Daily Archives: 19 November 2009

Give Up Meat!

Technological advances, not “live more simply” environmentalism, will deliver a greener planet, argues Madsen Pirie. Lord Stern, whose 2006 report set out the consequences and costs of various levels of global warming, has now called for humans to stop eating meat. His reasoning is that our farm animals, especially cows and pigs, expel methane, which is 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, making meat-production account for 18 percent of all carbon emissions. He says that it will become as socially unacceptable to eat meat as it is to drink and drive. The proposal is not surprising, since it is but the latest in a series of proposed behavioural changes which are claimed to be essential to the planet’s survival. . . .

Free-Market Analysis: It is very hard to deal with the idea that a powerful group of men create dominant social themes (memes) designed for the consumption of the rest of the world. It is even harder to wrap one’s mind around these memes being marketed the control and profit of those who generate them. But how else to explain many of the memes currently circulating?

These dominant social themes include the deadly swine flu, the ticking time bomb of overpopulation, the flooding of the world from global warming, the freezing of the world from peak oil – and on and on. We are even supposed to be scared of a meteor hitting earth. In all these instances – every one – a government solution is proposed that will ameliorate the difficulty. And all the solutions, we note, are increasingly international and involve the United Nations and other global bodies.

This can all be construed as coincidence – luck, etc. – but when one looks at the actual mechanism it is evident, in our opinion, that many of these dominant social themes are created and marketed by only a few highly placed, powerful, (often-titled) and wealthy people. (Read more from thedailybell.com)

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Ron Paul on Healthcare & government competition

by Ron Paul

Last Saturday many concerned Americans watched in horror as the House passed the healthcare reform bill. If this bill makes it through the Senate, it would massively overhaul the way healthcare is delivered in this country. Today, obviously, we don’t have a perfect system, but this legislation takes all the mistakes we are making with healthcare and makes them worse. Most of what is wrong with healthcare stems from decades of government intervention and the resulting unintended consequences.

But the government’s prescription for the ills caused by intervention is always more intervention. We see this not only in healthcare policy, but also in foreign policy, in economic policy, and in monetary policy – basically, in all areas of public policy. It was even claimed that the House bill would increase competition in healthcare, and thereby improve the private sector’s business model for insurance.

It is fascinating that politicians would use the language of the free market in this way to justify more corporatism. This demonstrates a couple of things. One, that politicians truly do not understand the very basic tenets of a free market. By definition, a free market is free from government intervention. But once a little intervention is accepted as legitimate, politicians will blame the problems created by their intervention on the free market and present themselves as saviors that must intervene even more.

It also demonstrates that politicians know that Americans still believe the free market is a good thing. People know and understand that competition among businesses is better for the consumer than a monopoly. However, competition between a private business and a government or government-favored entity is not real competition.