The specific freedom that the current administration is so set on violating is the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms. The right to own a gun is not some arbitrary right handed to us by the founding fathers, it is based on the natural right of every person to defend them selves, the right to self defense. A gun is just a tool for self defense. If you are physically smaller, a piece of technology like a gun allows you to defend your self from any assailant. Some however, use this tool in order to murder or hurt others. The anti-gun side focuses and the wrong uses of guns. However, while not reported in the news very frequently cases of gun use for legitimate self defense happen on a daily basis.

The typical argument for gun control says that lives can be saved, but what about the lives of the people who use guns for legitimate defense purposes? Ultimately any gun control ends up sacrificing the lives of some for the lives of others. Anti-gunners will use statistics to claim that gun control will only impact a few lives negatively for the good of the many, while the pro-gunners will use statistics to claim the exact opposite. Human lives are however not balanceable against each other, and it is not morally legitimate to sacrifice anyone. When human lives are at stake, you must throw out any cost benefit analysis schemes, they are not applicable, and rely on the principles of justice. These principles are outlined in the 2nd amendment. People have the right to own a gun, unless there is evidence that they intend to hurt someone.

“No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. ” – Harry Binswanger -

Some will argue that a gun is a dangerous object, and we already regulate dangerous objects like cars. Yes, indeed cars are very dangerous, causing mass amounts of deaths every year. However car regulations are surprisingly rational, especially when compared to the gun control regulations that are being proposed. In order to use a car in public you have to register the car, attain a license by passing a test, and acquire liability insurance. All of this however, pertains only to the public use of the car. If you keep that car on private property, you don’t need to register it, have a license or any insurance. In addition, keep in mind that when you do acquire all the requirements for public use, you are free to take the car anywhere as long as you operate it responsibly.

Lol, so my first thought was,

My second thought was.

I am sorry, but socialism cannot win, it can only destroy. People who participate in destructive behavior often have a desperate need to believe that they’re good. That is the only explanation I have for the over the top congratulatory spasms the left is experiencing right now. As I will explain, their claim for Krugman’s victory is analogous to a boxing match, in which Krugman has been taking a beating in each round only to accidentally dodge one punch, and claim victory.

Now consider the reality of the situation and tell me its any different.

“An academic paper that found that a ratio of 90%-debt-to-GDP was a threshold above which countries experienced slow or no economic growth was found to contain an arithmetic calculation error. Once the error was corrected, higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced.”

Apparently this is the victory. That Krugman’s economic policies are not nearly as horrible for growth as previously thought. Yay?

So why the spin? Its not spin, they actually believe it. When people are doing evil things, they desperately need to believe they’re good. I mean when you are putting future generations that don’t even have a say in the matter into debt, so that you can have a higher standard of living now. If your actions don’t actually do any good, what kind of person would you be?

The rest of the article continues to make the typical absurd claims of an economic illiterate. For instance.

“Smaller economies produced less tax revenue, the countries’ deficits also remained strikingly high. “

The implication being that if government doesn’t spend more the economy will be smaller. I believe that is the actual issue of the debate. You can’t just take the subject of our debate and an assume you are right. Besides according to Krugman himself, majority of the borrowed funds comes from our selves. So taking money from our selves, then giving it back to our selves, and taxing it while it goes through, is going to increase the economy and the tax revenue?  No its not.

They continue.

“Japan, for example, has continued to increase its debt-to-GDP ratio well beyond the supposed collapse threshold, and its interest rates have remained stubbornly low. “

Japan is the exception. I am suppose to just pretend that interest rates didn’t just explode in Europe?

“Countries that embraced (or were forced to adopt) austerity, like the U.K. and Greece, have endured multiple recessions (and, in the case of Greece, a depression).”

UK didn’t actually cut anything, and Greece, um hello! It is in a depression precisely because it reached a debt threshold where the bond investors suddenly freaked out and demanded higher interest rates, and as result Greece collapsed under the weight of staggering debts.

This is really the central issue of any country that has deficit spending.  At some point debt reaches a level that cannot be repaid. At this point previous debt is paid for by new doses of government debt. The only reason that new debt is able to be issued is because investors are confident that their investments will be rolled over. That means that an investor expects that there will be investors in the future who will be willingly lend money to the government. Applying the same reasoning, the future investors must also expect that, when their government investments become due, there will be other investors even further out in the future who will willingly lend money to the government. So if today’s investors lose confidence that there will be investors in the future to roll over maturing government debt because they (rightly or wrongly) fear there is no longer an incentive to keep servicing government debt, the trouble starts, government debt financing declines rapidly or completely evaporates.  This is the issue for almost every single country on earth, which are all on an unsustainable path.  Krugman and the media can ignore the reality as long as they want.  What they won’t be able to ignore is the consequences.  The current trend cannot go on forever, and what cannot go on forever won’t.

Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club/Walmart. Without looking at any other data, Costco’s employees are twice as productive as Walmart’s, so I would say they deserve the higher pay.

The truth is Costco is not doing anything innovative or different from Walmart, all they do is hire skillful employees with higher productivity and pay them what they are worth. An average Walmart employee would not be able to attain a Costco job, which is exactly what I am saying. Forcing Walmart to pay the same as Costco through a minimum wage would not insure higher wages for low skill workers. Walmart would just hire more productive workers whose productivity would justify the higher wage, just like what Costco currently does. All that a minimum wage would do is insure that low skill workers can not earn any wage at all, or even more importantly acquire and develop skills and experience on the job.

How about for consumers, which business model is better for them? Well, that can depend on a lot of variables, your family size, your proximity to the stores, your diet, ect. Walmart for instance has 8,500 locations with 2 million employees while Costco only has 338 locations with about 67,500 employees. If you do not live next to a Costco, the added cost of driving, membership fees as well as the requirement to buy things in bulk can cut into any savings you may have achieved by shopping at Costco rather than Walmart. Even when buying in bulk some products like produce are still more expensive on a per unit basis at Costco. Both business models have their pros and cons. This is not a criticism of either, but more of a criticism of the people who think they know which system is better for you, and intended to force that system on you and others.