Controlling the Costs of Innovation: Let’s Refocus and Remember The Patient

If we believe government’s are incompotent in producing cars, food, phones, computers, clothes, housing, or medicine; why do we trust them to produce compotent regulations, in which such goods are exchanged?

Dr. Kevin Campbell, MD

In a controversial study released this week, Tufts University’s Center for the Study of Drug Development estimates that the cost to bring a new drug to market exceeds nearly 2.6 billion dollars.  The study, which was 40% funded by industry has been criticized for over estimating these costs in favor of industry and misrepresenting some cost estimates.  While we will not know fully the extent of the methodology of the study until later in 2015 when it is published in a peer reviewed journal, these preliminary findings were released in advance and have already begun to spur debate.

However, irrespective of these criticisms, I believe that the study does have merit and brings an important issue forward—is the FDA stifling innovation with excessive fees and paperwork?  Are smaller, less well funded researchers/corporations unable to significantly contribute without partnering with big pharma? Who will ultimately bear the increased cost…

View original post 522 more words

American Jesus And The Religion Of The State.

“WE MUST KEEP PRAYER OUT OF SCHOOLS! Now every rise to pledge our daily allegiance the governments flag.”

The Original Banksy

American Jesus

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:3 (KJV)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I believe in the true meaning of the separation of church and state. Actually I believe in the separation of state and everything. But nonetheless; nowhere in the Constitution do the words “separation of church and state” appear. This phrase has become the most twisted phrase in modern vernacular pertaining to the U.S. Constitution. The founders of the United States were opposed to a state sponsored church. It really is as simple as that. The first amendment guarantees that Congress shall not establish a national religion. On the…

View original post 1,047 more words

Wage Nannyism

If it’s illegal to pay someone less than minimum wage…..Should it be legal NOT to hire them, thus make their hourly earnings $0.00, and deprive them of gaining on the job experience?

Mbdil's Blog

I have a question for the minimum wage advocates – Let’s suppose I offer Bob four dollars per hour to answer phones for me, and he accepts. Where do you get the moral authority to say that this isn’t okay? I mean, it’s one thing to go to Bob and say, “Look, you really should hold out for more money or not work for him”, or to come to me and tell me I should pay Bob more and that you won’t buy stuff from me until I do, but it takes a special kind of jerk to prevent our arrangement altogether by force of law. You’d deprive Bob of a job he wants and deprive me of some extra productivity. You help neither of us, yet this is exactly what you’re pushing for with minimum wage laws. Why do you hate people and free will so much? Why can’t you let people make their own decisions? Go…

View original post 15 more words

What Would America Be Like Without Regulations?

The Government doesn’t regulate parents…or babysitters….HOW CAN SUCH A NON-REGULATED SOCIETY EXIST? Here’s how.

How to Fill in the Blank

Screen Shot 2014-11-18 at 8.12.38 PMImagine this: you go to a fantastic restaurant highly recommended by a friend. There are no licenses on the walls, the restaurant and food have not been inspected by the health department, the chef did not go to culinary school. And yet it’s delicious and crowded and thriving. People go there because of word of mouth and return there because of personal experience.

Imagine this: you are hired for a position because you have excellent work ethic, great referrals, and a fantastic skill set. No one asks about your education, no one cares to see your college degree.

Imagine this: you visit a doctor who has no formal education. He gained all his skills through personal study and apprenticeship. He is highly competent and incredibly effective. Although there are no fancy certificates hanging in his office, you trust him implicitly because of his invaluable service to you.

Now, I realize…

View original post 474 more words

Change the World?


%22change the world?%22 1 of 2%22change the world?%22 2 of 2  1293751237

We can change the world. / Rearrange the world. — Graham Nash

Back in the day, it was an American commonplace that any kid could grow up to be president. Today people tell boys and girls they can grow up to be the next Steve Jobs.

We also tell our children they can grow up to change the world. It seems like a good thing to encourage them to dream big. What can go wrong?

Eventually these kids matriculate into the adult world, where they discover that the boss is not easily moved, nor social situations quickly altered, nor wars or diseases or other catastrophes suddenly vanquished. These newly minted citizens become cynical, sometimes giving up their dreams altogether and replacing them with mundane distractions.

Maybe the problem is that we give kids false hopes. But who wants to point out that almost nobody really ever does become president…

View original post 726 more words

Where the Real Inequality Exists


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, the Left has devoted a significant amount of time informing citizens about the inequality that exists between the rich and the poor.  Considering the median Income in the U.S. in 2013 stood at $51,071 (1), and the top 1% of income earners in the world earn $32,400 (2) annually; not only shows us the poorest people in Capitalist economies are the richest people in the world, but exposes that the left doesn’t care about poverty.  They only care about if someone if they are born within the geography of the United States and is poor relative to others in the worlds richest society-and vote every two years.  If they really cared about the poor they would support free trade.

But this only looks at dollars.  What about the inequality between the everyday private citizen, and someone who is employed by the government?  The government can legally take money by force, in any amount, at any time, from any person, then print whatever they can’t confiscate; and call it taxation.  The state must only talk amongst itself in Washington and decide what amount of income they feel they should let the producers in society keep, then pass thousands of pages of legislation to avoid transparency.

What about the right to kill people in massive amounts?  This would be a fatal gang shooting, and give rise to gun regulation if it was a group of random private citizens.  But consider the 202,000 civilians and militant killings in Iraq since 2003 alone.  The article below (4), exemplifies how the state is the very institution that attracts people who are too noble to just engage in street crimes, and prefer to execute their crimes on a large scale.  Civilians in other countries as young as 16 years old, shot and killed in his home town for appearing as a potential threat to the gang in camouflage occupying countries all over the world.

The state replaces religious crosses, with flags and have their subjects blindly pledge their allegiance to it.

And all they have to report it- ‘fear not citizen, we are the state that acts in your best interest, protecting you from the evil non-angel like men in the state of nature.’  The state acts opt sync with every moral principal people apply to all others in society, and abandons all accountability with its shiny badges, and flashy cars.

Similar to Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and laws oppressing woman and minorities rights; the state can only continue its practicing of legalized criminality, until people recognize it as an evil institution, unworthy of its respect and legitimacy.





Let’s Talk About the Politics of ‘The Hunger Games’

Great philosophical approach to how ‘Hunger Games’ like films can be analyzed through critical thought. I still disagree (as can be seen in the comment section), but still a worthy read.

Videnda Magazine

In anticipation of Friday’s release of the third installment in the four-movie franchise, I’ve been reviewing some of my old papers on The Hunger Games and its sequels. I’ve done several projects on these books before because, while I enjoyed their plots (except for the last one, with which I was rather disappointed), I’ve always been intrigued by the different political and moral themes and lessons they contain.

Whether they were deliberately intended by author Suzanne Collins or just present for the drama they lend to the plot, there are some pretty strong political messages in these books and their film adaptations. These are some of the ones I’ve found.

Unknown source Unknown source

It shows how you can’t let fear dictate your life — and you can’t allow a government to use fear to control you.Even when you are horribly oppressed, you still have the ultimate control over your heart, mind, and actions. It will be hard…

View original post 930 more words

Immigration: A Libertarian Approach


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

America 1960:  If your black you have no rights and can’t interact with us.

America 2014:  If you were born on the other side of a line drawn by governments after one of its wars you have no right to come here and interact with our people unless bureaucrats randomly select you to be worthy of such opportunity.

No one argue that Ellis Island and Angel Island hurt America, its overwhelmingly seen as a policy that brought hard workers, new ideas, and increased the wealth of everyone as a result.  Because a government drew a line in the sand many years ago and claimed the right to tax the people on this geography, is no justification for using the initiation of force to keep families from coming here(1).  Just as 6 million Jews could have avoided the halocost if the U.S. kept its open boarders policy, millions more could survive today if the U.S. did what made the country great- attracted hard workers, and respected individuals as persons.

The more people you have to trade with, the more choice, the more job opportunity, the more competition for better products and lower prices, all the while serving as the greatest check on monopolies.  This lowers the cost of production, and making goods available to the masses that were once only available for the affluent.

If Democrats give any care about poor people, they’ll stop taxing and regulating them in the U.S. and let foreigners- THE POOREST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, who don’t have iPods, t.v.’s, cars, etc.- have a shot at success.  Republicans need to consistently support freedom of individual choice; and ignore the fact that “well this type of immigration was illegal according to what laws our 6% approved congress wrote down.”  Rosa Parks is a hero for breaking a law that was clearly unjust, and she was damn right for doing so; because humans deserve the right to act autonomously without being aggressed against by a third party, in a voluntary transaction.

(1) Unlike private property, that is recognized as such I acquired justly by contract of having the first claim to its use.  ‘X steals from Y.  Can Y take back what was stolen?  Yes because X did not justly acquire it.’  In other words governments have no just claim to property, its all paid with via money taken by force from the taxpayer.

A Syllogistic Approach to the ACA


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No one supports this law, I promise.  In this paper I attempt to expose the fallacy behind the claim that the ACA is supported, and is justified as legislation.