Issue 308 Defense Vs. Libertarians April 7, 2014

Many people think libertarians are isolationist. The fact is we are not in any way shape or form an isolationist based group. We wish for open and free trade with every nation with little to no impediments at all. But we are here to rectify the issues of national defense. So here we go.

What we do not want: Libertarians do not believe in permanent alliances. Reason being is that they tie us as a nation to countries that are very likely to go to war and thus drains us of both men and material. If joining in a war, then it must have a direct impact on the nation (us being or going to be attacked). If at all possible libertarians would like to remain neutral at all times so as to trade with all. Wars and alliances may prohibit this. If the war is won libertarians will not engage in any form of nation building or similar actions. It is not the place of our country to dictate what happens in another country. As such, overseas bases would not be allowed and all soldiers brought home. Basically, the entire concept is to mind our own business.

Defense: This does not mean libertarians are against a strong and formidable military. In fact libertarians like I seek a military so strong that only the foolish would dare strike against us. The reason is because libertarians understand that standing above conflict and seeking neutrality needs to be backed by powerful arms and armor. As such, the stronger the military the better.

How do we want it: While we want a strong military we want things done in a very specific way. We want the military dedicated to national defense with the ability to take the fight overseas if and only if necessary. Thus, no overseas bases. While limiting the speed to react, is not an impediment as we do not seek war with any country if at all possible. So we can have all our troops stationed here in he United States, but without the cost of renting property overseas. Also, let us not forget nuclear weapons. Libertarians are (while not unanimous) agree that such weapons are a potent tool in deterring enemy attack. So they do not violate libertarian values at all.

Conclusion: Our military is strong, but libertarians like myself feel they are being abused for political gain and foolishness. Libertarians seek to avoid sending troops into harms way by fighting only when we are forced. Others like the republicans and democrats want to send troops out to fight for their agendas. I ask you to try the libertarian method of policy, neutrality with a strong and formidable military. This policy is know as "separatism" and was inspired by George Washington's warnings to our nation in his farewell address upon his retirement. So let's head this warning and follow the libertarian separatist method of national defense.

Issue 307 EPA Vs. Libertarians April 4, 2014

Like the FDA, libertarians have some issues with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While libertarians like what it is designed to do, we do not feel that it is being done properly or that it is not without corruption. So here is what we libertarians would like to see.

The changes: At current, the EPA is supposed to protect the environment, but libertarians feel it is being used by politicians to support agendas. One such area is the promotion of green energy, which is a worthy cause, is not meant to be supported by the EPA. Another is global warming which for the skeptics like me is not a complete science and promoting it while restricting and fining people in the pursuit of that agenda is corruption. The EPA that libertarians want is similar to what we want to change in the FDA. We want activities of choice unregulated, a negative reinforcement approach and to get the politicians and their agendas out.

National body: Like the alterations to the FDA from yesterday, we libertarians want an EPA that is as separated from politics as possible. So teaming up with universities, museums and the like would do well to get the politics out. Also, the more involved various governments at the local level and in part the State level would also decrease the politics as banning based on consensus would be the best solution to preventing corruption. Keeping it local and having the EPA essentially be a large community of scientist and engineers from various fields will aid in keeping thought diverse and thus prevent group think as well. With no single body, but a multitude of governments watching (and thus the people) corruption can more easily be routed out.

Forbidden: This body will not have the ability to support any candidate for elected office. Also, staff during work hours will not be allowed to participate in any political campaign or activity. Any fines for violating rules set by this body will be set in court where the accused violators may defend themselves with the EPA having to prove any and all wrongdoing. There shall be no prohibitions on any acts that do not have an environmental impact. The sole purpose of the EPA will be to prevent all man made products, bi-products and materials that would harm the environment from be inappropriately disposed of and stored. Fines collected will go strictly to supporting research and funding the EPA's activities. Any and all salaries will be set to the market so as to ensure no member is overpaid and that most of the money is used for the research into protecting the environment. Therefore, this body will be exclusively a non-profit organization. There will be no bank accounts or accumulation of money save a small fund for an exclusive use to aid in environmental clean up after a disaster (each branch office will have a small dedicated fund for this exclusive purpose). Government enforcement of these rules set by the EPA will be voluntary, but the EPA will be allowed (once proven in court) to publish information on any violators of their mandates with respect to who they are, what activity (or part of) they are doing that violates those rules and what they should do as an alternative. This is to shame the individual into taking action if they have ignored the courts rulings, or have not taken voluntary action. If the party in question that violated the rules takes voluntary action to clean up or change their practices, then there will be no court proceedings so as to prevent any harm to the companies (or individuals) reputation, and instead with their permission the EPA can publish a document commending the company or individual for taking swift action with a suitable award of some variety. (These ideas and rules extend to yesterdays article on the FDA)

Conclusion: In this I outlined what libertarians would like to see. An institution insulated from politics as much as possible and geared solely toward the goal of protecting the environment and by de facto "us". Hope you enjoyed today's and yesterdays articles and that they inspire you to think of other ways to accomplish what needs to be done without the use of government.

Issue 306 FDA Vs. Libertarians April 3, 2014

Libertarians have disagreements over what government agencies should and should not exist. One such agency is the food and drug administration. Here are some thoughts about how libertarians would change it to make it suitable to the libertarian philosophy (from my perspective).

Organization: Most libertarians believe in the free market approach to things. This means that if the people can decide what is unsafe for them, then the institution like the FDA does not need to regulate it. So, things like drinking raw unpasteurized milk would be left up to consumers. Thus much of the FDA's activities could be limited to more specific jobs regarding food and drug testing.

At current, the FDA, its agencies and other bodies of government do similar things such as an agency to oversee the feed that are given to chickens, another to turkeys and so on. Then there are offices that are dedicated to each bird’s living conditions and another set that oversee how each bird is slaughtered. In a libertarian world, these agencies that governed these birds living, food and slaughter conditions would be merged into one along with any other similar animal species. Same with respect to plants that we ingest for food or medications, anything that works the same way or can be merged to improve efficiency. Obviously we need something like the FDA, but how it operates should not be onerous to the people.

Negative reinforcement: In a libertarian version of the FDA, it would use negative reinforcement to provide for any rules and regulations. So basically, the FDA would list what cannot be done with what and at what stage of the process of food prep, or drug making/testing. Whatever is not listed is allowed to be done. As such, if the FDA bans certain chemicals in food, then only those foods that have those chemicals would not be allowed to be used. Simple and easy to follow rules, but with justifications for each banning being based on science and technology.

Which government: Now we get to the level of government that should run the FDA. I will say clearly that the Federal Government should not be the one to do it unless the Constitution is suitably amended to allow it. Instead of another amendment, it should be a series of offices at the local level and State level of governments. Most local government charters and State constitutions allow for such tasks to be accomplished which solves the legality issues. This also makes it harder for one government to influence this larger body as it would be run on consensus rather than politicians saying that something is banned on their own. Also, these agencies should be separate and distinct from the local and State governments by way of acting independently. As such, it would be a body that operates at both the national through local levels of government, but independent from politics so as to avoid corruption. So funding would come through donations from the people and contributions from each local/State government to fund the activities. However, in order to maintain independence from the corrupting force of politics this new FDA would need to be organized in such a way that they could survive on little to no money at all. This could mean teaming up with various museums and colleges to gather funds and have access to research needed to stay up to date and financially and intellectually independent.

Conclusion: Libertarians want something like the FDA, but don't want to violate the Constitution, or have the negative influence (corruption) of politics. So separating it from government as much as possible and giving it over to the people seems like a logical conclusion to me. Though of course the idea that we control our bodies still stands and as such we would be allowed to drink raw milk or try drugs still in testing if we so choose. That is the kind of freedom we want and desire from a libertarian version of the FDA.

Issue 305 Soft Targets 2 April 2, 2014

We discussed safety abroad yesterday, but really fell short on the whole idea of what is a soft target. So I felt an issue dedicated to such information would be prudent. Let's get started.

Soft target: A soft target is a non-military or governmental target. It is a place where a large number of people usually gather and have no means of fighting back. In short it is a civilian target and is designed to maximize emotional impact as much as the physical damage. Reason being is so as to force pressure on the government and the society being attacked into capitulating to the attackers demands.

Airports: We are all very familiar with this as a target for terrorists thanks to the 9/11 terror attack on the United States. An airport is a soft target and the idea of turning a plane into a cruise missile was appealing to the terrorists. But this is not the only method of targeting an airport. In fact, a person bringing a bomb into the area before boarding, or even as one enters the airport can cause significant physical and psychological impact.

Bridges: Collapsing a bridge at the height of rush hour is another appealing soft target. It not only has the costs of human life but can severally hurt an economy. Major bridges are hot beds for truck traffic and workers getting too and from work. Thus, major economic damage can be incurred as a result as well. As such, our government and police take great pains to inspect bridges for bombs. However, what about a person in a van full of explosives? At rush hour in bumper to bumper traffic a van exploding can stop traffic completely. The bridge will be damaged, and those injured will not be able to be saved as the ambulance will be delayed due to the severe traffic from rush hour and the chaos of people fleeing for safety. Thankfully, law enforcement seeks to prevent this by monitoring people who buy "potential bomb materials in quantity.

Bus Depot: Similar to an airport, a bus depot is a place where a large number of buses and people gather together. As such bombing this or a bus on a crowded city street is also a potential threat.

Trains: Trains are another dangerous target of opportunity. Passenger trains being derailed (not including explosives) can be catastrophic. Think of it, a couple of terrorists can cause two trains to collide with each other by manually overriding the switches. If that same train was filled with noxious chemicals then entire towns and cities would have to be potentially evacuated (similar to those chemical spills down south and out west in the United States that can contaminate drinking water). Then there is the subway. In 1995, the Tokyo subway system was attacked by a religious cult called Aum Shinrikyo. They used home made sarin nerve gas to flood the subway system with toxic fumes. While not weapons grade, it was enough to kill and maim a good number of people. Similar can happen in New York's subway system as well.

Public events: Stadiums for football, Basket ball, and other sports events are targets. Music halls, plays, movie theaters, and other places where we can expect large number of crowds to see a major attraction are targets. Theme parks and political rallies are also major targets. These all have that one thing in common, large turnout of people, in small crowded spaces which amount to chaos in an attack. Even a few people with a few guns can wreak major havoc as well as no matter where they shoot they are guaranteed to hit someone.

Schools: This one is probably the most feared and with obvious reasons. Schools are where we place our children to learn and be safe while we are away at work. That sense of security is precious to us all, but yet it can easily be violated. We have already seen what a nut job can do to a school up in the State of Connecticut, so what’s to stop a terrorist from doing the same?

Conclusion: There is no such thing as a truly safe place for any of us. All the places we gather are subject to attack. Office buildings are vulnerable as well as that is another significant gathering point for mass numbers of people. Time Square is a tourist trap which attracts massive numbers of people (especially on New Years). So what is all this to you outside of making you want to live in a cave for the rest of your life? Simple, do not let them win. Continue to live your life to the fullest without fear of these terrorist scum. If you see something odd, then tell an authority. If you or a group see something and police cannot get there in time, react like they did when the shoe bomber tried to blow up a plain. Pounce upon the rascal and wrestle them to the ground. Basically, I am telling you to live and to fight to live when necessary. That is my two cents on this issue, and I hope you find this useful.

Issue 304 Soft Targets 1 April 1, 2014

A soft target is a non-military target that is subject to destruction by enemies like terrorists. These are places where large numbers of people gather and their being attacked is used to place fear in a society to make the government or even that society give into the enemy’s demands. However, we are generally safe here in the United States, but what about abroad?

Safe afar: While the United States spends millions on defense of the soft targets like airports, other countries do not have the same type of security. In short, other countries are not as safe as the United States or they may have different definitions of security. Also, their laws are different as well with respect to law and crime. Therefore, you may be subject to terror by terrorists more readily in a country like Pakistan, or India, than say in France. Judicial systems may be more lenient toward terrorists and then there are some governments that use terrorists like special teams to support their causes (like Pakistan's intelligence service and Al Qaeda). So, no, you are not safe outside of the United States.

What you can do: I will not say not to travel. In fact flying is by statistics still the safest form of travel in the world. Also, many countries are wonderful destinations that one can generally feel safe in. So the saying "know before you go" comes into play. Basically do your research. The State Department has warnings on its website about potential threats to travelers ranging from physical violence, to basic diseases. Other websites offer similar advice as well. Also, it is smart to just avoid war torn countries in general as they are unstable for obvious reasons. Know if the country you are visiting is friendly or hostile to your home country so you know whether to go there, or to just avoid saying your nationality. All violence is generally preventable with a few exceptions.

Conclusion: Sure I know you are probably saying that I am not 100% safe either in the United States. And you are right about that. You are also right if you think that security can still be improved in some areas, while revised or reduced in others (speaking of "requirements" for security). But with the disappearance of that Jet liner going from Malaysia to Vietnam, and growing world tensions between Japan and China leaning over a series of islands, or Ukraine and Russia in conflict, it is smart to be a smart traveler. By the way, in other countries it is smart to stay on the crowded main streets over the back allies (unless those crowds are rioting of course). Be safe in all your travels my readers.

Issue 303 Devalued life March 31, 2014

Can we all agree that life is a precious thing? I thought we all could, but it seems even in the modern era (can we call ourselves that) that life is as cheap as it always has been. Here are my reasons why.

Life is cheap: Did you know that in Belgium you can kill a mentally disabled child under a certain age? There reasoning is that you are doing the child a favor by ending their "suffering" early. How about the way we treated Edward Snowden as he was forced to run to countries that would normally be considered advisories to protect him from the United States government. In North Korea, the current leader is killing members of his own family because they made slights against him. The Middle East and Africa have entire villages being wiped out in wars of ethnic, racial and religious genocide. How about Ukraine, which was almost in civil war as the Prime Minister before fleeing tried to suppress his people by using the police? By suppress, I mean shooting them and beating them to death. And you know what? Something similar is happening in Venezuela right now as well. These are just some small examples of the carnage that we are bringing upon our fellow human beings.

I am disturbed: I fear for the people of this world. Why is it that we seek to self cull our own species in our lust for power or our fatal compassion? We kill the unborn, and some even wish to kill the born under a certain age out of compassion of the mother or the hard life we think these children may lead. The killing in other countries is just nonsensical. People in power really are desperate enough to end another's life to keep their position. Or how about the more common method of destroying a persons reputation through various propaganda to ruin the opposition (a life ruined may also equal a life taken as well). Arrogance, fear and compassion seem to be the driving force behind these atrocious actions. But how can they be stopped?

Conclusion: I really hate to say it, but the way to stop these acts of tyranny is through education and fear. For education, we must face our history and learn every reason why wars, gang violence and other forms of fighting, killing and discrimination take place. We must understand that stereotypes were originally used to disenfranchise select groups of people with ways to make such words and rumors powerless. It is a must that our future generations understand how to use logic and discussion first and foremost in the fight against the tyranny of their fellow man. The other half is fear and it must come in the form of a deterrent. People armed with the knowledge of how and when to fight are a threat to keep both government and criminals at bay. I say this from the unique perspective of being an American citizen who grew up around people who where in law enforcement, military and recreational shooters. In short I grew up around the gun and learned proper fear and respect for it. Armed societies do not fear their governments. Armed societies fear no other man. We were created equal, but the gun keeps us that way, for it is power over yourself and others. Don't like guns, then how about a hatchet, a kitchen knife, a bully club, or just your bare knuckles. You must defend yourself and others from the evils of this world for we have lost the respect for life itself. These are my thoughts on this matter and I hope you find a better answer than mine.

Issue 302 Surrogates March 28, 2014

What is a surrogate? What does it do? and What does it have to do with you? Well, let me tell you.

A surrogate: In the case I am talking about, I am talking about machines (again). In this case the machine is a surrogate for us. In short we will have machine partners that will act in a similar fashion to R2-D2 and C-3PO from Star Wars. In the case of our society, the robots or personal computers (persicom sound like a good name?) will have a way of interacting with us on an intelligent basis. They will be able to take any command and based on capability perform that command to the letter. As people are becoming more spontaneous and need more flexibility, the personal computer or robot assistant will have to act as a secretary, librarian, archivist, researcher, and stenographer all wrapped into one, and maybe even then some. Basically, people are good at being spontaneous, while computers have fantastic memory. As such, using these surrogates to amplify our abilities like memory and information recall skills makes it all that much easier for people to conduct their daily lives.

More complex surrogates may aid the disabled and seniors who cannot leave their homes, by actually going to work in their stead or even go shopping for them. This can be an automated process, or even done via remote. Some surrogates may come in the form of simple exoskeletons enabling the bedridden to walk out the house and back into to the sunlight.

Evolution of the Surrogate: In my opinion, the surrogates evolved from when we decided to replace people with machines in all the dull, dirty and dangerous jobs that required zero ingenuity and trouble shooting skills. From there we wanted smarter more capable machines that could do that semi, dull, dirty and dangerous tasks. Now we want to have them as our personal assistants to help us in our daily tasks by voice command (or maybe even mental signal) alone. Thus, we have slowly reduced the need for people to work in various rolls and ways of being. So we have allowed these surrogates to replace us in all those boring (based on opinion) jobs. But are we trying to have them replace us? Do we already not have a problem with the fact that most people in the United States are not more than five feet away from their personal electronic devices like a smart phone?

Conclusion: Yet another ethical situation we have here. Do we need more of these surrogate machines to do these jobs? Is there a need for a personal computer type robot device like R2-D2 and C-3PO (though that would be very cool)? My answer is be wary of it, but also it should be your personal opinion on whether you buy such a device. It will be you to decide if these machines will be needed and useful in your every day life. The reason is because you will have to buy it. Enjoy thinking what life would be like with your own personal computerized assistant.