flat tax. If you make $500 for a week of work, you pay a $50 tax. If you make $1000 for a week of work, you pay a $100 tax. If you make $10,000 for a week of work, you pay a $1000 tax. Do you really need an army of payroll specialists to handle this? No. Most of this work can be done easily with a computer.

Where I live the taxes are pretty progressive in some ways. If you work your 40hrs a week, everything is fine. You pay taxes and that's that, but if you get the idea of working overtime, it's just not worth it. The government just taxes so much of it, it isn't worth your time. Most people would tell you if they work overtime, they would like to pay the same amount of taxes on that money.

Think of how beneficial it is for business. Businesses are put in the situation of looking for profits, but are limited by tax brackets. If your profit is $1 over a bracket, you might pay $100,000 more in taxes, if you made $2 less in profit for the year. Businesses are encouraged to get in under certain tax brackets by coming up with as many write offs that they can. If you just have a simple flat tax, you can eliminate a lot of the more stupid write offs and loop holes making a more fair market environment for business.

I'm also pro flat tax because of the added benefit and standard of living it brings. People in today's society are trained to look at profits as a bad thing, but profits are a good thing. Profits bring prosperity. Businesses now will be more driven to produce because they know they won't have to pay higher rates of taxes by being "too big". They'll work harder, they'll get more investment and hire more people.

The benefits of flat tax are huge and numerous. Most people against it think that it favors the rich. I'm not sure how that works since everyone is treated equally and the rich do end up paying more taxes. I think people have this ideal that the rich "owe them", when they really don't. This is why I'm pro flat tax.


Posted by Christopher | 8:00 AM | | 1 comments »

I thought I'd do a post on the pros and cons of capitalism. I think it is pretty apparent that capitalism is the best social system in existence and the only one that follows good moral values, such as individual freedom.

The Pros of Capitalism

  • You are free to make your own choices (right or wrong) in the market place.
  • You own your life and the means to produce for your life.
  • You can choose to run your own business or get a job with ease of government regulation.
  • As a consumer, you get the highest quality of products for the cheapest prices.
  • As a consumer, you get the highest variety of the types of goods and services you can purchase.
  • You are free to innovate and invent without the government getting in your way.
  • You don't have to pay taxes beyond that of the basics to protect your rights (police, courts, national defense, etc).
  • You vote with your dollars. If you don't like a particular store, you can always shop somewhere else.
  • You have the right to own property, which comes with the right to develop it as you choose.
  • You have the right to earn as much money as you want without having to answer to the government.
  • Capitalism has given the highest standards of living this earth has ever seen and no other system has ever been able to do this
  • Capitalism recognizes your right to pursuit of life, liberty and property.
The Cons of Capitalism

There really isn't any cons for capitalism. The only cons come from people that want to be able to tell people what to do or how to live their life. In capitalism, people are allowed to make their own choices, good or bad, and this seems to bother some that think they have the right to tell others how to live their life.

As a capitalist I feel unfortunate that people do sleep on the streets, but I can't feel bad for people that make the conscious choice to stick a needle full of heroine into their veins. Everyone is given the same level playing field and everyone can play.

This is what I think the pros and cons of capitalism are. It is the best social system ever devised and I (as well as you) owe capitalism for the great standard of living that we have.

If you liked this post you might be interested in reading my post on Stem Cell Research Pros and Cons. Also you might want to take a look at my Marijuana Legalization Pros and Cons post.


Posted by Christopher | 9:42 AM | | 34 comments »

Wikipedia isn't as great as people think. It becomes apparently obvious when you start to edit, what it really means and what it really stands for.

The ideals of Wikipedia isn't to present the facts freely to people to view. It doesn't have any desire for that.

Wikipedia: Where Fact is Based on Popularity

People just seem to miss out that it isn't trying to get the "facts" it is trying to get the most popular ideas on there. Facts are undisputed pieces of information, but that isn't what gets put on Wikipedia all the time. Anything that is remotely controversial, political, religious, etc becomes a distortion of public opinion rather than fact.

I think this is driving us back to the old collective thoughts of the "flat earth". Just look at controversial topics that seem to be dominated by popular opinion rather than fact. Environmentalism is a key topic where everything is distorted to a "liberal bias". I hate using that term, but it's true. There is no factual information on environmental pages, just anti-Mankind dogma.

I was recently editing a page on a "fiction character" in a television show I watch. This show is more controversial since it deals with more adult themes. I added in something about the character being molested. I was immediately banned for vandalism for one week. Here is the diction from the administrator that gave it: appears to be vandalism. See how it says "appears". It doesn't say anything about facts, it just boils down to opinion.

No one should support such a flawed ideal. When it comes to basic things like tables and golf balls it is pretty accurate, but when it comes to anything where there is a little more emotion, it turns into a popularity contest.

Flawed ideals should be ostracized, not supported.


Posted by Christopher | 11:34 AM | | 0 comments »

Well, I'm sure most of you have been hearing for the last couple months that America is in a recession. The world is coming to an end because the sky is falling. Doom and gloom always makes the headlines, but when things prove not to be a doom and gloom scenario, you'll probably miss out. The American economy is not in a recession.

I thought I'd share a few things on this topic because the scary recession will always peak headlines in the future. It is best to think of this in an individual person in the economy. That's the best way to look at things. Do you think a person would voluntarily decide to produce less and make less money on their own? No! Of course not. So there is no reason to believe a working economy would recess itself.

The only way a recession can be started is from ignorant policies which end up being forced on individuals in the market place. The only entity that can force ignorant policies onto individuals is the government. Has much changed with regards to the way the government allows business to be done in America? Not really. There is no need to think that the economy would go into a recession.

That's not to say there are a lot of little things that need to be fixed. We are at the mercy of fiat currency and the government regulators that control the supply, excessive regulations and taxes on business, and taxes individuals pay. With all that you just can't paint a doom and gloom picture.

Every time I hear the "doom and gloom" scenario, I always look out the window and everything is exactly the same as the "booms". Nothing is different. When you goto the grocery stores and there isn't enough food on the shelves for you to feed your family, than you can start crying "doom and gloom".

Recession? There is no recession. Free markets move forward because that is what they do.


Posted by Christopher | 5:39 PM | | 0 comments »