Issue 416 Kids Attending School by Threatening Parents Welfare September 11, 2014

The title is fairly self-explanatory.  The idea has been tossed around that if your child does not attend proper school and you are a welfare recipient, then the welfare should be denied.  So why is this idea being tossed around?

Opinion on why:  I believe the reason this idea is being floated around is due to the fact that many parents on welfare have children who generally do not attend school (thus wasting any welfare meant toward their child's education and putting these recipients under threat to reduce the amount of possible abuse of the system).  As such, they wanted to force parents who are on welfare to actually enforce their children's education rather than the school or other government entity.  It is in my opinion a good idea, but with a potential for abuse.

Abuse potential:  I fear that this enforcement will leave out the option of homeschooling for these parents who feel that public (government run) schooling is inadequate.  Also, I fear that parents on welfare who receive vouchers may not be able to send their children to private or other forms of schools if the laws are poorly written and thus excludes them.  So this is my fear.

Conclusion:  By using welfare parents to enforce their children going to school it saves money and time by schools and police.  It gets kids off the street and in school so that these kids can potentially get a proper education rather than resort to crime due to a lack of ability and skills due to a lack of schooling.  However, the law must be properly written or else it can cause problems and block access to a welfare parents choices when it comes to their child’s education.  So we must be cautious in the way the law is written and thus also enforced.

Issue 415 A Civilian Harm Department September 10, 2014

This idea comes from a Foreign Affairs piece called "Concept on Responding to the Needs of Civilian Victims of War" by Sarah Holewinski (opinion section).  Basically, it is all about trying to reduce harm to civilians in the battlefront.  So how does it work and should we even have such a layer of bureaucracy?

The concept:  So Mrs. Holewinski's idea is as follows:

1. Appoint an internal advocate for addressing civilian harm mitigation.

2. Create a team in the Department of defense that focuses on civilian harm to do the following:

     a. Guide war planning

     b. promote acquisition of nonlethal weapons

     c. review the military’s doctrine and training programs

     d. influence the aid the U.S. gives other countries that are actively engaged in combat

     e. review how to minimize long term impacts of U.S. operations on civilian populations such as              environmental degradation and damage to civilian infrastructure.

3. Debrief returning troops about military/civilian interactions to gather information about civilian casualties and analyzing what did and did not work.

Well that’s it in a nutshell.

What I think:  I think it is mostly naive.  Needlessly hindering our soldiers can cost them their lives.  Guns and bombs once shot may go off course and then hit just about anyone including our own troops.  So the idea to have this new waste of bureaucratic red tape guide war planning is pathetic.  Also, the military is already doing their best to reduce harm to civilians in the first place (that’s why they have precision weapons like laser guided bombs rather than destroying entire cities).  So an advocate is entirely unnecessary.  As to the teams to debrief the troops, while admittedly a good idea with respect to gathering intelligence data on the changing attitudes of the civilian population, it is already done by civil affairs groups and psyop forces.  Basically, all this is being done already in some way, shape, or form rendering it all unnecessary.

Conclusion:  While it is admirable that people like Holewinski want to reduce harm to innocent and non-involved people in war time, the fact is it cannot be done save turning our soldiers into assassins who kill nothing but their targets.  But war is not that kind when it comes to determining who the enemy is, especially in an age where terrorist organizations can stand up to the might of several nations and them not wearing any uniforms.  A war is meant to be horrible and destructive, and to fight it any other way I believe is to sanitize war to the point that it invites more wars.

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.