Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Kevin Aguirre: Video: FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor: Ethan Nadelmann & Bill O’Reilly Debate The War on Drugs

Kevin Aguirre: Video: FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor: Ethan Nadelmann & Bill O'Reilly Debate The War on Drugs

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.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- The Free Lunch Myth

Source: Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Now Plus

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.
Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman- The Free Lunch Myth

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Global African Code: Video: Malcolm X: American-Afrikan Identity Politics- 1964 NY News Conference

Black Power Leader
Global African Code: Video: Malcolm X: American-Afrikan Identity Politics- 1964 NY News Conference

This is part of the brilliance of Malcolm X which was his downright honesty and ability to tell the truth. That you can’t talk about racism around the world and leave the United States the number one superpower in the world and number one economic power in the world, out of the discussion. Malcolm X, was saying that you can’t leave America out of the human rights debate, when they were denying ten-percent or more of their population their human rights. The right to be treated equally under law. No better, or worst and not be denied their constitutional and human rights simply because of their race. Malcolm X, was brilliant to at least show he was willing to take the issues and problems with American racism and race relations to the United Nations, even if they are just a debating society. To let the world know about the problems with the African-American community.

As President John Kennedy said, “the question a hundred years later, is whether the world will exist half slave, or half free.” He was talking about the lack of freedom and human rights abuses, as well as oppression around the world. But he also brought that into the civil rights debate in 1963. Will America a hundred years later be a country where 10-12% of the country are essentially still slaves. Without the freedom to control their own lives. Because they aren’t allowed to go to the good schools and get the good jobs, because they are being denied those things through government force and oppression. Simply because of their race. This was the debate back in the 1960s. Can Americans be denied their basic constitutional and human rights simply because of their race.

What Malcolm X, was arguing in this press conference, was you can’t talk about human rights and abuses around the world and ignore the human rights abuses in your own country. He wanted the world to know about the human rights abuses and oppression in his own country. The best way for a large country, even a superpower like America, to encourage good behavior around the world, is to practice that behavior in your own country. The United States, gained a lot of credibility and became a lot more powerful as a superpower in the 1970s and ever since, because of the civil rights movement, debate and acts of the 1960s. It told the world that we were going to practice what we preach. And no longer hold ourselves to a lower standard than how we expect the rest of the world to behave.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Press Think: Opinion: Dan Gillmor: Criticizing CNN: Goodbye to That: Saying Goodbye to the Cable News Network?

Press Think: Opinion: Dan Gillmor: Criticizing CNN: Goodbye to That

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress

Whatever happened to the Cable News Network which if not was the standard at least when it came to cable news if not TV news in general was a standard that had this mentality of “just the facts” without bias’ or trying to report news with political slants. But reporting exactly what’s going on in the world and what is important that they viewers need to know. About with intelligent professional analysts who explained what these things meant and not trying to tell us what to think.

And lately CNN hasn’t been the Cable News Network, but more like the News Rating Network, perhaps the OMG Report, reporting on everything awesome and tabloid. Or the Everything Awesome Network, trying to compete with E and perhaps what is now called True TV. “How can we make money and compete with FOX News and tabloid news networks”. The George Zimmerman trial is a perfect example of that, but they had the Jodi Arias trial before that. And they seem to have this idea that most Americans aren’t that interested in hard news anymore. And rather know what Kim Kardashian or George Zimmerman had for lunch today. Rather than the turmoil in Egypt the largest country in Arabia experimenting with Democracy for the first time ever.

Is cable news a business? Of course it is, anything that’s done by companies are business’s. And of course CNN along with FNC, MSNBC, ABC News and CBS News have to be profitable in order to stay in business. But not at the expense of real journalism. And of course there’s a market for tabloid and other celebrity journalism. But those networks already exist and we already have a network that devotes its matinĂ©e programming to the American justice system. Actually we have several networks like True TV, the Criminal Investigation Network, Investigation Discovery and others.

And these are the cable networks that should be covering tabloid and celebrity news , everything awesome or whatever the hell they want to call it. BUt not a network that advertises itself as a news network. That use to be the gold standard at least when it came to cable news, but now is looking to find itself and figure out who they want to be after losing viewers to FNC and MSNBC. Time Warner the parent company of CNN already has a cable network that advertises itself as knowing drama. What’s the TNT tagline, “we know drama” and that would be the place for CNN to broadcast the Zimmerman trial and other celebrity news stories. And leave CNN to be the home of hard news in America at least as it relates to cable TV. Where people go to find out what’s going in the world that’s important.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Libertarianism.Org: Opinion- Emma Goldman- The Individual, Society and The State: Defining Liberal Democracy

Libertarianism.Org: Opinion- Emma Goldman- The Individual, Society and The State: Defining Liberal Democracy

If you listen to todays so-called Progressives people who I call Social Democrats and the MSNBC talk lineup is a perfect example of that, with their commercials and editorials, they describe society and the state or government as if they are the same thing. “Society needs this and that and we as a country must have and do these things together.” What they are really saying is that we really need government to do these things for us. Especially the Federal Government and this is why we pay taxes when in fact government and society are two different things. Government in a liberal democracy, represents society the people and government is supposed to work for us.

Rather than society and government being the same thing. So in a liberal democracy, you have the state meaning government at all levels. You have the society which is the population as a whole and everything we produce for the country. And you have individuals who produce for themselves, but are also producing for society. What I’m in favor of is not so much democracy in the sense that it’s always direct and whatever is popular at the time, always wins out and where everything is done by majority-rule. And I’m not certainly not in favor of any type of dictatorship whether its secular, military or theocratic.

What I’m in favor of is liberal democracy. Where yes we have the right to vote. And where the majority does rule when it comes to elections especially. But where we have certain basic constitutional rights that can never be taken away from us except under extreme circumstances. Which is how we amend our Constitution. Where the people are free to live their own lives as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. In other words, we free to live up to our full-potential and that opportunity to succeed in life and live in freedom. Is available to all of us until we lose that right by hurting innocent people.

So in liberal democracy, government represents the society and not society and government being the same thing. Where individuals are free to live their own lives and where we all have the opportunity to live in freedom. But where there are also basic rules in places not to protect the people from themselves. But to protect innocent people from those who would hurt innocent people. Society is the people as a whole and what we’ve produced for society and given it and even taken from it. Individuals, are ourselves and us as people. Government in liberal democratic form, is what represents the majority of the population at the time that they were elected. But society, individuals and government, aren’t all the same things with three different titles.