Issue 541 What Government should run the moon? March 5, 2015

Well, my readers, let us get away from the more serious side of things and look toward the future.  In this case I would like to discuss with you all on who should actually run the moon once colonization begins.  So let's begin.

The people of the moon:  For our purposes, the moon should remain neutral to all conflict on earth.  Reason being is that from the moon, any nation, or the colonists can attack the entire planet without limit.  Also, it will act as an outpost for humanities further expansion amongst the stars.  So a neutral government will be the best one, so as to maintain peace.  Further, people of all nations should be allowed to colonize so that the varying interests of each group clash.  This mimics the whole ambition counter acting ambition established in America's own constitution.  Thus, the idea is to divide loyalties to the original home nation, and make it all belong to the moon resident’s fellow colonists.  And then we arrive at our answer, a democracy, or sorts, will run the moon.  They will have a legislature to make laws, and a senate to approve of them.  Each settlement will be represented by population in the legislature, and with one each in the senate.  This ensures no one side holds too much power.  Let's face it, the moon will be a transportation hub, and thus a central location for interstellar trade.  So each settlement, or even city for that matter needs a say in their survival and prosperity.

Basic laws will be just that, basic.  So a central charter that outlines these laws and the rights everyone has are a given.  Basically, it will be something to rally behind.  As such, laws against murder, and establishing a court system to prosecute crimes is a must.  But also, adapting the charter to the characteristics of lunar survival is a must also.  Resources will be very tight, and thus some form of distribution network for food, and resources may in fact be needed to be either regulated or at the very least monitored for this to work.  You see, unfairness in resources could in fact drive people apart and thus preventing that and maintaining unity is a must.

Why self-rule:  So with just how the government should run, you may be asking why not the United Nations, or a coalition government between existing countries.  Reason is because the countries here will not be responsive to the needs of the colonists.  They will use the colony(s) for their own purposes which will either be for profit or control.  Survival of the lunar people is not a priority if they do not provide what the host country(s) want.  Also, the countries on Earth are not as responsive to places that are far away.  They cannot see a crisis if there is one.  So waiting on bureaucrats on Earth can cost lives, as well as money.  That is why the moon needs to govern itself.  

Conclusion:  The moon will be dependent on the Earth initially to send it resources, but as time goes on with interstellar trade increasing, the need of the Earth will dwindle.  Thus, managing this, and preventing being taken advantage of relies on a government that has the moons interest at heart.  Thus, self-rule is the only way for this to work in my opinion and therefore prevent a repeat of past mistakes.

Issue 540 What speech should be squashed? March 4, 2015

So, is there any freedoms of speech that should be squashed?  I find that there should be two specific ones that have to be, despite my being libertarian (though I do admit, I have some totalitarian ideas).  So let's discuss.

Child pornography:  You are probably screaming that child porn is not speech?   Well, unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees.  It is in fact a form of expression that uses and illegal activity.  Thankfully the Supreme Court sides with the kids and declared this form of speech to be not protected at all.  So this speech can thankfully be killed by law without any disagreement save those who partake in this obscene and disgusting activity.

Death threats:  Now this is a tricky one.  Yes death threats and the violence that goes along with them are at all times to be taken seriously.  Yet, intent in this case must be proven to actually act on such a threat to stop the perpetrator before the violence starts.  As such, this speech is harder to squash as it must be taken on a case by case basis to see if action must be taken or not.  Let us face it, some of us say really dumb things that can be construed as a death threat.  So sorting those out is important.  So in this case, you turn the evidence over to the police, and they look into past writings of the individual along with activities to see if action is to be taken.  And that is it.  Otherwise you as say an internet moderator can take the threat down and ignore it.  

Conclusion:  It is hard to say that any other speech should be squashed as that becomes problematic.  You cannot stop people from cursing, or making obscene gestures as that invites people banning kissing in public (it has been done before in America, so don't think it cannot happen again) amongst other activities and expressions.  As such, the only two forms of speech that do not invite a slippery slope of denying all speech and expression are in my opinion these two.  Aside from that, say and express yourself however you like.

Issue 539 Should the internet be a utility? March 3, 2015

With net neutrality passing, we must ask if this vote to regulate the internet is worth it.  Did this vote between unelected representatives just kill the internet or not?  Let us discuss.

No difference in Bits:  First of all, this not only affects your internet experience, but the content of your radio, television and phone.  Reason being is that all these technologies use the internet to transmit the information.  Thus, the government will lump all these bits together as part of distributing the bandwidths evenly to make it their version of "fair" and "equitable".  So the same amount of bandwidth for say a broadband internet must be equal to the same amount for a television channel or vice versa, even if that much bandwidth is not needed.   As such, your television shows will now buffer in the same way some internet videos do.  But if you want to manipulate it so you can watch unimpeded, you will probably have to buy special boxes to prioritize the data yourself.  So this will be annoying for regular television watchers and internet content users.

Loss of freedom of speech:  With the internet being regulated, the government has the opportunity to control who can say what on the internet.  So they can actually censor what we say on say a chat room, or on a blog which is something they could not do before.  Also, the government, just like they did with television, is require certain content on a website, such as a percentage of content being educational or some other standard.  Therefore, we may be forced to advertise, or say things we do not want associated with what we put on the internet ourselves.

Harms progress:  Did you know that phones and radio were a utility once?  When the radio was deregulated it became 100% free (excluding the recent addition of satellite).  But before this, only certain types of radio could be sold and the technology used in them had to be pre-approved.   Phones were another travesty of government regulation.  In the 1950s to the 1970s we had rotary phones because that was all that was allowed.  Then they (government) let them become push button phones.  That is 20 years’ worth of waiting for innovation.  However, when they deregulated the phones we got call waiting, answering machines, and touch screens, all year after year of each other.  It was progress and evolution done in years rather than government regulated decades.  Government regulation of the internet invites the slowdown of such progress.

And that is not all.  This invites government sponsored monopolies.  Google apparently was allowed to read and edit the regulatory set up, but no one knows what they did, as non industry members and even other government officials were not allowed to read it, let alone edit it.  So hopefully Google changed it for the better, even though that does not stop the government officials from making post edits to undo, or further harm progress and promote their favored businesses over startups who will now probably get squashed.

Conclusion:  We are now currently stuck with a potential and colossal failure of government regulation that may even make it easier to tax the internet, or limit future access to the benefits of the internet itself.  I am speaking of the freedom of speech and information exchange here people.  So turning the internet into a utility from my standpoint is a bad idea.

Issue 538 Who owns the internet? March 2, 2015

Who really owns the internet?  Only two groups actually do.  And you can actually name them very easily.  Can't figure it out?  It is the companies that sell access and us the regular people.  Let us discuss.

What the companies do:  The companies serve a single roll with the internet. It is to sell access to the whole thing.  So that internet bill every month is just us paying to get on.  Everything else is literally free.  These companies have no need to do anything else with respect to internet access as that would actually hinder their businesses.  Yes, certain websites are charged more to access the internet, but that is because they use up more space for data.  So they essentially are causing congestion on the internet which means they are technically being punished by the service providers for inhibiting everyone else using the internet.  But that is only the case for businesses.  People just pay for access as well, but otherwise they can do whatever they want.

The regular users:  This is us, the regular people who use the net each and every day.  We provide content, use services that are almost universally free, and otherwise do work and play on the internet.  Nothing is actually impeding us from doing whatever we want on the internet.  All we do is pay a small bill that is only going to become cheaper so that we can use a modem, and even that is becoming cheaper and possibly at some point actually free.  You see without us using the internet almost constantly, the internet would not be such a lucrative business opportunity for companies to sell goods and services (whether they be free or not (think advertising)).  As such, without us, the continued existence of the net with its ability to share information and content for free would not exist.

Conclusion:  So the companies that sell access and attempt to prevent clutter, and us, the consumers of services and content are the true owners of the net.  Without each other, the internet could not prosper or evolve into the sensation and tool that we all enjoy.  The internet is only going to become better and freer with each passing year, and you know what?  You helped make that possible by you simply using the internet.  

Issue 537 How can we have more internet? February 27, 2015

Did you know we can have more internet?  That it can be cheaper and faster?  Well, of course you did, but do you know how?  It is actually simple, so let's begin.

Simple solution for more internet:  So apparently the internet needs Ethernet pipes and similar infrastructure to run.  However, government licenses who can actually make these Ethernet pipes, and other technology that supports the internet’s spread and growth.  Basically, a set of regulations is preventing other companies, including startups from laying more of this infrastructure down which would in turn give us more access to a faster internet including in places where internet has yet to exist.  So the government is in effect creating mini-monopolies and preventing competition by preventing newer internet service providers from even coming into existence despite the technology to make these pipes being so cheap and easy to make.  Can you imagine if Netflix, or Disney made their own Ethernet pipes and similar infrastructure?  They would no longer have to pay another internet service provider to carry their content.  With more internet, the time where we just get the specific three to five channels on our televisions that we watch regularly and the rest on demand can come true.  We can pay less for television this way, and have freer radio, and literally every show we want on demand.  Essentially, we would just pay for access to the internet with everything else becoming 100% free with respect to phone, television and other subscription services that we normally would have to pay for given the current status quo.  All we have to do is de-regulate who can do what and then it is a victory to small businesses who want to grow and us who want cheaper faster internet.

Conclusion:  Remember, the internet needs the ability to send information around for it to work.  That information tends to travel the path of least resistance, which means more infrastructure for it equals faster internet and more access.  As such, let us allow more businesses to do this work so that not only they benefit, but we do to.

Issue 536 Do Regulations Prevent Unemployment February 26, 2015

Well, I am here to say, yes it does.  Even though I am a libertarian, I have to admit that regulations can prevent unemployment, but they do at a cost.  Let's discuss.

Regulations slow progress:  Ok, the reason why regulations are able to stave off unemployment is because they slow down the creative and destructive influences of a free market economy.  So the reason why we do not have a better more comfortable seat belt is due to regulations setting a standard that everyone follows out of fear of being sued for breaking that standard.  The internet is not as free as it can be is due to the licensing of who can make Ethernet pipes.  How about the oil companies and fossil fuel fired power plants?  They are kept alive by regulations by artificially increasing the costs to study and implement safer and cheaper to make nuclear power.  These regulations partly exist for safety, but also to protect the established businesses that exist, but would be supplanted by the newer businesses and technology.  However, when regulations are slowly repealed these established companies have a better chance of adapting to newer technology and shifts in public attitudes.  As such, they are able to train employees in the new standards and technologies without fear of being completely left behind.  So slower progress due to regulations means more people can adapt to changes and thus they are less likely to lose their jobs.

Conclusion:  While I do not want people to lose their jobs, regulation if applied wrongfully creates monopolies of power for established businesses.  As such more regulations become established to keep the biggest businesses from having to compete with smaller upstarts that may usurp them.  So this is a double edged sword.  As such, regulations implemented strictly for safety are good.  However, any regulations no matter how well intentioned are bad as you are in fact preventing the creation of jobs thus stopping the employment of others to save the jobs of those who already have them.

Issue 535 Direct Taxation (the Banks) February 25, 2015

So we are all familiar with the income tax and that it is generally collected through our employers.  But when the crisis in Greece hit where they took money directly out of peoples bank accounts demonstrated that the governments of the world can take our money and the banks would not resist.  So what does this mean for the future of taxation and our money?

What I believe to be a trend:  I feel that government may stop concerning themselves with how much we earn from our jobs and instead be concerned with the total amount of money we actually have.  Reason being is that we are shifting to an all-electronic future where no other form of physical currency could really exist.  As such, governments can simply look at your bank accounts to accurately gage how much money you acquired that year and then take it out themselves.  Any deductions can be seen by simply having a program to analyze all your purchases and charitable donations and thus deduct them from the overall money that was meant to be taxed.  So in short, as you can no longer hide how much money is in your bank account, the government can just take all the money they see you have acquired based on whatever standards they see fit.  So no more accountants, filings, or any other expensive methods of tax collection, as a simple program would do the entire job for the IRS and similar tax collection bodies.  

What this means for US:  Well, we will no longer have any privacy with respect to what we buy.  The government will know how much junk food we buy, how many magazine subscriptions we have and anything embarrassing we may have bought.  In short, the government will be able to blackmail us with our purchases alone.  But this is not the worst part.

Our worst part is that all sources of money we get are now able to be taxed.  The $25 dollars we get from a birthday card, to a friend paying back a no interest loan.  All of that small stuff becomes income to the government.  A loan from the bank and even money gathered from inheritance no matter how small becomes taxable.  As such, the government will tax us on every penny we get no matter how small, because they simply can.  An all-electronic system invites this issue.  Tax havens could not even exist as the government will take the money out of any of your other accounts that are not in the tax haven, and can possibly take it out by force if you use that account to purchase a good from anywhere (yea they will hack it and take it) just to get what they think you owe.  You think the government is not that petty?  Think again.  Greece took 10% out of their own people’s bank accounts and prevented people from taking their money out to prevent that.  So as Greece as an example (a Democratic Country), we could be next.

Conclusion:  Yea, this is a worst case scenario.  But, it is a distinct possibility as we progress toward an all-electronic banking system.  There will no longer be hiding money under the bed.  So I write this for you my readers to be wary of what the future holds.