No Question: A Case for the Voting Rights Act

Greetings all!

This post comes just days before the so-called “sequester” in the United States, among other things. However, I have had my eye on a smaller issue that seems to have gone unnoticed among most of us. Namely, that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has received a new challenge, this time by a small county outside Birmingham, Alabama. Most Americans turn away at news of this because we feel the outcome is inevitable; section 5 will likely be upheld by the Supreme Court, and nothing will change. However, this passivity strikes me as dangerous. America was a nation built on racism, and racism is alive and well in our nation, that is clear. That we automatically accept that section 5 is under no threat proves how foolish we may be. In this post, I intend to show why our inaction on this may cost us severely. This week’s quote comes from Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, an agrarian populist president of Guatemala prior to a CIA-backed and United Fruit Company-sponsored coup against his democratically elected government.

First, we must know what section 5 states. In the Voting Rights Act, section 5 notes that 9 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia—must receive permission from the DOJ or a federal court before any state voting laws are changed. The provision was included in the law to ensure that states with a history of oppressive voting practices would comply with the new law no matter what. Of course, most of the states are primarily in the south, outside Alaska, as the south was the primary battleground of civil rights issues in the 1960s. While the north suffered from de facto segregation that it had to confront, the south legislated de jure segregation which made section 5 absolutely necessary to progress. Without it, the Voting Rights Act would have been moot because many states would find ways around the law in order to prevent minorities from voting.

The reason states challenge the law, as noted in the link earlier, is that many claim the south has “outgrown” the racist policies of its past. This is often based on population and representation statistics, in that the south is more racially diverse than its past and its state government make-up reflects these demographic changes.

However, we should know by now that these are mistruths. Having minorities in leadership positions does not a diverse government body make; what matters is how much power and equality the common minority has. If they have less in any way, no amount of representation makes up for that. Given, the south is more racially diverse and less oppressive than the past. Racially based policies are outlawed, and about 56% of African-Americans reside in the southern states. But this does not change the fact that 74.1% of Americans are white, meaning that all American minorities still do not constitute much power in governance. This is especially true of the southern states section 5 applies to; while they may have large representative amounts of African-Americans, other minorities are not represented as well in these states as compared to the rest of America.

And we should also not be foolish enough to believe that racism is not apparent in the governance of these states. While it is rare to get legislators on the state level openly proposing racist policy, racism is still reflected in socio-economic inequality between whites and minority groups. Even Fox News, the bastion of the Republican Party which absorbed racist southern Democrats after the civil rights movement, acknowledges that racism still exists in America. Racism towards African-Americans is not our only problem; we also have become less tolerant of Arabs and Muslims in exchange for more tolerance of Hispanics. Note that this does not mean that we have overcome our intolerance of Hispanics, either. This becomes especially easy to see when we consider such American policies as the war on drugs, in which blacks constitute 13% of drug users, yet also represent 38% of those arrested for drug offenses and 59% of those convicted.

It should be clear now that the arguments these southern states make for abolishing section 5 are false, and as such the Voting Rights Act in its entirety should be upheld. I contend that, because section 5 is for the good of minorities, it should in fact be extended to all states. This way, we can prevent racist policies in voting for all states. We already know that racism is not limited to these 9 states the law originally applies to; this was proven by Pennsylvania, which tried to pass new restrictive voter ID laws ahead of this year’s presidential election. Not only did this law disproportionately harm Democratic voters (and democracy), it easily targeted immigrants, the elderly, and other minority groups which were not prepared for the law. And while the law failed, the fact that such propositions are still made is symptomatic of our troubles. Therefore, we must extend section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to all states, to protect all Americans from discriminatory policies in the present and the future.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided sound reasoning. I can be contacted through the comments section here, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. I can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.  

Living By Your Means: A Case For Raising the Minimum Wage

Greetings all!

This post comes as Americans celebrate President’s Day, an agglomeration holiday meant to declare our gratitude towards our great leaders of the past. Sadly, we seem to always look backwards for an example of a great chief executive, and while not without reason this is disappointing. Much of our dislike for the office of the presidency in America has centered on our last president, George W. Bush, and the current president, Barack H. Obama. And while the former deserves every criticism thrown his way as a war criminal, neither he nor Obama is truly the worst president in American history. This is true regardless of what those on the extreme end of the GOP establishment may claim. I was particularly surprised by the outpouring of hate this week after the State of the Union address, when the president’s remarks about raising the federal minimum wage were touted as more socialist, anti-American policies intended to destroy us and our economy while attacking the very values our country was established upon. And so, in order to wash these rumors away, I’ve decided to write something in support of raising the minimum wage. This week’s quote comes from Adam Smith, an economic philosopher widely renowned for his ideas about economies and how governments should be run in order to prosper.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama noted that our economy is on the rise, but our loyalty to our workers and our treatment of labor is in decline. While saying comparatively little about unions as I had hoped, the president then pledged support for raising our federal minimum wage to nine dollars an hour. Should this be instituted, a person working full-time for 5 days a week would earn under 19,000 dollars a year, and this figure excludes holidays and other reasons for not working a few days. For a single person, this easily reaches over the federal poverty line (although it still ignores typical costs of living in America). For a family in America, however, this is still barely enough even with some small tax exemptions for those in the lower classes. In essence, it is similar to the stimulus package of 2009; it does not do enough to address the problem.

While raising the federal minimum wage to nine dollars may be small, it is still a necessary and beneficial step we can take. I would love if the minimum wage were $21.72 as it should be, but if we are going to raise wages we might as well start somewhere. Of course, raising that wage level starts at Congress, and we should hope that something which seems like common sense will at least be viewed favorably by some conservatives.

Arguments which argue against raising minimum wages are plentiful. One of the most prominent arguments tends to flow in the same “common sense” direction that raising the minimum wage does. This is a very basic economic argument which states that if employers have to raise wages for employees, they will start hiring workers less and start firing workers more to save money. It seems simple, and therefore it is easy to listen to and believe. However, economics are not quite so simple, and there are far more variables at play in a large economy than just business profits versus worker benefits. We must consider the realities of our so-called market economy if we wish to analyze what a raise in minimum wages would do to business and consumers alike.

For example, we must examine how consumption would be affected by such a raise. Obviously, we must exclude all people in the U.S. not working for the minimum wage. This still leaves about 30 million Americans as consumers on the minimum wage, when excluding those whom live in poverty above the minimum wage. So, that means we have just fewer than 10% of our population on the federal minimum wage. Now, remember that in a mixed-market economy business and trade is driven by consumption and production. This cycle is fueled by the amount of money consumers have to spend on items beyond necessities, otherwise known as disposable income. At the poverty line, disposable income does not exist; poverty is a state where wasting money on anything besides necessities is foolish. And while such spending occurs, it is fairly rare (hopefully) and does not do much to improve our economy.

By introducing a new factor like a raised minimum wage, the situation is altered. Now, there is more cash in the pockets of consumers. Undoubtedly, some of this will be put towards increased living standards, getting through bills, covering debt, etc. However, any leftover cash which does not get put towards these things only really has two uses from there on: investment and indulgence. It’s fair to say some of those experiencing this windfall of cash will invest it in retirement funds for themselves, college funds for their children, etc. But chances are that most people, when suddenly experiencing extra cash, will not make the wise forward-thinking decision of investment and will instead spend that cash on other things. People are impulsive with money, especially when there is so little to go around. And so consumption would likely rise dramatically with a wage increase for those earning the minimum wage today, thereby benefiting the economy and decreasing business incentive to cut down on employees to make profits. While paying a higher wage may be more difficult for employers on the surface, it becomes more than worthwhile in the long term.

Another common argument against the minimum wage increase is that doing so decreases a person’s incentive to work harder. This essentially compares a minimum wage increase to an automatic promotion that people do not necessarily deserve. The major problem with such a comparison is the implications it creates; do people not deserve a living wage? In what case could it be feasible to subject any person to life-long poverty? Why would any person ever deserve that kind of suffering and scraping by? It is hard to make the argument that any person making minimum wage deserves that kind of pay, even if they have a meager work ethic. The truth is that “welfare queens” do not really exist, as current American welfare programs are simply not enough to live any kind of comfortable life. We do not provide a hammock for the poor to rock in; the poor are called poor for a reason. Those in the lower classes of society do not live well, and no amount of food stamps helps enough to de-incentivize work. The same can be said of wage increases; even at $21.72 an hour, people will still always desire more than a living wage because they are greedy and envious. People want luxuries in order to make themselves feel successful and to lord these things over others. This is what capitalism breeds, so we may as well make it happen.

The only other argument I have encountered when opponents of raising the minimum wage stand up is that by requiring greater pay for workers, we take money out of company and entrepreneur pockets. If employees are not then fired to make up for lost revenue, we lose out on the private sector investment and expansion that our economy finds useful. However, this is a flimsy claim at best; private sector investments do not absolutely even have to buoy our economy if we increase public sector investment. Plus, increasing the minimum wage would not truly hurt a business unless the majority of its workers get the minimum wage. All those minimum wage employees in America do not work for one company, they work for thousands. Spread amongst the owners of these companies, the raise is not harmful. Even with some cash out of pocket, these companies and entrepreneurs will easily make up for it in new revenue through consumer spending.

That is all for this week, and I hope I have provided solid reasoning. I am still open for feedback through my email at zerospintop@live.com, as well as my Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, and Tumblr accounts. I also now have a Reddit account as well, just look for KnoFear. And this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Treating It Right: Gay Rights As Civil Rights

Greetings all!

This post comes after a brief break in posting last week which I undertook to focus on other pressing work. Fortunately, in the meantime I had a bit of an idea concerning the movement towards LGBT rights that would only be helped by an extra week for the necessary research I had to do. I’m certain that someone has already had this idea before, but that does not diminish its possible impact on American and global society. This week’s quote comes from Fidel Castro, a leader of the Cuban Revolution decades ago and head of the Cuban state for decades. I respect and admire him for keeping up one of very few nations which still has an economy that is entirely centrally planned without ever breaking from his commitment to his ideals.

LGBT rights have only slowly progressed in these last years. In America especially, it has been quite difficult to ensure equal protection under the law for those of different sexualities and gender identities. Since 2000, just eleven countries fully allow for same-sex marriage rights. Many countries deem the practice to be illegal or at least not practiced by the state, and some nations even actively fight against it through brutal means. It is not as though there is no hope; slowly but surely more American states are beginning to recognize same-sex marriage, and the speed with which some countries have recognized equal LGBT rights is promising in some ways. For example, the U.K. currently looks to be the next nation to legalize same-sex marriages after a House of Commons vote strongly in favor of the new law. It’s not often for David Cameron to support a cause typically branded by the left, so it’s somewhat doubtful this will go poorly.

And yet we continue to see hate speech and religious dogma thrown casually in America to fight against the legalization of gay marriage. We tout our hatred for gays and lesbians on our sleeves, and then claim that we fight for ridiculous notions of preserving the “sacred institution” or “definition” of marriage. And while I’d love to rant about how these notions are silly and pointless, there would not be a reason for me to repeat something I made a point of on this site in its early days. Instead, I’d like to present an idea for how we can make progress, rather than why we should. The why should be more than clear by now.

I commend us on the ways we have fought for same-sex marriage rights over the years. By challenging DOMA, holding public protests, and passing state laws legalizing the practice, we are making good progress. At the same time, it will not be enough until we have federal laws which force states to recognize the rights of all couples, whether they like it or not. A question we supporters of gay marriage rarely ask ourselves in America is why it is so difficult to get people to accept the legality of gay marriage. If we are asked this question, we would normally respond by saying it is due to a history of long-held religious prejudice and homophobia which runs deep in the American psyche, especially in the South. By now, we should not excuse the lack of progress on the opposition to ourselves; we should predict exactly what they will say and do because we know what they will say and do to fight us. We must consider that perhaps we are lacking in the strength of our fight. We must consider new ways to challenge status quo of marriage, and that is primarily what I wish to discuss.

We like to note that the fight for gay marriage is not a question of gay rights, but a question of civil rights. This is the truth, of course. However, we consistently do not match our actions with our words. The last time there was a civil rights movement in America, those fighting to change society were not doing so as quietly as we are now. The last civil rights movement we experienced was not one where those fighting to change the status quo did so by legal means. In order to ensure equal protection under the law for African-Americans, civil rights leaders staged boycotts, sit-ins, and marches to demonstrate our need for change. These actions were not legal at the time, but that did not matter to them. What mattered was the injustice done to those of color, and anything that could be done had to be done. The reason that Martin Luther King, Jr. is remembered so well and laid so thickly upon students is because of the example he set of non-violent resistance. By not advocating for riots or planning to endanger the state unnecessarily for his cause, he is touted as a man with a perfect methodology for change. He led by example, and it is time we applied his teachings and the teachings of other civil rights leaders of his time.

By this, I mean that we should not be allowing the LGBT crowd to be repressed without fighting back by necessary means. And if this means taking things to a slightly illegal measure, then so be it. When civil rights activists participated in the Greensboro sit-ins, they were not following the laws of the day. It was not legal to do what they did, yet they did not back down. We must learn to follow in their footsteps. This means that if you are a same-sex couple trying to get married and a church or other institution refuses, you must tell them that you won’t leave until they let you get married. This means that if you are a same-sex married couple that moves to a state which does not recognize your marriage, you must sue the state for your right to that marriage. This means that we should not just stand outside churches and demand equal rights, but that we should enter the churches and demand those rights face to face with our opposition. This means that our protests must be strong and large, and must not break apart when threatened by law enforcement. We must be willing to receive the business end of a fire hose, we must be willing to receive the teeth of police dogs and the harsh strikes of batons. We must be willing to be sprayed with pepper spray, just as protesters in the Occupy movement were. Most importantly, we must not sit silently by and watch ourselves be oppressed. We must follow in the footsteps of those before us, and change our society without violence. If we lead by example and put everything we have into it, we cannot fail. History is on our side this time, and this is the idea I’ve been hoping to express.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided a full explanation of my ideas. If you have feedback of any constructive kind, I encourage you to leave a comment below. Otherwise, I can be reached for contact at my email at zerospintop@live.com, as well as my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt, Steam, and Tumblr accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Legalize Condoms: Providing Simple Birth Control

Greetings all!

This post comes in the middle of harsh winter conditions for portions of the country amid several tough political debates. In this piece of commentary, I intend to address a topic not so covered by current media. Namely, I will write my opinion on the provision of Obamacare which requires that all employers provide birth control in their employee health plans. This is not to say the issue has not resurfaced; many religious groups have lobbed legal battles against the provision. I have planned to write something specifically about this for some time, and I feel now is as good a time as any. This week’s quote comes from Carl Sagan, a man who contributed more to the popularization of science and intelligent skepticism than most people on the planet, and for that I am forever grateful to him.

Moving on, the Affordable Care Act does provide an exemption from the birth control provision for religious institutions. However, in order for any employer to be considered a religious institution, it must meet four qualifying standards. These employers’ purposes must be to instill religious values in people, they must employ and serve people whom share said religious values, and they must be nonprofit groups. Unfortunately for them, most of the institutions challenging Obamacare in court do not meet these four standards, and therefore cannot opt out of the controversial coverage. While I respect that the owners and leaders of these institutions feel their freedoms are being infringed upon, there are a few things which prevent them from opting out without meeting the legal requirements already established by Obamacare.

First, I shall argue why these employers cannot deny birth control to their employees without meeting legal requirements. The first requirement in the Affordable Care Act states that the employer must be one which exists to instill religion. Therefore, a Pizza Hut cannot deny birth control because the owner is Catholic (I do not know if this is true; this is only an example). However, business owners have argued that providing said birth control infringes upon their freedom of religion, so they should not have to provide it under the freedoms guaranteed to them by the first amendment. The problem with this argument is that their religious freedoms are not the freedoms at stake here; the owners of these businesses do not have to use birth control themselves. And because they are not a religious institution, they cannot claim that the law infringes on the rights of said institution. The rights at stake here are the employees’ rights to healthcare as provided by their employers as guaranteed by Obamacare. To challenge that right given by this law is to challenge the law itself, which has already been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Essentially, the argument becomes moot because it circles to no useful end in the legal system; because there are no reasonable legal objections that can be made, the fight to remove the provision for birth control in this case cannot happen anyway.

The second and third provisions are typically tied together: the institution must employ and serve people of similar religious beliefs. To serve my points here, I’ll be using a Catholic church as my example. Let’s say you are the priest at a Catholic church; you own that church, you employ its workers, and you give sermons to your Catholic congregants. For now, we’re going to ignore all the other people a Catholic church may serve, i.e. by giving to the poor. The new law requires you to provide birth control to your employees, but you reject this. However, you cannot do this without confirming that every person you employ is a Catholic. If even one employee is not a Catholic, you cannot withhold birth control because you do not meet the legal requirements to be considered a religious institution. You may say that it infringes on your personal religious beliefs, but in truth withholding that birth control infringes on the healthcare rights of any employee of yours that is not Catholic. In fact, denying that birth control may infringe on the personal religious beliefs of your employees, in which case you cannot say that your higher position in the church means you can swing your religious weight around. The rights of your employees are equal to your rights, and the more there are of them the more ridiculous your case is.

And now comes the final requirement under the law, which states that the religious institution in question must be a nonprofit group as is codified under federal tax law. This one rarely comes under much scrutiny in America; most religious institutions like churches do fit the legal requirements to be considered a nonprofit, mostly because churches do not typically conduct commercial activities for profit. For the ones that do (say, selling candied almonds from within the building to people whether they are church members or not), they should not be considered wholly nonprofit institutions, and therefore should not be able to opt out of birth control coverage as a result. This is simpler to understand and argue for; if a religious institution is making profits off of its work, it should be able to handle providing birth control as a caveat even if the personal beliefs of the leaders at that institution conflict with providing such coverage.

My last point is one which is especially more contentious to make, in that I believe that no religious institution should be able to opt out of the birth control coverage even if it meets all four legal requirements under Obamacare. While at first glance this is because I oppose the continuous gifting of loopholes to religion in American law, there is a deeper piece to it. By giving an option to opt out to the leaders of religious institutions instead of the employees, we place greater power towards religious freedoms than we do to healthcare rights. And while the United States does not have a tradition of universal healthcare, I still hold this as a right all Americans deserve. By giving the ability to refuse this healthcare, we only obstruct the process towards providing this long overdue right to the American public. And while some may disagree on whether healthcare is a right or not, it is my firm belief that everyone has the right to a life once they've got it. Healthcare is necessary to that life, in my eyes.

That is the end of my argument, and I hope I’ve provided sound reasoning for my cause. As always, I encourage constructive criticism in the comments section. I am also open for my contact at my email of zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, Tumblr, and DeviantArt. Good night, and this is KnoFear signing off. 

Public Genocide: The Right and Responsibilities of Guns

Greetings all!

This post comes on a holiday for Americans, notably Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. The holiday also coincides with the presidential inauguration ceremonies. Today, we as Americans are intended to celebrate a man and what he did to bring us together and fight against a system which divided us so unjustly. And while the spirit of his fight lives on today, perfection is far from being realized. In particular, a debate over restrictions on firearms has reopened as of late, and it starkly points towards how separate we view things as basic as the Constitution on which we base our nation. As such, I felt it prudent to address the topic in the most useful manner: as a constitutional argument. In light of the points made by both sides of this debate, I see it necessary to present why some points are definitely wrong and some are definitely right. I will not be addressing small points of hypocrisy on either side, as I intend to avoid small issues. This week’s quote is from Mohammad Mosaddegh, one of very few democratically elected Iranian prime ministers prior to the institution of the Shah or the theocratic government we are familiar with now.

Moving on, much of the gun rights debate centers on the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The original text of the amendment is as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” While brief, the basic intention of the amendment is clear; that all Americans should have the general right to firearms as part of the Constitutional Republic we have created. The issue in contention is how liberal or restricted these rights should be. There are some cut and dry things that absolutely any sane person can agree on. First, that our gun laws should not be completely unrestricted, nor should the opposite case be true. People should not be able to have fully functioning tanks and nuclear weapons, yet people should also be able to hunt with something other than a toy water gun.

To begin, I’d like to remind all those people shouting that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees them the right to any gun they reasonably want. Yes, the Constitution does guarantee certain rights to all people in America. You have the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial by jury, and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. However, something we seem to have forgotten is that attached to each right is a responsibility. While you have a right to free speech, you have the responsibility to ensure that speech does not directly endanger others or infringe on others’ rights in any way. You have the right to a trial by jury, but you have the responsibility to show up in time and to participate in said trial in a legal manner. These responsibilities are a part of life, a part of the Constitution, and are necessary to maintain a peaceful, civil society.

This connection between rights and responsibilities exists for the use of firearms as well. You have the right to own and possess firearms, this is absolutely true. You also have the responsibility to not endanger others with those firearms, and the responsibility to not infringe on other people’s rights with those firearms. This is a key element of the right to firearms that seems to have been removed from the entire debate; the responsibilities attached to every single bullet. You may be able to hold onto a gun in public, but you cannot take it out and point it at people whenever you like. This directly endangers them, even if you do not intend to shoot them. You have the right to own a hunting rifle, but the responsibility to use it only for hunting. You have the right to own a weapon for self-defense if you feel it necessary, but you have the responsibility to prevent those weapons from being used for anything but self-defense. You must also prevent your firearms from infringing upon the rights of others. You cannot keep a person from speaking or expressing their religion with your weapons, in any way. This applies to all of society, and we must remember that.

At the center of our gun debate is how far restrictions on the right to bear arms should go. Before I get into the specifics of how far regulations should go, let me explain why there should be regulations in the first place. Most of us can quite honestly say that humanity is imperfect. We do not treat others in the purest of ways. We envy those with something we want, and when we get it we only want more. We wish horrible things upon others in vengeance, and rarely give to those who truly need or deserve it. My point is that we are unpredictable, and that given a chance one of us always does something wrong, no matter what group we are part of. Therefore, we must be willing to provide basic rules to society to prevent humanity as a group from performing actions which damage us. This is why there are laws against driving drunk, laws against killing people, etc. Laws exist because we are imperfect and we must limit ourselves to prevent awful things from happening as best we can. True, criminals will always break laws. But that is no reason to abolish those laws.

And now we come to the grueling part: how far gun restrictions should go. Guns are incredibly dangerous, and that is why it is very easy to suggest large restrictions on them. At the same time, these restrictions must not infringe on the personal right to use a gun for reasonable purposes. There are only two reasonable purposes towards owning a firearm: hunting for sport or sustenance, and self-defense. It is obvious that we must be willing to increase our support for better mental health in this nation; that is clear. What matters even more when restricting guns is keeping them out of the hands of those that can cause damage without having these issues. Any person can make mistakes, and with guns those mistakes turn deadly very quickly. And in either of the purposes for owning a gun, I will suggest that no form of semi-automatic weapon is necessary.

In hunting, semi-automatic weapons are absolutely pointless. Remember that the deer can’t shoot you back, and has no idea what a gun even is. If you can’t hit a target without multiple rounds that fire at unimaginable rates, chances are that you’re just a bad shot. Instead of forcing people to live in a world with dangerous weaponry intended to kill, in this instance it is better to learn to accept your level of skill or try to improve. Either way, the semi-automatic weapon you’ve got is just not reasonable for hunting, unless you plan on hunting down people.

Self-defense is typically considered a less clear area on semi-automatic weapons, but I cannot see why. It is reasonable to have a gun for self-defense, this I can see. If absolutely necessary, I cannot object to someone arming themselves just in case the worst happens. However, semi-automatic weapons are not meant for defense, they are intended for offense. If thirty people assault you, a semi-automatic weapon would be a great thing to have. But if you honestly expect huge groups of people to assault you, you’re just being paranoid. We do not live in a nation where huge gangs exist in every city, suburb, and rural town, just waiting for someone to walk down the street without powerful weaponry in their possession. True, crime does exist in America. However, it is not so prolific as to warrant use of weapons intended for military-style offense. I’m fairly certain most people can survive any typical assault just by owning a .44 magnum revolver.

This is all I propose for now, outside of more extensive background checks and limits on the sale and purchase of weaponry. However, I firmly believe that the elimination of semi-automatic weaponry should be our top priority, as these weapons are not intended for anything wholesome. They are intended for death.

That is the end of this, and I hope I’ve provided clear reasoning for my wishes. I am always open for contact through the comments and my email of zerospintop@live.com. I am also open for contact on my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, and DeviantArt accounts if necessary. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

A Lengthy Imagination: Debt and All of its Shackles

Greetings all!

This post concerns a topic I seem to have ignored as a singular topic; I have addressed it in a general sense, yet never directly as its own issue. Namely, debt, both on the parts of debt possessed by individuals and by nations. It seems to be something we talk about a lot, so it’s a great time to address it. This week’s quote comes from Julia Gillard, the current Prime Minister of Australia and head of the Australian Labor Party.

Moving on, debt is an omnipresent topic in both American and European political debates. The U.S. has racked up over 16 trillion dollars in debt, and many other developed nations are currently struggling with unfavorable debt-to-GDP ratios as well. This can become a huge problem on international markets because it scares off investors and buyers; having lots of debt makes people think these countries won’t be able to pay off that debt. Logically, this is sound given the current system of money changing hands in our global economy. If you can’t trust someone with money, you don’t give them money. Unfortunately, just like the “live within your means” adage, you can’t apply these principles to nations. It’s more complex than that.

This is because, as always, governments do not operate on the same levels as individuals. A person works solely for the benefit of him or herself, or a family if they so choose to. However, a government works in cycles solely for the benefit of its constituents (or at least, such is the purpose of government). Government depends on public sector workers to keep it running, and taxes to keep itself paid for. It then uses this money and work force to improve the lives of others; such is the goal of a society that is mutualistic. If a person functioned in the same manner, he or she would probably fall into deep poverty trying to provide for everyone in a matter of weeks.

Because governments function in a manner fundamentally different from the way that individuals function with money, the way that national debt is treated must be different than the way we treat personal debt. Namely, being more forgiving towards debt is an absolute necessity. Allow me to break this down further: governments are not businesses, in any sense of the word. The central difference is that a business holds its first loyalty to its executives and its shareholders; the consumers come second. Such is the nature of private companies; they seek to serve themselves and keep themselves buoyant. A government holds its first loyalty to absolutely everyone in the country; that is why holding a job for the government is considered public sector work. The government holds a direct interest in providing for the interests of the public; if it fails in this regard, the result is often protests, which if not addressed lead to revolutions and sometimes violent civil wars, for example the current Syrian Civil War. While in essence the government still serves to protect its interests of peace and security, these interests are reflected by citizens; it is rare for any populace to be hoping for war.

As such, governments do not focus solely on profits like businesses do. The sole interest of a business is to function so that profits are maximized without directly endangering the stability of the business itself. If that means firing employees and cutting benefits, so be it. If that means creating newer and better products, so be it; a business is directly tied to its own success in a monetary sense alone. Governments, however, focus on giving to citizens rather than to politicians. True, public sector workers up to legislators have salaries, but that is out of necessity; these people cannot work for free in a capitalist society. In the end, the government runs on a model which is purely intended as generous to all, and that is why debt on the part of that government must be treated differently.

I’ll present my example as Greece. Greece is a nation hobbled by the sheer act of paying off its debts; the country recently passed new tax laws in order to service its payments, even though said taxes will unreasonably punish just about everyone in the country that isn’t already in poverty. The EU and Germany have been particularly harsh on Greece, and world markets seem to shift on a dime each time a law is passed there. I’ve heard countless times that we can’t count on Greece to repay its debts, that the situation is so unstable and that is why the Eurozone is in crisis. But let’s be honest; is there anyone out there that honestly believes Greece is poor and unsustainable enough to actually not pay its debts? Does anyone actually think that Greece, a country at the center of world trade for decades, will default and fall into shambles during peacetime? The logical response is a resounding no; we should not be so ready to doubt Greece, a nation which had done fairly well for itself up until the 2008 financial crisis. However, our unreasonable fears over Greece’s ability to pay these debts leads us to shake up international markets and demand austerity from a people that grows increasingly restless over the harsh measures lorded over their heads. If we could learn to forgive these debts or extend the payments to a reasonable timeframe, we likely would not have such an enormous problem over solvency of the Euro. The same is true of Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland, all nations that have either been bailed out or are considered at risk of needing a bailout. If we don’t let our fiscal fears rule our judgments of these nations, we would see that we are causing our own distress. By exercising extra pressure on these economies, we put undue stress on nations that cannot handle it. If we ease up just a bit, I’m sure we wouldn’t be mired in such a mess.

The secondary topic of debt which I wish to address is individual debt. In this part, I wish solely to focus on Americans, so a brief apology to those international readers for not being too global on this. Anyway, we as Americans seem to have an addiction to debt, or rather an addiction to spending which puts us in debt. We consume pointless products using credit cards that we probably shouldn't have in the first place. We rack up student loan debt for colleges we weren’t prepared for and certainly couldn’t afford, even with aid. We obviously have trouble giving and receiving loans from others as a nation; we are compulsive, and rarely consider the ramifications of what we’re doing with our money. However, as with governments, forgiveness and loosening the stranglehold of debt is a viable solution.

Let me ask another question. How many of us know a person who is an absolute mooch. They take your money but never pay it back, mooch dinner off of you and friends and say they’ll “get you later,” etc. Most of us know at least one person like this, especially if you hate them (or are them). Most people would say that because people like this exist, debt should not be so easily forgiven; because there will always be moochers that need to learn a lesson about the value of money. But the thing is, for every moocher friend you have, chances are the rest of your friends are the opposite. They pay off loans quickly, they’re not routinely late on bills, etc. And the most important thing about those moochers is that they will not learn that lesson which debt is intended to teach. At that point, that lazy attitude is typically ingrained, and it’s not something that will change without serious time in jail (and anyone that suggests someone who can’t pay off their debts go to jail for years is far too harsh on soft crime). By keeping the boot of debt on people that honestly don’t deserve such treatment, we suppress the flow of money in our economy. Every payment that comes with interest is damaging our masses of consumers, and under a capitalist system it’s unsustainable.

That is all for this week, and I hope I’ve provided sound reasoning for all of my points. I can still be contacted directly through the comments here, and my email at zerospintop@live.com is always open. I am also available for contact through Facebook, Google+, DeviantArt, and Steam, so ask away as necessary. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Aggressive Apathy: The Problem of Fatalism

Greetings all!

This post comes as the first of 2013 for my blog, which has finally achieved the URL and name change I desired. While the actual name we have is temporary, the URL is final, and reflects who I am on this site best. This post will be short, but addresses an important point of politics I’ve noticed fairly often these days: apathy. People seem to have given up on politics and on governments in general, saying there is no use trying or arguing because nothing can be changed. This is a dangerous trend in my eyes.

At the core of the issue is fatalism. Many have decided that because there is so much to fight against, that no fight can ever be successful. That because societal norms haven’t changed yet, there is no use pursuing that change. This is exemplified by the people that say all politicians are corrupt, that all political parties are awful. People who denounce politics in general as a dirty business and decide to stay out of the entire process because of the negative blanket they lay over such subjects.

Initially, this would not seem like such a big problem. If some people want to opt out of it all in disgust, why make them stay, right? The problem is not when a few people do this; the problem emerges when this belief of absolute corruption and negativity spreads far enough to convince significant amounts of people to just give up on things. At that point, fewer people care to educate themselves or to participate in democracy, and the fewer participants a republic has the less success it will reap.

But how to argue against this attitude? Other than noting how inherently lazy it is, there are few ways to convince someone with such a belief set that it is worth becoming reinvested. However, there are a few things that can be said for having a little faith in government, politicians, and politics in general.

First, not all politicians are corrupt. This is such an easy thing to see. If it were true, we would be in an even greater mess than we are today. So would the rest of the planet; I seriously doubt we’d be in anything but a severe depression if all politicians were out for money and power. If entire governments were devoting themselves to such pesky inner squabbles, we would have absolutely nothing to show for ourselves in the way of progress. It can be argued that some politicians are indeed corrupt; this is obvious, and it will always inevitably occur. But deciding that because some are corrupt we should quit is just pathetic.

Second, many people seem to have lost faith in governments in general. I have encountered some that say all governments on Earth right now are corrupt and inefficient structurally, and that fighting systems so laden down already is pointless. The problem with this is that, even if it were true, giving up would mean agreeing with the corrupt systems. By rolling over and allowing such evils, these people accede to exactly that which they abhor. Any person who declares all governments corrupt or something along those lines therefore must fight against it; otherwise, they are being hypocrites in the most passive way possible. However, in the end, not all governments are corrupt in the same way that not all politicians are corrupt. Once again, if this were true, it would be more than apparent in our societies and economies by now.

The last point is the most important one, and that is the point of being apathetic politically. I have heard people say that all political viewpoints are awful, that political debate is poisonous, and that there is no point in challenging the status quo. This was exemplified when a friend of mine debated religion with me, and we got into why bad things happen to good people. He, being religious, suggested that because we cannot change god’s will there is no point in trying to change the way things are. He stated that tragedies will occur, and the best thing we can learn to do is accept them and move on with our lives. And while this philosophy is good within reason, it can be extended too far. We should be able to accept that sometimes houses will catch on fire for no good reason and people will die. We should learn to mourn the loss in these families, and then move on from things like this.

Yet we must be willing to try to change the things we have the power to change. If gender inequality persists, we must be willing to fight for the equal rights and treatment of both genders, even if it seems like societal barriers have been set up all around us. If educational inequality persists, we must be willing to make tertiary schooling easily accessible for those that deserve it rather than just those that can afford it. If economic inequality persists, we must be willing to do more to ensure that those getting the short end of the stick can make do while those with more give up a little to make things more tolerable for the rest of us. There are many things we can change if we put some effort into it; we can’t give in. We can’t stop fighting because we’re surrounded. Never lay down your principles; you lose the instant you do. As long as we fight, we don’t lose until we die.

That is all for this week, and all of my old contact sites are still intact. I encourage commenting here, or you can send emails to me at zerospintop@live.com. My Facebook, Google+, Twitter, DeviantArt, and Steam profiles are all also available for contact if necessary. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.