Dec
1
Who owns the moon?
Filed Under Property Rights. | 4 Comments
Well according to the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty, countries are forbid from owning the moon. However, due to a loophole in the treaty, it does not prevent individuals from owning the moon. People have been buying land on the moon for decades, going for a bout $40 an acre from a british man who has been selling silver lined tins with map and a small X on their parcel. Currently, China, Russia, the U.S., India and Japan all have plans to go to the moon, return trips for some. Some want to build bases, others want to mine. Some even plan to build extravagant resorts for high paying tourists to visit and explore.
The outer space treaty also states that no government can claim ownership of lunar surfaces, and that bases, stations, and installations will be wide open for everyone to enter.
What about the mining and precious resources found there? Well according to the treaty it belongs to “the common heritage of mankind” which means they must be shared by everyone. Although there is currently no way to enforce these laws, it seems they are more principles and there could be an apparent land rush in the coming decades.
What would you do if you had land on the moon? I think it would be a nice place to visit, but I definitely wouldn’t want to live there.
Personally, I dont see why the land on the moon should be any different than the land on Earth, ready to be bought, sold, and exploited by individuals, corporations, and governments for profit.
Another thing to remember with all of this moon business is how the mass of the moon so fragilly dictates our tides of our oceans on earth, and if mining and building on it will cause massive tsunamis and flooding.
Nov
23
Who owns the rights to the blogs you post on this website? Are they property of academicblog.org with a disclaimer stating that your views don’t necessarily reflect the views of their website? What about the photos I take and post on here - are they still under my control of who is allowed to use them for forms of media? What if a joke or funny picture you came up with ended up in a movie or TV show? Would you be entitled to some form of monetary reparations? Well according to current laws, whoever owns the domain of the posted material is not only responsible for determining these things in their TOA, they could be held responsible for illegal and or any inappropriate material that is found there. While if they find content that is violating their terms of agreement, they can remove the content and possible ban you from their site - if it goes unchecked and is reported to the authorities, the company could be help liable in a court of law. While is a freedom of speech that falls under the same spectrum as radio, books, movies etc., we have to remain responsible enough to crack down the misuse of these intellectual thoughtsand images. For example, recently in India, a young man took pictures during his morning run near a marina, and posted them on his blog. A week later, he noticed a local newspaper had copied the image from his blog and ran it in their story. The picture can be seen here
Nov
10
Medical Privacy Rights
Filed Under Property Rights. | 1 Comment
I was reading another blog regarding medical privacy… and it helped clue me in on the importance and on some of the fallacies of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, referred to as HIPPA. The blog goes into great detail about the necessity of the bill that was enacted into congress regarding personal medical records, and how revisions have been made with great ease to perfect its flaws.
Is it too much to ask to force these offices to secure their connection as part of the guidelines to the HIPPA act? I think that our tax dollars would definetly warrant this - if not more.
Except for one, and that is enforcement. While they are doing an excellent job making sure all dentists and doctors are filing the necessary forms and the patient is signing its availability to the right personnel, the offices themselves are left wide open to internet attacks from hackers and data thiefs.
Information from social security and payment history to chronic back pain and who has hepatits is availale for download from most doctor’s offices because they do not ensure a seafe and secure internet connection. With identity theft becoming more prevalent everyday, it is important to lock down these records.
As a fully HIPPA compliant IT consultant, I am personally aware that 9 out of 10 doctors don’t even use a basic firewall to secure their connections. While the government has people checking all the paperwork for the proper signatures, they are doing nothing abuot keeping the data safe from falling into the wrong hands.
Oct
17
The Slave Trade
Filed Under Property Rights. | 3 Comments
Believe it or not slavery is more prevalent now than ever. Only now we call it human trafficking. It’s is comprised of mostly girls from central america and asia, typically for sex and/or domestic service. While the FBI is currently working hard to disrupt and control this, only 27 states have thus far passed legislation regarding human trafficking. In the US there are an estimated 17,000 girls CURRENTLY being forced to work as prostitutes or at strip clubs.
Worldwide - there have never been more people involved in forced sex and labo. It starts in the poorest of nations, with men AND women either approaching young girls parents with talks of taking their children away to places, like the US, for education and jobs, OR kidnapping them and using fake visas or passports to smuggle them in to other countries.
What can be done?
It is the responsibility of all nations, poor and rich to come together to eliminate those responsible. Tougher border checks and UN support to pressure these nations are a must. The fact that human lives are bought and sold like cattle and seen simply as dollars and cents by the people doing this is absolutely reprehensible.
Budgets need to be increased. Multi-national personnel databases need to share. And tougher punishments for convictions of trafficking is probably a good start. I also find it highly unlikely that these numbers are so high without some kind of official corruption - undercover detectives should be actively cracking down on those accepting bribe at border control.
Sep
29
Intellectual Property Act of 2008
Filed Under Property Rights. | 1 Comment
As I was reading another blog regarding the Intellectual Property Act of 2008, I was surprised to find the failed bill had been reworked and made it through the senate. Despite the fact that the Department of Justice was against this bill, it managed to pass anyway, unanimously. The previous bill had a claus forcing the DoJ to act as Pro Bono lawyers for private copyright holders. This meant that if you wrote a song and put it on the internet, and someone used your song to make money, the government would fight for you, for free. The legislation also included that a new intellectual property enforcement office would have to be created in the whitehouse. President Bush said that he would veto this bill if it included these clauses, so they have been removed. Still, included in this bill is the forteiture of equipment used to share the media, your computers/laptops etc. will be taken away and not returned in addition to appointing a ‘copyright czar’ who will be in charge of storing and tracking all IP addresses thought to have shared media illegally.
This should worry some, as the legislation states it’s reason of existence is “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. What exactly are ‘other purposes’? One of the main goals of the bill states it is to “enhance the efficiency and consistency” with Federal Funds in order to “enforce, investigate, or prosecute intellectual property crimes”. I’m not saying that sharing media isn’t considered stealing, because it is, but if someone is stealing I believe it should be up to the media companies to prove it through legal means following the constitution and not spending my money to do it.
Searching laptops (at airports for example) without probable cause is illegal. Wiretapping/monitoring internet traffic without probable cause is unconstitutional (but now legal thanks to the FISA bill passed last month). And spending my (tax) money to enforce, monitor, prosecute, and invade innocent people’s privacy is simply un-american and implies we are all guilty until internet records prove us innocent. Kinda the opposite of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ which I used to hear so much growing up, but no so much anymore.
Sep
8
Who owns the Arctic Circle?
Filed Under Property Rights. | 1 Comment
August 02, 2007 - Two Russian mini-submarines dive more than 2 and 1/2 miles beneath the North Pole to the seabed below, and in a record breaking dive to plant a one metre-high titanium Russian flag on the underwater Lomonosov ridge, which Moscow claims is directly connected to its continental shelf. It was a symbolic claim to billions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the Arctic Ocean. The event was nationally televised in Russia, causing a voluminous swelling of national pride.
“It’s a very important move for Russia to demonstrate its potential in the Arctic. It’s like putting a flag on the Moon.” Sergei Balyasnikov, a spokesman for the Arctic and Antarctic Institute, said. “This isn’t the 15th century. You can’t go around the world and just plant flags and say: ‘We’re claiming this territory’,” the Canadian foreign minister, Peter MacKay responded. There are currently 5 states with territory laying claim inside the arctic circle: USA (via Alaska), Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark (via control of Greenland).
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) Arctic countries can lay claim to the seabed beyond 200 nautical miles if that seabed is an extension of their continental shelf. Seven years ago, Russia attempted to lay claim to the Lomonosov ridge, which stretches over 1,240 miles across the polar region, which the UN rejected. Sources say they will resubmit this claim in 2009 with scientific data as evidence that it is a part of its Siberian shelf.
May 2008, the five countries laying claim to the arctic circle meet in Ilulissat, 155 miles north of the arctic circle, to reaffirm their commitment to the international arctic treaties.
June 25, 2008, Russia begins military excercises in the Arctic to help safe-guard its claims of the areas natural resources. “Modern wars are won or lost long before they start” Russian General Vladimir Shamanov was quoted as saying. Over 5,000 Russian troops were supposedly stationed along the Northen Edge in Alaska during the previous month.
July 1, 2008, a Russian parliamentary commitee warns that by 2070, the Arctic ice cap may be completely melted. It will wipe out hundreds of animal species including polar bears, causing them to be extinct and displace all of its indigenous people. With global warming looming, everyday the valuable land becomes more and more accessible, making this a modern day international “gold rush” for the valuable gas and oil reserves as the melting ice opens up valuable shipping lanes for development of the area. A recent U.S. study suggests that over %25 of the world’s undiscovered gas and oil resources are located there.
Under the 1982 UNCLOS, all of the arcic nations will have ten years after the ratification of the treaty to prove its claims to any and all land and resources. So far, all of the nations except the United States have ratified the treaty. Currently, President Bush is pushing the senate to ratify the treaty.
Sep
8
Who owns the sweat of your own brow.
Filed Under Property Rights. | 1 Comment
Andrew Ryan, a fictional character of 2K Publishing, asked “Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? ‘No!’ says the man in Washington, ‘It belongs to the poor.’ ‘No!’ says the man in the Vatican, ‘It belongs to God.’ ‘No!’ says the man in Moscow, ‘It belongs to everyone.’” So I ask you, who should enjoy the fruits of your own labor?
Altruism, the selfless concern for the welfare of others, is vastly becoming one of the most debatable topics for psychologists, sociologists and lawmakers alike in determining how, why and when the general public should be held responsible for those less fortunate. In theory, altruism appears to be one of the most unselfish acts of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. There are two distinct kinds of altruism, ethical altruism: people should act with the interest of others in mind, and develop this through experience. And there is psychological altruism: people are compelled to act with the interest of others in mind, because altruism is instinctive.
The large downside of all kinds of altruism, is that the people on the receiving end of these benefits will often think it becomes a kind of entitlement. That because they are not able to bring together the means to hold themselves up, it is the responsibility of others to ensure their livelihoods. For example, if a person drops out of school or quits their job because they don’t want to work anymore, they feel the people who stayed in school and work hard should have to take care of them. This is seen evident in countries with universal health care and food/housing programs. It draws a direct line between men, and parasites.
He can also be quoted asking “What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds, a parasite asks ‘Where’s my share?’ A man creates, a parasite says ‘What will the neighbors think?’ A man invents, a parasite says ‘Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God…” “On the surface, the Parasite expects the doctor to heal them for free, the farmer to feed them out of charity. How little they differ from the pervert who prowls the streets, looking for a victim he can ravish for his grotesque amusement.” This is not to say a corporation who lays off 10,000 employees should not be held responsible for continuing to provide the basic amenities available and help relocate them until each employee gets back on their feet in order to support themselves and their family, which they currently are not held accountable for. But rather, if I am able to build a career for myself, with savings and college degrees or other certifications to fall back on should I fall under rough times, why should I have to pay for someone who was careless enough to not provide them self with some type of safety net.
Is it truly my fiscal responsibility to feel sorry for the irresponsible? Some would argue that irresponsible or not, you can never place a value on a human life. That if my earnings are not taxed, these parasites might die off. That a lesson might be taught. That this life isn’t free. That it does have a price, and if your not willing to pay for it yourself, you haven’t purchased the right to experience it.