Issue 66 Tacit Consent April 30, 2013

Tacit consent means implied consent. This term is used to describe when a person lives under a government’s rule of law. By merely living in that Country, that province, that community you are giving your consent to live under the laws made there.

What does Tacit Consent do?: its role, in respect to the relationship between the government and the governed, is to show that the governed is giving the government consent to rule them. This is why when you commit a crime in the United States you are subject to U.S. law and not laws of your home country. Without this basic principle a government could not function as people from outside the country coming in would not be subject to the law of the country they are visiting. Rather the visiting person would be subject to the laws of their own country making it very hard for law to be enforced. Thus, tacit consent eliminates such chaos and allows order to be maintained.

Exceptions: In certain circumstances laws may be bent thereby ignoring tacit consent. We normally see such a bending of the law when a very harsh punishment is going to be enacted upon a citizen of another country. For example, a person from America picks someone’s pocket in Saudi Arabia with the punishment in Saudi Arabia being the hand being chopped off. American officials can ask that an alternate punishment be enacted, which will usually be granted, as a show of respect between the two nations. Usually this bending is only for harsh punishments like the aforementioned example or death, but it is also sometimes used in minor circumstances when a high level official or that official’s child is in some sort of legal trouble in another country. More than likely in this case an apology is given and a restriction of travel or even the issue being swept under the proverbial rug.

Diplomatic Immunity: I list this separate from the other exceptions to the tacit consent rule as it is only for a special class of people. In this case diplomats have special immunity from very specific laws and there punishments. The rules and exceptions vary with time but usually minor infractions are ignored like parking tickets. High crimes like murder are usually prosecuted, but that is if you can catch the person before they return to their home country (which of course will protect them).

You may change your consent: Tacit consent is movable. If say you no longer like your own government and feel it has become oppressive, then you may leave. By leaving you leave your home countries laws and rules behind (save a few exceptions if you are still considered a citizen) and then subject yourself to the laws of an entirely new country. John Locke (the political philosopher) also explained that tacit consent interacts with the concept of "consent of the governed." Consent of the governed is when you give government permission to rule over you with its laws in the same way as tacit consent, but with one difference. If you do not wish to leave your country, cannot leave (whether willingly or un-willingly) and the government has become abusive, then you have the right to rebel. Yes you may strike down the tyrannical government and reform/restore it to its pre oppressive days or change it all together.

Conclusion: Our entire political system is based on the concept of tacit consent. It is what binds us to government and what allows us to the government (whether it is you moving somewhere else or the government being altered). Because of this, many globalists (those believing in one international community have seized upon the idea as a way grant citizenship in another country. In effect you would have to live in another country for a specified number of days; from there you are granted full citizenship and all the rights that come with it while extinguishing your previous citizenship. To a large degree this same concept is used in America when a person moves from one State to another, in this case it determines if and when the person will be allowed to vote in an election. It is most certainly a concept of government that is embraced each and every day, but is taken for granted. Even the concept of self determination (the right to choose how you are to be governed) comes from this principle. Without tacit consent we would have no enforceable laws that protect our rights as citizens and thus there would be only chaos.

Issue 65 Testing Welfare recipients April 29, 2013

 
If you have been watching and learning about different types of reforms to welfare (as I obviously have) then you have probably heard about how the State of Florida has altered their system. In their case they now test for drugs before they allow a person to receive any welfare. This has come under fire by some as they believe the policy is discriminatory.

How it works: The plan is simple, test the applicant to see if they are a drug addict. If they are a drug addict, then they are denied welfare. If they are clean then they get the benefits offered by the State. Here is the catch; those applicants must pay for the test themselves. Some of you may think this is outrageous, but the State of Florida pays the people who successfully test as clean back. So they get there money back any way. This little quirk was designed to force a welfare applicant to choose to be an addict (if they happen to be one) or to choose the money they need to hopefully get out of poverty.

What if they have Kids?: If children are involved, then things work a little differently. In a two parent home, if either parent tests positive for an illegal substance then they are denied benefits. But, if a third person who will act as the guardian of the money and the child comes forward and they test clean, then benefits will be given. However, the parents of course will receive nothing without that third persons consent. Simple right, if the parent screw up then it is up to grandma or some other relative or friend to take over.

Is it discriminatory?: I can see why it would look like discrimination. You are testing all applicants for drugs and they all happen to be asking for welfare. However, that view is narrow. Sports teams are tested before they are allowed to play. Teachers, police and other people are tested as a condition of employment. In the case of welfare, it is a condition to receive benefits in the same way that welfare recipients are means tested based on income to see if they are eligible. So it is not discriminatory, it is just an insurance policy to make sure the States money is not abused.

Conclusion: I fully support replicating this form of testing in all parts of the United States and around the globe. No government can afford to have people abusing their welfare systems or even the people’s money for that matter. Let us never forget that welfare is a form of government charity not a right. It is a privilege to receive that money as people are trusting you to spend it on what you need to live and get your self out of poverty, not sink further into the muck. Of course, if implemented different standards of how much drugs can be in a persons system and what those drugs are may vary. Colorado has legalized "pot" in all its forms so they may allow weed as an exception. But this is all about curbing the abuse of welfare. This is most certainly a step in the right direction.

Issue 64 Radical Welfare reform April 26, 2013

This issue builds off of "Issue number 63 Welfare to work April 25, 2013." In this case it goes one step further in altering the welfare system. I actually originally heard of this idea on an episode of John Stossel by one of his guests the day after I learned about welfare to work at an event hosted by the Manhattan Institute. Stossel's episode also covered welfare to work, but his guests went a step further.

The radical reform: The ending of all cash welfare including food and housing assistance with the sole exceptions being the welfare for the elderly and the physically and mentally disabled. Yes, the guest wanted to switch the focus of all welfare to a "welfare to work: program for all able bodied Americans.

How it would work: To make it easier for companies to higher these individuals with less job skills, the money that was going to the cash based welfare system would instead go to companies. Essentially, the same amount of money would still be dished out, but instead it would come from an employer for the work you did. Additional money could be granted of course by the employer for how well the person does. Once the company can afford to pay for that employee due to the company being able to expand for the cheap labor (compliments to government paying their wages) the person will be kicked off the welfare roll and completely supported by their own efforts and the company they are working for. This is another form and much more comprehensive version of welfare to work that for the most part I agree with. A person who earns a check is less likely to abuse the welfare system than a person who is given free cash every month.

But what about if there are no open positions?: To back up the other part of the reform, when there is no available job in the area, the welfare recipients are put to work in other capacities. This part of the idea comes from the Depression Era's "Work Progress Administration." Its role will be exactly the same as when it was originally created, getting people to work and earning a pay check. In this case, these people will help build and maintain parks, clean streets, refurbish bridges and other similar jobs. The salary they would get would pay for the basics like food, clothing and shelter. The main thing though is that this will be an earned income and not some artificial hand out. To ensure that these people will want to move up in the world there will be no option for retirement. Or, at least, there will be no opportunity to unionize and get a pension. They are there to gain job experience and work for a hard days pay until they find something better. This of course will be using the basis of welfare to work to aid them in finding a better job.

The part I did not like: For those who refuse to work, but have children the children will have to be taken away. I don't like the idea of ever separating a family, but the issue comes down to a parent refusing to work. This is the equivalent in this system of saying I will not feed my kid. As a result, the child would be sent off to the orphanage and be adopted by any willing family who passes through the qualification process. In the interim between adoption and being taken away, government funded institutions operated by volunteers (properly vetted to ensure they are not bad people) and religious organizations will care for the children as a form of non profit. Children must be kept safe and that is the logic behind this part of the reform. Though, I would defiantly include a window of opportunity for the child to be reunited with their parents.  If the parents are working toward improving their lives and trying to make enough money to support them and their children then they should be able to get their children back. If this is the case the institution will not allow for the child to be adopted but rather have the child as a long term guest until the parent(s) can take them back home. This would be the only way I would accept this part of the program.

Conclusion: Overall, the idea is radical especially for America and Europe. There are people and institutions that make a lot of money off the cash based system we have now as well as people who in general fear change. I however, support any change that gets people out of welfare and become self-sufficient. This is an idea to try out and see if it will work. If it does, use it and change the system, if not see if anything can be changed to make it work and if even that fails then put the idea out to pasture.  Remember the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled are not affected by any of this.  The only ones affected are those people who are able bodied and are capable of working.

Issue 63 Welfare to work April 25,2013

What is welfare to work program? Well, it is a welfare program designed to get people off welfare by finding them a job. The approach is straight forward and relies less on government and more on the jobs market to have the poor get jobs suitable to their skill level. From there they move up in the company as they gain skills or move to a new company with the work experience they gained, thus increasing their income.

Jobs first approach: The program has no long term training programs. At most those in the program should only spend a week in a class room. There they learn all attributes and skills needed to land an entry level position. This includes their appearance, their résumé, and proper speaking and even how best to show up on time. Using these skills (the basic skills people use at every job or to get a new one) the applicants are placed in the entry level position of a job that has an opining. From there is all up to the now working individual to keep the job until they are ready to move on to a new one or advance in position. It is really just that simple.

We can use private companies: Instead of using a mass of government workers to facilitate the welfare to work programs, we can use private companies. This of course is cheaper as you only have to pay them for their successes and not their failures (let alone their wages and retirement). How it would work is as simple as the jobs first approach to the program. Here, the private company would receive requests from other companies looking to fill various positions. At this point the private company administering the program would request any new applicants to the program and then match them to the appropriate job. They have the applicants go through the basic training (the welfare to work training plus any additional training the company making the request hires them for) and then are sent off to their new job. If the applicant manages to complete the probation period, then and only then will the private company be paid. This insures no corruption at any level of the process.

Conclusion: This same approach was used under Mayer Giuliani of New York City. Needless to say it worked very well as the amount of people impoverished decreased. He coupled this program with one to have more police on the streets and interact with the community more. Part of that was bringing the homeless to homeless shelters (if they have not committed a crime as a portion of the homeless in the city have. Those brought to the shelters had access to the program and thus both crime and poverty decreased in New York. Giuliani created a success story to say the least. So it becomes a why not moment in our history and the history of any nation with a welfare system. Let’s get them out of poverty and get them working.

Issue 62 Should we help Syria April 24, 2013

As most of you all know, Syria is in a civil war. The Arab spring uprisings turned violent when Syria's President (dictator) Assad cracked down on the protesters and thus sparked the violent conflict. From that point on the world watched as the conflict escalated with Turkey on the brink of all out war should the conflict spill over into their country and possibly risk the Kurds taking the opportunity to succeed. And just recently, there are reports of chemical weapons being used (however these chemical weapons are most likely ones not listed in the chemical weapons ban treaty, for if they were then the international community would be allowed to go in and crush Assad). Needless to say this situation is a complete mess.

Pros of going in: One of the main reasons to go in is to remove a dictator. Assad while having the title of President is not a true elected leader. As with most countries that wish to fake a democracy they have rigged elections and systems to keep certain specific people in power. This is despite Assad trying to appease the protesters pre civil war with constitutional reform.

Another reason to go in is that if the rebels win, there is a chance that a democracy (a real one) will develop. These rebels seek the rights and privileges that are granted to people in most free countries and they are willing to fight for it. If we help them, then it allows a possible future alliance in the Middle East (America will no longer just have Israel to rely on). In addition, once Syria is changed over to a new government, old ties with countries that may be against our countries interests may cease (as in the case of America versus Iran). Syria is a puppet of Iran in the region and Iran flying in troops to help Assad is proof. Iran is a rouge nation (at the moment) and removing an ally may help suppress their ambitions.

Finally, some of the rebels are foreign fighters from other countries. Unfortunately, some of them are radical Jihadists. If we help in some way then we can surgically remove these elements from the rebellion, or even use them as cannon fodder to do the dirty work while leaving the moderates safe to later rebuild the country based on freedom and democratic principles.

Cons: Everything listed in the Pros section can back fire. The new government of Syria once the conflict is over could be worse than Assad (case in point Iran after its revolution). So world may get an even more violent and dangerous rouge nation. Ties even with Iran may even strengthen, and the country may become a training ground for future jihadists. If we aid the rebels, we may just be giving weapons to the jihadists themselves which could increase violence and blood shed throughout the entire region. On top of that, Iran and other nations may become emboldened and develop nuclear bombs faster and then follow that up by giving the bombs to their allies. All of this is a dangerous proposition.

But we also have to remember that America is war weary. The last two wars we fought and the small brush fire conflicts in Lebanon and Yemen have stretched American forces thin. America cannot be expected to win a war for its allies and neutral nations anymore (at least not at the moment). Also, our involvement may make the situation worse as some of the rebels seeing that we are backing their comrades may see those same comrades as puppets of the American government. This could result in the rebels fighting each other both during and after Assad is removed from power.

Conclusion: For now we watch. We must look at the conflict carefully and only give support on a needs based bases whether that be a show of support on television to a small arm drop so the rebels can take out enemy tanks. All support must be focused to only those rebels that we trust, and even then how they got those weapons must be kept secret so as to prevent any sort of negative influences that may destabilize the situation more than it already has. From there we have to put our faith in the rebels that we helped to set up a country that is friendly to the U.S. Also, once the civil war is over, the U.S. and other countries should offer aid in rebuilding (such as electricians, plumbers or even experts in writing constitutions). We can get involved, but it must be selective and it must be secretive. The rebels must win, but only the ones who will not want to kill us after.

 

Yes I am a libertarian and I would prefer that the U.S. stay out of the conflict. But unfortunately, libertarians are not in charge so my conclusion is based on the U.S. getting involved because it is almost certain that both the Republicans and Democrats will push us into the conflict thinking it is our moral duty to do so. Though I think they forget that it is our moral duty to avoid sending our soldiers into harms way in the first place.

Issue 61 Blades on Planes April 23, 2013

Recently the U.S. Department of Home Land Security scaled back its restrictions on edged items such as scissors, knives and the like. But is this a wise decision or inviting another terrorist attack like that of 9/11.

Pros: An argument for allowing such items back on planes most likely concerns their overall lethality and the current security procedures used. For one, the cockpit is closed off from the rest of the plane preventing the pilots from being threatened directly. This only leaves the flight attendants and passengers at the mercy of a knife wielding terrorist or psycho path. However, many of these flight attendants have been given extra training since 9/11 to protect themselves and the passengers. How good that training is though is not the clearest as we have yet to see it tested. Then there is the fact that we have Air Marshals riding in the planes now as a deterrent. These Marshals are armed and trained (much more so than your typical flight attendant) to deal with this sort of situation. And finally the passengers are not the same complacent people they used to be. No one wants to be a victim so passengers are much more aware and ready to act. For instance, think of the "underwear" bomber, passengers took him down first. Adding knives into the equation allows passengers and crew to carry a deterrent to make a terrorist think twice (a psycho will just go nuts anyway however). Not to mention blocking people from carrying nail clippers and small scissors seems a bit unnecessary. To make a fatal blow with such a tiny blade a person would have to sever their main arteries in the neck or find a way to hold the other persons wrist long enough to slice it open. Aside from that, maybe the eyes are vulnerable (though in any close up fight with or without a weapon they are subject to damage). It takes a blade of at least a full 1 inch in length being plunged into the body to make an actual almost guaranteed fatal blow. Sure no one wants to be cut, but when you consider the alternative then you would prefer the small flesh cuts to a burning wreck.

Cons: The flight attendants and pilots are most defiantly against the change in security policy. For them it is an unnecessary risk as such small blades (if you really want to bring your scissors with you) can be carried in the luggage compartment. They don't want people to have access to such potentially deadly tools in their carryons. You can't exactly not feel for them, as they will be in the line of fire first and foremost. It is their lives that are in danger first. For a terrorist, sure they may be deterred from trying to take down another plane as current security procedures will prevent that from happening, which is if everything goes well. The nightmare scenario is what these pilots and flight attendants fear the most and who can blame them. Not to mention the fact that people should not be even bringing out such items as nail clippers during the flight. No one wants to see some one cut their nails as it is plain disgusting.

Conclusion: I personally see nothing wrong with allowing blades under a specific length back, like tiny scissors and nail clippers. Also, I see nothing wrong with blades over a specific length like a sword or axe (never know what a person is going to bring home) so long as it is too unwieldy to be used in the confined space of a plane. In addition, flight attendants should be allowed to arm themselves with any weapon they see fit that will not endanger to plane such as combat knives or small fire arms that will not penetrate the hull of the plane. So for me, a balance must be made between protection and freedom. Thus a list of items that can be carried as carryon’s should be made, with the rest of the items that are not allowed to be possessed as carryon’s riding in the luggage compartment. From there it comes down to a good screening process to protect people. I feel the pros out weigh the cons on this issue, but never should the feelings of the plane crew be dismissed from this sort of decision.

Issue 60 Death to Text Books April 22, 2013

Today we separate a little from hard core politics and reform and talk about education. In this case, we talk about text books and there future in our schools.

For the developed world: Text books have long served as reference tools for many generations of school students. They even had text books prior to the United States coming into existence. But today’s text books are overtly political. For the United States, the text books to be used in schools are based off what text books are to be used in Texas and California school systems. The reason being is that their governments decide which text books are to be used in all of their schools. As such, the rest of the country is subject to them due to it being cheaper to make a text book acceptable to their school system rather than make unique ones for each individual school or State.

Political Text Books: What people probably don't know is that the content of the text book is also defined by government. If they want more Black Americans represented, or Hispanic Americans represented then the governments at the State level will debate how much representation of each group will go in. From there the governments decide which people in history from those groups will be put in. Feminist groups try to make text books less masculine by trying to have words removed like "Fathers" from the "Founding Fathers", and other little things like that. There are even rules that define what cannot be placed in a text book. Such things as a picture of a mouse or a rat are banned because people may be afraid of them. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. Our text books are overtly subjected to politics and interest groups, and even then the text book may still get facts wrong. So what is the point in keeping them around in the age of the internet?

Digital Text Books: I advocate the complete removal of traditional text books from the class room. They have become politicized to the point that our school children (here in America at least) have lost any and all interest in them. In affect they have become boring due to the overt politicalization of the text book. What is needed is a switch to original source documents like the U.S. Constitution, the writings of Frederick Douglass and Dr. King Jr. If we want to learn hate, then we have to simply find a document expressing those feelings from the time period such as during the civil war. Children are not stupid, just impatient and thus they need something interesting to capture that interest. People regurgitating information in text books fails to due that. The traditional text book should be abolished and instead use an online data base filled to the brim with every aspect of human knowledge for students to choose from (looking at you Library of Congress). Why waste money buying a text book when a school can so much more cheaply educate their students with the original document like the Federalist Papers.

I do understand the argument that some of this information from original source documents can be a bit hard to read, but with a teachers help those more difficult parts can be made clear. Otherwise most of the documents themselves are fairly easy to grasp. I was afraid to read the Federalist Papers and my Constitutional law text book (contained actual case documents) because I feared not being able to grasp the concepts and writings. I read them though, and I understood them. When I had a question, I simply asked a question to my teacher. Learning became fun (note: I read those documents outside of regular class work as I was tired of being told what to believe with respect to politics and history).

The undeveloped world: For places without access to the internet (such places are vanishing quickly) text books in the traditional form will still be needed. For lets face it, a text book is a tool just like the internet, except that the internet has the ability to be a news source, a library and a communication device all rolled into one.

Conclusion: Math, and for the most part science (non-political parts) are non-controversial. History on the other hand is always controversial because everyone has to put their opinions in, and thus my advocating of online text books. Even work books can be online so long as the information can be sent to the teacher for checking. Publishers will however try to block this process every step of the way because it is what makes them the most money. But unfortunately for the publishers they are fighting a losing battle as budgets get tight, schools will have to look to other ways to save on cash and that may mean killing the text book as we know it today. The only way for the publishers to survive is to make online text books that schools will have to pay access to, but the traditional problems of politicalization will still be there (not to mention, why pay for information that you can access for free somewhere else). So lets hope that the government stops its protectionism soon so that our students can get the education they deserve not the political trash being shoved down their throat.

 

 

Issue 59 Did you know!? Welfare April 19, 2013

I first saw this corruption on a Fox News special hosted by Sean Hannity. The show was called Boom Town 2, and it was all about the corruption in the United States welfare system. So now I present to you some of that corruption.

Getting rich off the poor: Did you know that when the U.S. switched over to electronic food stamps that three private companies run the system on our behalf. The special mentioned two of the three and they are JP Morgan and Xerox. These companies save the taxpayers money by running the programs for us, but there is a catch. For each person on food stamps these companies make $2 per month. They are literally getting rich by having people be on food stamps. To make matters worse, these companies lobby the federal government (not just the politicians but the different departments in charge of the rules for welfare qualification) to reduce the qualifications to get food stamps. Thus, with less qualifications needed to be able to apply and receive welfare these companies can obtain more money as the number of people on welfare increase. This is corruption at its finest.

Corrupt businesses: Another little televised fact is that businesses such as super markets take a cut as well. However, their cut is illegal. Some shop keepers are ringing up groceries at twice there value to get more money. To make matters worse the welfare recipient is complicit. They let the shop keeper do this to get some spending money on the side. Investigators only inspect around 1,500 businesses per month, but the number of businesses who accept food stamps exceeds 20,000. Also, as some of you may well know, a food stamp recipient may not buy cigarettes of alcohol with food stamps, but again the corrupt business steps in. They ring up the cigarettes as an entirely different item. It is very disgusting.

Corrupt recipients: Did you know there is a cash back feature on food stamps. You probably didn't, but there is. When I used to work at a super market the food stamp recipients would buy what items they could with the card and then get cash back to buy booze. To add insult to injury, many of these people on welfare were wearing fur coats, diamond rings, expensive shoes and some even drove away in some real nice looking cars. Last I checked food stamp money is not actually a welfare recipient’s money. We gave it to them through our tax dollars to help them buy food, not get intoxicated. Hell some of these recipients use the ATMs in strip clubs, and others use the money they take out to buy drugs. It is a sick and twisted system we are in.

Conclusion: Right now about half the United States is on welfare. It has become part of the U.S.'s death spiral adding to the nation’s debt. Two States in our country, New York (my home) and California have more people on welfare than people paying into the system. This is a bi partisan issue that must be addressed, but isn't. The reason is that most people associate food stamps with black and Hispanic Americans. Yes it is true that a large percentage of each of those communities in America is on some form of welfare, but when you put all the demographics together there are way more white people on food stamps than black and Hispanic combined. Politicians and interest groups use the black and Hispanic communities as scapegoats to expand welfare in their districts to gain more votes. Thus, we have more corruption than we can shake a stick at. America's welfare system is broken. It needs a massive overhaul along with our tax code, and our government bureaucracy a whole. I don't know why countries bother posturing with America as all they have to do is wait for us to collapse from the inside (at least if we continue down this path to insolvency). To my readers from around the globe, be careful you do not end up in the same position we Americans are in now. As to my readers here in the U.S., if you want change, be prepared to be called a racist and a bigot, because no one wants their free stuff taken away. Maybe we should be like Mexico, they don't have a single form of welfare and yet no one has ever starved, because unlike some of western civilization the church and other private organizations aid the sick and needy in place of a corrupt and soulless government.

Issue 58 A Fairer Tax: The Fair Tax April 18 2013

Another alternative to the tax code.  One that creates true equality.  Hope you enjoy :)
 

What Is the Fair Tax: The Fair Tax is a tax designed to bring business back to America and turn our country from a consumer nation back into a producer nation. It eradicates all current taxes, and I mean all of them, and replace them with a sales tax that only applies at the retail level. That means you are only taxed on what you buy at say CVS, Walgreens, or your local mom and pop store. Its not just products, but services like when you hire a lawyer you are being taxed as well. So it is everything you buy that is being taxed. What is not taxed are the processes that lead up to the retail level. So when the iron is bought by the steel mill from the iron mine it is not taxed. The steel is not taxed when bought by the car manufacturer. However, when the consumer, like you and me, buy the car we are taxed. The estimated tax on all these goods and services bought at the consumer level is 23% (estimated for the American market). Some are saying that that amount is outrageous, but they are forgetting one important thing. There are no other taxes so you have more money in your pocket. You keep all of your paycheck. Not just you though, the businesses too. This leads to four possible outcomes; one, because a businesses has more money to spend it can lower its prices leading to cheaper goods, homes or even lawyers. Two, more money goes into the pockets of average working Americans. That’s right; you may get a raise, in some cases higher than the minimum wage. The third which is a combination of the first two: lower prices and larger pay. Fourth, the one that people will dread happening, is the employer becoming greedy and keeping all the savings for themselves.

Preventing Greed: People will certainly be scared of greedy employers who keep all the savings created by the fair tax, so how is such a situation prevented. Well, it comes down to competition for the money in your wallet. If they don’t lower there price in comparison to a direct competitor, then they loose business, "your business." Thus, it’s either lower the cost of the goods you sell or possibly go out of business. Also, there is another safety net against bad employers, the workers themselves. If they see a job which pays more, they will seek to acquire that job. At the same time new workers will be deterred from working for the bad employers business because they don’t pay as well as there competitors. The result is the bad employer getting less skilled and/or experienced workers who did not make the cut at the higher paying industry. So the bad employer gets the leftovers while the higher skilled/more experienced workers work for the higher paying company. An employer wants skilled workers who do not need to be trained as much, can do the job both efficiently and effectively and are most importantly professionals. If you have employees of the aforementioned ability then you will generally have a successful business. Those with the leftovers I wish them good luck.

  

 The Poor: Ok, we got the biggest worry out of the way.  With little to no taxes, businesses are free to grow and expand and you keep your whole paycheck.  So that 23% tax is now very meager in comparison to your now untouched paycheck.  Some though are probably concerned about the poor who may not see all of the benefits of this new tax system.  Well, the legislation (located at Fairtax.org) has something called a pre-bate.  This gives money to the lowest income earners so they can afford what they need most.  Best of all, they will still be paying taxes, so everyone is contributing to the system for the countries prosperity. 

My Concern:  I have a concern though.  Like Milton Freedman’s negative income tax, I worry that these “poor” people will spend the pre-bate on everything but the essentials.  Therefore I suggest we make it a voucher limiting how the pre-bate can be spent.  However, I would only recommend this change to incentivize the poor earn more money so they will no longer need the pre-bate.

Funding the pre-bate: I see the pre-bate as a form of welfare which could replace many other forms of financial assistance programs, including food stamps and unemployment.  This is only a possibility though.  This new tax code does not affect Medicare and Social Security, except how it is funded.  Since you are no longer paying the payroll tax, America’s two favorite programs will need to be funded out of the Federal Governments general revenues.  So aside from how Social Security and Medicare are funded, the programs will be generally untouched with the possibility of forcing congress to be more fiscally responsible with these programs.

 No way to two Tax codes: Some are thinking that the politicians may try to pull a fast one and keep the Federal income tax.  It can’t because in the Fair Tax legislation it has a mandate that repeals the 16^th amendment to the Constitution that gives the government the authority to tax our income.  So that goes bye-bye.  Is this new system constitutional?  Yes under article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which allows congress to implement taxes to fund the government.  To my knowledge this form of taxation falls as a combination of impost and excises taxes.  This also means that all taxes under the fair tax must be uniform as dictated by the Constitution which governs the implementation of impost and excises taxes.  So there’s no funny business of charging only certain goods and services while excluding others which is a form of corruption.

Conclusion:  This is the Fair Tax.  It taxes everything equally, provides for your keeping your wealth and everyone paying taxes ensuring fair and equal treatment under the law as dictated in the Constitution.  The poor are still looked after and creates more opportunities for businesses to grow. Sure that 23% looks nauseating, but you have more wealth in your pocket and you determine how much you pay in taxes by how much you buy as it is mandatory that on your receipt to show how much went to the Federal Government.  A "Fair Tax" for a country that loves a fair deal.   

Issue 57 Other issues: Gay Marrige?! April 17, 2013

I thought the gay marriage debate was all about people being uncomfortable with the fact that people of the same sex would marry. Something that violates religious tenants (well id violates it for most religions). But, I was wrong. There is one additional issue concerning gay marriage that I didn't even think of, but those who fear it did.

The Fear: Death of Marriage: What those against gay marriage also fear is that it will make people less inclined to marry in the first place. They feel that, in time, the idea and concept of gay marriage (along with multi person marriages to follow) will disrupt the nature of the sacrament of marriage. It is feared that once it becomes main stream that people will not care about the idea and concept of marriage and simply move from partner to partner once they tire of the person they are with.

The Fear 2: What about the kids: This is mainly an issue, not just because the religious sacrament of marriage will be eroded, but because of the traditional family unit. Every study shows that a traditional family creates happier healthier children. This is also true for some gay couples who have children who have been allowed to adopt (whether any of the studies are biased in favor of gays or of traditional marriage I don't know, so take this with a grain of salt). So to another degree they fear broken homes if marriage (the commitment it brings tying two people together) begins to degrade.

My Opinion: For both of these fears, I agree that the potential is there for both to occur. We want people to be committed to one another and more importantly to be committed to raising a family together (gay, straight, or multi). Family units provide a child with the best chance of growing up and achieving success due in part to the fact that a father and mother (or dad and dad/mom and mom) are always around to influence their child so that they are disciplined to follow the path to success more often. In other words they set them straight (not the marriage thing, the right path in life thing). However, the marriage concept is already being eroded as time goes on. It has really nothing to do with gay marriage and more to do with our associating marriage less and less with religion (gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause). Governments in the past have tried to support traditional marriage via laws and through tax relief (part of the reason gays want to marry is so that they can be recognized under the law and achieve those benefits and privileges), due to many at the time supporting the traditional marriage structure. However, this may all have to change for if it becomes re-recognized as part of faith, these benefits may change or be discarded. Worry not, as there are still ways to recognize that two people co-own property, and have a say in medical and what not. It's called a contract which can include property sharing agreements, last wills in testament and more. So even if government gets out of the business (I wish it would) there are other ways to get around the issue.

Conclusion: Our secular society has caused marriages downfall. Slowly but surely religion is failing to attract parishioners as faith has stagnated into people just moving with the motions like a robot. The anti gay marriage folks are better off arguing that marriage is a religious sacrament to stop gay marriage (however some groups within the protestant faith do marry gay couples). Do I have a problem with gay couples? No, I just have a problem when government tries to tell me or anyone who can marry who (age is an exception, no 9 year olds marring 40 year olds) like they did before the civil rights movement blocking mixed race couples. If you want to fix marriage, in my opinion, fix the faiths so that people stop acting like robots in a church and get marriage out of government’s hands. I do understand though that some pro marriage people see government as a way of supporting and enforcing traditional marriage, but like anything with government, a law can be changed when it suits the politicians needs. It is foolish to put any faith in government to support traditional marriage, let alone gay marriage. Government sees marriage as a source of revenue, not as a binding union between two people (3 or more once multi person marriages come to be recognized). Both sides are being used from my perspective and it disgusts me. Just get government out of the business; it is not there place to being taking money off the happiness of others.

I am done talking about gay marriage for now, unless something else comes up that I believe is important. If there is a particular issue concerning marriage you, my dear readers, would like me to address, write a comment here or on my face book page and I will answer it as soon as possible either in a reply or a blog post. Thanks as always for reading.

Issue 56 What is a Terrorist? April 16, 2013

As you all probably know, America has been attacked on it own soil once again. This time in Boston Massachusetts via two improvised explosive devices (IED). So before I begin I ask that you pray for the victims and there families.

Let us begin: Terrorism is a tactic. The tactic, as the name implies, is to inspire fear in order to achieve a goal. There are many definitions of terrorism, some extensive and broad, while others are narrow. Most governments have their own definition, with some having multiple due to different branches of the military and intelligence agencies each having their own. There is no international definition of what a terrorist is, mainly to provide flexibility in an attack so as to label something terrorism when it is politically suitable, or when needed to bring extra attention to a situation. For our purposes a broad definition is appropriate as terrorism is no longer limited to achieving political goals.

Terrorism: The imminent threat of violence and/or mayhem or the use of violence or act to cause mayhem in the furtherance of a goal.

This is the broadest definition I can come up with that encompasses all aspects of modern day terrorism. We no longer just deal with mass murder and assassinations, but with the instigation of riots, cyber attacks, intimidation and just about anything to inspire terror on a grand scale so that the person, group, or government can achieve there goals.

Terrorist: This is a person(s) or government that instigates the threats or creates the havoc. They will always have some sort of goal. For Islamic Terrorists in the Middle East it is a Caliphate and the removal of western influences they find damaging to their culture. For Jewish Terrorists in Israel it is hatred of Palestinians. In Darfur, it is Sudan sponsoring gangs to kill African Muslims while they themselves are Muslims too, but they claim to be Arab. The Unabomber sought a new society. In Columbine it was the two shooters lashing out against being bullied. For a government, it is the removal of an obstacle to the furtherance of power. No matter what, a terrorist has some sort of goal. If no one realizes that goal however, then their attacks and provocations have failed. Also, if there is no goal or reason behind the attacks, then the person or persons are just simple murders who wish nothing but harm to their fellow man.

Brief History: Terror was first coined during the reign of terror in France during the French Revolution. It became an actual military tactic in WWI when Germany used their zeppelins (airships) to bomb London in the hope that the peoples fear would make them put pressure on the British Government to end the war. Modern Guerilla style attacks where developed in Ireland by the IRA, copied from raiding tactics used in war. They also where one of the first to use IEDS (the Black Hand terrorist group that killed Arch Duke Ferdinand used a hand grenade and guns). Then the Tamil Tigers began using suicide bombings in their terror campaign against their government. Al Qaeda copied these techniques and evolved them further, combining classic military and guerilla style tactics with both modern and low tech weaponry to maximize fear and bloodshed. Al Qaeda is one of the first international terrorist organizations that operate on its own. A group such as Al Qaeda has never existed, to my knowledge, without first being created and used by a government.

With the advent of Al Qaeda and its copy cats, the world was sent into a frenzy. War was no longer Country against Country, but also Country against international organizations. This left a gap in how to prosecute terrorists. Originally, terrorists where treated as civilians and thus tried in a traditional court of law. However, these terrorists create their own battlefields and thus can be considered combatants and have the Geneva conventions applied to them. But this matter is not settled as terrorists fall in-between the definition of criminal and soldier.

As Terminology: The word terrorist is sometimes used as a broad term to describe an entire group. It is not intentional, but is sometimes used to demean an entire people, i.e. Muslim terrorists. However, while we all know that terrorists are in fact a minority, people still use the term. Well the reason is, because there are just too many to list. We have to think of terrorists as a term in the form of the roots of a family tree. Its branches branch out into political terrorism, religious terrorism, and social terrorism and so on. Then this tree branches out further to describe specific groups like Muslim, Jewish, anarchist, communist and the like which are then followed by the specific groups like Al Qaeda, the IRA, and the Tamil Tigers. Everyone on the family tree is a terrorist, it is not meant to look down upon a particular faith or group, it is just that it is easier to say terrorist. It is fine if you wish to be politically correct, but at least come up with a new word first.

Conclusion: Terrorism will never go away. It has existed even before the word was ever invented. At this point in our history we have to decide the best way to treat the problem so as to balance both safety and security with our freedoms. However, the best option in my opinion is learn about the terrorists and their goals and then debunk their ideology or beliefs. In short, I say know thy enemy and then defeat them by destroying every reason they have to fight in the first place. This will leave only the radicals left whose beliefs will never change. From there we can isolate them or capture and/or kill these now ostracized members if it becomes necessary. Counter and anti terrorism is not just about killing them all or putting them to justice, it is information warfare at its most basic and creative level. It will be a long battle and a hard one. So God bless the soldiers in harms way, both in my country America and abroad in this never ending war.

For more information see the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counter Insurgency Manual.

Issue 55 Freedom of the Press April 15,2013

What is the freedom of the press to you? Does it mean a reporter can just spout any form of nonsense when ever they choose? The Freedom of the Press is part of free speech, but in this case plays an important function, keeping government in check.

As free speech: The freedom of the press is a form of speech that is published for all to see. It is no longer just a simple news paper story, but television, and electronic media. It is a news station, a work of satirical literature (both in print and visual), a television show, a documentary and so on. There really is no limit to what today can be considered part of the freedom of the press. Even this blog counts as part of that freedom.

Limits: As always, there are limitations. A reporter cannot say something that is not true about an individual. That would be considered lying. Due to this, a reporter in a court of law may be sued in court (at least here in the U.S. they can) as any lie can potentially ruin someone’s life. In the U.S. however, there is a double standard as celebrities and people in highly visible public positions must prove malice (intentional destruction of ones reputation in this instance) in order to defend themselves from a false truth. The double standard here was established to protect all reporters as a single celebrity or public official suing can ruin the life of a reporter and create fear in the minds of other reporters and commentators to the point they can no longer report a story accurately.

They can be used: If any one has grown up in a totalitarian society, or a society that values something more than freedom, then they know that a news agency can be censored. What is censorship? It is the manipulation of what is written or viewed by the general public, usually by a government. In America, there used to be wide spread censorship, restricting the types of characters portrayed on the television or written into books. They could even limit what news reporters said. In countries run by dictators, the news media is a mouth piece for government, squawking like a parrot when the government so desirers. There is also self censorship. Some agencies do it out of decency, as there viewers watch them because they expect a certain level of decorum. Others however have an agenda. Unfortunately, more so today than in the past I would think, that a news agency would manipulate its stories to better support their ideological agenda. Some may even use it to destroy there opposition by telling how biased a particular group is to discredit them and ultimately cause them to lose enough money to shut down. Then there is others still that would manipulate the story so as to inflate it (which I generally see on a slow news day when I watch the news), but is sometimes used to give attention to a particular person or group.

Thank Goodness for the Internet: With the internet being so pervasive in today’s society it has become that much harder to lie to the public. Every blogger, writer, film maker, and artist has the potential to be a reporter and/or commentator. Information cannot be hidden anymore as once that information has spread, that’s it, it can no longer be covered up and the victim of that leak is now on damage control duty. But there is one negative, the truth can be overwhelmed by lies. If people hear a lie long enough, they think it is true and thus when presented with the actual truth, they think it a lie.

Information and truth are now a battlefield. Reporters have a very rough road ahead as the established media like the New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News must adapt or die out. Every person has a preferred media source. Some in my generation prefer John Stewart (a comedian) over the likes of Anderson Cooper and Bill O'rielly. But it is up to us to try and take the time to sort out the truth from the lies otherwise; we become lambs to the slaughter. It is up to the new generation of reporters to establish a moral high ground so as to not manipulate the news and maintain an air of professionalism. Truth must be what we seek from the press; otherwise we disgrace the freedom of the press and turn it softly into a tool of tyranny.

Issue 54 President Obama and CPI April 12,2013

The President has proposed a new budget (again). And he has put out an olive branch to the Republicans that even they have not considered, reforming how inflation is measured so that it is more accurate.

Inflation: This term is used to describe when money loses value. It occurs when there is more money in the system, or other special circumstances occur to cause this financial hardship. Why does inflation occur you ask? Well, the value of money works on the same principles as supply and demand, the more money you have equals less demand and thus less value. The less money there is equals more demand and thus a higher value. Governments typically prefer higher inflation as people get more money even though it is worth less than it really is which in turn allows them to pay off debt easier. However, the negative of this is that the prices of all goods and services skyrocket.

CPI: CPI stands for Consumer Price Index. It is one of many ways to measure for inflation. In this case, CPI is used by the federal government of the United States to determine, based on inflation, how much welfare money is given out, how much government assistance you get with health care and other services, and even how much a senior gets in Social Security and Medicare. Depending on how it is adjusted it can decrease or even increase benefits for those individuals who need aid. For the case of President Obama, he wants the CPI to measure inflation more accurately and thus causing benefits to increase for mostly poorer individuals, and decrease benefits for richer individuals. There for it is a step in the right direction for reforming welfare and other handouts, while saving the government lots of money.

Opposition Response: Republicans were astonished by this olive branch. Every interview I saw had them wondering what the President was thinking. Prior to the Presidents proposal the Republicans supported the Ryan Budget that also changed CPI, but not for anyone over the age of 50. Thus in their budget, only my generation would actually be affected. Republicans only wanted my generation affected out of concern seniors could not cushion themselves from the change in payments as many seniors today need to work even in their 80s to make ends meat.

Political risk: President Obama is putting himself out on a limb politically here. Then again, he does not need to be re-elected, but his fellow Democrats do as well as Republicans. Let’s face it; America’s senior citizens vote the most.

I applaud President Obama for this, even if I do not care for the rest of his budget as it increases taxes again, and even places America in more debt. But it does show he wants a legacy to be remembered. So in this case, I hope he actually does work with Republicans rather than demeaning his opposition into place. However, this proposal still might go no where as the Republicans and Democrats must still agree to the rest of the budget, though I think that is unlikely. Perhaps some actual smart person in D.C. will propose to do one-for-one trades the President getting Republicans and Democrats to reduce tax credits and deductions for the rich in exchange for an altered and more accurate CPI. Republicans will never give on raising taxes, but would be willing to lower them if it is for the middle class and lower. There is wriggle room; it’s just that both sides have to find it first.

Issue 53 Gay Marrige April 11, 2013

Gay Marriage is probably one of the most major issues of our life time, when it comes to religion that is. For those who are of faith, this for most is not an issue of questioning the love of the couple, but an infringement of government onto ones faith.

Marriage is a religious sacrament: Last I checked marriage belonged to religion. Government, due to the separation between Church and state is not allowed to touch it. But, government does because it makes them lots of money. Originally, even in the United States, countries had established State religions. In the U.S. the Quakers had Pennsylvania, Mormons Utah, and the list continues. It allowed the States not the Federal Government to decide who could be married. Also, before and after the Civil War in America, the States ability to marry individuals was abused to prevent couples with different skin colors, races, ethnicities and faiths from marrying. However, the State is no longer allowed to have an established religion today. There is a wall between what the Church may do and what the government may do. And thus I argue that the government cannot say who can and who cannot get married.

Yes they will get married: Some may be thinking that if they let the churches decide then it locks out gays from getting married and even atheists for that matter. That is wrong. There are churches in the protestant faith, and other "dissident" churches that will marry gay couples. Let us also not forget that groups of non-believers may still be married, they just have to due a ceremony, and they do not need a church. Basically, everyone is already free to marry. Government just has to get out of the way.

Polygamy: Multi person marriages will also probably happen. Laws against it are entirely unenforceable as they will just call the other partner their boy friend or girlfriend. It is an inevitable result after the gay marriage issue and again, this is a sacrament, not a government institution. The government has no place telling anyone who can marry.

OK, I lied a little: There is one area that government does have a say on this issue and that is age. We don't want 9 year olds being married to 40 year olds. Age is the only exception for it is protecting children from perverts and despicable adults. This issue is entirely separate from the gay marriage issue and any other form of marriage for that matter. Laws protecting children from sexual acts are already on the books so there is really no fear here in the United States of that happening (legally), and if it does occur we arrest a bunch of people. Even libertarians will not stand for a child being sexually assaulted.

Conclusion: Gay marriage is going to happen. It harms no one at all, and in fact just legitimizes the love of the two individuals involved. Multi person marriages are also going to happen at some point as well as it is unenforceable. But remember, these marriage groups have nothing to do with under age sexual acts, tying them together is simply wrong.

Marriage is an act of faith. Most laws if marriage is finally kicked out of government will remain in place (though they may be renamed). We have nothing to fear at all from gay marriage, or even multi person marriages. Children will be protected from that select minority. I am strait, and intend to marry a girl and have a very nice and happy family, but I am not going to interfere in someone else's faith or love and neither should government.

Issue 52 Let them Gamble April 10, 2013

Yes that is correct, I say let anyone and everyone gamble unhindered. I speak out to you all as a libertarian who believes in the freedom of choice, and in this case about gambling.

We should not be arrested for betting: In some parts of the United States gambling is 100% illegal. And thus, people are subject to police raids. These raids are entirely uncalled for as most of the time the gamblers are just friends getting together for a game. Is it so wrong to gamble amongst friends?

The Cheats: I do understand that in some instances Gambling in the basement of ones home or in the back room of a basement can become a decent business. Also, I understand that the draw of money can cause some owners of these unlicensed gambling halls to rig their gaming systems. But, that is when we actually should be calling the cops to check the legitimacy of those claims as, then and only then that would be theft. We should not make common people criminals over a non criminal act such as running a small business. Sure, there are issues with taxation, but maybe it's time to start rethinking a tax system that punishes people for trying to make a living. Maybe we are just doing too much harm.

It's not income: Well the winning of the gambler is not real income. The gambling house, when people loose and buy stuff, that is income. However, gambling is un-earned money and thus should not be taxed. Government has become very greedy as they try to balance their books and has looked to take from every profitable person and business. So who do they turn to first, the businesses that they deem disreputable like gambling? People spending money to gamble is something adults should be allowed to do unhindered. It is their money and they should be able to spend it how they please, even if that is to risk said money to gain some more. The lotto is also a form of gambling, but people’s lucky win should not be punished by stealing most of it via taxation. It makes no sense for me.

The Fear: The main fear is that people will become addicted to gambling. This small segment of the population who would shall be cared for regardless, but it is not enough to hold back an entire population from their freedoms. People think that by limiting how often people gamble and where they can gamble will solve the problem. Well it never has, and it never will. The addicted gambler will always be an addicted gambler. We can help them after the fact, but it is useless to try and stop them. Society itself punishes the act, by descending into poverty, and their family leaving them. It becomes our duty as people to help them, but limiting and suppressing the freedom of association, to make a better life; to take a chance will not ever solve the problem.

In the United States, Internet gambling is illegal because it is felt that the gambling addicts will destroy themselves. Though, these victims are used as an excuse to protect the established gambling halls like in Nevada and New Jersey. It is corrupt capitalism that prevents private individuals from being able to have a game of chance, while fearing the cops. Can we stop making people victims of our own naïveté? I do not gamble, but I am not someone who is going to shut a good business down that provides jobs to people. I just want to stop making people into criminals. So let them gamble if they choose.

Issue 51 Measure Everything April 9, 2013

Have you ever wondered how effect a government program is? Is it really worth the cost? Well there is only one way to figure that out. The way to do it is to measure how successful it is.

How it works: The idea is simple, set up some criteria that would judge success of a given program or programs. Then follow that with a system to measure each program such as how many people on a welfare program get out of poverty. From there you are set. By using the information gathered, the politicians and the public can see how well a particular program functions.

The Criteria: When establishing the criteria of success, you have to ensure that it measures the intended goal like people getting out of welfare, or if a law enforcement program is effective in maintaining order. Without these criteria the measurement system fails. In addition, each program must be subject to the same measurement system if they fall into the same categories, such as welfare with welfare programs, job program with job programs and so on and so forth. This would establish a basis from which the politicians can compare and contrast the varying programs accurately. Why compare and contrast them? Simple, comparing and contrasting allows for us all to see how effective a program is in comparison to another. If the other program is more successful at doing the same job, then you would keep the good more effective program and terminate the bad one. Of course, those in the bad program would be funneled into the effective program.

Conclusion: A simple change such as this can change a how an entire government works. It would aid in reducing redundancies and insuring that only the worthy programs work. We, the people do not want or need programs that waste our tax dollars, nor do we want a failing program to possibly compound a given problem (some forms of welfare create even more poor). It is time we implement in government a system that measures every aspect of a government programs and agencies success and failure rate for with it, we can surly be one step closer to stopping, and reducing government waste.

I take this concept from Jim Manzi, The head of Applied Predictive Technologies, contributing editor to the "National Review", member of the Manhattan Institute (a conservative think tank, and the place where I met him), and a corporate strategy consultant with Strategic Planning Associates and a staff member at AT&T Laboratories as well as a number of corporate non-profits.

I also take from his book:

Manzi, Jim. Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics and Society Basic books, United States, 2012

 

Issue 50 Free Association April 8, 2013

The Freedom of Association is a freedom that we take for granted regularly. It is our ability to associate with anyone and everyone of our own choosing. For the people of the United States, this right is guaranteed in the first Amendment of the Constitution through the peaceable assemble clause of the first Amendment. But, what does the freedom of association entail?

To associate with People: For this freedom, you can associate with any person you like whether they are the richest or the poorest. You may be a Republican, but through this freedom, you are allowed to have a drink with a Communist. It allows people of different races, color and creeds to interact unhindered by society (or the very least government).

To associate with groups and businesses: This freedom governs our interactions with other people, but because a group and/ or a business are made up of people we are allowed to associate with them as well. We can associate with banks of our choosing, religious organizations of our choosing, and doctors of our choosing and so on. The freedom of association does not limit us to one single option, but grants us the ability to give our support or business to anyone we choose. Think about it. When you give money to a charitable organization such as the Catholic Church you are associating with them. If you join a group like Green Peace, you are associating with them. Giving money to buy your groceries to the cashier is associating with that grocery store. We perform this act every day, this freedom every second without even realizing it.

It gives us the ability to discriminate: Like with every positive, there are negatives. However, the ability to discriminate is not exactly a negative. Through our own judgment, people are allowed to say no, I will not associate with that person. People can say no I will not hang out with that group. They can say no, I refuse to shop at that store. We all have our reasons to not want to hang out with a particular person, group or business; however the only time this becomes a negative is if hatred is involved such as racism. Otherwise, discrimination is a positive which allows us to disassociate with say a communist who intends on committing a terrorist act. We do not have to join a group like the white supremacists. There is no need to shop at a business if we feel they are unfair to their workers or even for just having prices that are too high. This freedom gives us choice, the choice to be with, or not be with who we wish.

Should Government order us to associate with someone: For us Americans, the freedoms we have are sacred. But we typically don't know they are slipping through our fingers till they have been eroded. One such instance is the Affordable Care Act which is better known as Obama Care. In its pages the American people are ordered to associate with insurance companies, which is a clear violation of our freedom of association. While, yes, Americans do want to be able to have access to health care, it does not mean we should be forced to buy from any body we either do not agree with, or simply cannot afford. However, we are no forced to be with insurance companies that most of us think of as either crooks or just a plain waste of money. And even then, we are still trapped, because health insurers are controlled by the State Governments and thus prevent other health care providers from entering. This unfortunately creates a monopoly (on a limited basis); while States force price controls and coverage on individuals they do not actually need (like hang nail coverage). This is government limiting people’s options and thus our freedom of association. Thus for Americans and people everywhere that have their rights protected by law, our freedoms are actually being suppressed.

Do we have the right to associate with a Government: The Freedom of association does give us the right to associate with a government of our choosing. But unlike traditional ways of associating and disassociating, we would have to actually leave the country and settle in a new one that better suits our values and interest. In other words, to escape a government that is not going away anytime soon, you have to move to another country that you would find acceptable, but remember, you are now subject to their laws and restrictions.

To be free to associate or disassociate is a wonderful freedom. We may choose who we marry, who are friends are, and even where we shop. It allows us to come together in times of struggle and separate when we no longer see eye to eye. With this freedom we may go on strike at our work place if we feel we are treated unfairly or seek out new employment. Through this right we can due marches, boycotts and protests, but also we can come together in Churches, Temples and Mosques. Never take this freedom for granted, for once it is suppressed it will be a hard struggle to get it back.

Issue 49 Free Speech April 5, 2013

What is free speech exactly? Is it the privilege to say anything you want? Are there limits? Well if you're a person like me, then it is the ability to say whatever you want, but you are responsible for the results of what you say.

It is a right: As we all know, the freedom of speech is a "natural right." We can express our opinions in almost any way we deem appropriate. However, like most rights, while it is something that cannot be given to another person it can be suppressed. Governments like China, and Saudi Arabia, limit speech to protect themselves from a popular uprising. They limit the exposure of their people’s voice by restricting Internet access and censoring what is said in news papers and magazines. North Korea has complete control over the media and controls everything that is said. Here in America, we take our freedom of speech for granted. There are people who will try and shout people down from the podium because they do not agree with their views. Is it selfish, yes. But it is done because some people don't want to have a conversation and develop the issue to the point where it can be resolved, they rather it is their way, or no way at all. So the only tyranny we face in America is the masses, both large and small, trying to drown out other points of view.

For me the definition of the freedom of speech (a libertarian definition at that) is: the ability to express your thoughts and ideas in any way you so choose, so long the other persons rights are not violated in the process. With the sole exception being a liar (also known as libel) in which case the subject who is lied about has the ability to sue for any damages that result. So long story short, you are responsible to what you say or in some cases due. By the way harming someone is not speech, and I know some of you were thinking that this definition included the physical harm of someone else or the even the destruction of another persons property. They are not speech.  That is violating someone’s right to life, there ability to live without fear, and their personal property rights.

Limits: Some of you have heard that you cannot say fire in a movie theater even though it is speech. Truth is you actually can. The example here was actually rhetorical that was put into the final decision of a United States Supreme Court case. You can actually say fire, if there is one, if the audience in the theater thinks this is part of an act etc. But say it causes a panic, and people are harmed. This is why people simply say "you can't say fire in a movie theater" because of the possible consequences of that action. In truth, you will not be arrested for the actual speech, but the results of that speech.

Similarly, you cannot instigate a riot with your speech. A person can say things that will make people want to harm those around them, or even harm the speaker themselves. But due to how the crowd may act, the police will unfortunately arrest you. Our societies have not evolved to the point where we can just ignore and even isolate the individuals we truly don't agree with because of there backwards views i.e. racism, slavery and the like. Essentially, when it comes to something you don't want to hear or see, as part of your freedom of speech you may advert your eyes and even shut your ears.

Obviously, as stated earlier, you cannot steal, or destroy another’s property for the sake of speech as you are violating their rights. You cannot harm or kill someone for the sake of speech, for again you are violating someone’s rights. Does this actually need to be explained? Well it does because protesters will sometimes abuse their freedom and harm other people purposefully as in the case of the occupy movement where some of their cohorts purposely destroyed and ransacked peoples businesses and homes. The moment when you start violating another person’s right's with your freedom of speech and expression, it stops being a freedom.

Are products Speech?: I ask this because the U.S. Supreme Court has at one point ruled that child pornography is speech. Do I agree with this decision, HELL NO. But at least the court ruled it as an exception to protect children. However, if even child porn counts as speech, what other items count as speech. All photographs, movies, books, artwork and all other forms of art, architecture (think Statue of Liberty) and literature count as a form of speech. Then, does an I Phone count? Does a television count? I know they count as property, but can property count as speech? I guess in certain circumstances they can, depending on how they are used. In this instance I would site flag burning as an example. A person is destroying an item they own to make a point. You can also decorate an item a certain way to make a statement about your self. This would even encompass fashion. Thus, your right to own property and the freedom of speech overlap.

The freedom of speech is something often taken for granted until it is taken from you. Just remember, it is your responsibility to use your freedoms wisely. If you don't like what is being said or done for the sake of another person’s freedom of speech, as per your freedom of speech, you may advert your eyes and clap your ears shut. You are responsible for maintaining your own freedoms and protecting your rights, always keep that in mind.

 

Issue 48 Free Trade April 4, 2013

What is free trade? Well it is not free stuff. It is the ability of nations to trade with each other without limit, or penalty. In short, you can buy and sell goods anywhere in the world without being taxed with a tariff.

Why is free trade good?: Free trade allows for commerce to occur anywhere in the world. It allows for new business opportunities in other countries raising potentially poor countries out of poverty. Basically, America would trade with everyone; Britain would trade with everyone, and so on and so forth. By being able to sell goods across the globe unhindered by burdensome regulations, exceptions and fees (all of which free trade does if done correctly) allows massive economic growth and investment.

Another side effect of free trade is that you would also trade with your enemies. You are most likely thinking, how is that good? Well, think about it, you are trading goods with the people of the enemy country, but it is the government who is bad. By restricting trade of the enemy country you actually hurt their economy, but at the same time you make the people suffer from poverty. Also, by interacting with populations from other countries, ideas and culture are shared that influence the people of the enemy country to possibly be sympathetic to you. Let’s face it, it is not people who start wars, it is government.

What it requires: For this system to work, countries must sign a treaty with uniform trade laws to govern basic safety, and protect from illegal goods from entering a country (aka slave labor, or a dangerous items that a government does not want). It will require cooperation in enforcement between the countries and the total elimination of discrimination in respect to where a good or service comes from.

Under a free trade system, people must be able to move freely around the globe. In other words, we all would have an open boarder’s society, while still maintaining some form of customs to log each person going in and out of the country in question. There can be no manipulation of currency, no governments giving financial aid to their businesses, no special tax breaks or privileges and all goods going in and out of a country paying exactly the same amount. Even the United States constitution dictates taxing every good or service entering or exiting the country at the same rate. All this provides fairness and prevents one-up-manship and trade wars.

What people fear about Free Trade: The biggest fear is that people will lose jobs to other people in other countries due to competition. Well the fact is that is going to happen regardless. When a country trades goods to another, it does not necessarily mean that that good will not be then traded to a different country. Sure it may become slightly more expensive, but if it comes from a place where workers and costs are real cheap, then they have a leg up on the competition no matter where the good or service comes from. Your job will always be at risk of competition both in country and out of country.

What people also fear is that losing the protections of government as well of the privileges of tax breaks, aid and currency manipulation. This relates back to losing ones job or business, but in truth, protecting any business in this manner is in fact crony capitalism. It is basically propping up one business at another businesses expense. There is a lot of money involved in our current crony capitalist structure (both here in America and abroad). By losing these benefits, it may slow down a big business, but it allows competition from small businesses to fill the gap left behind. Also, skilled workers who may be let go will more often than not find a job quickly. The only time they will not is if the market is bad, but the market usually recovers within a year so long as governments stop trying to manipulate the economy with more (you guessed it) crony capitalism.

Free trade: It is a system that embraces the true freedom of true, uncorrupted capitalism (also known as a free market). Countries are attempting to get on board by creating free trade agreements with their allies such as Japan with the United States, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, U.S. and Mexico, and soon a possible free trade agreement between the U.S. and the members of the European Union. Though there is still manipulation of the market, even limited free trade is raising countries out of poverty as people are able to invest in these countries and make their people as well as themselves profitable. Is it not time we had a system built on fairness and true uncorrupted trade?

Issue 47 Pay Scheme for Government Workers April 3, 2013

How much do you think a government worker is paid? The answer is somewhere around $80 to $200 thousand. Interns get around $80,000 alone. Well this is the case for the Federal Government of the United States. Though, some of the local governments at the county level sometimes have even larger salaries, or even retirement plans. One Council women is retiring with a pension of half a million dollars per year. Who needs to go into business when you can just trick your constituents into a pay raise to make you rich. Obviously something has got to change.

My Proposal: Government workers in a starting position would start at a salary equivalent to the national average (federal level). For State it would be the average salary of all people in the State, and Local/county government salaries starting at the average income of the area they represent.

The salaries will be adjusted for inflation to insure healthy living and keep goods affordable to the individual worker.

Each year, in addition to adjusting for inflation, the salaries of these workers will be adjusted to meet the new national average. If the national average lowers, then there salaries decrease, if it raises it increases. This component of the scheme provides incentives to the government workers to keep the economy, and thus every body’s income growing.

From there, each new raise in position will have a salary increase of around 3 to 5 thousand dollars (set by law to insure no funny business). Again, this is to incentivize government workers, but in this case to move up in position. A government worker receiving a low crappy wage unfortunately will want to leave, taking all their knowledge and experience with them. In this, all political parties, private concerns and ideologies agree losing an experienced person who does their job well is not something you want.

Elected officials: Elected official should follow a similar pay scheme as well. The only difference being that rather than starting at the national average, they would have a salary equivalent to the average plus half. So in other words, with a national average of $40,000 (approximately the same average of the United States) a Congressman would have a salary of $60,000. We would keep everything else the same save salary increase due to position as we should not have one elected official paid more than another elected official while serving in the same elected body. For instance, a Congressman's base pay is approximately $175,000 a year, but the Speaker of the House gets well over $200,000 a year. Being Speaker should not grant you greater pay as you like your fellow members of the Congress are all supposed to be equal when representing your districts (or State as in the case of a Senator). Heck, even the majority and minority whip of both parties get around the $200,000 mark even though they too are just another elected official.

Unfairness: Our soldiers are paid a very crappy wage when going into the service. They get around $20,000 a year. $20,000 is just about poverty level, and then we ask them to maintain their marriages and relationships while sending them off to the next hell hole or war. Comparing that to a member of the Congresses base pay is just down right unfair. This little pay scheme of mine, if also applied to them would help resolve this issue to a degree. Likewise, fire fighters, garbage men and police may get a boost, or at the very least adopt potions of this idea to provide fairness in position and also prevent corruption. Let’s face it everyone, a government worker (not all but a good portion of them) are gaming the system and it has to be stopped. The government workers on the lowest end of the spectrum with the lowest pay, or in a different department with the least say get screwed right along with the tax payer. It is time equal pay for equal work is brought to all levels of government.

Conclusion: My idea is just that an idea. I have yet to finish my idea for a proper retirement plan for these government workers and elected officials that would remove their golden parachutes. Yes we get screwed with those too. In fact, government workers in some instances are allowed to retire at 55, while the rest of America retires at around 65. I can understand fire fighters, police, and garbage men along with a few others being an exception, but a pencil pusher should retire with the rest of us. It is a privilege to serve the people, and my idea is simply there to make it a privilege once again. A member of government used to be paid very little, and sometimes where not paid as they sacrificed their time for the peoples greater good. But today, it is the place to be to retire with a massive retirement package equivalent to a CEO of a fortune 500 company in some instances. There is just got to be another way to bring government back in line with helping the people, not robbing them blind.