If you’re like me, then you’ve seen this infographic so many times that you could recite it from memory, except that since you’re like me you haven’t read it all the way through each time you’ve seen it. Even so, you understand it well enough to know this – if you stop moving, you are going to die. And all this time you thought it was the booze that was going to do you in…
Since average life expectancies are increasing everywhere, I’m not about to get the vapours over this latest threat, except that I know if some politicians can gin up sufficient hysteria`over this issue that they can generate some political capital out of it, they’re going to. And that will cause a whole different kind of pain in your ass.
So let’s not let that happen. If any of the sainted geniuses running our lives start trying to make a fuss over this, ask them this – if they think sitting is so bad, how do they justify forcing us to pay for schools where children are made to sit for hours and hours, day after day? With any luck, that might just get them to go make trouble somewhere else.
I found out that this letter to the editor was published when a nice retired woman phoned me last night to tell me what she thought of it. That was a first for me, and I can’t understand why she cared what I thought nor why she thought I would be interested in her opinion. That aside, I wasn’t doing anything important, and decided to hear her out. The core of her view was that charity was belittling to the recipient, and that a properly organized society would have no need of it.
I was a little befuddled, but after some discussion I asked if she thought resources given through the private sector were charity, but resources distributed by government were not. She acknowledged that that was what she was saying, but hadn’t realized it until I pointed it out and might have to reconsider her position. We chatted a bit more, and then wished each other goodnight.
Strange as her argument sounded to me at first, I think that many of the people who benefit from the welfare state view what they receive from the state as an entitlement, and would be shocked that anyone thought they were receiving charity.
My son, who spends a fair bit of time online, tells me he hasn’t seen this, which suggests to me YOU might also have not seen it. So for today only, here is something that has nothing at all to do with libertarianism -
I’ve heard it said that in Newfoundland that the chance of hitting a moose with your car is so great that locals joke that a hunting license should be issued to anyone applying for or renewing a driver’s license.
That being the case, it is no surprise that the inventor of “Moosedar“, James Oakley, is a former Newfoundlander.
“You would be driving down a road or a highway in Newfoundland and a light or an indicator would come on in your vehicle saying that there’s a moose within 500 metres. So then you would slow down,” said Oakley.”
Cool idea, but I wonder if the Iphone doesn’t already have an app for that.
This video (25:00), combined with evidence from othersources, reinforces my belief that the world is on the brink of a revolution in education. The cost of state-controlled schooling has risen all out of proportion to productivity, and technological advances are such that it is increasingly easy and inexpensive for parents to provide a home-based education that is far superior to the government alternative. I think these factors, combined with parental unrest and increasing global competition, are going to break the back of state schooling. I am very sorry to see little interest in this issue in Canada because the provision of education is a tremendous market, and those nations that are early adopters stand a good chance of establishing strong positions in the marketplace.
Along with the improved quality and lower costs that always attend competitive markets, I would also be particularly pleased to see an end to the pro-state, liberal bias I have found attendant to the government schooling all my children endured.
James Legh, who I am pleased to say is a friendly acquaintance of mine, has a new post up at his blog ‘Amalgamate Greater Victoria‘. Unfortunately for him, those who are opposed to amalgamation (like me) aren’t going to be swayed by his latest argument -
“In the case of one road between Central Saanich and Saanich, trucks over 5500 kilograms can drive up to the boarder in Central Saanich, but cannot drive along the same road once it reaches Saanich…
Why should Saanich care? It will cost money to make any changes and simply benefit a neighboring municipality.”
What the pro-amalgamation bunch overlooks here is very much what they always overlook – the problem exists not just because the road runs through more than one municipality, but also because the municipalities own the road! True, amalgamation would likely create a uniform regulation of the road, but it would do nothing to correct the more serious problem of benefits accruing principally to the road users while the costs are borne by taxpayers. If the road was privately owned, neither problem would exist. So why endorse a half-solution like amalgamation?
Here is a clip from the upcoming filmed version of “Atlas Shrugged” -
I remember when I read “Atlas Shrugged” that it wasn’t until this scene that I really became engaged with the work. Since then, many other readers have told me they had the same reaction at the same point, and for most of us the pivotal revelation was Phillip’s eagerness to obtain a donation from his brother Hank, despite being embarrassed to have his organization associated with someone whose values they consider unworthy.
I am further intrigued by the moment in which Hank confirms Phillip’s accusation that he, Hank, doesn’t really care about the underprivileged. In Phillip’s eyes, this will not do. It is not enough that Hank makes a huge donation. He must care.
Libertarians are often accused of not caring about the poor because they wish to dismantle the welfare state. But ask any libertarian, and he will tell you that a libertarian society will be better for the poor. Given that, then even if the accusers are correct, so what? Why would anyone care if libertarians care?
There is an outfit named Carolee that produces jewelry, and I don’t know if the folks over there are idiots or geniuses, but this campaign is likely to get them the attention for which they were aiming;
I can only dream of future ads in which we will be encouraged to admire the fashionable wear of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Francisco Franco, and Benito Mussolini.