Issue 429 The Galt Strike! September 30, 2014

I base this issue on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.  The idea in concept is simple, what if the producers in our society just up and went on strike?

How it works:  Basically, people like Donald Trump, Steve Forbes, and the like all decided to leave their positions as heads of their companies.  Not only that, but they remove their businesses entirely from the country as well before they up and disappear.  The result would actually be economic chaos due to the economic vacuum left over from these giants vanishing.   

The purpose:  The purpose is simple.  It is to show the world how valuable these producers of the goods and services we enjoy are.  Right now we take these individuals and their contribution to society for granted.  But we could no longer take them for granted if they leave us high and dry without the financial support for the economy, the tax revenue going toward government, or the lack of internet or other services that would vanish if these titans left us.  As such, we would understand that we need them and that because they can up and leave so easily if they so choose.

Reactions:  The initial reaction would be hatred and fear because people would hate these individuals once they realize that these people are valuable and that they left them.  But if left alone long enough, these people would (while still embittered) would beg for these individuals to come back along with their businesses.   However, they cannot wait too long as this would result in other businesses taking their place.  So it is a game of patience and timing.

Conclusion:  This may possibly be practical for specific businesses in the United States due to technology.  Many businesses will evolve to the point that they do not need brick and mortar offices or even use a single countries currency or banking system so as to avoid taxation, and certain regulations.  By doing this, the producers who long have been abused by the tax system, (save those who use it to abuse others) can leave and not ever have to look back.

Issue 428 Tragedy Tourism September 29, 2014

Have you ever heard of tragedy tourism?  You would be surprised by what it is and what it can actually do for a community.  So let's discuss.

What is it?:  This form of tourism is where people come to view the sites of natural disasters, murder scenes and similar tragic events.  Basically, they come to see where people's lives have been ruined.  

Morbid:  Yes, it is morbid.  I mean, why would you want to see a place where death and/or destruction have been wrought?  Think about it, do you want to see the abandoned buildings in Chernobyl?  Well, there may be some merit to this.  Another place that is part of tragedy tourism is Auschwitz, one of the many places the Holocaust took place.  This tourism is useful to keeping memories of man’s cruelty and foolishness alive so as to prevent it from happening again.

Unexpected benefits:  A benefit of this form of tourism is that it helps the economy of the places where it took place.  After the tornadoes that occurred down south in the U.S. like in Joplin, these tragedy tourists came to visit, spent their money and then left.  Along the way these tourists spent money which turned into an income to those affected economically by those storms.  The result was the economy of the area rebuilding itself much faster than if there had been no tourists of the disaster at all.  Same thing happened at ground zero in New York City.  The area’s economy and the country’s economy were in upheaval.  These tourists from around the world came to see the scene of death and in doing so bumped the economy of the area up enough through their spending to help NYC get out of its economic rut all that much quicker.  So this can actually be a very good thing for an economically depressed area, or an area suffering through a depression.

Conclusion:  While I still think it a bit morbid, It has unexpected gains.  Thus, I say visit these sites as you actually can help the victims by spending money in the areas they live.  So in my opinion, let this form of tourism keep going because it has the possibility to help others.

Issue 427 Envy Mindset September 26, 2014

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.  It is an evil mindset and emotion that will bring others down.  So what is it?  Let us discuss.

Envy:  This is best described in an example, so here it goes.  You work very hard each and every day, but despite this are poor.  Then you see others who are better off than yourself.  Due to this you then want to bring others into the same position that you are in due to the envy you feel.  As such, you are vengeful over the successes of others and thus want them to be in the same miserable state you yourself are currently in.  This is how envy works.

Are we an Envy mindset nation?:  Sometimes I think we are.  Yes we do have people in poverty and that they see those with more "wealth" as showoffs, boastful and even just plain pompous.  But we also have it with people who make barely above minimum wage (I make barely above minimum wage) where they protest to get higher wages through government.  Meanwhile I am paid less than a fast food worker while working as a pharmacy technician.  Hence why I perceive some of these people as envious of others’ lives and thus seek to acquire it through government aid. Others have attacked business owners out of misdirected rage over corporate greed (they are envious over corporate America's wealth).  Basically it is sad.  However, we may be able to escape the foolishness by recognizing this foolish mindset.  Which is why I write this issue for you my readers to read.

Conclusion:  Do not become envious of others.  You do not need what they got and you don't need them suffering with you because that will not make anyone feel any better.  Envy is the tool of the bitter, and of people who are quitters.  All I can say is fight on my readers, and take every opportunity to advance yourself whenever possible for that will help you succeed.

Issue 426 Conquest versus Rival mentality September 25, 2014

There are two mentalities to countries, businesses and sports teams.  These two mentalities are Conquest versus Rival mentalities.  But what does these mentalities entail?

Conquest:  This mentality is the oldest form of mentality.  Here we steal, control, destroy others to achieve success.  Basically, you eliminate the opposition to your goals by any means necessary and thus leave nothing left of the opponent.  This mentality is also the kind that creates future conflict, and hatred.

Rival:  In contrast a rival mentality does not destroy the opponent at all.   They do not steal or destroy, but rather run parallel to the opponent to compete with them.  Here, there is no destruction (save self-destruction if people get careless) so as to create a culture of competition.  As a result, this leaves room for friendships and the freedom of choice by others to enjoy both sides’ benefits.  So as an example, two clothing manufactures can exist making the exact same product rather than one having to be destroyed in order for the other to survive.  No hatred, or animosity, just friendly competition without the chance of a monopoly.

Conclusion:  So what would you rather have?  The Conquest or the Rival mentality?  I personally prefer the rival mentality that some often attribute to American Capitalism.  But today we are losing that rival mentality and reverting back to the foolish conquest mentality.  So I say we have a choice to make.  Choose the mentality upon which to have and expose via example, or go back to the barbarism of conquest.  Remember, your actions affect those around you.  So by you alone leading by example, you can change the minds of thousands.

Issue 425 Dr. King Jr. and Affirmative Action September 24, 2014

 Affirmative Action is a controversial topic today over the discussion on whether it is necessary or not in today’s society.  For those who do not know, affirmative action is where people of a certain race are given special treatment to prop them up for positions and acceptance in certain institutions.  But what did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. think about affirmative action?

Dr. King Jr.'s thoughts:  Apparently Dr. King believed in affirmative action.  He felt it could be used to speed up the process of social equality in America.  And to a certain extent I believe it did as well.  But now it comes to question on if he would support its continued use in today’s society.  So he would probably be of two views in my opinion, and they are:

1) Dr. King would continue to support affirmative action, but would begin removing the benefit for certain people based on level of social equality.  At the same time he would probably suggest revving it up for those who have taken the place of the oppressed in the United States while the previous oppressed become accepted.  And even then, people will not be as oppressed as time goes on, so the level of interference by an affirmative action program could be diminished over time.  Hence, true social equality could be gained, but unfortunately through government force.

2) His other possible opinion would be to eliminate it seeing as it is now a tool for race baiters who wish to continue the idea of inequality (or inequality itself) in order to gain power through hatred and resentment.  So once its initial job was done, it would disappear.

Conclusion:  While we can only suspect what Dr. King might say, I believe he would go with option one as it has the least chance of being used by race baiters as it will constantly shift from one oppressed group to another.  Dr. King wanted social equality, and as we have come very very close, there are those who threaten to rip it to shreds.  If Dr. King was still around, the world and social equality in America may look like a very different place. 

Issue 424 Dr. King and Guns September 23, 2014

Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Once attempted to buy a firearm for the purpose of self-defense?  Bet many of you did not.  Let us discuss.

What happened:  Dr. King, before he was the leader of his movement for the equality of all races once attempted to own a gun.  He wanted it for the sole purpose of protecting his family from the mobs that would sometimes lynch people of color and those who sympathized with them. Basically, it was the same logic that most people have when buying a gun for personal protection, to defend oneself and family.  However, the Alabama authorities denied Dr. King the ability to purchase a gun.  Their logic was that it was to protect Dr. King who was black and thus he did not need a firearm.  Of course we know this to be a biased opinion based on racism and thus Dr. King was denied the right to self-defense.

Implications:  This can mean several things.

1) That Dr. King while not a violent man recognized the right to protect oneself and by de facto logic the second amendment of the Constitution.

2) This may have impacted his development into a national leader on civil rights by him renouncing violence as he may have thought that by even having the gun at that point it would be yet another excuse by authorities to arrest him or even call him a hypocrite.

Conclusion:  Whichever of the two implications you believe in (or both as I do), it shows Dr. King had an understanding of the power of the gun representing the potential for violence in comparison to his nonviolent civil rights movement.  So with this, does it change your opinion on who Dr. King is and what you think of him as a person?  For me, it did as I gained a certain level of respect and admiration (more than I already had) as he is someone who knew the difference between the power of the gun and the power of peoples voices.

Issue 423 Comparing all to Hitler September 22, 2014

It is important to compare ourselves to others to help our growth as individuals as it aids us in revealing our flaws.  One of the biggest people we can compare ourselves to is Adolf Hitler so that we do not become a monster like him.  Let us discuss.

Reasoning:  By comparing ourselves to the monster that is Hitler we can realize what hatreds we have and potentially how they can grow into something horrible.  We can use this evil man as an example of uncontrolled hatred taking over.  

Feelings:  By not only comparing ourselves, but those in power to Hitler we can keep each other in check as well.  Think about it. Was it a good thing that people compared George Bush Jr. the 43rd President of the United States to Hitler?  Is it a good thing to compare President Obama to Hitler?  The answer is yes because it also makes us pay attention to their actions.  It also can make them pay attention to their own actions and think more about what they are doing in the position of leadership. Basically it makes them more self-aware because of how disturbed we feel even being compared to the Nazi's and their evil leader.

Conclusion:  Artists and regular people use Hitler as a method to attract maximum attention to their voice so that it is more likely to be heard.  The feelings of turmoil and anxiety being compared to the tyrant serve to awaken us, and force self-reflection.  But this comparison is not overused as it really only comes up in situations where people think an action is reminiscent of Hitler's' actions/words toward the Jews, the Gays, the deformed, the mentally ill, and those who did not conform to Nazi ideology and ideals. So it has less risk of the word (in this case the name Hitler and its evil legacy) from losing its power like the word racist which is so often overused as a verbal weapon.  So remember, comparing ourselves to evil can also prevent evil as well.

Issue 422 The Circle Maker part 2 September 19, 2014

Hello again.  Today is part two of the story of Honi the circle maker.  Or should I say his only other obscure story as written in the Old Testament.  So let us begin.

Tale number two:   Honi is walking along a path and sees a farmer hard at work planting a date palm tree (which will eventually produce the fruit called dates).  Honi questions the man on why he put so much effort into planting something that he will never reap the benefits of for the tree will not bear any fruit within the man’s lifetime.  

The man responded that it did not matter if he could not reap the benefits of his labor, for his children would in his stead.  At that Honi walked away apparently not fully understanding the man’s logic.  He would then feel sleepy and fall asleep under a tree.  

Honi would wake up many, many years later.  Upon his waking from his slumber he realized something was off.  He walked down the same path and noticed how different it looked.  He happened upon the same date tree he had seen planted many years earlier, but now it was fully grown and bearing healthy fruit.  Honi noticed a man working to pick the fruit from the tree that looked very similar to the man who originally planted the tree in the first place.  Honi walked up to the man and asked after the farmer who planted the tree.  

The man told him that the man who planted the tree was his grandfather and had passed away years ago.  He told Honi how grateful he was to his grandfather for leaving this tree for his family to use to prosper, and the memories he had made with his father watching it grow.  Honi was stunned and walked away toward the town.  He asked if anyone knew him, and none did.  He had no one who remembered him.  It was then that he asked God to take him to the next world which God did.

Moral/Conclusion:  Here the moral of the story is that you want to leave a legacy behind.  Basically make an impact on the generations to follow so that perhaps you will be remembered for your deeds you have done, or the person that you were.  So can you leave a legacy for others to follow, be inspired by, or serve as a model?

Issue 421 The Circle Maker part 1 September 18, 2014

In the Old Testament there is a prophet called Honi.  He literally has but two stories in the entirety of the text.  But I felt after hearing those stories for the first time that they were important to share.  So here is story number one.

The First tale:  There was a drought in a village in the desert.  No rain had fallen in weeks and the villagers were in a dire situation for obvious reasons.  But Honi stepped up and said he would speak to God himself.  The village thought him insane as he drew a circle around himself and yelled up to God that he would not move until he made it rain for the village.  He sat there for days until God relented and allowed a trickle of water to come from the sky.  But Honi yelled up to God that this was not enough.  So God gave more rain, but Honi was not satisfied as this rain that God sent was still too little.  Then finally after Honi asked yet again, God finally gave Honi a torrential downpour that filled the lake near the village which would provide enough water to satisfy the village’s needs.

Moral/Conclusion:  God can be negotiated with.  This is what this story of Honi is trying to tell.  Both Jesus and Muhammad also talked directly with God as well, so this shows that you can also have a personal relationship with God.  So by interacting with God on a more personal level it allows us to improve ourselves and our own faith.

Issue 420 Should Medicaid have Copays September 17, 2014

Well ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about Medicaid and if it should have copays.  As many of you know, Medicaid is State provided health insurance for the poor, but not everyone on Medicaid is actually poor.  So this is the question, when and where should there be copays for these people who cannot afford health insurance?

My experience:  Medicaid has copays setup for individuals based on their income.  So by estimating what money they earn, the State government determines what the copay at the doctor’s office or drug store should be.  As someone who works in a pharmacy, the copay is typically one dollar.  This is good as the income the individual makes helps to make a single dollar affordable whether they are on unemployment or working at a regular job.  It reduces costs at the State level and personally I feel that copays should be expanded to account even further to truly measure what is actually affordable to the patient and what is not.  At the same time, I believe that drugs necessary for the health of the patient should be covered like maintenance medications and cures for common diseases.  Things like over the counter drugs like Tylenol, Aspirin and Advil have no place being covered as they are already more than affordable over the counter.  Vitamins too have been covered by Medicaid and made free despite not being medically proven to actually improve health in some instances, and that they too are over the counter.  As such, I have helped fill so many prescriptions for patients as the pharmacist grumbles looking at their medical history saying only one out of all the medications (as only one was a medication) should even be going through Medicaid.  And finally, once at the counter, the patients in some (not all, but some) cases complains they have to pay a dollar, while they wear fur coats or other expensive clothes.  Kind of dumb is it not.

To the other side:  To try and stay objective, the people saying I am saying all people on Medicaid are robbing our taxpayer dollars is wrong.  It is a known fact that there are legitimate people who cannot afford health care.  As such, they deserve to get health care catered to their income.  However, this does not mean a small nominal fee should not be paid which reduces the overall costs that Medicaid has to pay so long as it is based on income.  Medicaid is welfare given to the poor.  You are entitled to none of the benefits given out by it, and as such the benefits can be changed by the State government at will and you can do nothing about it.  But, this does not mean we will leave actual poor people to die in the street.  So Medicaid or some form of it will always be there for the actual poor, but for those who use the system to take advantage of the benefits should understand that they have to pay more because they earn more than the people who really need it.

Conclusion:  I am not trying to sound evil or harsh even though I know I am coming off that way.  However, people complaining because they think they are entitled to a free lunch is just wrong.  People who are wearing expensive clothes, while on welfare of any kind and continue to buy expensive items because they have a free ride is also wrong.  So if you cannot kick people off welfare like Medicaid, you can at least reduce their burden on the system by making them pay a little more out of their own pocket for their medicine.

Issue 419 Combine Medicare A and C September 16, 2014

Similar to yesterday’s article there can be savings by fusing Parts A and C of Medicare.  Part A deals with hospital visits and other aspects of doctor visits.  Medicare part C does similar but resembles part D in how it teams up with private companies to aid in providing health insurance coverage (albeit not in the same way).  But there is merit to reform and Ill discuss that here.

The Idea:  Part C (while cost efficient) of Medicare can be altered to work in the exact same manner as part D with little effort for better savings potential.  This will provide cost savings across the board.  Part A can then be fused into Part C so as to save money without burdening the system, but with a difference.  Part A health coverage is the only part of Medicare that is paid for using our contributions from the taxes we pay toward Medicare.  Parts B, C and D do not have any contributions from the payroll tax (our contributions) that we pay throughout our life to fund Medicare Part A and Social Security.  So the major advantage of combining these in the system is that our own money which we contributed can actually be used to provide coverage for ourselves using part C modified to work more efficiently like part D.

Impact:  With money from part A benefits (our contributions) the government will not be over budget with respect to trying to provide health coverage as the money we contributed will already be there to pay for it with the government only stepping in when the amount of contributions goes down too much that it cannot meet demand.  However, by using the part C model to replace the original part A that possibility becomes a lot less likely.  As such, Medicare will be saved from self-destruction and we will not have to pay premiums (with certain exceptions to the rich) to get coverage for doctors’ visits or emergency room treatment.

Conclusion:  This idea is cheaper and more effective than yesterday’s idea as it uses the contributions we already pay into the system rather than it being budgeted like the current parts B, C, and D of Medicare.  The government will hence save money and we will get cheaper health in the long run.

Issue 418 Fuse Medicare B and D September 15, 2014

Well here I am going to talk from my job experience in the pharmacy.  After Obama Care (Affordable Healthcare Act) got passed it caused part B of Medicare to be more restrictive.  As some of you know, part B is designed for outpatient care, which handles things you need once you get out of the Hospital.  Prior to Obama Care, part B would just about cover anything.  But now with Obama Care, seniors need some form of health coverage for drugs.  That is where part D comes in to help.  But, that requires a monthly premium which many seniors were not expecting to be forced to get and pay for.  So here is my idea, combine the two.

The Idea:  Part B covers outpatient care and the medicines associated with it.  It is budgeted based on how much the Congress gives it yearly to perform this task.  Part D (the only part of Medicare below budget and stable) is also budgeted and subsidizes senior’s premiums toward private healthcare insurers thus making individual healthcare more affordable.  So by combining part B which is over budget and a drain on the system with part D which already performs a similar task you simplify the system and bring an expensive part of Medicare down to a manageable level by teaming up with a private company.  You are saying "wait a minute" as now seniors will be forced to pay a monthly premium in exchange for having to deal with a more successful and expanded portion of Medicare (part D).  That is true, but whether thankfully or unfortunately, many seniors are already forced into part D already due to Obama Care causing a loss of drug coverage from part B becoming more restrictive.  Also, those who are still somehow covered by part B can be immune from this situation by ensuring that subsidies to them are catered to their income.  I’ll explain.

How this works:  For those already enrolled in part D, the only change is that they now have everything covered that would have been also covered under part B.  In addition, new enrollees into the Medicare program would automatically be enrolled in part D rather than part B as B would be phased out.  For those who still have part B (those over 65) and cannot afford the premiums, it will be indexed toward their income so that the poorest will not have to worry about premiums, and make it so that it can be subsidized further by State run Medicaid.  Thus no senior goes broke due to health care as it is defined based on how much money they make after retiring.

Conclusion:  This idea of mine is designed to ensure the health care of our seniors with respect to drug coverage and outpatient treatment is the most affordable possible while reducing costs on the system and individuals.  We cannot go backwards with Obama Care as its tentacles have already destroyed the status quo of the old system.  So we must move forward with ideas to simplify and reduce spending while protecting our senior citizens health.  Thus by eliminating part B and giving all that B did to part D so that no coverage or benefits are lost, we save money at the federal level and the taxpayers save money as now richer seniors will pay more into their health, while poorer seniors will have to essentially pay less for equal or greater healthcare coverage they would have received under parts B or D alone.

Issue 417 Paying Kids to Come to School September 12, 2014

This idea is controversial.  Many see it as wrong to pay kids to go to school as they do not feel it is a job let alone should be treated as one.  But I think it's a great idea, so let's discuss.

Opponents:  Opponents to this idea cite that education is a right/privilege.  That while it should be free for anyone to get an education from a school, the idea of someone profiting off of it is seen as something wrong.  Beyond this mentality that for profit education is wrong, I know of no other form or legitimate opposition to such an idea.  (The illegitimate excuses is that the government will reduce the aid schools/community receives or reduce the number of tax breaks.  When this switch does occur it has caused education quality to go down in exchange for enriching the area around the school temporarily).  

Proponents:  This idea to pay kids to learn is a great idea that will make them want to learn even the most boring topics.  The point is to motivate children to learn and then be paid based on their performance on tests which show their mastery of the subject.  I would also pay the students to tutor each other so as to free up teachers for lesson planning and more hands on extra help/lessons.  This also benefits students because school then becomes treated like a job which enables students to get the mindset they need for when they are finally done with school. In addition to this, this gives students a source of income so as to buy their meals and school supplies from the school (thus the money coming back to the school) and for the students to know what it means to save money so they can use it on things they want or even save for college. 

Conclusion:  The education of students is paramount to their success. It should not matter whether they are paid to get it or not, or how they get it.  It all comes down to the fact that the children are taught to think for themselves and get the skills they need to survive in a constantly changing/evolving job market.  So I say, if it gets kids to go to school then pay them because it is better than just letting them sit there staring at a clock rather than listening to a topic that can potentially enhance and lead them to a future career.

Issue 416 Kids Attending School by Threatening Parents Welfare September 11, 2014

The title is fairly self-explanatory.  The idea has been tossed around that if your child does not attend proper school and you are a welfare recipient, then the welfare should be denied.  So why is this idea being tossed around?

Opinion on why:  I believe the reason this idea is being floated around is due to the fact that many parents on welfare have children who generally do not attend school (thus wasting any welfare meant toward their child's education and putting these recipients under threat to reduce the amount of possible abuse of the system).  As such, they wanted to force parents who are on welfare to actually enforce their children's education rather than the school or other government entity.  It is in my opinion a good idea, but with a potential for abuse.

Abuse potential:  I fear that this enforcement will leave out the option of homeschooling for these parents who feel that public (government run) schooling is inadequate.  Also, I fear that parents on welfare who receive vouchers may not be able to send their children to private or other forms of schools if the laws are poorly written and thus excludes them.  So this is my fear.

Conclusion:  By using welfare parents to enforce their children going to school it saves money and time by schools and police.  It gets kids off the street and in school so that these kids can potentially get a proper education rather than resort to crime due to a lack of ability and skills due to a lack of schooling.  However, the law must be properly written or else it can cause problems and block access to a welfare parents choices when it comes to their child’s education.  So we must be cautious in the way the law is written and thus also enforced.

Issue 415 A Civilian Harm Department September 10, 2014

This idea comes from a Foreign Affairs piece called "Concept on Responding to the Needs of Civilian Victims of War" by Sarah Holewinski (opinion section).  Basically, it is all about trying to reduce harm to civilians in the battlefront.  So how does it work and should we even have such a layer of bureaucracy?

The concept:  So Mrs. Holewinski's idea is as follows:

1. Appoint an internal advocate for addressing civilian harm mitigation.

2. Create a team in the Department of defense that focuses on civilian harm to do the following:

     a. Guide war planning

     b. promote acquisition of nonlethal weapons

     c. review the military’s doctrine and training programs

     d. influence the aid the U.S. gives other countries that are actively engaged in combat

     e. review how to minimize long term impacts of U.S. operations on civilian populations such as              environmental degradation and damage to civilian infrastructure.

3. Debrief returning troops about military/civilian interactions to gather information about civilian casualties and analyzing what did and did not work.

Well that’s it in a nutshell.

What I think:  I think it is mostly naive.  Needlessly hindering our soldiers can cost them their lives.  Guns and bombs once shot may go off course and then hit just about anyone including our own troops.  So the idea to have this new waste of bureaucratic red tape guide war planning is pathetic.  Also, the military is already doing their best to reduce harm to civilians in the first place (that’s why they have precision weapons like laser guided bombs rather than destroying entire cities).  So an advocate is entirely unnecessary.  As to the teams to debrief the troops, while admittedly a good idea with respect to gathering intelligence data on the changing attitudes of the civilian population, it is already done by civil affairs groups and psyop forces.  Basically, all this is being done already in some way, shape, or form rendering it all unnecessary.

Conclusion:  While it is admirable that people like Holewinski want to reduce harm to innocent and non-involved people in war time, the fact is it cannot be done save turning our soldiers into assassins who kill nothing but their targets.  But war is not that kind when it comes to determining who the enemy is, especially in an age where terrorist organizations can stand up to the might of several nations and them not wearing any uniforms.  A war is meant to be horrible and destructive, and to fight it any other way I believe is to sanitize war to the point that it invites more wars.

Issue 414 Store owner rights September 9, 2014

What rights do store owners have with respect to serving customers?  Do they have the right to reject a person for any reason?  Let's discuss.

Rights of the Store owner:  When a person goes into a store to shop, they are making a contract with the store owner to purchase the goods in their store if they find the price acceptable.  Likewise, the store owner has the right to refuse that shopper (or customer) if they violate the rules of the store.  Thus, if the store is a restaurant and they have a dress code, they may reject that customer and refuse to serve them.  They can do this if their store appeals to people with a certain dress and status.  If a person acts out in a store and becomes violent, steals, or generally makes a scene the owner can again reject that individual from ever shopping at their store ever again.  All this is basic, but what about the more controversial.

Controversial aspects of the right:  In the same way a store owner can reject people for doing bad things, a shopkeeper can reject people for other reasons.  They can deny a family entry into a restaurant because they are bringing in a crying baby.  A bake shop can reject a customer because they think that the cake they want violates their moral principles or faith (i.e. the shop owners who refuse to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings).  They can appeal only to women, and thus ban men from their store, or vice versa.  So if we accept that store owners have rights, then we must accept sexist, homophobic, religious and even racial/ethnic bans as well.  Remember, there are good aspects to rights and bad ones, but it is how we react that dictates if the store changes its policies.

Conclusion:  Sure, we may not like a bake shop refusing work because they do not want to serve a gay couple on religious or other grounds.  But we have to accept it for the store owner has rights and there are alternative places to get a cake that will not have such inhibitions.  However, we still do not have to like it.  In fact we cannot go there anymore because we do not like their policies.  While such inhibitions to serve others seem dumb, we can fight back by refusing to go back to that store, restaurant or club.  If enough people refuse to shop there, their policies may change or they will go out of business.  Or the prohibitions that do not make sense will go away such as racial, ethnic, religious, sexist and homophobic etc.  Heck even the ones that do not make sense like wearing a hat, wearing jeans or other silly dress codes, etiquette codes and such can also be overturned (though they are not as serious).  All we have to do is refuse to shop at places for while the owner has the right to refuse a sale, we have the right to refuse to buy from them.  We all have rights, but instead of suing someone, we can just refuse to contract with them instead.

Issue 413 If the boss pays, do they have the right to know? September 8, 2014

I had a thought after last week’s article on if the employer should pay for out of work activities with respect to health care.  If they do pay, should they know what they are paying for?  Would they have to know in order to decide if to cover the injury or not?  Let's discuss.

Should they know:  Right now, employers really do not have the right to know as injuries and sickness fall under the category of protected health information.  But it calls into question of if such a protection should exist or if there should be more exceptions to the rules with respect to someone else paying for your health care.  You can see the logic right, someone else is paying for your leg injury, your antibiotics and even your chemotherapy.  I would say they have to know.  If you break your foot, then they will want to fix it so you can come to work right.  Or they would need to know so that you can get your broken bones fixed or else that injury could make your health worse and thus more costly to the employer to help keep you healthy in the long run.  

Conclusion:  Some may be saying never, it is my health and I should have the right to keep it private.  And you are right to an extent.  But with fraud, and other forms of lying going on in the healthcare industry, is it right to keep certain things private.  I can understand some people’s reluctance, but the relationship between doctor and patient is now tainted with insurance providers, government officials and whatever else you have brought in to help regulate and monitor your health.  This is why I do not even include an opposing section in this issue, because it is redundant in my opinion to do so.  We have so many people interfering with our health already, and we already need doctor’s notes to prove we were even at a doctor’s office to the employer, that privacy in healthcare is literally a redundant exercise except in very specific circumstances.  Thus, in my opinion, the employer should know if and only if they are footing the bill for your health care costs.

Issue 412 Half Breed Tracts September 5, 2014

Have you ever heard of a half breed tract?  Well while it sounds kind of racist, it was actually an idea from the early days of America to give land to those who were half Native American.  Allow me to explain.

What was it:  It was an idea to give people who were half Native American their own land in the same way they gave land to those Native Americans on reservations.  Though this was done more out of sympathy rather than racism like with the reservations.  In short, it was to give them a place to live.  Here, the land given was meant to be exclusive to people who were half Native American with the right to self-governing.  So they essentially answered to no one but themselves.  It failed in the fact that the restrictions on who could live there were not really enforced and eventually so many none half people moved in that the lands were absorbed into the States.

Modern thought:  As a libertarian, I am always looking for an excuse for people to get out from under the thumb of the Federal Government.  Essentially, revive the concept to create new reservations to kick the Federal government out of people’s lives and reinforce self-governance.  Of course this would require people who are even part Native American, or even part other ethnicities that are protected to join hands to create these modern half-breed tracts.  Also, it would need money and lobbying efforts in Washington to force the issue.  The result could be libertarian paradises where people rule themselves with the smallest amount of government possible.

Conclusion:  Well, it was a nice idea at the time, but in truth separating based on race or ethnicity is a really bad idea as it reinforces divisions between peoples.  So I personally see these modern half breed tracts as an excuse to be used (means to an end) to gain more freedoms.  But again this is a thought experiment, and not wholly practical for modern America in my opinion.

Issue 411 Politics of Statehood September 4, 2014

Here we will go over the bare bones politics of accepting new States into the United States of America.  So let's get started.

Old model:  I say old model, but it is not necessarily old.  In this case the actual difference from the modern model is the reasoning.  In this case it is slavery.  As each new State entered the United States pre-civil war you will notice that they always entered in twos.  One State would be pro-slavery and the other anti-slavery.  It was designed to keep the balance between the opposing factions in congress so as to maintain the status quo of the time period.  In fact, at one point they believed Texas was going to break itself up into a number of smaller States, so the northern territory was held back from Statehood so that they may be broken up into equal numbers of States to continue the balance.  This balancing act still continues today, but not over slavery.

Current model:  Today, the States entering the United States have to do with political parties.  When Alaska and Hawaii joined they did so around the same time.  The reason is because the State of Alaska typically votes Republican and Hawaii typically votes Democrat.  Thus why Puerto Rico and other States have not joined or formed in the United States. There is no counterbalance for Puerto Rico's politics in the U.S. yet as Puerto Rico apparently would vote primarily for Democrats if they became a U.S. State.  

Conclusion:  So this is the politics of Statehood.  It is a balancing act between two opposing factions seeking control of the government, but agreeing to maintain balance with respect to political power in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  I personally find it very disheartening, but this is the politics we are forced to live with.  Hope you enjoyed my barebones explanation on the politics of Statehood.

Issue 410 Healthcare and out of work activities September 3, 2014

Here we question if employers should pay for incidents and injuries that happen outside of work.  Some may say no, and others may say yes.  There is a difference of opinion on this issue and thus warrants a discussion.

Those opposed:  Here, we have the group that opposes employers paying for healthcare beyond injuries and sickness that occurs on the job.  Their reasoning is that because your injury was caused outside of work, the employer is not responsible for your health.  Example, you break your leg in a skiing accident.  As such that broken leg will not be the responsibility of your employer as you did not break your leg on the job.  Another more extreme example might be contracting cancer.  The cancer (if not caused by hazardous chemicals on the job) will not be covered by the health insurance your employer provided as they did not cause it to happen within your body.  However it is important to note that people within this group disagree, as things like cancer they may make an exception too along with other catastrophic injuries and diseases.

Those in favor:  Those who want to keep the status quo say that the employer is protecting his workers.  Each of the employers’ workers is an asset and thus must be protected so that the employer can continue to keep them effective and avoid having to replace valuable workers whose knowledge and experience is irreplaceable.  So here the employer will pay for nearly all injuries or sickness whether it occurs on the job or not.

Conclusion:  From my standpoint both sides have just arguments.  Why should an employer pay for the recklessness of his employees who do dangerous activities like skydiving or snowboarding and the like?  But they should cover the basics like catastrophic and other diseases if given the opportunity and the means.  So what is the balance here?  In my point of view, that balance is any injury or disease contracted on the job must be covered along with any catastrophic health care incident like cancer and car accidents.  On the other hand, any injury like broken arms and legs done because of reckless behavior will become optional to the employer to cover because these activities are the employee putting themselves in danger.   But none of this should be mandated as it is really up to the employer to decide.  In a real society with freedoms, the government cannot mandate one type of healthcare being covered over another, or ordering a business to cover health care at all.  Thus let the employer and employees decide what health care coverage if any they shall receive, for it is their business and no one else’s.  

Issue 409 When should a child be charged as an adult? September 2, 2014

So when should a child be charged as an adult for the commitance of a crime? Should we go based on age?  We currently do, but with certain exceptions.  Even then, there exceptions for those exceptions.  So let us discuss what would be the best way to determine when a child should be charged as an adult.

Age does not cut it:  To go by age is silly in my opinion for violent crimes.  My reasoning is that some crimes are more heinous than others.  Murder for one should not be lessened merely because an individual is under the age of 18.  Rape too will be devalued as a crime in my opinion if a 16 year old gets a lesser charge than an 18 year old for the same crime.  Therefore age should not be the distinguishing factor for criminal activities when it comes to physical assault, armed robbery, rape/child molesters, and murder and attempted murder.  These violent crimes should not know age as a criteria.  But some of you might be saying why?  How can we not use age for these violent crimes?  Yes I know some people are out there who think these children who have strayed from the right path deserve a chance because you feel they are victims too.  So age 13 and under as you really are not a child at age 13, but a young adult.  And thus as a young adult you will meet the full brunt of the law for committing such a violent act.

None violent Crimes:  In this case, age can be more of a criteria.  But this is due to better ways to punish petty theft, defacing public property, and similar non-violent, but victim creating crimes.  So age nine to 14 I would say the punishment should be community service.  In this case, the number of days doing the community service will be equal to the value it costs (using the minimum wage as the standard) to replace or fix the stolen/damaged property.  For those aged 15 to 17, it will depend on the judge if the young adult does community service, goes to jail, or is forced to work a part time job (or at their current employment) with all earnings being used to replace or fix the damaged or stolen items.  Is it harsh? Well yea, but how else are you going to teach these young adults to behave like what they are "young adults".

Conclusion:  So for violent crimes, age really should not be factored in.  In fact in Mexico, the cartels use children as hitmen as they are not tried as adults, and are released back into society faster.  We cannot let our emotions prevent us from meting out an appropriate punishment for committing a wrongful and even downright evil act.  The nonviolent crimes we have wiggle room, but that is only to a certain extent and it can in fact be applied to people age 18 and over too as an alternative to jail.  So it really comes down to differentiating violent from nonviolent crimes and then providing the appropriate repercussions.  This is my opinion on this issue and if I was in charge I would implement this idea.  But would you?  Would you do it the same way?  As always feel free to tell me what you think.  Hope you enjoyed the read and maybe got you thinking.

Issue 408 If we want them to do less. September 1, 2014

We keep saying as libertarians, conservatives and liberals that we want government out of our lives.  But, we screw up on some key specific things.  If we really want them to get out of certain parts of our lives then we have to get off our butts and do something about it.

Out of our homes:  If we want the government out of our homes then we have to protest.  We must get out of the house and march, sign petitions and join in lawsuits against our own country against the invasion of Federal bureaucrats invading on our privacy.  If you want drugs legalized, then you have to put a face to the name to make it happen.  If you want to make your house larger, or update it, you have to go through government which is unfair for you have to ask their permission to do something on your own property.  And then when you are done they may tax it.  Fight back, it is your home!  What about with education?  It is the parents right to decide how their child is educated, so if we want our kids out of public school and in a charter or a home school, then we must get off our butts and do something about it.

Welfare:  We all know welfare is a big lie. We are taxed more than they give back.  But if we want the government to stop having to dish out so much money?  If we want them to become redundant in this particular area?  Then we need to actually form private organizations to help feed the hungry.  We need private organizations to help pay for health care of those who are poor.  In the event of a disaster, we need to be prepared to act immediately to help ourselves and our neighbors rebuild without federal aid.  In short, we must go forth and help ourselves and our neighbors whilst turning down federal handouts.

Conclusion:  These are two broad examples of us doing more for ourselves.  We do not need government to help us in a disaster.  There is no need for government to give out welfare if the churches and private organizations do it for them.  If we do more, then they will no longer be needed.  So for them to do less, we must do more.