I like this one. Though I doubt it will have any real impact on the debate, it expressed my opinions well enough to make me chuckle. Anyway, check it out...
The LawDog Files: I am happy to report ...
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
What I've Learned in Business
Years ago I began work on an MBA. It wasn't really a bad degree, but I pursued it because I thought it would help me advance in my career. When I first start in business for myself I thought it would help there, too. I was correct about the first and grossly incorrect about the second. I came to realize that what many of my business friends said. In most cases the primary value of an MBA is that it qualifies you to look after another person's money. The problem is, I know of no one who goes into business with the goal of looking after others' money. That is just one of the many things I've learned so far as a small business owner.
Is greed good?
It all depends on what you mean by greed. If by greed you mean a drive to get ahead at any cost, a willingness to lie, cheat, back stab, deceive and steal, then the answer is most emphatically "no". On the other hand, if you mean a desire to work really hard to achieve a dream, to be willing to pour all of your energy, creativity, drive and passion into creating something that provides for you and yours, then the answer is an equally emphatic "yes". Other than greed, we can call this "enlightened self-interest" if you wish. It is enlightened in the sense that success in a free market economy requires service to others.
Free market capitalism
We hear a lot about the evils of capitalism from some folks. It is blamed for everything from global climate change to the existence of poverty. While I won't discuss climate change in this article I will discuss poverty. The truth is, poverty and struggle to eke out a meager existence has been the norm for the vast majority of people throughout the history of the world. The amazing thing about capitalism, especially in the West, is that it has produced a standard of living and a degree of luxury for the vast majority of people that was unheard of in the past. This is not to declare that poverty does not exist, even in a capitalistic society. It does. On the other hand, in most cases, it is not the poverty of the past or of those regimes that repress free markets. In the US for instance, the vast majority of the poor have more than the poor of the past and more than those in third world countries.
Why does capitalism work? Because of the above mentioned "enlightened self-interest". In a truly free market, the only way to succeed in business is by serving others. It is this service to others, this provision of goods and or services that others want, that leads to success. Find a way to produce and deliver it faster, better and for less money and you are well on your way...as long as the "it" you're delivering is something people actually need and want. There's a tendency for some to suggest people should just do this for the common good, for the good of society as a whole if you will. That's been tried. It doesn't work. People will do more, put forth more effort for an extended period of time for themselves than they will for society as a whole. Adam Smith may have put it best when he noted that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". The butcher, brewer and baker may well be concerned about the well being of their fellow man, but that concern will not motivate them to succeed as much as the desire to build and possess something of their own...which of course, puts them in a much better position to see to the needs of the poor.
Free market capitalism isn't...
Many of the complaints about free market capitalism arise, I think, from a failure to understand just what that is. Government handouts, special treatment, preferred contracts, artificial manipulation of markets and the like are not free market capitalism. They can be called "corporatism", "crony capitalism" or any number of things, but they are most certainly not an example of a free market. Some business people engage in this sort of business because they have, at some point, run into a hard fact about a free market. It is ruthless. I didn't say the people were ruthless. Most of the truly successful business people I know are very concerned about their fellow man. The free market, though, is cold and uncaring. You will either produce and deliver what people want and need quickly, efficiently and at a price they are willing to pay or you will fail. You will pay your bills and your employees or you will fail. You will do what you say you will do or you will fail. The free market has no compassion. The free market has no good will (of course, it has no ill will, either). And so, we have some people in business who find they cannot or will not do what a free market requires...find out what others want and deliver it quicker, more efficiently and for a lower cost. Instead, they opt for the modern equivalent of the way people accumulated wealth in the past...by lying, cheating, plundering, stealing and enslaving. They are vile, vicious scummy examples of humanity, but they are not free market capitalists.
There are also those who have never been in business, who have never truly striven in the free market, who dislike it. They seek, often for what they perceive as the best of reasons, to restrict the ability of individuals to compete in a truly free market. Some are in politics, some in academia, some in media and some spent weeks sleeping on the ground while occupying Wall Street. Whether they think of themselves as smarter than the rest of us, wiser than we are or just entitled to what another person produces they share a common belief. In each case, there seems to be a tendency to believe that if someone were to control the market, if there were only more central planning, then everyone would be happily sharing the wealth that can only be produced by the free market they seek to destroy. The fact that this has never worked is irrelevant. This time, we're told, it'll be different. No, it won't. If it continues then we can anticipate looking back fondly at the lives we used to live back when the market was free.
Business is hard
That sums up what I've learned since I've been running my own small business. It's hard. It's all consuming at times. I think about it all day. I dream about it at night. It causes headaches, stomach upset and incredible tension. When I'm not actively working with clients I'm planning how to get more clients or taking classes to improve my skills so I can better serve my clients. I remember how much more I earned working for someone else. And every time I have a client thank me, I tend to grin. Every time I earn a single dollar, I value it more than I ever valued what I earned as an employee. It is both the hardest and most rewarding thing I have ever done. It is the free market that has allowed me to work on my dream and it is the free market that will provide freedom for me, my family and anyone else who wants it.
Is greed good?
It all depends on what you mean by greed. If by greed you mean a drive to get ahead at any cost, a willingness to lie, cheat, back stab, deceive and steal, then the answer is most emphatically "no". On the other hand, if you mean a desire to work really hard to achieve a dream, to be willing to pour all of your energy, creativity, drive and passion into creating something that provides for you and yours, then the answer is an equally emphatic "yes". Other than greed, we can call this "enlightened self-interest" if you wish. It is enlightened in the sense that success in a free market economy requires service to others.
Free market capitalism
We hear a lot about the evils of capitalism from some folks. It is blamed for everything from global climate change to the existence of poverty. While I won't discuss climate change in this article I will discuss poverty. The truth is, poverty and struggle to eke out a meager existence has been the norm for the vast majority of people throughout the history of the world. The amazing thing about capitalism, especially in the West, is that it has produced a standard of living and a degree of luxury for the vast majority of people that was unheard of in the past. This is not to declare that poverty does not exist, even in a capitalistic society. It does. On the other hand, in most cases, it is not the poverty of the past or of those regimes that repress free markets. In the US for instance, the vast majority of the poor have more than the poor of the past and more than those in third world countries.
Why does capitalism work? Because of the above mentioned "enlightened self-interest". In a truly free market, the only way to succeed in business is by serving others. It is this service to others, this provision of goods and or services that others want, that leads to success. Find a way to produce and deliver it faster, better and for less money and you are well on your way...as long as the "it" you're delivering is something people actually need and want. There's a tendency for some to suggest people should just do this for the common good, for the good of society as a whole if you will. That's been tried. It doesn't work. People will do more, put forth more effort for an extended period of time for themselves than they will for society as a whole. Adam Smith may have put it best when he noted that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". The butcher, brewer and baker may well be concerned about the well being of their fellow man, but that concern will not motivate them to succeed as much as the desire to build and possess something of their own...which of course, puts them in a much better position to see to the needs of the poor.
Free market capitalism isn't...
Many of the complaints about free market capitalism arise, I think, from a failure to understand just what that is. Government handouts, special treatment, preferred contracts, artificial manipulation of markets and the like are not free market capitalism. They can be called "corporatism", "crony capitalism" or any number of things, but they are most certainly not an example of a free market. Some business people engage in this sort of business because they have, at some point, run into a hard fact about a free market. It is ruthless. I didn't say the people were ruthless. Most of the truly successful business people I know are very concerned about their fellow man. The free market, though, is cold and uncaring. You will either produce and deliver what people want and need quickly, efficiently and at a price they are willing to pay or you will fail. You will pay your bills and your employees or you will fail. You will do what you say you will do or you will fail. The free market has no compassion. The free market has no good will (of course, it has no ill will, either). And so, we have some people in business who find they cannot or will not do what a free market requires...find out what others want and deliver it quicker, more efficiently and for a lower cost. Instead, they opt for the modern equivalent of the way people accumulated wealth in the past...by lying, cheating, plundering, stealing and enslaving. They are vile, vicious scummy examples of humanity, but they are not free market capitalists.
There are also those who have never been in business, who have never truly striven in the free market, who dislike it. They seek, often for what they perceive as the best of reasons, to restrict the ability of individuals to compete in a truly free market. Some are in politics, some in academia, some in media and some spent weeks sleeping on the ground while occupying Wall Street. Whether they think of themselves as smarter than the rest of us, wiser than we are or just entitled to what another person produces they share a common belief. In each case, there seems to be a tendency to believe that if someone were to control the market, if there were only more central planning, then everyone would be happily sharing the wealth that can only be produced by the free market they seek to destroy. The fact that this has never worked is irrelevant. This time, we're told, it'll be different. No, it won't. If it continues then we can anticipate looking back fondly at the lives we used to live back when the market was free.
Business is hard
That sums up what I've learned since I've been running my own small business. It's hard. It's all consuming at times. I think about it all day. I dream about it at night. It causes headaches, stomach upset and incredible tension. When I'm not actively working with clients I'm planning how to get more clients or taking classes to improve my skills so I can better serve my clients. I remember how much more I earned working for someone else. And every time I have a client thank me, I tend to grin. Every time I earn a single dollar, I value it more than I ever valued what I earned as an employee. It is both the hardest and most rewarding thing I have ever done. It is the free market that has allowed me to work on my dream and it is the free market that will provide freedom for me, my family and anyone else who wants it.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Why the gun is civilization
You can pick at it, but I think this one is pretty good, too. If you read some of the comments you may conclude it's way too easy for some people to become absorbed in their own words and supposed mastery of logic and rhetoric to actually think about what they read. Anyway, check it out.
The LawDog Files: Larry Correia on the Huckabee Show
The interview is really good and the blog by Larry Correia is even better. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, with any interest in the ongoing gun control debate should watch the interview and read the blog.
The LawDog Files: Larry Correia on the Huckabee Show
The LawDog Files: Larry Correia on the Huckabee Show
Cars and guns and drivers and shooters...oh, my
So, there's this blogger whose view of
guns and gun control is about 180 degrees off from mine. That's okay.
He's free to hold whatever view he wishes. I read and comment on his
blog, not because I have any idea that I might one day help him see
things differently, but simply because I have this affinity for
arguing with ridiculous points of view. I like to think it keeps me
in intellectual fighting form, though it probably doesn't do more
than necessitate I continue to take my good ol' lisinopril (aka
“blood pressure medicine”...sound of annoyance at my body's
betrayal of me).
Anyway, I was reading yesterday and
came across this jewel of a piece from that bastion of journalistic
excellence known as The Huffington Post. I don't really care to
increase the readership of this fine institution, but it is necessary
to link to it to prove I'm not making up the referenced article. I must warn you, though, the article is long on talk and woefully short on logic. I
wanted to address it because the primary argument the author puts forth is one I've
heard for years from many gun control folks. The idea is that guns and those who shoot guns should be dealt with in a way similar to how we deal with cars and drivers. To many gun control folks, and
honestly to some gun owners, it sounds, perhaps, not too
unreasonable. There are, of course, some problems with it in terms of
requiring registration and licensing to exercise a basic civil
liberty, but I don't want to deal with those. Nope, I want to address
each of the points the article makes and hopefully make it plain why,
in my experience, those who propose such a thing are either
- arguing without thinking through the implications, OR
- arguing dishonestly
Insurance
Yes,
we are required to have insurance to drive. The insurance
requirements vary from state to state as to the kinds and minimal
amounts required. Still, if I'm insured in one state and drive
through another with different requirements, I'm not required to buy
additional insurance. It's also worth noting that at least as early
as 2011 there was one state, Virginia, that did not require
automobile insurance as long as the driver was willing to annually
post a $500.00 bond with the state. The cost of insurance is based on
a number of factors, determined
by the insurance company rather than by the state. While
I may occasionally accuse insurance companies of less than ethical
practices I do recognize that they have the right to charge as much
or as little as they want from their policy holders.
It's important to notice that drivers are not required to have
insurance to cover some legal liability if a vehicle is stolen and
then used in the commission of a crime. Nor are drivers expected to
go to extraordinary lengths to prevent the theft of their vehicles,
though they are widely stolen and kill thousands of people every
year.
Registration and
licensing
Again,
each state has its own requirements as to how this is done. Briefly,
though, if I meet the minimum requirements for the state in which I
live, the registration and license fall into the “shall issue”
category rather than the “may issue” category. I am not required
to demonstrate a need for the vehicle or license. Beyond the
paperwork shuffle, all that is required is that I pay the required
fees. And, while the costs can vary significantly from state to
state, at least some states have made an effort to ensure the fees
are no more onerous than necessary. They are in fact reduced or even
waived for some drivers. Additionally, in some states there are
groups of people, active duty military for instance, who benefit from
less restrictive licensing requirements. What's really interesting is
that if I leave Texas and drive to visit California, my license and
registration are viewed as completely valid for the duration of my
visit. I am only required to change my license and registration if I
move
to another state. In that case, since I've already met the
requirements of the other state, obtaining a new license is a matter
of simply paying the fee in my new state of residence. Again, it's a
“shall issue” process.
Finally,
my understanding and experience is that the insurance, registration
and licensing requirements typically only apply for operation of a
vehicle on public
property.
So, as I have this discussion with gun control folks, I find that
their support for “let's register guns and license shooters like we
do cars and drivers” suddenly begins to wane. Now, they begin to
play an engaging game of “yes, but” (thank you Eric Berne) as
they consider the implications. This is what leads me to one of my
two conclusions. Either they made the “let's do it like we do for
cars” argument without understanding it and now that they've come face to face with what it means they don't like the implications or they thought it through
but were never serious about it. I'll leave alone, for now, those who
made the argument without thinking it through. I want to deal with
those who clearly have thought it through, but didn't really mean it.
I
have never
had a gun control person agree with truly dealing with firearms and
shooters like we deal with cars and drivers. Instead, the argument is
an introduction into justifying why the situation with firearms is
“different”...different from the very analogous argument he or
she put forward! Essentially, what is being said is this:
- We should treat firearms like cars and shooters like drivers (an analogy)
- Firearms are not like cars and shooters are not like drivers (the analogy I'm using is false)
- I don't really want to treat firearms like cars nor shooters like drivers
Or, you could put the argument in its simplest form, like this:
- I lied
The point is, those people who've been involved in this debate long enough have had plenty of time to consider the implications of this argument. It's not exactly new. I've been hearing it for decades and literally more times than I can remember. The idea that a gun control advocate who has been having these discussions for more than a few years has never encountered this argument and never considered the ramifications of regulating guns and shooters this way I find more than a little hard to believe. I know there are uninformed gun control folks out there. Some of them honestly so. I don't mind those folks (unless they choose to remain uninformed). The ones who truly get under my skin are the people who are lying and by all appearances know they are lying. These are the people who will look at you and tell you the latest and greatest plan to combat violence and all those evil guns in the hands of bad people (who maybe wouldn't be quite so bad without all those guns, ya know?) is going to deliver on its promise this time...all while knowing it will not and can not do what is promised, so that after the next atrocity committed by some deranged person they can call for just one more piece of reasonable gun legislation. Accompanied, of course, by the assurance that this time it will deliver the promised results. And when it fails and there's another horrific act of violence...
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Experience counts
There are times I just can't quite understand the position some people take on some things. After all, the position I take makes perfect sense to me. Still, I'm sure they feel the same way, that their position makes sense to them while mine remains inexplicable. What I've come to accept as true is that two (or more) people can look at the same data and come to widely differing conclusions, even mutually exclusive ones. I accept that. Really, I do.
What I have a hard time understanding is people who lack experience with something speaking with authority as though they do. For instance, I ride motorcycles. I've ridden for years and I ride reasonably well (I say "reasonably well" because motorcycling is incredibly intolerant of hubris). It annoys me to no end to hear someone who doesn't ride at all discuss the habits and failings of motorcycles and riders while presenting any number of "facts" to support his or her position. Likewise, I grow annoyed with those who state there exists no "need" for a 30 round magazine for hunting or self-defense in the absence of personal experience. Instead, they sometimes present would be facts as though there is no alternative to their particular point of view. Ignoring the fundamental problems with law abiding members of a free society having to demonstrate need to exercise a basic civil liberty, it astounds me that someone who doesn't hunt, or who has been spared the necessity of protecting self and/or family from harm, would presume to decide how many rounds are needed. Depending on what is being hunted, 30 rounds might be perfectly appropriate (prairie dogs in Wyoming come to mind). And in the case of personal defense, I should like to point out that there is no such thing as a reasonable limit on magazine capacity! If someone (or 3 someones) enters my house at 3am how many rounds to I need? The answer is simple. As many as it takes to stop him (or them). I've seen people miss repeatedly at the range while shooting at a stationary target that isn't returning fire. They've had time to control their breathing, assume a good stance, assure good hand positioning and line up a perfect sight picture...and still miss! I've seen trained military people miss in a firefight. Not to mention, a wounded person can still kill you if not sufficiently incapacitated. Now, think of your nightmarish encounter this way. It's 3 am and you've been startled awake by the sound of something (someone?) coming through your front door/living room window. Your spouse is in bed beside you and your kids are down the hall in their rooms. How fast can you get to your home defense weapon while your spouse dials 911? Are your hands shaking? What about your heart rate and breathing? Are they both so hard and fast as to make your aim less accurate than normal? How's your vision in your darkened house? Where are they? Can you hear them? Could there be more than you've already counted? Are any of them headed your way...or toward your kids?
So, how many rounds do you want? 7? Really? I'm a trained, experienced shooter and while I'm not as accurate as I once was (eyes aren't what they once were and I drink way too much coffee these days), I'm more accurate than most people I see at the range. I've been shot at and I've returned fire and I want more than 7 rounds. In a pistol 15 is nice. In a rifle that will hold them, I'll take 20-30, thank you. In a shotgun...a long tube magazine with 8 will have to do. This is not to denigrate the utility of the shotgun in self defense. The sound of a round being chambered in a 12 gauge pump shotgun has been know to induce PIES (Profound Intestinal Emptying Syndrome). What I do not want, what I will not accept, is the idea that I should be limited to almost enough to protect myself and those who look to me for protection. No. Not gonna happen.
What I have a hard time understanding is people who lack experience with something speaking with authority as though they do. For instance, I ride motorcycles. I've ridden for years and I ride reasonably well (I say "reasonably well" because motorcycling is incredibly intolerant of hubris). It annoys me to no end to hear someone who doesn't ride at all discuss the habits and failings of motorcycles and riders while presenting any number of "facts" to support his or her position. Likewise, I grow annoyed with those who state there exists no "need" for a 30 round magazine for hunting or self-defense in the absence of personal experience. Instead, they sometimes present would be facts as though there is no alternative to their particular point of view. Ignoring the fundamental problems with law abiding members of a free society having to demonstrate need to exercise a basic civil liberty, it astounds me that someone who doesn't hunt, or who has been spared the necessity of protecting self and/or family from harm, would presume to decide how many rounds are needed. Depending on what is being hunted, 30 rounds might be perfectly appropriate (prairie dogs in Wyoming come to mind). And in the case of personal defense, I should like to point out that there is no such thing as a reasonable limit on magazine capacity! If someone (or 3 someones) enters my house at 3am how many rounds to I need? The answer is simple. As many as it takes to stop him (or them). I've seen people miss repeatedly at the range while shooting at a stationary target that isn't returning fire. They've had time to control their breathing, assume a good stance, assure good hand positioning and line up a perfect sight picture...and still miss! I've seen trained military people miss in a firefight. Not to mention, a wounded person can still kill you if not sufficiently incapacitated. Now, think of your nightmarish encounter this way. It's 3 am and you've been startled awake by the sound of something (someone?) coming through your front door/living room window. Your spouse is in bed beside you and your kids are down the hall in their rooms. How fast can you get to your home defense weapon while your spouse dials 911? Are your hands shaking? What about your heart rate and breathing? Are they both so hard and fast as to make your aim less accurate than normal? How's your vision in your darkened house? Where are they? Can you hear them? Could there be more than you've already counted? Are any of them headed your way...or toward your kids?
So, how many rounds do you want? 7? Really? I'm a trained, experienced shooter and while I'm not as accurate as I once was (eyes aren't what they once were and I drink way too much coffee these days), I'm more accurate than most people I see at the range. I've been shot at and I've returned fire and I want more than 7 rounds. In a pistol 15 is nice. In a rifle that will hold them, I'll take 20-30, thank you. In a shotgun...a long tube magazine with 8 will have to do. This is not to denigrate the utility of the shotgun in self defense. The sound of a round being chambered in a 12 gauge pump shotgun has been know to induce PIES (Profound Intestinal Emptying Syndrome). What I do not want, what I will not accept, is the idea that I should be limited to almost enough to protect myself and those who look to me for protection. No. Not gonna happen.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Don't do that any more...
Once upon a time, shortly after the discovery of fire, I was an EMT. Some time later I became an RN. Courtesy of the US Government I was stationed at a small hospital on a tropical island. Palm trees, beaches, warm water, sugar cane used for its most noble purpose...and some days just plain boring.
I was running the Operating Room and this day I was also the OOD. Steve, aka the "Guru of Gas" (the CDR who ran the anesthesia department) and I were leaving the hospital via the ER exit to bring back dinner and solving all the world's problems as we went, waxing eloquent about politics, guns, trucks, rum (see sugar cane, above), motorcycles...all important stuff. Anyway, that's when we both saw him. "Him" being the lone occupant of the ER waiting room. I was going to speak to him anyway, truly I was, but he flagged me down before I could open my mouth.
"Can you help me?" he asked.
"Sure" I replied, sticking out my hand. He shook it, though without much of a grip. We exchanged ranks and names and he seemed properly impressed at my immense rank. I was happy.
"I've been here for over an hour and I haven't been seen yet."
Very patiently, I explained the triage process, emphasizing that the sickest or most severely injured were seen first while Steve stood back and chuckled because he wasn't having to do this.
"I understand that" said the lone patient." It's just that there was no one here when I arrived and I've been sitting here waiting all this time." Now, I was embarrassed and more than a little annoyed with the ER folks. But, hey, there was probably a reason he was still waiting. Right? I decided to triage right then. Make him feel better. Buy my colleagues some time right now and chew someone's butt later. With that plan in mind I went into "clinical mode" while the Guru continued to chuckle happily to himself.
Since he was sitting, I knelt on the floor to look square in his eyes (doesn't make the patient feel like you're trying to overpower them, ya know?). "So, what's going on?"
"Well, LT, a couple hours ago I was riding my ATV and it flipped over on me."
This was going quickly from inconvenient to Not Good, I could tell. "Uh huh. You look pretty good. How are you feeling? Headache? Nausea?" (all this while checking his pupils...he didn't look or present like a head injury, but ATV accidents can be bad)
"No. It's just that when I turn my head like this (here he demonstrated 'this' by turning his head fully to the right) the left side of my body goes numb". I should point out that it was at this point, out of the corner of my eye, that I saw Steve the Guru vault the ER desk and run into the clinical area. Drawing upon my vast clinical knowledge I spoke clearly and calmly to the patient as he turned his head back to mid line.
"Well, I recommend you not do that. Don't worry, the other guy has gone to get someone from the ER. They'll be here in a moment to get you fixed up" (Where is the nurse/doc/corpsman with the c-collar!?) I moved smoothly into my keep-the-patient-calm routine.
"You been here on the island long?" (Where's the damn c-collar, already?)
"No, sir. Just about 3 months. Is it always this warm and humid?"
"Yeah, pretty much. It is the Caribbean after all. It cools off a little in the winter, but the water is still warm." (Crap! I'm gonna have to do something...let's see, I can lay him down on that bench and secure his head and neck with our belts and his shoes...Where is that c-collar?)
The Guru of Gas, and the entire complement of the ER came streaming out from the clinical area like a colony of ants bound for a piece of meat. Steve gave me his "you're going to be so annoyed in just a minute" look. In seconds the patient was wearing a c-collar and secured to a backboard and whisked off to the trauma room...where he should have been immediately after he came in. The doc hung around for a moment as the patient was carted off. "I guess we should have paid more attention before we started the ER potluck, huh?"
I don't remember my exact words, but according to the Guru of Gas, there was some concern I was going to blow out a major cerebral vessel. There is also the slightest possibility I might have used "high impact language" that shouldn't have been directed at a senior officer. That's what the doc said the next day in the CO's office. I have to admit, it wasn't often I wrote up an entire department. Did I mention how boring it is in the Caribbean?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)