An Empire of Drones and Robots
Is there any doubt that America’s foreign policy, based upon maintaining a global empire, actually makes us less safe? The misgiving is that such intercession has any actual benefits to the citizens of the country. What once was a respected leadership role of non-interventionism in international affairs, has become a dominating imperium for worldwide control and subjugation. Exporting the “land of the free” is a myth, especially when domestic freedom is a dying memory. Internationalists tell us that military and surveillance drone technology promises enhanced security, with little concern for collateral damage or loss of innocent life. However, the facts do not bear out such claims.
Factor in the expansion of robot deployment and replacement of human assets, produces the net effort of an even more depersonalize and dehumanizing use of coercive force. Nonetheless, such a trend gets little public concern and even less outrage. Military branches, filled with voluntary recruits, are losing faith in the spin. CIA and unnamed black bag missions rely upon eager operatives that believes in the importance of the assignment or demented mercenaries that enjoy their macabre trade.
The practice of desensitizing defense forces is an essential component of basic training. With robot brigades, moral considerations need not interfere with killing tasks. The essay, Kant’s moral philosophy and the question of pre-emptive war illustrates the quid essential example of an amoral tech that avoids the very nature of profound ethical issues. The stick question of morality is foremost in areas of human endeavors, but total absent in the wiring of tech carnage machines.
“That the international arena is indeed a state of nature in something approaching Hobbes’s sense of the term is a theme upon which Kant insists in both Perpetual Peace and the Metaphysics of Morals; it becomes a much more insistent theme in the latter. Such a conceptualization does not, however, diminish Kant’s commitment to upholding and, if possible, promoting fundamental principles of right within this arena, nor his condemnation of those individuals and governments, however numerous, which violate them. It is in this context that his pronouncements concerning the justifiability of war, and whether a pre-emptive war is ever acceptable, must be understood. In Perpetual Peace, these pronouncements are unequivocal. Famously, Article 5 of the preliminary principles conducive to perpetual peace is “No state shall interfere by force in the constitution and government of another state.” In the long Appendix to this essay Kant warns against demanding that another state divest itself of a despotic constitution – at least as long as this state is in danger of being swallowed up by other states – even while expressing the hope that despotic constitutions will gradually give way throughout the world to republican forms of government. (Republican and despotic are the only two types of Regierung, as distinguished from forms of authority, or Beherrschung – that is, whether the ruling power consists of one person, several, or all of civil society taken together – that Kant recognizes; he is far removed from the distasteful combination of frivolity with brutality that has led to the identification of certain regimes as “rogue states,” hence undeserving of any respect, by apologists for the great powers of our day.) Further on in the same Appendix, in the context of considering possible antinomies between morality and politics, Kant asks whether, if a neighboring power has grown to such size as to warrant apprehension that it might attack, it would be permissible for an allied coalition of weaker states to stage a pre-emptive attack on that state, “even without preceding insult,” and answers in the negative.”
Read all of this HERE.
Video: What is Sharia Law. Why it threatens America. Wafa Sultan explains.
Now these two old idiots must be liberals! And in California.
Make Employer-Based Insurance Taxable? Surprisingly, the Right Solution
Unlike Obamacare, this reform would benefit most Americans.
With millions of Americans suffering from Obamacare, the time is right for Republicans to advance a solution that addresses the broken health insurance market.
As things now stand, government policies pigeonhole different categories of people into different health-insurance markets. People who are self-employed, unemployed, employed by large firms, employed by small firms, or over 65 all participate in different health-insurance markets. When you work for somebody else and lose your job, you lose your health insurance. Even if you keep your job, your employer can change your health plan for any reason.
Obamacare made this worse by adding another broken health-insurance market into the mix — exchanges.
Health insurance should be chosen by individuals and families, just as with auto insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance. That is the only way to encourage insurers to sell policies designed to meet patients’ needs.
Employer-provided health insurance is excluded from workers’ taxable income. This is a significant benefit. On average, such health benefits are worth about $16,000 per household, of which employers pay about three-quarters of the cost and employees the rest, from pre-tax income. But to allow a real market for health insurance to arise, Congress should amend the tax code so that the entire $16,000 goes to employees as taxable income.
People get upset by the idea of changing a non-taxable benefit to taxable income. They shouldn’t. The tax revenue would immediately be recycled into a tax credit, refundable to each person who buys health insurance.
This means that for each dollar spent on medical insurance, an individual’s income tax bill would be reduced by a dollar. For the average family with employer-based benefits, a tax credit would be worth more than the current tax exclusion, which gives a larger benefit to higher-income households.
Much more HERE
Much of the $40 million in sales tax revenue Colorado hopes to collect from legal pot sales could be going up in smoke because banks and credit card companies refuse to work with sellers, claims a state lawmaker.
Unless banks can get a clear signal from federal regulators that it is okay to work with pot dealers without running afoul of laws aimed at launderers of drug money, the marijuana trade will remain what it is in Colorado – an all-cash business. State Sen. David Balmer says that makes it ripe for unreported – and untaxed – transactions.
“So far Colorado has not been able to come up with a solution to the banking problem,” Balmer said. “The vast majority of sales will not be accounted for.”
Balmer said he believes the state was ill-prepared for what has become a booming business since the beginning of 2014. In addition to the banking issue, he said Colorado does not have enough field agents to regulate the industry.
Read the full article at FoxNews.com.
Hey, music from my youth! About the same time Elvis showed up on the musical scene.