About those businesses...and the homosexual rights lobby...

Homosexuals (or anyone really) who seeks to force a business to provide him or her with a service represents a modern day moral equivalent to a 19th century slave owner. If you compel a private person to serve you in a private capacity, you, quite frankly, are no better than a 19th century slave owner. In fact, there is an Amendment to the United States Constitution that you should probably read. Here's a hint. You can find it between Amendment 12 and Amendment 14. You have studied some history and know why we decided to put that in there, haven't you? If you haven't, you should. Here's what it says:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Well, if you have to sue a baker [use legal process; more on that later] in order to get that baker to provide you with a cake, that isn't really voluntary servitude, is it? The typical leftist can probably rationalize such a statement by proclaiming that it's for the greater good to compel a baker to make a cake. If you think about someone who would go to court to make a baker bake him a cake, does that strike you as the product of a rational mind? Think about that situation and analyze it. I'll break it down into a few hypothetical facts:

• You're found a baker who does not want to bake you a cake.
• You're offended because that baker does not want to bake you a cake.
• You go stompy feet mode and hire a lawyer. 
• The person who does not want to bake you a cake claims it's against his religion.
• You take him to court and sue him. 
• Instead of going to court, he agrees to make the cake. 
• The baker acts like a leftist and makes you a vile and disgusting, albeit edible cake for your wedding with your spouse. 

That's a potential consequence of a lawsuit if you try to compel someone to provide you with a service. If that person has expressed a reluctance to provide you with a service, does it strike you as a good idea to make them provide it? Probably not, if you desire a decent product of their labor. But then again, we're talking about the actions of a leftist, so "rational" does not apply.

I digress. On to that "legal process" that the homosexual couple used to compel the baker to provide a service. in US. v. Kosminki the United States Supreme Court actually provided a 13th Amendment definition of involuntary servitude for a prosecution under one of the 18 US Code Civil Rights Statutes. Here's how they defined involuntary servitude:

Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. 

Ouch. I'm actually kind of curious why no one has raised this issue in court yet. If we had a Department of Justice interested in justice, then perhaps they could look into this.

Let's talk safety razor blades!

Here are the brands that I've tried.

• Shark Super Chrome: I thought these blades were pretty good, but the quality control was spotty. I used these for a while in my Merkur 180. The quality control was spotty, and I'd get some really good shaves and some poor shaves. Some of the blades lasted a week, some lasted three days, and some gave me a poor shave right off the bat. I haven't tried these in my slant bar razor. 
• Feather Hi-Stainless: These blades are SHARP! I cut myself regularly with them in my Merkur 180. It's easy to do if you're not careful. Sometimes they gave me random nicks, it seemed like. These are not very forgiving. I also tried one in my Merkur Slant Bar razor. I got a good shave in that razor. 
• Gillette 7 O'Clock Super Platinum: These blades are really good. They seem to be as sharp as the Feathers, I didn't nick myself with them at all. I used them in my Merkur Slant Bar and got a really good shave. They seem to last a week. 
• Astra Superior Platinum: These blades are great in my Slant Bar. I get a good, consistent shave. They are also about ten cents each on Amazon which is a major plus! For that money, they're a bargain even if some of the blades have quality control issues. 
• 7 Am. Ugh. Stay Away. These were horrible. I could barely make it through one shave! 
• Crystal Double Edge Razor Blades: I have a thick beard, and these didn't seem to cut it very well. I'd rate them as mediocre, not too bad, but I didn't find them as good as the 7 O'Clocks or the Astras. 

My recommendation is to try out razor blades and find the one that works best for your combination of shaving ingredients. Avoid the 7 Am blades for sure. I'd also avoid the Feathers until you have practice. 

So why does a dollar bill have value?

When you look at our monetary system as it exists today, why does our money have value? Open up your wallet and take a look at a dollar bill. Ask yourself, "Why is this dollar bill valuable?" It's a piece of paper that say "One Dollar" on it. What makes that piece of paper have value? What relationship does it have to any sort of durable goods in the world?

The simple answer is that a dollar has value because the vast majority of people believe that it has value and are willing to accept it as a medium of exchange whereupon they provide a good or service, and then they use it as a medium of exchange, and obtain goods or services with their dollars. So, dollar bills are valuable because people want them and are willing to accept them in exchange for goods or services. But it's a piece of paper, right? Well, yes, actually it is. But, it's a piece of paper that people are willing to accept in payment for goods and services.

But why do people accept paper in payment for their goods and services? Well, look at that dollar bill again. There's a phrase on there, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Well, what does that mean? It means that a merchant has to accept that piece of paper in payment for their goods or services. You probably have a credit card in your wallet, too, right? Have you ever engaged in any sort of economic activity with someone who does not want to accept your credit card? Think of thinks like buying cookies from a girl scout going door to door. Chances are she doesn't accept a credit card in payment. But she will accept the $1 bills from your wallet. If you incur a debt to her by accepting cookies and agreeing to payment, then you give her several the $1 bills from your wallet in exchange for the cookies.

So, you believe that a dollar bill has value. The girl scout believes that a dollar bill has value, multiply that by hundreds of millions of people in the United States. That's why a dollar bill has value. All of those hundreds of millions of people are required to accept that dollar bill as a medium of exchange, and all of those people believe that they will be able to use it as a medium of exchange. Surely, the government must keep gold in vaults to back the dollar bills though.

Actually, the value of the US dollar is not pegged to any amount of precious metal. The way that dollar bills are created is basically by the Federal Reserve running a printing press. There's a byzantine picture with Congress and the Federal reserve, but, the essential, basic fact is that dollar bills come from a printing press. Why does counterfeiting carry a steep penalty? It undermines the value of the billions upon billions of dollar bills in circulation. It increases the money supply which drives down the value of money. It's a basic economic principle that an abundance in the supply of something will drive down the value of that thing. Money is a thing, in that sense.

Congress has the power to do the same thing, though. They can run printing presses, and create money that people are legally required to accept as payment for debts. What happens if Congress gets carried away? Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic, where you use a wheelbarrow to take your money to the market, and your wallet to bring home your groceries. Congress wouldn't inflate the currency, would they, after all, they're supposed to look out for the United States.

If you have a change jar, reach in and pull out a quarter. Run your finger along the edge. Those are called reeds, and there is a very valid historical reason that they are on your coins. I have to go on a bit of an historic tangent here. Going back to the times of the Roman Empire, if not even further, the Emperors or their eunuchs, minions, or whoever decided to launch and invasion or fund a project or something special. They didn't want to raise taxes, because that would probably tick off a rich senator who would bribe the Praetorian Guard to stick a dagger in his back, so, they figured out another really neat trick. They realized that they could shave around the edges or their coins, then they'd use that metal to make more coins. Presto! More money! But people got wise to that idea, and started cutting vertical slots in the edges of coins. Then the government had to figure out another way to debase the currency. So they melted down the coins and mixed the precious metals with cheaper substitutes. Presto! More money. So people spent the cheaper coins and kept the valuable ones. Things went through a few changes, but eventually we ended up where we are today.

The financial system is complicated, but basically, the Federal Reserve creates money at the request of Congress, and that money goes into circulation. Congress has assumed trillions of dollars of debt, remember, they also have the power to create money, that is legal tender for all debts public and private. As long as they keep the printing presses under control, things go relatively well. If they don't, Argentina happens.

What happens when the girl scout doesn't want the dollar bill in your wallet in exchange for cookies?

Savings and Inflation

Right now, other than my ROTH IRA, and my TSP, I'm not terribly interested in putting much money away in a savings account. I have a savings account, and it gets around a 1% return rate.

According to some recent statistics that the state used to raise the minimum wage, I believe that the CPI increased around 4.3%*. That means that the money that have put in that I've had most of that money in the account for over a year, so it means the money that I put in that account is worth 3.3% less than when I put it in that account. So, why should I put money in a savings account if it loses value?

*Those are the numbers that they tell us about, but the government plays all kinds of games with the consumer price index.

My feelings about the "right" to health care

Here's the thing about saying that health care is a right. Rights are things that someone cannot tell you not to do, generally speaking. Take for instance, the right to free speech. The way that right works, is that people have a right to speak their minds about things. It doesn't create an obligation for anyone to listen, for anyone to provide a venue for a person to speak, or provide the means for a person to publish things. It merely states that a person can do so, and the government and by extension other people cannot really stop a person from doing so as long as the person does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, for example, by trespassing or spray painting the message one someone's garage door. This is a right that requires inaction by everyone for it not to be infringed, which is generally what a right means.

However, that is not true for health care. With health care, instead of a right requiring inaction by others to not be infringed, this right requires action by others, and in fact it creates an obligation by someone else to act regardless of that person's feelings in the matter. This is because health care is a service provided by people. If you create a right to a service provided by people, then people have an obligation to provide that service. If people have an obligation to provide that service, you then create a condition of involuntary servitude of the people of the class that provide that service. In this case, it would be health care professionals. There's more to it than that, though. If you can force people to provide a health care through government regulation regardless of their feelings about the matter and whether or not they are getting paid for it, then when people decide not to go into the health care field because the expense of entering the health care field is not outweighed by the income (i.e. a doctor cannot repay student loans) then surely the government can also force people to enter the health care field, after all, people have a right to health care.

The 13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That's the thirteenth amendment to the US Constitution.

What's really interesting about that is how certain types of medical professionals, notably chiropractors are required to accept the government insurance. Doctors of oral surgery, physical therapists, and occupational therapists also cannot opt out of medicare, so they are required to accept medicare patients. They don't have to accept patients with any other insurance, but the government says that they have to take medicare.

If you're forced to accept patients with government insurance that show up at your door, how is that not involuntary servitude?

It's probably only going to be a matter of time before the government mandates that the doctors take all of the crappy government insurance. Stupid politicians.

I will not refer to sailors as Black and Tans

The US navy has rolled out a new black and tan uniform.

I don't think that it's polite to call them black and tans though.