The War on Drugs in America

     The war on drugs in America has been shown to be a huge failure. It has led to raised incarceration rates,  a militarized police force, human rights abuses, waste of billions of dollars per year, made drugs stronger, and has increased drug usage.
     In the last 40 years incarceration rates in America have risen faster then ever before. According to Time Magazines Fareed Zakaria, "Drug convictions went from 15 inmates per 100,000 adults in 1980 to 148 in 1996, an almost tenfold increase. More than half of America's federal inmates today are in prison on drug convictions." Most of those being held on drug charges are nonviolent offenders who arguably  should not be held in prison.
     Since the beginning of the war on drugs, our police have become more militarized. With teams raiding peoples homes, killing inhabitants, and often harming children and other innocent bystanders.  SWAT teams can perform no-knock warrants claiming to be safer by surprising their victims and to stop them from potentially destroying evidence. However, by bursting into someones home without announcing their presence, sometimes the innocent homeowners mistake officers for intruders, and reach for a gun or weapon to defend themselves. This has lead to over 50 innocent people being killed by the police. Not including such cases that get covered up by planting evidence on the scene to justify the murder, or the opinion that the presence of marijuana shouldn't justify a murder in the first place.
     One reason many police units have been growing more militarized is because using SWAT teams has become more profitable. During these raids, Police are able to seize anything related to the crime regardless of wether or not the owner gets convicted of a crime. In that case the owner would have to sue the department to get their property back. An article from Business Insider titled Why America's Police Are Becoming So Militarized states that "Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion." (referenced article)
     Law enforcement officials have cracked down on drug dealers and drug manufacturers, making the drugs more potent and making the dealers more professional. The crack down has forced drug traffickers to be able to fit more drugs in smaller spaces. This lead to stronger drugs and more efficient traffickers.  
     The price of drugs has also increased due to the war on drugs. Drugs will always be consumed by addicts and other users. As the law of supply and demand dictates, when the supply goes down the price goes up. Other people will see the need to fill the consumers demand and they will capitalize on the opportunity, creating more drugs and drug dealers.  The price of the drugs also increases due to the risks involved in making and selling the drugs.    
     The war on drugs has proven to be a huge disaster and it is time to put an end to it. If you have found this post useful, please comment in the section below and share it. Thanks. 

The Simplification of Maxwell's Equations

       As great as James Clerk Maxwell’s theories on electricity and magnetism were, they were also mathematically difficult and hard to understand. Almost nobody understood it during his lifetime and it didn't help much that his whole approach was based off of Michael Faradays theoretical vision. Maxwell did not attempt to verify his theory experimentally, and after he died his theory sat for some time, waiting for someone else to come and perfect it. 

Oliver Heaviside was born in 1850 and came down with scarlet fever at the age of eight leaving him partially deaf. Instead of attending a university, he spent two years at home studying on his own. Oliver later got his only job at the age of eighteen working with his uncle as a telegraph operator. He quickly mastered the art and within two years he got promoted to chief operator. 

One day while studying in the library he opened Maxwells’s Treaty on Electricity and Magnetism(1873), and was “astonished!” He became determined to master the subject and learn all he could about electricity. He became tired of his job and retired to his parents home to research the topic. Eventually he was able not only “to master the theory but also to re-express it in a form that was much easier to grasp.” (p246) 

One way he simplified the theory was by creating a mathematical language which he called, “Vector Analysis.” Maxwell used quaternions to represent his theory but Oliver found them useless and complicated. P.G. Tait had criticized Heaviside’s mutillation of quaternions by describing his vector analysis as “a hermaphrodite monster.” Oliver responded by calling him a “consummately profound metaphysicomathematician” (p.259)

  Another way that he was able to re-express  the theory was by concentrating on field forces and get rid of the potentials. This way he reduced Maxwell’s eight quaternions to only four equations(p247). His four equations became famously known as Maxwell’s equations.  

Should You be Required to Call Trans Gender People by Their Preferred Pronoun?

     Typically when you see someone walking down the street, you refer to them as him or her. There are some people (usually transgender) who prefer to be called by other pronouns such as ze, xe, and/or they. This may be new to many of you and it might even seem hard to keep track of all the possible pronouns that could be out there.  It is easy to find arguments for and against calling people by there preferred pronoun, but should it be required by law, to call people by the pronoun of their choosing?
     Pronouns can mean a lot to people in the transgender community, and it shows a level of respect when you call someone by what they would like to be called. If you don't feel comfortable using new pronouns or if you forget what to call them, you can still show respect by using the persons name when you talk to them.
     Non-transgender people often do not agree with calling someone by an unusual pronoun for any number of personal reasons.  They may even feel that using "him" or "her" instead of another pronoun, will help that person out in the long run by leading that person to accept normal pronouns.
     Regardless of what you think people should call each other, it is important to see how making a law requiring someone to use certain pronouns can be dangerous and would ultimately violate an individuals right to free speech.

Should Trapping be illegal?

     It is understandable to think trapping innocent creatures is horrible and that doing so is undesirable if not looked down upon.  Some people may even think of trapping as "cheating" when it comes to killing animals, but should it be illegal?

     In the 2016 election the state of Montana had a bill (I-177) on the ballot that was put forward to ban trapping in the state of Montana. The bill was not passed, which may be a good thing because the Fish and Game Department sets quotas and limits throughout the state in order to maintain and control the populations of different species of animals. Trappers help control these populations and contribute money towards game management, through buying licenses. 

     If trapping were banned, those animals would still need to be managed. The Fish and Game would have to hire new employees(on the taxpayers dime) to trap and/or poison  animals to maintain healthy  populations. If they had to resort to poisoning animals, this could lead to accidental poisoning of non target species, such as eagles and other non target predatory species. 

Critique of Marxism

According to the University of Hawaii’s R.J. Rummel, nearly 110 million people have been murdered in the last century by communism. Comparing that to only 38 million killed in domestic wars in the same timeframe.  Leaders like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Jong-un have all been influenced by the idea of communism. As we can see from history, communism just doesn't work. 

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German economist and sociologist who created a political theory that he originally called scientific socialism, and later became known as communism.  Many Americans today favor communism to the current U.S. system despite the rap sheet of injustices it has produced. So, why are so many people attracted to communism?

Well, actually there is a difference between communism in theory and communism in practice.  Communism is defined as a system where the economic means of production are collectively owned. There is no state, no money, and no class distinctions. Individuals don't own businesses or any private property. In a communist society all people are equal, no one person having power over another. 

     In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx formulates the revolution of the Communist Party while criticizing capitalism. He starts off with a capitalist society (this is during the time of the industrial revolution). Machinery and technology made it easier and quicker than ever before to produce goods and services. Many craftsmen and trades jobs were replaced by monotonous jobs on assembly lines. This lead to alienation of the laborers. People no longer felt like they were making a contribution to society. They also feel lack of security due to the fact that they could easily be replaced or thrown aside at the convenience of the employer.  The ruling class (bourgeoisie) exploit the working class (proletariat) for their labor, while getting filthy rich and barely paying the workers enough to live on. Marx once wrote “The enemy of being is having.” (Nuanes). In the capitalist society people are driven by profit. Beauty, art, music, and even human beings become nothing more than commodities to be bought and sold. People become obsessed with having more stuff, but having more stuff will not make them any happier. The proletariat will become angry with the bourgeoisie, and eventually they will start a revolution. The proletariat will overthrow the industries, government, and institutions. This is the start of the communist society. In this new system there is no monetary system, no state, and no class distinctions. Everyone will be seen as equal regardless of their skills and abilities. The means of production will be collectively owned by the community. Individuals will no longer own businesses or private property.

Communism in practice isn’t what Marx had in mind. Communism as we know it, is more like an authoritarian socialist system. It serves as the training wheels or a step towards real Marxism. The communism that so many people are attracted to was the actual ideas of Karl Marx. In it, there seems to be a moral high ground, without poor people, without governments killing innocent people, and without evil corporate billionaires. It seems like this system could either be a utopian dream, or an unrealistic nightmare.  If you value liberty, it will most likely be the latter. 

In the ideal communist society all people are equal without class distinctions. So, the doctor and the janitor have the same amount of wealth. So what would incentivize the doctor to spend years of his life in school learning and studying when he could have no skill and be no better off?  The majority of people would choose to take the easiest path, or choose to pursue their hobbies instead of doing work that is essential to keep society running.  There would be an overabundance of entertainers and musicians, and a lack of doctors, lawyers, engineers, garbage men, builders, or any job that was seen as difficult or unappealing.  

In Marxism there is no money. Individuals contribute what they can or choose to contribute to society, and they take what they need from others who do the same.  There are two problems with this; the first problem is that there would be a problem distributing goods, and secondly it would reward mediocrity.  Without some monetary system there wouldn't be a way of knowing the supply or demand for consumer goods. Let’s say that I live in an area where the only food grown is corn. I get hungry for a kiwi, but the closest kiwi farm is five-thousand miles away.  So, what do I do? I eat corn. 

The problem with people giving what they wish and taking what they need comes when people want to take more than their fair share and contribute less than their fair share.  Society will not be able to sustain itself and everyone will be equally living in poverty.  The government will have to step in and create a monetary system to pay people according to the value of their work. People can then use their money to pay for their needs.

In the communist society there is no incentive for the young entrepreneur to risk everything and start a new business. He would be better off working at an established business and mediocrely perform his tasks. If he were to live in a capitalist society, he would take his idea to the bank, and if the bank saw value in his idea then he would walk out of there with a loan to start the business of his dreams. If he works hard and supplies the demand for his product then he will be successful. Society benefits from his product and he benefits accordingly.  Capitalism rewards risk; and leads to innovation and progress that benefits the overall society.  

Capitalism runs on money. When people desire kiwis, someone in the community will see this and find a way to buy kiwis from the kiwi farm five-thousand miles away and distribute the kiwis to the people willing to pay for them. This system relies on the supply and demand of consumer goods. If there is low supply of a particular good, the people in demand will be willing to pay a higher price. On the other side, if there is an overabundance of a good, people will not be willing to pay as high a price. This is due to diminishing marginal utility. If I want ice cream that first scoop has lots of value to me. If I get another scoop, it’s still pretty good. Maybe not quite as good as that first bite though.  When offered a third scoop I don't really want it bad enough to pay the full price but I would be willing to if the price was cut in half. The value of ice cream is no longer the same to me as it was when I was in need of ice cream and the same principal can be applied to any other good when talking about supply and demand. 

A Marxist society wouldn't work without money. The system would have to morph into the typical communist systems that we see today, which still wouldn’t be able to effectively control the economies because the communist governments would have too much control. Steven Crowder said “Individuals when left alone and given the freedom to make their own decisions tend to do so more effectively then government bureaucrats in Washington.” when talking about why democratic socialism doesn't work.  Markets need currency, and should be left alone as long as people aren't being hurt or having their liberties taken from them. 

     Communism is an unrealistic utopian system that appeals to millions of people because it falsely attempts to make a higher moral standard. Instead of the commune of people getting together and holding property as a collective whole, government owns everything and makes decisions by force. This system has led to the death of millions of people. It punishes risk and rewards mediocrity which kills any innovation or progress that would've happened in a capitalist system. It would finally put an end to economic inequality, because everyone would be equally poor. Economically, capitalism breeds wealth that benefits all of mankind. Economic inequality may get worse overtime but the entire society gets richer.   In reality, communism just doesn't work.

Works Cited

Crowder, Steven. "Why "Democratic" Socialism Doesn't Work." Online video clip. YouTube.com. YouTube, Published on Mar 31, 2016. Retrieved. May 6, 2016.

Curtis, Michael. The Great Political Theories. New York: Avon Books, 1981. Print

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Narrated by LibriVox Volunteers. Published by 

LibriVox.org, Audio Book.

Nuanes, Israel. (2012, May 16). Marx is for Hippies. Article. The Right Planet.  Retrieved from. http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/05/marx-is-for-hippies/ on May 6, 2016.

Rummel, R.J. (2012, May 16). HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*. Article. Hawaii.edu. Retrieved from. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM on May 6, 2016.