Shortage of doctors

(WASHINGTON - Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.)

There is a shortage of doctors. No surprise. The doctors' monopoly makes it expensive and painful for one to become a licensed doctor.

According to President Obama it is up to the government to increase the supply of doctors. Another problem for the government to solve. Too many of us look to the government to solve all problems. Other times the government just assumes it is up to them to solve all problems. What hubris. The more problems for them to solve the more power they acquire.

With a shortage of suppliers of health care, the government has also offered to increase the demand for the service by providing universal health insurance. This will only exacerbate the problem by increasing the demand.

When a third party is paying for something it is no surprise that service or product will be in higher demand than if one had to pay directly. With the government providing Medicare and Medicaid insurance there simply is a bigger demand than a supply for the health care services. If there were no health insurance, private or government insurance, the demand for health care would decrease dramatically. Suddenly there would be an oversupply of doctors.

If the government wants to increase the supply of doctors and nurses they should break up the doctor and nurses schools and licensing requirements. There is no reason on earth for a person to be required to spend 8 years of study to learn how to remove a gall bladder.

Since the State says all doctors are licensed that means they all are qualified. Then why do we still look for recommendations when we select a doctor? Why not just pick one from the Yellow Pages?

Charles Tolleson

Privatizing Outer Space and International Waters

On June 24, 2008 I wrote about privatizing the air space in the U.S. On October 22, 2006 I wrote about privatizing all U.S. government owned assets. All these assets would be different corporations and each U.S. citizen would be issued 100 shares of common stock in each corporation. Dividends from these corporations would be paid in retirement.

Now I propose privatizing the international waters. This corporation would be owned by each citizen of the world. Each world citizen would own 100 shares of the International Waters Corp. The corporation would charge users for shipping, fishing and mining and any other use.

The dividends would be paid to any world citizen when they reach age 18. This is because much of the world is poor. Many countries have life spans of their citizens that would prevent them from living long enough to collect dividends in old age, as I proposed for privatizing U.S. government owned assets. A few dollars in dividends would mean a lot to a poor villager in an undeveloped country.

A private corporation should also be set up to privatize outer space. Each citizen would own 100 shares of the International Space Corporation. Countries that launched satellites into space would have to pay a fee to the corporation. Any country that built a missile that could be fired into space would be required to pay a fee to the corporation for each missile built. If someone wants to build a business in the U.S. they must pay a fee to the State for a license and get permission from the State. In this case the State would only have to pay a fee to the corporation, without having to get permission from the private corporation. Each world citizen would receive dividends from the corporation. The rich States that could afford to build missiles would in effect be contributing to the economic health of those people in poor countries. Much like foreign aid, without force.

All planets and other assets of outer space should be privatized and equally owned by each citizen of the world. Any mining or occupation of the Moon or Mars or other planets would pay rents or fees for any activity. Imagine some poor villagers sitting around on a clear night and looking at Mars or Jupiter and saying, "We own part of those".

Antarctic should be an international corporation owned by each citizen of the world. Any users of Antarctic would pay a fee and the dividends would go to each citizen of the world.

The unseen benefits of these corporations would be a decrease in the value of geography in determining what kind of life one has in comfort and prosperity. These corporations would go a long way in decreasing conflicts caused by borders.

I am not proposing world socialism or world fascism. Far from such. I am proposing people own these assets in a private corporation instead of States owning these assets, and then watching the States use them as an excuse to build their empires through the military nation within their nations. The United States is already preparing to militarize outer space. If they had to pay a fee for such occupation the people of the world would not feel so resentful.

It would take years to implement and register all citizens of the world and start paying dividends. With billions of cell phones and the increasing use of the Internet, the rumors of poor villagers becoming stock owners will spread. Simply knowing they will own something together will diminish conflicts between cultures. Knowing their children will own something with other children, together, will offer hope, that cheapest form of happiness.

The only thing wrong with my idea is the system would be a monopoly. Without competition the corporations might drive the prices too high for the systems to be useful.

"We are all of us more or less echoes, repeating involuntarily the virtues, the defects, the movements, and the characters of those among whom we live." -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Charles Tolleson

The worker as a consumer

The worker who works a 40 hour week is always looking for a way to get by with less work or easier work for more pay. The worker will join a union in an attempt to get more for her production. If she cannot join a union she will use the union we all have access to, the US Congress. There she will lobby her union and ask that her employer be forced to provide her with health care, rest breaks, vacation, family leave, a minimum wage, and anything else she can extract from her employer. Her employer will not be allowed to force anything from her.

What is seen in the socialist legislation that tries to improve the lives of the workers is a minimum wage, health care, vacation, etc. But, what is not seen? For every piece of socialist legislation that interferes with the market place there are numerous unseen affects.

People fail to realize the worker who works 40 hours per week is also a consumer. The worker, as a consumer, consumes things, even while working; clothes, food, medicines, etc. The worker, as a consumer, drives to work in a car he purchased as a consumer. He uses gasoline in his car, as a consumer.

There are another 128 hours during the week when the worker is not working and is a full time consumer. He is a consumer using pajamas to sleep in a bed he bought as a consumer. He cooks on a stove he bought as a consumer. He plays with items he bought as a consumer. She dresses with clothes she bought as a consumer. She reads books she bought as a consumer.

We are all consumers. Even the old and the young who are not workers. We all benefit by the unseen market that helps production become efficient and providing all of us, as consumers, with the best product at the least price.

We consumers benefit from competition. Competition drives improved production. A computer today has more computing power for less money than a computer 10 years ago. This improved production efficiency is caused by competition. As consumers we love and benefit from this competition.

But, as a worker? Ah, there's the rub. As workers, and owners, we hate competition. We must realize and understand that in the long run, even as workers, we benefit from competition. Our retired parents, and our children benefit from competition.

We should reward hard work and savings by DECREASING the tax rates on additional earned income and income from savings. Our current tax rates increases the more one earns. Our current tax rates punish hard work, risky investments, and savings. The next time you see a man or woman working two jobs to earn extra money, ask yourself why you want to tax their extra earnings at a higher rate.

By allowing workers to keep a higher percentage of their higher earnings you would create fierce competition among workers. This competition would greatly improve productivity, which would greatly improve the lifestyle of the consumers.

Allowing workers to keep a higher percentage of their higher earnings would also help eliminate the sloth that is infecting our society.

Charles Tolleson

Torture, to prosecute or not

It looks like many people want someone to be punished for the torture done by U.S. employees. Others believe our military/government employees were just following orders. Others believe the end justifies the means, i.e. if, and there is the big 'if', you save lives then torture is justified.

I hope those who want a prosecution for torture want it for justice and not for political reasons. Unfortunately, I believe politics too often overrides justice.

By the ends justifies the means argument, the police should be allowed to torture a suspected serial killer, or anyone they suspect is plotting to kill.

Why do we not allow our police to torture? It may be because we think we could be tortured for something we are not guilty of.

The CIA officials say they were just defending the country. Does that mean it would be permissible for an Arab group to torture American soldiers who invaded and occupied their country. The Arabs would say they were just defending their country? What do you think the opinions of U.S. citizens would be if one of their soldiers was water boarded 183 times?

The FBI just named Daniel Andreas San Diego, a computer specialist, as one of the top 10 terrorists wanted by the FBI. "San Diego joins the ranks of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda operatives on the list, which is usually reserved for alleged international terrorists."

If the FBI catches Daniel San Diego, will they be justified in torturing him to find out who else is in his organization? Daniel is a terrorist, which means to terrorize. How many people has he terrorized? Is terrorist just another name for a criminal, or can we say anyone who terrorizes us is a terrorist. I can hear a student saying, "Mommy, Mr. Smith terrorized me today. "Don't worry dear," said Mommy, "I'll have him water boarded".

The President and the Democratic Congress wishes the issue would go away. They are afraid some powerful democrats may be shown to have been complicit in the madness of the crowd after 9/11. If the congress was briefed on the "interrogation techniques" then who are we going to prosecute? Will we prosecute the whole country? Is a democracy so good that it is allowed to do evil in the interest of the greater good?

Remember the quest for revenge after 9/11. We were waving the flag, and waived what it stood for in our desire for blood. The 9/11 hijackers were all dead so we needed public hangings to rid us of our wrath, much like the crowds of the French Revolution. Crowds go crazy quickly, and come to their senses, slowly, one at a time. We are now coming to our senses.

Members of the government are reluctant to investigate and prosecute past policies because they know they will be out of office someday and their past policies might be prosecuted.

President Obama would face a rebellious CIA, Secret Service, NSA, and military if he prosecutes. One man, even the president, must be careful which government employees he offends.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

I think Mencken meant that if people want a government that tortures, they deserve that government, good and hard.

The Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 showed one third of guards in the experiment displayed sadistic tendencies.

Stanley Milgram's experiment in 1963 showed ordinary people can do cruel things when obeying authority, authority they trust.

People do what it takes to survive and prosper. If they are in an evil society they will participate in evil. If they are in a good society they will participate in goodness. What kind of society we live in, a good society or an evil society, depends on us. There cannot be one standard for us and one standard for the government employees. We must demand that our society, and the government employees who represent our society, uphold the standards of a society that represents the best in humans, not the worst.

A tribal elder was telling his grandson about the battle the old man was waging within himself. He said, “It is between two wolves, my son. One is an evil wolf: anger, envy, sorrow, greed, self-pity, guilt, resentment, lies, false pride, superiority and ego. The other is the good wolf: joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

The boy took this in for a few minutes and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf won?”

The old Cherokee replied simply, “The one I feed.”

Charles Tolleson

Changes we really need

President Barack Obama campaigned on a slogan, "Change We Need". The only change we will get is new managers of a government that is too big and too powerful.

I have a list of changes we really need to get back to individual liberty and responsibility.

1. We should privatize all government land and ocean mineral rights. Each park, forest, road, and ocean mineral and fishing rights should be transferred to a private for profit corporation that is owned equally, 100 shares each, by every person that has been a US citizen for 25 years. Profits from these corporations will go toward retirement for citizens when they turn a certain age. The same should be done for the Air Traffic Control System. Each citizen should own shares in the ATC system and receives fees for the use of the airspace. The Federal Communications Commission that parcels out broadcasting rights over the airways should be a private corporation owned by each citizen equally and receiving profits from the use of those airways.

2. Too many federal court decisions are made by a simple majority. To eliminate these close decisions there should be a constitutional amendment that would allow the US Senate, by a two thirds vote, 66%, to override any federal court decision.

3. Any person who accepts a welfare check, government grant, government contract check, government subsidy, or any employee who works for an organization that does, shall not be allowed to make campaign contributions to any candidate.

4. All public housing will be deeded, under a new Homestead Act, to the occupant who has lived in the house or apartment for at least three years.

5. Progressive tax rates punish individual effort. Any person who works two jobs to make more money shall have their tax rates reduced, not increased.

6. Every 25 years people should be allowed to vote on the ratification of the constitution. No one living today has had the right to vote on the constitution they were accidental born under.

7. Members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen from their districts the same way jurors are chosen.

Charles Tolleson

What is one life worth?

How much is one life worth? Is it worth 3 other lives?

The U.S. Navy SEALs recently "took out", an Orwellian euphemism for killed, three young Somalia black men to free one 53 year old American white male.

The young Somalia men were pirates and were holding the American hostage. The young Somalia men had not killed anyone. Of the hundreds of pirate attacks by Somalia men there is no evidence they ever killed one hostage.

Did the young Somalia men, living in a chaotic and poor country, have a moral right to steal? Would you steal if you were starving? Would you steal if you were a naive young man whose sister and families were threatened with violence if you did not comply with the gang leaders?

One of the surviving pirates was a scrawny teenager who will be tried in New York.

How much money did the young men stand to gain by their acts of piracy? The ransom monies were sent to Swiss bank accounts that were controlled by the Somalia warlords.

Did the mighty United States have a moral right to kill three young black men in order to free one 53 year old white man? Or did the mighty United States simply have the power to kill?

Throughout history tribes have always believed their tribe is more virtuous and right than other tribes. This is a defensive mechanism for survival. We are in favor of killing anyone that attacks a member of our tribe because we think we could be the next victim. As long as the attacks are against other tribes and our tribe is not threatened, we care little about retribution or justice.

Capt. Richard Phillips of the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama volunteered to be taken hostage in return for the safety of his crew. That act by the pirates shows they were not interested in mass killing, as was the Navy SEALs.

Do you think a white female captain would have volunteered to be taken hostage in return for the safety of her crew? And how many young black Somalia men would the mighty American empire have killed if Captain Phillips had been a white female instead of male?

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” Voltaire

Charles Tolleson

Piracy on the high seas

Recent piracies in the Indian Ocean have received a lot of media coverage.

There are many proposals to solve the piracy problem. One of our own suggested a semi martial law for the high seas. I suppose he would allow martial law in his own neighborhood, for safety.

Fear! That most basic instinct that overcomes reason, cries out for the government to do something. "He who is not everyday conquering some fear has not learned the secret of life.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

The amount of ransom is usually kept secret to prevent incentives for future hijackings. One story did say $2 million was paid for one ransom. Another said $8 million for that ship full of arms.

(Associated Press April 11, 2009 NAIROBI, - The owner of the Norwegian tanker Bow Asir confirmed Friday that it had been released two weeks after it was seized by armed pirates off the Somali coast, and all 27 of its crew members were unhurt.)

As long as companies continue to pay ransoms, only $2 million, pirating will continue. Two million dollars is nothing to a large shipping company.Insurance premiums would probably cost more. Arming their ships and training the crews would cost a lot more than the $2 million.

(October 2008, AP There have been 73 attacks this year in the Gulf of Aden that forms the northern Somalia coastline, and about 29 ships have been hijacked, according to the International Maritime Bureau.)

As long as the odds are low for a hijacking and the ransom is low,
companies will take little action. They will however expect the government to spend billions of taxpayer money to protect the ship companies. If the governments did nothing, eventually the ship owners would find it more cost beneficial to arm their ships and crews.

The shipping companies, like the airlines, do not want to take
responsibility for their own property. That sounds like many individuals who want the government to take away our guns and assume all duties for our protection.

Charles Tolleson

Grandson, don't join the military

It is wise for families who disagree on politics and religion to abstain from any discussions on those subjects. For that matter, it would be a less angry society if no one discussed these issues with anyone except their elected representatives.

I have tried to follow my own advice when it comes to my grandson's plan to join the military and attempt to become a Navy SEAL.

He did ask my opinion, a veteran, and I tried, in a mild way, to talk him out of joining the military. His uncle, also a veteran, tried to talk him out of joining the military.

When a young man joins the military, many things can happen. Some are neutral, some are good, and some are bad. More bad than good happens, which is why most people get out of the military when they can and why only about 10% of the young male population joins the military. The bad things that happen are very bad.

My grandson did not complete college. He is a good worker and family member. He works out with weights and is into physical strengths. I think he sees his value in his physique. The Navy SEALs will be a test and validation of his worth.

He fails to realize that once he joins the military he will no longer be a free man who can make choices. He will belong to the military. He will be like a slave taking orders, orders he cannot refuse.

Even after he is discharged from the military, he will still be eligible to be called back into the service as per his contract. This is a hidden draft the military and media do not talk about.

I know why young men fight. Still, I ask myself why any grandson would want to go into a foreign country and kill someone else's grandson. (KABUL (Reuters) April 10,2009- The U.S.military has conceded that troops under its command in Afghanistan killed a group of civilians in an operation this week, not militants as earlier reported.)

It happens to many young men who are intrigued with war and death. It has happened throughout human history. Some men join to fight for parades, martyrdom and glory. Some simply have a pathological need to kill another human. Others are shamed into joining.

During World War II 90% of the army personnel were drafted! The draft rate for all services in WW II was 62%. Yet Tom Brokaw calls them the greatest generation.

When I joined the military as a young man I thought war, war I had only experienced through heroic and patriotic movies, would be exciting, glorious, and I would come home with respect from my community, and, I would have a better chance of finding a mate to carry on my genes. This desire to eliminate other men from the competition for mating is the primary reason for war. Many other excuses are given, but the real reason for war is the ability for the victors to mate and spread their genes.

Primitive tribes had no weapons that could kill masses. A wound here and there and the war would end. If men were needed for defense and hunting the tribe would accept non lethal ways for men to settle their differences.

In 1793 William Godwin wrote a chapter on war. Had Godwin seen the past 216 years of humanity at war he would not be surprised.

If Baboons could fire machine guns and own property they would raise armies and kill masses of other baboons.

When primitive tribes became too large they would splinter into other groups and move away to some vacant land. Today there is no vacant land. Groups are becoming more compressed and this compression causes stress. As these groups become nations, they use war for plunder.

If there was only one country, one race, and one religion in the world, men would still try to kill each other. A thousand years from now, after humans have been bio engineered, the future biobots will be puzzled at how we could kill our own kind by the millions.

Men are expendable, if there are too many. During the American War Between the States 2% of the population, 600,000 were killed. These were mostly men. If you killed that ratio of American men today that would be over 12 million men. The society's birthrate would not diminish. If a society is over populated the birthrate will decline. If it is under populated the birthrate will rise.

Because of China's one child policy they now have 32 million more boys than girls. When these boys become men they will compete for a scarcity of girls.
Girls' value will increase. This will cause stress on men. Chinese men will resort to gang violence. They will have an external war or an internal war. If the reverse were true, more women than men in China, China would have peace and tranquility.

People are willing to die for their beliefs. Unfortunately they are willing to kill other innocent people who do not share their beliefs.

During war the young warriors see the unnecessary horrors and sufferings of war. They start to realize their country is not so virtuous after all. They realize millions die over honor (egos).

Fred Reed, a wounded Vietnam Marine veteran, wrote this column . Somehow women do not have a need to kill to prove their honor. Men do. Men cannot solve their differences with a game of marbles. They have to display their bravery in order to preserve their honor.

To the young men of America, who would be stupid enough to attempt an invasion of America? Civilians in America have 200 million guns. How would an invading force deal with that?

America is protected by two major oceans and two friendly neighbors. How would a foreign nation transport 50 million soldiers to invade America. We would annihilate them before they reached our soil.

To the young men of America. If a foreign invader reaches our soil, I'll man the ramparts by your side.

To the young men of America. No foreign invader will take away your freedoms. Your freedoms are taken from you by your own government, one election at a time.

"War is the health of the State". Randolph Bourne

Charles Tolleson

Choices cause stress

There are plenty of studies about stress. Unlimited choices cause stress. This is why many people are willing to have the central planners make choices for them.

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - One sign of the tough economic times is that the very thought of taking a vacation has become stressful, according to a recent survey.

Ayn Rand's sister, Nora Drobysheva, visited Rand in New York in 1974. Nora had lived her life under Russian communism. Drobysheva was so stressed about the chaos of New York's busy life that she returned to the Soviet Union, to live serenely under the care of the State.

My neighbor was a retired nuclear physicist who had worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He was a brilliant man. He complained about all the choices for telephone service in the year 2008. He longed for the era when Ma Bell, AT&T, provided the only telephone service.

I talked to a lady about privatizing the U.S. Post Office. I said it is a monopoly that owns our mailboxes. I advocated for FedEx and others to provide a choice of mail delivery. FedEx might even delivery your letters to your door, for a fee. FedEx might use envelopes with ads on them to cut down fees. The lady was adamant that she liked the current post office system, though she did not know how much a first class stamp cost, nor did she understand why someone who lives twenty miles from a post office should pay the same price for mail delivery as one who lived only a block from the post office.

Generations ago young people had fewer choices for a career. They could farm or go to sea. Later their choices could be to spend a short life in a coal mine, or a career in a hot and noisy factory. Today young people are stressed out about their career choices. They change careers multiple times because there are so many choices,each choice promising a happier life.

People would rather stand in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles than have a choice of providers to license their vehicles.

When we have limited choices provided by the state we can complain about someone else. We never have to complain or take responsibility for our choices.

We want an easy and serene life. The central planners offer us that hope by making choices for us. Hope is a cheap form of happiness. The offer of hope costs the central planners nothing.

"There are always two choices. Two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy." Unknown

We will always take the easy choice with the most gain.

Charles Tolleson

I have no data to back up the following views. Nor am I advocating for eugenics.

When the Second Amendment was written, life and medicines that controlled life was different. Then we did not have the technology available to keep unhealthy, premature babies alive in an incubator. Nor did we have vaccinations that kept weak children alive.

Now the weak are alive and rewarded for their propagation with welfare and food stamps. Welfare also allows plenty of children to be raised by a single mom. No longer does a child have the foundations of a father figure and other constraints on violent behavior.

This breeding of unhealthy children, and children raised without respect for others, has led to more people with schizophrenia, bipolar and other mental disorders. Therefore, some people should not be allowed to own guns.

Since the Second Amendment was written we have seen the development of a profusion of psychotropic drugs, both legal and illegal. I suspect many domestic murders today are the results of using these drugs.

The homicide rate was lower in 1900 despite the fact that guns could be bought so easily.

In 1900 People with schizophrenia were locked away. Today, because of civil rights, they are given drugs and allowed to mix in society.

This article gives reasons for the homicide rate going up and down. During hard economic times the homicide and suicide rate spike. In good times, or when FDR offered hope to the nation, the homicide and suicide rates declined. http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/stolinsky1.html

I believe some of the 21st century domestic murders are a form of domestic terrorism. I certainly don't approve of this domestic violence, but I believe many men are resorting to domestic terrorism because they feel like the laws are stacked against them in the family courts. When a terrorist feels powerless under the law he will resort to actions outside the law. If he can't have what he thinks is his he will make sure it is not available for anyone.

I do believe that any teacher or other worker who wants to carry a gun, after approval, should be allowed to do so. Carrying guns were allowed when the Second Amendment was written.

When I was a farm lad the community seldom locked their doors at night. Every house had a shotgun. Burglaries were unheard of.

Making guns illegal will cause the price of guns to increase, like the price of illegal drugs.

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword
never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus)
Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),

Federal obstacles to secession

The right of secession is one of the most important checks and balances on the power of big governments. The right to secede from the federal government should be permitted to the states. The right to secede from a state should be allowed a county. The right to secede from a county should be allowed a city. The right to secede from a city should be allowed a neighborhood. And lastly, any individual should be allowed to secede from any government and set up her own government.

Customers have a right to secede from a big business and go to another business. This form of competition should be allowed to the consumer in choosing their government. This competition will force governments to try to provide better services to its citizens at the least expense.

There are many federal obstacles to states ability to secede. The obstacles should be addressed now while the members of congress are supposed to represent the states, instead of the federal government. After a state secedes it has no voting power in congress.

The states should have their representatives in congress pass a law that says all federal property inside a state's border will revert to the state if that state secedes. This law would go a long way towards resolving any conflict if a state secedes and federal property is inside that state.

It would be very difficult for a state like Wyoming to declare its independence and claim Yellowstone National Park without a prewritten law that would allow this. If Wyoming declares its independence without the law there is no way the rest of the country will give up Yellowstone Park.

If many states declare their independence without the provision to turn federal property inside those states to the states, the remaining states in the union will see a windfall in value as the roads, parks, forest, grazing lands, and military bases all belong to a few remaining states.

And what if all 50 states declare their independence with the federal property remaining under the control of the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. They will be wealthy just by the amount of property they own.

If all 50 states secede, the mob in Washington D.C. will also own nuclear weapons with which they can blackmail the rest of the world.

Another impediment to secession is the number of people who are dependent on the federal government for Medicare, Social Security, farm aid, etc.

There are also many retired federal employees who would be reluctant to declare their independence and risk losing their pension.

For those who collect Social Security a law should be passed that will refund Social Security taxes paid to anyone who declares their independence.

These issues should be addressed now by the states' representatives in congress.

"To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography." George Santayana

Charles Tolleson