Liars and Plagiarists

I came across a blog a while ago on Myspace because it linked to my blog here at WordPress, as there were hyperlinks in the article. As soon as I started reading, I noticed how well-written and articulate it was – and how much I agreed with the viewpoints expressed. In fact, it reminded me of something I had written myself. No surprise, because it was something I’d written! The “blogger” in question (I use that word lightly, I should say ‘plagiarist’) had simply copy and pasted my article into his own blog, passing it off as his own. When I commented on the article exposing the fraud, he deleted my comment but put a link to the original at the very bottom, with no other comments.

Now, it’s happened again. I hesitate to give this guy more traffic, but here is the link. Which is a direct copy of my article Why Do I Bother? I’ve left him a comment but I doubt it will remain there for long.

I put a lot of time and effort into my blog, and it’s no sacrifice because I enjoy it a lot and it’s a great form of creative and emotional expression for me, and I get the chance to interact with other intelligent people. The height of intellectually laziness and personal dishonesty though is passing somebody else’s hard work off as your own.

Maybe this guy did credit me (I can’t find it though), but if you stole someone else’s work, wouldn’t you feel a twinge of guilt and conscience every time someone said “great post”, “great blog”, “great article, well said!” etc? And just look how many compliments this guy gets on “his” blog – does he correct anyone even once? Nope. He just lets it lie, hoping a lie of omission doesn’t count as a real lie.

That’s all I want to say because I’m fuming right now. I encourage my readers to drop by the article and tell this guy what a liar he is. I get the impression from other comments that he does this sort of thing a lot.


The plagiarist has since replied on his Myspace blog, presumably in between sending chat-up messages to other teenage kiddies:

Funny because this isn’t the first time I have posted this. The first time I posted it was here, and I gave you credit at the top.

Somebody emailed me the other day asking why I bother with the debate on myspace, and I remembered the article. I linked them to it. Then I thought it deserved a repost, so I hit ctrl a, and ctrl c real quick, but it copied a bunch of crap with your article, and I erased everything with code it in before the article, including your link.

You really shouldn’t come in here attacking my character and leveling accusations at me for several reasons:

(1) I have never spoken to you before (not that I am aware of)

(2) Your accusation of dishonesty is unfounded, considering I gave NO indication that I wrote the article.

(3) I have written better articles than this.

(4) Your wordpress blog is HIDEOUS

To prove that I am being dishonest you would have to know my intentions, which you don’t. It seems you are more concerned that you get a little pat on your back for your article, than you are with the application of the article.

I do not seek credit for any of my work, and I do not seek popularity (as you can probably tell from how I am speaking to you). What I seek, is to have an effect. It is highly suspect that a person who says they are concerned about their fellow man, is offended that his article is spread around the internet without a fucking link to his shitty wordpress blog. You are almost as bad as an evangelical who asks for money.

To which I replied:

“Yeah I remember you posting it first time around, and I messaged you with a comment. You THEN put a link at the bottom of “your” article and deleted my comment.

As for your nonsense about the application of the article, something I also feel strongly about is honesty. If I was going to reproduce someone else’s work, I would damn well make sure I didn’t pretend it was mine. You are dishonest, because you posted the article originally without any credit (I would be saying all this whether it was mine or not), and then did it again. And each and every time someone new came along saying “good post”, “good blog” etc you sat there lapping it up and saying nothing – a lie of omission is still a lie.

Now, it is your dishonesty that I dislike, and I would be just as angry no matter whose work you appropriated. If this is a topic that you feel strongly about, why not write your own article? Or link to someone else’s?


1. your character speaks for itself

2. oh ok, so I can reproduce the lyrics and music for any song ever written and unless I explicitly state otherwise, people must ASSUME that I DIDN’T write it? Pathetic. Try that with any author or artist and write to me from a jail cell when you get sued.

3. really? Where are they? It seems you couldn’t write a better article than my “Why Do I bother?” though eh? Liar.

4. Sorry, if my wordpress blog looked like a toy advert and scene from Tiberium Wars, that would make it better yes? Sorry, some of us who take this subject seriously publish our articles on something a little more professional than a social-networking site.

If my work is so rubbish, don’t pretend to pass it off as your own. Your work is amateur.

If you don’t seek credit for your work, you should have disavowed the article….curious that you didn’t. I do seek credit for my work, unashamedly, because I’m proud of it. Your actions aren’t a slight against me, they’re a sign of bad authorship and dishonesty, the very things you claim to despise. At the very least, it’s a sign of awfully bad blogging etiquette, you should know better.”

The Nihilism of Subjectivism

I’ve been involved in a discussion over at AtheistForums with several atheist posters. Despite being otherwise rational when it comes to obvious issues such as the existence of god, we see here evidence that just being an atheist says nothing about the accuracy of your worldview, or your rationality as a person. That is why is it important to choose your ideological allies carefully.

A recurring theme I have encountered is the position that morality is a relative / subjective matter – that it is a product of human social interaction; that it arises from evolution; that it changes over time, and is based on societal norms. I have never held this position myself, and not many atheists I know do – this is because a brief analysis of relativism will reveal its bankruptcy and contradictions. Despite the fact that many intelligent people are led by reason to disbelieve in god and call themselves atheists, all too often a warped philosophy is left untreated – and philosophy is the basis for any study of life.

What is most revealing is the fact that moral subjectivists tacitly subscribe to some form of moral objectivity in order to make moral statements. This contradiction will appear all the more egregious shortly. (The quotes that follow are from a relativist on the thread linked to above. It is the position of subjectivity that I wish to attack here, and not any particular person or poster.)

“Morality is not about facts, like the earth orbiting around the sun. It’s about principles that guides us in what course of action is acceptable by the community in which we live.”

The subjectivist denies that morality is a matter of fact; denies that morality has certain truths that we can discover. The subjectivist here asserts that whatever is “good” or “evil” is subject to the opinion of a community. This basically means that one community could consider slavery good, and another community could consider it evil – and both of them are right. The subjectivist who considers slavery evil has only to walk to the next village, and slavery will be good. Does any subjectivist really think like this? Without a means to decide between competing positions, both positions are equally unable to form a foundation from which to make moral judgments. So when the subjectivist says “rape is wrong” – he might change his mind next month or when he moves country, so his opinion is meaningless.

“People in the recent past, and even today, would litter the grounds with cigarette butts or paper tissues they had just used or anything that was inconvenient as they went about. It didn’t enter their minds that such insignificant things could pollute the earth, as they thought in those days the earth was so immense that polluting it didn’t even enter into their minds. Or people went fishing as if the oceans were infinite and the number of fish would never dwindle. Yet today, we have different perceptions because we know better — that we CAN pollute this planet or make certain species extinct, and that such actions are adversely affecting our health and the bio-equilibrium of the species with which we must share this planet.”

Notice the assertion that certain actions are wrong. The subjectivist claims that excess fishing is wrong; that polluting the planet is wrong; that living together in peace is good; that littering is wrong. But on what grounds can a relativist make such a claim? Is he saying that these things are always wrong?? But that would require an objective standard. Is he saying that these things are wrong at the moment? Well why would they be wrong today but not wrong a hundred years ago? Or does the subjectivist claim that whatever is right or wrong at any particular time is whatever that society decides to do? Well in that case, the assertion is a meaningless tautology – by this reasoning, any society at any point in time in human history was always moral – because they did whatever they thought was right. But if morality was “doing whatever you think is right” what would be the point of morality? Why would the word even exist?

The subjectivist would like to compare two societies at different times, as if to prove human morality has changed or improved. But comparison is impossible without a standard. Only objectivity provides that standard.

“We don’t discover moral truths. We invent them in order to solve certain problems which affect the social, political, environmental, and psychological fabric that surrounds us. That’s why morality is a work in progress, and in time will change.”

Notice the stolen concept of objectivity here? If morality is a work in progress, what is it progressing towards? If the increase of certain actions means an increase in morality, then it must mean that certain actions are moral and it is favourable to see an increase of them – then the objective standard would be “actions X Y Z are moral because…” – therefore there are objective moral truths.

Moral subjectivism is an offshoot of relativism in general, another symptom of which is the insipid multiculturalism. Relativism in general holds that all opinions or cultures are of equal value. This is flat wrong: if one holds the opinion X that “all opinions are of equal value or merit” then my opinion that X is rubbish is to be taken with equal merit as X itself! Therefore the truth of X would require that we reject it. Therefore X is either false or rubbish.

Relativism is nothing short but the disposal of objectivity in reaching a conclusion, and there is only one ultimate objective standard: reality. Relativism, especially in morality, is the rejection of reality as a guide for actions. But reality is our only standard by which we integrate our knowledge according to the rules of logic. The relativist in making any statement or holding any position loses the argument by default: unless his opinion is logical, rational, and consistent with reality, he cannot say anything – he might as well be talking about flying pink elephants who play poker in your backyard.

Objectivism identifies that morality is not based on subjective opinions or intrinsic values – it a code of rational values that guides our actions – these values are objective because they are necessary to the life of a rational being – they arise because of man’s relationship to reality. Whatever is beneficial and furthers the life of a rational being is good. Whatever diminishes or inhibits a rational being is the evil.

Animal Welfare and Cloning

The RSPCA has called for an immediate ban on cloning animals for food following a report questioning the ethical justification of doing so.” –

The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) did not categorically rule out the idea but said: “Considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the Group has doubts as to whether cloning for food is justified.”

The EGE, following studies from the European Food Safety Authority and the US Food and Drug Administration, has concluded that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.

So the question of whether or not we can clone animals for food is settled: we can.

Nikki Osborne from the RSPCA however has said: “Cloning causes untold suffering to the animals in the process, but is purely for commercial benefit. The RSPCA believes that the cost in terms of animal welfare in no way justifies any perceived benefits of cloning.

For a start, I don’t want the law of this country changed simply because of what the RSPCA or anyone else “believes”.

The EGE states: “In the Amsterdam Treaty animals are recognised as ‘sentient’ beings and, therefore, while meat production is important in the human diet, and the slaughter of animals a necessity, it should always be clear that the way in which we treat animals should be in accordance with the already existing animal welfare and health standards required in EU legislation.”

This doesn’t quite follow: if it’s acceptable to eat animals for food, and if it’s acceptable to kill them for food, what does it matter if the animals are procreated through natural methods, or cloned? What is it about the process of cloning that somehow contravenes animal welfare?

“However, in addition to these standards, the Group believes that additional requirements should also be taken in intensive animal breeding, in particular the guidance in animal welfare provided by the World Organisation for Animal Health, namely the five freedoms, from hunger; thirst and malnutrition; from fear and distress; from physical and thermal discomfort; from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.”

This kind of reasoning is symptomatic of a warped-view of morality and freedom, and is rooted in our society’s altruistic and utilitarian mentality. To talk about freedom from hunger, thirst, malnutrition, fear and distress, physical and thermal discomfort, pain, injury and disease – is nonsensical. There can be no “freedom from starvation” unless you have the means to acquire food. There can be no “freedom from pain” unless you are protected from any person causing you harm. There is no such thing as “freedom from disease” – there is only the freedom to purchase medicine and healthcare to protect yourself from disease.

Freedom is a concept that applies to an entity’s actions. Specifically, it assumes an entity has the capacity to be free, that is, to choose its actions and course of life accordingly. Because human beings are rational volitional beings with free will, and the capacity to make moral decisions over a lifetime, freedom is a necessary Right that arises because of the type of beings we are. To be more precise, this fundamental freedom, this fundamental Right is this: the Right to life. Now, animals are not free-willed rational volitional beings, and have no capacity to make moral decisions. Unlike humans, animals are automatically equipped with the knowledge and instinct they need to survive. To take about freedom for animals ignores the very nature of freedom; because animals have no ability to make free rational moral choices, they have no “right” to freedom.

“Infringements of the above criteria would need to be balanced by important benefits to human beings. The EGE has however doubts whether infringements of these standards can be justified by the benefits obtained by current procedures in cloning animals for food production.”

The EGE is trying to balance animal “rights” with human benefits. But animals have no rights, so any attempt to balance human and animal rights will always produce a contradiction, and it is humans who will be seen as the criminals although no crime has been committed.

What really matters is this: cloning animals for food could produce (in theory) limitless free sources of nutrition for millions of humans. There is no need to compare the human benefit with anything else: only humans have rights, and what is moral here is what a rational being needs to do to sustain its life – if a human needs to kill an animal to eat, the moral thing is to kill it. If a human needs to clone an animal in order to kill it to eat, the moral thing is to clone it and kill it.

The problem with the RSPCA and EGE’s reasoning is this: their morality is based on the utilitarian notion that suffering is the standard for morality. But this is patently untrue: suffering, like happiness, is the end result of a course of action. Morality is our guide to a course of action – not the result. Morality is an objective code to help us make decisions, it is not determined post-action by weighing up the suffering and happiness of those concerned; (and who concerned? How many people? Which people? Anything that can suffer? How is this even measured?)

The morality of an action is not determined by some arbitrary measure of suffering or pleasure. According to Objectivism, morality is a code of values accepted by choice to guide decisions. Therefore, whatever is necessary and beneficial for the life of a rational being is good – whatever is inhibitive and detrimental to such a being is wrong.

Unfortunately, what we see with comments from the EU and RSPCA is a morality rooted in altruism, in sacrifice – because this is the underlying philosophy of society in general. This sort of ethics does not hold human life as the standard, but rather the standard of suffering, that is, death. Any ban on animal cloning would be an absolute travesty.

21/01/08 Edited to add:

Thanks to Leitmotif for pointing out several errors and ambiguous statements in my article:

When I said freedom applies to an entity’s action, freedom applies to action and thought – all freedom is a corollary of the Right to Life. It makes no sense to speak of one freedom without the other.

Also, forgive me for making it sound that freedom is the same thing as the Right to Life – this was not my intention. It is the Right to life that makes all other Rights possible. It is the Right to Life that makes freedom (intellectual and physical etc) a necessity for human beings.

Salary capping is Evil

I was reading a sport-related article on MSN before, and there was a vote asking readers whether they thought footballer’s salaries should be capped. Over 70% of people had voted yes. I wondered why. Before I venture a guess, let’s answer the question of “should footballer’s wages be capped?”, by extending it to the overriding theme: “should anyone’s wages be capped?”

The question comes down to this: should anyone decide how much money you deserve to earn? If you are employed you’ve reached an acceptable wage that you are prepared to work for and your employer is prepared to pay. To “deserve” a wage is to reach an agreeable figure that your boss is prepared to pay you – that is all that “deserve” can mean, and it is no one else’s business. Now some businesses, such as the entertainment industry, are so huge that the demand for top-quality entertainers forces up the price for the services of such individuals. Demand must be met with supply. Sport is massive business and generates huge amounts of wealth – why shouldn’t the key architects of this business that creates vast profit for millions of people – the players, be remunerated accordingly?

It is the success of private companies that allows them to reward their employees with greater pay. It is the moral right of bigger and better companies, such as more successful football clubs, to attract better players to their team and reward them accordingly. Money talks, and it allows companies to fight fairly over a wanted player. If one club can afford to pay more than another, tough – that is the beauty of money: it allows an objective worth to be placed on items of value. Has the bigger club earned the right to sign a player? Yes! By sheer nature of the fact that they can.

Who has the right to dictate to a private business how it uses its money? There are only two institutions that have the power to do so: any club or association that a company has voluntarily subscribed to, and government. Only the first of these institutions has the right to do so – this is because a company that is voluntarily a member of a business association agrees to abide by the decision of that association. The government however has no right to tell an individual (and by extension a private company) how to manage its own property. The only proper moral role of government is to protect the Rights of its citizens. How much any company chooses to pay any employee is a private matter, and no business of anyone else’s. If the wages of any person were to be capped by an act of government, this would be a gross violation of rights, and monstrously evil.

What about those who have more important jobs in society, like doctors, teachers, fire-fighters etc? What about them? Do I think it’s “right” that someone who kicks a ball around a pitch gets paid the same wage in a week as a doctor might get in a year? In a word, yes. Consider this: by what objective criteria can you decide how much someone deserves to get paid? And how would you enforce such a criteria, without violating individual rights? If you decide that being a doctor is morally worthy of more money than being a footballer, how do you go about reimbursing the doctor according to your standard? You cannot create money out of thin air – all you can do is artificially inflate the price of healthcare at the cost of the consumer so that the doctor gets the money he is worth, in your opinion. But where does this money come from? Or do you take the “surplus” money that footballer’s earn and give it to the doctor? In other words, do you redistribute wealth according to some egalitarian philosophy of equality or perceived “social merit”? In further words, do you ask the footballer to earn the doctor’s money for him; do you ask the doctor to live off the effort of the footballer? No? Madness? Unfair? Evil? Such is the nature and mentality of socialism.

I think I now know why many people think wages should be capped. I think it’s a result of a socialistic mentality (especially common in the UK): those on “too much” money somehow owe their excess to others. Those on “too little” money are owed more from others. What the socialistic mindset really breeds is this kind of thinking: “your extra money should be mine!” And of course, someone lower down the pay scale is thinking the same of you. Do these people think money grows on trees? The reason some professions pay so much and others pay so little is this: demand. Demand is met with production, and production is the source of all wealth. If, some day, sport massively declined in popularity, so would wages. If people feel there is something immoral about how much sportsmen are paid, there is only one solution: use your individual power as consumer to not finance that industry. How many people who complain about huge wages will give up their Sky TV, their season tickets, their replica shirts?? Not many. They want world class footballers but without the wages that go with them. They want hundred-thousand capacity stadiums, but without the industry that will pay for them. They want some of ‘their’ money back from the superstars who earn it, yet keep paying over money every week. How will their wishes be met?? Somehow. In other words: at someone else’s expense.

If we are going to complain about mediocrities being paid inflated sums of money, let’s start with politicians. Only politicians can vote themselves payrises that aren’t connected to any production or merit. If the government decides that you should pay an extra 10% of your wages to them, because they say so, that is all that’s required to make it law. And unlike sport, you have no choice in the matter. But that’s a subject for another article.

If the mentality of capitalism was more abundant, people would admire those more successful, not be envious. People would respect production. People would understand that wealth is not a finite resource to be scavenged and shared by a non-objective mob vote based on immoral notions of “merit” – they would appreciate that wealth can be created, and demand is met with supply, and the only thing anyone can claim to deserve is what they’ve earned by the mutual agreement of other people. That is why nobody has the right to tell any two people how much they may pay each other. Anyone who claims otherwise is immoral and invoking an evil philosophy.

Abolish the Welfare State

I’ve never really liked the NHS historically, for one very important reason: poor service. Justice requires that the consumer receive the service he or she has paid for. That’s fair trade; it is the most basic principle of legitimate human interaction; exchanging value for value.

The reason I object to the NHS on principle is the same reason I object to paying a television license for a government-subsidised broadcasting company: my money is taken for a service I have not requested. Paying for the BBC is like handing over money to enter a fairground with all these wonderful rides, only to have some annoying barely-skilled juggler following you around trying to impress you.

Let’s say you’re a humanitarian with a “noble” ideal; you want everyone in the country to have free healthcare and medicine. A lofty ambition, some might say. A naive one, others might suggest. To see how removed this goal is from the constraints of reality one only has to ask the question: how will you pay for it? Sure, if you want to accomplish a mission of mercy and help people out of the goodness of your heart with your own hard-earned cash, that’s your choice. If you want to solicit contributions to the same end, such is your decision and that of the contributors. Whether you’d incur enough money to achieve your dream is debatable, so you decide that so noble and moral is your ideal those who chose not to contribute should be made to, at the point of a gun.

Now, whatever your sense of right or wrong, removing the possibility of choice from an action removes any moral implications of that action. Giving money to help others may or may not be moral; a person under duress to do so is being neither moral or immoral, they are doing what they have to, to avoid going to prison, or getting shot. That is about as moral as a slap of concrete.

One other important part of this master plan has been avoided. The most important part. Who is to provide the medicine and healthcare? The drug companies and the doctors. What if a doctor doesn’t wish to see to a patient? What if a doctor or healthcare company doesn’t want to take the risk of a particular operation, or waste their valuable time and resources on somebody (for whatever reason), who for example is constantly submitted with cardiovascular problems and makes no attempt to exercise or quit smoking?

Yaron Brook speaking of the American healthcare system (the principle is the same) says:

“The result of shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them was an explosion in spending.

In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a “right,” demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.”

Cutting to the core of the problem, Brook continues:

“The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a “right” to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a “right” to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as our founding fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services—no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.”

The crucial problem with the NHS is that it is an embodiment of a solution to an imaginary problem divorced from the context of reality. The “problem” is that everybody does not have free access to any healthcare they require. But this isn’t actually a problem in the way socialists or collectivists would have us think. And the flaw in their thinking stems from a misguided understanding of right and wrong, that is, morality. What is their flaw? In a word: altruism.

In the altruist morality, the fact that you need something gives you an entitlement to it. It’s as simple as that. This notion is erroneous for many reasons. 1. It is divorced from reality; who will provide what you need, if not yourself? And how will you gain it from them if you cannot exchange value for value in a fair trade? 2. ‘Need’ does not equate to entitlement? 3. Where do you draw the line between all the other “needs” people have, and how? How do you decide which needs will be met with the enforced cooperation of others and which won’t?

The collectivist sees society as a living superbeing in itself, where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; where those who have “more than enough” should be made to sacrifice for those who don’t have enough. The collectivist has chosen to concentrate on healthcare and medicine, but one needs to ask: should restaurants be made to serve beggars on the street? Should convenience stores be made to provide anti-perspirant for those who can’t afford to stop themselves smelling? Should your closest neighbour with a 10-bedroom house and 2 occupants be forced to give a room to one of your 6-member family in a 3-bedroom house? The “free-thinking” collectivist would like to draw the line at some point after individual rights have been violated, to stop his system moving inexorably to its inevitable corollary: communism.

In a free society, people trade value for value at their choice. Those who acquire wealth do so by exchanging their superior talents for greater money. They acquire what they “deserve” from those who are obligated to provide by a process of mutual cooperation and trade. For example, I reach an agreement with my employer to work for a particular wage. I meet the terms of my contract by attending work every day and doing the job that is required of me, in full. In return, they remunerate me the agreed fee, in full. They have deserved my work and I have deserved my money. The idea that I somehow owe a third party some of that money for the sheer fact that I have acquired it is a total perversion of freedom and morality. At what point and in whose eyes does my hard-earned money reach a point where it’s “too much” and I must pay over the “surplus” to those who haven’t earned it?

No man can make unearned demands on another. Yet the morality of altruism and sacrifice which is the basis for most societal norms states the exact opposite. And the collectivist wants to enforce this “morality” at the point of a gun. And the only way to meet the unearned demands of wanting men is by force; it’s by taking the property of those that have for those that don’t; it’s a gross violation of individual rights – the proper foundation of society – and the only rights that truly exist. Those who violate the rights of others are criminals.

A Right is the freedom to take any action to sustain your life. If your “right” requires the use of force against others, it cannot be a Right. There is no right to healthcare. There is no right to a car. There is no right to a minimum wage. There is no right to love. There is no right to the goods or services of others. You have no right to see a doctor. You have no right to a particular drug or medicine simply because you need it. For example, if you needed a vital operation that only a certain doctor could perform, you have no right to demand any action from him. He is a free individual like any other and value (his services) must be met with value (your services or money). Being unable to pay him is no different from being unwilling to pay him. Whatever you think of his choice to treat you or not, there is no moral obligation in the world that can force him to treat you against his will. If this point still isn’t clear, consider why you should pay for my bus fair if I can’t afford it. Explain why you should pay for my luxury toilet paper when I’m stuck with the non-brand variety. Healthcare and medicine are services like any other that must be acquired by fair legitimate trade; they belong to the doctors and private companies that manufacturer them, and no one can demand the property of others.

In a free society, the true cost of goods is passed onto the consumer, and consumer and supplier can agree on a mutually-acceptable price for a service, neither being sacrificed to the other. People are free to subscribe to a healthcare company of their choosing; open competition will drive down prices fairly and improve service. People are encouraged to look after themselves and incur discounts from healthcare companies, knowing that someone else will not pay for their bad luck or laziness. The overall cost of healthcare is decreased which raises the overall standard for everyone, and increases the availability of even basic services that the poor can afford. More importantly, individual rights are respected and people have a proper view of what they deserve and what they can earn; what is rightfully theirs and what they have to merit; what belongs to them and what doesn’t; and society’s future is invested in the only system that can fully allow humans to flourish and better themselves, generate greater wealth, and increase happiness: capitalism.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers