 
Seven Society Axioms

By R. J. Treharne

Published by R.J. Treharne at Smashwords

Copyright 2016 R.J. Treharne

**ISBN:** 9781370524167

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy to help the author. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Preface

Unless you are able to live alone, in an isolated place such as on an island, where your actions and beliefs, can in no way affect or impact the domain, actions or beliefs of others; you are compelled to live as part of a society. Consequently, there is a need for rules for self-governing all those individuals within that society which accomplish two things. First, all individual to the maximum extent possible, shall have their rights protected. Second, society's goal should be to obtain optimum quality life for as many individuals as possible. To this end, the following "Axioms of Society" are promoted.

Seven Society Axioms

1 Individual freedom ends at the doorstep of another person's domain.

2 A privilege should not be construed as a right.

3 Less is often more; simple often better than complex.

4 To pay for shared society needs, tax what is consumed, not what is produced.

5 Individuality does not mean inequality.

6 Acceptable behavior is not defined by what you would do, but rather by what it would do to you.

7 All who benefit from the society should contribute to society.

-1-

Individual Freedom Ends at the

Doorstep of Another Person's Domain

As stupid as it may sound, individuals have the inalienable right to not do what is their best interest. But what happens when their stupidity detracts from another person's rights? For example, if someone wishes to roar down the highway on their motorcycle without a helmet and visor, one may say "well that is their right, it is their head!" However, when that motorcyclist gets involved in accident with another vehicle because a bug flew into their face or they get air- lifted to the hospital with a serious head injury and their medical cost causes the insurance rate for everyone else to increase – knowing that both of these unwanted results could have been prevented had they worn their helmet and visor - now that individual's right has just crossed over the line and affected another person's rights. Obviously, there needs to be a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of the rest of the community. In this instance, the purpose for compelling a motorcyclist to wear a helmet is not so much for their protection (you can't fix stupid), as it is for the protection of everyone else's rights.

One of government's primary roles is to protect people from either a common threat or from other people within the society. The former, a common threat, like a foreign enemy, a natural disaster or a communicable plague is easier to understand the necessity for a government. However, how and when the government needs to provide security for people from other people is a little more difficult to discern at times. Government protecting the community with a police force against crime seems clear enough; but whether government should provide education for everyone is not so clear. Yes, it would seem a community as a whole should be better off if more people are educated; but at some tipping point the cost of the education exceeds the benefit to society. It is obvious that the government should provide security to everyone equally against crime; however, is the government also responsible for providing education equally to everyone? Some would argue 'yes' because democracy is based upon the concepts of "equality" and "individual rights" – but what happens when that effort to obtain equality and securing individual rights results in a lower quality of living for everyone else? What happened to their rights? Does it really make sense that in the attempt to make everything equal everyone must have less, including those who were made equal? Who is really benefiting then?

Today, we are faced with a variety of divisive issues today ranging from abortion to gay marriage, from gun control to use of recreational drugs, from illegal immigration to required military service, from taxation to unemployment compensation. These issues unfortunately segregate people into various political and religious institutions whose only agenda seems to be not only trying to protect themselves but to enforce their viewpoint upon each other, even at their own expense, all under the guise of "equality and individual rights." These differences are creating a quagmire of policies within this country, a stalemate in our legislative bodies, a collapse of social and economic order and if unchecked, eventually hatred and violence among our citizens and possibly even against those who govern them. If only they could be enlightened to see that there are solutions which are not focused on equality and rights yet yield better quality of life and surprisingly better equality and rights for everyone.

The consequent of these factions is that all of us are worse off under our complex rules (rights) than had we simply adhered to some simple rules (privileges). Without understanding this basic premise, the remaining ideas presented below will simply fall upon deaf ears. In the remaining sections, specific topics are addressed where a simple solution is applied to a complex problem looking past issues of equality and individual rights. If the reasoning is sound, then shouldn't the solution be pursued? So, read the suggested simple solutions to complex problems presented herein, their benefits and their rationale, and then you decide. Would not most of us really be better off using simple solutions when it comes to some of our more complex problems and brush aside some of our misconceptions of equality and individual rights? Would we all not be better off if we adopt the premise that the government should me minimalistic, opting for stating a privilege, a guideline, or even a set of goals before the government ever considers enacting yet another fixed and mandatory law? Let ingenuity and in-the-field judgment derive the best solution for each situation, not a rigid law. Let authorities at the lowest level make judgment calls as to what is fair, expedient and cost effective. We allow an umpire to call a ball game as he sees it; why not let a Park Ranger or a FDA official do the same?

-2-

A Privilege Should Not Be Construed as a Right

An individual has the "right" to seek a driver's license; however, the government actually grants them the "privilege" of possessing the driver's license. Drive carefully and obey the laws and the government allows you to maintain that privilege. Violate the law or operate your vehicle in an unsafe fashion which could cause injury or damage to others, then the government has the authority to revoke that privilege. But when a "privilege," for whatever reason, somehow becomes elevated to a "right"; then that "right" can often inadvertently undermine the rights of others.

For example, early in American history from the wealth and generosity of the local community and through a self-imposed tax, a "privilege" was afforded to others within the community to attend schooling even though they could not afford it – the beginning of public schools. The thinking was the more educated the general public, the better the community would be as a whole. Originally, attending a public school was considered a privilege. And like driving a car, if you did not obey the rules or behaved so that your actions adversely affected others in their learning, then your "privilege" could be revoked. Under this system, the schools did very well in their task of educating many and at high levels and at a reasonable cost. But at some point, that privilege mutated into a "right"; a right that all students can attend school even if they do not follow the rules and their presence is at the detriment to other students or even if they would not significantly benefit from being in school.

Well intended individuals, thinking that "no child should be left behind" and that all children, even ones with learning disabilities and handicaps should be "mainstreamed" into the school body, in namesake of equal rights, spearheaded the cause. Unfortunately, though, their noble actions have inadvertently diminished the quality of educational for everyone. Because, by changing a "privilege" into a "right," teachers and administrators find themselves no longer having the authority to quickly discipline let alone remove students from the classroom who are misbehaving or causing disruption of the learning process to others because those students' "rights" may be violated. Disproportionate amounts of time and resources were spent dealing with a relatively small segment of the student population. In the attempt to provide equality to all, now all the other students' "rights" to benefit from a "privilege" has been diminished. One has to ask, what happened to those other students' rights? It is admirable for someone to want to help the handicap or disabled student, (who generally constitute less than 2% of the total student population but with special amenities and programs consume 25% of the school's budget). But what happen to the rights of those other 98% of the students whose educational quality now has been reduced because of cutbacks to those programs which could benefited them, not to mention benefiting the community as well?

The Founding Fathers were careful in their limited selection of what are "rights" in the U.S. Constitution, recognizing that a "right" cannot be "right" if it in any way takes away or diminishes another person's "right." In fact, the Bill of Rights was not even part of the original Constitution because of the fear of even delineating those rights, but nevertheless added later. Even then, the Bill of Rights only identified the rights of individuals against the government and not as received from the government. Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms (as a means to protect themselves against the government if necessary) and the right to due process of law (again, to protection themselves against the government). The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and most subsequent laws such as the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Act and the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) only state the protection of the people against any unfairness from the government and from the governed society. All men (mankind) are created equal and have equal inalienable rights under the law. That is, under the law everyone is treated equally. But nowhere does it state that the government is responsible for making everyone equal. For example, the government has the responsibility to see to it that a person has an equal right to an education (they cannot be barred from a college because of their race, age or gender), but government does not have the right to promote an equal education (that is, they cannot be afford an education opportunity to someone just because of their race, age of gender) in an attempt to make an equally educated person; this would favor one individual over another individual. This is similar to the Constitution's stance on religion. The government believes that religion was an integral part of the governed and treated all religions equally; the government does not have the right to promote one religion over another.

Unfortunately, government has lost sight of this distinction between a "right" and "privilege" and it has cost us dearly. Today, too many laws have been created which mistakenly made something a "right" when it really should only have been a "privilege." Government went from treating all people equally to trying to make all people equal. This has resulted into the quagmire of laws and a stagnation within the government that prevents it from effectively ruling its citizens or even to accomplish some of the most basic governmental tasks. For example, almost any new governmental project which could benefit the community cannot be built without inordinate delays and costs because everything from "concerned citizens for crickets" to "competing contractors" have a "right" to protest the process, even at the expense of all others who would benefit from the project, in the name of equality and individual rights. And there are no limits as to how long or how many obstacles can be thrown into its path because "privileges" which have mutated into "rights" transformed themselves into procedural and absolute laws. Now, it becomes not the cost versus benefit of the project that is being evaluated, it is whether the procedure preserves the "rights" of anyone who could be remotely affected, potentially making them not "equal" even if they were not equal to begin with! And lawyers are more than willing, for a fee of course, to advocate someone's "right" – since their privilege has now been made a right, a designation of a law, and thus afforded the protection as a "right."

Laws likes "rights" are absolute, while on the other hand "privileges" are discretional and require judgment. Judgment is very effective and surprisingly equitable when administrating a "privilege." For the most part, it takes judgment to govern people equitably; not absolute laws. There are simply too many variables, too many unique conditions for any single law or even a set of laws to govern effectively or equitably for all, in all situations. And, when an exception does arise in a situation, the natural reaction for lawmakers is to enact even more laws, hoping to cover those exceptions or "loopholes" – which only creates more exceptions, or conflicting regulations, or worst more loopholes and not surprisingly, more work and fees for lawyers. It becomes self-generating, like a snowball rolling down hill – it only keeps gets bigger. To stop it, the government needs to re-evaluate most of its laws and regulations and eliminating as many as possible and relegating them back to privileges which are simpler to define and more flexible to administer. The government needs to hire "anti-lawyers" to undo what the lawyers have done to this country.

Thus, except for a few basic, inalienable "rights", most governing regulations should be nothing more than recommended guidelines, goals or principles which identify the objectives that most would consider as highly desirable results. The results should be ones which are beneficial to as many individuals and as pragmatically possible and balanced relative to other community beneficial goals. The interpretation and the level of enforcement of those principles are then left in the hands of the governing authority, and at the lowest level possible. For example, there was a time when park rangers were able to keep a list of all "park rules" in their shirt pocket. They were simple rules, logical rules, and practical rules – such as do not harm the wildlife, don't litter and don't start forest fires. It was the park ranger who made the interpretation as to what constituted an infraction and what the appropriate action or fine should be for the offense. Now imagine the complexity of trying to write a comprehensive manual identifying all the wildlife situations in the park, and what is meant by terms "harm", or "litter" or "fire" and what is an appropriate penalty for each offense. Is driving off the pavement because you swerved to avoid hitting a bear grounds for harming the foliage? The government in its attempt to "be fair" and remove the power of judgment from the park ranger developed a myriad of regulations and procedures to identify what constitutes park violations and what fines should be administered for each offense in every conceivable situation. As you can imagine, the permutations are mind boggling. The result: the number of manuals a park ranger would need to carry around with him to know what to do in each situation would require a small truck. Meanwhile, the excessive regulations have all but declawed the authority of the Park Ranger to make "on-the-site" judgment call, let alone to enforce the necessary action to remedy the situation all in the fear that someone could argue their right was violated and they may hire a lawyer to find some strange regulation which probably was not written for that situation in order to find a means to circumvent the law. Imagine what happens then when you elevate this procedural nightmare up to the level of the FDA, EPA or the SEC; a nightmare of convoluted regulations now exceeding 100 million words! No one can know it all, let alone properly enforce it. And just look at the performance of those agencies. Do you really think all that legislation is working effectively?

Penalty Inequality

Laws should apply equally to everyone; however, there are some people whose penalty for violating the law should be greater than the average person; this group of people is the one who are entrusted in supporting the law. Society gives special treatment and respect to the officers of the law. When there is a question of judgment, their word is given more credence. After all, they are supposed to be the enforcers of the law. The same can be said of lawyers and politicians. Therefore, whenever one of them is found violating the law, then the crime is even more heinous. Consequently, the penalty should be even more severe. As law protectors, they were given a special privilege and respect; as violators, they should be given similar disdain.

This inequality of punishment for violating a law should also apply to all professions who more than most should have known better. For example, the penalty for avoiding paying the proper tax should be penalized more for a tax accountant or a financial consultant than would be an average citizen; because they more than anyone should know better. Or for example, a professional politician should be penalized more than violating a "sunshine" law or for taking bribe than say a volunteer on a committee, because they should have known better.

-3-

Less is Often More; Simple Often Better than Complex

It has been said that "For every complex problem there is a simple solution – and it is wrong!" There is some truth in that statement; it depends more upon how you phrase the problem than the actual solution. For example, if you say "a simple solution to reducing crime is..., or a simple solution to cancer is ... no matter what how you finish the statement, it is probably wrong because the problems are so complex; they cannot possibly be solved with a single silver bullet answer. However, there are a number of seemingly complex problems to which there is a simple solution if you are willing to except the premise that the "solution" is obtained when the typical result is very close to the optimum level and is obtained by the most cost-effective means.

Obviously, when anyone applies a simple solution to a complex problem there is usually a trade- off for that simplification. Simple solutions offer many advantages, particularly in efficiency and thus cost savings; however, they seldom allow for or adequately address all of the exceptions or provide perfect equality in their application. Complex solutions are, on the other hand, by their nature usually inefficient and often more difficult to administer; however, they do typically attempt to accommodate many exceptions and often with better equality. But which one is really better?

To illustrate this concept, imagine a situation where you want to clean the germs in your shower at home. A complex solution would be to hire a team of scientists and a sophisticated laboratory, locate and identify all of the germs and employ a variety of different chemicals each targeted to kill each specific germ identified. The procedure would take an inordinate amount of time and expense; but probably would kill 99.98% of the germs thereby getting you very close to your goal, but at great expense. Or, the simple solution would have been to use some low cost chlorine bleach over the entire surface area and be content with killing 98% of the germs having never identifying where or what germs you killed; only trusting your simple solution solves the basic problem. Did you treat all the germs equally or did you obtain perfection? No. But did you satisfy your goal? Yes.

The reader needs to understand this basic fundamental concept of why it is often actually better in many situations to apply a simple solution, even if the final outcome is shy of perfection or there is a potential of relative inequities; than it is to have a complex solution trying to achieve perfection and equality.

Let's look at two different scenarios, one with equality and one without, and ask ourselves which is really the better situation. The fictional story deals with two chicken farmers.

The Two Chicken Farmers

Imagine that there are two neighboring farmers, each raising egg-laying chickens. Farmer "A" knows that egg production is directly related to the amount of food each chicken eats and thus believes that for the best for egg production each chicken should receive the same amount of food. So, Farmer A devises the best way to ensure that each chicken gets exactly the same amount of food by separating the chickens into individual cages and constructing an automatic food delivery system which equally proportions the food to the chickens. Unfortunately, though, because of the expense of the cages and food feeding system, not to mention the expense of maintaining the system, Farmer A now has less money available for him to spend on chicken food; so, he is forced to reduce the amount food provided to each chicken. Now while all of his chickens are little underfed, he his comforted by the fact that he knows that all the chickens are receiving equal amount of food and are each laying the same quantity of eggs.

Now Farmer "B" uses the old fashion method of letting his chickens run free and he just tosses feed on the ground and lets the chickens compete for the food. And, because Farmer B does not have the same overhead expense as Farmer A, Farmer B has sufficient money to supply all the food the chickens need to produce the desired quantity of eggs; but clearly when he feeds his chickens, he sees that some chickens do get to eat more food than others. And he notices that some chickens lay more eggs than others. But at the end of the day, Farmer B's chickens which got the least amount of food off the ground still ate as much food as any of Farmer A's chickens. Furthermore, Farmer B's chickens out-produce Farmer A's chickens. So, which Farmer do you think is actually being the better steward of his chickens?

Hopefully by identifying and outlining some simple, pragmatic solutions to many of our more complex and divisive issues described one may be able to finally realize that often the best solution for all does not necessarily mean equality and protection of individual rights. An excellent illustration of these two approaches deal with the dreaded subject of taxes.

Taxes

Nothing seems to command the attention of people more than the topic of money. Jesus knew this well which is why most of Jesus' parables related to money; even though he was trying to teach his followers a higher lesson. People seem to listen more when you talk about money.

So, imagine for a moment if a simple efficient tax system was in place. By it shear efficiency, would not society as a whole be financially better off? To start with, just think of the savings to the economy just by eliminating the manpower spent by the IRS and the countless accountants and lawyers working to either understand the complicated tax code or finding ways to avoid paying taxes for their clients; then, you can begin to appreciate the potential savings to society of a simple tax code.

Ask yourself, if given a choice, which system would you rather live under in taxation. Like the example of the two Chicken Farmers, one system which has a simple set of tax rules, and because it is more efficient for society as a whole, the average net income (after taxes) ends up being higher for everyone; but there may be some inequities of tax burden. While the other system, our current system, has complex rules and is inefficient, it has a lower average income for everyone; it does, however, have fewer inequities (or at least we would like to think so, no one really knows for sure). For example, let's say that typical citizen under a complex tax code pays an average tax burden of 20% of their income of which approximately 5% of the 20% collected is used to pay for all of the costs associated with the collecting (or avoiding) the tax and minimizing inequities. Now imagine living in a society with a simple tax code, where perhaps only 2% of the tax was needed to offset the cost to collect the tax but many inequities were tolerated. All things being equal then, the average citizen now only needs to pay 17% tax, boosting their income by 3%. Is not the average person better off?

Even if, because of the simplicity of the tax code, you happen to be one of the unfortunate taxpayers who ended up "paying more than you fair share" by let's say 2%, you would still be better off, paying only 19% tax instead of 20% tax. Your heartburn may be that you know someone else was fortunate enough to pay "less than their fair share." But does it really irk you enough that you are willing to pay even more tax just to make sure that the other person pays an equal amount? Neither of you is profiting from this. Under the simple tax system, you are still financially better off than if you were under the complex tax system – so why should you really have a complaint?

Thus, it is argued that the average taxpayer would be better off financially living under a simple taxation system then they would be under a more complicated tax system even if they were the ones paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Many politicians have run on the promise of simplifying the tax code because it appeals to the masses, mainly ones with average incomes, and that promise helps get them elected. Every year we elect them hoping for a change, yet, it never seems to get implemented. Why?

Unfortunately, there are two groups that believe that the simplified tax code would be particularly unfair to them; the rich and the poor; so, the measure to reform the tax code usually gets thwarted. While the poor may be often ignorant and fearful; and it is difficult to explain to them that a simplified tax code will benefit them too. It is hard to explain that the simplification of our tax code does which might have inequities is still better for them because they would probably be paying less than they would under the current complex tax system. All they hear is "inequity." Society as a whole pays a heavy economic burden because of this ignorance believing that the best taxation system is one that is perfectly equitable, not one that is the lowest. Unfortunately, you can't fix stupid. The group of poor ignorant taxpayers is usually the one who supply the votes to the elected representatives who keep tax simplification from occurring, because the elected officials are ultimately swayed by the one group who really fears the ramifications of a simplified tax code the most – the rich. Why do you think the richest representatives supported by the richest lobbyists seem to be so concerned about the equity and individual rights of the poorest group of people? They aren't saints, the want their vote, and they fool them into voting for them with promises of equality and protection of individual rights. And the elected representatives deliver on his promise of equality, because the poor do get equally poor. The majority of citizens cannot afford what the rich can – hiring tax lawyers and accountants to find ways to postpone, minimize or even avoid paying taxes. So, who do you think really has the most interest in keeping the tax system complicated? It is not the majority of the people who want a complex tax system; it is the very rich, because a complicated tax code allows them to pay less tax relative to their income. Ironic, isn't it? In the attempt to make things fair for everybody, the equality makes things worse for everyone except those who could have best tolerated the inequality!

Judicial System

When was the last time you heard of a legal case going through the judicial system quickly? Our judicial system is obviously complex, inefficient, and costly – but all in an effort to be as equitable and fair as possible – mainly because the stakes or so high. But is it really worth it?

Simple rules are designed to be universal; but by their nature cannot fit all situations. For example, the Commandment "Thou shall not kill" was not written as "Thou shall not kill* (*except in self-defense, or as punishment, or as an act of mercy, or in times of war, or to enforce the law, or for medical reasons, or and so forth and so forth). It was a simple law useful for 98% of the time; not necessarily for 99.98% of the time. It assumed there was judgment involved with its application. A simple tax code gives the rich people no place to hide. Simple laws similarly give lawbreakers few places to hide. Simplicity, despites in inherent appearance of iniquities, does more often than not, actually exposes the flaws of complex solutions and thus provides sometimes even better equality.

Just think of our legal system. Who do you think fairs better under a complex legal system? The ones who can afford legal counsel obviously fair better. The rich do not want a simplified set of laws because you cannot manipulate them as easily.

Imagine for a moment a simple judicial system, with simple laws and simple enforcement. Imagine the savings to society in just attorney fees and court costs alone. Those against a simplified judicial system are not the private individuals worried about unfair treatment; it is the individuals who profit the most from a complex judicial system. The simplification of laws only helps to improve the quality of life for everyone, even with its potential for inequalities.
-4-

To pay for shared society needs,

tax what is consumed, not what is produced.

Consumption Tax

To simplify our complex set of tax laws it would be best to create and impose a general tax to pay for all government services through the use of a consumption tax on all raw materials and a sales tax on all finished goods sold to the end user. Tax what is consumed, not what is produced. Eliminate all other forms of taxes, such as income tax, property tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax and so forth. In effect, there is only one type of tax: a consumption/sales tax on all items considered "consumed." This tax is often referred to a "virgin" tax.

A consumption tax would essentially be on all tangible goods which are removed directly from the earth such as harvested crops, livestock, lumber, water, fossil fuels and mined minerals. The tax would be issued at the time the good was sold into production or otherwise consumed. A similar type of sales tax would also be imposed upon on all completed items for consumption, such as a manufactured product like a television set. The consumption tax proposed is not a "value added" tax; but simply an initial tax on all raw materials and a final sales tax upon a completed good consumed by the end user. The sales tax is applied only at the point where the product is considered to be consumed, either by an individual or a company or an organization; and, when its value is expected only to decrease further because of its use. For example, a television purchased for home entertainment or an automobile for business or personal use is considered an item to be consumed by the user; its value will only continue to decrease. Paper and ink purchased by companies are likely to be considered consumed items even if used by a company in the production of something else because it basically makes them unusable to anyone else. They cannot be re-used or turned back into raw goods or forwarded on to be used again.

However, items purchased only to resell later or to be embedded into another object that still in effect preserves the original value of product or has not significantly diminished its value are not subject to a sales tax because they have not yet been consumed. For example, a car manufacturer who purchased steel for the production of an automobile does not pay a sales tax on the purchased steel because it was incorporated into another product which has not yet been consumed or because the process could be used for other uses or could be considered reversible. The product, raw steel, only serves to increase the value to the user, the creation of an automobile. And, the steel in the car could be reprocessed into steel again. However, any steel not salvaged and reused and was simply thrown away, probably as a result of the manufacturing process would be subject to a final sales tax because it was consumed. Thus, eliminating waste in order to avoid a sales tax would be a strong incentive for a manufacturer, a form of conservation. Likewise, the energy used to make that automobile by the manufacturer has been consumed, since it is not reversible, and thus they would pay a sales tax on the energy consumed. Again, this is an incentive for the manufacturer to be energy efficient. Thus, the steel material already has had only one tax on it, the consumption tax once the iron ore was removed from the earth, because at that point the earth has lost its value and the process cannot, practically speaking, be easily reversed. It will not be taxed again until it is ultimately consumed. Another example to illustrate how a consumption tax would work is to imagine an artist who purchases pigments for their painting, He is subject to a sales tax on the pigments because their use would be considered irreversible and are intended to be part of larger product, a painting, which when sold would be subject to another sales tax less. A painting normally would be considered consumed by a person; but sometimes, a painting could actually gain value with time. In that case, when sold, there would still be no sales tax since nothing was consumed.

To offset the loss of income from the elimination of traditional taxes (income, property, capital gains, corporate, etc.) the new "consumption" tax and sales tax would probably be substantially higher than current sales tax – perhaps as much as 30% of the cost of the good (raw or completed). Obviously, this would significantly raise the cost of the good; however, people need to realize that they would also have considerably more income at their disposal since they are no longer paying all other forms of taxes. The consumption and sales tax rate would be calculated so that the net result in actual taxes being paid by the average persons is little different, if not significantly lower than, what most people currently pay. Effectively, your purchasing power is the same (or more). The product may cost 30% more, but you may have 35% more disposable income because of the tax simplification.

With this method of simple taxation there would be many other benefits for society. For example, the consumption tax would be simple to implement since almost all raw goods now sold are currently accounted for by businesses and most final products consumed already have an accounting system through current sales tax through established businesses. Thus, the tax accounting system needed to keep track of this type of taxation is already in place. The benefit then is that there would be little need for most other reporting and accounting systems currently used to determine taxation such as the I.R.S., in-house business accounting, depreciation expense, corporate accounting, tax accountants, just to name a few. There would be no reason to keep business records for tax purposes. A business owner may keep records so that they can see how much money they are making (or losing); but none of it needs to be reported to anyone. It is their private business. In addition, this simplified tax system would put an end to anyone who had the means to avoid paying their fair share of taxes because of their ability to pay for creative accounting; thus, no reason to keep two sets of books!

In short, with a consumption and sales tax only, those who consume the most would have to pay the most taxes. Each tax (consumption and sales) could be adjusted as necessary to help redistribute the wealth and help the poor if necessary. For example, a loaf of bread that costs $1.00 now may cost $1.30 (30% in consumption and sales tax) however that $100,000 yacht could now cost $175,000 (75% in consumption and sales taxes). This way the taxes can tax more on those who can afford to pay rather than those who cannot. A side benefit to this simplified taxation system would be conservation. For example, if a new car normally costs $40,000 and let's say had a 35% (consumption and sales) tax (i.e., a new cost $54,000); then a consumer would be more likely to try and maintain their existing car longer as long as possible to avoid the hefty sales tax on a new vehicle. It would be better for the society since new cars would not be discarded so quickly. Likewise, mining aluminum would be more costly (because of the hefty consumption tax) than it would be to recycle aluminum (which would have no consumption tax associated with it, other than a sales tax on the energy consumption needed for the recycling). Similarly, a person could sell their used car and the buyer would not be required to pay sales tax because nothing new was being consumed. There would be a hefty sales tax on gasoline, because it is a consumable; thus, a good reason to purchase a fuel efficient car; and so on. A consumption/sales tax encourages conservation. Thus, all the conservation laws and regulations would not be needed; conservation would be obtained through taxation.

Taxing manufactured goods would not include intangible services such labor and professional services. These costs are hard to define and easily fudged. However, any consumables used by those services would be subject to the consumption tax and a consumed manufactured good would be subject to a sales tax. For example, a physician's exam time would not be taxed; however, the medicine prescribed or tools used in the exam, or the electricity to light the exam room would be subject to consumption and sales taxes. The professional service provider still wants to be efficient about his time, since time is money, but he is not penalized for his time.

Another benefit to a simple consumption/sales tax is that those who save money would not be penalized because they would no longer pay a tax on interest income. People who invest money and take risks would not be penalized on their capital gains either, since they are not consuming – they are producing. The federal income tax would disappear completely and so would all corporate taxes. In short, people are not taxed for saving money or making money, but only on consuming. This encourages saving, conservation and investment. Those paying for beneficial services, such as education, counseling, or medical insurance, would also benefit since they would be paying little or no taxes for those services. However, those who consume natural resources, like pleasure motor boating or gas to heat their swimming pool, would obviously pay higher costs because of the consumption. Simply, if it benefits society (education, reserves, sustainability) little or no tax; if it is detrimental to society (consumes, destroys, wastes) then a heavy tax. A consumption tax helps the elderly and the poor, since they are usually the ones who consume the least.

Finally, the consumption tax and sales tax could be used by the government to encourage "good" consumption and discourage "bad" consumption as determined by society. For example: if it was determined that organically grown food was better for the individual than food grown with chemicals and it lowered health costs for all and did less harm to the environment and so forth; then the consumption and sales taxes could be lower on the organic food and higher on food grown using chemicals. No laws need to passed or even enforced, just adjust the tax level. Renewable resources, such as fast-growing trees like bamboo, could have a relatively low consumption tax; while non-renewable resources, such as oak, would have a substantial consumption tax. Again, no complicated "credits" or mandated "green" standards (which are nearly impossible to substantiate anyway) are needed. Let the purse strings via taxation implement government's goals and objectives – not complex rules and regulations.

In short, the government would not need to legislate complex rules of fuel efficiency in automobiles or penalties for environmental pollution or mandate goals for "green" buildings – as currently being done in our complex system; but instead just let the power of taxes accomplish society's desired goals. If you assign heavy costs to wasteful or harmful activities the manufacturers and the consumers of those wasteful and harmful activities will quickly figure out what the ways to improve their bottom line. They will help the environment not because of the enforcement of some law or because of good intent, they will respond because the want to save money. Think of the savings of not having to enforce those virtually unenforceable laws. There would be no need for federal enforcement agencies, inspectors or even fines. It is amazing what people will do to avoid a tax.

Obviously, those most opposed to this type of taxation system are those who consume the most and conserve the least; the rich. This type of consumption tax is also opposed by those who can afford to pay others to find ways to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and of course by those who profit from a complicated tax system, such as tax accountants, lawyers, and employees of various federal agencies like the IRS. Adopt a simple consumption/sales tax on consumed goods, eliminate all other forms of taxation, and you will have a very simple solution to a very complex problem.
-5-

Individuality does not mean inequality.

Federal Rights versus State Rights

Our Founding Fathers had wisdom in recognizing the importance of the preservation of individual States; otherwise, when the Constitution was written why did not the Founding Fathers simply just not join all thirteen colonies into a single colony? They recognized that individual States provide opportunities for uniqueness, individuality, experimentation and even competition. For example, some States may adopt the position of capital punishment as a means to deter crime while others may not. Or some States may offer tax incentives to spur economic growth while others may not. There are no right or wrong answers to either of these ideas. So why not have individual states decide their own laws and see which State can come up with the best solutions? As long as the law does not deny an individual person of one the Constitution's "inalienable rights", or endangers the health, safety and welfare of another individual or a State, then the State law should be permitted. Whenever possible, do not create a Federal law when a State law will do.

Now, in the event all 50 states happen to agree on a single law, then and only then, should it be considered a candidate for a federal law. Likewise, whenever possible, do not create a State law when a County law will do. Counties and Cities should have their own set of laws and only if there is agreement among all the Counties and Cities within a State should it be candidate for a State law. Universal laws should be developed from the bottom up, not from the top down in a society.

Society has made a terrible mistake granting too much authority to Federal jurisdiction, particularly in matters where there are multiple viewpoints or a controversial issue. History has clearly demonstrated that centralization of authority always stagnates and eventually strangles individuality within a society, inhibiting growth and innovation, and eventually causing revolt among the people. Keep State individuality and State freedom as much as possible, it is what is best for all of the United States.

Likewise, whenever there is a Federal mandate to the States, then that mandate is effective if, and only if, the Federal government is responsible for paying for its implementation. Likewise, a State mandate to Counties and Cities must be paid for by the State, not the County or City. Basically, put up or shut up. If the Federal government does not have the ability to pay for the enforcement expenses incurred because of one its laws, then they do not have the right to implement that law. The Federal government has no right to implement laws that places the cost burden of that law upon the individual States unless it can clearly demonstrate that it is a constitutional right.

Only the most basic and absolute fundamentals of the protection of States' rights should entrusted to a Federal government such as common defense and protection of the universal rights as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, each State (and for that matter each County or City) should have as much latitude over its own internal affairs and local matters as possible, even if contradictory to another jurisdiction. Difference and competition is what makes the United States strong, not uniformity and compliance.

If a City, County or State enacts an unpopular or questionable law or one is not beneficial to its citizens; then the people will either vote with their feet and leave the area or vote and elect representatives who will seek to change those laws. An unjust law will always have a tendency to correct itself given time.

Meanwhile, just think how much Federal bureaucracy and waste would be eliminated and how much competition and ingenuity would be invigorated with the single action of returning rights back to the States, Counties and Cities.
Balancing the Budget

No business, no household, can exist for very long if its expenses exceed its income. So why does the federal government think they are any different? Deficit spending is unsustainable and costs society significantly more than one without deficient spending. A deficit is a sign of bad management. A balanced budget is not only a good practice; it is the only acceptable practice. A government that cannot stay within a budget does not have the moral or legal right to govern its subjects. And if anything, a government should only not run a deficit, it should be running a surplus in anticipation of leaner future times, providing a financial cushion for future unanticipated expenses.

The members of Congress and the President who determine the yearly budget should only have the authority to determine the percentage each item has in the budget. For example, they can determine that for this year the 20% goes toward Social Security, 15% to Defense, 5% to Education, and so forth. In the end, it should all total to 100%. If they feel that more money is needed for one program and wish to increase its percentage, then they must deduct that amount from the other programs; case closed. They can never exceed 100% of the revenue available.

The amount to spend is fixed based upon what they have already received in taxation; not what they expect to receive. If they have a trillion dollars in taxes in hand, then that is what they have to spend for the next year. And, really they should be spending less than what they have and earmark part of the money for contingencies or for anticipated probable unknown future expenditures. There will always be additional expenditures required for things that we all know are likely to occur, but we just don't when. For example, we know there will be future natural disasters or extra costs due to a war; but no one knows when they may occur. A prudent business man or a homeowner always stashes away extra money in anticipation of future expenses he knows will come even though they may not know exactly what they may be or when they will occur.

If the managers of a budget cannot balance the budget, then their salaries are the first to be cut from the budget. That should be an incentive for them to resolve the issue quickly. Once a balance budget is obtained, and money spent is only the money already received. Once a balance budget is obtained, then it is a lot easier to maintain it. However, struggling from a deficit to a balance budget is extremely painful. There are only two choices. Either begin an austerity program and/or raise taxes and pay off the past debt as fast as possible, or have a revolution and default on all existing debts. Typically, when austerity becomes more painful than revolution and war, people opt for a revolution.

Regardless of the method, a balance budget is the only truly long-term sustainable solution for a society and must be maintained at all times. Balancing the budget is a simple solution to a complex problem; getting there, however – that is still a complex problem.

Competitive Bidding

At first glance, competitive bidding to perform work seems to offer the lowest price for a project. In reality, competitive bidding almost ensures you are paying a higher if not the highest price. How is that possible? First, it is expensive for a contractor to generate a cost estimate. If the contractor wishes to be accurate in his bid to ensure that he will make a profit and hopefully not lose money, he must invest a lot to time to generate a reliable estimate. Typically, a contractor may only get 1 out of 10 projects for which he is competitively bidding. That "free" estimating service has to come from somewhere. Time costs money. So, it comes from that one job he does get. The contractor, to stay in business, must inflate each bid to cover the cost of bidding for all the other projects he does not receive. Or, the contractor can elect to spend less time on the bid and basically guess and submit a bid hoping he guessed correctly. Naturally, with so many unknowns and for the contractor's own protection, the contractor is going to estimate on the high side as opposed to the low side in order to cover all possible expenses. Again, the competitive bid is higher than the actual cost of the project.

Then there is the cost of demonstrating that the contractor is "qualified" and equal opportunity is provided to all qualified contractors. This may sound as if it is protecting individual rights and equality, but the process creates inordinate amount paperwork and delays – both costing the contractor money. Therefore, the contractor has to increase his bid even more to cover those costs; which again costs the taxpayer more money. And the government agency wants all sorts of assurances, such a performance bond, liability insurance, proof of worker's compensation, and so on; all in the name of projecting the government's and worker's rights. Thus, it is not unusual that a government project will cost 40% more than a similar project in the private sector. While trying to protect the rights of contractors and the government, what happened to the rights of the taxpayer footing the bill?

Often, in the attempt to control costs, government agencies develop incredibly complex "specifications" to describe the work to be performed. Contractors seize on these specifications as their best means to increase their profit through "change orders" of services. While they may bid to specifications, they know that those specifications provide the very loopholes for them to charge more. In fact, many firms actually bid the job at cost knowing they will make a huge profit with the change orders for the items not clearly or incorrectly specified. The general public is usually totally unaware of these situations and extra costs. After all, how many government officials want to voluntarily announce their project is improperly regulated and over budget.

Many well intended procedures end up becoming a game between contractors and the government. A school board states in will only pay $10/hr for a painter for its maintenance work. No quality painter in the private sector will work for less than $30/hr. So, when a competitive bid goes out and the contractor calculates it will take him 1 hour to paint the door, he submits a quote saying it will take 3 hours to paint the door. The school board has no idea how long it should take; but are satisfied that they are holding costs in line because they are getting a painter for $10/hr.; and so the game goes on.

Meanwhile, when the government finally does settle on the lowest bidder, other than meeting a minimum of qualifications, the work is most likely going to the least qualified or lowest quality contractor. To keep costs down, something has to be reduced – and its either craftsmanship or quality and quantity of materials. So not only are competitive projects costing more they should, they are often providing poorer quality projects.

The solution to obtaining better quality projects and at a lower cost is to forgo competitive bidding. Instead, the government should generate its own detailed estimate of the work. If necessary, they should actually hire a contractor to generate the estimate. Then announce the project, along with the detailed estimate, to the public (i.e. contractors) as project "X" to completed for "Y" dollars in "Z" time and solicit offers to perform the work from the contractors. From those contractors offering their services, now the government can select the one contractor it thinks is the most qualified for that particular project since it is no longer a question of how much. It behooves the estimator for the government to be accurate and fair in their estimate. If it is too low or too fast there may be no contractors interested in the project. The fairer or higher the value placed on the work the greater will be the selection of qualified candidates and hopefully a better quality project.

This is such a simple solution one wonders why does not the government already do this. The reason, it does cost money upfront for the government to generate their own detailed estimate. In order to save a buck their thinking is, why not have the contractors do their own estimates at their expense. Well, as you can see, the cost gets borne by the government eventually through higher project costs, and often much more. The government, as usual, is "penny wise and dollar foolish."
-6-

Acceptable behavior is not defined by what you would do, but rather by what it would do to you.

Right to Bear Arms

The right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is a fundamental right. Individuals should be allowed the "right" to possess any type of weapon that reasonably could be considered one that is used for either sport (hunting or recreation) or self-protection; however, society does have the legal right to place restrictions on that "right" and only grant a "privilege" in ownership of weapons that would normally not be considered for hunting, recreation or self-defense.

For example, weapons of mass destruction or an arsenal of weapons would not be considered normal use of a weapon for an individual. These exceptional weapons, not likely to be used for either sport or self-protection, would thus have severe restrictions placed on them – if not prohibition. These weapons, if owned by an individual, must be kept in joint control by another government approved authority, such as hunting and recreational establishment who would share the responsibility of ownership. Both the individual and the controlling establishment would assume full responsibility for the use of the weapons. Likewise, for the protection of all, all weapons (including those used for hunting, recreation and self-defense) should be required to be registered and the owner of the weapons held accountable for its use. Any unregistered weapon would be considered illegal.

Weapon ownership is as much as a privilege, as it is a right. Misuse of the weapons should have severe consequences. For example, any person using a weapon for a crime automatically loses his right to own any weapon ever again and should suffer stiffer penalties for that crime than someone who did not use a weapon. Similarly, all violent criminals would be prohibited from owning weapons since they have already shown a disregard for the law. The owner of a weapon would be responsible for any injury caused by their weapon; whether or not the weapon was under their control. This would place a greater incentive on the weapon owner to maintain good control over their weapon. Individuals deemed by society incapable of handling the responsibility of owning a weapon shall also be denied the privilege. Otherwise, if an individual is willing to absorb the responsibility of ownership of a weapon; they should have that privilege.

Gun enthusiasts would argue that such laws only restrict the use of guns by law abiding citizens and places more weapons in the hands of criminals. The key here is to require registration of all weapons. Any individual with a weapon which has not been registered will not only forfeit that weapon, but even their right to bear any future weapon. Anyone with a criminal record would be denied the right of ownership of a weapon. Authorities would always have the right to search any individual or their residence or business for unregistered weapons. If found with an unregistered weapon in their possession, the weapon would be confiscated – even if they did not commit a crime; because their crime was possessing an unregistered weapon.

Personally, this author abhors weapons; however, this author believes that the real purpose for weapons is not for protection from another person, but protection from those who have been empowered to govern. History has demonstrated too many times that the greatest enemy is not from the outside, but from within. In a democracy, we grant our government the privilege of ruling us giving them authority and even weapons to enforce that authority. But if left unchecked, that form of government has the potential to become malevolent and uncontrollable. Thus, the inalienable right to bear arms, as intended in the Bill of Rights, is to ensure that a government which is empowered to be for the people is also one that cannot overpower the people. In short, make weapon ownership legal; but place restrictions on their ownership and use and severe consequences on their misuse.

Religious Freedom

The Founding Fathers recognized the importance religious freedom to the new nation, and believed that religion was the backbone of the Constitution and to society. However, they did not want to see the new government give favoritism to any single religion nor adopt a national religion. But the last thing they wanted to see was the removal of religion from government. They advocated tolerance, not abolishment.

Therefore, the Founding Fathers did not intend to see a true separation of church and state, but rather a state that supported all religions equally, impartially. This means that prayer in school should be allowed. Granted, the school cannot support one religion over another, but it certainly cannot either deny any religion from practicing its belief as long as the practice of that belief is not detrimental to anyone else. One is hard press to find when prayer, religious study or worship has ever been considered harmful to another person. There is no record of an individual being harmed by a prayer or worship of a benevolent deity.

If an individual has no religious belief, fine. However, these non-believers have no more right to dictate to others that they cannot practice their belief in public than the believers have right to dictate to the non-believers the need to believe in their religion.

A County courthouse for instance should have the right to display the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene or any other religious symbol or tradition if the costs associated with the displays are born by the supporters of the religion (and not the general public) and the County courthouse agrees to display all bona fide religious artifacts with similar equality. But the County courthouse does not have right to refuse a religion from expressing itself publicly if the display does cause harm to another person or the religion advocates intolerance for other religions.

In fact, the only time restrictions than can be placed upon a religion or a religious group by the government is when that religion or religious group advocates harmful intentions or intolerance for another religion or the government. Each religion must respect the right of other religions to exist and to do so peacefully and with tolerance. If the religion advocates in any way the destruction or control of any other religion or the government; then society has the moral and legal responsibility to combat that non-tolerant religion with any appropriate means available.

If a religion truly wishes to survive let alone flourish, then it must do so with beneficial and peaceful means to all, and increase its number by acts of kindness and tolerance rather than by threats and coercion. Because no matter how right a religion may think they are in their belief, no religion deserves to prevail if it must do so with acts of hatred, violence and intolerance or at the expense on another religion.

For a Christian, one cannot wonder about the majority of the world who subscribe to non-Christian beliefs. Are they all wrong? But as it says in Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts; neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord." Therefore, one cannot phantom, nor should one even presume to have the audacity to impose their beliefs, not matter how strong their conviction, upon another individual. While a person may not believe they are wrong, they cannot say with absolute certainty that the other person is wrong in their belief. Therefore, one is obligated to treat them and their belief with as much respect and dignity as they would expect them to treat theirs. This applies to believers, atheists and agnostics. In the final analysis, there are only four possibilities when it comes to religious belief. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or the other is right and they are wrong, or they are both wrong, or somehow they are both right. No one really knows for sure.

But one thing all believers and non-believers should be able to agree upon is that no religion or belief deserves to exist which in order for it to exist it must do so at the expense of the other. A religion or belief that advocates violence and destruction of another religion or belief or even has expressed intolerance of other religions or beliefs as a core element to its existence is not religion or belief that a benevolent God or even a benevolent human would devise. If the religion is true, it will survive and flourish on its own merits; not by the abolishment of other religious beliefs.

Intolerance

Generally, there is only one instance when it is justifiable to consider the execution of an individual or even a group of individuals and that is when that individual or group of individuals as demonstrated that they are incapable of tolerance of others themselves. For them to survive or to be true to their belief, others must die. A classic example of this when a religion by its own belief cannot tolerate and therefore must eradicate anyone who does not believe as they do.

Many religions are divided into two groups of believers and non-believers; for example, in Judaism, you are either a Jew or you are a Gentile. In Islam, you either believe in Allah or you are and Infidel. Many religions claim to be the one true religion; and despite their strongest convictions and certainty of their beliefs, in a society which must function and tolerate all religions, right or wrong – no single religion can be afforded the status as the being only valid religion, especially at the expense of another person's religion.

Even if the religion was correct in that it is the one and only true religion; and even if it's deity or its teachings sanctioned the eradication of all who are non-believers – it still does not have right to impose its will onto others. Personally, if that really is the way that deity or belief wishes to govern, then they do not desire to be followed. Christianity, while it claims the only pathway to eternal afterlife, at least promotes the tolerance and even acceptance of other non-Christian beliefs. But today, there are factions of Islam who subscribe to the belief system of either believe as they do or die. They must be either eradicated out of self-protection or shown a way that teaches them to be learn to be tolerant. No one was the right to impose their will upon another. They may only restrict another's right when they can demonstrate that the exercising of their right clearly violates a right that most would consider inalienable.

Recreational Drugs

Without neither condemning nor condoning the use of so called "recreational drugs" like marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and so forth; a simple solution to this complex problem (drug abuse and illegal drug enforcement) would be to simply legalize the use of recreational drugs, but with conditions. Yes, we all know the negative and harmful aspects caused by the use of recreational drugs. That is not what is being really being questioned here. Personally, this author wished none of these drugs existed, but unfortunately they do and people will continue to use them. You can't fix stupid. But ask yourself, how well is the current complex system of drug control working? Not very well, in fact it is getting worse. And think of the expense it is to society. It seems obvious there will always be a demand for recreational drugs, just like there will always be a demand for alcohol and tobacco. People, by nature always wish to be something they are not allowed to do and use drugs they think help provide an escape from their reality; albeit a false sense of escape. So as long as there is free will, man will exercise it, no matter how harmful it may be to him. However, society does have the right to legislate the actions of people when their actions can cause harm to another individual's health, safety or welfare. However, society must draw the line when it comes to regulating a person's actions when it is only against them self. So, consider for a moment the benefits of a simple solution: legalization of recreational drugs, and, see if benefits don't outweigh the costs. After all, is not society's goal to minimize the harm causes by drug abuse?

One of the benefits of legalizing recreational drugs would be the squelching a lot of criminal activity associated with the growing, manufacturing, smuggling and selling of illegal drugs. Legalization would put the drug cartels pretty much out of business, and almost immediately. Furthermore, there would be an immediate drop in the expense of the law enforcement needed to combat illegal drugs; especially if the now legal drugs were less expensive than the illegal drugs. Freeing up those expenses would create resources which could be diverted to combat the other more negative aspects of recreational drug use through education, prevention and treatment. Not to mention the fact that legalizing recreational drugs would be an economic boost to society – a new source of tax.

With the money saved by legalizing drugs, it could be used to help monitor its use. Recreational drugs could be treated and handled much like other addictive and detrimental substances such as alcohol and tobacco. And like them, stiff penalties could be put into place for the improper use of recreational drugs; for example, if used by minors, or while operating a motor vehicle or if involved in a crime. Similarly, the use of a recreational drug during employment could be grounds for dismissal and other severe penalties could be imposed for use of recreational drugs in any situation which endangers the health, safety or welfare of the general public. Even health insurance companies could charge considerably higher premiums or even deny coverage if the person is a drug user, and so forth. There are many ways to discourage the use of recreational drug; but making them illegal is just plain impractical and actually not in the best interest of society as a whole.

It has already been mentioned that legal recreational drugs would be an immediate new source of income to legitimate producers and retailers of the drugs while providing new sales tax revenue for the government. We know that most recreational drugs have harmful side effects. So at least with the legitimate growth and manufacturing of recreational drugs some degree of quality control and accountability could be established. In time, we may even be able to minimize the negative effects of recreational drugs. But at present, the production of recreational drugs is not regulated under the watchful eye of any government agency; and, are probably cause more harmful because of their lack of quality control then the drug itself. Think of the number of instances where a large number of drug users have become seriously ill or even died, not because of the drug, but because the drug was not manufactured correctly or it had an additive that was harmful. Thus, legalizing drugs could actually be less harmful to the average citizen than having them illegal. The extra tax revenue earned through the sale of the recreational drugs could be used to help pay for research on the drugs, educating the public and the treatment of drug addiction itself. Thus, the legalized drug tax income could actually be used to work towards minimizing the use of recreational drugs.

Granted, the use of a recreational drug is not a wise choice for anyone. However, if an individual wants to use a recreational drug for their own personal use, and as long as it does not harm or endanger others (including their own family) and they are willing to pay the consequences of its use; they should have the legal right to do so. You cannot fix stupid. It is as inalienable right as much as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. You are entitled to say or believe anything you want. You may not agree with what someone believes or how they act; but as long as it does not deny you or anyone else one of their inalienable rights then society not only has the obligation to permit it, it should actually encourage the freedom.

Interestingly, those who are most likely to be against the legalization of recreational drugs, are those who profit the most from it being illegal: that is, drug growers, smugglers and dealers. It is interesting to note that while there may be severe penalties for those who sell the illegal drugs – there are relatively minor penalties for those who use the illegal drugs. This is because that combination provides the maximum number of users and optimum profit for the drug dealers. You would think that it is the upstanding, law abiding, anti-drug proponent who is righteously trying to keep drugs illegal for the good of society; but, actually they are just mere pawns of the real proponents who want drugs kept illegal – the people who profit from it. Like many issues, when someone spends their effort, their time, and their money to support you on what you should think or what you should do because they say it is in your best interest – you can be darn sure that there is something in it for them. One may admire the intention of those citizens who are religiously fighting against legalizing recreational drugs – but frankly they are being duped. Step out of your vigilance for a moment and try and see the situation in a broader perspective. If your goal is really to minimize the negative effects and use of recreational drugs; then, ironically your best position if to permit their legalization.

Thus, it is argued that society, which obviously seems unable to adequately enforce laws against illegal drug use, would be better off legalizing recreational drugs and use its legalization to its advantage.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life

Few differences among people's beliefs excite as much emotion as whether they are Pro-Life or whether they are Pro-Choice. The two positions seem so diametrically opposed to each other, how could a compromise be possible? Yet, a simple solution to this complex problem is attainable.

Technically life exists even before conception, but at conception a new human life has been created. To extinguish that human life is a crime against God and all things moral. Ideally, it would be wonderful to assure that all conceptions have the opportunity for birth and life. However, to compel a woman to carry and give birth to a child who is completely dependent upon her life for its life and especially for a woman who does not want that child; that too is also a crime against her not to mention a cruel and unusual punishment upon the unborn child.

Therefore, unless society is prepared to provide to that mother a suitable alternative for that unwanted and unborn child, such as proper pre-natal care, a guaranteed adoption for the child or at least a foster home or orphanage care after birth; then, society really has little right to decree to any woman what she can or cannot do with her unborn child which is solely dependent upon her life for its very existence.

Now once the child is born and effectively live on its own, that child does have all the rights of any living human being. Furthermore, once that child has obtained a level of development within the fetus such that if it was to be born even prematurely and it would have a reasonable chance of survival, that child also has all the rights of any living human being. Thus, late term abortions should be treated as if someone had killed the child after it was born. In time, advances in medicine will hopefully keep moving that period of high probability of survival for premature babies closer and closer to conception. One day, even, a child shortly after the moment of conception could medically be given a haven for development and thus afforded protection of its life. But until then, society cannot legally or morally enforce a law against a woman with an unborn child from having an abortion if society is not prepared to offer to the mother a reasonable alternative.

In the situation where the child's life or birth seriously threatens the mother's life, this now becomes an issue of survival and self-defense. There are individuals who even under the threat of being harmed themselves still choose not to harm the other person. There are individuals who voluntarily sacrifice their life in order to ensure that someone else will live. Society generally holds these individuals in the highest esteem because they made the greatest of all sacrifices. However, no one should fault an individual for killing another in their own self-defense. And no one really knows how they will deal with this situation until they are actually placed in that situation. So, no one has the right to legislate what should be done in these situations. An expected mother threatened by death because of pregnancy unfortunately at times is faced with this dilemma, and she and she alone should be allowed the responsibility of that decision, for she alone must bear the consequences of her decision.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates, while diametrically opposed to each other based upon their own personal beliefs still must recognize that despite their personal beliefs and their compulsion to impress those beliefs upon others; they still do not have the right to impose their will (or even what they think is their God's will) on another human being unless they are prepared to absorb the burden of imposing their will on that other person. This concept is similar to the parable of the women who under the law was supposed to be stoned to death for committing adultery. Jesus' response to the accusers was then "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone." (John 8:7). So likewise, unto the Pro-Life group is prepared to demonstrate that they are willing to accept the responsibility for the other person's unborn; they have no grounds to deny the right of the Pro-Choice person.

Nudity

God created us naked and beautiful; it was only man's wickedness that thought otherwise. Therefore, men and women should be free to be naked in public or private in any situation that does potentially expose their nudity to minors or other individuals who are unable to understand. In all probability, that would rule out most public spaces unless they were able to control those who attend; but would allow nudity in private establishments where minors can be prohibited or at least where the general public can be advised of the potential for nudity. Similarly, advertisement with nudity would be prohibited from places which were likely to been seen by minors. But in an adult only private establishment or in places designated as adult only public areas people should have the legal freedom to be nude. If this offends you, then no one is forcing you to attend those places or to even look. Legalizing nudity with limitations.

Prostitution

Without condoning nor condemning prostitution, there is no real reason why two consenting adults should be restricted or prohibited from engaging in sexual activity for the exchange of money. This mutually beneficial arrangement is little different from many other acts of personal service where enjoyment or pleasure is received by one and compensated for to the other. Prostitution maybe condemned on religious principles, but no one has the right to enforce their religious beliefs on another, no matter how right they think they are if that act does not affect their rights. It is okay to be personally opposed to prostitution; but, it is not okay to enforce your belief upon another unless you can clearly demonstrate that the activity hurts their general health, safety and welfare. Prostitution should be legal, except for minors.

Similar to drug use, it is those who profit the most from prostitution being illegal who want to keep it that way, not the God-fearing believer. It is that upstanding citizen who opposes prostitution on moral grounds who is being duped by the very group they so adamantly oppose.

Many studies have shown that societies with legalized prostitution actually fair better when it comes to the general health, safety and welfare of the general public than those who attempt to make it illegal. Health issues associated with prostitution could be more easily identified and controlled. Even if there was no significant difference; there would still be no grounds for part of society to enforce its belief upon another. For society to have the right to enforce regulations against a group of people or a particular activity, it must clearly demonstrate that such enforcement is truly in the best interest of the majority of society and does not deny someone their individual right.

Society does have the right, though, to treat prostitution as a legitimate business. Hence, society can require that individuals who provide sex for money to report income, pay taxes, record medical issues, and even keep records of customers. With the legalization of prostitution, there would be no need for law enforcement against it and there would be an immediate new source of tax revenue. This new tax revenue could even be earmarked to help fight prostitution and the social problems associated with prostitution, such as communicable diseases.

Society can find many ways to make prostitution unattractive and expensive in order to help discourage it; but they have no moral or legal right to make it illegal. Frankly, if two consenting individuals wish to engage in prostitution, even knowing the potential consequences, they should be allowed to do so, as long as does not endanger the health, safety and welfare of another or denies another their individual right.

Marriage, Prenuptials & Divorce

Marriage is a religious commitment or privilege that has inadvertently been afforded unintended non-religious legal ramifications or rights. It is actually a violation of separation of Church and State. Therefore, marriage by itself should not have any basis in societal law for either co-ownership or even parental responsibility unless there are corresponding legal documents associated with the partnership between the two people. Otherwise, there is nothing legally binding between the two parties when they are married. The significance of what is marriage is only between the individuals and their particular belief system.

Thus, when two people (whether male/female, male/male or female/female) do decide to get "married" – they do so only in the light of their respective religion or belief system, if any. There is no "marriage" in the legal sense or any corresponding legal advantage or disadvantage associated with their union. As for the government and society is concerned, there really is no such thing as marriage – the couple is simply two individuals who may be in a joint partnership. The married couple is afforded no special privilege because of their "married" status. Consequently, when two individuals decide to "divorce" it is only a divorce in terms of their religion or faith; and, there is no automatic claim to each other's property or parental responsibility because of their so called "marriage" partnership.

Thus ideally, when any couple decides to co-habitat, combine resources, make joint purchases or decide to have sexual relations that may result in children, or anything else that they would normally be thought of as a "marriage" then the prudent thing for them to do is to sign agreements as to how things should be divided in the event they should ever separate and most importantly who is responsible in the event there is offspring. If would seem that if they are unable to agree upon these issues prior to or during their relationship or in the creation of offspring; then it is very unlikely they will agree on them during the demise of their relationship. Thus, it is best to resolve these issues before they become problems. Prior to a relationship, they should form binding agreements, much like any business partnership would do prior to entering into a relationship. Not to do so would be a bad business practice. Failure to do so who automatically negate any legal grounds against each other. Minors, of course, would not be allowed to make such agreements without the consent of their guardian(s).

This non-marriage "prenuptial" agreement could be made readily available at little or no cost to the general public. There even could be several variations from which to choose and should automatically be provided anytime a couple elects to "get married" or otherwise decide to co-habitat or have sexual relations that could result in off-spring. Clear and objective minds could easily draft several viable options for a "divorce" settlement from which a "marrying" couple could easily select as their choice. Of course, couples can elect to opt out of signing such an agreement or they may not be able to agree at the time of the marriage, and if so, they must be required to check the box mark "would rather encage the services of divorce attorneys who will probably take most of our assets and conjure a custody arrangement far worse than anything we could have devised ourselves." Again, you cannot fix stupid.

In the event that no prenuptial agreement is in place, it is still better to have a simple system in place (whether married or not) with regard to property. It would state that whatever belongs to one before the marriage is that person's property after the divorce (provided they can demonstrate prior ownership). If there has been a co-mingling of assets during the marriage, then when separated, those assets are either divided based upon their respective contribution (provided they can demonstrate the contribution) or based upon some already agreed upon terms as one would have established if they were in any type of partnership, or as mutually agreed to between themselves; otherwise, they would by default be divided equally – even if it requires liquidation. The important point is that no divorce attorneys are needed. Likewise, liabilities are either split based upon prior responsibility, prior agreements, or liability decision responsibility (for example, only one party signs to purchase a boat, then they are the one responsible for its payment, and not the one who did not sign a purchase agreement); otherwise, liabilities are shared equally. Regardless, no divorce attorney should be needed to split either the assets or liabilities. It would be clearly determined by the agreement and simply enforced by a Judge if needed. The only ones against such a simple system are, of course, those who profit the most from a divorce, divorce attorneys.

Unfortunately, divorce attorneys play on the emotions welled up in individuals during the divorce. They convince their client that it is in their best interest, or in the best interest of the children, or the best interest of almost anyone else other than the one they are divorcing to employ the lawyer's services and file suit. But think about it, the only person who truly benefits in a divorce is the divorce attorney. And you should always be suspect of someone who tells you what you should do or believe who also has something to gain from convincing you. But, as you know, you can't fix stupid. Unfortunately, most people are naïve or just plain ignorant to see this at the time during their divorce, often blinded by emotions; so, society has a responsibility to try and to protect them from these situations.

Similarly, with regard to offspring, if there is no prenuptial agreement, then those who had children prior to the marriage are still responsible for their respective offspring after the divorce. In the event of biological children during the marriage, then each partner is equally responsible for the child unless otherwise agreed to prior to the divorce or as agreed to between themselves after the divorce. No divorce attorney is needed. In the event of no agreement, then each parent is entitled to equal time and is equally responsible for financial support of the children for shared items (medical care, education, etc.) regardless of their respective incomes after the divorce. Whatever one partner contributes in money, the other is obligated to contribute an equal amount up to half the required amount needed. For example, each is required to pay half the medical cost or half the medical coverage for the child. But regardless, neither party has the authority to garner the other's wages or demand settlement for child support, regardless of their respective incomes. Since the children spend equal time with both parents, each parent has equal care costs, and thus no child support is demanded from one to be given to the other. If they cannot agree to split other costs (such as medical coverage) then, and only then, are they entitled to bring judgment against the other party. If for some reason one parent cannot be responsible for the children an equal amount of time, then and only then, may he/she elect to offer financial assistance to the other parent as compensation for the additional expense, if any, for the off-spring. If the other parent does not feel that the compensation offered was sufficient to cover the additional expense, then the child's extra time is offered to family members, friends, foster homes, and even orphanages who apparently have more concern for the care of the off-spring than their own parents. The goal is to do what is best for the off-spring, eliminate nasty and wasteful divorce proceedings.

Alimony

Likewise, neither party can compel alimony from the other for any reason. If in a relationship, one person elects to stay home to take care of the children, while the other advances their career or one elects to work while the other pursues their education when once separated causes an inequality in their future income – those decisions and actions during the relationship are simply treated as gifts during their relationship and thus are not recoverable; that is, there are no grounds for alimony. Therefore, it is always wise that each partner in a relationship maintain equality during their relationship, sharing child rearing, advancing their respective careers, or pursuing education equally, always in anticipation that someday they may no longer be a couple.

Obviously, the people most opposed to this simple solution are those you benefit from it the most, namely divorce attorneys and gold diggers. Eliminate alimony, and treat all actions of sacrifice by one party to another as gifts would create a simple solution to a complex problem of divorce.

Capital Punishment

Heinous crimes, such as murder, may deserve the death penalty; however, our Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." We are all mortal and we all shall die; so, death is not unusual. However, almost no one knows when they will die; only that they will, someday. Even people in the thick of a heated battle still have no idea if and when they will perish. But imagine the cruelty to anyone who had the knowledge that they are going to die at a specific time and in a specific place; by most people's standard that is cruel and unusual punishment. What is even more tragic is when someone receives a death sentence and is killed and then is found to have been innocent after all.

Life in imprisonment without a chance for parole is cruel punishment in itself. In fact, it may even be crueler than death. Therefore, it is recommended that anyone who is found guilty of a heinous crime that normally would be found to warrant a death sentence should instead be offered a choice: death or life imprisonment without parole. And if they elect death, then it is on their timetable and by their choice of means.

Most people opt to live rather than die; however, an empty life, a useless life, a pointless life where you have nothing to do but to continuously ponder the heinous actions you took and hopeless situation you are in is probably a penalty even worse than death. It is a living death; a situation where it would have been better never to have been born.

One can empathize with any family member who may have lost a love one and may wish to exact an "eye for eye" against the individual who is responsible for the loss of life; but no punishment can bring back their love one. Therefore, if the goal is exact as much punishment as possible on the accused; then realize that a living death followed by actual death is perhaps as severe of a punishment one can possibly imagine short of a planned death. In short, capital punishment should be abolished unless agreed to by the accused.

Suicide

The taking of anyone's life is tragic and against all that is moral. However, when one offers their own life in order to save another, in effect a form of suicide, it is treated as the most heroic of all acts. But when an individual tries just suicide alone in effect to save themselves from a horrible life, it is severely condemned, and in many cases illegal – like that is going to influence the person wanting to commit suicide.

Personally, this author is against suicide; however, it is not that difficult to imagine a situation when living is actually worse than death. This authored suffered from a condition that had it persisted for extend period of time, death would have been a welcome relief. And until you are actually confronted with that situation, no one really knows what it must be like to make that ultimate decision. It probably has to be one of the most difficult decisions anyone well ever have to make in their lifetime; and many times it cannot be accomplished alone.

Therefore, despite the religious and moral reasons against suicide, as long as the act does not endanger the health, safety or welfare of another individual nor denies another person their inalienable right; then a person should be able to commit suicide. Like the inalienable right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as strange as it may seem, the taking of one's own life is guaranteed as an in inalienable right. It is your life, you have the liberty to end it if so desired, and if death is more pleasant than living, then to the suicidal person it is their form of relative happiness. Thus, anyone who assumes the responsibility to thwart such an attempt should be prepared to offer to the suicidal individual supported care, alternatives and valid reasons why that individual should choose life over death; otherwise they are responsible for denying someone their inalienable right.

A valid case of suicide is someone who suffering unimaginable pain and anguish to a point that death is actually a relief. The pain may be real physical pain or even mental anguish; it does not really matter to the individual who is the one suffering. All they know is that they wish to be free of the anguish and death is a welcome relief; and sometimes they need help.

Committing suicide is difficult and many things can go wrong. So, having someone else to help can be of great value and punishing those individuals who do help makes no more sense than punishing the messenger bearing bad news. The classic example is Dr. Jack Kevorkian who publicly championed a terminal patient's right to die via physician assisted suicide. Unfortunately, the media focused on the "doctor of death" instead of focusing on the issue of suicide. Without such assistance, a person in anguish who desires death, now is faced with even more anguish in that they must do it without help; how cruel is that?

Granted, many safeguards should be in place if someone receives help committing suicide. You cannot simply rely on someone's word that that individual wanted to commit suicide and you obliged them. There should a personal confession, witnesses and even a required minimum time period; but in the end, as much assistance as possible should help those who desperately desire the end their own lives; providing them with as much comfort, support and dignity as possible.
-7-

All who benefit from the society

should contribute to society.

Military or National Service

All citizens, men and women, should be required to serve of time in national service, probably two to four years, in some capacity in either the military service or in a national service to their country. This can be expanded to include not only the armed forces; but, also for those people interested in more peaceful activities such as Vista or the Peace Corps. One would have a choice to either serve in the military or in some type of equivalent non-military national service; except in times of war. Because of the added danger of military service to more peaceful service, the system may be set up as a choice or 2 years in the military or 4 years in national service, or as needed to balance the participants to the activity.

The individual should have some freedom as to when they could serve their time. The time can be served during a certain age range, such as between the ages of 16 to 28 to accommodate college or other life events that may occur. During that time, basic training and housing is provided to the recruits. Military/national service should only be required of those mentally and physically capable of providing such service. At the end of the service, the recruits may elect to volunteer for additional service, and if accepted can make a professional career in either the military or national service. Or they simply return back to the private work force.

This way, all capable individuals who have completed some type of military or national service receive the same benefits and privileges now afforded only to veterans. Everyone would in effect become a veteran. The system is equitable ensuring that all people serve their country and provides the country with the talents of all of its citizens to help it with its national goals.
Unemployment Compensation

Occasionally, through no fault of their own actions, individuals lose their job and must seek temporary unemployment compensation for financial assistant. If so, then that assistance should be made available to them by the government through a relatively low or no interest loan. Once re-employed, the individual must begin paying back that loan. This should cause most people to avoid seeking unemployment compensation except as a last resort. And it definitely would stop the abuses of those who seem to be chronically unemployed and forever collecting unemployment compensation.

More proactive individuals may wish to set up a reserve, that could also administered by the government, of funds (drawing interest) which can be used to provide them income in times of lack of employment. If that individual never draws upon their unemployment in his/her lifetime, then that money becomes available to him/her as part of their retirement; again, a good reason to maintain being gainfully employed.

In the any event, should the extent of unemployment claims reach a critical point which the government determines that the individual is unlikely to be able to make full repayment in a reasonable amount of time; then the government has the right to end unemployment payments, declare the individual bankrupt, take their remaining assets, and if necessary place the individual in a government run living and work environment where the individual can begin to start stabilizing their life and begin repaying their indebtedness since they obviously have demonstrated that they are unable to do so on their own. Once the indebtedness has been repaid, the individual is returned back into the regular society and workforce. This solution is similar to the "debtor's prison" but administered so that there is a reasonable chance of the person to work off their debt.

It sounds harsh, but we as a society simply cannot afford to have chronic unemployment and generations of families simply existing off of unemployment and welfare without contributing and equivalent amount back to society. Chronic unemployment is not only unsustainable, it will actually make conditions far worse for far more people. Obviously, those ones most opposed against this simpler system are those who do not really want to work to earn a living and those who profit the most for defunct system.

Individuals physically or mentally unable to earn a living are to be considered wards of the state and thus lose most of their privileges such as the right to private ownership of property and other similar privileges unless others, such as family members, are willing to absorb the responsibility.

Immigration

This country was built by immigrants. It is not only foolish and impractical to curb immigration to this country; it is actually contrary to its founding principles. We should welcome all who wish to come to America and are willing to work and support this country. However, the government does have the right to regulate immigration in order to ensure healthy growth. The country has the right to enforce its borders.

It is obvious that the current system to curtailing illegal immigration is not working well, similar to our failure to curb the flow of illegal drugs into this country. We can blame this problem on our predecessors for not creating secure borders; but that does not resolve the current problem of illegal immigrants. Ideally, those who are currently in this country illegally should be deported and required to apply for immigration like all other immigrants; however, that too would be impractical. Therefore, allow all who are here presently here illegally to stay if they wish, but they must start a legal path toward legal status (but not citizenship) and do so with an added financial burden, in effect a penalty for breaking the law. The illegal immigrant has a choice of either paying a penalty for his crime or being deported. Income from that penalty placed on all of the illegal immigrants wishing to stay will be used to strengthen the country's borders and pay for the deportation of the others who do not want or cannot pay the penalty. If they are unable or unwilling to pay, then they are deported.

In addition, this Country does have the right to make stipulations of those who do join this Country and hold them equal to all who are currently residents. Those who do legally immigrate to this country should in a reasonable time have the same rights and responsibilities as those who are current citizens. They should be registered and become citizens; if not swearing allegiance to the country at least swear they will not be against the country. They should pay taxes, they should serve in the armed forces or national service, they should be familiar with the history of the country, subject to the same laws, and in a reasonable time be able to speak, read and write the national language, and they should be willing to work if so able. Otherwise, they should be either denied access or permitted only limited access.

Voting Rights

Not surprisingly, the United States has found itself in the position where now more than half the population is either directly or indirectly relying on the support the very government to which they elect representatives to protect their interests. For example, the government now either directly or indirectly employs millions of citizens through the armed forces, government agencies, quasi-government agencies, government funded research and development programs, public education or to our largest sector, companies and organizations dependent upon government contracts. Another large segment is dependent upon the government for most if not all of its income to live, such as the elderly, disabled, unemployed and the poor. Many are needed services and noteworthy causes but now it has reached a tipping point where these government-dependent people are the majority of the people in this country, and the majority is often the group that controls the elections of the individuals who make the laws which regulate and fund those very services and causes. The system is now an unchecked and unbalanced influence on the proper use of tax funds. Unfortunately, this creates a vicious downward cycle that hurts everyone and will eventually destroy the country.

Whenever someone who is on a committee where they have right to vote on an issue and the outcome of that vote could materially affect that individual, the proper action is for that person to abstain from casting their vote – since it is self-serving. Everyone recognizes that it is a conflict of interest. Well, we have a similar situation here in the United States when individuals electing representatives who vote on their behalf vote on items which materially affect their welfare. This too is a conflict of interest.

Since there is a large segment of the population which is directly tied to the government and its funding and since most people tend to be self-serving; they are naturally are going to vote for those individuals who promise to continue to support their government funding – not because it is in the best interest of country as a whole, but because it is in their personal best interest. This is a conflict of interest and creates a problem for all.

The beauty of the democratic government devised by the Founding Fathers was the ability to put into place a set of checks and balances so that no one arm of the government could gain excessive control. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers could not think of everything, nor anticipate all future scenarios; and, it is quite obvious they never envisioned the situation we have today where the majority of the people are either directly or indirectly dependent upon the government. The Founding Fathers envisioned the federal government as being a relatively small body, not one that is so intertwined with society that it directly or indirectly affects more than half the population.

A simple solution to this complex problem of so many people able to affect the democracy to the point that it is more self-serving than it is what is best for society is to take away their right to vote in those situations which can be construed as a conflict of interest. The ability to vote is more of a privilege than it is a right. For example, we do not allow minors to vote. If we did, they would probably vote and get into office someone who promised them ice cream every day. If prisoners were allowed to vote, I am sure they would vote for someone who supported no penalties for a crime. So how is that any different than someone who has the right to vote for someone who can increase their welfare check? If you are dependent upon the government, then you forfeit your right to vote.

A simple solution would be to temporarily restrict a person's voting right when it can be shown to materially affect them directly. For example, anyone receiving direct monetary aid from the government should not be allowed to vote for a representative who can influence that aid. This would include not only those individuals on welfare and social security but those in government services, such as the military and postal workers. This sounds harsh, but step outside the box for a moment and think about it.

To quote John F. Kennedy: "For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small world. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we all are mortal." In essence, we all share common needs. And even though we may not at the time benefit directly from decisions made by our representatives, we entrust our representatives to make decisions on our behalf which they believe to be in the best interests of all the people for all times. We entrust them, without feeling the pressure to appease certain constituents at a particular time in order for them to remain in office as our representative, to rise about the immediate situation and make wise decisions which affect all constituents for all time – not just those who currently are receiving the benefits.

In doing so, the elected representatives should be able to make the appropriate decisions which provide an optimum and balanced budget which supports the military, spurs the economy, provides necessary services, helps the poor, and protects the rights of all individuals as equitably and economically and as sustainable as possible.

Health Insurance and Health Care

Health care and health insurance are universal problems common to all. Therefore, it should be a fundamental privilege to all to have basic health care and protection from catastrophic medical expenses. Generally speaking, no one intentionally wants to be sick with a catastrophic illness for the mere purpose of financially taking advantage of their health insurer. And, without coverage, just one incident can be financially devastating to them and ruin their life, and others, and often for many years. At present, typically those who least can afford a major financial setback due to an illness are the ones most likely not to be able to afford the protection offered by health insurance. This hurts society as a whole. Therefore, the government should provide basic catastrophic health care insurance to all, at a value that would not be considered an unusual financial hardship for anyone to typically endure. This value would change with cost of living and inflation. Similarly, the government should provide basic health care (yearly physicals, common vaccines, medicines for the more common illnesses) to all at no cost to the individual; thereby encouraging everyone to act promptly whenever they become ill and to be proactive against potential illnesses. Ideally, the primary focus of the government's allocation for health care is to find cures for the various illnesses so that health care is not needed.

Individuals can still elect to pay for additional health insurance coverage; for example, to cover medical expenses between zero and the catastrophic level, or to provide income in the event they become unemployed because of the illness, and so forth. But for the most part, most major health insurance needs would be covered by a universal health care program. The same universal health care would be used by all, from the store clerk to the United States Senator. No one should receive privileged coverage. Since all who can serve either in the arm services or other similar type of national service, we all in effect receive veteran's health coverage. Or, simpler still, we are under one massive Medicare program. An unhealthy person, or a person burdened with health expenses they cannot afford does little to help society in general.

Those most against this type of program are of course those who profit the most from not having a universal health insurance, namely the health insurance companies. A simple way to implement the program would be to expand the current Medicare program to cover everyone, not just those over a certain age limit. Abolish Medicaid, since all people will be covered equally under the program and all catastrophic and preventive medical needs would be covered. And abolish the special insurance our Congressmen receive. If they are required to develop an insurance coverage that they too must use, they are more likely to create a coverage that is good for all.

Soon, with individual genetic genome knowledge becoming available to all, people will know what they will likely face in the future in terms of illness. It is all a matter of statistics and time. Therefore, the only way to be about as fair as you can be to all for the least cost to society is to place all individuals under one single health care insurance program. This is similar to military protection. Is it better to have 50 military units, one for each state to protect the nation or a single military supported by all states? Likewise, it is better to have one insurance program rather than a large number of insurance programs. Risk and cost has to be dispersed evenly. If you are one of the few that does not require lots of insurance, consider yourself lucky.

It is an expensive system, but for the society as a whole, it is definitely less expensive than the current inefficient and inequitable systems that are in place and certainly worth the tax burden because of its offset savings to the entire society.

Disability and Life Insurance

Like health insurance, disability and life insurance are universal problems common to all. Therefore, it should be a fundamental privilege to have disability and life insurance protection from a catastrophic event such as a long term disability or an untimely death. Generally speaking, no one intentionally wants to become disabled or die for the mere purpose of financially taking advantage of their insurer. But, without coverage, just one incident can be financially devastating to them and ruin their life, and others, and often for many years. At present, those who can least afford a major financial setback due to a disability or death, are the ones most likely not to be able to afford the protection offered by disability and life insurance.

Therefore, the government should provide basic catastrophic disability and life insurance to all, at a value that would be considered sufficient enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living for either the one disabled or those dependents left without a means of economic support in the event of death. This value would change with the change in cost of living and inflation and the person's age and life circumstances. One can elect to pay for additional disability or life insurance coverage; for example, to supplement their income should they become disabled or death benefit for their dependents. However, a minimum coverage would always be provided to all members of society.

The disability and life insurance coverage would be provided to all, from the store clerk to the United States Senator. No one should receive privileged coverage. Those against the idea are obviously those who profit the most from privatized insurance, namely life and disability insurance companies. However, they can still sell compete in the supplemental disability and life insurance markets.

Long-term Care Insurance

Long-term care insurance, like health, disability and life insurance are universal problems common to all. Therefore, it should be a fundamental privilege to have long-term care insurance protection in the event of an individual to take care of themselves. Generally speaking, no one intentionally wants to become disabled for the mere purpose of financially taking advantage of their insurer. But, without coverage, their inability to take care of themselves becomes financially devastating to them and ruins their life, and others, and often for many years. At present, those who can least afford a major financial setback due to a disability are the ones most likely not to be able to afford the protection offered long-term care insurance.

Therefore, the government should provide basic long-term care insurance to all, at a value that would be considered sufficient enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living for the one disabled. This value would change with the change in cost of living and inflation and the person's age and life circumstances. One can elect to pay for additional long-term care insurance coverage; for example, to supplement their income should they become disabled. However, a minimum coverage would always be provided to all members of society.

The long-term care insurance coverage would be provided to all, from the store clerk to the President of the United States. No one should receive privileged coverage. Those against the idea are obviously those who profit the most from privatized insurance, namely life and disability insurance companies. However, they can still sell compete in the supplemental disability and life insurance markets.

Professional Jurors

If on-trial for a crime you would think most people would want a competent and knowledgeable lawyer representing them and a competent and knowledgeable judge presiding over them; so one would think that an individual would also want competent and knowledgeable jurors as well. In the past, most court cases were relatively simple and the average person should have the intelligence to listen to the facts and make a competent and knowledgeable judgment. But today, because of specialization, complex regulations and new forms of evidence, the average person often does not have in their arsenal of common knowledge sufficient information to make informed decisions. Often, the persuasion of a lawyer is as much as educating the juror as it is convincing the juror.

In these situations, it would seem prudent to employ "professional jurors." Professional jurors are individuals who are selected because of their knowledge and experience in the area related to the court case. The professional jurors can still be selected at random and reviewed by the respective attorneys before the case; however, they would be from a specific subset of the general population with relevant knowledge, who volunteered for service and who are probably compensated more for their time. The privilege of choosing between professional jurors as opposed to the current system of randomly selected jurors from the general population could even be offered to the accused. It seems logical that someone who believes that they have been falsely accused would want the truth to be known. To help ensure that end, it again seems logical that the falsely accused would want jurors who are able to understand the facts as presented; therefore, they should welcome a knowledgeable juror.

On the flip side, it seems logical an accused person who knows that they are really guilty would rather have jurors who are not as knowledgeable and thus are more susceptible to persuasion and poor judgment; it only increases their odds of either a not guilty decision of a hung jury.

Few, if any, individuals relish the thought of being called for jury duty. While it is one of their civic duties, it does create a disruption in their life and possibly an expense for either them or their employer, particularly if the court case lasts a long time. Most people would probably opt to pay more taxes to compensate for professional jurors if that would reduce or even eliminate the chance that they could be called for jury duty.

A good pool from which to draw for professional jurors would be retired persons. They, more than most, would have experience and temperament. They also have the most time and can more easily tolerate a disruption in their life style. And, being retired, they are probably the most affordable; however, they should be compensated enough to make it worth their while.

Education

Education, all the way up to a Doctorate degree, should be available to as many individuals as economically feasible, free. However, the system would be competitive. You have to demonstrate your ability to warrant a free education. As society is able to support those attending school, only the top candidates would receive their education at no cost. Students receiving free education would have to maintain certain minimum grades or similar status. Students would be required to pay for failed courses needed to be taken again. All other students who did not place in the top of their class would need to pay for the any additional education.

Testing and evaluation could be used to help determine which program, which type of school, and which college each applicant would be allowed to receive their free education. Any deviation from the government recommended program would require additional payment on the part of the student. The goal is to get the best individuals educated into the fields that best serves them and serves society.

The number or percentage of individuals who would be afforded free education would vary depending upon the available funds derived from taxes and health of the economy. Obviously, those who are against the idea are those who can afford an education and do not want more competition.

The benefits to society of an educated public are obvious. To avoid abuses, such as foreign students residing in the United States solely for the purpose of obtaining a free education is that they would be required to work an equivalent number of years equal to their education in the country prior to attending school and after they graduate. Likewise, out-of-state students must also work in a state the same number of years they plan to attend college as well as work in the state the same number of years after they graduate, if the aid was received from the State.
Personal Database

Think of the countless times you have filled out and answered the same questions over and over again when applying for a job, or a loan, or a medical exam. Wouldn't it be nice if there was one single massive database that every conceivable bit of useful information on you for your entire life could be quickly downloaded to the prospective employer, loan officer, or doctor?

The information would be up to date, accurate, unbiased, and verified. It would be each individual's responsibility to make sure that it was up to date and accurate and the government's responsibility to see that it was unbiased and verified. The military already has this type of system available in a limited way. Why not make it available to everyone?

It would then be easy then to apply for a job or a loan. In addition, it would be easy for employers to search for employee candidates, and lending institutions to find credit worth customers. Physicians would have instant knowledge of your medical condition.

For those concerned with violations of civil liberties, the personal database could be voluntary, unless the individual has a criminal history, in which case those records would be required to be public. Once in the system, individuals would have the choice to decide who has access to what information and when. For example, if applying for employment, one has the option to release only employment related information. If applying for medical service, release only medically related information. The control of the information is still with the individual. The purpose of the system is to minimize the duplication, errors and falsification of information.

Obviously, those who are against this simple idea are those you profit from a lack of such a system; such as those helping others find employment and possibly those people unqualified in the current position or falsify information to get employment. For those who wish not to participate in the system, they still have the option to complete the applications the traditional way; assuming the employer, lender, or physician still accepts conventional applications. Otherwise, a single database available on each person's personal history would be simple solution to a complex problem.

Personal Global Positioning System

With today's technology and global positioning satellites (GPS) it is now possible to have implanted into anyone who desires it (or those who by society require it) a small device which automatically and continuously records their location on the surface of the planet within a relatively high degree of accuracy. This technology already exists with the use of cell phones and in our vehicles. It is even used for the location of pets. So why not use for all humans?

Normally, most people who are not doing something wrong or are not somewhere where they should not be do not have an objection to having that information available to others on a need to know basis. It is usually the people who are hiding their activities who are trying to conceal their whereabouts. Some others simply see it as a violation of their civil liberty and object regardless of its benefits to themselves or to society. There is not much you can do about these people other than to respect their right to not be part of the system; but they must bear the consequences. You can't fix stupid.

Thus, the government should make available an implanted position tracking and recording device to anyone who desires it. This information would not be available to anyone other than those authorized by the person with the device. The exception would be for those individuals whose prior history warrants in society's judgment that they should be compelled to have such an implant and its information available to the appropriate agencies. For example, someone with a history of certain types of criminal behavior or someone who suffers from memory loss and has been known to wonder and get lost, or perhaps someone with health issues who should have the information readily available to the appropriate agencies for their safety as well as others.

Imagine the benefits of such a human tracking system. Kidnapped children could be found quickly as well as their kidnappers. People lost, stranded or buried under rubble could be found quickly. Anyone who performed an act of crime could be found quickly. For example, if a convenience store is robbed at 11:00 at night, all the police need to do is to run the history of those who were at that location at that particular point in time. The GPS system is accurate to within 6 inches! The police would know who committed the crime and where to find the criminal and would even know who the witnesses were.

For non-serious criminals, those who are simply under "house arrest" with restricted movement – the GPS locator could continuously track their movements and make sure they are not violating their parole. For concerned parents, the movement of their children could be continuously monitored. For suspicious marital partners, their own spouse's movements could be monitored. Not for you, you say? Well, would you like to be married to someone who was not willing to share their GPS location with you?

Or on the flip side, suppose you have been falsely accused of committing a crime. Wouldn't it be great if your personal GPS tracker clearly demonstrated that you were nowhere near the crime scene? Think of the fortune it would have saved Los Angeles County if O.J. Simpson had a personal GPS tracker that showed he really was in his bedroom golfing at 10:00 pm at night as he claimed.

Known child molesters could be continuously monitored and could be easily apprehended in the event they came within a prescribed distance of any child. Virtually all crime, if not deterred, at least could easily be solved. The benefits to society of a personal GPS tracking system are staggering. It would greatly help law enforcement, not to mentioned finding missing persons. But one can understand the fear of those who imagine a big brother controlling them; therefore it should be voluntary except as noted. Frankly, the benefits greatly outweigh the potential liabilities and most people who have nothing to hide would probably welcome the opportunity to participate in such a global positioning tracking system.

Three Semester School

Students learn at different rates. When presenting new information to a class, the instructor is always challenged as to what level to teach the new material. Go too fast and you lose most of the audience. Go too slow and likewise you lose most of the audience due to boredom. Teach somewhere in the middle and you lose both the bright students (because it is still too slow) and the not-so-bright students (because it is still too fast). So what to do?

A reasonable solution is to adopt a three semester school year where the entire year's core subject matter is taught in just one-third of the year. The instructor covers a lot of material very quickly. Now some students pick up things quickly, they may only need to hear the information once. They should deal well in the class. At the end to the first trimester all are tested and that group of students who passed the "final" exam are no longer required to attend class. Hopefully, this should be about one-third of the entire class. They are "rewarded" to take other elective classes or extracurricular activities.

In the second trimester, the entire course is taught again; but this time to only the remaining students, approximately two-thirds of the entire class. This group is now hearing the material for a second time; and thus they have an idea of what information is to follow. This second hearing and hindsight view generally helps most people learn more effectively. The instructor, with less students and no longer a fear of "losing" the brighter students is able to tailor their time and instructions on a second run-through; perhaps focusing more on the trouble areas. Ideally, at the end of the second trimester, when tested, approximately half of the students (or about one-third of the entire student body) should be able to pass the "final" exam. The students, like the first group, are no longer required to attend class. They too are rewarded to take other elective classes or extracurricular activities.

The remaining students, approximately one-third of the class now attend the third presentation of the subject matter. This is now their third time learning the material and in a setting where the teacher is able to spend even more time with them because of the lower teacher to student ratio. The "not-so-bright" students are also in an environment with less peer pressure from other students. The teacher is able to present at a rate a level that is best for them.

The teachers still teach the same amount of time; however, the students have a strong motivation to learn as quickly as possible because it gets them out of class and taking classes or doing activities they would prefer. The bright students (who are often the trouble makers) are not bored. The average student gets two changes to learn the same material. And the "not-so-bright student" is given a maximum amount of time and attention to learn.

At no additional cost to the school system, a three semester school format could provide a significant improvement
Summary

This short book describes seven axioms for societal living and provides the logic behind such axioms as well as their application to a variety of social and economic problems which currently plague our society in the hope that someone who reads this book also has the authority and ability to implement these solutions and in doing so raise the quality of life for all.

And if you have read through this entire manuscript to this point, I congratulate you for perseverance and having at least an open mind. It is very probable that one or more of the divisive issues presented in this book may have struck a raw nerve with you. If so, I challenge you to contact me and feel free to either point out the flaws in my logic or present an alternative solution. My telephone number is 321-698-5739 and my email is ron.treharne@gmail.com. I claim no mystical knowledge or divine inspiration – but rather from experience, observation and thought believe that the simple solutions to these complex problems are the best possible solutions, all things being considered.
