Socialism and America

This is a relatively clever comic, but not historically accurate.  The term socialism was not coined until the 1830's. 

I have no problem with individuals getting together to own and share resources.  I do have a problem when individuals are forced to do so.

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz (1997)

Dow is Not Responsible for the Bhopal Incident

This year marks the 25th Anniversary of the Bhopal gas disaster.  A Union Carbide plant based in Bhopal, India leaked a cloud poisonous gas, killing thousands.  Its ramifications can still be felt to do this day because the damage has yet to be cleaned up.  There have been calls for Dow to take responsibility for incident, since the company acquired Union Carbide in 2001.  With this in mind, two questions arise. 



1) Is it the responsibility of new owners to ameliorate the actions and consequences of the old owners?

2) Does Dow bear that responsibility for the Bhopal incident?



For the sake of argument, although debatable, let us assume that the answer to the first question is "yes", that new owners must take responsibility for for the old owners actions and consequences.  This leads us to the answer of the second question, a resounding "no". Dow is not responsible for the Bhopal incident, for the mere fact that the company does not own and has never owned the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal.



Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL), was founded in 1934, and owned 51% by Union Carbide, and 49% by the Indian government.  The Bhopal incident occurred in 1984.  Ten years later, in 1994, Union Carbide sold its 51% share of UCIL to the William Magor Group.  The Indian Government still held its 49% share.  In that same year, the UCIL, was renamed to  to Eveready Industries India, Ltd.  Nearly seven years later, Dow acquired Union Carbide in 2001.



The question remains, is Dow responsibile for the clean up of the Bhopal incident?  The answer is no, since Dow has never had any ownership interest in Union Carbide India, Limited, Everyready Industries India, Ltd., Williamson Magor Group, or for that fact the Indian Government.  If any entity is responsible it is the new owners of the former UCIL plant, the Williamson Magor Group and the Indian Government.  It is time to exonerate Dow for the Bhopal incident, for the company had no role, stake, or ownership in the matter.

The Process of the Nobel Peace Prize

I woke up yesterday morning.  The TV was on, I was still in bed trying to catch a little more zzz's.  In the background,  I hear banter on morning news stating that a president had won the Nobel Peace Prize.  I was wondering who?  Perhaps one of the past presidents of the United States.  Bush 2, probably not.  Clinton, possibly.  Bush 1, hmm.  Carter, BTDT.  Perhaps one of the sitting presidents of another country.  Nope. The winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was the current sitting president of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

I was astonished as to how he could win the award so quickly into his presidency.  Let's dissect the logical sequence of how a winning process works.

When you win a prize the sequence is typically as follows:
1) Do something prize worthy
2) Get nominated because of doing that something
3) ???
4) Win


President Obama obtained the nomination only 12 days into the Presidency.  Is 12 Days enough to warrant a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize?  Some contend since voting took place in the summer, the prize is based on his work on days 13+.

Given this information, the process appears to follow this sequence:
1) Get nominated
2) Do something prize worthy
3) ???
4) Win

Assume for a moment that he was nominated for work prior to the presidency. Then anything after the inauguration+12 days is supposedly not in play. But then assume that he won because of his work after the Nobel nomination, essentially day 13 onward. Then anything prior to the nomination is moot.

Doesn't that throw your mind for a loop?

Some one on the internet named lutusp states:

"This is a classic ploy by the Nobel Committee to shame the recipient into changing his behavior. I've seen this drama played out many times in my long life -- someone who is obviously not a peacenik gets the Prize and feels tremendous pressure to live up to the honor.

In 1994 the Prize was given Morejointly to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin -- not what you would call peace-loving doves. In 1978 the Prize was given jointly to Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin -- for the same reason: The Nobel Peace Prize is often more about shaping behavior than honoring behavior."

Even Obama admits that he is undeserving, and didn't really do much, but is using it as a call to action.

Perhaps a more accurate sequence:
1) Get nominated
2) Win
3) ???
4) Call to action

All in all, I am critiquing the process of how President Obama was selected as the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 winner, not whether he deserves or not (we can have a debate on that if you like;)).  My friend Wilson pointed out, "I think we can talk about whether he deserves it all day but i think we need to keep in mind that he didn't ask for this. It was given to him."  If anything, those who voice dissent to his winning need to be just as critical, if not more, to the Nobel Prize Committee for choosing him, not necessarily at Obama himself.

Monarchies and Universal Health Care

It's interesting to note the correlation between countries that have "successful" Universal Health Care and a Monarchy. Perhaps it would be apt to discuss overhauling government, before we discuss overhauling health care.

The debate over whether the United States of America should implement Universal Health Care rages on.  Evidence provided in support of Universal Health Care often comes from "successful" implementation from other countries.  While we can debate the "success" of Universal Health Care from other countries or the merits and fallacies of invoking Universal Health Care itself, it is apt to to acknowledge and analyze the context of which Universal Health Care is implemented.

I did a quick survey with friends and colleagues that agree with implementing Universal Health Care, for countries that have "successfully" implemented Universal Health Care.  The common responses that popped up were: Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 

Using the infamous wikipedia, I looked up the type of government each of these countries had.  How do the countries compare?  Surprisingly (or not), almost all of the countries that have Universal Health Care has a Monarchy and a Parliament as their form of government.  Only a few were Republics.  France is regarded as a Republic, but a unique form of a Unitary Semi-Presidential Republic.  Ireland is a Republic and Parliamentary Democracy.  The United States is a Federal Constitutional Republic.

If one is to use the arguement of looking to other countries for "success", perhaps even before we begin to discuss universal health implementation, it would be apt to discuss the merits and dis-merits of implementing another form of government. Is a Monarchy a superior form government as opposed to a Republic? Vice-versa? None of the above? Is Universal Health Care prone to be more successful under a Monarchy than a Republic? Vice-versa? Let the dialogue continue.

	Monarchy	Parliament	Republic
Australia	x	x
Canada	x	x
France			x
Ireland		x	x
Norway	x	x
Sweden	x	x
United Kingdom	x	x
United States			x

*This post is by no means an endorsement of Universal Health Care and/or a Monarchy.

A Critique of, "Why we need government-run/universal/socialized health insurance?", a Constitutional Perspective.

The video by Andy Lubershane attempts to defend the need to create government-run/universal/socialized health insurance. This is a health insurance system that is run by the Federal Government. I will critique and refute his analysis with respect to the Constitution of the United States

We must acknowledge that their are different "layers" of government. For heuristic purposes, I will refer to three layers of government as the federal government, state government, and municipal government. Suffice it to say, each layer of government has a specific area of jurisdiction, entrusted by either the US Constitution, State Constitution, or Municipal Charter, respectively.

Lubershanes arguement suggests that since the government runs "essential services", such as water treatment, police, fire, postal service, and coast guard, and since health insurance is an essential service, government should run health insurance.¹ Research this yourself, but you will find that water treatment systems are typically run by the local municipality and/or by private enterprise. Police and fire services are provided by the local municipality and funded by municipal taxes. None of these services are run by the Federal Government. Lubershanes argument for Health Insurance run by the Federal Government falls apart, since several of the "essential services" he cited are not even run by the Federal Government itself.

Yes, the Postal Service and the Coast Guard are run by the Federal Government. The Federal Government was granted privilege to create, run, and/or regulate certain specific services, including both the Postal Service and the Coast Guard via Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. No other good or service can legally be created by the Federal Government, except as stimpulated in the US Constitution.

Not all "essential services" are run by the Federal Government. Many are run by Municipal Government, and many by private enterprise. Furthermore, the few services that are run by the Federal Government need to be Constitutionally sound. Again, Lubershanes argument for Health Insurance run by the Federal Government falls apart, since such a good/service is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Is it Constitutionally sound to for the Federal Government to create a Universal Health Insurance? No, it is not a power given to the Federal Government.

Is it Constitutionally sound for a State to create Universal Health Insurance. Yes², the US Constitution reserves the right for the States to create Universal Health Insurance.

Is it Constitutionally sound for individuals to cooperate voluntarily and willingly, to create a Universal Health Insurance plan? Yes, given that there is no coercion involved. Individuals are free to pool their money together and create a Universal Health Insurance of their own accord, with the stipulation that individuals wishing not to contribute and participate can do so of their own free will.

Under the US Constitution, States and Individuals are acknowledged the right to form Universal Health Insurance in their respective jurisdictions,³ not the Federal Government.

---

1. 
   For this critique, I will not debate whether or not these services are "essential". The "essential services" debate is another debate altogether.
   


2. 
   Unfortunately, according to the US Constitution, a State has the capacity to create such a system. But the merits/dis-merits of such a system is not of debate, the US Constitutionality of this system is.
   


3. 
   US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article X.
   

The Unconference

Typically, a conference takes months of preparation, endless revisions of topics, combined with a variety of speakers. But imagine all the preparation taking place in less than an hour, spontaneous topics, but open to anyone with an interesting idea, all taking place on the day of the conference. I must say, it is quite an innovative concept.

http://unconference.triplepundit.com/

About Unsliced Bread

All too often in this world, we do things that are not in rhythm with our bodies and our planet. We look for quick fixes rather than long term solutions. We look for the easy way out, rather than living in the moment. We strive for convenience, rather than wholesomeness.

There is a saying, "this is the best thing since sliced bread." However, I see sliced bread as a boon rather than a triumph. Sliced bread is made for ease, but its nutrients are lost. Sliced bread attempts for a longer shelf life at the loss of taste and healthful food.

Unsliced Bread bring us back to the basics of life. Where life is taken day by day with a vision for the future, rather than future by future, with a vision for the present. A slice a day. I will cover ideas and topics that unslices the intricases of our presliced world.