Issue 292 Civil Disobedience March 14, 2014

Civil Disobedience is an important aspect of society. It lets us fight back in peaceful ways against a government institution or business. So what forms does it come in?

Petitions: Yes, that piece of paper which lists signatures is an important aspect of civil disobedience. By first voicing your displeasure and then having people sign the petition showing you their support it allows you to notify a government or other institution of your displeasure. It can also be used to voice your opinion in favor of something occurring like a new law or action as well.

Mail Campaign: Here protesters send in mail with each one describing what they are protesting and why. The letter is concluded with a signature of each individual group or protester member. Basically one letter per person. Whether the letters is hand written, copied and signed or even electronic, it can be very disruptive to a business or a government institution while showing that you, as protesters, have the majority of the people on your side.

Boycott: A powerful form of civil disobedience, here people refuse to buy from or use a product or service. It is a powerful message that helps to show extreme displeasure with a person, an act, an institution, or a business. Originally it was used in Ireland to boycott people whom the community did not accept, so it can be used in that capacity as well.

Sit ins: This form of protest has people literally sit in a business or government institution which hinders regular functions of an institution. Basically, it has a number of people inside a facility like a government office, and all the staff and visitors have to move around the people performing the sit in. It is a very disruptive strategy to any institution if enough people are gathered. It can also be used to block the entrance to a building or to block the path of vehicles if the protesters want to prevent say a park from being torn down or prevent government officials from voting.

Picket lines: Similar to sit ins, the picket line is protesters lining the streets in front of a business or institution to voice their views. It works to prevent pedestrian traffic from moving and forces those who are entering and exiting the building to listen to them (along with any passerby).

Rallies: A rally is kind of like a big presentation. It gathers up like minded individuals to discuss and solidify their message as well as allow leaders to guide their fellow protesters in the right direction.

March: A march is like a rally, but it is a massive group of people that pass through communities to gain momentum. Finally, they reach a particular destination where they wish to show their displeasure. The sheer size of the march is meant to intimidate in order to force action. So marching on the white house to show displeasure on an immigration bill, or a business for making weapons of war are all aspects of this. March's usually also contain a rally, a sit in, and even a picket line. It can also be used as a way to give impact to the intended target of displeasure when delivering a petition.

Press: None of these work without press attention. Media is the key ingredient to get your message across. So having a carefully crafted message and talking points is essential. Also, the ability to get the media attention is also important too. No media equals your movement being ignored.

This means that you need a press core for your group. A movement or protesters will need to put out its own press releases to coordinate the movement, and counter any propaganda the opposition puts forth.

Conclusion: Protesters cannot at any time turn into a mob. They must always be civilized with a clear and cohesive message. As such, imitate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the way he conducted the civil rights protests. These are the most common forms of protest that have existed for over a hundred years. Use them well and use them responsibly.

 

Issue 291 Legal drug 2 March 13, 2014

Yesterday we talked of small token regulations and advantages to legalization of drugs. Today we continue that discussion with respect to the role of distribution and doctors.

Pharmacies: A pharmacy requires a prescription to dispense a medication (for those that the government requires at the very least). As such, a pharmacy can stock the now legal narcotics that have been purposely modified to insure quality and lessen the chances of overdose. With a pharmacy, a specified amount can be dispensed at any given time based on the prescription, which can control the number of "highs" an addict can have access too. Already, there are derivatives of drugs that are deemed illegal in other forms dispensed due to the fact that they can be used in medical applications. In addition, certain drugs are dispensed that help addicts of certain drugs wean themselves off the addictive drugs themselves. So pharmacies can play an active role.

Doctor’s office: If using the above pharmacy model, then doctors licensed to dispense narcotics and are qualified to recognize that individuals are addicts in the first place can write prescriptions for the narcotics. A doctor acting in this capacity would be used to control the amount an addict gets at any given time based on the prescription they are writing and also help wean the addict off that addictive drug when they are ready. Basically, by having doctors who know about addiction and how to treat it we can help protect the addicts from doing much more harm to their body.

Combination: Another possibility is a special clinic designed specifically to handle people who are addicted to the formally illegal drugs. Here the addicts can have access to a doctor on staff to check their physical condition while at the same time the addict can purchase and use the drug on site (purchasing the drugs aids in funding the clinic). What this means is that every time they need the high, the addict would come to the special clinic and purchase their drug that they are addicted to. Then the addict would go to a privacy booth monitored by cameras or staff and use the drug. If they should overdose, a trauma center would be located inside the clinic so as to save the addict as soon as the overdose occurs. This version has all of the advantages of the aforementioned Pharmacies and Doctors sections, but with key additions. Those additions are a guarantee that a clean needle will be used every time which prevents the spread of diseases and that the chances of surviving an overdose increase as they will only be able to use the drug on site which has the medical staff on call to help at a moments notice. On top of this, because the drug is being used at a special facility known to be used to treat addicts, it creates a stigma that people who use are sick in some way and need help. As people will not want to be viewed as victims, it will help to prevent any new people from trying drugs.

Conclusion: We have many legal drugs already with alcohol being the worst of the bunch based on statistics. On top of this, we treat many addicts as criminals by arresting them which hinders future employment by giving them a police record. Is drug use a personal choice? You are damn right it is. A good number of people quite after just trying once and others can quite at anytime. Those that cannot control the addition are truly victims of their own physiology and thus they need our help. What I have stated here in this issue is what some countries are already doing to help the drug addicted members of their populations. It is time the drug war ends and that we help the addicts rather than scorn them.

 

Issue 290 Legal Drug March 12, 2014

I believe that drugs should be legal. The reasons why are however numerous and have been discussed before. As such, I would like to discuss the "how to" legalize drugs in a responsible way.

Unregulated: I'm being a little misleading here. Drugs will still be regulated by institutions like the Food and Drug administration to insure that they are non-poisonous. A key piece of knowledge about the currently illegal drugs in America is that they are not illegal cause they can kill you, but because they are addictive. As such, libertarians like myself see an age restriction as being applicable to help resolve the situation of minors getting their hands on these substances. Basically each State in the United States would set the age limit based on what they feel is an acceptable age to purchase these drugs. Typically the age will be 18.

Reasoning: With respect to regulating the drugs themselves, it is fairly easy to create a toxic substance if someone does not know what they are doing. As such, FDA certifications that ingredients and the process to make the drug will need to be put in place.

As to the age limit, it has been shown that age restrictions on the purchase of certain products do more to reduce their abuse by minors (those below the age of 18) than by out right prohibitions. The reason is because unlike drugs sold on the street, minors will need to go buy it from a licensed seller. Sellers have more to loose than some drug dealer so they will enforce the restrictions more actively.

Personal use laws: Regulations also allow for limits on how much can be purchased. So the amount of use per a specified period of time can be limited. Thus, less chance of overdose. Also, for States that do not want certain drugs legalized completely, a specified amount of drugs can be allowed per person for their own use. These can be prescription items, or even still sold illegally, but only the drug dealers are arrested and not the users in a police encounter.

Conclusion: These are two small ways that legalization helps. It insures a safer product that can be controlled, limits the amount that people can purchase at a given time and even restricts the age to an appropriate level so that only consenting adults may use it. Legalization is key in these areas to protect drug abuse victims. There are more solutions to that however, and I will discuss those tomorrow.

 

Issue 289 Minicome!? March 11, 2014

A concept discussed by Krystal Ball of MSNBC's "The Cycle" it advocates that all welfare be terminated in favor of a mini-income or "minicome." Let's discuss.

How it works: For one, all other welfare programs would be eliminated to fund this minicome. The minicome itself would be a set dollar amount given to each individual instead of welfare. I believe that that set dollar amount would be equal to the poverty level of $20,000 a year adjusted for inflation. In addition, it would be made available to all non incarcerated adults. Basically, it gives everyone a paycheck from the government instead of traditional welfare. Mrs. Ball of MSNBC believes that it will not disincentives people from going out and finding a job as to get more they would need to go to work. Well, I disagree with this idea.

False hope: This idea is not the first of its kind. Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax which worked in a similar fashion, but even he let that "thought exercise" go. Reason is that free money is and forever shall be a disincentive to work. And nothing will stop the more numerous masses from demanding more from their government. If any politician says they will increase the minicome, then they will get elected every single time. Eventually the system known as the minicome would collapse the financial ability of the government and the whole economic system of the country would collapse with it. What that minicome lacks is an understanding of how the human psyche works.

What they fail to realize: The reason for any system like the minicome causing destruction is simple and sad. It is because humans are and forever shall be animals. We seek the easy and safe path as much as possible and forget the long term consequences so long as we do not have to deal with them. In short, they will pass any problems onto the next generation. The minicome is the same with respect to human nature and its selfishness. Like all programs that give, but do not take back or make individuals uncomfortable relying on government, the system will simply feed the beast of humanities greed. As such, any and all systems that only give are doomed to fail. If human psychology is not taken into account then the system will be inherently doomed.

Conclusion: The problem with the welfare systems today is that people have become proud to be on them. They see welfare as a basic right (at least this is how I see it in my generation). Problem is people are foolish in many ways. They will take advantage of anything and everything. People must therefore be scorned for getting welfare. By scorning them, they will do everything they can to get off of it. Does it sound harsh? Well, yes it is harsh, but it is also the only feasible way right now. Until something that respects and understands the reality of human failings comes around, programs like the minicome are and forever shall be doomed to fail.

Issue 288 Minimum wage lie! March 10, 2014

There is a piece of information that many do not know about the minimum wage. It is cruel and it is racist fact that cannot be denied.

It's racism: The minimum wage was not designed to help the poor at all. In fact it was designed to do the exact opposite, to create poverty. Developed by people whose ideologies reside in Marxist thought and furthered by the Socialist and Fascist groups of the time period (the progressives), it was meant to force the undesirable elements out of the country by putting them in poverty. That is right, the minimum wage was enacted by the United States government to make more people jobless so that only the "desirable" elements of society could find work while the undesirables where forced to look elsewhere in other countries. This is the truth about the minimum wage. But how is it all accomplished through the minimum wage?

How it works: To accomplish the goal of removing the undesirables the minimum wage was instated to give everyone a base pay required by law. So no matter which job you worked, the starting salary would be what ever dollar amount the minimum wage is set to or greater. Innocent enough, but also sinister. The reason being is that it prevented businesses from expanding which would have resulted in more jobs. Every employee is a cost to the employer, as such employers hire the maximum number of people they can to accomplish their goals for their business without going over and putting the business at risk of failing. Setting the minimum wage costs the business money which in turn prevented the business from hiring more or else the business would not be able to function financially. Remember, the amount of money a business makes is not how much it takes in, but how much it keeps after expenses. As such, many small businesses who make up approximately 70% of the job producers in America today struggle to hire people as they have their finances squeezed the most by any cost increases, taxes and any other expenditure for that matter. As such the overall result is more unemployed people.

It did not turn out as expected: While the net result is that there is unemployment partly due to the minimum wage, the racist intentions backfired. Businesses hired low skill labor who did not require larger salaries to work (many of them being those undesirables). Also, the undesirables that the racists in America sought to remove ended up with jobs or stayed via welfare and charitable support. Overall, the minimum wage has instead stagnated people’s salaries and created a class of citizens made up of those racists' "desirables" and "undesirables" who are dependant on others for support.

Conclusion: The minimum wage is in fact a curse on our society. It has left us stagnant and has harmed the worker and business alike. But what is the alternative? Is there a way out of this mess? There is one possible solution. That solution requires two key factors, one, that the Federal government raises the value of the American dollar which in turn allows people to buy more with less money, and two, for people to negotiate with businesses to receive a smaller salary if they so choose. While the first part of the solution sounds reasonable, the second sounds nuts. But, there are people who are willing to be paid less if it meant getting a job and being able to afford to live in their desired community. If we can tolerate this action, as I expect people will reject it out of fear of being undercut for a job by someone who is willing to be paid less, then we might have a chance at increasing employment and fixing a percentage of the poverty/welfare dependence problem.

 

Issue 287 Curch of non-belief 2 March 7, 2014

Well a church of non-belief is about more than just marriage. In fact, the non-believers creating their own church per say gives them opportunities to organize and compete for "worshipers" against the faith based communities. But what would it look like?

United yet divided: Like faith based communities, there will be different groups of non-believers vying for popularity. So we may have the ones that believe that aliens created man kind versus Ayn Rand’s objectivist atheists. Basically, similar competition between various groups of Protestants, Catholics and Baptists. The only thing that would unite them is that they are non-believers in the same way believers can come together around a belief in God.

Moral compass/Ideology: In order to properly compete, the church of non-belief must develop a cohesive foundation that allows people to gather around it as a source of strength. So while one group may revolve around Objectivism, another may revolve around a combination of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism while removing the deity like aspects involved in each. Another may even develop a basis around nature and spirituality. All in all, each would develop a unique group or a single cohesive group based around ideologies and aspects of spiritualism to from the basic moral codes needed for them to compete against the faiths.

Everyday teachings: In addition to a moral compass and ideology to gather behind, the church of non-belief will need basic rules and teachings to follow. So the obvious no killing, steeling or violence against others is a given. However, other teachings will be needed like a ten commandments of logic, exceptions to the rules if any, and a source of punishment that will reinforce these teachings.

The source of punishment is key as if there are no penalties for bad behavior in everyday society then the church of non-belief will fail and so will society along with it. This is the weakness that non-believers have and coming up with the right kinds of punishments like shunning, boycotts and the like would do well to keep people in line with the non-faith. It is important as while faith based communities have God as the person deciding if we go to Heaven or not, there is no fear that can adequately keep non-believers from violating their own moral codes (especially if they beat out the faith based communities in respect to "worshipers").

Conclusion: I have been very disappointed in the non-faith organizations as they currently stand. They seem to attack the faith based communities rather than debate them, as they prefer humiliation and "put downs". In short, they look down on people of faith from my perspective and thus it shows in their advertisements. Meanwhile individual non-believers that I have met never attack, but in fact respect others who believe and do not believe alike. So I think it is a symptom of desiring power at the organized level rather than a blanket snub to all believers. As such, it would be best in my opinion for the non-believers to establish their own churches with masses that advocate humanity, civil rights and personal responsibility. Their gospels could be tales from Aesop's Fables, and Grimm's Fairy tails. Their readings could celebrate mans achievements like discussing how far we have come scientifically or socially by looking at art, science even psychology which would inspire hope for humanities future. They could even have guest speakers and debates by welcoming members of the faith based communities and other groups of non-believers so as to debate and discuss rather than hide or shun differing views. If the non-believers want to compete against the believers come at us by taking our worshipers by showing the merits of embracing non-belief rather than attacking the beliefs of others. I wish you luck and may the truth be ascertained by our competition.

Issue 286 Church of non-belief 1 March 6, 2014

You know, I always wondered why the non-believers in our society have not banded together to compete against the faith based groups in a more constructive way. For instance in marriage, faith groups will not marry certain people together. So why don't the non-believers create an institution that will marry these people themselves.

Who non-believers would marry others: Non-believers could marry gay couples together that the faith based community normally would not. Also, those believing in polygamy could also get married in this church of non-belief. Likewise non-believers could marry one another without worry. On top of this, the church of non-belief could marry people of different faiths that the mainstream faiths would not marry at all.

Solves some issues: For one, it would remove the need to have government to be involved in marriage.  This is due to the church of non-belief being able to fulfill the niche roles of marriage that faith based institutions either will not do, or are so small in number that there is simply not enough of these more progressive churches to go around. In essence, the government would no longer need a civil union anymore.

Gays would be able to marry in this church of non-belief eliminating the Federal government and the State governments from making laws changing the institution of marriage as they will be forced to accept the non-believers definitions of marriage in their churches. Reason being is that the Supreme Court has deemed those who do not believe in a faith to also be a form of faith as well.

This form of church will also give more options to the interfaith communities who normally would have limited access to being able to be married due to the lack of institutions that would marry interfaith couples outside of government.

Non-believers can be married in a church if they create their own church as well which would prevent any future backlash by faith based communities against them (I feel that this may be coming due to the growing conflict between believers and non-believers). Even polygamy (I don't agree with it) also has a chance of being recognized in a church of non-belief as well.

Workability: The Church of non-belief would mimic many of the support systems that a church has for married couples including but not limited to family counseling, therapy and support. It would support all groups that are not supported or are isolated by faith based groups in the institution of marriage and thus accommodate these niche groups primarily (which will also allow them to gather funds as well). So the only thing the non-believers have to do is to create a church of non-belief.

Conclusion: Workability is key. As such, non-believers must be willing to accept people of faith that are part of the gay community, the interfaith community and those in between as well as other non-believers without discrimination. If they can get passed this, then this concept may have a chance.