I see your point but I see it more as some people are risk takers and others aren't.  My husband is getting out of the Navy and is starting his own business.  This scares me because I like the security of a steady paycheck.  I am not a risk taker.  He is.  I really think that it is a personality trait. 

Taking risks is part of doing stuff. Every time you do anything, whether it be starting a new business or simply asking someone out on a date you're taking a risk.

I do stuff.  I just don't do stuff that might mean not being able to make the house payment.  I know it's small potatoes compared to your business but I have built several successful if small scale businesses.  I have run my own home daycare for over six years now.  It's more than changing diapers.  I have to be reliable, interview parents, plan our activities, maintain financial and tax records plus care for the kiddos.  I have also recently started a face painting business.  I am getting ready to start an ebay/etsy business of my handcrafted items.  So while I would say that I'm a doer, I wouldn't say that I'm a risk taker. 

I do stuff. I just don't do stuff that might mean not being able to make the house payment. I know it's small potatoes compared to your business but I have built several successful if small scale businesses. I have run my own home daycare for over six years now. It's more than changing diapers. I have to be reliable, interview parents, plan our activities, maintain financial and tax records plus care for the kiddos. I have also recently started a face painting business. I am getting ready to start an ebay/etsy business of my handcrafted items. So while I would say that I'm a doer, I wouldn't say that I'm a risk taker.

Congratulations on running your own business.  Now, as you go to expand beyond just yourself as an employee, or even with just yourself, lets consider what would happen if you took that same business and got nailed with mandates to have health insurance coverage available.  Where you gonna find the money to pay for same?  If you have more than yourself there, the mandate says you must provide insurance to your employees/partners/co-workers, etc.  Where's the money coming from for that?  Oh, yeah, you'll just raise your prices and pass on the costs, right?

What happens with Megalow-daycare opens an office just around the corner from you?  They bring in say a half dozen employees, offer them insurance because they are a huge corporation and get to spread costs around, you on the other hand have to pay much more as a smaller business.  Not fun for you as Megalow-daycare is able to beat your prices and drive you out of business no matter how hard you worked.

This is the type stuff that happens to do-ers who let the government interfere in every aspect of our lives which is why I typically don't want the government involved.

And by the way, I should say the article that Brad has written here is exactly why I so admire the job that he and his company has been able to do.  I'd love to be working for such a company myself but there's a lot of real estate between Stardock's hq and where I live currently that means that wouldn't be so easy to have happen.  Meanwhile Brad has shown a lot of times that he's a very smart man that has worked hard to develop a successful business which in turn has led to a lot of opportunities for others.

I fear that changes that get made by whatever administration we wind up with would negatively impact Stardock and many other companies (including the one I currently work for).  I prefer to work for people that provide opportunities to their employees and know that those opportunities may not be there if the companies/businesses are left having to deal with a bunch of regulatory requirements that eat up their profits and overhead and leave them unable to compete or to even make a profit.

The idea of taking more money away from people like Brad sickens me.  I admit I'm less sickened about the idea of taking the money of say Ken Lay, or Dennis Koslowski (spelling?) and others that have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars while their rank and file got screwed, but there really aren't that many worthless CEOs out there (at least I hope not).

While I could wish for more distribution of the wealth that my employer gets back down to my level, I also know I could take the risks that are mentioned in the article here and go for broke if I wanted to.  I've thought about it and actually attempted it to some extent in the past but then quickly ran into the unintended consequences and unexpected costs that are involved in running a business for yourself.  In many ways I'm a lazy bastage that goes to work for someone else.  Well, perhaps not that lazy as I'm known to overwork and bust my hump pretty hard most of the time.   I'm more interested in the financial security and coverage for my family.  My wife has more than her fair share of health issues and has for years.  That demands that we have health insurance.  She doesn't work full time and doesn't get benefits from anywhere else, which puts the onus on me to work for a business that will provide me these benefits, or at least to bring in more than enough money to cover the costs of providing that coverage for my family.

If things were different for me, perhaps I would be running a Stardock like business for myself, but I know for a fact that there are lots of costs along the way that people never think of and don't realize are there because of a bunch of requirements passed along with the best of intentions and poorest of implementations that all revolve around bringing in money for the government to use to cover those that are less industrious and/or less well off.

What if you don't do anything, but at the last minute you do everything? I tend to do that. Technically I do things, but never early...

I figure I get instant returns on free time. Although I'm never one to neglect a duty if it need be done. I guess that makes me a doer...just a lazy, procrastinating one.

~Zoo

I'd agree with most of what you're saying here. The only points I'd differ circle around where you say that the public sector should be reduced because the monopoly of force is ripe for manipulation by evil people.

Surely the only conclusion to make, once you've assumed that most people are good and that evil people are attracted to the public sector, is to make the public sector as big as possible to minimise the effects of evil people. Make it too small and the influence of good people will be overwhelmed by the greater tendency of evil people to go public. Make it huge and the natural numbers of goodies will negate the tendencies of baddies.

Or am I missing the logic you're running on here?

Personally I split the world into the satisfied and the unsatisfied. All change is driven by the latter. All happiness is had by the former. As I see it the key is to be enough of the latter to carve your own niche and enough of the former to enjoy it.

But I'd much rather be happy than a success, so don't worry, I haven't lost my small-c conservative leanings yet!

"I mean people whose natural instincts are so destructive to civil society that great harm emerges when they gain power over others."

Good point and very much true!

Surely the only public sector with legal violence are the army and police (and related)? Only one of these is ever really used in the 'home' country.

I hadn't ever thought about this. I know I meet the Texas state requirements to be a listed home daycare. Most of this probably wouldn't be a huge issue because I live in a ranch with no step leading into my house. The wheelchair accessible bathroom would be an issue though. Honestly, if it came down to remodeling, I would close my home daycare.

Good point.  At our building, we had to go through all this. Bathroom stalls wide enough for a wheel chair. Lost spots to multiple handicaps.  Mind you, we're talking MULTIPLE spots both in the 6 bathrooms in the building but in the parking lots.

And it cost us money and inconvenience because we have to fit one-size fits all FEDERAL law. The decision making is taken out of the hands of local governments. 

This is just one example of the way tyranny can come with the best of good intentions.  Incidentally, to my knowledge, in the 4 years we've had the building, no wheel chair has ever been in the building not has the handicap spots (6 of them) ever been used.

But I'm sure the liberals meant well and isn't that all that counts in their world?

My point has been made then. But isn't it a warm and fuzzy idea to make EVERY public place of business equally accesible, Loca? I'm sure your day care is a wonderful and safe place to leave one's children, why deny the handicapped the opportunity to do business with you?

Yeah, just close up that business now and let the government hand you some free money because you don't have usable job skills outside the house...  or, go work 'for the man' somewhere else and then wonder why all of the income is all gone after the Income taxes, Social Security contributions and other mandated fees come out of that income.

Do be sure that whatever income you have coming in for the business includes enough to cover the taxes you are required to pay and also be sure not to under report the income you have coming in.   Wouldn't want the IRS sniffin' round trying to figure out why you haven't been paying your fair share into self employment taxes and such.

People who do things have a tendency not to talk. I am glad to see you talking openly. I experienced the extremes of what you describe here. On the positive side I landed in US. I never want this country to experience what we did. I know that a lot of freedom has already been eroded here but it is still the best. It is a pity that lazy people think the most failed ideology of the 20th century is their salvation and that view point is gaining traction. I would like to hear what you think about indoctrination, something that happened in the past elsewhere (to raise a generation with single ideological belief). I know, close to 30% of British youngsters think Winston Churchil never existed!

Well if the cost of altering the building would send the business under wouldn't that fall under the reasonable cost comment in the act?

'Existing privately-run child care centers must remove those architectural barriers that limit the participation of children with disabilities (or parents, guardians, or prospective customers with disabilities) if removing the barriers is readily achievable, that is, if the barrier removal can be easily accomplished and can be carried out without much difficulty or expense.' http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/childq%26a.htm

Remodeling the house would not be readily achievable.

I am glad you said this Loca.  Now you are starting to understand the affect of government policies in the real world.

Right now, you provide child care for people. But with the stroke of a pen, some well meaning politicisans could force you to close up shop.

The politicians don't realize that the power ultimately lies with you, not them. You are doing something. You can choose not to do that thing that society needs done - providing child care.

This is the same sort of thing that happens when the government raises taxes or enacts some other new, well meaning policy. It increases the costs of doing business and there are consequences as a result that people often don't recognize.