Getting Back Into the Swing of Things

It has been quite awhile since my last post. I've been lazy, and the people have responded (by people I mean myself because no one actually reads this blog). Well, I plan to start writing again, if for nothing just so I can work on my writing skills and explore my ideas through this medium.

I have begun applying for a Fall internship. So far I've just sent an application to the Cato Institute and I hope they accept me since thats my #1 choice. They are the foremost institute when it comes to Libertarian studies, and I know I could learn a lot from their researchers. My desire is to not just have these ideas about free markets, individualism, and so on -- I want to be able to empirically prove to people that these ideas work and present the evidence. Working at the Cato Institute I hope will provide me with a head start into such ventures.

I'm still torn however when it comes to what I want as a career. I still want to be involved in the business world, especially in resort/property development, but I feel such a call to activism that I have to pursue it somehow. I figure that if I devote most of my early career to research in economics and activism, it will allow me in the future to pursue my other interests such as development. You gotta follow your heart, and I can't ignore this passion within me. I hear all the time "Why do you care so much? You cannot change anything." And I'll admit, I feel that way sometimes. But if I do nothing, I'll have no right to object to what happens. If I do try, then at least I can say I gave it my all in the fight for a better world. Hell, I'm young; this is what we do right?

Maybe I'm wrong about everything. Maybe I'm only partially correct. But no one can ever know the absolute about anything, only try and get as close as possible to it. The point is we always need to be striving for that absolute, the unreachable perfection. It's what drives us to a better world, a better people, a better self. I don't think it actually exists--its just an idea. But what a powerful idea it is. All I want is for us as humans to realize the importance of reaching for that unattainable height, that unreachable precipice . We can always be better, we can always improve ourselves and our world. Not that we should lose ourselves entirely in this endless pursuit--we have to enjoy progress as it's made--but we should never settle. This should not depress us, feeling as if what we do is never good enough, but rather it should excite us to realize the boundless potential we posses. My hope is that I can live in a world where the only person who can hold you back is yourself. A world that encourages action and growth, not dependancy. It's not that hard to imagine. As John Lennon wrote, "It's easy if you try".

**Sorry for getting so philosophical, but it has been awhile since I've written**

$77 Billion - The true cost of the Drug War

More and more people are starting to question the so called "War on Drugs" and its true costs to society. In this above video, a Harvard (yes 'the' Harvard) professor of economics argues that around $77 billion could be saved if Marijuana was legalized. This issue has been a hot topic recently with videos like Ron Paul discussing Marijuana on Larry King. My question is: If Prohibition did not work in the 1920s with alcohol, how do we expect prohibition to work today with drugs?

This is a very interesting topic to myself because I use to scoff at arguments that drugs should be legalized. "How can we legalize hard drugs?" I would ask, "There has to be a limit to what people are allowed to take shouldn't there?". But then one has to ask, with prescription drugs now the fourth leading cause of death in america, is the system really working?

You can look at the issue a few different ways. One way is to say that by legalizing drugs would add enormous revenue to the government by way of taxes on the drugs, and by the amount of funds not spent on fighting drug cartels. Another way is to argue about the benefits drugs like marijuana have in treating pain especially in cancer patients, and how it lacks the dangerous side-effects of most prescription drugs. But I think the most important way to look at the issue is it is a matter of personal choice.

By creating a law the government is simply saying all the obvious side effects of drug abuse (loss of job, broken family relations, deteriorating health, addiction, extreme money cost, death...) are not enough for people. Instead the State has to pile on fines and jail time to add to such costs. But instead of all cost being put squarely on the individual who decides to take drugs, all of society has to pay for one persons choice through the funding of the "War of Drugs". But its ludicrous. If a person thinks they can avoid all the inherent costs already associated with taking drugs, what is a fine or jail time to them? If they think they can avoid the inherent costs, then they most assuredly think they can avoid any state induced costs. Why do I have to pay for a choice someone has already decided to take regardless of a law? I shouldn't because the State has no right to force someone not to make that choice.

By taking drugs, that person has made the choice to accept the costs inherent with drug use, and that is their choice to make. It is obvious that a 'law' does not keep someone from not making such a choice or we wouldn't spend billions fighting drug use. Whenever the State tries to tell people they cannot do something, they usually do exactly that. We should have learned our lesson with the failed policy of alcohol Prohibition (at least that was Constitutionally amended unlike the current drug prohibition). People will not stop taking drugs because of a law, just like people will not stop speeding or stealing because its against the law. The only way to effectively combat such aberrant behavior is through education and letting people make choices on their own. Sometimes letting someone fail is the only way they can learn. The freedom to fail is how we can only truly succeed.

Bailouts and Bull**** - 20/20 special

Youtube Link

John Stossel tells it how it is again. This special starts out by exposing the "consensus" opinion about stimulus packages then deals with other government influenced issues: roads, education, the American Dream, and immigration. Honestly I don't know how people actually think the government can do a better job than the private sector. I think its because people equate it this way: private=profits=evil.... But people fail to see the backward thinking this is.

Profits are not "evil" but actually serve the interest of the people much, much better than the public sector. When profits are the driving force it is the consumer who decides how well the company does. If the company cannot provide a service that suits a consumer their profits will drop and the company will either change for the better, change their business to something profitable, or fail. However, if the government is in charge they are not driven by profits, so they are not driven by the consumer. Instead they rely on tax dollars -- money that is not earned by providing a superior product but instead by forcefully taking money from citizens. What would you prefer? A company that responds to your decision to buy its product or not? Or a company that does not care whether or not its product is what's best for the consumer because it will get money for it regardless?

Contrary to popular belief, services such as roads, health care, and education do not have to be provided by the government. In fact, history shows us that when put in the care of the private sector all of these services are provided better, cheaper, and to more people. Again I think the best way to think about it is to change how we view "profits". To profit from something is not to take advantage of people. Profits are indications that people have chosen the goods or services a particular company offers over other companies. In order to keep profits companies need to keep providing this superior service or they will lose their consumers to competing firms. In a free society there can be no "taking advantage" of consumers because they can choose not to buy from a company that doesn't provide a superior good or service. However, when the government provides something we have no choice -- we have to pay taxes, regardless if we feel the good or service we receive is worth it or not. Now if that isn't "taking advantage" of people I don't know what is.

The 9-12 Project: Rebuilding America

I have been following the Glenn Beck program for oh… about a year now, and have enjoyed the commentary of the host, Beck. His common sense, no bull attitude towards major issues appealed to me in a way. Anyways, he recently moved from CNN Headline News to Fox News and his show is already one of the most viewed on the air. His show today was a special with a studio audience entitled "We Surround Them". The theme was that the government, media, and everyone else are not the real ones in control... we are, and there are people who believe in the principles and values that our country was founded on. I found the show inspiring because I actually felt connected to thousands of people I had never met but who shared in the same frustrations and hopes I had of this country. Glenn's call to everyone was to become the country we were on 9-12-2001 -- the day after 9-11 when we all stood together as Americans -- and forget about all the political parties and little games we play in Washington; the games that are destroying our country and ripping it apart. There's a website put up where people can connect and discover the principles and values our country was founded on and hopefully a grassroots movement can get started in getting our country back. I seriously feel like a Patriot in the Sons of Liberty movement started by Samuel Adams before the Revolutionary War. I'm ready to fight for this country, but more importantly I'm ready to fight for Liberty and Freedom for all people. I hope anyone who reads this feels the same.