End Drug Violence

Want to end drug violence?  I’ve got an idea on how you can wipe out virtually all drug violence, and get it done almost overnight.  Legalize drugs.  The ONLY reason that illegal drugs are valuable is because they are illegal. If you can go down to the local CVS to get a vial of coke, or some pot then there is no reason to find some street dealer to buy from. There is no reason for that street dealer to claim territory to sell his drug.  No reason for him to contest that territory with a rival dealer.

The drug cartels go away too, if we’re growing fields of poppy in Kansas then there is no reason for people to buy opium from the drug lords in the middle east. They suddenly can’t afford to maintain their domination over local populaces. No reason to buy vast amounts of coke from some Columbian cartel when I can just get it delivered from Amazon.com. There’s suddenly no reason to smuggle drugs up from Mexico or down from Canada, no risk getting caught and shot.  No cops getting shot kicking in stash house doors, or busting street dealers.

Drug prohibition is just as backwards and ignorant as alcohol prohibition was.  I can only hope that someday we figure that out about drug prohibition and stop flushing money and lives down the drain.

New Income Tax

I’m not a big fan of the Income Tax, I think there are better ways to raise revenue and it’s similar (although to a much lesser degree) to indentured servitude.  I’m requried to work a percentage of the year for no compensation, it goes straight to the government.  And that percentage of my labor that I get no benefit from is increasing.  It doesn’t seem like we’re going to get rid of it any time soon, but maybe we could at least improve it.  I think it’s ridiculous that I have to pay more of my money to buy software or hire someone to figure out the tax code to determine how much money I have to surrender.

I would like to see us move to a simplified non-punative progressive system.  I would say that we put no tax on the low end of the income spectrum.  Perhaps take the poverty level calculations and say that income up to that amount is not taxed at all.  So lets say the first $30,000 you earn is not taxed at all.  Then from $30,000 to $100,000 is taxed at a low tax rate, just a flat 2% to pull a number out of thin air.  So it’s not that you break into a new tax bracket at $30,001 income and suddenly owe 2% of your entire income.  Instead  you just begin to pay tax on that income, so you’d owe 2% of that $1 and nothing on the $30,000.  Then you slowly increase the percentage tax as the income brackets go up, say 3% on $100,000 to $250,000 then 5% on $250,000 to $500,000.  I don’t know what the numbers should be, but I think we could figure something out.  Keep it simple no loopholes or shelters or anything.  Although I’d be all for a complete exemption for any and all forms of education, just don’t count any of that money towards income.

The benefit of this system is that there isn’t any punishment for increasing your income.  It gives huge benefit to those at the lower end of the income spectrum, allowing them to keep that money that will help them the most.  For those who begin to make more they don’t have to worry that they’ll hit a higher tax bracket and make it harder to maintain what they had before.  You’ll never make less because you earn more.

Banning new substances because of YouTube?

So now the government is trying to ban Salvia because of a bunch of YouTube videos of people taking it and acting like jackasses.

“When you see it, well, it sure makes a believer out of you,” said Representative Charles Anderson of Waco, a Republican state lawmaker who is sponsoring one of several bills to ban salvia in Texas.

How about this, for every YouTube video of some idiot taking Salvia and acting stupid I’ll find you two videos of some idiot getting drunk and acting stupid.  Hell for every Salvia video I’ll find you one of somebody not taking anything and still acting stupid.  It’s not the drugs, it’s not the booze, there are just a bunch of stupid people out there.  Banning this stuff isn’t going to fix that.  It’s just going to create more criminals and another black market for organized crime to tap into.

He also told his colleagues about a video that depicts a salvia user behind the wheel of a car. (In fact, that video, “Driving on Salvia,” is one in a series of popular parodies …) … “What we really worry about,” Mr. Anderson said at the hearing, “is youngsters doing this and then getting in a vehicle or getting on a motorcycle or jumping in a pool somewhere.”

How about as an alternative to banning this substance we instead teach the youngsters that it’s stupid and dangerous to operate said vehicle while impaired.  We could also try explaining the risks to them.  If they are old enough to be operating vehicles then they should be able to comprehend the risks.  Tell them that while you may not want them experimenting with these drugs, if they do they need to be careful.  Don’t go driving, don’t start playing with weapons or matches, don’t go hang out by the pool.  Trying to protect them by just banning these substances isn’t going to help.  In fact it’s going to leave them ill prepared to recognize and evaluate risks throughout their lives.

Mike Huckawas

This has got to be the end of Mike Huckabee’s campaign. When asked in the debate tonight about the recent events in the Strait of Hormuz Huckabee gave one scary response. “I think we need to make it very clear, not just ot the Iranians, but to anybody. That if you think are going to engage the United military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared first to put your sights on the American vessel, and then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of hell, for that is exactly what you will see after that.” Are you kidding me? Forget whether we were really threatened there, and if that threat came from the Iranian military or not. He’s really saying that those who put an American vessel in their sights are going to be killed and they’re going to hell? He’s saying we’re the righteous ones and those who oppose us are of the devil and going to hell when we smite them?

I don’t have a problem with a person of faith being in the office of the Presidency, regardless of what particular religion they ascribe to. As long as that person is able to separate their personal beliefs from what the role of the federal government is. I definitely won’t accept the type of rhetoric that paints us as the righteous and those opposed to our policies as wicked. Saying put our ships in your sights and we’ll send you straight to hell is scary as hell.

Then every candidate while agreeing that the commander made the right decision and they should be the ones to make those decisions. But then they all go on to spout more rhetoric and ramp up the “Iran is dangerous” line. In spite of Ron Paul’s mention that earlier today the Navy commander announced that maybe the voice on the radio talking about ships blowing up might not have come from those speedboats after all. So how do they justify using the incident to ramp up the aggression.

Ron Paul is predictable, and I LOVE it.

I consider Ron Paul to be one of the most predictable candidates ever to run for President, and I love that about him. If you were to give me any scenario or possible legislation, I think I can predict with 80-90% accuracy what his position on the subject would be. Can you say that about your candidate? I can’t describe how refreshing that is, and how much it helps when campaigning on his behalf.

I am not saying that I can predict what Dr. Paul’s personal feelings on the subject might be, but the great thing is that I don’t have to. All I need is a copy of the Constitution and I can determine what his position will be. Because he understands the basic tenet of liberty, that just because I would choose a certain way does not mean that I have any right to make you choose that way. The Constitution spells out exactly what powers the federal government has. In most instances where I don’t guess correctly it’ll probably be because he has some other Constitution reason I had not thought of to say so.

That is just another of the reasons that I have chosen to participate to this much greater degree in the electoral process. Every election I have been aware of I was hoping someone would be saying the things that Ron Paul is saying now. But they never would. I’m looking for complete and total honesty and openness. Like the live ticker on his site showing how much he has raised. Like his willingness to state what his true position is and how the Constitution brought him to that position. You will often hear the other candidates embracing the Constitution on a topic when it lines up with the popular position. But when the Constitution gets in the way of their popular position it’s suddenly out of date and quaint. You don’t get that response from Ron Paul.