>
Pentagon Drafted Plans for Ground Operation to Capture Iranian Uranium at Trump's Request
"Break The Door If You Have A Warrant" – Son Defends 102-Year-Old Father From...
The FAA's "Temporary" Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminaliz
THE TRAP IS SPRUNG: Why April 6th Was a Massive Lie and the Global Energy Grid is Already Dead
DARPA O-Circuit program wants drones that can smell danger...
Practical Smell-O-Vision could soon be coming to a VR headset near you
ICYMI - RAI introduces its new prototype "Roadrunner," a 33 lb bipedal wheeled robot.
Pulsar Fusion Ignites Plasma in Nuclear Rocket Test
Details of the NASA Moonbase Plans Include a Fifteen Ton Lunar Rover
THIS is the Biggest Thing Since CGI
BACK TO THE MOON: Crewed Lunar Mission Artemis II Confirmed for Wednesday...
The Secret Spy Tech Inside Every Credit Card
Red light therapy boosts retinal health in early macular degeneration

Farmers make decisions every day about what to grow, how much of it to grow, and how to grow it. Whether it's corn or cows, we look at the various incentives and punishments to decide how to proceed.
Decisions are a complicated and nuanced response to stimuli, both internal and external. Some of us really like cows. Others of us really like corn. These soul-level likes and dislikes are not subject to business or market influence. Often childhood familiarity determines whether we go with animals or plants. We tend to like knowns in our life.
Meanwhile, the food and fiber market has the same influence. One person likes beef, another tomatoes, and another milk. We might read something that makes us question a certain product. Or we may read something that makes us put it on our plate for the first time.
The market constantly ebbs and flows as information, friends, social media influencers, and personal health feelings impact purchasing decisions. The faster decisional consequences can be linked to the choices we make, the better our response. This is one reason why we have a statute of limitations for many crimes.
Decisional consequences are one of the most moral and authentic elements in both personal and societal development. When people don't suffer the consequences of poor decisions, they tend to continue down a wayward path. On the other hand, when people don't receive incentives for doing good, it thwarts development toward positive progress.
Failing to bear the costs and consequences of bad decisions is as perverse as failing to incentivize the costs and consequences of good decisions. This seems elementary enough to not even mention, but we often create public policy that seems to deny this fundamental axiom.
A case in point is federal government safety nets. Often begun with every good intention, they frequently break down after years of implementation. Government programs tend to grow more bureaucratic, becoming more interested in expanding power and budgets than in solving the problem they were chartered to solve.
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt froze wages, businesses sought new incentives for employees and opted for health insurance. Once health care market decisions left the individual level, the short chain between choice and consequence elongated. Eventually, this morphed into the Affordable Care Act that is now widely regarded as creating more problems than it started.
The local one-room, community-funded, and controlled school house gave way to state programs and eventually a federal program. "No Child Left Behind" now leaves some 46 percent of children left behind in reading based on current standardized tests. The safety net of public education is now widely regarded as inferior to private, charter, and homeschooling.