Issue 311 Don't Stop reading April 10, 2014

Reading is one of the most essential skills. It is something that you need to get by in everyday life and to educate yourself further on what you need to accomplish your goals. So here is why you must never stop.

Every day: Reading is essential to your everyday living. By reading the ticker on the news bulletins, you can find out the events of the day. Newspapers update you on politics and other important events going on. But you would never know what’s happening if you could not read. You would be stuck not knowing about your favorite artist. Never have a favorite author or writer. The reason is because, if you cannot read then what can you do to learn about the wonders and happenings in the world.

Job: You always need to read when you are on the job. You cannot read a person a price and know what it means without the ability to read. You could not tell the word hamburger from French fries if you did not know how to read. In fact, you could not even read your paycheck without the ability to read. On top of that, how could you know what employee benefits you are entitled to if you could not read. You would not know your preferred doctor, what medications you are being prescribed (let alone covered) or even how often to take a medication. In fact, if you don't know how to read, in all likelihood you don't even know how to spell.

This means one thing when it comes to having a job. It means you will never have one. Without the ability to read, you cannot go to collage, let alone complete any form of schooling and cannot even right a resume to apply for one. Yes reading is that important.

Conclusion: Those without the ability to read will not be able to read this. However, you my dear readers can. What I say here is just the tip of a very large iceberg with respect to how important reading is. Can you imagine a person who cannot read trying to vote? Not only do the risk voting for a different candidate than they wanted, but they probably don't even know what their candidate has accomplished save what they heard through word of mouth. People who cannot read will be taken advantage of and thus become virtual slaves to those with more knowledge then themselves. Don't let this happen to someone you know who wants to give up on reading because it is hard. The very future of each individual child rests on the ability to read, don't let them fail. They cannot afford to do so.

Issue 310 51st State (Puerto Rico) April 9, 2014

Have you thought about Puerto Rico becoming the 51st State of the United States? I have and it seems like a really cool idea. Here are my thoughts on why I think Puerto Rico would make a great addition to the United States.

Advantages: Puerto Rico is currently a United States territory in the form of a commonwealth. This means that all citizens of Puerto Rico are United States citizens already, but with one problem. That problem is if they are residing in Puerto Rico then they cannot vote in Presidential elections. In short, they have no say over the countries leadership. By becoming a full fledged State they would rectify this problem.

Tourism is another great advantage to having Puerto Rico become an official U.S. State. It is a tropical island in the Caribbean with a rain forest. There are clear tropical waters and great beaches. So this would add a great amount of revenue to the countries treasury through taxation. Not to mention this would alter electoral maps and representation in Congress possibly changing the countries priorities. At current, Puerto Rico operates independently, but as a State it can gain advantages in the national government it has not had before.

Problems: Aside from the fact that 50% of Puerto Ricans vote no to State hood, this means more people to take care of. Currently as it stands, the federal government seems to enjoy spending our hard earned money on welfare. As such anyone in Puerto Rico who qualifies will be supported by the federal welfare system (though this may benefit the Puerto Rican welfare system). Puerto Ricans will also be taxed the same as regular Americans which means they would actually become poorer. They also have a lower minimum wage which would increase if entering the United States fully which puts businesses at risk of failure. All this is an impediment to Puerto Rico joining the United States as a full fledged State.

Conclusion: Economically, unless something changes with respect to the American tax code and welfare system, Puerto Rico should not become a State. But if the changes do occur and in such a way that is advantageous to the citizens of Puerto Rico, then the citizens of Puerto Rico would benefit greatly as full fledged member of the United States. So it is up to our national government to fix its spending problems, tax code and welfare before Puerto Rico should even look twice about officially becoming the 51st State.

Issue 309 51st State (D.C.)? April 8, 2014

I am completely against Washington D.C. from becoming the 51st State or even becoming a State to begin with. I have my reason and I will tell you them now.

Bad idea: One of the main reasons I do not want Washington D.C. as a State is because the founders said so. They reasoned that if the seat of government had a vote in the making of the law that corruption and tyranny would come from it. So making a law that would limit powers to the States or increase the power of the Federal government would become all that much more likely. In addition, my feelings are that the city itself probably should not be a State. I personally feel that the residents were never designed to have a vote in the first place. My belief is that the founders may have foresaw the politicians today living in D.C. rather than in their home districts and saw it as a method to prevent the politicians from living in D.C. permanently and thus avoid their constituents. Of course this has happened any way. But, having D.C. become a State and having a vote as the seat of government is the most compelling idea in preventing it from joining the other States in the United States

My solution: Washington D.C. is a gift from the State of Maryland. Land was partitioned from Virginia (since returned) and Maryland to create D.C. As such, is it not right to return the residential areas of D.C. to the State of Maryland? Is it not the State of Maryland's land they should give back so the residents of D.C. can have a proper vote in politics as per what is stipulated in the Constitution? Is this not the best solution so that these people in D.C. can have proper representation in congress as citizens of Maryland? Well of course it is a good idea. We can just leave very specific parts of the city as the seat of government. No longer would the people of D.C. want for representation for they will be Maryland citizens and thus benefit.

Conclusion: You cannot make D.C. a State as the government has no right to do so as it is gifted from Maryland to the country (a gift they can take back). I don't want to see government corruption increase either by letting the House of Representatives and the Senate gain votes in the form of D.C.'s representatives. So just give as much of it back as possible (though I think some D.C. residents may disagree) to Maryland. Problem solved.

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.