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!


Hiatus Break: NFL Protests and Tax Reform

I have previous written about the original NFL protest by Colin Kaepernick. This post basically tells Kaepernick to put his money where his mouth is. He did exactly that. Now the protest has spread around the league. President Trump has tweeted, spoke and commented on the protest on multiple occasions. In apparent backlash, NFL ratings are down pretty significantly. The owners and players are seemingly at odds. (I’ll get into this more) I won’t just be talking about the NFL protest in this post. I also want to touch on tax reform which is currently the hot issue in Congress. I hold an extreme belief about taxes. I mean extreme by that its a position that isn’t possible in today’s circumstances. However, it doesn’t mean its not achievable eventually through some means. I will lay out my own set of tax reforms in the second part of this post.

I have been an NFL fan my whole life. Quite literally since I was in second grade I remember watching the Jets. I remember wearing Jets jerseys (I still have them). I absolutely love football. Although I never played in an organized manner. If I was athletically gifted I would be a Quarterback in the NFL. Generally I’m one of those people who doesn’t care to mix politics with anything but politics. So when Kaepernick started his protest I wasn’t that happy. Its not that I don’t care about the issues he is protesting or that I dislike him. Its just I watch football to watch football. I don’t care about the political leanings of the players or owners or coaches. Aside from that, they all get paid handsomely (Players) or are extremely wealthy to begin with (owners).

The problem with the protest now is that its gotten way out of control. At first it wasn’t too crazy. The craziest comes from a unlikely source in President Trump. Now Trump himself isn’t shy about creating controversy or saying incredibly inflammatory things. However, the President of the United States typically doesn’t pour gas on a fire like he did with the NFL protests. I basically have two issues here and the main issue is Trump’s position on this. Trump wants the owners and NFL to force the players to stand for the anthem. I think that many conservative thinking people probably agree. They think its disrespectful to the flag and the military. Which I don’t fully disagree.

However, the constitution has a bill of rights. In that bill of rights there is a first amendment. The first amendment is the freedom of speech. Over the years the Supreme Court has ruled that speech isn’t just talking, it can also cover symbolic speech and others. In this regard I have disagree with Trump, he or the government can’t make a law forcing them to stand. Its the players right to protest and there is nothing that Trump or the government can do. However, the NFL could do something like fire the players. But they won’t do that. Let me tell you why they won’t: Backlash would very bad for the NFL probably twice or three times as bad it is now. However, the NFL could force players to stand, its not a violation of first amendment rights. The reason is because the players represent the NFL as brand and the NFL has right to protect its brand from being unnecessarily tarnished especially by its own employees. The NFL also has a collective bargaining agreement which apparently does state that players must stand. If its true, then its over because the players agreed to that agreement and therefore would have to follow it or be fired.

In my opinion, I think that players should stand because of the ratings and money. I mean they are only affecting their own livelihood. If the owners still feeling the pinch then so will they. In the end, its better if they stand and try to protest in a different way or become an activist and use all those millions to do something about the problem. I don’t think anyone can deny that police oppression is real. However, I think the solution lies within criminal justice reform. I won’t get into this because I’m not an expert and I didn’t do any research yet. However, look out for future posts.


Tax reform is one of my favorite topics to discuss. Its because they are a lot of solutions to a problem that seems to never go away. I think one thing that is always missing from the tax reform debate is spending reform. You might say that’s a totally different reform! But actually taxes are based projected government spending.  For example: the government spends approximately 600 to 700 billion dollars on the military each year. In order to cover that they need to raise that in taxes.

Generally the federal government’s budget is anywhere from 2 to 4 trillion dollars. It is supposed to be a certain percent of GDP or gross domestic product. (I have a post dedicated to this subject of GDP) So my ideal tax reform in a perfect world would zero taxes. You may have heard taxation is theft. If you haven’t then its pretty plain what that means. Yes the government is stealing from us. This is a very extreme way to view taxation but its not as crazy as you think.

Originally the US government didn’t really collect taxes. In fact, the US government taxed products and used tariffs up until about 1913. So our government was able to run entirely without any income tax. Income tax is now the largest category of revenue of the US government. Its also the worst way to fund the government. Income tax really sucks. There will never a true, fair way to split up the weight of paying it. Its awful. However, there is no way the government could survive with 20 trillion dollars of debt and absolutely no tax income. That insane.

My proposal is essentially this get rid of the current tax format. Install a universal basic income (See this post). Then install a flat tax starting around 15 percent. No more brackets. No more loopholes. My plan does a lot of things but the two main things is that it cuts spending and will eventually lower taxes! So with basic income it would cut out most of social welfare programs and replace it with a government check to everyone over 18 and not a criminal. This saves approximately 200 million dollars a year. Each year for about 10 years you fix or pay off the debt. Plus the 15 percent over ten years would generate enough income to really pay off the debt and run the country. After ten years you lower the tax rate to 10 percent for another 10 to 15 years. Essentially the goal is to make the government so lean that it won’t need tax money. Its definitely possible over time.

This a simplified version which I think is good start. The details and actual numbers would have to be worked out by someone in a math oriented field. I can only hope that this tax plan eventually happens. Its not a popular one because usually conservative politicians advocate flat taxes. Basic income isn’t too popular either because it sounds a little crazy. But I feel like the two very different approaches really balance each other out. Also you can’t possibly say a flat tax isn’t fair. Its fair by nature. Also it still ensures that the poor pay less and the rich pay more. Which is why I don’t understand why people don’t like it. I guess they would rather get fleeced by the current system.

Thank you for reading! Have a awesome day!




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!

Roe vs. Wade versus Adoption

This post may be very controversial. So brace yourself because its likely you won’t agree with me. If you want to know how I feel about Abortion then I recommend you read this post that I wrote. As of late, I have been on a Supreme Court case breakdown bender. I’ve done both the first amendment and fourth amendment, you can read each those posts respectively. This post is going to be about abortion. First, I want to give a quick breakdown of Roe vs. Wade, the ground breaking court case decided in 1973. It outlawed laws against abortion except in the third trimester. However you feel about abortion, I will just be stating the courts’ decision on this. After that, I want to present my opinion on how to handle abortions in way that gives pro-lifers a peace of mind and at the same time gives women the right to choose. For starters, as a baseline I believe the government has no business intervening in abortions. Especially when it comes to paying for them. I also believe that women should have the right to choose whether to keep the baby or not. I will get into what should happen if they choose to not keep it.

If you’re not familiar with the facts of Roe vs. Wade you can read that here. Roe vs. Wade was decided whether or not Texas’ law making all abortions criminal was constitutional via the fourteenth amendment and ninth amendment. If you are not familiar with either of those amendments than here is a short explanation and a quote of another. The fourteenth amendment as it applies to this case has to do with due process and the equal protection of the law. Due process means you get a fair trial and equal protection of law means that everyone is protected under the law with no discrimination. The ninth amendment is a little more broad, it says this:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In simple terms, the ninth amendment says that any rights not mention by the constitution can be implied if necessary. Obviously its the job of legislative branch and the Supreme Court to decide what those rights are. In Roe vs. Wade, the decision went 7-2 for Roe. The decision took into account both the 9th and 14th amendments. They found that the 9th amendment didn’t apply. They also found didn’t rule on question of when life begins. But what Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion did was layout a framework to make abortion a legal right of privacy under the fourteenth amendment. The court also decided that due to concerns of health to both mother and baby, they set up an appropriate timeframe to actually get an abortion. They ruled that having the pregnant women’s attending physician could decide to abort up until the first trimester. Most importantly, they upheld Roe’s right to make that decision to have an abortion.

A women’s right to have an abortion is probably more important than the actual abortion itself in the eyes of the constitution. I think that science has pretty much narrowed down the parameters of safety and when life begins. The court expanded the fourteenth amendment to protect the privacy of women. No matter how you feel about abortion, you have to give them credit. Obviously, a lot of opposition to this decision and even the dissenting opinions were that of where life begins and the courts’ actual jurisdiction. Many people weren’t sure the constitution actually covers it or even mentions it. However, I don’t believe it has to. This is the law of the land until another case overturns it. So you might be asking what’s the point? What’s your point? How do you plan to make both pro-life and pro-choice happy? Let’s call it a compromise like our forefathers did.

I’ve already hinted that I like the idea that women have a right to choose. I believe the constitution does protect those rights. Unfortunately, the constitution doesn’t see morals like we do. This means we need to take the moral question out of it. I’ve never been big on abortions. I don’t think they are necessary unless in a medical emergency. I believe there is only one real circumstances where abortion is necessary. The situation is where the mother or child (or both) are in danger because of the pregnancy.  In all other situations, I propose that we use adoption. Why adoption? Well for starters, it will quell the argument of over when life begins which is the main source of disagreement. But I believe that adoption is better than abortion.

For example, abortion is expensive and deadly to the fetus. Adoption is relatively cheaper because its just the care of the newborn. Adoption avoids the need for Supreme court rulings on abortion and keeps the fourteenth amendment intact. I am a man. (I don’t claim to know much) So I would almost have to think that choosing whether to raise the kid or give it up for adoption is an easier choice than raise the kid or kill it. In the beginning of the post, I mention how the government sometimes pays for abortions. I hate this. I think if you want to get an abortion you should have to pay. After all it is a choice. Making women who get abortions (Not women who were raped, they could potentially be paid by the government) pay for them would only strengthen the incentive to put up for adoption. I think that adoption gives a child who might otherwise die, a chance to live and grow up and be productive in society.

The other argument for adoption is that many couples try to have kids and fail because of many reasons, infertility and others. Regardless, these potential wanna be parents would have a larger pool of kids to adopt from. The government could spend the money they use trying to regulate abortion on making adoption easier and more streamlined. I believe that adoption provides an alternative that isn’t nearly as talked as it should be. Adoption could change everything and eliminate abortions altogether. Abortion is so controversial that nobody even likes to talk about it. The problem is that we all disagree on different points and levels. I think at the end day, we can all agree that free choice and the maintainance of life is most important to each side.

Thanks 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!