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.

Issue 46 Should the U.S. get rid of the 17th Amendment April 2, 2013

For those who know the United States Constitution, the 17th Amendment allows the people to directly elect their Senators to the U.S. Senate. Originally, Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures with the Governor of the States making temporary appointments until the Legislature finalized its decision. However, the 17th Amendment is like its counterpart the 16th Amendment, a piece of progressive ideology when they sought a pure democracy as opposed to a democratic republic. They felt that by letting people choose for themselves, they would be able to impose the other democratic changes they sought to create their ideal democracy. Of course that would occur by mobilizing voters to elect their chosen candidates. For President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, he wanted a democracy similar to that of Great Britain's and thus he supported the 17th.

Unintended Consequences: Under the 17th, the Senators were free of the traditional pressures of the State governments. But their constituencies provided the same form of pressure that the House of Representatives faces on a daily basis, the whims of the traditional voter. Senators would no longer counteract the House of Representatives with the peoples will (for good or bad) but instead, to maintain power, embrace the voting public's will and as a result sacrifice the States as power slowly shifted to Washington D.C. As a result, the individual States are often bullied by the Federal Government with the Feds only offering money if the States do something in return. But, that something in return often causes the States to want for more money. So what are the States to do as they don't want to raise taxes (though that will be the inevitable result), they beg for more money. This has become an endless cycle in America that has allowed for massive debt and very angry tax payers.

Under the old system: If the 17th did not exist, America would be very different. For one there would be no Federal welfare programs that overburdened the States, no Federal government forcing States to beg for more cash, and much less bureaucratic waste in the form of departments and agencies that infringe on States rights and privileges.

You are probably wondering, would it really be that different? Well yes as for one, it is one less (or should I say two less) political campaigns we have to vote on. No longer would we be forced to aid the political parties financially (yes our tax payer money is spent to support them too, unfortunately) to nominate Senators. So at least we would be lied to less. But, it also means that all the legislation that hurts States rights would slowly disappear. If a Senator did not obey the State Legislature, a Senator would be recalled to answer for it. It sometimes even meant the Senator would be fired and replaced, thus never seeing a second term in office, let alone finishing his first six year term. There of course was a safety net for when the State legislature could not decide on who should be Senator, and thus the Governors of each State had the power to appoint a temporary Senator. Historically speaking, a State always had its two Senators irrespective of how dead locked a Legislature was.

Conclusion: The Senate by proxy at the time represented the people by proxy as they were chosen by representatives of the people, but at the same time protected the State and Federal government from laws and programs that would bankrupt the American government. Today, we just have the President to act as a counter balance, but today even the President is subject to the whims of people thanks in part to the technology that allows the people to watch everything and anything he/she does. So unfortunately, I believe that America is slowly devolving into a democracy with the trappings of a Republic. What do I mean by this? What I mean is that without the counter balances America will develop into mob rule. How can I say this you ask? Simple, without a counter balance to counter the whims of the people and that of the government itself, it will sub come to pressures coming at it from all directions, including financially. Therefore, if we don't act America will cease to exist as we know it.  As such, to counteract our downward spiral, I think that as an option, we can be rid of the 17^th Amendment.

Issue 45 The Four Taxes April 1,2013

As many of you are already aware, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to tax America's citizens. But, did you know that it only lists four taxes in the entire document. That’s right, depending on how you read the wording, the Federal government is either limited to those 4 or can tax us in what ever form they wish. So as to give you knowledge on what these taxes are, I list them and tell you all how they work.

Impost Tax: This tax is simple; it taxes all products coming into the United States at a specified rate.

Expost Tax: This tax is the opposite of an impost tax; it taxes all products leaving the United States.

Together these taxes form the basis of a tariff system, but according to the U.S. Constitution all Impost taxes must be equal regardless of country. Likewise Expost taxes must be set equal as well. These limitations where designed to prevent taxation from being used as a weapon to hurt trade and show favor or disfavor to a particular country save cutting off trade relations entirely. Basically, it prevented conflict with other nations by treating everything imported and exported equal in terms of taxation.

Excise Tax: This tax is much broader in scope as it is a tax on all goods and services. Like its, Impost and Expost counterparts, all must be taxed at the same rate. If you want a modern term, then a sales tax would be an appropriate representation. So long as money was exchanged for a good or service like land sales, paying for a lawyer, or simply buying food, it was taxed.

The limitation of making sure each of these taxes are set equal were and still is a stroke of genius (even if it is ignored today). It prevented taxation being used as a weapon, and prevented conflicts in trade both between nations and even between the States (like New York and New Jersey). But our last tax has no such limitations and we all despise it.

Income Tax: We pay this tax every single year based on the amount of money we make. It is not designed to treat people fairly or even businesses for that matter. It is set up to be a weapon to suppress and confiscate people’s wealth. Many people believe this tax should go away as it harms and suppresses small businesses, and aids in keeping the poor poor and the super rich rich. There is no equal treatment law in this tax as it was added during the Wilson Administration as the 16th Amendment. During that time period, the progressive party was in full swing (it has its ideology based in socialism, but was the foundation for modern liberalism. It wants equal treatment of everyone, but uses government to enforce any and all forms of social equality) and they saw the rich as the enemy.

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution had already faced the income tax under the oppression of Great Britten during the colonial period, and thus they set forth a warning. In the Federalist papers they said that (I paraphrase) an income tax is impossible to support as the more a government spends trying to enforce it, the more money they loose until they have no money at all. Basically, just trying to enforce it will break the bank of any country eventually and make a person who simply forgets to pay their taxes or portion of a criminal. And thus why libertarians and conservatives want it gone (and that is not even including the living hell it creates by picking winners and losers in the free market system distorting it and creating more incentives for corruption).

Well, there you have it, the four legal taxes as per the United States Constitution. If and when possible I will post more posts like this to aid those who seek to bring government in line once again and make it responsible to the people. Information is power and I hope this helps.

Issue 44 Get Out of the U.N. March 29,2013

How best to describe the United Nations, Hmmmm. Once an icon designed to foster peace between nations, a failed corrupt organization, or a festive hive of scum and villainy. I think I will select the last one.

Corruption: The U.N. takes the money of nations to support its work, but not all of that money makes it to the desired destination. In fact, much of the money in the U.N. is used to prop up dictatorships which out number the members that are democracies. U.N. soldiers gathered from other nations form rape gangs while deployed. Food the U.N. gives out never reaches their intended recipients for the local government confiscates them to solidify their power. Money changes hands regularly to get what you want out of fellow nations. The U.N. is not about peace anymore, it is about power and manipulation.

Toothless Tiger: If the U.N. was a real organization dedicated to peace it would be taken more seriously. Nations of the world would try to settle disputes that they could not otherwise settle on their own. But, the U.N. is now about manipulation. Take the treaty of the seas that the U.N. is purporting. Designed to prevent disputes on mining and harvesting other natural resources at sea, it is now being used by China to take territory in Japan and Vietnam (the latter being one of their own allies). How about the International Criminal Court? It can be used to prosecute former world leaders for war crimes the moment they step out of power. This goes for all world leaders, and of course the standards are arbitrary and thus any leader of the world can be threatened with prosecution, both good and bad. Allow me to correct the title of this section, Toothless at maintaining peace, an expert in manipulation.

We need something new: What we need is a body that unites people, not nations. The people of a country with an evil dictator are not at fault for the crimes of their leader. We need an organization that promotes cultural exchange in the form of art, literature, athletics, sciences and math, and of course our shared history of the world. It would be and organization that is run exclusively (if aided by government) by democracies and donations from people around the world. It would support archaeological expeditions, under sea and space exploration and act as a single body from which that information is shared. If a person makes a new discovery, it would work with nations around the globe so that a proper patient is filed and recognized in all countries. It would take groups similar to the Peace Corps and make them an international body dedicated to helping rebuild after disasters, acting as teachers where there are none, and train people in ideas and techniques to improve their very lives. It would have a body established to aid the sick and infirm that resembles if not surpassing doctors without boarders (one of the few non corrupt programs run by the U.N.). But, alas, this is currently idealism.

Conclusion: No nation should be subject to the whims of another nation(s), if said nation(s) are corrupt and run by dictators. A nation should not have to give money to an organization that is now dedicated to manipulation and having brutes getting rich off the backs of the poor. There are so many examples of U.N. corruption that it would take multiple posts just to list them all (especially if you want at least some detail). The U.N., along with other international bodies are now failing. Is it not time to stop feeding the defunct, and corrupt and try something new?