Do we have a Right to Discriminate?

In America we enjoy many freedoms, however certain acts of legislation over the years have begged the question: is discrimination a liberty? Essentially, can you choose who you serve at your establishment or should the government prevent any discrimination based on superficial factors such as ethnicity or sexual orientation. Another way to put it is whether or not we should have passed the Civil Rights Act. I would argue that we cannot discriminate against anyway based off of superficial factors as described earlier. Others, mainly libertarians and the religious right, argue that it infringes on freedom of religion or one’s liberty to pick who they do business with.

To address the opposing arguments, I will extrapolate on my position. Shop owners cannot deny service to somebody without a sound reason. Bigotry, racism, sexism, and homophobia are not particularly sound reasons to deny service. You need an objective reason to deny service, not a subjective one. So, when is denial of service alright? Denying service is alright if the patron is doing something that hurts your business. For example, if you own a restaurant and an individual is driving away or infuriating customers in any way you can kick him or her out and deny him or her service. He or she could be inciting violence or he or she might be in an undesirable state ( i.e. hasn’t practiced good hygiene in years) you can kick them out because it may objectively drive away or annoy customers.

Bigotry is the problem and allowing people to express their bigotry through their store does not solve the problem. Neither does covering up their bigotry with laws, however ensuring equal service to all members of society is the most beneficial outcome of the two solutions. I ask what is the benefit of allowing people to discriminate? Seeing who the bigots are in society? Hardly helpful, I don’t care about the owner’s beliefs. He could be a racist and I wouldn’t care. It might stop me from patronizing his store, but if I’m in a small rural town I wouldn’t have much of a choice would I? What If I was a black man in a small rural town with one store, and the store owner was racist and could deny me service? I’m screwed. I can’t buy anything can I?

To expand on the owner’s beliefs not mattering. If I patronize his store am I supporting his beliefs? In short, no. I don’t come to his store to support his beliefs, I come to buy his goods. His beliefs are inconsequential. It’s all about his product. I might be indirectly supporting his beliefs in some way, however unless he gives his profits to hate groups there’s no support being given. Letting him discriminate gives him the power to act on his beliefs and hurt other people, which seems to go against the non-aggression principle and the golden rule. Believing that homosexuality is a sin is a matter of free speech, but acting on that an discriminating against others should be a crime. Discrimination has actual effects while thinking something doesn’t.

To get back on point, instituting the right to discriminate does not prevent bigotry. It might put bigots out of business in less bigoted areas, such as cities, but in extremely homogeneous rural regions it won’t. Bigots will support bigots, and the right to discriminate will disenfranchise the LGBTQA. They will lose privileges as a result because guess what, it’s not whites who will be denied service it will be minorities, ethnic or otherwise. They will lose the privilege to universal service which is something to be prevented.

Instituting the right to discriminate, will not improve religious freedom. Religious freedom is being allowed to practice your religion. Now, discriminating against gays is not a major pillar of any religion. When it comes to baking cakes for same-sex marriages, why do you care? You’re baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, not embracing homosexuality. Protecting religious freedom is not the same as protecting the most disgusting portions of the Bible and covering it with a veil of religious freedom. You have an opinion, homosexuality is bad, and it’s supported by the Bible. This doesn’t mean you can discriminate.

In summary, the right to discriminate is not a right we should have. It doesn’t prevent bigotry nor does it protect religious freedom. We should protect the privilege for everyone to be served, because it is more beneficial to protect their privilege than allow the right to discriminate.

Fixing America through Reform and Effort

America was once a land in which anyone could make it big. This was called the ‘American Dream’ and it still exists today, with heavy emphasis on the dream portion. America is hurt, and contemporary policies are damaging the ‘American Dream’ and they are hurting the lower and middle class. There are a few ideas that need to be combated to fix America: corruption, inefficiency, and taxation.

Corruption is a broad term and it is relatively rampant in America. A lot of times the people’s interests do not matter, rather corporations have the politicians in their back pocket and the regulatory agencies on a leash. Corporations seem to be the executive branch, and the President and Congress their lapdogs.

Corporations lobby for their deep desires which end up being: tax cuts on the wealthy, deregulation, and corporate welfare through subsidization and contracts. This is ridiculous for obvious reasons. Firstly, tax cuts on the wealthy do not help the economy  ( I wrote something on this: https://kacperspeaks.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/tax-cuts-on-the-wealthy-do-they-create-jobs-or-increase-the-income-inequality-gap-2-2/).

Second, deregulation does help the economy grow, at the expense of economic stability and are usually to the detriment of the working class. There are good cases of deregulation, but the deregulation corporations seek are reducing restrictions on outsourcing; reducing worker safety laws,  environmental laws, etc. These are not exactly the ‘good cases’ of deregulation.

Third, subsidization and lobbying for government contracts is BS. Corporations don’t need welfare, they’re corporations, small businesses, on the other hand, maybe. Also, government contracts should go to the best company for the job, not whoever pays Congress the most.

There are two pieces of legislation that can help ease corruption: campaign finance reform, and executive appointment reform. The first one is relatively simple: limit or eliminate private financing of elections. If someone’s paid of by a private interest they have some loyalty to them so if they have only public financing they have a loyalty to the public. See organizations like Mayday PAC or Wolf PAC for more information.

Regulating executive appointments is another of these reforms that will help stop corruption. Let’s take a position like the Deputy Commissioner of Foods for the FDA. Michael R. Taylor, the current individual at that position, used to work for a law firm (King & Spalding),which had a client (Monsanto), and Michael R. Taylor was around when Monsanto decided to get a bovine growth hormone (rBST) through the RDA. Taylor let if through no problem, however rBST had a lot of problems with it and the FDA realized legalizing it was a problem. Essentially, it seemed as though Taylor had a conflict of interest, and the rBST likely wouldn’t have happened if someone not affiliated with Monsanto were in Taylor’s position.

I propose that individuals affiliated, even relatively loosely, with the industry an agency is suppose to be regulating cannot be part of that agency. In other words, a lawyer protecting corporations cannot be Attorney General, and the president of Exxon cannot be the Secretary of Energy.

Also, properly funding the regulatory agencies and giving them actual power also helps.

Inefficiency is the ineptitude of the government to get things done, and getting them done well when they do get something through. Addressing corruption, is part of it but another is addressing partisanship.

There is rampant partisanship in America. Here’s a contemporary example: Obamacare. Bob Dole’s healthcare plan and Romneycare are both similar to Obamacare. It’s likely that Republicans opposed Obamacare just because it was presented by Obama and not McCain.

Partisanship makes reform impossible as bills can only rally pass if one party has a majority in both chambers of Congress.

It’s essentially impossible to defeat partisanship. It’s deeply embedded, but I can dream.

Taxation is probably the major problem in America. Taxation in America is in the wrong places, and it started under Reagan. Less taxes on the wealthy and corporations, which slides it down to the middle and lower classes in one way or another.

Here’s an article from CNBC about corporations that pay not tax:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101917093#

Going back to my article about tax breaks on the rich, they don’t actually stimulate job growth consumers do. Tax breaks on the rich, lead to tax increases by other means to recover lost revenue. This means a possible increase in middle and lower class taxes. This increase leads to less consumer spending, which decreases business profits, and they fire workers which decreases consumer spending and the cycle continues.

Not to mention the low tax rates the wealthy and corporations pay after tax breaks is lower than the middle class and lower class tax rates. What I propose is higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and lowered middle and lower class taxes. This increase disposable income and therefore consumer spending.

Also reforming the tax code by removing all unnecessary tax breaks will help. This will likely mean starting fresh and voting on all the old tax breaks.

In conclusion, decreasing corruption through reform and regulation, tax reform, and discouraging partisanship will help America come back.

Should We take on ISIS, alone?

ISIS is a growing threat to the stability of the Middle East. Of course something should be done about it, but it’s far better to get a coalition on it rather than going at it solo. It’ll make the US look better if we get a few Islamic countries in. so it’s not the US attacking another Muslim country.

The US probably should focus on the debt rather than invading countries, but since the US destabilized Iraq we have a lot of the blame for it so we may want to help. However, we can’t go along fighting against ideas ( terrorism, extremism) rather than something a bit more tangible.  We can try to destroy terrorism, but unless we fight the base of the problem all we end up doing it destabilizing a few countries, and damaging one terrorist organization and creating another one.

Maybe we should go more isolationist rather than being the UN junior of the world solving all the world’s problems with bullets. The military should only be used to fulfill self-defense ( whether it’s our own country or an ally’s country) or something we deem necessary. The second option is something that is more or less something that the US stretches to cover wars that to the normal person don’t seem necessary at all.

Of course, we should encourage cooperation among  the power players in the Middle East so they can take care of these problems themselves, or with minimal involvement from foreign powers. This is difficult as they would need to break through hundreds of years full of sectarian divides (Sunni v Shia ). This will be a hard thing to go through, which is what Iraq has right now. The Sunnis in the West are tired of the Shia led government centered in the south, and the Kurds in the north ( who dislike the Sunnis though they are Sunnis) dislike the Shia as well and likely will break off soon. Iraq won’t be whole anymore likely.

This is all speculation on my part. So in short , US should generally not intervene with this being an exception. The Middle East should start working together as Muslims rather than as Sunnis and Shiites. The US should avoid invading Muslim countries for fun, or if they do get a coalition and a clean BS free reason.

Should we Raise the Minimum Wage?

The minimum wage is a hot topic in domestic affairs. Should we raise it or leave it? Democrats say it would reduce poverty and it can reduce federal welfare spending. Republicans say that it would decrease the employment rate. Both have a point, but I feel that it’s far better that we have independent workers that don’t rely on food stamp or medicaid to live their day to day lives. Now to illustrate how the low minimum wages cost taxpayers money let’s take Walmart, a fine institution. According to the Huffington Post, each Walmart could cost taxpayers 900 grand a year (some can cost more likely, source 1). If we take a look at Walmart’s website we can see that they have 3348 Walmart super centers in American ( Not taking account their other stores like Sam’s Club, source 2). If we multiply 3348 by 900 grand we get 3.0132 billion dollars. This is a problem, since this is just one corporation.

The Washington Post (source 3) states “Last year, a report done by researchers at Berkeley and the University of Illinois asserted that taxpayers are spending nearly $7 billion a year to supplement the wages of fast-food workers, many of whom earn the minimum wage or close to it.” The more corporations we include in the mix, the more money it costs taxpayers. It’s likely that it costs tens of billions which is rather unacceptable. Corporations destroy the working class by underpaying them to get the most profit. Then the American government has to subsidize the minimum wage worker so they can live a decent life.

Also according to the Washington Post (same article), “Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour would reduce federal food stamp spending by $4.6 billion a year, according to a report to be released Wednesday by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress.” The article also says it would reduce food stamp enrollment by 9.2 percent and that the federal minimum wage increase to 10.10 would affect 15% of the nation’s workforce. This would pull nearly a million people out of poverty.

Maybe, it would be responsible for a few hundred thousand jobs, but it may be better that we have 900 thousand independent workers than 900 thousand more people on welfare. If we raise the minimum wage we also provide middle class and lower class families with extra income to buy a new computer, or newer appliances and essentially stimulate the economy.

1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html

2) http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/our-business/locations/#/united-states

3)http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/report-minimum-wage-hike-would-cut-food-stamp-spending-by-46-billion-a-year/2014/03/04/150e4bfa-a3db-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

 

Tax Cuts on the Wealthy. Do They Create Jobs or Increase the Income Inequality Gap?

Tax cuts seem to be a main principle of conservation economics, and they don’t really work.  Tax cuts really only put money in the CEO and other higher management positions. They work far better on the middle and lower class to loosen their burden, so they can buy basic items from the stores (this actually sparks the economy, making the rich richer doesn’t). Not to mention tax cuts rarely cover all small businesses, which is a bit of a problem. Small businesses are pretty important. This is supported by Secretary Donovan speaking about ‘Small Business Saturday’ in 2013.

Donovan’s video : http://blog.hud.gov/index.php/2013/11/27/small-businesses-the-backbone-of-the-american-economy/

In the video Donovan says about half of private employees are part of small businesses, and that 64% of new jobs were created by small businesses over the last 15 years. If tax cuts were truly meant to help create jobs and spur the economy, they should cover 100% of small businesses.

Bill Harris, a Forbes contributor, wrote “First, why are tax cuts not the answer? Small businesses are the Job Creators, and the Bush tax cuts did not go to small businesses. If the top two marginal tax rates went back to pre-2001 levels, only 2.5% of small business owners would be affected, according to the Treasury Department.”

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billharris/2012/11/05/tax-cuts-dont-create-jobs/

Only 2.5% of small businesses were covered by the Bush tax cuts, yet it was suppose to create jobs. All it did was make the top figures in the Top 500 richer without really doing much to help the economy. Tax cuts can work. If you support the middle/lower class (which has probably melted into one at this point) and small businesses you can spark the economy to the largest degree. To make up  for the lost revenue tax the rich a percent or two. Possibly create an ‘entertainer’s tax’. This is a tax I’ve thought of. You tax professional athletes, actors, directors and others in the entertainment industry who make tons of money a few extra percents in addition to the increased upper-class tax. Another solution is to legalize soft drugs, prostitution and gambling. Not only do you create businesses to tax,and jobs for the unemployed, you create commodities you can tax and you take profits away from gangs.

In conclusion, tax cuts can work just not the version Republicans propose ( the Bush tax cuts). Tax cuts on the working class and small business can stimulate the economy by allowing small businesses to work easier, and it allows the working class to buy merchandise. To pay for these tax cuts you simply legalize soft drugs,prostitution, and gambling to get tax revenue, and jobs. You could also raise taxes on the rich.

Tax Cuts on the Wealthy. Do They Create Jobs or Increase the Income Inequality Gap?

Tax cuts seem to be a main principle of conservation economics, and they don’t really work.  Tax cuts really only put money in the CEO and other higher management positions. They work far better on the middle and lower class to loosen their burden, so they can buy basic items from the stores (this actually sparks the economy, making the rich richer doesn’t). Not to mention tax cuts rarely cover all small businesses, which is a bit of a problem. Small businesses are pretty important. This is supported by Secretary Donovan speaking about ‘Small Business Saturday’ in 2013.

Donovan’s video : http://blog.hud.gov/index.php/2013/11/27/small-businesses-the-backbone-of-the-american-economy/

In the video Donovan says about half of private employees are part of small businesses, and that 64% of new jobs were created by small businesses over the last 15 years. If tax cuts were truly meant to help create jobs and spur the economy, they should cover 100% of small businesses.

Bill Harris, a Forbes contributor, wrote “First, why are tax cuts not the answer? Small businesses are the Job Creators, and the Bush tax cuts did not go to small businesses. If the top two marginal tax rates went back to pre-2001 levels, only 2.5% of small business owners would be affected, according to the Treasury Department.”

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billharris/2012/11/05/tax-cuts-dont-create-jobs/

Only 2.5% of small businesses were covered by the Bush tax cuts, yet it was suppose to create jobs. All it did was make the top figures in the Top 500 richer without really doing much to help the economy. Tax cuts can work. If you support the middle/lower class (which has probably melted into one at this point) and small businesses you can spark the economy to the largest degree. To make up  for the lost revenue tax the rich a percent or two. Possibly create an ‘entertainer’s tax’. This is a tax I’ve thought of. You tax professional athletes, actors, directors and others in the entertainment industry who make tons of money a few extra percents in addition to the increased upper-class tax. Another solution is to legalize soft drugs, prostitution and gambling. Not only do you create businesses to tax,and jobs for the unemployed, you create commodities you can tax and you take profits away from gangs.

In conclusion, tax cuts can work just not the version Republicans propose ( the Bush tax cuts). Tax cuts on the working class and small business can stimulate the economy by allowing small businesses to work easier, and it allows the working class to buy merchandise. To pay for these tax cuts you simply legalize soft drugs,prostitution, and gambling to get tax revenue, and jobs. You could also raise taxes on the rich.

Why Prohibition of Marijuana Doesn’t Work.

History tells us that prohibiting something that a decent portion of the population uses , then It’s not a good idea to make something illegal or keep it illegal. Let’s use Prohibition as a representation of the failure of the War on Drugs. The War on drugs wastes money to jail users, with limited dealers in jail when cops should be breaking down the gangs. If you break the gangs by jailing leadership and destroying their revenue ( mostly drugs).

Prohibition, as well as The War on Drugs, allowed for gangs to grow. During Prohibition, the mafias of major cities ruled the alcohol trade, that the breweries lost. The government couldn’t regulate the alcohol nor could they tax the illegal alcohol. Corruption became rampant and the police and court system was overextended because of Prohibition. Prohibition just didn’t work, just like the War on Drugs doesn’t work.

Gangs, generally profit from providing services that commercial enterprises cannot. These services are prostitution, illegal drugs, stolen goods, etc. To destroy gangs you have to take out of their revenue, and prohibiting popular drugs that aren’t as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco (1), and are easy to sell because they have a large amount of users like marijuana (2 ). I’m not saying make all drugs legal, I’m saying make the popular, and not so dangerous drugs legal so gangs get less revenue, and are not able to buy more stuff. They have less influence and aren’t as powerful.

1.) http://drbenkim.com/ten-most-dangerous-drugs.html

2.)http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-us-drug-survey-marijuana-and-heroin-increasing/

Legalizing marijuana will allow the U.S. government to save money, because they don’t have to  jail marijuana users and dealers. They will get 13.7 billion dollars in revenue (3), which would be quite a bit if it weren’t for the massive deficit. It will also create marijuana shops, creating a new industry and jobs. 

3.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/economists-marijuana-legalization_n_1431840.html

There is a way to make the War on Drugs to work, it would require a change in their views. Legalize soft drugs, and provide rehabilitation to heavy users of drugs, legal, illegal, soft or hard. Put money towards educating students about drugs, whether they are illegal or not and encouraging them to research them before using them. However, this doesn’t provide easy to see results. People see the large amount of people in jail for drug offences, but they don’t see the rehabilitated drug users as easily. No matter how much better for society a self-sufficient former heavy drug user is than an inmate is for a minor crime. Jail doesn’t rehabilitate people, especially if it’s for a crime like possession of marijuana. I’m curious to read what others feel about this topic.

 

 

 

 

Same-sex Marriage. Why all the outrage?

Why do so many people object to same-sex marriage? Who are you to deny two people who love each other the right to marry? Marriage is a right given to a couple who love each other enough to say they will spend their entire lives together, not a contract between a man and a woman to spew out babies.

People seem to believe homosexuality is not natural. It is natural. Humans, part of nature, can be homosexual as can other animals. Here is an article about homosexuality in animals by Science Daily:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

Some say marriage is a child-centered contract. A man and woman can marry because they can create children. This isn’t a valid reason. What about sterile people, can they marry even though they can’t procreate? What about people who don’t want children, can they marry?

Marriage is an adult-centered contract that establishes responsibilities between those adults and between them and any kids they have (adopted or biological). It also grants them rights pertaining to the marriage, such as child custody if one of them dies and financial rights.

It can be said that same-sex marriage can be compared to interracial marriage. Interracial was not accepted in plenty of places in the United States until the mid 20th century. It was viewed in a negative light for a black and white to marry, not it’s viewed negatively for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to marry. It just so happens that in both cases the region that strongly apposed them was the South. Both had some religious base in them.

Here are some bible quotes  anti-miscegenationists ( against interracial marriage) used :  http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm

Here are some bible quotes about homosexuality. Most are against it, some just mention it.  http://christianity.about.com/od/Bible-Verses/a/Bible-Verses-Homosexuality.htm

Basically, I can see that a lot of people against same-sex marriage ( as well as anti-miscengenationists) use the Bible to justify their hate. Though, their reason, the moral one, doesn’t really mean much. I can say believing that same-sex marriage is wrong, and you can’t say that I’m wrong. Morality is really subjective, though there are rules we all agree on.

Same-sex marriage can actually benefit the society a lot. There are plenty of kids in foster care and they don’t come out as well as children with even a single parent. 

http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=40&articleid=133&sectionid=874

Same-sex marriage, allows for 2 men or women to take care of a child and take them out of the foster care system. This allows for some children to have a better life and save the taxpayers some money.

Gun Control or Violating the 2nd Amendment?

Usually, I don’t agree with Republicans on very many things but gun control has to be one of them. If someone wants a gun, and they check out well: they’re sane, and they don’t have a criminal background, they get one. People can own a gun if they please. It might provide comfort in knowing they can protect themselves and they may prevent crimes or not. Hopefully, the two sides: Democrats and Republicans, can agree that people should be able to get guns without having inhuman amounts of bureaucratic red tape in the way. There can be some red tape just not massive amounts of it.

Gun control doesn’t work. Outlaws still have guns, and law abiding citizens find it more difficult to get guns. Just as Prohibition didn’t work. It just made alcohol more difficult to get.

Assault weapons can be a point of discussion. Should people have them? It infringes on the 2nd amendment, but it is an acceptable infringement? I think people shouldn’t have ‘assault weapons’ which I’ll say are fully automatic weapons with large magazines. People don’t need them for self defense or hunting.