Issue 244 City States January 7, 2014

We had discussed the idea of changing the ideology of people in cities to counter their need for dependence on a government yesterday. However, there is one other alternative modeled on the ancient city States of ancient Greece. Here is the idea.

The idea: Cities currently have populations that rival the size of many small countries and as such need to be represented in any form of democratic government. However, the ideology of dependency is strong within these cities and may in fact be unstoppable. But there is a solution. At different points in history the idea has been thrown around to allow cities to become independent States (New York City had pushed for Independence at one point). As such we can push for such ideas again. City populations typically outnumber rural populations and thus often lean the elections toward a particular candidate with a certain ideology. To counter that ideology on a national scale, we let that city become an independent State. This confines the people who believe a certain way into one group while giving the rural communities surrounding the city a bigger voice in an election. Fairly easy to understand right?

Advantages: The advantages are as follows. First Rural communities gain a larger voice in government because they no longer have to deal with the overwhelming populations that exist in cities. In fact, if you look at electoral maps of New York and Florida for instance, you will see that the majority of the counties in those States voted for Mitt Romney in the last Presidential election. However, President Obama won those States due to the major cities that overwhelmingly voted for him as they contained the most electoral districts based on population size. So this will eliminate that problem.

In addition, cities have typically consumed sub-urban and rural communities that surround them as they continue to expand outwards. This means that people close to cities may become enveloped by them and be subject to their taxes and fees for mass transit. By making these cities States, it would forcefully limit the cities size preventing development beyond its boundary line. As such, communities surrounding cities can rest assured that they will not become engulfed by the city next door. Also, it forces cities to innovate with respect to their size and scope. Cities will have to build vertically both up and down to accommodate all the people who live in them. This may also force some groups of people out of the cities which force them into other communities exposing them to other ideas of how to live outside of cities. Therefore cities can either become factory cities for middle class workers, playgrounds for the rich, of bastions of hope for the poor depending on how the city States government intends to have the city develop further.

Is it feasible: Yes, but it will be very hard to do. In the United States, the States themselves must agree to allow parts of themselves independence followed by the federal government allowing them into the union. If neither of those things occurs then the plan falls short. Elections will also be much more interesting as the city State has its own voice and the rural and sub-urban having theirs. Politicians may fear that one side will gain too much of an advantage ideologically and politically to allow this to occur. So politicking is a problem to this ideas implementation.

Conclusion: This is simply an idea. I doubt that something like these will ever occur, let alone in my lifetime. However, the advantages are clear with respect to defining a city's limits and the rural communities’ limits which may in fact benefit both communities as politicians who have both within there influence no longer have to meet competing interests. Thanks again for reading one of my (hopefully) interesting ideas.

Issue 143 City Counter balance January 6, 2014

We had previously talked about why cities were very liberal, but we did not discuss how to counter this growing ideology of dependency of government. So here it goes.

Self reliance: The first method, or part of the method, is to replace the dependency mindset with one of self reliance. This means implementing an education program in urban schools that empower students to rely on themselves and their abilities. As such, students are given the mental courage to say, I can succeed. From there they are taught how to seek out and obtain the resources they need to learn on their own without relying on a teacher. In essence it will be a curriculum that teaches independence. This approach will filter to parents and other adults through these kids. At this point the mentality is changed to a degree that erodes the dependency mindset. Psychologically dependence will disappear, but the people will still be reliant on certain services provided by the government. This is where part two comes in.

Part 2: What the green movement does not realize is that the technology they are pushing is also pushing for independence from government. If a building for instance comes completely off the grid (electrically and also with respect to water supply) it will change attitudes of these individuals in the cities. Right now, people rely on the basics of city life from the government, but if things like solar power, wind power, and city roof water collection and gardening become more and more mainstream then the government will loose its value. So, green technology will give landlords and other businesses in cities independence as well. Again this, once it becomes public knowledge, removes the idea from peoples heads that the government can provide the essentials for city living and by de-facto, can solve everything.

The 3rd; Faith: One of the other components of cities is the lack of faith. Many religions have abandoned the idea of expanding into the cities further than what they have currently. But if the faiths begin to offer services that are superior to welfare, to the cities marriage services and to even provide an alternative for an old age pension system like social security, then people will completely look away from government. By offering these services, the people will realize that they have the power to help through an institution outside of government. Also, by expanding the faith based communities in cities, you empower individuals further and provide a more moral foundation for individuals in cities rather than the liberal concept of the ends justifying the means.

Conclusion: Some of these are practical like the things described in the section on the green technology and on faith. The education one will be much harder as it can only be easily implemented in private schools and home schooling, while public education will still be controlled by the State and thus can deliver whatever message it wants. It really comes down to the fact that government is only needed for key specific things like law enforcement and lawmaking and even then private groups once laws are written can be hired to do the same job. Over half the fire departments in the United States are volunteer or run privately (no government needed). New York's original subway system was done by private corporations until the city government took it all over to gain that revenue for themselves. So if these things can be done privately, then nearly everything can without any loss for the individuals using these services. As such, the liberal mindset is a false promise with respect to government being the provider of all the needs of the individual. The truth is that government is needed very little and the sooner we realize that the better.

Issue 142 Do we need Saints? January 3, 2014

Saints are those people who have been deemed by a religion worth remembering for their miracles and for being blessed by God. But does it go too far?

Why question: The reason why I question the need of saints is because we pray to them in the same way we might pray to God. At some point while I myself prayed, I began to question if I was violating the first commandment "thou shalt not worship any God before me." I remembered that Buddha was really a man who was elevated to god status by his followers and later worshipers. So my worry is that we are forgetting God and his first commandment in exchange for a bunch of gods whom we call saints. It was this fear that had the Vatican ban the cult of the dead in Europe where people would visit the mass graves from World War two and pray to these nameless victims. There was such a following where in places they had the people’s skulls on display where they would give the skulls gifts and even face them away from each other thinking they would talk. In Haiti, they worship a version of Christianity that integrates voodoo and have animals, and other natural spirits that are prayed too. Now in Mexico, they have alters to the Virgin Mary. All of these are people from the past or spirits that are slowly elevated to the status of a God. As such the Catholic Church will periodically warn and eventually ban such practices. So if Saints and the like invite such behavior, then why have them.

The reason: Saints exist for a purpose. They are there to serve as life examples in the same way that Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi serve as people’s idols or hero's. We learn from there mistakes and try to emulate their good points. It is all about being worthy of Gods grace and maybe we too would be given a gift so as to impart a miracle. Some faiths completely remove saints completely for the aforementioned reasons, but they do serve a purpose. Even if you ban Saints as a whole, it does not mean that at some point people may try to elevate someone to the level of a god in the first place.

Conclusion: So the lesson here to my more religious readers is to ensure that you are not violating the first commandment or similar law in your own faith. I questioned my faith and do so constantly (though I do not consider myself all that religious) so as to better understand my self and my beliefs. Hopefully this helps you to question your own self to make yourself a better person.

Issue 241 Inspiring People January 2, 2014

What constitutes an inspiring person? Why should we follow there example? Well, I have wondered why people admire others like actors and other people who appear to be in positions of authority, power, or wealth. However, I questioned the very notion of admiring those people as a whole. Surely these people are not that worthy of admiration such as the Kardashian sisters or Paris Hilton who gets by on looks? Or is there something else at there core that is actually truly notable that should be emulated?

Decisions: We can look at people like a puzzle, but each piece is unique in the fact that one part may be worthy of praise while the others we may look on in disgust. As such, I personally look at individuals (or at least try my very best to) view them based on their actions. Let us take Nelson Mandela for example. He was an avid communist, and in his youth was violent. However, when he was released from prison he did something important. Mandela made the decision to change South Africa through non-violence. I will always disagree with communism as a whole due to how it always devolves into tyranny and dictatorship, but I can still admire Mandela for the hope he brought to the South African people. He is worthy of praise because he renounced violence and that he brought people together for the sake of freedom. As people go, Mandela is inspiring because he demonstrated that a single person can make a difference. So I will cleanly say that Mandela is worthy of imitation with respect to the example of people being able to make a difference, but I will not say to admire his politics.

Admire and scorn: Just like Mandela we can admire and be inspired by one part of the person, but still abhor the other part. Look at the Kardashian sisters as an example. They came to fame through sex tapes and pornography rather than hard work (they may argue that though). However, after they gained that attention they used it to their advantage to create a clothing line and host television shows. So the part you can admire is that they used the capitalist system to take advantage of their fame, the fortune they made from it and their ingenuity for designing cloths. The rest you can still look at with scorn. Love them or hate them, they set an example on how to run a successful business.

Conclusion: All people in power are like this. You can admire their message like the President Obama’s hope and change, their ideas, or their deeds, but you do not have to emulate the whole individual. No one has to copy the Presidents politics to believe in the hope and change message, or Nelson Mandela's communist beliefs to copy his example of one man making a difference. Each person has pieces of themselves that are worth admiring or emulating, and equally so parts that are worth learning what not to do. So do not let your view of someone be clouded by one simple wrong, but look at the actions and deeds of that individual. Use the teachings of Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. and look at the person character and with that see what is worth admiring in each and every individual.

Issue 240 New Years Day January 1, 2014

Well we made it. It is now official; we are in the year 2014. When I look back, it is kind of amazing that I even got this far with my blog. I actually started it the Thursday after I broke up with my girl friend who claimed I was full of useless information (including my Bachelors degree in political science). I had thought about writing a blog even before I met her, but never found the motivation to get up and do it until me and her broke up. Now my motivation to keep writing is you, my readers. I enjoy sharing what I know with you all and I look forward to any comments or questions you put in the comments section (only 3 so far, hopefully that is because what I'm writing is just that clear to all of you).

Well in any case, I'll tell you my New Years resolution. My resolution is to continue writing and finding interesting topics to share. With those topics I hope to inspire and enlighten you the reader, or at least make you question the world around you as these topics make me do constantly. Basically, I want to create a conversation to develop ideas and enhance knowledge, with the hope that that knowledge becomes useful to all of you at sometime or another.

So my readers thank you once again for sticking with me. Have a very happy and healthy New Year.

Issue 239 New Years eve December 31, 2013

What do you do for New Years Eve? Is it a holiday to be celebrated? I'm not sure to be honest. Let’s discuss.

Survived another one: When you think about it, you can say that New Years is a celebration of life. We survived another full year on this planet despite all the dangers existing in our world. Don't believe me? Well if you look at the ancient cultures that celebrated New Years, they celebrated with a harvest and festival even though each winter could wipe them out. They survived the dangers of predators and disease each and every day. Now look at the modern day where we still face disease, war, famine and now nuclear holocausts. So saying we survived is not exactly a joke.

What should we do?: So how do we celebrate? The same way we always have, by having a party. Get together with close friends and family to enjoy each others company and to just be merry together. It is a similar feeling to Thanksgiving, but with the twist of it being about ushering in the New Year.

Anything special?: Because it is the ushering of a new year and follows two important holidays (Thanksgiving where we are thankful for what we have, and Christmas where we give to those we care about or are in need) we have to do something right? Well, this is where New Years resolutions come in. No, I'm not talking about loosing weight or bland silly things like that. I am talking about trying to be a better person than the year before. So things like, "I will not get stressed over nothing anymore" or "I'll get angry less" are very good options. It is now a holiday that goes beyond surviving the year before. New Years is now all about betterment of yourself so that you can say that you are not the same as you were the year before. So that you as an individual can say "I've become a better person."

Conclusion: It is time again to make your New Years resolution. So I ask you, make one that matters, and that you can enforce upon yourself. But most of all, try to improve upon who and what you are so that you can be proud of yourself.

Issue 238 Voluntary Redistribution December 30,2013

What does it mean to redistribute the wealth? When is it theft and when is it voluntary? I attempt to answer these questions here and now.

Redistribution: To redistribute wealth means to literally have one person take there own wealth and give a portion of it to someone else. In to day’s society, this is typically done by wealthy individuals who are giving to the poor, or when the government takes money from people with money and gives them to the less fortunate. It can be forced or compelled. Even the poor themselves can have money taken from them and given to others as well. Redistributing wealth is just this, taking money or property from one individual and giving it to another.

When it is theft: This redistribution can be a form of theft. If a person or a government forcibly takes money and property away from the individual against the will of the owner, then it is theft of the highest order. A government has no right to a person’s individual wealth, nor does it have the right to take that wealth and give it to whoever they wish (an estimated 70% of welfare helps the rich rather than helping the poor in the U.S.). Governments play the role of a thief on a daily basis even when it is against the law for private individuals to take from one another. The Founding Fathers of the United States warned against an income tax because of the government’s thievery they experienced back in Europe and when the U.S. was still a bunch of colonies (also they felt the government would go broke just trying to enforce an income tax). What ever the reason for the government taking our money and giving it to others, if it is against our will then it will always be theft.

When it is voluntary: It is voluntary when people give money freely to those they feel who need it. We all call this charity. Rather than some government or organization deciding where our money should go, we can choose who gets what. Charity is all about the giving freely of your own wealth. You yourself are redistributing it to those you believe can do the most good with it. Whether it is a charity, a hospital or similar organization or an individual, when it is done by you it is voluntary. As the biggest advantage of this is that you can see where your money is going and maybe even see its effects on that individual. You also can see if the aid you give is actually helping. This allows you to adjust the type of aid you’re giving or to cut it back if the person begins to abuse your kindness (an unfortunate but necessary evil).

Conclusion: Which is better? When governments take wealth and redistribute it, they do so in a blanket approach that may or may not help anyone. If you yourself does it, you can see where your wealth goes, how your former wealth is used and if it is helping or if you are being abused. It sells itself. Charity, the voluntary redistribution, is the best way to help those who need just a little help to help themselves.