Issue 231 Communism vs. Facism Decemeber 19, 2013

What are the differences between these two competing ideologies, and more importantly what is the same? Let's answer that question.

Differences: There are not that many differences between Communism and Fascism. In fact the only key difference is their overall approach toward reaching the same goal. Communism is primarily global. It seeks to impart its ideology on a global scale such that everyone becomes equal. Fascism is similar, but instead of everyone in the world being equal economically and socially, Fascism supports nationalism. In essence, Fascism has one group (ideology, religion or ethnicity or race) sitting at the top ruling over all others. In fact Fascism even embraces aspects of Capitalism as true equality is unattainable at both the social and economic levels. As such Fascism embraces some market mechanisms and nationalistic notions that cannot be stopped due to them being part of human nature (i.e. the need to work and do something of value which is why Nazi Germany embraced the ethnic form of Fascism). What is also important to note is that F.A. Hayek in "Road to Serfdom" explained that all Communist countries are doomed to fail as the ideas and concepts of equality fail in a communist system and give way to the nationalist based Fascism ideology. As such there really is only one true difference; one (communism) seeks world total social and economic equality while the other (Fascism) succumbs to the nationalistic notions where there are those greater than everyone else. However, the communist always in the end becomes a Fascist while calling themselves communist in name only.

The same: Almost everything else these two ideologies have in common is exactly the same. They are both based off of the Marxist ideas as portrayed in the Communist Manifesto and Capitilo 1 and 2. Capitalism to both ideologies is the source of all evils. Both look to create some form national government to govern the entire world. Both seek equality amongst the people as much as possible whether it has to be engineered or coerced. As such, all societies that embrace these ideologies have a national education system, a command economy, and either a single ruler or set of rulers at the top deciding what people can and cannot do. The roots of Marxist socialism run deep as people who spout these ideologies typically advocate violence to create their "ideal" societies. Each will have a national retirement system and a method of controlling public information. The list literally goes on forever. Aside from the aforementioned differences, both are almost exactly the same thing.

Conclusion: These are the Communism and Fascism compared. They are in fact parts of the same ideology, the Marxist ideology. There counterparts are Socialism and Progressivism. The ideology of Socialism in its most modern form rejects the idea of ethnic or racial control, but advocates for a benevolent group or individual leading the world over (they look toward the U.N. as that body). It too however still resorts to violence when needed. Progressives are the most advanced model in the modern era and advocate a peaceful transition toward their goal of economic and social equality, but they do this by infiltrating governments and manipulating laws until they get their way. Otherwise these two along with Communism and Fascism are also the exact same as they seek one unified world with social and economic equality. Of course, both in their youth embraced ethnic and racial purity like Fascism, though communism for a time did as well. In the modern era, these labels are really just for show (at least from my point of view). Communist China has fully embraced the same economic system of Nazi Germany, where production is generally allowed to continue so long as the government allows it or approves of it. Nazi Germany was in fact ruled by the National Socialists (this is what Nazi means). So when it comes down to the dirty little details the differences between each are none at all. Some groups want violence to achieve their ends, while others will infiltrate government and transform it slowly into their ideal utopia regardless of who may suffer in the end. Gone is the racial, ethnic and religious purity unless you are talking about small groups like the Neo Nazi's, and other small segmented breakaway groups in each. However, nationalism still comes to the forefront which will always morph the ideology and the government into a Fascist one (though they may be loath to call themselves that). As to the competition between these groups, it has nothing to do with differences in ideology as they both want the same thing. However, the reason why they compete is something more primal, the lust for power (which is why the communist French sided with the Nazi's in WW II, and then later competed against them for control). So in the end you can really just call them what they really are Marxist.

Issue 230 Drug war and the Cartels December 18, 2013

Who started the drug war? Well in the opinion of this author, it was the governments of the world, not the cartels who sell the drugs. Allow me to explain.

History lesson: One of the biggest bans on drugs was during prohibition. That drug of course was alcohol. Before the ban, the mafia and the gangs largely existed as petty thieves, extortionists and ran other illegal enterprises like gambling. However, these groups were tiny, and had relatively no impact on people outside of there area of influence. Prohibition changed this. With the banning of alcohol prices skyrocketed. Former small time crooks became big time crime bosses. Honest men saw the money to be made and went over into the illegal booze business. Soon, rival gangs fought for territory and control which killed many. Cops who sought to suppress the crime bosses were targets of assassination. But when prohibition ended, the mob largely disappeared due to their primary source of income gone. As such they either went into alternate illegal enterprises, legitimate business or simply changed jobs.

Parallels: The parallels of prohibition with the bans on illegal drugs like "weed" and "crack" are striking. Currently in Mexico all drugs are actually legal to take, but the violence stems from it being illegal in the United States as the cartels (in the same way as the mob) saw economic opportunity to sell illegal drugs for a profit and thus fight for territory and control. Basically, everything is the same except that the banned substance is drugs instead of alcohol.

What to do: Our only option is to legalize each drug in the same way as many European countries do. Start with personal use laws and clinics (who dispense an individual’s drug of choice at market cost) that require the person to go to a doctor to prove they are addicted. This keeps the addicts away from illegal drug dealers and the money making it back to the cartels. This also insures that the strength of the drug can be controlled so that if and when the person wishes to get off the drug, they have an alternative to doing it "cold turkey." At this point you make the least lethal of drugs legal (like weed as no one has ever died from smoking it) bit by bit. With these drugs legal and the money dried up, the cartels have to either switch to a completely different illegal enterprise or go into a legitimate business.

Conclusion: I am not saying that this solution is the perfect one, but the fact is that prohibitions on things create an illegal market for people to buy and sell illegal substances and goods. By legalizing it in the long run, drug use will decrease (as it has in European countries that have done legalization). History has proven a good ally in telling us what needs to be done to end the bloodshed on the U.S. Mexican boarder and the drug war as a whole.

Issue 229 Drugs and politicians December 17, 2013

With the whole Mayor Ford debacle in Toronto, we now have to question the morality of should we kick out politicians who do drugs? Do we let them serve their terms in office and decide if they are still worthy enough to hold office on Election Day? These questions need an answer.

Kick them out?: The argument for kicking someone like Mayor Ford out is simple, he did crack and thus he broke the law. As a matter of course, he becomes a negative example for his cities young adults, and looses legitimacy as mayor in the eyes of the people. No one can be above the law right? Well, it depends on the circumstances and what laws Toronto and the whole of Canada have that stipulate what to do in this situation. Likewise, if this issue happened in the United States, smoking crack is a crime that is primarily enforced on the local level and thus up to them to enforce. So do we kick a politician out for smoking crack or doing any form of illegal drug?

Wait and see: Our only other option is to decide on Election Day. If the mayor (or any politician for that matter) does a good job irrespective of his/her habits then maybe we should overlook this "indiscretion." Morality alone is not the sole decider on what will make a good elected representative. So do we wait and see to see if he/she is still up to snuff even if they may or may not still be abusing drugs?

Conclusion: We are left at a quandary. Many will say "throw the guy out", while others will say "I don't like what he did, but he is still doing a good job." What is the best choice? Is the use of an illegal substance enough to say that this elected official, or any elected official is unworthy of at the very least finishing their term in office? As a libertarian, I say let the Toronto Mayor (and any elected official caught doing drugs) finish up their terms. Yes, we can afford to wait to see if the drugs affect their job performance and whether or not they are even worth re-electing. But, I base this on the idea that drugs for personal use are not a crime, but label the person taking them as a victim. It is not worth ruining a man's or woman's life further by giving them an arrest record that may prohibit future employment. I am not saying that you all as voters should not make your voices heard. I am saying however, is to question the very notion of "is the Mayor of Toronto a victim of his own devices?" and is being a victim of drug abuse enough to tear him out of office? I would not only on account that he is still humanly capable of doing his job and thus people can afford to wait until the next election cycle to vote him out.

Issue 228 Why cities are liberal December 16, 2013

So, why are cities left leaning in the first place? Well, thanks to a Rabbi (who works for the Blaze network), we may just have that answer. Let's get started.

Cities: A city itself is necessary for a healthy economy. It is a place that people go to buy and sell goods. Without one, countries can descend into poverty like Somalia. Basically, cities do not need the countryside or factories, but they need the cities as a place for commerce to occur. As such a great number of people gather in cities and share ideas. In order to accommodate those people, the cities governing body maintains the roads, provides water and even electricity. All that is necessary to life in this modern era is taken care of in a city by its government. Now this creates the mindset that makes people in cities lean left.

The mindset: With most of the basic needs being taken care of by a government in cities, people look upon this as an example of how government can take care of everything. In essence, the people see this and that being taken care of by government and thus when a problem arises, an issue needs to be solved or a new service is to begin, people look to the cities government. This mentality is then scaled up to the national level as when the people in cities see how there government takes care of things, they immediately think that the national government can just as easily solve the problem. These notions are completely different to the self reliance model of the people outside of cities as they have no government to rely on. People outside of these cities have no choice to take life as it comes and solve it all themselves. As such, the mindset of dependence upon government evolves based upon where you live.

Conclusion: It is not the cities fault that people become liberal. It is the mentality people get by living in one. Is it bad to be liberal minded, no, but it is bad to become solely reliant on a government especially if they are going to simply compound the problem. Cities unfortunately dominate any election on the national scale due to the sheer number of people who live there. As such, there is not counterbalance to their people’s ideology. Thus, ideas of self reliance are shut out, the same ideas that allow people to become independent. What can we do about this is a question I have yet to find an answer for.

Issue 227 Bullet control!? December 13, 2013

Many people fear guns. That is a given as they can kill you if misused (duh). However technology has progressed to the point that traditional bans and restrictions on all forms of firearms will be rendered totally redundant (my pro-gun self is cheering right now). But, there needs to be a limit on who can carry a gun (at least that is what the anti-gun people say). So here is another one of my proposals for the public at large to satisfy both sides of the argument, bullet control.

The idea: Currently, people can make a gun in their own home using 3d printer technology. Truth is however, is that most people could make a gun even without a 3d printer as well, but the 3d printer simply made the process easier. As it currently stands people fear guns due to changes in cultural attitudes. In the United States, gun safety was once taught in schools and people respected guns and the power they had. But we will not be going back in time anytime soon and getting rid of gun control as a whole (even though gun control is entirely unenforceable). As such I propose an alternative. Rather than limit the type of gun and who can own one, limit the ammunition instead. That's right, only limit the ammunition, the bullet itself, and let everyone else own whatever gun they want. The concept is simple, a gun without ammo is only good for intimidation (or show and tell) and nothing more (but the criminals don't know if you're loaded or not).

How it works: The process is simple; abandon all current forms of gun control save limiting the sale of fire arms to semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) and the criminal background check. From there certain types of ammunition used by the most commonly used guns in crimes and murders will be limited to be purchased by those with a license. So a 9mm round for a pistol would require a license to buy. Basically, it switches the mechanisms of gun control over to the ammunition. Some forms of ammunition will not need to be licensed as some bullets are so small that they do less damage than a BB gun. So ammo that is used for non-lethal purposes like a bean bag round, pellet guns and the like would be totally unregulated. Bullets that fall into the less than lethal category like small palm guns would also become unregulated as the bullet is not just too small to overtly kill someone (save with a lucky shot), but the gun usually has to be reloaded every time it is fired. Outmoded ammunition, which can only be fired by guns that are no longer made, is so hard to come by that there would be no need to regulate them. Musket and other classical firearms have no need to have there ammunition regulated either. As such, only bullets fired out of handguns and some rifles need the limitations.

Who could buy these restricted bullets: Special dispensation will be given to all military, law enforcement and public servants (both active and retired) along with there families to be able to purchase bullets that fall into the restricted class. The only limitation would be the same limitation that normal people would have, if they committed a violent crime. My version would instead put a limitation to a violent crime within the last 20 years after they have finished serving their sentence with a total ban on anyone who has committed the act of rape and/or murder. Other people who would require special dispensation are people in the witness protection program or other people who need some form of protection like celebrities, people being stalked and people in high crime neighborhoods. Finally hunters would be given special dispensation as well as they perform a service in controlling the populations of animals. Applications for licenses would be categorized as personal defense, hunting and enthusiast, with enthusiast being competition and recreational shooters in general.

Conclusion: Well this is the overall idea. Limit the bullets and not the guns. Sure a large number of people will now be eligible to own a gun as traditional gun control is replaced with bullet control. This is the medium I have come up with that keeps people out of jail for simply making a component that can potentially be used in assembling a firearm. Restricting that control to bullets that are used in common guns used in crimes also ensures more practicality in respect to lessening violence. However, while my idea may have some merit to you my dear reader, it too will be outmoded one day do to technology. As people become more and more able to make goods in their own homes, bullets too will be able to made in the home just as easily as guns are being made today (both in the factory and in the home). Gun control in truth is a loosing battle with bullet control simply staving off the inevitable as bullet control will give way to gun powder control which would limit all forms of manufacture and purchase of explosive powders used in ammunition. So is there a true solution to solve this problem? Yes, there is, and that solution is to bring back the classes to schools teaching kids how to use firearms, teaching people that guns are not simply a weapon of attack, but a tool of defense and to hunt game. We need to show that firing a gun at the range is the same as playing a round of golf with family and friends. To have a society that respects guns and there use, American culture needs to change so that it does not reject guns, but once again embraces them. This is the undeniable truth that we must bear until guns themselves get replaced by newer and more lethal weapons and firearms.

Issue 226 Mix it up Baseball December 12, 2013

Here is a concept, mix it up baseball. In this idea, we do mixed martial arts (MMA) style competition, but rather than seeing which martial art can defeat which, we see which type of baseball can defeat which. So we have baseball, softball, stickball, cricket, and probably more that I can't remember or have never even heard of before. So how would it all work?

How it would work: Obviously you set up the field like normal with 3 bases and a home plate. You have the standard configuration of a man guarding each base and a pitcher. What would need to be confirmed is how far apart each base is going to be in comparison to the other sports that are similar to baseball. I do not know for certain if stick balls bases are closer of farther apart, and things like cricket have different variations of itself. So a standard, with a happy medium between all the sports involved, will need to be developed.

Bat wise, the player gets to choose which bat they will want to hit the ball with. So they can choose a cricket bat, baseball bat of any make and model, a stick ball bat or even a classical bat from the history of these sports. This will cause the pitcher on the other team to change balls accordingly to suit the bat (for the sake of fairness). However, the pitcher may throw the ball in any way he/she pleases. So a pitcher can throw a curve ball, a fast ball, or even an underarm swing like in softball. Basically this is to counterbalance the batters choice on which bat they are allowed to use.

The number of players will also have to be decided. Some variations of these sports have more players than a typical baseball or softball team. Others may have fewer players. So another medium will be needed to decide which is best for the overall competition. My guess is that a regulation size team from softball or baseball should fit the bill however.

Why play like this?: Well it comes down to the why not scenario. MMA was an informal way of looking if a karate guy could defeat a sambo guy, a kick boxer, or a military martial artist. Here it is the same deal, but with respect to baseball. It's all about that "what if" this type of team, went up against that type of team. We could even have exhibition matches as a test with using the most similar of these sports to see who would win in a head to head battle using these modified rules. From there it is all about the fun of seeing which group would win against which in a fun and surprising ways as a player chooses a cricket bat, while the pitcher throws him off with a typical curve ball from baseball. It is this kind of what if that is fun and exciting to watch.

Conclusion: These kinds of what ifs are fun an exciting. It causes debate and fervor as the different teams go head to head and maybe even learn from each other. Sportsmanship from each team and traditions from each sport will intermingle and these unpredictable scenarios become exciting. Some may be asking, why, just why would you suggest this kind of idea? Well my answer to you is why not?

Issue 225 Women and baseball December 11, 2013

Did you know that women have played professional baseball? No not soft ball, I mean in the minors, in exhibition matches for the MLB and in leagues dedicated toward women in general. So why not have women be allowed to play with the boys (contracts for women have been banned in the MLB since the 1950s).

Ladies: Much of the arguments against women playing in baseball is that they are not athletic enough, don’t have long enough legs, big enough hearts, can't run fast enough....blah, blah, blah. Well I say that is all bunk. I have way too many women who deserve to be called Amazons for how athletic they are (and beautiful on top of that). The fact is that girls can be and are in some cases more athletic than boys. Sure girls and boys can and will have diverging interests, but allow these women at least a shot to smash that ball out of the ball park.

Why should they be allowed to play: It is silly not to. Baseball is a male dominated sport. Basically it is a boys club. Thus the only true reason to not at least let the ladies try out is because the MLB wants to protect their investment in the men who play. If these ladies get in on the action, then they may even show up big stars like Derrick Jeter or Alex Rodriguez. The fact of the matter is there is absolutely no legitimist reason that I can come up with as to why the girls should not be allowed to play the game.

Conclusion: Yes I am in favor of Baseball letting the girls get in on the fun. In fact, I feel that baseball has become boring as of late due to it (for me at least) becoming stagnant. So letting the ladies play ball should shake things up a bit. Baseball is America's pass time, and women have been involved in baseball since the beginning (Jackie Mitchell, a woman, even struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig). So if a woman player can take down those all stars, imagine what would happen in today’s game if women were allowed to play. So batter up girls, and play ball.

If it is to your liking my readers, we can turn this Issue into a petition. Just comment yes in the comments section if you want to see women play in the MLB.