Achieving Low Prices on Automobiles and Pharmaceuticals Through Zero Tariffs and Limited Patents

      In the wake of the Covid-19 crisis, and the production of several vaccines against coronavirus, the Canadian government is now signaling that it will consider waiving intellectual property protections on those vaccines.

     http://www..ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-inches-closer-to-waiving-intellectual-property-rights-on-vaccines-amid-political-pressure-1.541707

     This news comes two-and-a-half years after Canada placed a 270% tariff against the importation of foreign milk into Canada. Canada, like the nations of Europe, had recently become caught up in a trade war, which arguably began when then-president Donald Trump increased tariffs on foreign steel.

     Those steel tariffs caused America's farmers to demand a bailout, due to: 1) the fact that the tariffs on foreign steel arguably functioned as a protection for American steel in the process; 2) the increased cost, to farmers, of farm equipment which is made out of cheap foreign-made steel, after tariffs; 3) agricultural exports from the U.S. to China declined significantly after the tariffs were applied; and 4) the fact that the farm industry hadn't yet been bailed out, and seemed to need a bailout, in proportion to the protection afforded to U.S. steel workers.
     http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/tariffs-drive-farm-income-down-and-equipment-prices/583

     This phenomenon has been commented on, in such great detail, that it was arguably predicted; by the economist Henry Hazlitt, in Chapter 11 of his 1946 book Economics in One Lesson.

     It is too bad that Canada isn't considering waiving I.P. protections on all medications, rather than just the coronavirus vaccine.

     If free-market economic theory is correct, then as long as sovereign governments respect the limitations put on them by the people, and take a more non-interventionist role in the economy, then a move towards zero tariffs, and the reduction of the length of patent terms, will result in a freeing of trade and price competition, which itself will lead to dramatic reductions in the prices of all goods.

     And if Medicare for All or universal health care isn't on the way, then cheaper medical prices is something that Americans - and people all over the world - need badly right now.

     So the free-market theory goes: If the state didn't (or couldn't) rescue or bail-out failing firms - and didn't hand taxpayer money over to politicians' corporate cronies - then failing firms and large monopolies could easily be competed-against; whether out of existence, or just out of their monopoly status.

     Auto plant workers, farmers, and people in the pharmaceutical industry, each have their own distinct ways of evaluating the comparative value of the quantity and quality of steel, cars, farm equipment, food, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and so on. Their subjective preferences, professions, and relative needs for each of these items at different times, strongly influence the way that these people will interact, and what they will buy, and when.

     Just as farmers will want to either optimize quality and cost of the steel that goes into their farm equipment, or else sacrifice quality for cost or vice-versa, the same question exists in medicine. Obviously, high-quality, low-cost medication is the most desired outcome, but that doesn't seem realistic. So, then, should medications be low-quality yet widely available? Or should they be high-quality yet restricted to the few?

     Instead of assuming that either quality or affordability must be sacrificed, and mandate that one firm should produce a good at a particular price, it is perhaps best to give the consumer the choice in the matter. And that can be done; through allowing multiple producers of similar goods to exist, and distribute different numbers of goods at different prices from other firms, so that individual consumers can choose whether they want a lot of the cheap stuff, or a little of the high-strength stuff, or something in between.

     The economic coordination between the customer and the firm he wants to go out of business, would be done not by a government that can keep that bad business afloat, but would instead be done through the consumer calling the firm to complain, or through refraining to purchase the product. Thanks to taxation and subsidization, and the limitations upon boycotts which are imposed by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the freedom to refrain to purchase a product, is limited. Thus, the right to boycott, and the right of each consumer to play his role in regulating the economy, are limited as well.

     Just as people's professions and subjective preferences influence their demands in term of price and quality, those factors will also strongly influence their vote, as well as their demands from government.

     People in the pharmaceutical industry will, naturally, vote and buy as if the labor of doctors and pharmaceutical engineers are - at least on a metaphysical level - somehow intrinsically more valuable than the labor done by the people who grow and harvest our food, and who build and maintain our cars.

     And maybe health is more important than transportation. But on the other hand, you can't be healthy if you don't eat, and you can scarcely enjoy your health if you can't travel anywhere. In fact, not being able to travel much, can have a negative impact on your mental and emotional health, by causing you to feel cooped up and trapped. But then again, some cars pollute. But some cars pollute less.

     The point being: Life is complicated. Economics are complicated. But coordination and economic planning are possible without government. So why unnecessarily involve the government in coordinating international trade, when it can barely facilitate international trade? Government's primary role should be to facilitate non-violent productive behavior, rather than to promote the production or sale of any law-abiding particular person or firm over any other.

     Tariffs, and trade policies - sadly - are often enacted in order to supposedly correct for some "crime" which a foreign country is perpetrating on either American consumers, or its own people, or both.

     China is supposedly "flooding" America with cheap products. But it's not like America is producing many of the same products. So where else are we going to get them from?

     Moreover, America levies tariffs "against" Chinese exporters, supposedly because their client firms are exploiting their workers. And many of them undoubtedly are. But does everybody in China deserve to pay the price for the behavior of exploitative firms? Additionally, those tariffs do not help those Chinese workers, because the costs of the tariffs are not footed by the Chinese exporter, but through wage-theft from the workers. That's what happens when there is nothing in the tariff law to stipulate that the exporter must charge only his most exploitative C.E.O. clients for the cost of the tariffs. There is nothing to ensure that the tariff will have the desired and intended effect.

     Additionally, China's Company Law requires foreign firms that set up shop in China, to share their technology with Chinese firms active in the same industries, as a cost of doing business in China. This cross-cultural sharing of technology, is unfortunately labeled by American capitalists, as "intellectual property theft". That's right: What China considers to be its intellectual property law, is described by America as intellectual property theft.

     This fight - between every firm and government, to produce something, and then profit through resting on their laurels leveraging the value of the product, by hoarding it and sitting on it - must end. The trade war must end, before it accelerates into trade blocs, a cold war, and hot wars.

     Do we really need tariffs in the first place? Before continuing, let's review some basic facts about tariffs.

     To be clear: tariffs are distinct from inspection fees.

     Since the government port authority is inspecting goods, the inspectors deserve to be compensated for the costs that went into inspecting those goods. It is only appropriate that the people exchanging the goods, pay for inspections (to make sure there are no slaves or stowaways on board, and to make sure there are no illicit materials) when goods cross international boundaries. Thus, customs inspection fees are not a tax, but more accurately, a use-based fee, built on a fee-for-service model.

     But customs inspection fees can be justified, without justifying tariffs along with them.

     Tariffs are unnecessary, competition-reducing, price-increasing taxes, which - like sales taxes, and for a lot of the same reasons - should not exist. If more efficient taxes could replace tariffs - and they could - then we can agree that tariffs add to the final price of the product unnecessarily. Increasing the final price, in turn, makes it more likely that those who foot the cost of the tariff, will purchase less of the product as a result.
     Additionally, tariffs - like sales taxes - can be passed-on to market actors whom were not intended to bear the burden of the taxes. This is what is meant when politicians like Donald Trump assure us that "China will pay for the tariffs" and "we (Americans) don't pay for those tariffs, they'll get passed on to China." That is only true until tariffs beget retaliatory tariffs.
     Moreover, tariffs inhibit international trade, or at least make it more expensive and complicated. Lastly, import tariffs are paid by domestic American importers.
     http://www.reason.com/2021/05/24/china-is-paying-about-7-percent-of-tariff-costs-americans-are-paying-the-rest/

     While increasing tariffs may achieve one of its desired results (namely, punishing domestic civilians and foreign producers for trading with each other), it has multiple negative effects as well. The cost of making trade more expensive, is arguably not worth the cost involved in choosing winners and losers in the market (in this case, American producers winning over foreign producers, as the result of import tariffs).

     That's why a move towards zero tariffs, for both importing and exporting, is the way to go. And the more countries that do this, the more money can be saved by the people of all countries that trade with us.

     If the cost of importing and exporting would be reduced to the price of inspection fees, then nobody's fingers would have to be worked to the bone, to generate large amounts of value that allow exporters and importers to pay their tariffs.

     If neither the U.S., nor any of its trade partners, levied any duties on the importation and exportation of goods, then there would be no need to create trade policies which take tariffs into account.

     Think about it. Modern U.S. trade policies regarding the production of automobiles, for example, mandate that at least a certain percentage of a car must be made in one country, while a different percentage of a car must be made in another country.

     Domestic producers fear zero tariffs because they would cause the price of foreign-made goods to drop. But zero tariffs would also cause price decreases of products (namely, cars) which are assembled in multiple countries, and made of parts that come from multiple countries.

     Thus, decreasing tariffs will make it easier (and cheaper, via both government and private avenues) to trade any and all pieces of equipment which are so complex that they cannot be built within a single country. This category consists of a lot more goods than we might suspect, and to things that seem much simpler than machines. This fact is illustrated by economist Leonard Read, in his essay "I, Pencil".
     

     Hopefully, by this point, it should be clear to the reader that tariffs are useless (in terms of facilitating non-violent trade and production), and why.

     In my opinion, sales taxes, and government-conducted trade policies, are equally useless. So are intellectual property protections, when they are too strong and too long.

     That is why, in 2020, I ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, on a platform of medical price relief, which I called "E.M.P.A.T.H.I.C.". "E.M.P.A.T.H.I.C." stands for "Eliminating Medical Patents to Achieve Human Immortality Cheaply".

     So the idea goes: If reducing the duration of medical patents, will allow cheap generics to enter the market sooner - resulting in cheaper medical prices - then eliminating medical patents altogether might cause prices to drop even more quickly than shortening them.

     Naturally, some on the economic right are concerned that eliminating medical patents, or reducing patent terms too drastically, will result in less investment in expensive pharmaceutical research. And maybe that is true. And new vaccines always need to come out, when viruses mutate again and again.

     But vaccines aren't the only type of medication; there are also pharmaceuticals. And disease prevention isn't the only type of medical relief; administering cures and relieving symptoms exist too. More than sixty-five medications existed in early 2020, which could be used to treat the symptoms of Covid-19. Instead of shortening their patents, or distributing them to the people, our lawmakers were more focused on profiting off of medical stock, and on promoting the development of new medications which could be used to combat Covid-19.

     The same exact thing happened during the H.I.V./A.I.D.S. crisis in the early 1980s; promotion of new medications whose development meant profit for pharmaceutical developers, over previously existing medications whose sale wouldn't "stimulate the economy" as much. Coincidentally, this was largely due to the action (or inaction) of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (N.I.A.I.D.).

     It seems that Canada - a country known for its cheap medications and their easy accessibility to any foreign tourist - has finally grown tired of the trade war.

     For intellectual property protections to be waived on coronavirus vaccines, will cause large companies to lose profits. But those companies do not deserve those profits; they have not earned those profits yet. Government trade policies that rig international trade, and the legitimate violence that governments threaten in order to extort unjustifiable taxes (such as tariffs), are the only reasons why large pharmaceutical companies "stand to" reap so much profit in the future.

     Such companies have grown so entitled to this potential future money, that some of them have begun suing governments for loss of profit, for having the audacity to pass laws punishing fraudulent, exploitative, and irresponsible behavior.

     This insanity must end.

     China - and India, which was recently hit with high Covid death tolls - each have more than a billion people. To paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, considerations must be made for the fact that hundreds of millions more people live in China (and India) than in any other country on Earth.

     We cannot pretend that the difficulties obtaining medications, which are faced today by people in foreign countries, will not affect us in the United States tomorrow. Our health is tied to the health of every other people who participates in global trade. This fact does not mean that we have to submit to unreasonable government restrictions regarding health and trade, though. It just means that we should stop protecting property rights so strongly.

     America cannot go on for much longer, pretending that the reason why it is enforcing intellectual property protections for longer and longer every decade, is due to its desire to be "exceptional"; distinct from the other, more "socialist" nations.

     "Socialism" doesn't mean "government doing stuff", but even if this simple definition of socialism were true, then protecting I.P. rights so strongly, is actually more "socialistic" than doing nothing.

     If capitalists insist on defining "socialism" and "redistribution" in such generalized ways, then why wouldn't it qualify as "redistribution" to extort money from taxpayers to pay for the apprehension and prosecution of I.P. violators (a/k/a pirates)?

     Why should the cross-cultural exchange of information, regarding Covid-19 and coronavirus vaccines, continue to be limited by law, when those limitations increase the prices of those goods, and when there are so many people on the planet who need an affordable vaccine?

     The solution is not to rush the vaccine. The solution is to decrease intellectual property protections, and trade barriers, which keep vaccines and medications expensive, until investment in pharmaceutical and vaccine R&D (research and development) begin to noticeably decline, and result in a level of medical production and innovation which is widely considered unacceptable.

     Until that problem appears, decrease the length of medical patents - and decrease tariffs unilaterally - and hope that other countries will follow suit. We must stop pointing to other countries, and saying "they have higher tariffs than we do, so they should lower them first", nor "they don't respect our patent laws, so we shouldn't have to respect theirs".

     Dying sick people and steel producers alike, cannot afford to play the "whataboutism" game anymore. They need affordable medicine, food, and transportation. There is no need to heap political barriers, to accessing and owning those resources, on top of the economic and social barriers to owning them, which already exist.

     The tools it takes to help people afford the needs of life, are political, but only to the extent that the politicization of the problem is the problem. Without all of the political tools like I.P. and tariffs and trade deals, the problem would be easily recognized as more economic than it is political. But only when economic exploitation ceases, will it become obvious to all, that the lack of access to human needs, is in fact a social problem; a humanitarian problem.

     It is one thing to say that a certain good shouldn't be owned. But it is another thing entirely, to say that a whole civilization should not have access to the technology necessary to produce, for themselves, what others refuse to produce for their benefit. Depriving people of technology, makes them into slaves to the technocratic productive class; just as depriving them of education makes them slaves of those who withhold information from them.

     It's time to liberate information and technology.

     Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom said "information wants to be free". This is true of damaging information about governments, and it is true about pieces of art which nobody would see without either money or the mass distribution allowed through filesharing. It is also true of information technologies, like assembly instructions, and the shapes of parts.

     Three-dimensional printing has not only liberated production; the production of printed guns has even empowered those wishing to defend themselves from corrupt government with the help of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court case of D.C. v. Heller (which finds that the amendment protects the individual right to bear arms).

     Just as plans for guns can be sent over the internet, so can plans for cars. The more parts that people can produce in their own homes, the less they will have to rely on large companies to overcharge them for replacement parts.

     Considering that the current "fourth industrial revolution" is giving us technologies that fuse biological and digital technology (i.e., "Bio-Tech"), it is hard to wonder how long it will be before a poor sick person, in China or America, will be able to "download" a medication over the internet. Or at least a surgery program that they can upload to their robotic surgeon.

     The 2010s and 2020s are bringing humanity amazing medical innovations. A baby lamb was grown in a plastic bag, used as an artificial womb. A spinach leaf was grafted onto a piece of human heart tissue, and the blood made to run through the stalks of the spinach. Cloning technology and stem cell technology is developing all the time. Moreover, adult stem cell research is developing, which means that more medical advances can be made without controversially harvesting embryos.

     Why should any of this mind-blowing, life-expectancy-increasing technology, be any more expensive than it needs to be?

     Lowering sales taxes and tariffs - and the length of intellectual property protections - for any and all kinds of goods - can only result in longer, more comfortable, affordable lives for people, with less pressure to work long hours.

     Ironically, it is not the desire to remain faithful to the Constitution, which has caused this problem. Refraining from obeying the Constitution's limitations upon government, caused this problem.

     Obeying the Constitution's call - to secure rights to authors and inventors "for limited times" [emphasis mine] - would have prevented the current state of high prices and few competing producers. Allowing patents to get longer and longer all the time, with no limit in sight, is helping nobody but the government, profiteers who have long since stopped producing, and the grateful dead whose numbers are growing all the time.

     Zero tariffs and limited I.P. would thus hurt nobody, except for the "producers" that corrupt our government, take advantage of us by stealing our money, and then stop producing.

Written on May 6th and 7th, 2021

Published on May 7th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on May 8th and 12th, 2021

Link Added on May 25th, 2021

Achieving Stability During a Budget Deficit: Four Pillars of Fiscal Solvency

     The diagram below shows that there are four things Congress can do to attempt to solve a budget deficit. These are four tools that Congress can use to fill the gap between how much tax revenue the government is taking in during a given year, and the full cost of the annual budget.

     These four tools are: 1) Increase taxes; 2) Increase borrowing; 3) Reduce spending; and 4) Inflate (or "print money").

Note: The federal government can use all four tools,

but the state governments can only increase taxes,

increase borrowing, and reduce spending.

State governments do not have the power to inflate the currency.

     I have depicted the "reduce spending" pillar broken, because the overall federal government budget continues to increase every year, meaning that this tool isn't being used (except on the micro level). 

      This can only mean overreliance on increasing taxes and borrowing, and on printing money.

     Through understanding the graphic above, we can see how to overcome that overreliance. Making proper use of the "reduce spending" tool, will allow Congress to increase taxes and borrowing less than it was planning to increase them. It will also allow Congress to get by without resorting to inflating the currency (and thus devaluing the dollar) as much as it was planning to inflate.

     The federal government's budget deficit from the year 2020 was a whopping $3.1 trillion; that is, the federal government took in $3.1 trillion less in tax revenue, than it spent on its programs and projects.

     Let's round that $3.1 trillion off to $3.2 trillion (the nearest multiple of $800 billion) to make things simpler. Let's also assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we want Congress to rely on each one of its four tools, in equal dollar amounts.

     This would mean setting a baseline of 25% reliance each - or just under $800 billion each, considering the current deficit - in order to balance the budget, and make revenues and spending meet.

     Thus, by simply dividing the current (or future) deficit by four, we know what Congress should do:

     1. Increase tax revenues in a manner which will result in the raising of an additional $800 billion this year.
     2. Borrow $800 billion more this year than the federal government did last year.
     3. Reduce spending by $800 billion as compared to last year.
     4. Inflate by $800 billion (i.e., announce a new "Quantitative Easing" program, and authorize the Federal Reserve Bank to purchase $800 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds).

     This may not be a popular set of proposals, but based on the severe deficit and debt problems, and the statistics and the number of tools available, we can at least conclude that these proposals constitute a logical, sensible, pragmatic, "moderate" position on the matter.
     In my opinion, politics would probably be a lot simpler if this set of proposals were viewed as the baseline or "centrist" position, and if the political parties were split along the lines of the degree to which a politician or party advocated overreliance or under-reliance on any particular one of the tools.
     The importance of inflation and borrowing is under-emphasized in the media. Political propaganda tells us that Democrats want to spend more money, while Republicans want to spend less. The truth is that neither major party is seriously considering the severe budget measures which it will require to get us out of the huge hole in which we find ourselves (nearly $28 trillion in debt).

     It should be noted that the four-step formula which I have articulated above, is only good for filling the gap between spending and revenue, and getting rid of the deficit.
     Actually paying off the debt will require achieving a budget surplus for many years in a row, and using that money to reimburse the nations and bondholders who loaned the government those funds.
     Fortunately, though, the same tools can be used to achieve a surplus, which can be used to fill-in the deficit. I have recommended paying-off $1 trillion dollars a year, as soon as a $1 trillion annual surplus can be achieved.

     To fill a $3.2 trillion hole in the federal government's budget, and generate a $1 trillion annual surplus, simply add one-fourth of one trillion dollars ($250 billion) to the target amount assigned to each one of the four tools.

     1. Increase tax revenues in a manner which will result in the raising of an additional $1.05 trillion this year.
     2. Borrow $1.05 trillion more this year than the federal government did last year.
     3. Reduce spending by $1.05 trillion as compared to last year.
     4. Inflate by $1.05 trillion (i.e., announce a new "Quantitative Easing" program, and authorize the Federal Reserve Bank to purchase $1.05 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds).

     It is my hope that this diagram and article will inspire a new wave of debate regarding how the government should best attempt to balance the budget, and restore fiscal solvency to our tax base and to our currency.

    

Written and published on February 9th, 2021

Inspired by content included in a congressional affairs class taught by

University of Wisconsin at Madison professor David T. Canon

between 2005 and 2009

Solving Overwork and Unemployment: How to Create a Functional Labor and Tax Platform in Eight Easy Steps

     American tax and labor policies are in a state of dysfunction, inactivity, stagnation, and chaos. We must restore functionality and logic to the American economy and its labor market as soon as possible.

     Unemployment, being overworked and overburdened with pressure to accept overtime hours, and struggling to scrape together enough work-hours to qualify for benefits and make ends meet, have all become severe problems in the United States.

     In order to fix this problem, each our overtime laws, our minimum wage laws, poverty threshold laws, and laws on tax credits and basic income, need to work together. Laws on taxes and labor need to be crafted in a coordinated manner which makes sense, with each policy measure logically proceeding from, and being justified by, and making room for the other related policies being implemented, in order to help fulfill the conditions necessary to achieve those policies' goals.

     The following is a set of proposals regarding laws on taxes, labor hours, poverty levels, and related topics. But it is also a set of instructions for those wishing to legislate on economic matters.

     You can come up with your own proposal like this; by going through each of the eight topics, and choosing your favorite proposal from among the two or three choices listed below them. I have called these options are the “Conservative”, “Progressive”, and “Libertarian” plans, which in some cases feature combinations or alterations. [Note: I do not mean to suggest that all conservatives would be likely to support the proposals I've termed "conservative", however; I only mean that the "conservative" reforms are the most conservative reforms, of the reforms I've proposed below.]
     I suggest highlighting your favorite proposal, crossing everything else out, jotting down a few notes based on what's left, and adding your own ideas.

     This proposal can also function as a political survey.

     I recommend selecting either the “a” option for all questions, or the “b” option for all questions, or the “c” option for all questions. I say this because consistency is important, given that the whole idea of this article is to provide a framework for achieving an interlocking set of proposals that make sense together.

     But libertarians and conservatives, conservatives and progressives, and progressives and libertarians each have a specific set of things that they agree and disagree about; therefore I will not discourage my readers from mixing and matching. Just keep in mind that the consistency will be diminished, and the problem may not be fully solved as the result of your choices.

     Feel free to e-mail me at jwkopsick@gmail.com if you have any questions or suggestions about this proposal and survey, or if you would like to tell me your response to the survey.

     Notes about the statistics referenced in this article:

     The 6.7% unemployment rate figure (which I use to estimate a 26.8% "real real unemployment rate") is cited because the unemployment rate was 6.7% in December 2020. In January, that rate decreased to 6.3%, so adjustments should be made wherever necessary, when updating these statistics to generate policy suggestions conforming to the new economic reality and the new statistics coming out.

     The 34.5 work-hours per week figure is based on statistics from 2019.

     http://www.statista.com/statistics/215643/average-weekly-working-hours-of-all-employees-in-the-us-by-month/

     The original statistic was 34.4 hours per week, but I have rounded that to the nearest half an hour, for simplicity's sake. More precise numbers should always be used to generate final policy proposals. This article should be used only as a template and place-holder, until closer to the election for which it will be developed and perfected.     

     1. Reduce the standard number of work-hours per week which the government intends to be the standard number used in regards to the pertinent federal labor laws:

     1a. (“Conservative” or “simple/basic” option, only solves half of the problem but could also be a major first step towards finishing the job): Reduce the standard number of work hours per week from 40 to 34.5, the average number of hours worked by Americans.

     1b. (“Progressive” or “complex/extra” option): Reduce the standard number of work hours per week from 40 to 27.2, to account for the number of unemployed people who would start working if they could, which issues from the fact that “real real unemployment” (i.e., U6 or U7) is at approximately 26.8% (so it would require reducing the 40 hours a week by 26.8%, down to 27.2 hours per week).

     1c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal all laws which establish or suggest a uniform or target goal as it pertains to desired number of work-hours per week (This would be difficult without eliminating vast numbers of government workers).

     2. Repeal or amend overtime laws to reflect the need to reduce competition for labor-hours between temporary and gig workers, underemployed people, and seasonally and structurally unemployed workers (etc.) vs. overtime workers with secure jobs:

     2a. (“Conservative” option, assuming that 1a was followed and completed): Keep overtime laws, but make overtime start at 34.5 hours per week, without increasing the “time-and-a-half” pay requirement for overtime work.

     2b. (“Progressive” option, which might make the problem worse): Keep overtime laws, but make overtime start after 34.5 hours per week, and increase the “time-and-a-half” pay requirement for overtime work to 175% or 200%.

     2c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal and eliminate overtime laws altogether, thereby reducing external pressure and incentive to work overtime.

     3. Set a goal to achieve an average American worker income:

     3a & 3b. (“Progressive-Conservative” option): Set a goal to achieve an average American worker income of $34,500 per year.

     3c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal all laws which establish or suggest a uniform or target goal as it pertains to desired average American worker income.

     4. Raise the poverty level (up from $12,760 per year, per single-person household):

     4a. (“Conservative” option): Raise the poverty level to $17,250 (equal to half of the $34,500 per year goal).

     4b. (“Progressive” option): Raise the poverty level to $34,500 (the average annual income goal).

     4c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal any and all laws establishing or suggesting any sort of poverty level or uniform poverty threshold.

     5. Increase the minimum wage, to adjust for cost-of-living increases and other economic factors which need updating:

     5a. (“Conservative” option): Set a $17.25 per hour minimum wage. (This is based on the premise that many people may still choose to work for forty hours a week or more, and thus might not need $20/hr. At fifty five-day weeks per year, that comes out to an annual income of $34,500 per year).

     5b. (“Progressive” option): Set a $20 per hour minimum wage (to account for the fact that 34.5 hours of work per week, for $20 per hour, for fifty five-day work-weeks per year, comes out to $34,500 per year).

     5c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal and eliminate minimum wage laws altogether, in order to remove and criminalize all external suggestions on prevailing, minimum, and maximum wages, which may not only be unnecessary, but which also distort the market by distorting price signals for wage labor. Allow the labor markets to dictate the prevailing wage, and let the free-floating prevailing wage to be the only wage rate that is considered “average”, or remotely “official”, in any way.

     6. Create a tax exemption for poor people which is based on the average annual income suggested by the new minimum wage and standard number of work-hours:

     6a & 6b. (“Progressive-Conservative” option) Exempt all 18-year-olds (most of whom lack proper tax documentation) - and all people 19 and older whom disclosed their taxes the previous year - from all taxes, as long as they do not earn more than $34,500 per year, and can prove it.

     6c. (“(Geo-)Libertarian” option) Exempt everyone from taxes, except for people and businesses which profit from the despoilation of land, and from the improper solicitation of taxpayer subsidies and monopoly privileges. Eliminate all taxes which are levied based on quantity, and only enforce tax laws against those who use violence and/or destruction to earn their livings.

     7. Establish an alternative minimum tax payment that gives taxpayers some choice in regards to how they are taxed:

     7a & 7b. (“Progressive-Conservative” option): Establish an alternative minimum tax payment of $17,250, or up to $17,250, per year; and require that taxpayers choose between the following: 1) report that your annual income was over $34,500 and pay taxes; 2) report that your annual income was under $34,500 and receive an exemption from taxes for that year; or 3) keep information about the amount you earned private, but disclose the sources, and pay the alternative minimum of $17,250.

     7c. (“Libertarian” option): Repeal and eliminate the alternative minimum tax payment.

     8. Provide a basic income (or refundable tax credits which occur on a routine basis), or else pass additional non-refundable tax credits.

     8a. (“Conservative” option): Pass non-refundable tax credits for people with sick, young, old, and disabled dependents, and for people earning slightly more than $34,500 per year but may still need and/or qualify for assistance.

     8b. (“Progressive” option): Pass a universal basic income guarantee for all residents earning less than $34,500 per year; providing a basic income equal to $17,250 per year ($1,437.50 per month).

     8c. (“Libertarian/Friedmanite” option): Pass a Negative Income Tax proposal which builds on the voluntary tax information sharing proposal. Those who elect to provide the amounts in their tax receipts, shall receive refundable tax credits of an amount which is equal to 50% of the difference between the amount they earned in the previous year, and $34,500.

Written and published on February 5th, 2021

Edited on March 17th and April 22nd and 23rd, 2021

How to Be Friends with a Libertarian: Protecting the 9th Amendment and Stopping the Regression of Freedom

      Most liberals - and many conservatives and progressives, too - like to justify depriving people of rights, based on the fact that some people lack rights, while other people are not using theirs.

     People like this will base their ideas about what we all should do, on the lowest common denominator of rights that somebody has. If one person lacks rights, then everybody else – so this line of logic goes - needs to have rights taken away from them, in order to make things equal. Or if a person tolerates one injustice, or has in the past, then they should tolerate other injustices in the future.

     They say, "If you need car insurance to own a car, then you should need health insurance because you own your body."

     Also, "If you take drugs from strangers, or eat McDonald's, then you should have no problem taking what's in the vaccine."

     Alternatively: "If you need a license to operate a car, then you should need a permit to operate a gun, because they're both deadly weapons."

     To that, I say "fuck that shit". The fact that you are wasting your freedoms does not mean that I have to give up mine.

     The idea that I should give one freedom up because I seemed to surrender another, is a false equivalency. In part, because it assumes that everybody thinks about rights, and connects them to each other, in the same way. It assumes that if they tolerate one thing, they should tolerate another. It assumes that people are ideologues who do and should behave predictably.

     What you see as me "surrendering a right" might just have been me making a decision. The only right you surrender, in the act of making a decision, is the right to know what will happen if you make a different decision. It does not mean your future decisions all have to be consistent, nor that they all have to conform to somebody else's ideas of consistent logic.

     The lines of logic used to justify this mode of thought do not even make sense. First, it's arguable whether we really "own" our bodies, or whether we are our bodies. Second, you can't avoid having a body as easily as you can avoid having a car or a gun.

     Third, a person has the freedom to put into their body anything they want, as long as they don't harm others. So if a person's feelings about drugs, food, and medicine do not conform to your preconceived notions about how a person should make decisions about health, then just remember... that is somebody else's body you are talking about.

     Mind your own business. If they want your advice on health or safety, then they will ask you for it.

     Moreover, there are about eight hundred toxic chemicals which are inside of our bodies right now, many of which are legal and F.D.A.-approved. Some came into our lungs after we breathed polluted air; others came from cheaply made consumer products. And some of them are more common and thus more difficult to avoid than others.

     Should the fact that I tolerate one toxic chemical (because I can't avoid it), mean that I should tolerate a second? What about a third? And so on, until I'm tolerating the fact that my body is full of 800 of them? Simply because I smoke weed, or take LSD at a festival, or eat Burger King every once in a while? Hell no! [I mean, if I'm smoking cigarettes, feel free to remind me that several hundred toxic chemicals are found in them. Especially if I started smoking near you without asking you if it's OK first. As Ron Paul has said, "Freedom is the right to tell people things they don't want to hear."]

     The fact that you were recently exposed to a certain level of toxic chemicals, does not, and should not, mean that you ought to be exposed to more (unless that is your wish). If anything, it means that you have probably had all the toxins that you can take for a while, and that you deserve to take a break from being full of toxins.

     Stop expecting people to go on suicide missions solely for the sake of appearing to remain consistent to you. Just as "the Constitution is not a suicide pact", neither is a friendship. We should build each other up - and say "I believe you and I encourage you if you say you're trying to quit this substance" - instead of knocking each other down and holding them to how "cool" or "chill" or "lax" they have been in the past.

     Life is about more than chilling out, and tolerating other people's (or your own) bad behavior and moral back-sliding. It is about defeating evildoers, and overcoming the obstacles necessary to achieve your goals. We can't afford the costs of holding each other back.

     The Obamacare mandate to purchase health insurance is not currently being enforced, because it's dying in the courts. So why not use this opportunity to say "If I don't need health insurance (to own my own body), then I shouldn't need car insurance either"?

     We don't even really "need" health insurance, nor car insurance; we just think we do because people older than we are, made laws that require us to have those things. You don't die if you run out of money, or insurance; you die if you run out of air, water, food, and medicine, or if one or more of your major organ systems collapse.

     If we don't need insurance or money to live, and alternative accreditation systems exist outside the state and yet are not in violation of its laws - then why not say "I don't need a license or a permit to do anything, because I was born free, and because of the content of the 9th Amendment"?

     [Note: Amendment IX affirms that we have rights which are not listed in the Constitution. These are called "unenumerated rights", which is distinct from the concept of Congress having unenumerated powers.]

     We rarely cite the fact that others are more free than we are, any more, to justify getting more freedom instead of less.

     [Note: an important exception to this, is the 14th Amendment incorporation clause, which empowers people to have their freedoms recognized in their states, because other states have recognized their own citizens' freedom to do the same, and the federal government cannot logically say that something is a right in one state but not in another.]

     In the Trump era, many of his supporters have used the fact that other countries are "shitholes" run by tyrants, who mistreat dissidents and people who try to come into their countries illegally, to justify gassing protesters and gassing people at the border. This is not acceptable; it is "what-about-ism". It is the idea that if somebody else did something worse than what you did, then what you did is OK.

     Likewise, when someone tries to tell you "You should put up with Y injustice because you put up with X injustice in the past", just tell them either "I was wrong" or "I could tolerate X, but I can't tolerate Y, and that's my decision." Unless it affects them directly, they have no right to interfere in your decision. They can complain all they want, because they have free speech, but they cannot rightfully interfere unless you betrayed them or harmed them, or your decision will harm them.

     People who use one example where we tolerated a deprivation of freedom, or a slipping of standards, in order to excuse or rationalize or justify another, should stop talking about what “we” supposedly have to do, and start making their own decisions about their own personal food and health choices and about their safety. Otherwise they might as well be inviting other people's advice, because they can't live without meddling in other people's decision-making and without subjecting them to nonsensical lines of logic that limits their freedom to change their mind.

     If you don't want people telling you what to do, then don't tell others what to do!

     You do not get to tell others that they have to accept ever-declining standards, just because they have made several poor or inconsistent decisions in their lives. You do not have the right to berate someone who changes their mind, unless you have signed a contract with them.

     We do not have to do jack shit. The only thing we need to do is stop writing laws that make it harder and more expensive for us - and more profitable for the government - for us to exercise our rights.

     If you respect me and my rights – and want your own rights respected – then you will respect my boundaries and the fact that I am an individual (and the fact that individuals, alone, make decisions), and you will leave me alone to fix my own problems, and refrain from giving me unwanted advice or pressuring me into accepting unwanted assistance from you or the government.

     If you want to respect my boundaries, as a libertarian – that is, as a person who values the need for informed consent above all else – then you will not aggress against me nor threaten me, you will not pressure me to spend money that I do not have or haven't earned yet, and you will not tell me that I have to sacrifice my boundaries or my needs in order to hang out with you.

     This includes my right to safety, and to peace and quiet, and to staying out of handcuffs!

     If you respect me, and my right to be informed about what's going on around me, then you will not steal or commit other crimes while you are around me without notifying me first. And that should go whether the crime or infraction has victims or not.

     I can't tell you how many times I've been shopping with friends, only to discover at the checkout line that they intended to steal. It creates a huge imposition on me and puts me in a dilemma! It is not fair to spring something like that onto somebody with little notice.

     It's not that I think someone shouldn't consider shoplifting if they're desperate, and I am certainly not trying to defend the police or wealthy sellers and big corporations. If you are my friend, and you need something so badly that you're considering stealing it, then I will buy it for you! Just ask me. I don't want either of us to go to jail!

     If you have a child or a pet to take care of, and you're in public holding on to them while committing crimes, then you are not a responsible person. Whoever you're with, while you're stealing or getting arrested, is going to have to figure out what to do with your dog or your kid while you're in jail.

     The level of carelessness that some people make excuses for having in their lives is really astounding sometimes. Not that I am entirely blameless. I can't tell you how many places I've possessed marijuana without getting the permission of the proprietor. But I at least know well enough not to use my family and friends as getaway cars after buying marijuana. You have to think about the consequences of your actions, from the perspective of the worst possible way it could potentially affect someone.

     You may say, "Yeah, but it's not wrong." So what? Something "not being wrong" is not a good enough reason, in and of itself, to do something. You should want to do things that are right, not just things that are "not wrong".

     Who do you think pays for the losses from shoplifting? Insurance companies, if the stores are insured. But those costs don't come out of the C.E.O.'s pocket; they're borne (like the majority of the company's costs) by the company's lowest paid employees. Those are the people who get shafted in order to pay for other things the company thinks it needs. 

     But do companies really need security, and on-premises detention of shoplifters? No, they need to lower their fucking prices to something we can afford, so the markets can clear, so the foods aren't left rotting on the shelves, necessitating toxic preservatives that harm our health, in order to keep them "fresh" and marketable.

     So if we're at a store together, please, don't make me into your unwilling accomplice, and risk me going to jail, just because you want an extra item in your pantry. Even if it's a gift for me! I didn't ask for it.

    Don't fucking do things to people without their consent and knowledge, whether it affects them positively or negatively!  [Unless, of course, you're giving them a surprise gift and you know they like surprises, and aren't bothered by the attention involved in having their birthday celebrated, etc..] Do this for the simple reason that "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

     In economics, affecting people positively or negatively without their awareness and consent, is called externalizing transaction costs. You are imposing a cost upon them, as the price of hanging out with you. That price takes the form of bullshit surprises that you spring on people, which make them uncomfortable, and pressure them into helping you over helping themselves.

     This is called being interpersonally exploitative. In each transaction and social interaction, we should make sure that the interests of everybody involved, are aligned; but that doesn't mean that each person should feel empowered to shamelessly take advantage of every situation to ensure that they benefit the most.

     More reasons not to give people gifts for which they didn't ask, include the facts that: 1) what you think will help a person, might be something they think of as causing them to become more dependent upon you for that thing; and 2) they might not know whether and how to get you back for it.

     When we shop together, I don't want you to get arrested, but if you act like an idiot, and it's either you or me, the fact that you are my friend does not obligate me to cover for you. Certainly not instead of myself. Certainly not when I would have to make up a lie and put myself in danger for a friend's stupid thoughtless decision. Shoplifting is not always wrong, but that doesn't make it a good idea that's worth going to jail for! If you're going to steal, and there's nothing I can do about it, then at least let me know ahead of time, so I can run, or else be prepared to sock a security guard in the face.

     Do you have any idea how uncomfortable it is to have to consider asking your friend, "Hey, uh... You're not gonna steal from Wal-Mart, are you?" before there's any indication that they would, because of their past history? Do you know how awkward it is to ask someone, "You paid for that, right?" or "You're gonna pay for that, right"? and hear them shush you?

     I don't play that shit. That creates an imposition on me to shut up about your bullshit. You do not have the right to get your friends in trouble and then pass it off as harmless fun. Some people are trying to work and maintain normal jobs and have families and avoid jail. That's different from being a buzzkill. If you have a child, then you shouldn't be stealing in front of them, unless you're prepared to defend that decision with force.

     Not that I don't have sympathy for people who steal, or for my friends. If you're reading this and you're thinking, "Just don't hang out with people who steal, or are likely to steal", then to that, I say, "Easier said than done, asshole." At least half of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck. Nobody has any money. Shoplifting is the least of my concerns, morally. But that doesn't give people the right to make me into an unwilling accomplice of theft without my consent or knowledge.

      Consensual transactions and interactions require informed consent, which requires knowledge of the choices available, and a total lack of external pressure, and the right to make your decision final without others continuing to ask you a question you have answered over and over again.

     Don't ask me if I want to do something until I say yes. That is "not taking 'no' for an answer". That may be acceptable in sales, but it is certainly not acceptable in the bedroom, and it shouldn't be acceptable in public social interactions.

     Not taking "no" for an answer sexually is what a rapist does; so take "no" for an answer socially, or you will be the social version of a rapist.

     Voluntary exchange requires mutual benefit, in addition to consent. If someone is sacrificing in order to participate in a social interaction or an economic exchange, then it should be asked: “Why is that person sacrificing, while others are not?”

     But this should be asked, not in order to punish those who are not sacrificing, but rather, in order to make sure that nobody is sacrificing (unless it is necessary and they genuinely want to).

     If a social interaction, or an economic transaction, does not benefit all people involved and affected, then it should not occur, and the people involved should go their separate ways. That is how you produce free decisions that are also fair.

     Decisions which don't harm anyone, but do benefit everyone involved (or at least they don't harm anyone involved), are called Pareto improvements, after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. These are the necessary conditions for mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.

     We must end the culture of pressuring others to accept lower standards. We must stop brow-beating each other into prioritizing consistency over self-growth and self-improvement.

     We must also stop tolerating people who we reasonably believe are deliberately ignoring our boundaries just to mess with us or to test us. 

     It's time to start respecting others. It was always time to respect others. But if we don't bother to find out what each other's boundaries, limitations, and needs are, then we aren't going to understand how to respect them.

     People need to communicate with each other. We can't just have people committing crimes around their friends and having awkward conversations in the middle of the store about whether we'll be paying for this.

     We can't have protesters and counter-protesters coming up to each other and trying to quash each other's right to be there while they're right there on the sidewalk and there are no police officers around to resolve the dispute.

     We can't go on just not coordinating with each other. We must deliver on our promises. But we also must find away to avoid punishing people too severely for changing their minds, and one of the ways to do this is to make sure we are not pressuring the people around us to set unrealistic goals.

     And we must not expect others to allow their moral standards to slip just because they have agreed to hang out with us.

     This is how we stop the back-slide, and the regression, of freedom. This is how we stop a society desirous of freedom, from collapsing into a "slippery slope" to tyranny that refuses to recognize that freedom is (almost) free, and doesn't require any trial by fire. We are born free and innocent, so why should we come into the world owing anybody anything?

     The only cost of freedom is the effort we expend respecting others' freedom. The only costs of freedom are self-responsibility, self-control, humility, and adequate communication with others.

     This is how to respect me. What about you? Does this sound unreasonable? Or just familiar?

     To read a more in-depth discussion of Ninth Amendment issues, and how license and permit systems limit our freedoms, please read my 2015 / 2016 article "Papers, Please!?: Freedom vs. Permission", which is available at the following link:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2015/12/papers-please-freedom-vs-permission.html

Based on a post published in early January 2021

Edited and expanded on January 7th, 2021

Taxing Businesses for Using Public Resources and for Benefiting from Taxpayer-Funded Privileges

Introduction

     The proposal below is a suggestion as to what business tax rates ought to be, based on the notion that a business should be taxed in accordance with how much assistance it receives from the public, the commons, and/or from taxpayers.

     The idea behind this is one of free enterprise; that a business cannot call itself truly “private” unless it provides most or all of its needs by itself, without the assistance of the government or the state. The goal of the tax proposal below, is to impose punitive taxes, in order to discourage the use of public resources.

     Such resources include taxpayer-funded privileges, monopoly rights, and other unfair advantages which businesses would not have in the absence of the state. Since the state is a mechanism which uses coercion, threats, and violence to extract taxes, it is unfair for businesses to enlist the state to extort from taxpayers in a manner which would be illegal if the businesses did it directly. The state hands taxpayer funds, and lucrative contract deals, over to selected cronies; in a process which is sometimes called either “picking winners and losers”, “economic interventionism” or “Keynesianism”, “crony capitalism”, or “redistribution from the poor to the rich”.

     If and when subsidies and bailouts and other privileges are being offered to businesses, it will be necessary and proper to tax such businesses, in order to provide fairness; whether through a social safety net, or through administrative reforms which could increase the opportunity to compete.

     The rationale for choosing the tax rates, is that: 1) all tax rates combined add up to 100%; 2) the most egregious offenses against principles of responsible enterprise are taxed the most heavily; and 3) the second-least egregious offense is taxed at twice the rate of the least egregious offense, and the third-least is taxed at three times the rate of the least, and so on.

     This means that if a business takes every possible opportunity to use public resources which are afforded to it, then it must pay 100% of its profits going forward (or of its earnings going forward; or of its accumulated wealth, in the event of a revolution, or the repeal of the ban on ex-post-facto laws).

     The time frame in question could be annual – meaning that the proposals apply if a business has committed an “offense against free enterprise” in a given calendar year - or the time frame could be all-time, or cumulative, or any other temporal variable.

     I am leaving the matter of what to tax, and when to tax it, unresolved, in order to make this an open-ended proposal, which is not intended as a particular law, but instead as an open-ended framework. I am doing this in hopes that my proposal will inspire others to build upon it, to make it as specific as will be necessary to develop it into a complete plan for reforming the way we tax business (and tailor-made to the particular legislative and logistical needs of the jurisdiction in question).

Proposals

     #1. If a business discriminates against customers, while maintaining public accommodations open to the market-going public and substantially affecting interstate commerce, and while receiving taxpayer funds, then the business's total amount of taxable wealth, should be subject to a tax of 8.74545%.

     #2. If a business receives bailout funds from the Department of the Treasury, then that business should be subject to a tax of 8.345454%.

     #3. If a business receives lucrative contracting deals from the government, then that business should be subject to a tax of 7.945454%.

     #4. If a business wields a collusive or unnatural monopoly, according to the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition, then that business should be subject to a tax of 7.545454%.

     #5. If a business is a for-profit entity which was created by government or an agency thereof, then that business should be subject to a tax of 7.145454%.

     #6. If a business receives assistance in declaring bankruptcy, from the Department of Justice and its bankruptcy courts, then that business should be subject to a tax of 6.745454%.

     #7. If a business receives corporate subsidies from the Department of Commerce, and/or any state chamber of commerce, then that business should be subject to a tax of 6.345454%.

     #8. If a business offers publicly traded stock, which is being traded by any public official(s) capable of regulating an industry which is relevant to that stock, then that business should be subject to a tax of 5.945454%.

     #9. If a business receives finance or insurance from the Export-Import Bank, of goods it produces which are purchased in foreign countries, then that business should be subject to a tax of 5.545454%.

     #10. If a business receives trade promotions and trade protections from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, then that business should be subject to a tax of 5.145454%.

     #11. If a business receives a corporate charter, or a limited liability corporation (L.L.C.) designation and protection, from a Secretary of State's office, then that business should be subject to a tax of 4.745454%.

     #12. If a business benefits from favorable government regulations regarding professional licensing standards, in a way that “grandfathers-in” old established companies and “job creators”, then that business should be subject to a tax of 4.345454%.

     #13. If a business receives intellectual property protections (such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks) from the U.S. Office of Trademarks and Patents, then that business should be subject to a tax of 3.945454%.

     #14. If a business benefits from the easy credit and low interest rates which are offered by the Federal Reserve System, then that business should be subject to a tax of 3.545454%.

     #15. If a business receives discounts on public utilities (such as roads, sewage and waste disposal, and electricity and other forms of energy) for buying in large amounts, then that business should be subject to a tax of 3.145454%.

     #16. If a business receives small business loans from the Small Business Administration, then that business should be subject to a tax of 2.745454%.

      #17. If a business benefits from favorable zoning laws which allow wealth to be created, earned, and stored far from where people are trying to take it home to, then that business should be subject to a tax of 2.345454%.

      #18. If a business receives physical property protection from the police, then that business should be subject to a tax of 1.945454%.

     #19. If a business receives bank deposit insurance from the F.D.I.C. (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), then that business should be subject to a tax of 1.545454%.

     #20. If a business receives public utilities instead of providing its own utilities, then that business should be subject to a tax of 1.145454%.

     #21. If a business receives physical property protection from the U.S. Armed Forces, then that business should be subject to a tax of 0.745454%.

     #22. If a business occupies land in a manner which makes the ground beneath the surface unusable or inaccessible to the public or to others, then that business should be subject to a tax of 0.345454%.

     Additional Proposal: File criminal charges against businesses which commit offenses #1-#8, in addition to taxing them at the rate mentioned. Their privilege to receive the same sort of privileges in the future, could additionally be curtailed, to help reduce the chance that the businesses will continue to exploit the opportunities offered to them.

Post-Script

     This proposal was inspired and influenced by my April 2016 infographic “Government is the Source of Corporate Privilege”, and by Andy Craig's idea to abolish Secretary of States' offices in order to prevent the creation of new corporations by the state, which inspired that infographic.

     That infographic, which lists ten types of artificial business privilege and their sources in government, is available at the following link:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2016/04/government-is-source-of-corporate.html

     To learn more about why I believe that monopolies and recipients of taxpayer funds should be taxed whenever such funds are being offered, please read my May 2019 article “Rent, Profit, Interest, Usury, and Taxing Monopolies”:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/05/rent-profit-interest-and-usury.html

Written on September 22nd, 26th, and 29th

Published on September 29th, 2020