Issue 414 Store owner rights September 9, 2014

What rights do store owners have with respect to serving customers?  Do they have the right to reject a person for any reason?  Let's discuss.

Rights of the Store owner:  When a person goes into a store to shop, they are making a contract with the store owner to purchase the goods in their store if they find the price acceptable.  Likewise, the store owner has the right to refuse that shopper (or customer) if they violate the rules of the store.  Thus, if the store is a restaurant and they have a dress code, they may reject that customer and refuse to serve them.  They can do this if their store appeals to people with a certain dress and status.  If a person acts out in a store and becomes violent, steals, or generally makes a scene the owner can again reject that individual from ever shopping at their store ever again.  All this is basic, but what about the more controversial.

Controversial aspects of the right:  In the same way a store owner can reject people for doing bad things, a shopkeeper can reject people for other reasons.  They can deny a family entry into a restaurant because they are bringing in a crying baby.  A bake shop can reject a customer because they think that the cake they want violates their moral principles or faith (i.e. the shop owners who refuse to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings).  They can appeal only to women, and thus ban men from their store, or vice versa.  So if we accept that store owners have rights, then we must accept sexist, homophobic, religious and even racial/ethnic bans as well.  Remember, there are good aspects to rights and bad ones, but it is how we react that dictates if the store changes its policies.

Conclusion:  Sure, we may not like a bake shop refusing work because they do not want to serve a gay couple on religious or other grounds.  But we have to accept it for the store owner has rights and there are alternative places to get a cake that will not have such inhibitions.  However, we still do not have to like it.  In fact we cannot go there anymore because we do not like their policies.  While such inhibitions to serve others seem dumb, we can fight back by refusing to go back to that store, restaurant or club.  If enough people refuse to shop there, their policies may change or they will go out of business.  Or the prohibitions that do not make sense will go away such as racial, ethnic, religious, sexist and homophobic etc.  Heck even the ones that do not make sense like wearing a hat, wearing jeans or other silly dress codes, etiquette codes and such can also be overturned (though they are not as serious).  All we have to do is refuse to shop at places for while the owner has the right to refuse a sale, we have the right to refuse to buy from them.  We all have rights, but instead of suing someone, we can just refuse to contract with them instead.

Issue 413 If the boss pays, do they have the right to know? September 8, 2014

I had a thought after last week’s article on if the employer should pay for out of work activities with respect to health care.  If they do pay, should they know what they are paying for?  Would they have to know in order to decide if to cover the injury or not?  Let's discuss.

Should they know:  Right now, employers really do not have the right to know as injuries and sickness fall under the category of protected health information.  But it calls into question of if such a protection should exist or if there should be more exceptions to the rules with respect to someone else paying for your health care.  You can see the logic right, someone else is paying for your leg injury, your antibiotics and even your chemotherapy.  I would say they have to know.  If you break your foot, then they will want to fix it so you can come to work right.  Or they would need to know so that you can get your broken bones fixed or else that injury could make your health worse and thus more costly to the employer to help keep you healthy in the long run.  

Conclusion:  Some may be saying never, it is my health and I should have the right to keep it private.  And you are right to an extent.  But with fraud, and other forms of lying going on in the healthcare industry, is it right to keep certain things private.  I can understand some people’s reluctance, but the relationship between doctor and patient is now tainted with insurance providers, government officials and whatever else you have brought in to help regulate and monitor your health.  This is why I do not even include an opposing section in this issue, because it is redundant in my opinion to do so.  We have so many people interfering with our health already, and we already need doctor’s notes to prove we were even at a doctor’s office to the employer, that privacy in healthcare is literally a redundant exercise except in very specific circumstances.  Thus, in my opinion, the employer should know if and only if they are footing the bill for your health care costs.

Issue 412 Half Breed Tracts September 5, 2014

Have you ever heard of a half breed tract?  Well while it sounds kind of racist, it was actually an idea from the early days of America to give land to those who were half Native American.  Allow me to explain.

What was it:  It was an idea to give people who were half Native American their own land in the same way they gave land to those Native Americans on reservations.  Though this was done more out of sympathy rather than racism like with the reservations.  In short, it was to give them a place to live.  Here, the land given was meant to be exclusive to people who were half Native American with the right to self-governing.  So they essentially answered to no one but themselves.  It failed in the fact that the restrictions on who could live there were not really enforced and eventually so many none half people moved in that the lands were absorbed into the States.

Modern thought:  As a libertarian, I am always looking for an excuse for people to get out from under the thumb of the Federal Government.  Essentially, revive the concept to create new reservations to kick the Federal government out of people’s lives and reinforce self-governance.  Of course this would require people who are even part Native American, or even part other ethnicities that are protected to join hands to create these modern half-breed tracts.  Also, it would need money and lobbying efforts in Washington to force the issue.  The result could be libertarian paradises where people rule themselves with the smallest amount of government possible.

Conclusion:  Well, it was a nice idea at the time, but in truth separating based on race or ethnicity is a really bad idea as it reinforces divisions between peoples.  So I personally see these modern half breed tracts as an excuse to be used (means to an end) to gain more freedoms.  But again this is a thought experiment, and not wholly practical for modern America in my opinion.

Issue 411 Politics of Statehood September 4, 2014

Here we will go over the bare bones politics of accepting new States into the United States of America.  So let's get started.

Old model:  I say old model, but it is not necessarily old.  In this case the actual difference from the modern model is the reasoning.  In this case it is slavery.  As each new State entered the United States pre-civil war you will notice that they always entered in twos.  One State would be pro-slavery and the other anti-slavery.  It was designed to keep the balance between the opposing factions in congress so as to maintain the status quo of the time period.  In fact, at one point they believed Texas was going to break itself up into a number of smaller States, so the northern territory was held back from Statehood so that they may be broken up into equal numbers of States to continue the balance.  This balancing act still continues today, but not over slavery.

Current model:  Today, the States entering the United States have to do with political parties.  When Alaska and Hawaii joined they did so around the same time.  The reason is because the State of Alaska typically votes Republican and Hawaii typically votes Democrat.  Thus why Puerto Rico and other States have not joined or formed in the United States. There is no counterbalance for Puerto Rico's politics in the U.S. yet as Puerto Rico apparently would vote primarily for Democrats if they became a U.S. State.  

Conclusion:  So this is the politics of Statehood.  It is a balancing act between two opposing factions seeking control of the government, but agreeing to maintain balance with respect to political power in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  I personally find it very disheartening, but this is the politics we are forced to live with.  Hope you enjoyed my barebones explanation on the politics of Statehood.

Issue 410 Healthcare and out of work activities September 3, 2014

Here we question if employers should pay for incidents and injuries that happen outside of work.  Some may say no, and others may say yes.  There is a difference of opinion on this issue and thus warrants a discussion.

Those opposed:  Here, we have the group that opposes employers paying for healthcare beyond injuries and sickness that occurs on the job.  Their reasoning is that because your injury was caused outside of work, the employer is not responsible for your health.  Example, you break your leg in a skiing accident.  As such that broken leg will not be the responsibility of your employer as you did not break your leg on the job.  Another more extreme example might be contracting cancer.  The cancer (if not caused by hazardous chemicals on the job) will not be covered by the health insurance your employer provided as they did not cause it to happen within your body.  However it is important to note that people within this group disagree, as things like cancer they may make an exception too along with other catastrophic injuries and diseases.

Those in favor:  Those who want to keep the status quo say that the employer is protecting his workers.  Each of the employers’ workers is an asset and thus must be protected so that the employer can continue to keep them effective and avoid having to replace valuable workers whose knowledge and experience is irreplaceable.  So here the employer will pay for nearly all injuries or sickness whether it occurs on the job or not.

Conclusion:  From my standpoint both sides have just arguments.  Why should an employer pay for the recklessness of his employees who do dangerous activities like skydiving or snowboarding and the like?  But they should cover the basics like catastrophic and other diseases if given the opportunity and the means.  So what is the balance here?  In my point of view, that balance is any injury or disease contracted on the job must be covered along with any catastrophic health care incident like cancer and car accidents.  On the other hand, any injury like broken arms and legs done because of reckless behavior will become optional to the employer to cover because these activities are the employee putting themselves in danger.   But none of this should be mandated as it is really up to the employer to decide.  In a real society with freedoms, the government cannot mandate one type of healthcare being covered over another, or ordering a business to cover health care at all.  Thus let the employer and employees decide what health care coverage if any they shall receive, for it is their business and no one else’s.  

Issue 409 When should a child be charged as an adult? September 2, 2014

So when should a child be charged as an adult for the commitance of a crime? Should we go based on age?  We currently do, but with certain exceptions.  Even then, there exceptions for those exceptions.  So let us discuss what would be the best way to determine when a child should be charged as an adult.

Age does not cut it:  To go by age is silly in my opinion for violent crimes.  My reasoning is that some crimes are more heinous than others.  Murder for one should not be lessened merely because an individual is under the age of 18.  Rape too will be devalued as a crime in my opinion if a 16 year old gets a lesser charge than an 18 year old for the same crime.  Therefore age should not be the distinguishing factor for criminal activities when it comes to physical assault, armed robbery, rape/child molesters, and murder and attempted murder.  These violent crimes should not know age as a criteria.  But some of you might be saying why?  How can we not use age for these violent crimes?  Yes I know some people are out there who think these children who have strayed from the right path deserve a chance because you feel they are victims too.  So age 13 and under as you really are not a child at age 13, but a young adult.  And thus as a young adult you will meet the full brunt of the law for committing such a violent act.

None violent Crimes:  In this case, age can be more of a criteria.  But this is due to better ways to punish petty theft, defacing public property, and similar non-violent, but victim creating crimes.  So age nine to 14 I would say the punishment should be community service.  In this case, the number of days doing the community service will be equal to the value it costs (using the minimum wage as the standard) to replace or fix the stolen/damaged property.  For those aged 15 to 17, it will depend on the judge if the young adult does community service, goes to jail, or is forced to work a part time job (or at their current employment) with all earnings being used to replace or fix the damaged or stolen items.  Is it harsh? Well yea, but how else are you going to teach these young adults to behave like what they are "young adults".

Conclusion:  So for violent crimes, age really should not be factored in.  In fact in Mexico, the cartels use children as hitmen as they are not tried as adults, and are released back into society faster.  We cannot let our emotions prevent us from meting out an appropriate punishment for committing a wrongful and even downright evil act.  The nonviolent crimes we have wiggle room, but that is only to a certain extent and it can in fact be applied to people age 18 and over too as an alternative to jail.  So it really comes down to differentiating violent from nonviolent crimes and then providing the appropriate repercussions.  This is my opinion on this issue and if I was in charge I would implement this idea.  But would you?  Would you do it the same way?  As always feel free to tell me what you think.  Hope you enjoyed the read and maybe got you thinking.

Issue 408 If we want them to do less. September 1, 2014

We keep saying as libertarians, conservatives and liberals that we want government out of our lives.  But, we screw up on some key specific things.  If we really want them to get out of certain parts of our lives then we have to get off our butts and do something about it.

Out of our homes:  If we want the government out of our homes then we have to protest.  We must get out of the house and march, sign petitions and join in lawsuits against our own country against the invasion of Federal bureaucrats invading on our privacy.  If you want drugs legalized, then you have to put a face to the name to make it happen.  If you want to make your house larger, or update it, you have to go through government which is unfair for you have to ask their permission to do something on your own property.  And then when you are done they may tax it.  Fight back, it is your home!  What about with education?  It is the parents right to decide how their child is educated, so if we want our kids out of public school and in a charter or a home school, then we must get off our butts and do something about it.

Welfare:  We all know welfare is a big lie. We are taxed more than they give back.  But if we want the government to stop having to dish out so much money?  If we want them to become redundant in this particular area?  Then we need to actually form private organizations to help feed the hungry.  We need private organizations to help pay for health care of those who are poor.  In the event of a disaster, we need to be prepared to act immediately to help ourselves and our neighbors rebuild without federal aid.  In short, we must go forth and help ourselves and our neighbors whilst turning down federal handouts.

Conclusion:  These are two broad examples of us doing more for ourselves.  We do not need government to help us in a disaster.  There is no need for government to give out welfare if the churches and private organizations do it for them.  If we do more, then they will no longer be needed.  So for them to do less, we must do more.