A Government Solution to Cancer?

     In a speech that some guy with the last name Obama gave in some building in Washington D.C., there was a call for government to find a cure for cancer.

There are several things wrong with this.  First, considering everything that the government has done to wreck the economy, do we really want one more colossal, public program spending our money?

Second, when it comes to scientific innovation, government is always inferior to the talent of the top, private individuals.  For example, if you go to the January 2015 posts of American Galileo, you can see first hand what one independent mind, left relatively unshackled, is capable of.  I live in an apartment in a suburb of Chicago that I pay rent for through my own private sector work.  About 10 miles due south is a different kind of approach to scientific pursuits known as Argonne National Laboratory.  I like to call it "The State Science Institute"--the name of the sell-out on intellectual freedom in Ayn Rand's book: Atlas Shrugged.  If I had been engrossed, operating the costly government particle accelerator there for the last two decades, would I have had the independence of thought to theoretically discover that: "All Matter is Light"?

Finally, suppose that through a deluge of sheer, government spending, some new cancer treatments were developed by the state.  Has anyone stopped to ask who is going to pay for each case?  If the motive of every public sector, cure for cancer pusher is to erect that national monument of a "Cure for Cancer", then the cries to spend your money are not going to stop there.  The forced treatment of each person who has cancer would cost everyone more than the spending to find its cure.

Paul Wharton
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY)

New Objectivist Government Philosophy

     In an Objectivist government, there are only five legitimate functions of the state: police, military, judicial, diplomatic, and treasury.

I have a couple of ideas as to how to piece this innovative government together, that as far as I know, have originated with my own personal thought.

First, I propose that each of the five functions operate as autonomous departments.  Checking powers could be installed by a Constitution that limits the departments from getting out of control.  An example could be the top diplomatic official having the ability to relieve the top military Commander-in-Chief if a binding treaty is not followed.

My second idea is really my motive in writing this blog.  While a new, voluntarily funded government will probably be desperate to receive all the cash it can get, I argue that all donations must go to the Treasury Department before being sent to other government sectors.  This is necessary because the function of that part of the state is to: hold, receive, and distribute donated capital.  And, if you think about it, without this type of checking ability, the Treasury Department does nothing.

So, here comes the objection, "But, then money won't get to the places in government that need it!"  My response is the following:

A middle class man is ideologically all for the new government system, but recognizes that if he donates to government, via the treasury, the money may not go where he wants it to go.  Then he hears about a technique that would greatly improve his chances--so pulls out his checkbook.  Along with a one thousand dollar check, the man sends a note to the Treasury Department that says, "Wouldn't it be great if the judiciary had more funding to reduce the backlog of court cases?"

Throughout the next year, the treasury donor may be on the lookout for the current judicial situation.  If he sees the problem lessen, he may be encouraged to donate again.  If he discovers that little money is going to the judiciary, he may be so angry that he cuts off his future government donations for a while.

Paul Wharton
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY)

Great Work Promoting Eli Lilly to a 22% Rise in 2015

     As a leading believer in the future of the pharmaceutical business, Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY), I want to take this first week of the new year to look back on 2015 and celebrate all those who worked to increase its stock value by 22%.

Shareholders whose investment gained value and Lilly employees who worked hard, kept their jobs, and are looking forward to future raises should be thanked for their role in building the company.  The top businessmen, who are notoriously overlooked by non-Objectivists, are some of the biggest, power players and deserve all of our thanks for their productiveness and, thus, moral role as well.

The scientists, bio-technology inventors, and technicians must not be left out of our recognition.  This includes the new innovators in theoretical science, too.  In my blog, American Galileo, I introduced a lot of new scientific philosophy that can be found in the January 2015 blogs.  I hope that my contributions will be adopted by more and more Eli Lilly innovators and spur the production of future medicines and other products.

Finally, I want to direct credit at myself for the non-scientific posts (such as the political blogs) that I laboriously prepared for and engaged in the blogosphere with.  While I did not receive a salary, (unless one can count a 22% rise in my stock value--not including the dividend), my mind received the best fuel I could hope for--brand name Zyprexa.  I find it odd whenever I come across the argument that a company is charging too much for a life-saving medicine.  I paid full price at the local pharmacy for brand name Zyprexa for five or six years.  I began my Eli Lilly promotion campaign while I was still paying over $10,000.00 per year.  For a pizza delivery driver with minor mental health issues, that was no small sum.  Then I found a way to satisfy the company enough to be worthy of their generous assistance.  I can't imagine how much time I have put into this third job of mine: from the books I read, to the Objectivist CDs I listen to in my car, to Republican Talk Radio, to surfing the Internet to find everything that affects Eli Lilly, to getting an idea for a blog, to finding time to write it.  That's the price one pays; and I love it!  Let's beat 22% in 2016.

Paul Wharton
Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY)