Friday, October 23, 2015

Progressives Against Minority & Immigrant Owned Restaurants

This article, called "Survey: Half of Food Workers Go to Work Sick Because They Have To", is an example of "good intentions" that ultimately hurt the minority small business owners and consolidate power to the crony-capitalists. Immigrants & minorities just can't catch a break from this constant anti-business attack from Progressives. Combined with $15/hour minimum wage, this constant pounding away at coerced employee benefits will keep increasing the 60% failure rate within the first three years of a restaurant opening.

In 7 of 10 restaurants, entrepreneurs work alongside the rest of their staff. At least in Southern California, there are countless minority owned businesses where the owners themselves have limited English speaking ability. In fact, when I shop at Restaurant Depot for hotel breakfast supplies, the vast majority are minorities shopping for their mom-and-pop restaurants. This hardly fits the typical crony-capitalist corporations Progressives love to target as the "bad guys." I thought Progressives were in support for minority rights?

Progressives care nothing about making it easier for minorities to start their own businesses and exit poverty. Through their zeal to ultimately crush any forms of employer-employee volunteerism, they blindingly shrink opportunities for minorities to be stuck working hourly wages in large corporations that will end up gaining market share. Of all industries, restaurants DEFINE upward mobility for minorities:

♦ Nine in 10: Restaurant managers who started at entry level.
♦ Eight in 10: Restaurant owners who started their industry careers in entry-level positions.

For further discussion on this "fringe benefit" push:


The main issue of concern is the norovirus.

If you spend an average $2,668 per year at restaurants, your current chance of getting norovirus is roughly 5.27% per year. This statistically comes to one incident every 19 years. So does the frequency match the magnitude to target the rights of minorities for this "public health" concern?

[Horrible Butchering of Stats: $709.2 billion in annual dining sales, 20 million norovirus cases, 70% from food workers. For now, we're not going to question how the CDC got the 20 million figure despite the fact that only 56,000 actually are hospitalized. Someone smarter than me can explain how the estimates are made.]

If this is such a huge "public health" concern that is of ACTUAL concern of customers getting sick left and right, you'd see businesses advertising that they offer "paid sick leave" for their employees in order to obtain a competitive advantage. But since we don't see this, perhaps one could believe that this is not real a concern to most people and this is MANUFACTURED fear in order to support an underlying agenda.

I suspect the frequency is of low enough amount that people consider "food poisoning" an accepted risk as it currently stands. This can hardly be considered an urgent "public health" issue requiring stripping rights away from minorities.

Obviously, it's a very difficult task to link the source of illness and obtain the frequency of which customers are contracting diseases from contagious employees who come into work due to lack of "paid sick leave." But without acknowledging this fact, the author attempts to make the implied link anyway.


Let's put aside the real life magnitude of this problem and see if we can figure out a solution. Now the norovirus is a nasty little bugger since it remains contagious not only while symptoms exist, but "also during the first few days after you recover from norovirus illness." So some questions:

QUESTION 1: How many food workers still come into work while having severe diarrhea and vomiting?
QUESTION 2: How many food workers wait more than "a few days after" recovery while still contagious?

"Being sick" as asked in the survey does not answer question #1. I'd imagine that while the symptoms exist it's most contagious? Would it even be possible to hide the symptoms? From my experience with "food illness," I'm not seeing the frequent possibility that an employee could have the energy or motivation to work essentially being glued to the toilet and laying prostate in between bouts of fluid expulsion. Also, it would seem that as a supervisor / employer, if one sees an employee symptomatic (AKA running to the bathroom frequently to both vomit and diarrhea, shivering, and pale skin) would probably send the employee immediately home. Heck, if I was employed and saw a co-worker symptomatic, I would report it to my supervisor. I wouldn't want to get sick either!

So if we deduce that it's not while the symptoms are strongest in which employees are coming to work while infected with norovirus, then it must be by some other means, which relates to question #2.

If norovirus is still contagious for a few days after recovery, it would seem to make sense that this is where the predominant spreading occurs. If an employee correctly determines they were extremely sick, they will go to work as soon as their symptoms become manageable to perform the duties of their job. This is where I believe the norovirus starts spreading, and at which point I'm not sure if even any major sick leave program could be effective.

In the State of California, due to the "Sick Leave Law" penalizing any sort of reprisal, the law essentially acts as mandated "paid time off." As employers, we don't want to risk the liability of demanding a doctor's note and later getting in trouble from the State Agency. So we essentially consider the sick time on the "honor" system which will ultimately turn into "paid time off" in practice.

So in order to cover the 1 to 3 days of the illness getting better, we'll need to tack on about 2 more days to avoid any contagion. So we're essentially needing to mandate at least 5 days per year. We can assume there will be some "fudging" for employees to use "sick" days as "paid time off", and that other kinds of sickness may occur throughout the year. It can be determined that any pre-measured sick time will be used up only for days in which the sickness is symptomatic. In other words, if you set sick time at 5 days per year, then if an employee uses 2 days for another sickness, then even with 3 days off with the norovirus, they still have 2 days of being contagious. This doesn't solve the problem.

At what point is too much "sick"time offered? Perhaps two weeks? But if it ends up being on the "honor" system, essentially we're requiring employers to provide paid vacation time. Certainly, we can expect a certain amount of "padding" of paid sick time if provided enough. And if employees "maximize" the padding for whatever "sickness" they feel, then in the interest of maximizing their "sick time" employees will attempt to come to work as soon as symptoms subside, which, if done in the case of norovirus, will not solve the contagious problem.

So then, we must now mandate that all employees, after being sick with diarrhea and vomiting, must wait at least two days after ending the symptoms to stay in self-quarantine until the contagious period is safely over. But, by what enforcement mechanism can we enforce this? Are the Employers now to become a the Police attempting to discover every symptom of an employee? Will personal medical records now become privy to the eyes of the Employer; privacy be damned? Will the State now punish Employers for allowing their employees to come back to work sooner than two days of which the Employee declares their symptoms to be over? Yet at the same time punishing employers for alleged reprisals of these very same employees restricted from coming back to work while allegedly contagious for which symptoms may or may not be disclosed?

Oh my. Laws, beget laws, beget laws, into continuum. All upon the backs of the minority entrepreneurs that already have a difficult time keeping their businesses profitable in today's already complicated regulatory environment.

Never mind the small magnitude of the norovirus, the non-effectiveness of paid-sick time in actually preventing the spread of the norovirus, or the endless laws burdening the minority business owner in the guise of stopping this "public health" menace; the State works for the betterment of all at the expense of the few!


Above was the pragmatic reasons why "paid sick time" to combat norovirus is nonsense. On a principled stance, I see this as being a little more difficult to determine. Certainly, deliberately coughing into someone's face while contagious should be considered initiation of aggression. But what about going to work while contagious?

It would seem that a customer who does get sick of norovirus from eating at a restaurant would have a very difficult time of tracing its origins. And even if traced without reasonable doubt, it seems to be irrational that a customer would then be able to morally justify recompense for lost wages of missed productive time.

I consider the numerous times I received a cold or flu while in school. It would seem inhumane for me to subsequently hold a gun to each sick student and tell them to evacuate the premises, "for my safety." Or even if it were at work, I do not have the right to coerce co-workers to go home. Only the Employer can do so.

The magnitude of the risk, contagious factor, and severity of the contagion in question I believe makes this more of a pragmatic, rather than a principled question.

For more discussion:



My Conversion From a Statist to an Anarcho-Capitalist, & My Experience Engaging People on their Moral Principles Online

TLDR; Read this FREE 30 minute booklet and never see the world the same again:


Many of you who follow my posts (and follow other friends' posts I comment on) know that for the past two months or so I've rigorously challenged and defended various non-aggression & Austrian Economics principles through dialectical discourse (also invited individuals to broadcast their views via video chat). In the background, I've spent 100+ hours contemplating all sides of the issue from various materials, including Marxist literature. I started from a Statist point of view, which comes naturally being thoroughly indoctrinated through mainstream media and public school. Even on a Political Science level at University of Washington, the views countering Statism were never taught or mentioned. Talk about biased education!

Then, the failed "War on Terror" and 2008 Financial Crisis, gave us all a jolt of the reality toward the Crony-Capitalist who control our corrupt government. And then, it comes to Ron Paul around 2012, to be the only politician who seems to be saying the truth we've all realized - that Government is the ultimate cause of these problems. And thus began my slow process of gaining a better understanding of what I always thought as "fringe" beliefs of the Libertarian philosophy. Being busy running my hotels, and making babies, I didn't go too deep into the political philosophies.

I've recently received a "wake up" call. Within the past year or so, there's been increase vocal support for $15/hour minimum wage, and essentially the "vilification" of employers as "exploiters." It's not enough to punish the perceived 1%, but to punish all other small business owners in the process. "Certainly, I am not one of THEM!" I exclaim, referring to crony-capitalists that have corrupted our government. Surely all the vitriol hate that is spewing from my friend's Facebook feeds isn't referring to me!?

But, oh wait. Guilty by association to Capitalism as a whole and individual liberty. And thus began my moral indignation toward spurring awareness that small business owners are NOT the enemy. Stop punishing the Asian immigrant Entrepreneurs for the sins of the crony-capitalists. Certainly, if there's a form of "clean" Capitalism (of those who actually earn results of their blood, sweat, & tears), the Asian immigrant must embody it! If not them, then who?

Then, on August 13, 2015, all hell broke loose as I removed the last vestiges of my intellectual ignorance and become willing to explore "anarcho-capitalism." The breadth of knowledge available to explore this previously profane area of "self-determination" and "non-aggression principle" for free has been staggering:

♦ Ron Paul
♦ Tom Woods
♦ Peter Schiff
♦ Penn Jillette
♦ Mises Institute
♦ Murray Rothbard
♦ Judge Napolitano
♦ Jason Stapleton

You can skip all the years of ignorance I did, and just spend 30 minutes or so reading this:


In the process of my active engagement with Statists (and those who support Bernie Sanders), I've discovered that there are some who see Government-initiated violence as a moral VIRTUE. It's not even that they see it as a "necessary evil" to achieve pragmatic ends (for which I have more intellectual understanding toward), but that there is a "social contract" that acts as a moral "blank check" which overrides your ownership to your own body and the labor that extends from your body. Meaning, they see this "social contract" to morally justify their theft of your justly owned personal property and labor at the point of a gun. And if they take their thought to the logical end, this would require a world government, and mandate that you are morally responsible for every other person in the world that has ever existed in the past, present, and future.

I know some could argue I'm making these "straw men" up, but I can assure you (and present numerous conversations), that many believe it is their moral DUTY to take away your Natural Rights at the point of the gun. They have no moral hesitation to put you in prison or murder you if you refuse to fulfill your "social obligation." If they are not personally willing to enforce their theft, they will be the coward and contract the responsibility to some other party so they don't have to personally face their moral conscience (AKA the Government).

Whether you're willing to be aware of it, or not: this is a war of ideas, and the stakes are whether you live as a slave to these Statists, or as a free person to self-organize. The stakes are for your children's future; of whether your children ultimately live for the benefit of whom they voluntarily choose, or as slaves to the State (though to different degrees). The Statists have no hesitation to put you in jail and completely ruin your life for disagreeing with them on this "social contract."

My attempts to engage many of these "Progressives" and Statists can be roughly categorized as intellectually lazy and ignorant. Here are the typical responses:

♦ Personal insults or redirection without actually addressing the issue (ie. "Way to over explain a joke." "You're just greedy.")
♦ Silence

I want to be proven wrong through reason and intellect, but I also value my free time. I also realize that most individuals, in the end of the day, don't operate with their intellect, but by some other means to justify their morality. I still desire to seek discourse to come to a better understanding of different ideologies, but I'm finding myself to have less patience for intellectual laziness, especially when information is so easily accessible through Wikipedia and Google.

(There is no benefit for me to publicly "call-out" these individuals since we are all guilty of these intellectual "sins" to one degree or another. And also, as being a former Statist myself, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Though a necessary one.)

Thursday, October 15, 2015

What Would You Do with $44,000 Extra Dollars EVERY YEAR?

What would you do with $44,000 extra dollars EVERY YEAR in your pocket (assuming you're a dual income family)?

Do you think you could've spent it wiser than the government could?

Oh wait, I forgot the answer to combating big government, fraud, waste & abuse is to make the government bigger! It's our "moral duty" to make the government larger, and larger, right?

Sunday, October 11, 2015

UNPUBLIC DISCOURSE #13 - Minimum Wage is Immoral, Korean Small Business Owner Minority Perspective

The time, labor, resources, and risk of the Entrepreneur is not considered in the debate on minimum wage. Minimum wage is unethical appropriation (cousin to the term "theft") from the small business owner to the employee.

There's more to the cost of things besides JUST human labor. There is risk, time, reputation, initial capital investments, etc. that need to be considered on what a "fair wage" is.

For the entrepreneur who ends up losing money after two years of business, the hourly workers come out ahead! Who's going to pay for the entrepreneurs' losses? Will the government? What about the hourly workers?

The complexity is so severe in determining a "fair wage", that only two private parties can come to a mutual, voluntary understanding. Someone from the outside cannot realistically consider all factors involved from both sides, except the individuals involved in the transaction.

Right to your own labor as exerts from your body.




Start a business, expenses, risks, and time

- Time
- Natural Resources
- Labour


- Human Action
- Need (Warmth)

FIRE (Consumer GOods)


- Scarcity

Psychic Benefit
Risk (Uncertainty of the Future)

Capital Goods (Lawn Mower, $100)
$50 / $50, Founding Partner
CUstomer goodwill, reputation



Saturday, October 10, 2015

UNPUBLIC DICOURSE #12 - Marxism/Progressivism vs Libertarian-Capitalism, Labor/Subjective Theory of Value

We talk about a whole gamut of issues, and find there is more to agree with than disagree. I was prepared for more of a fundamental interpretation of Marx, so a lot of my notes didn't apply.

There is indeed a class struggle between the Oppressors and Oppressed. Except the Oppressors is the Government bought out by Crony-Capitalists, the oppressed are small business owners and working class.

A class consciousness must be formed to fight against Crony-Capitalism. Is the end of history the elimination of government and allowing the Oppressed to have voluntary transactions among each other?



Ideology as a narrative of how the world came to be, how human nature is, and how society should be morally structured. Often gleaned from personal experience.


Ideology in parallel to Religion. Basic tenants by “Faith.” Worshipping our Gods, “Individualism” vs. “Society”. Has its own Prophets.


Ask questions and suggest things which are “heretical” and question basic tenants of respective “faith.”


[RANDOM THOUGHT: Lots of material. I may need to focus on the personal in nature, and move on to abstract issues.]



Clarify on whether belief in Libertarian-Socialism vs Authoritarian-Socialism


Differentiate between Libertarian-Socialism & Libertarian-Capitalism


Differentiate between Authoritarian-Capitalism & Libertarian-Capitalism


Is Capitalism necessary until we get to a high enough living standard, and then convert to Socialism?

  • Is there recognition of the immense productivity, and technological advancement due to Capitalism?

  • Explanation of rise in standard of living over multiple centuries?




Talk about personal backgrounds / upbringing, parents, and personal experiences, personal observations that led us toward our particular ideology.


Personal Experience with Libertarian-Capitalism


Personal Experience with Socialism

- Military


Difference between a “Principle” vs. “Practicality”


Agreements with Marx.




NATURAL RIGHTS - "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.


According to John Locke there are three natural rights:

  • Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are born.[38]

  • Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.

  • Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.


LEGAL RIGHTS - in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.


NEGATIVE RIGHTS - are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative rightas an entitlement to non-interference such as a right against being assaulted.


“That which has legitimate use of force in defense of”

“Is universal for all times and all peoples”

“Beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss”


  • Self-Body (Two eyes vs. one eyes)

    • Right to Suicide?

  • Justly Acquired Property (Homesteading vs Verbal)

  • Speech?

  • Religion?

  • Privacy?

  • Association?


POSITIVE RIGHTS - are permissions to do things, or entitlements to be done unto. One example of a positive right is the purported "right to welfare."


  • Right to Vote?

  • College?

  • Healthcare?

  • Others?


THINGS WE AGREE ON? (Quick-fire, will come back to at end if time to specific issues)

    • Anger & Frustration at Establishment

    • Police Brutality

    • NSA Email / Phone Spying?

    • Mistrust of Mainstream Media

    • Corruption of government (crony capitalism)

    • Bush, Iraq War, Middle East

    • Vietnam War

    • Drug war

    • Immigration

    • Right to Bear Arms


  • The role of the State as exploitation





- Time

- Natural Resources

- Labour

- Scarcity

- Capital Goods

- Consumer Goods


- Personal Property

- Communal Property


- Proletariat = Employer?

- Bourgeois = Employee?


- Individual vs Society

  • Absolute Value vs. Price

  • Necessary Labor vs. Surplus Labor

  • Exploitation

  • Profit

  • Appropriation - to take to or for oneself; take possession of. (fruits of labor to employer)

  • Is this theory saying that morally speaking the Price should be the same as Absolute Value?


State is now exploiter if no capitalist. Two workers work one hour, one produces 3 units, the other 1 unit. Average is two. Government exploits excess surplus Labor via redistribution, and takes one for its bureaucracy.

- Time + Psychic Value

- Present vs future goods

- Marginal Utility

- Human Action

- Human Need / Goal

- Uncertainty  (imperfect knowledge)

- Need Hierarchy

- Psychic Benefit

- Risk - Uncertainty of the future


A combination of both depending on the goods in question? Exceptions to both theories.


  • Should all human labour compensated equally?

  • How would you decide what work is paid, and what is not?


  • My recording vs. other YouTube videos, same Absolute Value? What about my preparation into studying, compiling, and researching this topic?


  • How is risk calculated?

    • Example: Last Tuesday, you expressed interest in cancelling our conversation for today. We scheduled for Saturday 12PM. The next day, an ER doctor friend of mine, who’s free time is understandably scarce, had an opening in his schedule to meet up at the same time for another intellectually stimulating conversation. In addition, I realized the amount of human labor and time I’d need to do in preparation of this discussion was going to be quite significant (of which it’s probably been 20 hours or more). Suddenly, my time became scarce as I can only choose one activity at that particular time slot.

I considered the psychic value in a rare opportunity for me to record a discussion with a Socialist. I considered the psychic value I have in keeping my appointments and not reneging unless absolutely necessary (ie. family emergency).


However, due to the uncertainty of whether or not you would attempt to cancel a second time, caused me to explicitly ask your certainty of committing to the conversation between a scale of 0% - 100%. If I had received a 95% or lower “sureness” of the conversation, then I would had seriously considered cancelling the conversation depending on the degree to which you were below 100%.


To me, the deciding factor on which conversation I valued more greatly hinged on perceived risk and psychic reward, rather than purely “human labour.” Can you describe my narrative in a different fashion to fit the “labour theory of value” if applicable?


  • What about my human labour as manager in hiring the human labour and coordinating their schedules? Do I receive compensation for that?


  • What about the human labour in me coordinating the logistics of bringing all the capital and consumer goods into a hotel guest room (water, electricity, gas, sewage, shower, toilet, towels, linens, furniture, beds, lights, lightbulbs, TVs, breakfast foods, cereal, milk, etc.)?


  • What about advertising efforts, Price management, Bill Payments, accounting, capital investment, attempts to anticipate for future events


  • What about saving money for a time when I’ll be losing money after all expenses or to plan for unexpected expenses?


  • What about potential lawsuits from customers and employees?


  • What about saving money to cover hotel furniture, and other equipment at the hotel?


  • Explain process of rate management for hotel: How does this explain that room rates are much higher during busier times, and cheaper when it’s less busy? Rates are changing almost hourly (because I do it), based off of the pricing of my competitors. Generally, Price and Absolute Value remain the same.


  • Getting 10 iPhone 6s now, or one iPhone 6 every 5 years (ie. technological obsolescence, risk of death, & psychic value of certainty)


  • Depreciation calculations for used items? So pricing structure for Ebay & Craigslist items?


  • Finding Diamond vs. Mining Diamond

  • What about results / productivity?

  • What about natural resources?

  • iPhones? Software? Intellectual?

  • Micro-Transactions in Video Games?

  • Painted Art / Music (Questionable Music Artists)

  • What about all the study, preparation, and training that leads up to the moment of “production?” ie. Sports Stars, MMA Fights, etc.

  • Movie Stars? Production or Theft?

  • Do results matter?

  • What about natural talent?


  • What about the drug addict? What about the worker who doesn’t show up to work on time? What about the worker that yells at customers and co-workers in a hostile fashion?


  • Individuals providing more productive value than they are paid

  • Individuals providing less productive value than they are paid



- Is morality individual or communal? Am I responsible for the sins of a different individual? Do I receive righteousness from another individual?


- Marxism dehumanizes the “Bourgeoisie” removing fundamental human rights, but line between the two classes is fluid.




"Clean Capitalism"?


  • At what point did I go from being Proletariat to Bourgeois?

  • Restaurants / Food Trucks


  • Do you have any friends who are Bourgeois?

Can you provide the narrative by which they transitioned from one class to another?


  • How would you describe the Asian immigrant experience of limited English and no possessions, and then amassing wealth during the 1970s & 1980s to present through small business enterprise?


  • What happens if someone tries to start a small business, then fails, and goes back to working for someone else?


  • Uber

  • Airbnb

  • Food Trucks


  • Landscaping company startup example. $100 lawn mower purchased, $50 from each partner. 50% ownership. Both split profits 50/50. They bill customers with payment to be received in 90 days. After a year, one partner wants to do something else, and lawn mower now worth $50. One partner buys off the other partner $25, for his share of lawn mower. Now single owner needs additional person to help. Can’t find anyone willing to put in $25 for the initial capital of the lawnmower and wait to possibly share in profits since payment is so long, but someone is willing to mow lawn for hourly rate if he can get paid immediately upon completion.


  • So if I’m building a hotel from scratch, I will operate the hotel at a loss for a little bit, and there’s a chance the entire enterprise may fail. I may not get retrieval on cash flow for many years. Is it possible that employees trade in their share of the end price for the more certain wages paid by me? And thus, lower risk, shorter timeframe, means less reward? This is contrasted with other “investors” who invest in the initial construction and startup costs, and share in my risk & rewards.


  • What about web programmers who act as freelancers?


  • What about business-to-business enterprises?


Becoming self-employed as a means to stop being Proletariat?


What about wealth building by being a landlord?


Possible to work for someone, and also be a landlord? Possible to be both classes at once?


What if you own stocks or mutual funds?




- Expropriation - The act of taking of privately owned property by a government to be used for the benefit of the public.


Do you believe in the ability of an individual in American society to say “no” to a job of a certain wage?


Do you believe in an individual’s right to vote?



Disproportionate wealth with rest of the world? True equality with all world people right now? (


Need more time with Capitalism?




  • Soviet Union

  • China: going Capitalist

  • Cuba: liberal

  • Vietnam

  • Venezuela (

  • North Korea?



  • How many different types of soaps? Diversity of products and needs?


  • Explain reconciliation of “gun control” with Marxist views









End of world situation, population depletion, new world order


Future technologies, infinite energy & infinite matter (AKA Fusion Reactors & Replicators from Star Trek)
Technology as an equalizer, making small companies easier to disrupt larger ones

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Climate Change Debate Never Over

Ughhh. . . just when I thought I could ease the cognitive dissonance on Catastrophic Mankind Induced Warming, I'm reminded about how politically charged this whole debate has become and it becomes impossible to trust either side.

We get a glimpse of the true bias of the Sierra Club President when he says, "our planet is cooking up and heating and warming." Eminent catastrophe. Eminent doom. And in order to combat this global terror, we need the increase the tyranny of government and individual livelihoods to be hurt. And then he keeps repeating "97 percent" like a mantra as though that's enough reasoning behind his case (which you can research on your own is a highly misleading figure).

Yes, the majority of scientists agree that mankind has influence over the Earth's climate (duh, I don't think anyone's seriously arguing that). Then the next questions:

To what degree are humans responsible and what is a natural Earth cycle?
How severe of warming and in what time frame?
What will the effects be?
How should we respond? (Political question)

You can't jump from "humans have some influence on the environment" to "emergency level government controls" without going through the thought process in the middle (ie. Roy Spencer: This mantra of blindly following the "majority" of experts without considering the original data or bias of those Scientists using your own reasoning is intellectually lazy. Don't worry, we're all prone to it. Grant money is highly politicized by whichever government party is in power, and of course, who can TRULY take the oil companies' studies seriously?

To think that you need to be an "expert" to properly interpret raw data is understandable to a point, except when the raw data is so flawed even the "experts" need to make an "educated guess" on "adjusting" the data (AKA "Computer modeling"). I call it the "margin of error."

The gist of it is that temperature gathering is much harder than it seems. So even the satellite data gets "adjusted" by different scientists. Land temperature gets biased. Sea temperature by buoys are flawed, etc. So, in other words, one huge cluster fuck privy to whichever scientists (with whichever funding source) decides to "interpret" the raw data.

Let's list some items that historically the "government" or the "experts" commonly agreed upon which is now understood to be objectively false:

Only the Catholic Church is qualified to interpret the Bible & Science
Fat is bad, Carbs are good.
Slavery is good!
Some races are superior to others
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by Saddam
The government isn't spying on you!

So basically, when it comes to just about EVERYTHING, you're in a world where you have to critically think about every issue, the biases behind different opinions, review the raw data, review opposing views, and you can't simply rely on "group think" (and ESPECIALLY the government) to help you find the truth. Yeah, it's a bitch, but it's the reality.