Don’t Sell Out! You Were Born For a Reason

by glen of Mr. Self Development

Everything that exists has a purpose. My computer has a purpose, my shoes have a purpose, my watch has a purpose, if I had a dog, he or she would have a purpose, and most importantly, you have a purpose.

You showed up on this planet for a reason. Maybe you showed up to sing, or to dance, or to teach, or to write, or to entertain, or to act, or to talk, or to cook, or to paint, or any other thing, but you showed up for a reason. There’s a purpose that you came here to fulfill. Don’t “sell out!”

In other words, don’t settle for a life of doing a mundane job that you’re not passionate about. You only live once, you must live your life to the fullest; you must die empty.

Don’t buy into the thinking that it’s too hard to become a singer or whatever else you’re passionate about. It’s exactly that thinking that will make it appear like an impossible task, and your perception will become your reality.

Yes, it will take work; you and I both know that anything worth achieving is going to take a ton of work, but we also know that it will be worth it in the end.

Everyone is born a diamond in the rough; we just need to be uncovered. The truth is, if anyone else can succeed in this world, so can you. No one is any better than you.

So don’t sell out! No matter how long it takes, I don’t care if it takes the next 45 years; you owe it to your creator and to yourself to live out your intended purpose.

You will never be truly happy until you’re doing what you were created to do. Yes, you may be able to settle and push your feelings of dissatisfaction to the side, but there’s nothing like the exhilaration of doing what you love and watching others benefit from it. Even if you never make a dime from it…the joy of doing what you love is priceless.

Don’t “sell out” because you’re afraid of how much work it will take

Continue Reading

Time Magazine Interviews Congressman Dr. Ron Paul

Obama and the Continuing War on the Poor

by Paul A. Cleveland on Mises Daily

A mentor of mine, Clarence Carson, published a book in the 1970s entitled The War on the Poor. He took his title from Lyndon Johnson’s so-called “war on poverty.” Carson noted that actual wars are waged against real people rather than circumstances, and that if the government were engaged in a war it must be against some identifiable group of people. In his book, he identified the poor as that group by analyzing the economic impact of the various policies that Johnson pursued. In each new initiative of the Great Society, the effect of those policies was to raise prices on various products and cause the poor in America to suffer for the sake of a few special interests.

Nothing much has changed in America. The only difference between then and now is the degree to which property is being attacked. Indeed, the entire political process seems to center around such attacks in the name of alleviating our misery, which more often than not is caused by some past program. Despite the misery that past policies have inflicted on us, during each election cycle our politicians travel the country telling us how their proposals will fix all that ails us. If they are incumbents, they argue that their policies will work if given sufficient time. Moreover, they tell us that they have been hindered in the performance of their promised feats because of their political opponents. Alternatively, challengers argue that only their proposed interventions will work to produce the desired economic prosperity. And so it goes, as each pursues the needed votes to ensure election.

Fortunately for our aspiring magicians, the media takes the process very seriously and devotes a great deal of time to covering the debate — without asking any serious questions as to whether intervention of any sort is a prudent course of action. The media thus gives a credibility to the process that would not exist without their endorsement. After all, if the media believes that the government is really able to produce something from nothing, then uncritical men and women in the street may have reason to believe it as well. To date this seems to be the case, since the failures of past policies are generally not pointed to as a reason for doubting current political promises.

There is, of course, one issue that our political aspirants never wish to discuss at any length. They never wish to discuss the costs of their proposal. If they are forced to discuss this topic at all, they simply argue that the many benefits of their scheme will vastly outweigh the upfront costs. Moreover, they invariably promote a plan to impose the costs upon the so-called rich people because they can afford it. Since no one knows any of these very rich people, many feel secure that the politician’s plan will ultimately prove beneficial to them.

The magician lives by his deception. If the audience is ever able to see the reality of what the political class is actually doing, then these magicians would have to practice their magic craft privately. But this kind of fraud exposes them to the danger of spending time in prison (as Bernie Madoff can attest to). If they were not willing to risk jail time, the political class would instead have to work for a living. No longer would it be possible for them to live off of the fruits of other peoples’ labor. They are indeed glad that the citizens of the land seem content for the most part to remain blind to the impoverishment they have perpetrated.

Continue Reading

The Hidden Costs of a Minimum Wage

by Art Carden on Mises Daily

People in the market can compete on many different margins. They can compete by offering higher productivity, or they can compete by offering better products. Perhaps most importantly, people can compete by offering lower prices. In the case of laborers, this often means offering their services at a lower wage.

Anyone who has taken an introductory economics course is familiar with the idea that a minimum wage leads to a reduction in the demand for labor and an increase in the supply of labor in the relevant market — usually, the market for low-skill workers. The minimum wage removes the ability of some workers to compete by accepting lower wages and shuts them out of the labor force. As a result, it reduces job opportunities for these workers. A minimum wage breaks the hinges on the door of opportunity.

However, there are additional, hidden costs of these interventions, which are more difficult to detect but perhaps more insidious. For example, one effect of a minimum wage is to reduce the availability of on-the-job training, since more resources are required simply to hire and retain a workforce. And further interventions in the labor market (for example, safety regulations and payroll taxes) make it still more costly to employ labor. These burdens together reduce a firm’s willingness to hire laborers and — in the long run — must reduce the number of opportunities for those laborers to acquire valuable job skills. Far from increasing opportunities for the working poor, a minimum wage actually restricts their mobility.

In an attempt to compensate for the lack of skills and opportunities among the low-skilled, governments have created a lot of job training programs. However, whatever their intentions, these training programs circumvent the market processes that match skills with jobs. Every person has a unique set of skills, competencies, strengths, and weaknesses that will only be revealed through their activity in the market. Job training and skills assessments may be able to match people with suitable employment to some degree, but the search mechanism inherent in the labor market is a low-cost way of accomplishing the same result more efficiently.

Firms faced with minimum wage laws often substitute skilled for unskilled labor. In a report for the Show-Me Institute, labor economist David Neumark offers an illustrative example: Suppose that a job can be done by either three unskilled workers or two skilled workers. If the unskilled wage is $5 per hour and the skilled wage is $8 per hour, the firm will use unskilled labor and produce the output at a cost of $15. However, if we impose a minimum wage to $6 per hour, the firm will instead use two skilled workers and produce for $16 as opposed to the $18 cost of using unskilled workers. In the “official data” this shows up as a small job loss — in this case, only one job — but we see an increase in average wages to eight dollars per hour in spite of the fact that the least skilled workers are now unemployed.

There is also a hidden social cost in minimum wage policies. Debates over a minimum wage erode social fabric by placing workers and their employers in opposition to one another. While there have been many legitimate reasons for some tension to exist between firms and workers, minimum wage policies set them in unnecessary opposition to one another over employment contracts, which are by nature cooperative and mutually beneficial. Encouraging the view that employment is a raw deal has created needless acrimony. At the margin, this intimidates people and discourages some from becoming employers themselves.

Continue Reading

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion

by Ron Paul

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest.

Original Article

Extreme Sheepherding – Merry Christmas

Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show – December 11, 2009

Obama should have returned Nobel Peace Prize says Ron Paul

The Antiwar Right: Our Time Is Near

The neocons are worried – and with good reason

Neocons like Reihan Salam are worried that Republicans will soon “begin to abandon the president en masse over Afghanistan.” As well they might be: Salam, a self-described advocate of “a Pax Americana foreign policy,” and a fellow at the New America Foundation – a corporate-funded let’s-promote-”new”-but-safely-conventional-ideas, formerly headed up by James Fallows – knows his enemies, and is preparing to meet them, albeit not head on. Before the battle is joined, however, he wants to define the enemy – in his own terms, of course.

There are plenty of antiwar conservatives to cite, including politicians: the primary example being Rep. Ron Paul, whose presidential campaign mounted an amazingly successful challenge to the GOP Establishment – and, as a result, earned the undying enmity of the neocons. There are others: John Duncan, Republican of Tennessee, Rep. Walter B. “Freedom Fries” Jones (R-North Carolina) – whose stunning turnaround on the war provoked a neocon hissy-fit and an electoral challenge, both of which he survived – but Senor Salam chose Jason Chaffetz, a freshman Republican from Utah, perhaps because he’s the newest addition to a growing group. But also, perhaps, because it’s easier to characterize his “antiwar” views in a certain, limiting way.

“Among grassroots conservatives,” Salam avers, “there is a growing sense that the U.S. military is too hamstrung by concern about civilian casualties and political correctness to wage an effective military campaign under Obama, which implies that there is little point in offering him political support.” According to Salam, Chaffetz “makes this point explicitly,” but this is not at all clear. Here is what Chaffetz actually says:

“We must redefine the Rules of Engagement: A politically correct war is a lost war. If we are going to sacrifice lives and resources in this fight, we must go in with everything we have. We must be committed to win. But then we must go home. Anything short of an all-out commitment to accomplish the mission puts too many American lives at risk.”

Continue Reading

Ron Paul: Who Wants War?

by Ron Paul | Texas Straight Talk
December 7, 2009

If anyone still doubted that this administration’s foreign policy would bring any kind of change, this week’s debate on Afghanistan should remove all doubt. The President’s stated justifications for sending more troops to Afghanistan and escalating war amount to little more than recycling all the false reasons we began the conflict. It is so discouraging to see this coming from our new leadership, when the people were hoping for peace. New polls show that 49 percent of the people favor minding our own business on the world stage, up from 30 percent in 2002. Perpetual war is not solving anything. Indeed continually seeking out monsters to destroy abroad only threatens our security here at home as international resentment against us builds. The people understand this and are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being heard by the decision-makers. The leaders say some things the people want to hear, but change never comes.

One has to ask, if the people who elected these leaders so obviously do not want these wars, who does? Eisenhower warned of the increasing power and influence of the military industrial complex and it seems his worst fears have come true. He believed in a strong national defense, as do I, but warned that the building up of permanent military and weapons industries could prove dangerous if their influence got out of hand. After all, if you make your money on war, peace does you no good. With trillions of dollars at stake, there is tremendous incentive to keep the decision makers fearful of every threat in the world, real or imagined, present or future, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched. The Bush Doctrine demonstrates how very successful the war lobby was philosophically with the last administration. And they are succeeding just as well with this one, in spite of having the so-called “peace candidate” in office.

We now find ourselves in another foreign policy quagmire with little hope of victory, and not even a definition of victory. Eisenhower said that only an alert and informed electorate could keep these war racketeering pressures at bay. He was right, and the key is for the people to ensure that their elected leaders follow the Constitution. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress in order to legitimately go to war. Bypassing this critical step makes it far too easy to waste resources on nebulous and never-ending conflicts. Without clear goals, the conflicts last forever and drain the country of blood and treasure. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war precisely because they feared allowing the executive unfettered discretion in military affairs. They understood that making it easy for leaders to wage foreign wars would threaten domestic liberties.

Responses to attacks on our soil should be swift and brief. Wars we fight should always be defensive, clearly defined and Constitutional. The Bush Doctrine of targeting potential enemies before they do anything to us is dangerously vague and easily abused. There is nothing left to win in Afghanistan and everything to lose. Today’s military actions are yet another futile exercise in nation building and have nothing to do with our nation’s security, or with 9/11. Most experts agree that Bin Laden and anyone remotely connected to 9/11 left Afghanistan long ago, but our troops remain. The pressures of the war racketeers need to be put in check before we are brought to our knees by them. Unfortunately, it will require a mighty effort by the people to get the leadership to finally listen.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »