Issue 67 EU success or failure May 1, 2013

The European Union (EU) is a collection of over 27 different countries in Europe united by a single currency (money) and other institutions. However, today its members face financial trouble. Greece's debt may cause the EU's destruction by taking the other members with it through a domino effect that will cause another economic collapse similar to what the world saw in 2008.

History: The EU was birthed after WWII with the idea to prevent any and all future wars in Europe. To do this, countries began linking industries that were directly linked to the war industry such as mining for minerals to produce weapons. France and Germany were the first and soon others followed. As it became more advantageous to link together in a free market more countries joined and they created an environment from which people, goods and services could move about freely. Soon, to further the cause, they created a single currency (not all nations have the currency known as the EURO yet). Governments of the EU used this new currency to unite the nations further together. Overall, peace through trade was assured.

Current: There are still countries attempting to join the European Union. They seek access to markets and trade that the EU countries have access to. Mostly, former soviet block countries are attempting to join. However, the EU or precisely the countries in the EU are facing economic trouble. With the market crash of 2008 it revealed a weakness in the united currency the EURO. Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain made sweat heart deals with their government workers, paying them very generously in retirement. But when the market crashed the governments lost money and could not afford to pay them. Riots ensued in some of the EU countries (some of which continue to occur). Greece has received multiple bail outs with really no expectations of being able to pay back any of their debt. The debt these countries are accumulating, not just through their having to pay for their workers, but their populations various welfare and old age benefits are causing strife.

Suggested solutions: It has been suggested in such publications like the Economist, and The New York Times that these nations must unite further to solve this problem. One idea was combining the total welfare and benefits apparatus of all the members into a single body. Thus, the EU governing body is responsible for taking care of all payments for the elderly freeing up money in the local governments and communities to pay for other needed expenses. Another more risk adverse idea is uniting all the countries together with a single banking and monetary system. While most of the countries use the same currency there is no leading body protecting its monetary value, nor is there a body that works like Americas Federal Reserve system to protect, maintain, print and back loans using the EURO. Essentially, there is a call for a true bank of Europe. This idea is not as likely to happen though as all nations in the EU must agree and they are fearful of giving up more of their nation’s individual power. The final most extravagant idea is the united EU government taking on all the collective debt from all the countries in Europe. This would make all of the countries debt free and make it easier to pay the debt through a single party. The idea was used by America in its founding to pay off the debt incurred when the nation was founded. However, just as it was unfair to the Southern States in America who had paid almost all of their debt, it would be unfair to countries like Germany who have little to no debt. It will have the big more stable countries paying off the debt of the foolish less fiscally responsible countries.

Conclusion: The European Union is ultimately a success. War in Europe is almost non existent with most countries scaling back their militaries. They have eliminated trade barriers and provided opportunity to their citizens. Only one negative has set them back and that is their national debts that they allowed to go out of control. Pros are out weighing the cons and Europe has a few solutions to solve this problem, if and only if they can get to the negotiation table long enough to fix the issue and make the hard choices.

Issue 66 Tacit Consent April 30, 2013

Tacit consent means implied consent. This term is used to describe when a person lives under a government’s rule of law. By merely living in that Country, that province, that community you are giving your consent to live under the laws made there.

What does Tacit Consent do?: its role, in respect to the relationship between the government and the governed, is to show that the governed is giving the government consent to rule them. This is why when you commit a crime in the United States you are subject to U.S. law and not laws of your home country. Without this basic principle a government could not function as people from outside the country coming in would not be subject to the law of the country they are visiting. Rather the visiting person would be subject to the laws of their own country making it very hard for law to be enforced. Thus, tacit consent eliminates such chaos and allows order to be maintained.

Exceptions: In certain circumstances laws may be bent thereby ignoring tacit consent. We normally see such a bending of the law when a very harsh punishment is going to be enacted upon a citizen of another country. For example, a person from America picks someone’s pocket in Saudi Arabia with the punishment in Saudi Arabia being the hand being chopped off. American officials can ask that an alternate punishment be enacted, which will usually be granted, as a show of respect between the two nations. Usually this bending is only for harsh punishments like the aforementioned example or death, but it is also sometimes used in minor circumstances when a high level official or that official’s child is in some sort of legal trouble in another country. More than likely in this case an apology is given and a restriction of travel or even the issue being swept under the proverbial rug.

Diplomatic Immunity: I list this separate from the other exceptions to the tacit consent rule as it is only for a special class of people. In this case diplomats have special immunity from very specific laws and there punishments. The rules and exceptions vary with time but usually minor infractions are ignored like parking tickets. High crimes like murder are usually prosecuted, but that is if you can catch the person before they return to their home country (which of course will protect them).

You may change your consent: Tacit consent is movable. If say you no longer like your own government and feel it has become oppressive, then you may leave. By leaving you leave your home countries laws and rules behind (save a few exceptions if you are still considered a citizen) and then subject yourself to the laws of an entirely new country. John Locke (the political philosopher) also explained that tacit consent interacts with the concept of "consent of the governed." Consent of the governed is when you give government permission to rule over you with its laws in the same way as tacit consent, but with one difference. If you do not wish to leave your country, cannot leave (whether willingly or un-willingly) and the government has become abusive, then you have the right to rebel. Yes you may strike down the tyrannical government and reform/restore it to its pre oppressive days or change it all together.

Conclusion: Our entire political system is based on the concept of tacit consent. It is what binds us to government and what allows us to the government (whether it is you moving somewhere else or the government being altered). Because of this, many globalists (those believing in one international community have seized upon the idea as a way grant citizenship in another country. In effect you would have to live in another country for a specified number of days; from there you are granted full citizenship and all the rights that come with it while extinguishing your previous citizenship. To a large degree this same concept is used in America when a person moves from one State to another, in this case it determines if and when the person will be allowed to vote in an election. It is most certainly a concept of government that is embraced each and every day, but is taken for granted. Even the concept of self determination (the right to choose how you are to be governed) comes from this principle. Without tacit consent we would have no enforceable laws that protect our rights as citizens and thus there would be only chaos.

Issue 65 Testing Welfare recipients April 29, 2013

 
If you have been watching and learning about different types of reforms to welfare (as I obviously have) then you have probably heard about how the State of Florida has altered their system. In their case they now test for drugs before they allow a person to receive any welfare. This has come under fire by some as they believe the policy is discriminatory.

How it works: The plan is simple, test the applicant to see if they are a drug addict. If they are a drug addict, then they are denied welfare. If they are clean then they get the benefits offered by the State. Here is the catch; those applicants must pay for the test themselves. Some of you may think this is outrageous, but the State of Florida pays the people who successfully test as clean back. So they get there money back any way. This little quirk was designed to force a welfare applicant to choose to be an addict (if they happen to be one) or to choose the money they need to hopefully get out of poverty.

What if they have Kids?: If children are involved, then things work a little differently. In a two parent home, if either parent tests positive for an illegal substance then they are denied benefits. But, if a third person who will act as the guardian of the money and the child comes forward and they test clean, then benefits will be given. However, the parents of course will receive nothing without that third persons consent. Simple right, if the parent screw up then it is up to grandma or some other relative or friend to take over.

Is it discriminatory?: I can see why it would look like discrimination. You are testing all applicants for drugs and they all happen to be asking for welfare. However, that view is narrow. Sports teams are tested before they are allowed to play. Teachers, police and other people are tested as a condition of employment. In the case of welfare, it is a condition to receive benefits in the same way that welfare recipients are means tested based on income to see if they are eligible. So it is not discriminatory, it is just an insurance policy to make sure the States money is not abused.

Conclusion: I fully support replicating this form of testing in all parts of the United States and around the globe. No government can afford to have people abusing their welfare systems or even the people’s money for that matter. Let us never forget that welfare is a form of government charity not a right. It is a privilege to receive that money as people are trusting you to spend it on what you need to live and get your self out of poverty, not sink further into the muck. Of course, if implemented different standards of how much drugs can be in a persons system and what those drugs are may vary. Colorado has legalized "pot" in all its forms so they may allow weed as an exception. But this is all about curbing the abuse of welfare. This is most certainly a step in the right direction.

Issue 64 Radical Welfare reform April 26, 2013

This issue builds off of "Issue number 63 Welfare to work April 25, 2013." In this case it goes one step further in altering the welfare system. I actually originally heard of this idea on an episode of John Stossel by one of his guests the day after I learned about welfare to work at an event hosted by the Manhattan Institute. Stossel's episode also covered welfare to work, but his guests went a step further.

The radical reform: The ending of all cash welfare including food and housing assistance with the sole exceptions being the welfare for the elderly and the physically and mentally disabled. Yes, the guest wanted to switch the focus of all welfare to a "welfare to work: program for all able bodied Americans.

How it would work: To make it easier for companies to higher these individuals with less job skills, the money that was going to the cash based welfare system would instead go to companies. Essentially, the same amount of money would still be dished out, but instead it would come from an employer for the work you did. Additional money could be granted of course by the employer for how well the person does. Once the company can afford to pay for that employee due to the company being able to expand for the cheap labor (compliments to government paying their wages) the person will be kicked off the welfare roll and completely supported by their own efforts and the company they are working for. This is another form and much more comprehensive version of welfare to work that for the most part I agree with. A person who earns a check is less likely to abuse the welfare system than a person who is given free cash every month.

But what about if there are no open positions?: To back up the other part of the reform, when there is no available job in the area, the welfare recipients are put to work in other capacities. This part of the idea comes from the Depression Era's "Work Progress Administration." Its role will be exactly the same as when it was originally created, getting people to work and earning a pay check. In this case, these people will help build and maintain parks, clean streets, refurbish bridges and other similar jobs. The salary they would get would pay for the basics like food, clothing and shelter. The main thing though is that this will be an earned income and not some artificial hand out. To ensure that these people will want to move up in the world there will be no option for retirement. Or, at least, there will be no opportunity to unionize and get a pension. They are there to gain job experience and work for a hard days pay until they find something better. This of course will be using the basis of welfare to work to aid them in finding a better job.

The part I did not like: For those who refuse to work, but have children the children will have to be taken away. I don't like the idea of ever separating a family, but the issue comes down to a parent refusing to work. This is the equivalent in this system of saying I will not feed my kid. As a result, the child would be sent off to the orphanage and be adopted by any willing family who passes through the qualification process. In the interim between adoption and being taken away, government funded institutions operated by volunteers (properly vetted to ensure they are not bad people) and religious organizations will care for the children as a form of non profit. Children must be kept safe and that is the logic behind this part of the reform. Though, I would defiantly include a window of opportunity for the child to be reunited with their parents.  If the parents are working toward improving their lives and trying to make enough money to support them and their children then they should be able to get their children back. If this is the case the institution will not allow for the child to be adopted but rather have the child as a long term guest until the parent(s) can take them back home. This would be the only way I would accept this part of the program.

Conclusion: Overall, the idea is radical especially for America and Europe. There are people and institutions that make a lot of money off the cash based system we have now as well as people who in general fear change. I however, support any change that gets people out of welfare and become self-sufficient. This is an idea to try out and see if it will work. If it does, use it and change the system, if not see if anything can be changed to make it work and if even that fails then put the idea out to pasture.  Remember the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled are not affected by any of this.  The only ones affected are those people who are able bodied and are capable of working.

Issue 63 Welfare to work April 25,2013

What is welfare to work program? Well, it is a welfare program designed to get people off welfare by finding them a job. The approach is straight forward and relies less on government and more on the jobs market to have the poor get jobs suitable to their skill level. From there they move up in the company as they gain skills or move to a new company with the work experience they gained, thus increasing their income.

Jobs first approach: The program has no long term training programs. At most those in the program should only spend a week in a class room. There they learn all attributes and skills needed to land an entry level position. This includes their appearance, their résumé, and proper speaking and even how best to show up on time. Using these skills (the basic skills people use at every job or to get a new one) the applicants are placed in the entry level position of a job that has an opining. From there is all up to the now working individual to keep the job until they are ready to move on to a new one or advance in position. It is really just that simple.

We can use private companies: Instead of using a mass of government workers to facilitate the welfare to work programs, we can use private companies. This of course is cheaper as you only have to pay them for their successes and not their failures (let alone their wages and retirement). How it would work is as simple as the jobs first approach to the program. Here, the private company would receive requests from other companies looking to fill various positions. At this point the private company administering the program would request any new applicants to the program and then match them to the appropriate job. They have the applicants go through the basic training (the welfare to work training plus any additional training the company making the request hires them for) and then are sent off to their new job. If the applicant manages to complete the probation period, then and only then will the private company be paid. This insures no corruption at any level of the process.

Conclusion: This same approach was used under Mayer Giuliani of New York City. Needless to say it worked very well as the amount of people impoverished decreased. He coupled this program with one to have more police on the streets and interact with the community more. Part of that was bringing the homeless to homeless shelters (if they have not committed a crime as a portion of the homeless in the city have. Those brought to the shelters had access to the program and thus both crime and poverty decreased in New York. Giuliani created a success story to say the least. So it becomes a why not moment in our history and the history of any nation with a welfare system. Let’s get them out of poverty and get them working.

Issue 62 Should we help Syria April 24, 2013

As most of you all know, Syria is in a civil war. The Arab spring uprisings turned violent when Syria's President (dictator) Assad cracked down on the protesters and thus sparked the violent conflict. From that point on the world watched as the conflict escalated with Turkey on the brink of all out war should the conflict spill over into their country and possibly risk the Kurds taking the opportunity to succeed. And just recently, there are reports of chemical weapons being used (however these chemical weapons are most likely ones not listed in the chemical weapons ban treaty, for if they were then the international community would be allowed to go in and crush Assad). Needless to say this situation is a complete mess.

Pros of going in: One of the main reasons to go in is to remove a dictator. Assad while having the title of President is not a true elected leader. As with most countries that wish to fake a democracy they have rigged elections and systems to keep certain specific people in power. This is despite Assad trying to appease the protesters pre civil war with constitutional reform.

Another reason to go in is that if the rebels win, there is a chance that a democracy (a real one) will develop. These rebels seek the rights and privileges that are granted to people in most free countries and they are willing to fight for it. If we help them, then it allows a possible future alliance in the Middle East (America will no longer just have Israel to rely on). In addition, once Syria is changed over to a new government, old ties with countries that may be against our countries interests may cease (as in the case of America versus Iran). Syria is a puppet of Iran in the region and Iran flying in troops to help Assad is proof. Iran is a rouge nation (at the moment) and removing an ally may help suppress their ambitions.

Finally, some of the rebels are foreign fighters from other countries. Unfortunately, some of them are radical Jihadists. If we help in some way then we can surgically remove these elements from the rebellion, or even use them as cannon fodder to do the dirty work while leaving the moderates safe to later rebuild the country based on freedom and democratic principles.

Cons: Everything listed in the Pros section can back fire. The new government of Syria once the conflict is over could be worse than Assad (case in point Iran after its revolution). So world may get an even more violent and dangerous rouge nation. Ties even with Iran may even strengthen, and the country may become a training ground for future jihadists. If we aid the rebels, we may just be giving weapons to the jihadists themselves which could increase violence and blood shed throughout the entire region. On top of that, Iran and other nations may become emboldened and develop nuclear bombs faster and then follow that up by giving the bombs to their allies. All of this is a dangerous proposition.

But we also have to remember that America is war weary. The last two wars we fought and the small brush fire conflicts in Lebanon and Yemen have stretched American forces thin. America cannot be expected to win a war for its allies and neutral nations anymore (at least not at the moment). Also, our involvement may make the situation worse as some of the rebels seeing that we are backing their comrades may see those same comrades as puppets of the American government. This could result in the rebels fighting each other both during and after Assad is removed from power.

Conclusion: For now we watch. We must look at the conflict carefully and only give support on a needs based bases whether that be a show of support on television to a small arm drop so the rebels can take out enemy tanks. All support must be focused to only those rebels that we trust, and even then how they got those weapons must be kept secret so as to prevent any sort of negative influences that may destabilize the situation more than it already has. From there we have to put our faith in the rebels that we helped to set up a country that is friendly to the U.S. Also, once the civil war is over, the U.S. and other countries should offer aid in rebuilding (such as electricians, plumbers or even experts in writing constitutions). We can get involved, but it must be selective and it must be secretive. The rebels must win, but only the ones who will not want to kill us after.

 

Yes I am a libertarian and I would prefer that the U.S. stay out of the conflict. But unfortunately, libertarians are not in charge so my conclusion is based on the U.S. getting involved because it is almost certain that both the Republicans and Democrats will push us into the conflict thinking it is our moral duty to do so. Though I think they forget that it is our moral duty to avoid sending our soldiers into harms way in the first place.

Issue 61 Blades on Planes April 23, 2013

Recently the U.S. Department of Home Land Security scaled back its restrictions on edged items such as scissors, knives and the like. But is this a wise decision or inviting another terrorist attack like that of 9/11.

Pros: An argument for allowing such items back on planes most likely concerns their overall lethality and the current security procedures used. For one, the cockpit is closed off from the rest of the plane preventing the pilots from being threatened directly. This only leaves the flight attendants and passengers at the mercy of a knife wielding terrorist or psycho path. However, many of these flight attendants have been given extra training since 9/11 to protect themselves and the passengers. How good that training is though is not the clearest as we have yet to see it tested. Then there is the fact that we have Air Marshals riding in the planes now as a deterrent. These Marshals are armed and trained (much more so than your typical flight attendant) to deal with this sort of situation. And finally the passengers are not the same complacent people they used to be. No one wants to be a victim so passengers are much more aware and ready to act. For instance, think of the "underwear" bomber, passengers took him down first. Adding knives into the equation allows passengers and crew to carry a deterrent to make a terrorist think twice (a psycho will just go nuts anyway however). Not to mention blocking people from carrying nail clippers and small scissors seems a bit unnecessary. To make a fatal blow with such a tiny blade a person would have to sever their main arteries in the neck or find a way to hold the other persons wrist long enough to slice it open. Aside from that, maybe the eyes are vulnerable (though in any close up fight with or without a weapon they are subject to damage). It takes a blade of at least a full 1 inch in length being plunged into the body to make an actual almost guaranteed fatal blow. Sure no one wants to be cut, but when you consider the alternative then you would prefer the small flesh cuts to a burning wreck.

Cons: The flight attendants and pilots are most defiantly against the change in security policy. For them it is an unnecessary risk as such small blades (if you really want to bring your scissors with you) can be carried in the luggage compartment. They don't want people to have access to such potentially deadly tools in their carryons. You can't exactly not feel for them, as they will be in the line of fire first and foremost. It is their lives that are in danger first. For a terrorist, sure they may be deterred from trying to take down another plane as current security procedures will prevent that from happening, which is if everything goes well. The nightmare scenario is what these pilots and flight attendants fear the most and who can blame them. Not to mention the fact that people should not be even bringing out such items as nail clippers during the flight. No one wants to see some one cut their nails as it is plain disgusting.

Conclusion: I personally see nothing wrong with allowing blades under a specific length back, like tiny scissors and nail clippers. Also, I see nothing wrong with blades over a specific length like a sword or axe (never know what a person is going to bring home) so long as it is too unwieldy to be used in the confined space of a plane. In addition, flight attendants should be allowed to arm themselves with any weapon they see fit that will not endanger to plane such as combat knives or small fire arms that will not penetrate the hull of the plane. So for me, a balance must be made between protection and freedom. Thus a list of items that can be carried as carryon’s should be made, with the rest of the items that are not allowed to be possessed as carryon’s riding in the luggage compartment. From there it comes down to a good screening process to protect people. I feel the pros out weigh the cons on this issue, but never should the feelings of the plane crew be dismissed from this sort of decision.