Memes: The Idiot savant’s guide to Memes.

I don’t know if you can guess what this post is going to be about? Who puts a word twice in one title? A total Idiot? Its possible. Before I start with the real post, I want to put a disclaimer: THIS IS SATIRE. Its a JOKE. If you get offended please smash your phone or computer immediately. 

There is a joke going around the internet, you may have heard of it. The left can’t meme. This joke is often shared by conservatives, independents, and libertarians alike. They say stereotypes aren’t nice but almost always TRUE! Say what will about which political view memes the best, this is basically a guide on how to meme GREAT! To quote Donald Trump: I’m gonna make MEMES great again or MMGA. Stick that on your hat. Side Note: Isn’t Donald Trump the greatest meme treasure trove ever gifted to humanity. SO MANY GREAT MEMES! Thanks Donald, you might be a horrible president, worse businessman but at least your memes are straight FIRE. HA! Wow I just went in on Trump. Anyway, I guess a good starting point is with Trump memes. They are relevant. They are hilarious. Let’s make MEMES great again! MMGA!

Although memes can be on any subject material, I find that the funnier ones are involved with politics. Trump is known for his out of this world self confidence which leads to some great memes:


I use this meme constantly especially if I’m proud of words that I wrote or if somebody shows any signs of being of human by using words. Memes are often sarcastic in nature. They naturally represent a picture with words but the meaning can have TRUTH to it. For example:


Evidence 101: Trump just bombed Syria. If you missed that post then here it is.

There are also others which are pretty sarcastic, usually like this one below, indicating you should get involved kinda of ironically.


Ok enough Trump for today. He is funny but there are greener pastures with FUNNIER MEMES. I know I can’t contain my own excitement. In general, if I was rate the funniest memes in a supply and demand curve, I would say that Memes are more funny when they are more offensive. Therefore, the less offensive, the less funny. I don’t think there is an explanation needed for what is coming next:


Again, if you are offended, its a joke.

If you laughed as you should, then here are some more hilarious memes:


Its historical and funny. Memes can take many different forms and topics.


Trump’s alleged best friend Putin is a great meme. I encourage a google search of these. I’m going to finish up this meme lesson with a gallery of sorts, of memes. Have a good laugh, get offended, and remember its ok to steal memes, Thomas Jefferson says so.



I hope you had a good laugh. The last one absolutely kills me if you imagine reading in a British accent. I hope you have a better understand of Memes and the purpose is obviously to make people laugh and sometimes to prove a point about something in a funny way.  Just remember the LEFT can’t meme. Also while your still here check out my social media written below. ALSO CHECK OUT THE MEME FOR IT, you will love it. I promise.

Lizard Robot King Zuckerberg’s Private data mine (Facebook) Garrett’s Life Experience’s

Twitter (Liberal safe heaven) gpslife12


Lmao, just admit you laugh your fucking ass off!

Thanks for reading, Taxation is theft.


Tragedy of the Commons: Problem with Collective Policies

Have you ever heard of Tragedy of the Commons? Sound familiar? Tragedy of commons is typically associated with fishing. If fisherman go out to a popular fishing spot and catch fish at a rate that is more than fish reproduce, then that would be a tragedy of commons. Garrett Hardin came up with theory originally and applied it to biology or nature. There are many examples, but the basic principle is that demand overwhelms supply.  Just in case you fell asleep in Economics 101 or you happen to be Bernie Sanders then here is a little reminder of how supply and demand work:


I want to talk about tragedy of the commons in the terms of political policies and platforms. It’s a topic that is hotly contested among Libertarians and conservatives. On the other hand, Liberals tend to completely ignore it. Its this ignorance of the tragedy of commons that might explain why collectivist policies that liberals tend to advocate are just really bad. Liberals and even Conservatives both tend to argue for MORE government regulation in the face of a tragedy of the commons issue. (I’ll try to keep it relatively brief, one or two examples, I have a lot to say)

Let’s take on healthcare for example, is a tragedy of the commons. Liberals advocate for a universal healthcare system. This system would in theory depend on the taxpayer (theft) money to help cover the costs of healthcare. However, this policy would extremely expensive due to the increased costs to private health providers. Also the service given by providers would be slower due to a heavy volume and probably less staff. Healthcare is a complex issue but a tragedy of commons exists in both the taxation for it and the availability of quick medical care by providers. For example, in Canada, they have universal healthcare and experience longer wait times, sometimes for very important life saving procedures. In some cases they come to the US for faster care.

In short, universal healthcare is a collectivist policy pushed by liberals that creates many tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately the conservatives are not much better backing single payer with a government agency running the show. Less tragedy of the commons here, but still not the best option. The solution for a tragedy of the commons is deregulation in most cases, concerning government policies. In nature, like the fishing spot, the solution would be to have fisherman stop fishing in that particular spot until there were sufficient fish. I want to clarify what I mean by collectivist. Collectivist is a term usually meaning something is done in or by a group.

My second example is one of the hottest issues because of a vote coming up, Net Neutrality. Naturally my position is repeal because Net Neutrality isn’t consumer protections, its just dealing with bandwidth and if companies can block or censor stuff. From what I’ve read the new rules after repeal will be that the companies will have to report whatever they throttle, block, censor to the FCC who will make it public. I also see no problem with Netflix and Amazon and Hulu having to pay more for bandwidth. They use a lot of it, its only fair. Naturally that will be passed to the customer. However, the good news of repeal is that companies will offer different packages specifically geared toward streaming services. Unlike now, where you get all one price and it might be good or bad.

The tragedy of the commons in Net Neutrality stems from the issue of bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth that these companies can generate without losing money. Its interesting because if you look at bandwidth in a vacuum, it really highlights the problem. Watch: Let’s say Comcast and Verizon both offer 300 mbps of bandwidth under current Net Neutrality for an average price of 150 dollars. (Making up random numbers here). Let’s repeal those rules and see how prices and amount of bandwidth change. Under Net Neutrality, both companies would have similar prices and the max amount of bandwidth would be at 300, but of course you can pay less to get less. The problem with this is that the companies aren’t really competing. There’s very little variation because the going rate for bandwidth is 150 dollars for 300 mpbs. Everyone can gets to use that bandwidth to watch Netflix and play fortnite as much as they want. The companies might be struggling to keep all this bandwidth up with only 150 dollars per customer because their own business costs are going up.

If we repeal Net Neutrality, now Comcast charges $100 for 200 mpbs,  $200 for 300 mpbs and lets say $300 for 400 mpbs. Unheard of right? Well, Verizon charges $75 for 150 mpbs, $150 for 250 mpbs, $275 for 300 mpbs, $350 for 420 mpbs. Now you can see the competition as each company tries attract more customers. They may even offer a lower bandwidth but you get extreme streaming capabilities for an extra 100 bucks. Either way, the competition will naturally drive down prices. When supply goes up, demand goes down. In order to create demand you need to supply, but you also need to create an interest in your product and attractiveness or marketing.

The solution to the tragedy of the commons for nearly every aspect of Net Neutrality is deregulation. Let the consumers decide which companies will succeed and fail. Another positive aspect of net neutrality being repealed is that it will allow startups and other smaller companies to get into the market of internet.

I believe that through my two examples I have shown why some collectivists policies are broken due to the tragedy of the commons. I believe that the solution to tragedy of the commons is deregulation which means getting government out of our lives. This solution is the basis for the whole libertarian philosophy. If society is a tragedy of the commons then as libertarians we are for the deregulation and privatization of pretty much everything. Everything is harder in a large group. Its similar to when you ask your friends where they want to eat. Everyone has different opinion. Or when you ask your friends when they want to go out. Everyone is busy and has no time. Collectivism requires group-think and group decision making. Its not the most effective. Tragedy of the commons also tends to tread on the rights of the individual.

The rights of individual are the most important aspect in a free society. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Thanks for reading!

Please Tweet me @gpslife12 or like my facebook page at Garrett’s Life Experience’s

What do you mean no Helicopters and McNukes?

In usual fashion I have come across some inspiring material to write my own article on. I’ve been thinking recently about what the ends of a libertarian party or movement would or should be. In this blog I consider the means of getting there. I’m always pushing steps toward a libertarian society. These steps seem to never make any progress. I have always viewed the libertarian society as an idealist notion. I think to some degree its true. On the other hand, I feel like its entirely possible that a libertarian society is achievable. The problems are numerous and the solutions are few. One main problem and probably the biggest one is the lack of education of outsiders on the libertarian values and beliefs. People tend to misinterpret or misunderstand what libertarians stand for and what we want to achieve.

I’ve recently said on social media that I believe I’m in the minority of libertarians that believe that achieving the ultimate goal of a libertarian society will come instantly once it happens. I feel that many libertarians, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists think that once we overthrow the current government then we can just easily transition to that libertarian society that we all agree is the goal. I don’t believe its so easy or fast. I think there is a number of factors to consider about means and ends of libertarianism.

The first and foremost is that the way to change the government is to vote for politicians who hold the same beliefs, values and morals as libertarians.  We can all agree politicians of this caliber don’t exist right now with the exception of Rand Paul, maybe. After voting for Gary Johnson in two consecutive elections I have realized that we are going too big. (Nothing wrong with him, just a walking meme.) We need to find libertarian congresspeople. I know of 3 libertarian leaning congresspeople, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash. Once we can turn the Congress into a majority of libertarians then we can work on the white house.

The second factor is education like I mentioned before. A lot of people have misconceptions of libertarians. Even I used to subscribe to these common myths. For example: Libertarians are both Republican and Democrat because they support a little of each. It might be true that we hold similar positions but we are actually against both parties. The two main parties are a snake with two heads. They don’t care about you. They care about their interests and their money! We need to educate the masses on libertarianism. The essential thing is liberty and freedom. The government shouldn’t play much if any role in our everyday lives. The government doesn’t need to over regulate and get involved in everything we do. The government doesn’t need to tax our hard earned income. For over 100 years, the US government collected no income tax. Who will build the roads? Private corporations that need to ship things by truck. Businesses that need to drive around. My point is that if we can educate people then eventually will lead to more people accepting and more importantly voting for libertarians.

The third factor of the means is simply cohesive-ness among libertarians. We have to unify our ideas. I know we all agree on certain things. But we have to compromise on other things. Example: Abortion. One of the hottest button issues because there is no stasis for argument. Pro Life or Pro Choice? For me, I’m torn between both because choice is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Yet I’m also catholic so I can’t possibly support the killing of something that is alive. My position is Pro-Adoption. It gives a choice and saves the life of the baby. Also there are many parents out there who can’t have kids. My point here is that a compromise takes a little bit from each side and makes palatable to everyone. Compromise is something that our country was founded on. I strongly believe we should get back to that.

The forth factor is concerning the ends. I find it hilarious but helicopters and McNukes are a standard must have in any libertarian society. But lets all be honest its a little far fetched. I do believe that no taxes, open carry (guns), NAP and very small government are possible to have. I think we all have to be realistic about the ends. The ultimate goal is for everybody to live their life without the interference from government. But I think we miss the point that libertarian is also one of the most charitable types of societies. Its not fake charity like socialism and communism. In a libertarian society, you would give to the poor, give to the sick and give to government if you felt like it was worth it. Thats the wonderful thing about it, its your choice to give your money or not. Government is ineffective at helping people. But there is a million examples of where everyday people throw their support at something and get it done without government.

My conclusion is that we need to educate, vote, come together and be realistic about our ultimate goal of a libertarian society.  We can do it all once too. My inspiration was an article that basically said no more Libertarian party but we need a movement. In order to achieve a movement, we have to educate people on the benefits of joining this movement. We have to vote in politicians who reflect our positions. Its not going to be easy. The steps towards a libertarian society will be methodical. All I hope is that I see this libertarian society come to fruition before my time is up. I’m still young so I got hope.

Just remember kids, Taxation is Theft.

Thanks For Reading!


Tariffs: America’s Oldest Tax Plan Revisited

In history class, I distinctly remember talking about tariffs. It’s usually something you learn about first especially in American history. The American revolutionaries were unhappy with the tariffs being put on their exports by the British. This is what the revolution started over to a degree. You might not remember what a tariff or tariffs are. The definition of tariff is: tax or duty to be paid on particular class of imports and exports. In other words, a tariff is a tax on imported or exported goods. Every country typically imports and exports goods and services. The goods that are typically exported are those in surplus in that country. The goods that are imported are those which are either cheaper or not in supply in that country. Tariffs have been long a part of the American economy. Tariffs have even long been a part of the government.

In the post, I’m going to first review why tariffs were such an integral part of our nation’s history. Then I want to discuss how we went from a tariff based revenue system to the current system of income tax. After that I want to put forward an idea that seems to have been lost in time. The tariff in the United States was after the revolution used to fund the government. Almost as the sole source of income. Alexander Hamilton had designed the whole system. He set up and got funding for a series of lighthouses and inspection clerks up and down the Atlantic coast. There clerks were to inspect all incoming and outgoing goods. They also had to determine the tariff on each item. They were called Customs Officers. Hamilton became the Secretary of the Treasury and further install his government revenue engine on the back of the Tariff act of 1789. The act is simply explained in its first section:

“Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:” — Section 1; Tariff Act of 1789

The tariff is essentially an indirect tax on goods coming and going out of the country. Hamilton saw the huge war debt from the revolution and knew that the US government had no source of income. There was no income tax or anything like that. (Wouldn’t come til 1912, I’ll explain later) So Hamilton being the genius he was, decided to convince President Washington to take out a loan and install the customs system (Tariff Act). He argued in one of many papers that America need to build credit. If you have a credit card or student loans like me then you know that building credit is paying off your debt. Hamilton’s system allowed the US government build credit, in fact one of the best credit ratings in the world for many years. Not everyone was on board with the plan. People like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. However, they couldn’t stop Hamilton’s plan because war debt was owed to France and other creditors. The US didn’t have many options at that time.

So tariffs were the main source of income from 1789 to about 1911. The US government added liquor taxes, postage taxes, corporate taxes, tobacco taxes and the Panama canal as other sources of revenue. In 1912, tariffs made up about 20 percent of the income of the government. In 1913, the government passed a law that changed the source of US government forever. The law called the Revenue Act of 1913 or the Underwood Act was passed to impose an income tax and lower tariff rates from 40 to 25 percent. This marked the end of tariffs making up a significant portion of US government income. This act was possible by the newly passed 16th amendment. (For another post, the 16th allows for income tax under the direct taxation requirements in the constitution, which was previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) Since 1913, our tariff income has only been about 1 percent of revenue. This figure is according to this website here, it also breaks down the tariff income based on type of good. All in all, 2013 saw about 30 billion dollars of income. This is compared to 311 million in 1912. In 2016 dollars, that tariff income would be about 7 billion. Obviously, since the early 1900s the conditions of the economy and our government budget has exploded.

You might be asking yourself but isn’t 7 billion dollars in 2016 or 2017 (Happy New Year) like chump change for the US government whose budget is around 2 or 3 trillion dollars. My answer would be yes. However, if you look at these numbers in terms of percentage and scale then you can imagine a viable tariff system for 2017. Remember tariffs made up 20 percent of the 1912 budget. Now tariffs make up 1.7 percent approximately in 2013. So lets say for argument that our budget under President Trump is 3 trillion. Trump decides in order to cut taxes he needs to increase revenues. (In some alternate logical world) So Trump orders an increase on tariffs. His cabinet comes up with about 600 billion in tariffs or about 20 percent of the budget. I think that 600 billion dollars is a pretty nice chunk of change. Imagine what that could pay for? Social Security? War? Food Stamps? But what would those tariffs look like?

Obviously to understand the role of tariffs, you need have an understanding of the global economy. I think its obvious that the world is complex. A significant part of an economy is trade. The trade between two countries or more is essential because it allows scarce resources to be spread. It also widens the markets for such goods. Its been in the news a lot lately about all the trade agreements. These agreements in a basic way remove the barriers and allow trade to flow freely. One of those barriers can be tariffs. There are two types of tariffs. Import tariffs are a tax on goods that imported from other countries. Import tariffs are often seen as protective to a country economy. This was the primary tariff beginning in 1789 because it (artificially) protected the US economy. Export tariffs are a tax on goods being exported to other countries. Export tariffs are typically seen as way to limit the exports of a certain good. For example, if oil became very scarce then the US might want to put a high export tariff to help curb the sale of oil abroad and keep here in the US.  (An export tariff would increase the price of oil outside the US)

I believe that introducing a new tax plan including tariffs might be beneficial to the US. I think you have to carefully consider what to put tariffs on and what kind of tariffs. But its definitely a source revenue that is not used as it once was. Now we rely on income tax so heavily, its crushing many Americans. Its a liberal fallacy to think that you can tax your way out of poverty. Its an irony. Taxes create more poverty than eliminate. I think I need to do another post on the subject of trade because this post is merely just one part of it. I need to do some further research before I offer any specifics on what a tariff revenue might look like. So I will leave this post as to be continued, my next post will try to figure out how to successfully incorporate tariffs into a free trade world.

Thanks for reading!


The Deepening Divide: American Political Parties

You might be familiar with the term political parties. I think most people would conjure up images of a donkey and an elephant. Many people associate political parties with democrat and republican. In most countries, there is either no political parties or just one; or there are more than two. America is unique in having only two main parties. There may be some others but America is the best known. The point of this post is just to casually discuss the widening divide of the two main parties. I expect that with my own political compass to probably discuss the lack of a third-party.  Yesterday I was having a conversation with somebody who has some opposing views in terms of politics. The conversation really made me start to think about the political parties. In recent years, it seems that the democrats and republicans have gone to further extremes. Obviously if you were born in 2000 or after you probably wouldn’t notice.

You don’t have to be old to see the extremist stretch of the parties. All you have to know is a little historical context. I’m sure I have explained this before in some other post but its worth explaining again. Political parties started in America in 1776 on about the same day the declaration of independence was signed.  Typically historians will say somewhat ironically that after George Washington’s farewell address is when the parties really got going. I will get to George Washington’s farewell address too. But first lets discuss the political parties at that time. During the time before the constitution was signed, there were two sets of loosely based political beliefs. There was no actual organized parties til much later. The Federalists and the anti-Federalist. (Yes, very creative naming) The Federalists were led (loosely) by Alexander Hamilton. They believed that the constitution maintain a strong executive presence within the federal government. The anti-Federalists who led (loosely, not right away) by Thomas Jefferson. They believed that it should be the states who hold the majority of power not the federal government.

I say loosely lead because there wasn’t any organization not until after Thomas Jefferson’s presidency in 1801 to 1809. Now as for George Washington’s farewell address, this is part where its relevant to political parties: (Irony coming ahead)

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 Yale Avalon Project

So here is the ironic thing about George Washington and his address, Washington himself was not above joining a party. Throughout his presidency, he tended to call on his secretary of treasury and in the revolutionary war, his first clerk to attend to government business. Alexander Hamilton was one of George Washington’s closest confidants. He also happens to be the de-facto leader of the Federalist party. Washington was actually pretty persuaded by Hamilton’s beliefs. He felt that Hamilton had the country going in the right direction. Washington also did try to stay above the Federalist and Anti-Federalist mudslinging.

If we fast forward to just before the Civil War, we see that political parties have evolved from Federalist and Anti-Federalist to Whigs and Republican-Democrats. The names seem to be different and very much the same even ironic. However, the Whigs represented the Federalist view in many ways. The Republican Democrats represented the Anti-Federalist view. The Whigs dominated the north and the Republican Democrats dominated the south. Abraham Lincoln was the end of the Whig party and the beginning of what many call today’s Republican party. At a contested convention in 1860, Lincoln was able to swing votes to his Republican party from the majority Whigs. From Lincoln time until Teddy Roosevelt, the Republicans and Southern Democrats dominated American politics. Even now, parties tend to be very regional and sectional in popularity. Its one way to define who votes for them. Of course up til 1919, it was only white men who owned land then women’s suffrage was passed.

Teddy Roosevelt was elected by a third-party, one of the few presidents to do so. The 20th century represents a major change in the parties. After Teddy, the political extremes begin to take off. You can contrast the parties in the alternating decades of their rule. The republican decade of roaring twenties saw relaxed government meanwhile the progressive era of 1930s to 1940s  with Franklin D. Roosevelt saw the Democrats dominate because of the Great Depression. The democrats also held power during World War 2 and afterwards with Harry Truman. The 1950s saw the rise of Republicanism in Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was actually pretty moderate by today’s standards. The 1960s saw JFK and LBJ, the latter passing the Great Society, the so-called “second New Deal”. The 1970s saw even more moderates like Nixon and Carter but leaned Democrat. The 1980s is when the extremes pushed higher than ever with Ronald Reagan. Since Reagan, the Republicans have pushed for more tax cuts every year. The 1990s stay relatively moderate with Bill Clinton as a centrist democrat.

My point is that over years it seems like Democrats and Republicans seem to farther apart than ever especially today. I believe this last election really show how deep the divide came. I think when you politicians like Bernie Sanders running, whose view is more socialist than democrat, you have a problem. America always been able to stay the course and not veer to extremes. In part thanks to our constitution and our checks and balances. You know its extreme when Donald Trump is considered an acceptable candidate and is elected. I don’t have a solution to this extreme push to fringes. However, I would propose that we allow more than two dominate parties. I’m a libertarian and I take some opinions from both sides and mold them into one view. I think that being extreme politically is like being ignorant. You can irrationally argue just about anything but you won’t make progress. In order to make progress, you have to accept that there are other ways to achieving the same goals. I think one of the bests to describe the dysfunction of our political parties is that they all have the same goal with a different way to get there.So why can’t we just compromise. The reason is simple. Democrats want big government to control every aspect of our lives except abortions. Republicans want government out of lives except when it comes to abortions. We need to make our goal to make America the best it can be by any means necessary. We need to compromise. Until we can do that then the only thing that will happen is Congressional deadlock and fighting.

Thanks for reading!

Beating A Dead Horse: Fallacy of Minimum Wage and Rise of Welfare

The topic of minimum wage seems to really boil my blood. I write about it constantly. I don’t know if I can link all the posts its in without making a paragraph of it. In this post, I want to reiterate some of my usual arguments about minimum wage. However, I want to connect two things that are eerily related. Many people who think that McDonald’s and other workers of low skill level jobs need a living wage are the same people who say welfare is necessary because of the low wages. The liberal mission of a living wage is a misguided pipe-dream. The conservative theory that cutting all welfare at once is a solution that also will not work. Ever since the mid 1960s, the United States has been nothing short of obsessed with welfare and minimum wage. We depend it, like a cigarette addict who depends on cigarettes for nicotine. You can try to quit cold turkey or you can say fuck it and smoke more cigarettes because why quit when you’ve already damaged your lungs. I want to present something similar to what the e-cigarette has done for smokers. A new innovative way for the United States to free itself from this trap of living wages and welfare.

Recently, I came across these articles claiming that Minnesota had fix their state economy while Kansas had wrecked it. Minnesota elected a new democratic governor who raised taxes and increased minimum wage and saw a positive effect on the economy. Meanwhile in Kansas, they elected a tea party candidate. The governor of Kansas proceeded to cut four government departments and Medicaid. He cut the department of education and others. He lowered taxes for the rich. Kansas nearly went bankrupt.  It’s interesting that the total population of Kansas and Minnesota is about 7 or 8 million people. Kings County or otherwise known as Brooklyn has 2.6 million people, about same number of people as Kansas. New York City has a total of 8.6 million people as much both of those states combined. Just for some scale. I think when you look at tax plans and government philosophies, you can’t just look at results like “Oh the democratic way is definitely better because of Minnesota and the conservative technique sucks because look at Kansas!”

I believe that you have to take into account how many people are in the state and the unique-ness of that state. Kansas and Minnesota have completely different populations. They have different income per capita. They are in different geographic locations. Now I think that there are flaws with both GOP and Liberal ways of taxation and spending. As a libertarian, I can appreciate what the Kansas governor was trying to do. But he was too hasty, and didn’t have clear alternative that actually worked. I think the flaws with liberal system really tell you all about why minimum wage doesn’t work. The first flaw is that minimum wage can’t possibly help the worker as they claim it will. You have to realize that a minimum or base wage means it’s the least any worker can make. When you raise the base wage that means you raise the production costs of every company in the country, state or county. It affects all businesses. Businesses don’t just pay out wages. They have to pay taxes, regulatory fees, stock, transportation, supplies, retirement. Its bad enough that workers wages already take up to 50 or 60 percent of the profits in most businesses.

The worst effect of rasing minimum wage is felt by small business or franchised businesses. I have worked in franchised businesses for about 6 years now. A franchised is a separately owned business that pays to have the corporations name on it. The corporation sets the rules and standards and the franchisee is responsible for turning a profit. When you raise minimum wage you really hurt any small business or franchisee. I can personally tell you that at some McDonald’s they don’t even make a million dollars in a year. The one I worked at, only made about 500,000 in profit. Minimum wage is a small business killer, it’s not fair. Big corporations don’t care if you raise the minimum wage because they can take it. They are multinational corporations that make millions worldwide. You may say ok but low wages means we need more welfare right?  What we need is to keep the government out of the price setting business. Minimum wage increases the costs of everything. A lower wage would go further because production cost are lower. That is why other countries take our businesses, you can pay their workers less.

I’ll admit that we need some type of welfare. We cannot just cut medicare and Medicaid. We can’t just collapse social security. We need to help anyone who can’t work because of a mental or physical condition. We need to help people save for retirement. We need to support to the unemployed. The question is how to do all that without raising our debt even more. Currently, the welfare system in the United States cost about 700 billion dollars each year. This 700 billion on the taxpayer’s dime, aka you and me. It’s a complex and complicated system with multiple government agencies. The bureaucracy is ridiculous. I have written about basic income before and I strongly recommending read it. In that post about Basic Income, I propose a simple solution to the problem of welfare. Although it may not be as simple as I explain it. My central argument is that if 700 billion is spent on welfare each year then we install a basic income of about 2000 dollars to each resident over 18. The cost is about 500 billion for a basic income. We then replace our current welfare system with this basic income. Obviously there are kinks and certain regulations that would necessary especially when it comes to the unemployed and taxation. In my estimation, I believe that we could save 200 billion a year.

Here is my original post:

Basic Income: $2000

Population over 18: 244 million

Monthly cost of Basic Income: $488,000,000,000 billion

Monthly cost of welfare: 700 Billion

Savings by Government:$212,000,000,000 Billion dollars.

My point is that minimum wage doesn’t pull anybody out of poverty and neither does welfare. However, it is necessary to have both because we are a first world country. I believe that our government just doesn’t run anything that efficiently. I think that a ton of money is wasted on government programs that could be done by the private sector. I also believe that basic income is the solution between tea party economics and a full-fledged socialist economy. In beginning I used the analogy of a smoker trying to quit. I believe if keep minimum wage reasonably low, and we install basic income to replace our current welfare system, the United States could start to fix the other problems that plague our nation. I think that both parties and libertarians can get behind this idea. For liberals, it maintains the idea that people should be helped by the government and it would be taxpayer money paying for basic income.  For conservatives and libertarians, it keeps the government reach out of people’s lives. It eliminates a large of chunk of government-run services. It also could help bring our national debt down or pay for other projects.

I hope that this was an informative and though provoking piece. Feel free to research anything I have said. I won’t say that I was right about everything and I left out exact details. However, I think my argument is a viable one that should be considered by everyone.

Thank you for reading!

On the Basis of Democracy: John Locke, Part 2.

Welcome to Part 2 of on the Basis of Democracy with John Locke. If you missed Part 1, you should read that first. The purpose of this blog post is to simply figured out the origins of Democracy and how it works within our American democracy. In Part 1, I went over some of the ideas of democracy from Aristotle. Political theory is a pretty easy theory to follow because each political philosopher usually builds off philosopher’s of time past. Therefore, the more ancient political scholarship you understand, the more modern/current political thoughts you can understand. In Part 2, we will be discussing John Locke and his ideas on democracy.

Who is John Locke? He is an english born political philosopher. Born in the early 1600s. He was influenced by Aristotle. Locke has a deep range of writings. He is often considered to be one of the fathers of the enlightenment. Similar to part 1, I won’t give a full biography but go to straight to Locke’s ideas about democracy. Starting from his first writing and going forward, Locke’s main premise is the consent of the governed. In his first writing called “Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina”.  In this piece, Locke and his mentor, wrote a constitution meant for the Providence of Carolina in England. It was never adopted. However, the ideas that he mentioned became the basis of political philosophy going forward.

The most influential of Locke’s writings came in his Two Treatises of Government. Instead of trying to paraphrase his great words, I will just show you. Then I will explain how the founding fathers use Locke’s ideas especially in the Declaration of Independence. Here is just a few excerpts of Locke’s Two Treatises of Government:

Sect. 95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

Sect. 96. For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority: for that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see, that in assemblies, impowered to act by positive laws, where no number is set by that positive law which impowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole.

If you want to read more of Locke: Click here.

Locke’s main point is that the governed hold the power of the government. Locke believes that a government cannot operate without the consent of the government. This is a basis of democracy. The reason why Locke believes that the consent of the governed is so important is because of the freedom or liberty that it offers. If the government is ruled by the people it can prevent tyrants and better rule the people. Locke is also coming from a monarchy in England and in a time when the dark ages we’re not that far off. In the dark ages, it was a small oligarchy who wealthy that ruled over the poor and working class who had no say. Locke’s ideas are perhaps best expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s document.

Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher in his own right. Jefferson also understood that Locke’s philosophy fit perfectly with the American cause for revolution. If you didn’t pay attention in history class then you want to know to that one of the rallying cries was “no taxation no representation”. The American people were clamoring for representation in the British parliament. The unilateral rule of the British Monarchy over the American colony was directly what John Locke was trying to get at. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson took a page for Locke and wrote this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson essentially took Locke’s words and used it as a justification for the revolution of the American people. Locke’s vision for democracy did not just end with Jefferson but kept going. Locke’s idea that the consent of governed is needed in democracy still holds true today. Unfortunately, in today’s America we have gotten lazy. We seem to have ignored the fact that our democracy is supposed represent the people. Many people blame our representatives. We should look at the majority of governed who don’t vote. I think in a very indirect way, Locke is also advocating for participation in government. I feel that political participation has gone down as politics has become more polarizing.

We can blame Trump. We can blame Hillary. We blame our politicans. However, I think that democracy in the words of Locke lies with “the consent of the governed.” I think to wrap up this series, I want to just conclude a few major considerations for the basis of democracy. One basis that Aristotle outlined is the authority over aduits. In other words, Aristotle thought that the people should hold purse strings and keep the government accountable. Aristotle gave us a second basis that is the foundation of our judicial system. The right to a fair trial with a jury of your peers. Locke gives us the basis of the consent of the governed. The theory that democracy should always be run by the people and for the people. The majority of people should have the power to control the government. This means everyone must vote. Everyone must participate. These are the three main bases of democracy as written by Aristotle and John Locke.

This will be end of this series for now. I may continue it with different philosophers at another time. Below you will find my sources especially for the quoted stuff. Thank you for reading!