Minister Malcolm X: The Last Speech

Source:FreeState Now

The fact that Malcolm X that gave this last speech talking about racial equality and individual freedom for everyone, wasn’t the Malcolm X that first came onto the scene in America who did have racial tendencies. Who used racial slurs against Caucasian-Americans, because Malcolm X being the intelligent man that he was got educated about Caucasian-Americans. And no longer saw all Caucasians as racists or what he called ‘white-devils’. 

Malcolm X goes from a smart man as far as intelligence and the ability to learn, but someone who was highly ignorant about the outside world that he grew up in. And not familiar with people outside of his community in the late 1950s and even into the early 1960s . Someone who believe in separation, that African and Caucasian-Americans should live separately. To someone now speaking the message of tolerance and inclusion in the last years of his life.

Mises Daily: Anthony Gregory: The Real Liberal Heritage

by Ederik Schneider

Source:FreeState Now

A lot of Americans when they think of Liberalism and Liberals, they probably tend to think of people who believe in a big state in the form of the federal government that collects a lot of taxes. Because these so called Liberals do not trust the states and individuals to make their own decisions wisely. And that the Federal Government would spend those resources better than the states or individuals. And that we need a big state and high taxes to have as just of a society as possible so no American is left behind. 

As a Liberal myself I can tell you there’s nothing liberal in what I just wrote there. But what I just wrote there is what social democratic parties in Europe or the New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Social-Democratic Party, or what Social Democrats in America tend to believe people we tend to call Progressives. Who build their political philosophy around what government can do for the people. Rather than what can the people do for themselves if they just have the opportunity to do so.

A lot of Americans when they tend to think of Liberals, tend to think of MSNBC and its lineup and hosts and guests. Other than maybe Chris Matthews, as a Liberal I do not recognize a single Liberal on that network. Occasionally they’ll have a liberal guest like Dick Durbin the Assistant Leader in the U.S. Senate. But generally that network tends to showcase people as far to the left as Ralph Nader or Michael Moore or Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. 

Current and former Progressive members of Congress and todays so-called progressive-activists. MSNBC represents the Green Party, the Democratic Socialist Party and the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party. And in a lot of cases so-called Progressive Democrats who are only in the Democratic Party to have a major voice in a leftist party. But most of the money in the Liberal Democratic Party as you could call it, is raised by and for Liberal Democrats to keep them in power and elect them to office. With Progressives trying to get what’s left.

To actually get to what Liberalism is and why I’m a Liberal. Liberalism is about the individual and protecting the individuals freedom to be able to make their own decisions and choices. Both from an economic and personal point of view. Not putting so many restrictions on them so they can’t make bad decisions at all. Which is what you tend to get from both the Far-Right and Far-Left in America.  

Its not the job of government to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from those who would do us harm which is different. That if you put all of the information out there, people by in large will make the right decisions regarding their own personal and financial lives if we are all educated with all of the good information and facts as possible. Which is why we should subsidize success and freedom and not try to stop people from making bad decisions. Just try to stop and punish people who hurt the innocent.

Liberals are not anti-government, which is what todays Libertarians tend to sound like. But we are also not pro-government, which is what todays Progressives sound like. We have a healthy skepticism of what government can do for us better than what we can do for ourselves. Which is why we want government limited to only doing the things that we need it to do. We even believe that government should help the disadvantage in society. But empower them to be independent and be able to take care of themselves. Rather than making and keeping people dependent on government for their financial well- being.

CBS News: 60 Minute Special: Mike Wallace, Pelican Bay State Prison

Source:FreeState Now

Pelican Bay State Prison houses some of the worst criminals in California. Which means some of the worst in the United States as well when you have cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and other large cities with crime problems. But that doesn’t mean these people should be treated like animals either. And if you look at their solitary confinement unit that is essentially how those inmates are treated locked in a cage twenty-three hours a day or more. 

Inmates with nothing to do all day, but stare at walls, perhaps try to sleep and then be given what is called food. Stuff that you might serve animals instead that doesn’t fill adult men up for the most part without enough to eat. When you treat people like animals especially a violent criminal population that you see in a Pelican Bay, that is exactly what you are going to get animal behavior from people who’ve hurt and killed people in the past. 

Violent felons who won’t hesitate to hurt innocent people again in the future if they feel threatened. Because this is what they know and what they do and haven't been given help to deal with their violent anger. Which is my main problem with Pelican Bay because it makes its violent population even worst. Rather than working to improve the behavior of these inmates.

TruthOut: Laurie Jo Reynolds & Stephen F. Eisenson: Tamms is Torture

Source:FreeState Now

I’m not against solitary-confinement by itself because  inmates who represent a serious threat to staff as well as other inmates and at times to themselves and because of this must be isolated until they not longer represent that threat to the prison. Prisons can’t function at all when there are inmates who are simply looking to hurt other inmates or have scores to settle and so-forth.  

And inmates simply can’t rehabilitate themselves under those conditions especially if they have out of control tempers. But isolation by itself even 20-24 hours a day does not rehabilitate inmates so they can function in general population. Especially if you make it torture for them with nothing to do all day, but to look at walls and build up anger and frustration about being in there without enough food to eat and so-forth without even having any reading material or being able to write letters. 

Isolated inmates with just their toilet, basic supplies like toothpaste and that sorta of thing, but nothing constructive for them to do with their time. An environment in a bare cell like that is torture. Solitary-confinement should be just like any other unit in prison. A place where inmates go for rehabilitation and to get better. Not be tortured and to get worst and you do that through not isolating anger-management issue inmates let’s say in 23-24 hour a day bare cells. But you put them in a cell where they can have constructive things that they can do to keep themselves busy. 

Inmates should have things like reading and writing materials, music, visits even so their families can see the condition of their relatives in prison and most importantly professional help doctors that can help them get their behavioral issues under control so they can leave isolation. And not be stuck there for years or decades like for some inmates and where isolation is a place like a penalty box to use a hockey analogy where inmates go when they commit a penalty, but then they come back. And if these things to do not work for inmates, then maybe the inmate has some type of mental condition. And prison is not the right place for them.

Isolation units by themselves are not a bad idea. I’m not one of these Neo-Leftists that emerged from the 1960s and 70s who's anti-authority. I’m a Liberal who lives in the real world and understands that responsible authority is a necessary thing for everyone to be able to live in freedom. But when isolation cells become torture, then you are just making the situation worst for the inmate, the staff and the prison which is something that needs to be fixed.

Sky News: Should an Independent Scotland Be Allowed To Keep the Pound?

Source:FreeState Now  

A Federalist Union might be the only way to save the United Kingdom in Britain. Where each of these British states would have autonomy and the freedom to govern their own domestic affairs while the British Federal Government would handle national security, foreign policy, homeland security, interstate commerce and law enforcement. But where Scotland, England, Wales and North Ireland would be left with the domestic affairs of their own states. 

With a Federalist Union in Britain, Britain would be saved as a unified country. The socialist state even would still be in place it is just that the British states (for lack of a better term) would be left with the governing when it comes to their socialist systems of their own domestic affairs and be able to manage those programs and systems for their own state. But the British welfare state and the taxes to fund it would still be there, but carried out by the states themselves in their own states.

Scotland, England, Wales and North Ireland are all better off being part of the same national union. But even Socialists in each of these own states would like to see more autonomy and freedom over their own affairs and Scotland is as socialist as anyone in the United Kingdom. Is a perfect example of that and would allow the United Kingdom to stay in place. Because each of these states would be able to govern themselves inside of this Federal Union.

Reason: How Medicaid & ObamaCare Hurts the Poor

Source:FreeState Now

It’s not that we have a Federal health insurance program for the poor that’s the problem. But how it’s setup and run that is the problem because Medicaid was never setup to be run affordably and efficiently. The idea of Medicaid is that "we are going to have free health insurance for the people who are on Medicaid. With the states, doctors, hospitals and clinics having to figure out how to pay for most of it with the Feds not chipping in much". 

And what the states, doctors, hospitals and clinics are saying is that "we can’t afford that we need to be compensated for the healthcare that we deliver. Otherwise we are not going to be able to deliver it because we have our own bills to pay". Medicaid along with Medicare were setup in 1965, the difference being that Medicare was setup with a direct revenue source and increase in the payroll tax. Medicaid has never had that, it’s had to come out of general revenue from the Feds and states and what the Feds have basically said is that. "We do have the money for it" and have past the costs down to the states, hospitals, clinics and doctors.

So the way to fix Medicaid is to make self-financed with it’s own revenue source. And we could do that by having Medicaid be paid for by its customers like all other health insurance plans. Including Medicare so workers would pay for a portion of their Medicaid insurance, along with their employers. With these low-income workers being eligible for a tax credit at the end of the year. And people who are unemployed would get an additional payment to pay for their Medicaid. 

As well as giving Medicaid patients an option to choose another health insurance plan with their Medicaid dollars, but they wouldn’t be forced to and we would see less people taking Medicaid for another plan. And then I would do what’s called in Washington, block-grant Medicaid to the states for them to run under a couple conditions. That anyone eligible for Medicaid would have the option of taking Medicaid and getting that health insurance. And that their Medicaid dollars could only be used to pay for Medicaid.

The concept of Medicaid is sound so that even low-income workers can have access to health insurance and health care in America. But the way it was setup and run has created a hole for the states, hospitals, clinics and doctors to fill. And what they are saying is that "we can no longer afford to fill that hole" and as a result Medicaid patients are now getting stuck without having health insurance. Something by law they are eligible to have

CATO: Ilya Shapiro: ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion Violates Federalism

Source:FreeState Now

by Ederik SchneiderCATO: Blog: Ilya Shapiro: ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion Violates Federalism To say the 2010 Affordable Care Act is not perfect, would be like saying mud is dirty or concrete is hard. Whether you support the 2010 ACA and would’ve voted for it in Congress or not. Or signed it as President or not, your idea of Healthcare Reform. Including my own, would be different. I have my own issues with the ACA, I would’ve like to see a Public Option. That wasn’t run by the Federal Government in the ACA. Which is what was in the Democratic House bill and the original Democratic Senate bill.  

I would’ve gone farther to bring down healthcare costs with things like preventive care, taxing junk food and drink, getting junk food and drink out of public schools, encouraging people to eat healthy and exercise, mandatory physical education K-12 and other things. And I certainly didn’t like the Medicaid expansion that was in the ACA that wasn’t paid for. And thats what I”m going to blog about.

Medicaid was set up in 1965 as part of the LBJ Great Society. To provide Health Insurance for low-income people who can’t afford it, sounds noble enough right. And that the Federal along with state governments would provide the funds to pay for it, another Federal mandate on the states. One problem with Medicaid has been the Feds haven’t lived up to their share of the costs of Medicaid that they wrote in their own law and as the cost of health care in America has gone up. 

Health care costs have gone up since Medicaid was created in 1965, so has the States Medicaid costs. But the Federal Government, has not only not paid for their share of what they originally said they would pay for, but of course they haven’t been providing the funds to pay for the new Medicaid costs that the states have picked up as well. Which have been made worse the last ten years with state revenue shrinking with a couple of recessions and everything else.

What I would like to do with Medicaid is take it off both the Federal and state budgets. Allow each State to have their own Medicaid as well as healthcare system. And then turn Medicaid into a semi-private non-profit health insurer. With each State having their own version of Medicaid. And make Medicaid self-financed as well by their customers and employers, Unemployed workers would get an additional tax credit to go along with their public assistance check to cover their Medicaid insurance. 

low-income workers would pay for part of their Medicaid insurance. And their employer would cover the other part. And both the workers and employers would be eligible for a tax credit to cover that. And you could pay for that out of corporate welfare. As well as workers and employers could use that tax credit and opt out of Medicaid for private health insurance.

I got this rule that I like to use in life, before you create a new mess, clean up your first mess. Which is how I would describe Medicaid. Its a Financial Mess, that no one wants to pay for. Because the money isn’t there, it has to come out of general revenue. And takes money out of other priorities. So before you expand something like that, you should first fix it.

Los Angeles Times: David G. Savage & Noam N. Levey: Medicaid Could be in U.S. Supreme Court's Sights

Source:FreeState Now

Los Angeles Times: Healing Medi-Cal: Let California Have Medi-Cal

Source:FreeState Now

A lot of states are swamped in deficit and debt thanks to high unemployment. With a lot less people working and paying taxes as we had four years ago. And instead of working and paying taxes, they are instead consuming more public services. Paid for by less tax revenue, California being a perfect example of this. Medicaid was already set up in the 1960s as an unfunded mandate that has to come out of general revenue. 

Unfunded mandates makes it even harder to pay for Medicaid. And when we have less people working and more poor people in the country Medicaid or Medi-Cal as its called in California becomes even harder to pay for, especially with the Federal Government Continuing to pass down regulations without the funds to pay for them. The way to fix Medicaid not just for California, but every other state, there are a few of ways.  

One let each State have Medicaid to run. Each State would have its own version of Medicaid. Which would help make Medicaid self-financed, that would be paid for by its consumers and their employees. Unemployed workers would get a tax credit provided by the Federal Government to cover their health care costs and employers would get a tax credit from the Feds to cover their Medicaid costs. 

Two instead of even having the states run Medicaid, convert each Medicaid into a semi-private non-profit self-financed health insurer that provides health insurance for low-income people.  And let the States, Feds and locals regulate these health insurers instead. 

Medicaid wasn’t set up to be efficient or cost-effective. But to provide health insurance for people who couldn’t get it any other way. Which it has done for the most part, but it needs to be reformed. To make it cost-effective, especially when budgets are tight for everyone. 

Democracy Now: Kevin Phillips on Roots of American Revolution, Future of American Politics

Source:FreeState Now

When you think of the United States of America, you think of a government that has separation of powers and checks and balances. And why is that, because the United States was founded on the notions that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because America broke away from the United Kingdom of Britain. That had a king who was essentially a dictator and Americans for the most part are suspicious of centralized power. And having so much power in the hands of one government. One branch of government and most importantly, one person like a dictator. Whatever the title of the dictator is. We are a constitutional federal republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We are governed by our Constitution. Not by a Bible, or any other religious book. Which are some of the differences between a liberal democracy like America and a Theocracy like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Because we are a liberal democracy, Americans have a lot of freedom and responsibility. Including a constitutional right to practice religion, any religion we want to practice. We also have the freedom not to practice religion if we choose to. But because we are a liberal democracy, we are not governed by religion. But our Constitution which is one thing that makes us different from Iran. We don’t have a central government religious, or otherwise, telling us what we can have and can’t have and how much of it that we can have. With a central government responsible for seeing that we get what we need and how much of that we can get. The Far-Right of the Republican Party, the Christian-Right, doesn’t like the Islamic Republic of Iran. But they like at least certain parts of their system. That their government is governed by religious views and policy. And would bring that to America, if only they could.

But again, what makes America better and different from Iran, or at least one thing, is that we aren’t govern by religion. Because our Religious, or Theocratic-Right, simply doesn’t have the numbers that it has in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or several other countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, was successful in bringing the South to the Republican Party and with it the Religious-Right. And people who want Christianity to become the official religion of the United States and for us to be governed by their views of the Bible and everything else. But again, the Religious-Right, is a large faction of one political party. That is losing numbers in the country and perhaps even in the GOP. Especially with the GOP’s growing Conservative Libertarian wing. And Christian Conservatives, will never have the success n America, that the Islamists had in Iran.

David Moon: Maryland Juice Asks Attorney General Doug Gansler to Address War on Drugs & Marijuana Arrest Disparities

Source:FreeState Now 

Maryland is going through what I call a political transformation if not revolution right now. And truly moving towards becoming the Free State that we are proud to call ourselves and living up to those liberal democratic values. By legalizing gambling and same-sex marriage the last few years, as well as cutting taxes. And giving Marylanders more choice and opportunity with how they lives their own lives real freedom of choice. 

While Maryland still leads the country in education and being one of the wealthiest if not wealthiest states in the union. At least on a per-capita-income basis as far as what money people have to spend. And marijuana will be next in Maryland and it is not addressed by the State Assembly next year, it will at least be an issues that all Maryland candidates for governor including Attorney General Doug Gansler will have to deal with one way or the other especially if they want Liberals to support them. 

Because the War on Drugs is very unpopular right now and Maryland is no exception to that. Young Americans Right and Left are looking for new answers and policies in how we address drugs in this country especially illegal drugs. So much so that both decriminalization and legalization of marijuana are very popular with young Americans. And now more than half of all Americans support that as well.

Democracy Now: Gloria Richardson Looks Back at the Rift Between Malcolm X & Martin L. King

Source:FreeState Now 

I believe the main difference between Malcolm X and Dr. King had to do with different approaches. Dr. King’s approach was slower because it involved more people, more negotiating and was completely non-violent. But at the end of the say it was the only one that worked or could work. Otherwise the members of the movement would’ve been portrayed as thugs, criminals and terrorists by the media. 

No serious politician with serious power would’ve worked with people seen as thugs and criminals. Malcolm X’s approach was more combative. That Africans have been in America for three-hundred years and should’ve gotten that freedom three-hundred years ago and "we are mad as hell and want our freedom now". Which is certainly understandable, but it would’ve never worked had the members of the movement used violence even just to defend themselves.

Bat Man: 60 Minutes, Corcoran State Prison (1997)

Source:FreeState Now

This is about the gladiator fights that went on at Corcoran State Prison in the California in the early and mid 1990s. That were run by Corcoran guards and set up by them. Where guards there would find inmates who didn’t like each other, or perhaps didn’t even know each other, to fight each other. And I believe put money on the fights that the inmates wouldn’t see a dime of. What happened at Corcoran is just another example of prison slave labor and perhaps the prison industrial complex as a whole. Where inmates are exploited for profits by corporations who make money from taxpayers and the inmates.

I’ve seen the MSNBC Lockup documentary on Corcoran and I’ve seen other shows about Corcoran. And to me at least it looks like a fairly efficient prison. Where some of the worst and most violent and probably evil prison inmates and criminals in America, are serving their time at Corcoran. And lot of them are their for life and doing sentences close to that. And yet what I’ve seen at least Corcoran looks like a fairly well run prison. Especially considering how tight their budget is and the lack of resources that California puts into Corcoran and how understaffed they are. And yet they generally do a pretty good job. But those gladiator fights did happen there.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman: Poverty and Equality

Source:FreeState Now

The fact is, if you live in poverty, you don’t live in freedom, but you live in poverty. If you don’t have the freedom to live your own life and are dependent on others for your economic well-being, whether it is public assistance, or individuals who’ve voluntarily taken care of you, you don’t have the freedom to live your own life. Because you are dependent on others. And for people who are in poverty to have the freedom to live their own life, they need the tools to escape poverty and live in freedom. I agree with Milton, that people and the private sector do have the responsibility to help people in need be able to get on their own feet and help them pay their bills in the short-term as well.

But where I disagree with Milton, well on a couple of things, actually. Government, is not just buildings, but the people who work in those buildings. And also the people who send those people to the government buildings to work for them. Meaning the voters. But where I also disagree with Milton has to do with government and poverty. Government, at least in America, doesn’t have the responsibility to take care of physically and mentally able people who are capable of working full-time. But for whatever the reasons do not have the skills to get themselves the jobs that will allow for them to take care of themselves. But government, does have a responsibility to see that people who are down first get what they need to help them get by in the short-term. But also to help them get themselves on their own two feet. That comes from economic development in low-income communities. But also education and job training for those people as well. So they can get themselves a good job and get themselves out of poverty all together.

The reason why government has this responsibility, because it is responsible for the country. Not to take care of everyone and manage their lives for them. But to see that everyone has the opportunity to do well in America. So the economy can be as strong as possible. With as many workers as possible, but also as many productive workers as possible. Who have what they need to do well in this country. And capitalism and private enterprise is a great thing in America. But if you don’t have the skills you need to do well, you’re not going to do well in that system. And for those people government has a role to see that no none goes without. A long with the private sector, especially non-profit charities, but also to see that the resources are available for the people who’ve been left behind can get themselves on their own two feet.

Liberty Underground: Garry Johnson on Individual Freedom

Source:FreeState Now

The fight to preserve individual liberty shall always go on. As long as there are statists on the Far-Right and Far-Left in America trying to take our freedom away.Freedom of choice I believe is the best way to look at freedom and I mean individual freedom. Should people have the right to make their own decisions over their own personal and economic affairs or not. And if they have the right should they also be held personally responsible for their own decisions for good and bad or not. My answer and Gary Johnson’s answers to both questions is of course yes.

The freedom for people to control their own lives and then be held personally responsible for their own decisions over their own lives for good and bad. Not the freedom to hurt innocent people intentionally or otherwise, but the freedom to chart their own course in life. And to have their basic constitutional rights responsibly enforces and enforced equally for everyone. That the job of government is to protect the innocent from predators who would hurt them. Not to try to run their lives for them and try to protect them from themselves either from a personal or economic standpoint.

That is what Gary Johnson argues and has argued his entire political career at least as long as I’ve heard of him going back to the late 1990s when he was Governor of New Mexico. The ability for free people to make free choices and then be held accountable for the decisions that they make. And perhaps where I would disagree with Governor Johnson is that government has a role to educate people on potential choices that they might make. As well as regulate these activities to protect the innocent from predators. Not to run these activities or try to prohibit them. But make sure that they are as safe and as responsible as possible.

Liberty Pen: Martha Burk: The Gender Pay Gap

Source:FreeState Now

The gender pay gap is only a real issue as far a concern, if men are being paid more simply because they are men. That if employers pay their male employees more money simply, because they are male and not female. Because of course that would be real gender discrimination. But if men are paid more because they tend to work jobs that pay more than jobs that women tend to work, that of course that is not gender discrimination, but is called capitalism and the private market. If women were simply being paid less because they were women and employers decided to pay their male employees more than their female employees, then there would be a national scandal. And all sorts of civil rights lawsuits would be filed and it would be all over the news.

Men and women should be paid and generally are for the work that they do. If men and women are literally working the same jobs with the same experience and have been with the company the same period, but the man or women is doing a better job than the other and gets a bigger raise, or gets a raise while the other doesn’t, then how is that unfair. That is how private enterprise works. People get paid for the work that they do. It would be anti-business and a bad business practice to pay employees male, or female, just because of their gender. Especially if they are less productive and it would also send a bad message. Because you would be telling the mediocre employee that they can make more money by being mediocre. And telling the productive employee that doing a good or great job won’t make them more money.

Talking Points Memo: Joe Scarborough, FOX News. MSNBC, Exactly the Same

Source:FreeState Now

Joe Scarborough is right in the sense that MSNBC prime time and Fox News both represent political perspectives in America. They are both mouthpieces for different ideological movements in the country. Fox News is essentially the official voice for the right-wing in America and MSNBC prime time at least represents a part of the Left in America, I would argue the Far-Left at least with their prime time talk shows. Rather than both being networks for people to go to who are just looking for the news and what is going on in the country and around the world. 

CNN represents the mushy middle, people who don't know what they think and to a certain extent equal balance and they bring on people from both sides. But generally smart sane people on both sides, people who don't look like they are on medication from some shrink or need to be or perhaps even need to be committed. Unlike FNC and MSNBC that a lot of times shows you what the nut houses on the Left and Right are thinking. And bring in escaped mental patients to show you those perspectives, or people that should be committed. 

I mean if you are someone who is truly interested in news and people who just give you that and then brings in experts who are truly that and know what they are talking about and gives those perspectives based on old fashion things like facts and personal experience, things that might not be considered awesome by today's young people and hyper partisans, then CNN is still the best place for that. As well as the network news shows, as well as C-SPAN and perhaps Bloomberg. 

Solitary Watch: Pat Nolan on Prison Fellowships

Source:FreeState Now

Former Nixon White House Counsel Chuck Colson, after he got out of prison in I believe the mid 1970s due to Watergate, started a prison fellowship program to prepare prison inmates for life on the outside. Both while they are still prison, but for ex-offenders who’ve already been released from prison. Something our prisons should be doing today, but aren’t for the most part. Which is why we have so many ex-offenders who return to prison.

If you operate a prison, then you’re doing it at taxpayer expense. Even if it is a private prison and with tax dollars being so precious and limited, the idea should be to get the best investment possible for those limited tax dollars that for the most part come from hardworking taxpayers. So if you’re going to have so many people in prison at the same time, how about give them incentive to improve their lives while in prison. But also so when they get out of prison, which most American inmates do. So they don’t come back to prison again.

The O’Reilly Factor: Ethan Nadelmann & Bill O’Reilly Debate The War on Drugs

Source:FreeState Now

One of the reasons why the War on Drugs does not work. Is because its contradictory, because it tries to protect people from themselves. But then sends people to places jails and prisons that are worst for them than marijuana supposedly for their own good. A lot of government laws are reactive and contradictory. People get sanctioned after the fact. And the punishment for their supposed crime is worst in many cases than the actual crime itself. Like doing 3-5 years in prison for simply possessing, or selling marijuana.

Or selling marijuana, even to a sober competent adult who just happens to want marijuana. Americans by in large know that the War on Drugs simply does not work. They know why their taxes are high, because they are being forced to subsidize people who could take care of themselves on the outside. And it’s really just the big government Neoconservatives and paternalistic Progressives, who if they could would outlaw anything that is not healthy for people, who haven’t figured out the so-called War on Drugs doesn’t work and we need a new policy and policies in how we deal with narcotics in America.

Advocates for marijuana legalization and ending the so-called War on Drugs, are not calling for marijuana legalization, because they think that we should all get high. And always throw caution to the wind and that everyone should not only be on marijuana, but use it all the time. What we tend to say is that we’re talking about a drug that has similar side-effects as alcohol. And throwing people in jail for using a drug that has similar effects as alcohol, is not a good use of taxpayer resources. Especially when the economy is slow and government budgets are tight to begin with. And when marijuana legalization would be a benefit both to the economy and with tax revenue.

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman: The Free Lunch Myth

Source:FreeState Now

The fact is there is no free lunch from government. Even if you are technically receiving services for free like in public assistance, that is for anyone working and gets paid to work, because anyone who works pays taxes to finance some government service. We just pay for these services in taxes, and not paying for them out-of-pocket, or with a credit card at a store. Or buying those products online. Anytime you hear a politician, or political candidate say that they can give you this service for free, or that government should provide these services for free, ask them how much it will cost you.

They’ll probably say free, but then you should say, “if this service will be free, how is it paid for?” And they’ll from this tax, or that tax, or creating a new tax. And then you should say directly and not as a question, “so this service won’t be free, because I’ll be paying for it in new taxes, or a new tax increase. Or this service will be cut to pay for this new service.” And the politician, or candidate might still say, “no. You’re not going to pay for this new program in taxes. Business’s will, or wealthy people will.” Well, they’s still be wrong. Because every time you increase the cost of doing business, the consumers end up paying for that new cost. Business’s, are for-profit and aren’t patriotic enough generally to say, “look, we know our government needs to do this and we’ll be happy to pay for it ourselves.” So, you increases taxes on business’s and the consumer will end pay for that new tax increase, or at least part of it.