I recently read about how an official in the Department of Homeland Security is interested in requiring ever air plane passenger to wear an "Electronic ID bracelet." These bracelets contain information about the passenger (taking the place of a boarding pass) so passengers could be easily tracked and it would have the ability to act as a taser device against the wearer if necessary. These devices would supposedly be very effective to fend off terrorists while in air.
I found it interesting when reading about this bracelet that the government only seems to want to use them to protect plane passengers. I mean, planes are one type of transportation that could be targeted by terrorists, but what about buses? Can't you imagine a terrorist wreaking havoc on buses and trains killing dozens of innocent passengers just as easily as on air planes? Sure the air plane is more difficult to exit in an emergency, but buses are in even more public places than planes, allowing for people who are not even on the bus to be hurt.
For that matter, why should we restrict the use of these bracelets to buses and trains? What if a terrorist is walking around on the streets of some major city and decides he is going to whip out enough explosives to blow up a city block? What if a terrorist is on the run and no one knows where? An electronic tracking device/taser seems like the perfect remedy for these horrible situations.
In conclusion, I believe the proponents of this device at the Department of Homeland Security should broaden the scope of their argument and look into requiring this bracelet for any person, citizen or not, who resides or will soon reside within the United States at any time. After that they should consider installing cameras in every television set sold and seeking enough funding for the Department of Homeland Security enough so that every citizen can be monitored at all times to ensure they are staying out of trouble and only eating trans fats on weekends.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
How to Control the World
The most effective way to control the world is to control the supply of an essential item such as water or oxygen. Fortunately, completely controlling the supply of essentials is usually very difficult. Unfortunately, our patenting system in the United States has recently been transforming in such a way that encourages monopolies of control over many very common items, including food.
One of the biggest problems I see with our patent system is that it allows for the complete control over strains of genetically modified food and animals. At first glance it may not seem like a monopoly on specific strains of food would matter much. Farmers would just be able to not buy the strain or to use the seeds from their own already modified plants if they so wished, right? Wrong.
The U.S. patenting system allows for genetically modified seed to be sold in mass with restrictive stipulations placed upon them. For example, genetically modified seeds are often sold with the restriction that the seeds cannot be reused in the next years crop, so the farmer must purchase more costly seeds directly from source next year. This allows for a monopoly on this specific strain of seeds such that anyone who has these genetically modified plants are forced to buy their seeds from the supplier with the patent.
This doesn't seem so bad, right? A smart farmer would just not buy the genetically modified seeds in the first place if these crazy stipulations were placed on the use of these seeds. Unfortunately, this approach still does not circumvent this flawed system. Many plants spread their pollen far and wide, ensuring that genetically modified plants will contaminate any crops near them. Once a genetically modified hybrid plant has been produced, the law leaves the ownership of this plant in a potentially very dangerous place.
A company called Monsanto has been practicing this form of controlling the world over the years and they are becoming increasingly better at it. Monsanto owns thousands of patents on herbicides, insecticides, genetically modified seeds, and they have even filed a patent for genes present in pigs. Monsanto distributes the most popular herbicide and they are by far the leading producer and patent owner of genetically modified seed.
There are many conspiracy videos explaining how Monsanto is attempting to gain control of all pigs worldwide and is generally harming the world as a whole. Regardless of Monsanto's intentions, they obviously do not care at all about the health of the world (see Agent Orange) and they are in a position that allows them nearly complete control over all food. It is a bit curious how many people have supposedly been fired or humiliated for researching or reporting bad information about Monsanto.
Although people are fighting back and sometimes winning battles, Monsanto is winning the war. Congratulations to the Monsanto Corporation for grossly taking advantage of human ignorance and obtaining the power to control the world in the most effective way I have ever seen.
One of the biggest problems I see with our patent system is that it allows for the complete control over strains of genetically modified food and animals. At first glance it may not seem like a monopoly on specific strains of food would matter much. Farmers would just be able to not buy the strain or to use the seeds from their own already modified plants if they so wished, right? Wrong.
The U.S. patenting system allows for genetically modified seed to be sold in mass with restrictive stipulations placed upon them. For example, genetically modified seeds are often sold with the restriction that the seeds cannot be reused in the next years crop, so the farmer must purchase more costly seeds directly from source next year. This allows for a monopoly on this specific strain of seeds such that anyone who has these genetically modified plants are forced to buy their seeds from the supplier with the patent.
This doesn't seem so bad, right? A smart farmer would just not buy the genetically modified seeds in the first place if these crazy stipulations were placed on the use of these seeds. Unfortunately, this approach still does not circumvent this flawed system. Many plants spread their pollen far and wide, ensuring that genetically modified plants will contaminate any crops near them. Once a genetically modified hybrid plant has been produced, the law leaves the ownership of this plant in a potentially very dangerous place.
A company called Monsanto has been practicing this form of controlling the world over the years and they are becoming increasingly better at it. Monsanto owns thousands of patents on herbicides, insecticides, genetically modified seeds, and they have even filed a patent for genes present in pigs. Monsanto distributes the most popular herbicide and they are by far the leading producer and patent owner of genetically modified seed.
There are many conspiracy videos explaining how Monsanto is attempting to gain control of all pigs worldwide and is generally harming the world as a whole. Regardless of Monsanto's intentions, they obviously do not care at all about the health of the world (see Agent Orange) and they are in a position that allows them nearly complete control over all food. It is a bit curious how many people have supposedly been fired or humiliated for researching or reporting bad information about Monsanto.
Although people are fighting back and sometimes winning battles, Monsanto is winning the war. Congratulations to the Monsanto Corporation for grossly taking advantage of human ignorance and obtaining the power to control the world in the most effective way I have ever seen.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Why I'm Not A Libertarian
I recently read a very interesting quote that goes something like this:
"If your neighbor came over and pointed a gun at you and demanded food for another neighbor in need, we would consider this criminal and immoral. So why is it O.K. for a million people with guns (in the form of a government) to do the same?"
This quote embodies half of the Libertarian ideal. So, why is it O.K. for a government to do this? First, the quote is misleading. It expects you to take the point of view of the person having the gun pointed at them. But let's take a different point of view. That of the person pointing the gun. Let me paint you the picture.
My friend, through no fault of his own, falls on hard times. So hard that he's going to starve to death. I'd share my food with him, but I'm not well off enough to feed 2 people. But I have a gun. And I know of a person who has enough food to feed 10 people. I would not consider it morally wrong to go to that person and demand food for my friend. Perhaps this is the difference between the Libertarian and me: The Libertarian would consider it morally wrong to do this. Now, I'd try to pay the person back eventually, but if I couldn't, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
So, I argue, it is O.K. for a person to do this. But a person might encounter many problems, the rich person might have a gun himself, and this could result in a loss of life really easily. Moreover, there is the problem that the person becomes judge, jury, and executioner (after all, how do I really know my friend is starving through no fault of his own). This is one thing that the government can do better than a private person. Now the scope to which the government is allowed to perform this transfer of wealth is a more difficult question. But the transfer of wealth is a duty of the government.
"If your neighbor came over and pointed a gun at you and demanded food for another neighbor in need, we would consider this criminal and immoral. So why is it O.K. for a million people with guns (in the form of a government) to do the same?"
This quote embodies half of the Libertarian ideal. So, why is it O.K. for a government to do this? First, the quote is misleading. It expects you to take the point of view of the person having the gun pointed at them. But let's take a different point of view. That of the person pointing the gun. Let me paint you the picture.
My friend, through no fault of his own, falls on hard times. So hard that he's going to starve to death. I'd share my food with him, but I'm not well off enough to feed 2 people. But I have a gun. And I know of a person who has enough food to feed 10 people. I would not consider it morally wrong to go to that person and demand food for my friend. Perhaps this is the difference between the Libertarian and me: The Libertarian would consider it morally wrong to do this. Now, I'd try to pay the person back eventually, but if I couldn't, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
So, I argue, it is O.K. for a person to do this. But a person might encounter many problems, the rich person might have a gun himself, and this could result in a loss of life really easily. Moreover, there is the problem that the person becomes judge, jury, and executioner (after all, how do I really know my friend is starving through no fault of his own). This is one thing that the government can do better than a private person. Now the scope to which the government is allowed to perform this transfer of wealth is a more difficult question. But the transfer of wealth is a duty of the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
