The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]

This will probably get me (more) hate email.  That's ok.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Brittany Maynard's last days started a national conversation about whether it's OK for a terminally ill person to end their own life.

Now that she has died, it's time to see whether the millions of clicks and views she generated online trigger more than just talk.

Conversation? 

What the **** is that, may I ask?

This is nobody's ******n business except the person who is making the decision.

Look folks, this is pretty-basic stuff and goes directly to whether you believe in individual rights and liberty or not.  It is a binary decision, and forms the very core of your belief system as it rests at the nucleus of your being.  Your position on this either defines you as a believer in free individuals or slaves to someone, or something, else -- and I note that this slavery, if you accept it, inherently extends to you.

That is, you are either a free individual or you are not.  Your freedom either extends all the way to the boundary of your person and possessions, provided they do not forcibly impinge on another or it does not.

You can be sad that someone chooses to end their own life (especially if it's someone important to you!) but if you respect personal liberty there are no circumstances under which you can bar it or attempt to punish someone's election in this regard.

I know this will cause many of my readers to recoil in horror but this is not a hastily-considered position by any means -- and a viewpoint I've communicated here in this column before.

This is simply is a matter of first principles: I either own the sack of meat that comprises my body or I do not.  If I own a thing I have the right to destroy it, irrespective of whether someone else wants me to or not.

If you do not believe you own your own sack of meat you have willfully and intentionally designated yourself as a slave. We are now left with only one debate to have: Who holds the whip that will repeatedly land across your back.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Merkel has said she'd rather see the UK leave the EU than "accept" migration curbs...

Chancellor Angela Merkel would rather see the UK exit from the European Union than compromise over the principle of free movement of workers, according to the German magazine Der Spiegel.

Mrs Merkel is alleged to fear that the UK is approaching a "point of no return".

Merkel is out of her frapping mind, and so is anyone else who believes you can have both free movement of people without concern for borders and welfare.

You can potentially have one or the other but not both.  Not there, not here, not anywhere.

If you allow this then those in poorer nations will shop the welfare systems of the various nations to get the "best" handouts and move there irrespective of their willingness (or ability) to earn more than they cost.

We've seen this here in the United States and it's been seen everywhere else too.

I'm perfectly ok with an open door immigration policy with a quarantine and pass-through system like we had at Ellis Island, but for one thing: No welfare of any sort, period.

You either can pull your own weight or, absent entirely-private charityyou starve.  Literally.

No other paradigm is sustainable.  Cameron knows this and the UK is being bankrupted by their social "maintenance" systems because there is utterly nothing preventing people who are unable or worse, unwilling, to pull their own weight coming into the UK from other EU nations and claiming immediate and permanent social benefits

As for the US the same should apply -- and until it does immigration must be limited to those who are required to provide a net positive contribution to all government entities they interact with and impose cost upon -- federal, state and local.

If various groups want to change that policy then we must dismantle the entire welfare system first.  Then -- and only then -- can we open the borders, because at that point only those who can make a net positive contribution will come.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

"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."

Unless, of course, you're a Christian.  Then Congress and other organs of government will make lots of laws that dictate how your religion must operate, such as what they've apparently done here.

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

So about that Catholic Synod recently...

The Church teaches: "No grounds whatsoever exist for assimilating or drawing analogies, however remote, between homosexual unions and God's design for matrimony and the family." Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies should be accepted with respect and sensitivity. "Any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard is to be avoided."

Uh...... got handcuffs?

Now here's the problem, in a nutshell: None of this has anything to do with who you love and what gender they are.  If you think so you have rocks in your head.  If you promote this from a public-policy standpoint you're a financial rapist.

Most people know about the so-called marriage penalty which applies generally to those who are married and have two incomes in the family.  Most of the time you wind up penalized for being in this situation compared against one of you filing head-of-household (if you have kids) and the other as single.  Not always, but most of the time.

The government of course loves gay couples in this regard if they can be "married" because a very large percentage of them will have no children (which is generally not true for heterosexual couples.)  

But where the real screw job comes in is when you get older!

See, Medicaid covers nursing home care -- after you spend all your assets down first.  Here's the problem -- your assets are joint if you're married, and that's a huge problem if one of you gets sick and the other is not.  Before you can avail yourself of that program you must dissipate the marital assets first, which means your surviving spouse is ****ed after you die.  (While there is allegedly "spousal impoverishment" protection in this regard it's crap in point of fact and will screw the surviving spouse; the annual income that can be "protected" in this fashion is only around $23,000.)  And oh by the way, if you try to transfer assets to get around this you will run into lookback and penalty clauses designed to prohibit that.

The only other meaningful exception is your primary residence (with a cap on value) if your spouse (or a dependent offspring) is still living there.

Marriage should be between you and a religious order, nothing more or less.  It most-certainly should not result in your most-loved individual being hosed should you get older, because we all do.  Yet it does, will, and as the noose of ever-higher medical scams continues to tighten this becomes a larger and larger problem that bites more and more people.

Heh look over there, gays -- you signed up willingly to get reamed like this 10, 20 or 30 years down the road -- and I bet you didn't understand that when you argued for "marriage equality", did you?

Be careful what you wish for -- you might get it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.