A quick note before we dive in. This week, “I Believe” officially hit the numbers to rank as a Top 10% global podcast for all of 2025. Of course, it’s still February, and we have plenty of room to grow. I just want to take a moment to say thanks for listening!

…

How do we bring manufacturing back to America?

🎙️ Tariffs Built American Industry

In the early 1800s, the United States was still an economic underdog. We had won our independence from Britain, but economically we were far from independent.

Across the Atlantic, the Industrial Revolution was transforming British manufacturing. British factories had decades of experience in mass production. They churned out cheap, high-quality goods. Meanwhile, US manufacturing was small, scattered, and struggling to compete.

America’s economy revolved around agriculture. Cotton. Tobacco. Wheat. We relied heavily on European imports for manufactured goods. British industries dominated global trade, producing textiles and iron at such low costs that American businesses couldn’t compete.

That left us with a major vulnerability: We were too dependent on foreign goods. Without a strong domestic manufacturing base, America had little economic control over its own future.

James Madison & The Road to War

In 1808, America elected James Madison as the fourth President of the United States. Tensions with Britain were boiling over.

For years, British naval forces harassed American ships, seized cargo, and forced American sailors into their navy, a practice known as impressment. As an international insult, the British stirred unrest in the Northwest Territory, backing Native American resistance against US expansion.

By 1812, America had had enough. On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain.

The War of 1812: A Mixed Outcome

Militarily, the War of 1812 was a mess. The US attempted to invade Canada, which … didn’t go well. We did capture York, which is modern-day Toronto, and burned public buildings, but the British retaliated in full force. They marched into Washington, D.C. and burned the White House and the Capitol.

But here’s where things get interesting economically.

British naval blockades cut off trade. Those cheap British imports we had relied on were gone.

American businesses had no choice but to step up. Factories that might have otherwise struggled suddenly had a captive market. We had to produce goods for ourselves, and for the first time, we saw what an independent American industry could look like.

The Aftermath & Economic Crisis

In December 1814, the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent. Neither side gained or lost territory. Militarily, it was a stalemate.

Symbolically, it was a turning point. The US had stood up to Britain and survived. National pride soared. The war cemented America’s identity as a sovereign power.

While the fighting stopped, Britain wasn’t done economically. Almost immediately, British manufacturers flooded American ports with cheap goods, undercutting US businesses and threatening to wipe out our industrial progress overnight.

Congress had newfound confidence and a choice. We could let American industry collapse, or step in to protect it.

The Tariff of 1816: America’s First Protective Tariff

In 1816, Congress gained consensus and passed the first major protective tariff in US history. Even the Senate’s most prominent conservative states’ rights advocate, John C. Calhoun (South Carolina), publically advocated for it.

The Tariff of 1816 imposed a 20 to 30% tax on imported goods, particularly textiles, iron, and leather products. Our goal was to make British goods more expensive and give American manufacturers a chance to compete.

And it worked.

Textile mills in New England flourished. Lowell, Massachusetts, became a booming industrial hub.

Iron production surged in Pennsylvania, fueling railroads, construction, and manufacturing.

Infrastructure projects expanded as a growing economy demanded better roads and canals.

This was America’s manufacturing turning point. It was the moment we moved from a country dependent on foreign goods to one that could build its own industrial future.

The Tariff Debate: North vs. South

Now, not everyone was on board.

Southern cotton planters feared retaliation. They worried that if Britain had to pay more for American goods, they’d buy less American cotton in return. Higher tariffs, to them, meant less trade and lower profits.

This tariff debate, whether to protect US industries or keep trade open and cheap, would continue for decades. It fueled sectional tensions between the industrial North and the agrarian South.

Despite the controversy, the US took its first major step toward economic independence.

Instead of relying on Europe, we were finally building an economy of our own.

It’s easy to come to the simple conclusion that tariffs protected American industry. You could say, “Our success all started with tariffs!” But that would be a shortsided conclusion.

The decisive element that protected and grew American industry was consensus.

Tariffs Today

The Wall Street Journal last week reported President Trump is considering tariffs “in the neighborhood of 25%” on automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical products. He suggested these tariffs could increase over time.

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about tariffs, so that wasn’t so compelling.

President Trump suggested that US companies could be given a phase-in period on the items they import. This period could give businesses time to move production back to the US. He even said he’d allow “a little bit of a chance” for companies to re-shore before ramping up the tariffs.

He didn’t offer details, but the logic behind giving industry time to come home before tightening the screws is what makes this policy intriguing.

He billed it as a different kind of protectionism.

In the early 1800s, Congress passed protectionist tariffs to protect American manufacturing from British manufacturing. But American manufacturing was already here. It just needed a kickstart.

Today, we face a different challenge. We don’t need to protect industry. We need to rebuild it.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America began exporting its manufacturing jobs overseas. Jack Welch and General Electric were at the forefront, pushing for offshoring to boost profits. Other companies followed, chasing cheaper labor and higher margins. Bit by bit, America willingly chose to dismantle our own industrial base. Washington stood by and watched as we destroyed our national capability for a quick buck.

As an example, that was our moment to save American steel. Had we implemented protective tariffs in the 1960s and 1970s, some of those jobs and, more importantly, that capability might have stayed here.

So … the protectionist tariffs President Trump is considering might not just be about protecting our industry from foreign competition.

They might be about protecting us from ourselves.

And the logic behind that is fascinating.

But again, let’s remember that the decisive element that protects and grows American industry is not tariffs. It’s consensus. There’s a key difference between the Tariff of 1816 and today.

James Madison and the Tariff of 1816: The Evolution of a Founding Father

James Madison wasn’t just a president. He was the architect of America.

Few figures in American history shaped the nation as profoundly as he did. Before he ever set foot in the White House, he had already built the American framework.

He was the Father of the Constitution. He meticulously crafted the structure of the US government. When the new republic teetered on the edge of collapse under the weak Articles of Confederation, it was Madison who designed a stronger system that balanced power between the federal government and the states. He sought stability without tyranny.

He didn’t just write the Constitution. He defended it. Alongside Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison co-wrote The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that convinced the states to ratify the Constitution. Without him, there might not have been a Constitution at all.

When critics of the Constitution demanded protections for individual liberties, Madison delivered. He authored the Bill of Rights, enshrining free speech, religious freedom, and due process into law.

He designed the system. He fought for its ratification. And then, he spent the rest of his career making it work.

From Congressman to Secretary of State

Madison served as a congressman from Virginia, playing a crucial role in shaping early American policy. He was one of Thomas Jefferson’s closest allies, standing at the center of nearly every major political battle of the era.

He opposed Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government and a national bank, fearing that these would concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government. He fought for states’ rights.

He fought against policies that favored wealthy elites over working-class citizens.

In 1801, he became Secretary of State under Jefferson. There, Madison oversaw The Louisiana Purchase, one of the most important events in US history. Jefferson saw an opportunity to double the size of the country. Madison handled the negotiations. He drafted the plan and authorized James Monroe to offer a price starting at ten million dollars for the land. In total, four cents per acre. The deal secured vast new lands, opened up the frontier for westward expansion, and strengthened the nation’s position on the world stage.

For eight years, Madison handled foreign affairs. He navigated tensions with Britain and France as the US struggled to maintain neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. By the time he took office as president in 1809, conflict with Britain had become unavoidable.

Quite a list of accomplishments. The nation forever owes a debt to James Madison.

Because he literally wrote the document to govern America, he knew he needed consensus to make America great.

Madison and Tariffs

James Madison was a champion of divided power, states’ rights, and the right of the people over tyranny.

He wrote the document that explicitly gave Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, placed that power in the hands of the legislature.

And because he wrote it, Madison knew he could not simply order a tariff into existence. He needed national consensus to prompt Congress to act. A president acting alone creates no legacy, and certainly not a legacy like Madison’s. A policy dictated by one man is erased by the next administration. A policy built through Congress, through debate, and through broad support is the decisive effect that endures.

By 1815, Madison publicly acknowledged that the United States needed a strong manufacturing base to avoid dependence on Britain. In his Seventh Annual Message to Congress, he explicitly called for tariffs to protect American industry, marking a major shift in his thinking.

Madison understood the stakes. America had the natural resources, the labor force, and the potential to be an industrial power, but manufacturing would not develop on its own. He argued that certain industries, particularly those tied to national defense and essential goods, were too important to be left at the mercy of foreign competition.

He knew that without government support, industry could take decades to grow. Without broad, lasting consensus, it would not grow at all. A policy that shifts every four years did not support American industry.

Madison’s public support signaled a major shift in Republican thinking. His endorsement reassured moderates, convincing those who had once resisted federal economic intervention.

If the Father of the Constitution, the guardian of states’ rights, and the protector of the people’s liberty believed it was in America’s best interest to protect its industry, who would dare question the brilliant President James Madison?

Back to Today

The lesson of 1816 is clear.

America owes allegiance to no king. Executive orders are fleeting.

Madison worked to build consensus, spurring Congress to action. It was not Madison alone who reshaped America’s economic future.

The long-term success of American industry does not rest on executive orders or short-term tariff hikes. Just like in 1816, it rests with Congress.

We must deliberate, gain consensus, and pass tariffs that protect American industry, especially our defense capability and goods essential to running American society. We need to make these goods internally and defend ourselves from coercion from other countries.

May God bless the United States of America.

Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?

This week, the nation’s Food for Peace Program—and all other United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs—found themselves on the chopping block.

Before we go any further, let’s get on the same page.

American agriculture is national security.

Second, let’s share some quick history.

On July 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, allowing the president to ship surplus commodities to “friendly” nations on concessional or grant terms. For the first time, America could give away its excess grain to partner nations.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy expanded the program, rebranded it Food for Peace, and established USAID to oversee it.

If you believe that those with plenty should help those with nothing, Food for Peace was a success. It became the largest single food donor to the United Nations World Food Programme. In 2022 alone, “American farmers provided more than 4 billion pounds of U.S.-grown grains, soybeans, lentils, rice, and other commodity staples” through the program.

It’s also good business for American farmers. Now, Republican lawmakers from agricultural states are fighting to save it.

Every government program should face scrutiny. But this one is worth saving.

This isn’t about charity. That was a benefit of the program. But Food for Peace wasn’t only about poverty. It was about national security.

Global hunger breeds instability.

Instability creates openings for adversaries.

Adversary influence threatens the American people.

So the real question isn’t whether America should shut down an agency that some see as a global social program driven by ideology.

We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Forget charity for a second. Let’s take the question at face value.

Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

Food Security is National Security

A country that cannot feed itself becomes a victim of coercion and geopolitical manipulation.

By the late 1930s, Japan relied heavily on imports for most of its food and nearly all of its oil, rubber, and metals. Japan’s domestic agriculture couldn’t keep up with its growing population, and they started seizing food from their neighbors. Between 1936 and 1938, 95% of Japan’s imported rice came from Korea or Taiwan (Johnston, B. F. (1953). Japanese Food Management in World War II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 45–49, 166–170, 202–204).

Food shortages forced Japan to expand. As its military campaign in China escalated, the US and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions.

Japan’s food problem became catastrophic during World War II. Imports were disrupted, military priorities came first, and by 1940, Japan rationed food. Malnutrition, disease, and starvation followed. Beriberi, a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, spiked.

Hunger was a key factor in Japan’s surrender. By 1945, US naval blockades and bombing campaigns had destroyed Japan’s food supply chains. America targeted Japan’s food vulnerability as a center of gravity in our strategic approach. Even if the war had continued, famine would have crippled Japan’s ability to fight. After the war, food shortages persisted into the US occupation.

This suffering changed Japan’s long-term policies. The country fortified domestic agriculture and imposed high tariffs on imported grains like rice, wheat, and barley. Even today, Japan strictly controls grain imports, avoiding overdependence on foreign suppliers, including the US.

The lesson is clear. Food security is national security. It is not just about feeding people. It is sovereignty, stability, and strength.

Japan wasn’t the only nation that learned this the hard way.

Let’s talk about another fallen American adversary: the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev and Yeltsin Go to the Grocery Store!

On Monday, September 21, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev went to the grocery store. Not in Moscow. Not in Leningrad. In San Francisco, California.

He walked through aisles of produce, deli meats, and frozen dinners—foods unimaginable in the Soviet Union. The next day, in Des Moines, Iowa, he ate his first American hot dog and joked:

“We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.”

But in 1959, Khrushchev never publicly admitted shock at America’s grocery stores. That would come later.

By the 1980s, Soviet agriculture had collapsed under central planning. Shortages and rationing became commonplace.

Then, in 1989, just two months before the Berlin Wall fell, Boris Yeltsin visited a grocery store in Houston, Texas. Unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin couldn’t hide his reaction. The Houston Chronicle described how he roamed the aisles of Randall’s, shaking his head in amazement.

Yeltsin had grown up hungry. The Soviet State had taken away his family’s farm, leaving them dependent on a system that couldn’t feed its own people.

That grocery store visit shattered any belief in communism. Two years later, as Russian President, Yeltsin ordered Russian state land to be divided into private family farms.

From the defeat of Japan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our lesson is that:

American Agriculture is National Security

Food isn’t just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence.

Japanese agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.

Soviet Russian agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.

And today, we still need agricultural abundance.

Agricultural Abundance

America’s agricultural dominance isn’t an accident. It’s a deliberate national choice. It’s built on policy, infrastructure, and continuous innovation. Both necessity and profit drive this system.

On February 13, President Trump reinforced this priority, signing an Executive Order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission. One of its key tasks is to “Work with farmers to ensure that U.S. food is healthy, abundant, and affordable.”

The focus on abundance is critical. Food security isn’t just about today. It’s long-term stability.

A nation that produces only ‘just enough’ food is one disaster away from crisis. That’s why the national agriculture system cannot be designed for maximum profit alone. There has to be excess. The system must be resilient.

Food production isn’t instant. Crops and livestock take time, land, and weather cooperation. For example, with the recent egg shortages, if producers could ramp up supply overnight to chase profits, they would. But you can’t create egg layers out of thin air.

This is why food security requires intentional overproduction.

Without surplus, a drought, flood, or disease outbreak can cripple the food supply. Unlike other industries, agriculture can’t instantly scale production to meet demand. Efficiency alone isn’t the right measure. Resilience is the right measure for agriculture. A strong system produces more than necessary because shortages are more dangerous than excess.

The resulting surplus shields against uncertainty. It stabilizes the food supply, prevents reliance on foreign imports, and protects against market disruptions. On the world stage, a nation that produces more food than it consumes has leverage. Countries that depend on imports are vulnerable to foreign control. When America has a surplus, adversaries can’t weaponize food against us.

In this way, surplus grain isn’t waste. Surplus grain is a strategic asset.

There’s another key factor at play.

Agriculture is Unpredictable

Farmers don’t control the weather, bird flu outbreaks, or global trade policies. One in three years is a bad year for agriculture. A system that only produces ‘just enough’ in a good year guarantees shortages in a bad year.

The only way to secure the nation’s food supply is to grow more than needed every year.

When one region suffers from drought, another’s surplus offsets the losses. When unpredictable events disrupt production, a buffer ensures food remains affordable and accessible. Surplus keeps Americans fed, prices stable, and the country resilient.

Because our agricultural system must be designed this way, we always have more grain than we need. Even though we need surplus every year, we also need to manage it wisely. Uncontrolled surplus drives prices down, hurting American farmers. If we don’t address the grain surplus, we risk losing the ability to grow it.

We also need to think about American influence on the world stage.

Agricultural Surplus and Influence

Without order, scarcity leads to conflict. Nations compete for limited resources. The strong dominate, and the weak suffer. In a world where food shortages create instability, countries that control the global food supply exert power over those that do not.

This is why agricultural abundance is more than an economic advantage. It is a tool of influence. Nations with surplus can stabilize their allies, undermine their adversaries, and dictate the terms of trade. Japan and the Soviet Union failed because they could not secure their own food supply. America’s agricultural surplus allowed it to feed its friends and keep its enemies dependent.

But surplus alone is not enough. It must be managed strategically. An uncontrolled surplus collapses domestic markets, driving prices so low that farmers go bankrupt. A controlled surplus allows America to direct influence where it matters.

Food is both a commodity and a diplomatic asset. Throughout history, America has used surplus grain as a foundation for long-term partnerships. Food aid programs have strengthened alliances, opened trade routes, and cemented US influence in key regions. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and ensured that newly rebuilt economies were tied to American markets. The Food for Peace program fed the hungry while reinforcing US influence in developing nations. It aligned economic structures with American interests rather than Soviet alternatives.

Partnerships built on food endure. A nation that depends on America for food security is far less likely to align with adversaries. A reliable food supplier is a stabilizing force in times of crisis. Strategic agricultural surplus is not just about helping others. Our agricultural surplus secures America’s position in the world.

We need to extend our influence and maintain strong partnerships to achieve our global security goals. And to do that, we need surplus grain.

Which brings us to our question. Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?

American agriculture is national security.

Food is not just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence. On the world stage, America has interests, and we have partners. Reliability and trustworthiness are both virtues and strategic advantages.

Surplus grain is not waste. It is a strategic asset that we need to use wisely. The question is not whether we should give grain away. The real question is how we should use it to advance American interests.

If you believe that those with plenty, like America, have a duty to help those with nothing, then Food for Peace was a success. But food aid is not charity. It is good business for American farmers and a powerful tool of influence.

Food aid programs do more than just feed people. They strengthen alliances. They open trade routes. They cement US influence. They align global economic structures with American interests rather than those of our adversaries.

We might choose not to send our surplus grain through the United Nations World Food Programme. We might prefer more direct control over where we exert influence.

But we must choose to use American agriculture to reinforce partnerships, secure influence, and protect our global standing.

May God bless the United States of America.

Can we raise wages to fully fund Social Security?

Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. Its purpose is to protect society by ensuring a basic level of income security, particularly for the elderly, disabled, and survivors of deceased workers. It is a safety net to prevent poverty and economic distress in vulnerable populations. This fosters societal stability. Unlike a private retirement plan, Social Security pools contributions from the workforce to provide collective support, shielding America from the dire effects of widespread poverty that harm the economy as a whole. However, stagnant wages undermine this system. They limit revenue growth and increase dependency on government programs. Addressing stagnant wages is vital to ensuring the sustainability of Social Security and fostering financial independence.

Now that the election is over, the conversation about fixing Social Security has gained momentum. On the December 8th NBC News Meet the Press, President-elect Trump said he didn’t plan to cut Social Security. 

At the same time, Social Security is underfunded, and the program’s failure to provide full benefits is imminent.

We can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem will resolve itself. According to the Social Security Administration Annual Trust Fund report, “in 2023, the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) Trust Fund’s cost of $1,237.3 billion exceeded income by $70.4 billion.” At the same time, the “(Disability Insurance) Trust Fund’s income of $183.8 billion exceeded cost by $29.0 billion.” For those of us trying to do public math, the total shortfall was $41 billion. Let’s remember that figure for later.

The timeframe of 2034 to 2037 coincides with the time when all the Boomers reach retirement age. The size of the Boomer generation significantly exceeded the Gen X generation, and Social Security funding can’t keep up. Because Social Security revenue is lower than needed during this timeframe, the first Americans who could lose part of their Social Security benefits are the Boomers. Social Security benefits wouldn’t have to be eliminated; they could be reduced to distribute the available funds accordingly. The Social Security Administration estimates it could pay about 79% of benefits to retirees in 2034.

In principle, there are three approaches to addressing the deficiency, each with its trade-offs. First, we can increase revenue. Second, we can cut benefits. Third, we can increase the size of the working population.

You can rename these approaches any way you’d like. As an example, instead of saying we need to increase revenue, you can say we should raise or eliminate the Social Security tax cap. For 2024, the tax cap is $168,600. Employees and employers each contribute 6.2% of wages toward Social Security up to this income cap, totaling 12.4%. Any earnings beyond $168,600 are exempt. Advocates for this approach claim if higher earners pay Social Security taxes on earnings above $168,600, it could boost the funds available for the program. Critics say raising or eliminating the tax cap illegitimately increases taxes on a population that won’t see a proportional increase in their benefits. This creates tension between the goals of funding Social Security and maintaining a balance in tax equity.

As another example, instead of saying we need to cut benefits, you can say we should increase the retirement age. This approach means individuals would need to work longer before becoming eligible for benefits. By raising the age threshold, the proposal would reduce the total amount paid to beneficiaries over their lifetimes, as they would have fewer years to draw benefits. Advocates of this idea argue that it reflects increased life expectancy, aligning the system with modern demographics. Critics highlight that the life expectancy for the bottom half of earners has not risen since 1983, and they are the individuals who need Social Security the most.

Of course, fully funding Social Security is a systemic problem with no silver bullet solution. We need to compromise on both ends of the spectrum. But we should still consider new ideas.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue through larger payroll tax contributions.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

First, let’s look at how we can increase revenue by raising wages.

Higher Wages Increase Social Security Revenue

Raising wages directly increases Social Security revenue by increasing payroll tax contributions. Employers match worker wages dollar for dollar. These funds are the primary source of Social Security revenue.

Social Security taxes represent a percentage of earnings. When workers earn more, they contribute more to the program.

Let’s consider the non-starter idea of raising the minimum wage across the board. An Economic Policy Institute fact sheet from 2021, titled “Why the U.S. needs a $15 minimum wage,” identified raising the minimum wage would “lift pay for 32 million workers—21% of the U.S. workforce.” We can address why this idea is a non-starter in a minute, but let’s consider the financial impact on Social Security.

If 21% of the workforce earned higher wages, an immediate effect would be a significant boost to Social Security payroll tax contributions. The Institute estimated that a $15 minimum wage would generate $107 billion in higher wages.

12.4% of worker wages goes to Social Security, 6.2% from worker wages, and 6.2% from employer contributions. 12.4% of $107 billion is $13.26 billion.

Social Security’s shortfall was $41 billion this year. Raising worker wages to $15 an hour would reduce the shortfall to $28 billion.

However, raising the minimum wage is a non-starter because businesses can’t raise wages without increasing revenue. Taking broad action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability nationally, making this approach politically untenable.

For example, a $15 federal minimum wage might be too low in high-cost-of-living areas, viable in some areas, and overwhelm small businesses in lower-cost rural areas. Businesses must generate sufficient revenue to support higher wages, and a one-size-fits-all mandate doesn’t account for regional differences. Even if it’s a potential solution, it’s not achievable if we can’t gain consensus.

Instead of mandating raising the minimum wage, we need to increase small business revenue and incentivize businesses to pay higher wages. We could reduce the tax burden for small businesses that prove they pay wages above social program levels. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay higher wages, reduce the national need for poverty programs, and increase funding to shore up Social Security.

Beyond increasing Social Security revenue, raising wages has a compounding effect on the broader economic system. When workers earn more, their reliance on government assistance programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) decreases. This reduces the financial strain on taxpayers and minimizes the inefficiency of funneling the American people’s money through the bureaucracy. Let’s look at how higher wages decrease the need for social programs and drive efficient use of public resources.

Higher Wages: Financial Resilience and Reduced Government Waste

Let’s establish a fundamental truth: the government owns no assets. It has no money of its own. Every dollar spent by elected representatives or government workers is an asset of the American people. When government officials spend money, they allocate resources that belong to the citizens they serve.

Social programs, then, pass money from one individual to another through layers of bureaucracy that waste at least 30 to 40 percent of those resources. We should inherently oppose a system where half of American families rely on this inefficiency to survive. Even though we can’t love our country and not our countrymen, this system reflects a failure to achieve financial resilience across society.

Workers who earn livable wages achieve financial resilience and don’t need government assistance programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). One immediate benefit is that more financially resilient workers can better absorb cuts if they are necessary. Financial resilience means workers have the capacity to adapt to unexpected costs.

Further, raising wages reduces reliance on social programs, which means less of the American people’s money is funneled through the bureaucracy. Less taxpayer money eaten by the government means less waste and more efficient use of public funds.

For example, EITC is designed to supplement the incomes of low-wage workers, effectively subsidizing employers who pay below livable wages. By increasing wages, fewer workers qualify for EITC, reducing government payouts while businesses pay true labor value.

The money not spent on social programs could then be redirected to fiscally responsible efforts, such as balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and strengthening social security.

Let’s consider the drastic impact this proposal could have on national finances. In 2023, on just these two programs, the nation spent $57 billion supplementing worker wages through EITC and $112 billion supplementing low wages through SNAP. $169 billion combined.

If higher wages led to only a 20% reduction in reliance on these programs, $34 billion of American taxpayer funds would be available to help balance the budget. This figure exceeds the necessary funds to eliminate the Social Security shortage for the year, albeit in a different money bucket. If we could reduce social program expenditures by half, we could save $85 billion annually.

Opponents of this approach argue that workers need to justify their higher wages with more productivity. This is a valid point. Some jobs and employees generate higher revenue for their employers and inherently command higher wages.

But we should consider—even if it’s true that some jobs pay low wages, does that mean it’s the taxpayer’s responsibility to pick up the tab? There’s no valid argument to justify any employer offloading labor costs onto the taxpayer. Use any example you would like—dishwasher, janitor, burger maker. Even if a business thinks it’s a low-wage job, under no circumstance should it be a taxpayer-funded one. If a business doesn’t think a janitor is an important job, they should go a month without one and see if they change their mind. When businesses pay wages below social program thresholds, those jobs become taxpayer-funded.

Beyond saving taxpayer dollars, higher wages allow Americans to escape the cycle of government dependence and build financial resilience. When individuals can rely on their earnings to meet basic needs and save for the future, they gain stability and resilience in their personal lives and can contribute to the broader economy.

Higher Wages Foster Financial Independence

Higher wages enable workers to build greater financial security and resilience. Workers can save more for emergencies, invest in their future, and rely less on safety nets.

How would we reduce the reliance on programs like Social Security without paying workers livable wages that enable them to put food on their tables, heat their houses, and save for the future?

When they don’t make livable wages, workers go to the lower-cost grocery store to put food on their tables. Except there isn’t one. They go to the same grocery store as everyone else and use SNAP benefits.

To find a house to heat, workers might move their family into a cheaper apartment. Except those don’t exist, either. Those are government housing units.

If workers can’t put food on their tables and heat their houses without government assistance, how would we reduce their dependence on Social Security and other safety nets?

If we don’t address the root cause—low wages—programs like Social Security will remain essential as a retirement benefit and a lifeline for daily survival. Reducing reliance on Social Security means ensuring workers can build financial security through livable wages, personal savings, and access to private retirement options.

We need to set conditions enabling workers to be independent from government programs to meet basic needs. Workers must be able to afford food, housing, and utilities without inefficient taxpayer-funded government assistance. Livable wages create the foundation for financial independence. With higher wages, workers can save more for emergencies and strengthen their retirement options on their own.

Some doubt higher worker wages would achieve these goals, but Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove them wrong. Americans aren’t irresponsible with money, lazy, or stupid. They use extra money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications. They work MORE with the extra funds, not less, and the work they do is more meaningful.

Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives and can save money for their futures. They are less dependent on Social Security and all other social programs.

In Sum

We need to shore up Social Security funding. We have few choices: increase revenue, cut benefits, or expand the working population.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

Fixing Social Security is achievable, and higher wages directly address the root cause of the issue.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, I analyzed Air Force Captain Lacie Hester’s Silver Star to highlight a contradiction. We can’t claim to value the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while categorically excluding women from combat roles. I concluded that if we intend to value results over diversity, we should be ready to welcome any capable individual—male or female—who can help achieve efficient violence in support of national objectives.

This week, I’m pushing that logic a step further. If women belong in combat roles, do they also belong on the most elite and demanding ground combat teams? Let’s test our commitment to results-based standards and challenge ourselves to rethink how we select, train, and deploy our nation’s most specialized warfighters.

If the central premise is that results matter more than diversity, then the standards driving ground combat roles must be no exception. If a woman can meet those standards and enhance mission success, excluding her would weaken, not strengthen, our ability to achieve decisive effects. At the same time, forcing either men or women into ground combat positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

Let’s explore.

Captain Marsh and a Cup of Coffee

In 2008, I was an Air Force Captain attached to 1st and 2nd US Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF and II MEF) under the Multi-National Forces West command structure in Iraq.

My role in Iraq was to enhance combat capability with special technical tools. My bosses were Marines, and my customers were primarily the Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) Task Forces. I developed strong relationships with my customers, identified technical tools they needed to support their missions, and integrated them into their operations. We developed some tools in-house and integrated others with support from national agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).

My work area was tucked away behind some armed Marines who kept watch day and night over the area, and it was right next to the SOF Task Force coordinator. The Task Force coordinator was a US Navy Sea, Air, and Land Captain (commonly known as a Navy SEAL). For those unfamiliar with different service ranks, an Air Force Captain is a relatively junior officer rank, while a Navy Captain ranks just below Admiral, a senior officer rank. No matter, though, he and I had a good relationship. Let’s call him Captain Marsh.

Captain Marsh had an attraction rarely found in the area—he had acquired a coffee maker and had some supply of ground coffee. I didn’t want to overstay my welcome, but I did need to determine when the Task Force might need support. So, every so often, I would tell my small team that I was “going to talk to the SEALs.” Captain Marsh would fill me in on relevant upcoming operations, and I might have a cup of coffee.

Captain Marsh’s coffee pot attracted more than just me. Other senior officers would visit, and I would hear snippets of their conversations. On one of these visits, a Marine Corps Colonel and Captain Marsh shared insight that challenged my assumptions.

Their conversation centered around the role of women in ground combat. Captain Marsh mentioned that Muslim women couldn’t freely talk with men. In many traditional Muslim societies, culture and religion restrict interactions between unrelated men and women. These norms dictate that women avoid direct communication or physical proximity with men who are not family members. For women in conservative communities, speaking with male strangers is inappropriate and brings social repercussions.

These cultural differences posed significant challenges during military operations, particularly when teams needed to gather intelligence or conduct searches. Without female team members to bridge the gap, mission-essential information from local women was inaccessible.

If a team needed to question a woman, they needed a woman to do so, which drove a requirement for women on ground combat teams. Later I learned that as a result of this requirement, the Marines established Task Force Lioness, which attached women to ground combat teams to provide support.

Five years later, at a training event in San Diego, I heard more to the story. The Navy SEAL commanding officer at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado also brought up the value of women in ground combat roles in Iraq.

This second story was that when women were attached to SOF teams, they couldn’t be decorations just because they were necessary for intelligence gathering—they had to be active team members. Female team members provided perimeter security during operations. The women were armed and applied lethal force when necessary. They also played a crucial role in stopping runners, going so far as to crash their vehicles into escaping vehicles to ensure mission success.

Both commanding officers emphasized the extraordinary bravery the women demonstrated. The women often put their lives and health at immediate risk, sometimes more than the men, to achieve objectives. In critical moments, their decisive action proved integral to mission success. The respect the officers had gained for the women was evident.

If asked, in the context of the environment we operated in at that time, whether women should be on SOF teams, I know the answer they would give. Both senior leaders shared the same opinion.

Still, regardless of operational needs or cultural advantages, inclusion in ground combat teams hinges on meeting the grueling physical and mental standards required of every member. The first and most fundamental of these is the individual physical requirement.

Individual Physical Requirements

There are domains of society in which there are absolutely no gender barriers. Only results matter. In these areas, individuals succeed or fail based solely on their ability to achieve results.

Due to the physical requirements, the National Football League (NFL) is a prime example that is not so dissimilar to Special Operations Forces (SOF). In the NFL, winning and money are the only outcomes that matter.

Women are not barred from playing in the NFL, but there are no female players. If a woman could compete and win at the necessary level, an NFL team would sign her to a contract. While women are not prohibited from playing, the competitive nature ensures that only those capable of performing at the highest level make the cut—regardless of gender.

The same principle applies to ground combat SOF teams. The stakes are higher than a football game, but the premise remains: meeting the standard matters more than who is meeting it. If a woman can perform to the required level—carry the same load, endure the same physical stress, and contribute to mission success—there is no logical reason to exclude her.

At the same time, just as there is no reason to add a player to an NFL team who doesn’t contribute to winning games, there is no reason to force the integration of women into specialized ground combat roles. Books like Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man vividly depict the grueling conditions SOF operators endure in war. Very few men can survive and operate in these conditions; the vast majority cannot. It’s possible that some women could likewise survive and operate. But forcing either men or women into these positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

The inherent tension arises from the Department of Defense's (DoD) integration of women into combat roles, which officially started in 2013 and has continued for the past 11 years. Last month, the new nominee for Secretary of Defense stated women have no place in combat. Critics worry that as we adjust to accommodate women, we chip away at the qualities that make America’s ground combat units extraordinary. They fear a loss of unit cohesion, a decline in physical performance, and a less capable fighting force. In their view, when we soften the edges to expand eligibility, we erode the team’s razor-sharp ability to operate under the harshest conditions.

They cite a 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which concluded that putting women in combat risks the lives of entire units for the sake of career opportunities. It found, “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

They further highlight a 2015 Marine Corps Force Integration Plan assessment that found all-male units conducted movements faster and were more lethal than mixed-gendered units. They further had healthier, more physically resilient Marines. That study found differences in individual performance. For example, “When negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top.”

They posit that since the DoD directive to integrate women into combat roles, senior officers have reduced individual standards to increase participation. This view is supported by a mass email titled “Careerism, Cronyism, and Malfeasance” in the US Army Special Warfare Center and School sent through Special Operations Command in 2017.

These findings and fears are real. Many of them are rooted in firsthand studies and historical assessments. Still, they don’t capture the entire picture. While effective operations demand brute strength and raw speed, they also hinge on capabilities like cultural insight, intelligence access, and specialized skills that women can bring to the fight. In complex irregular warfare environments, overlooking these advantages means missing critical opportunities to achieve decisive effects.

So There’s the Rub

Direct accounts from SOF operators confirm that decisive action by women has proven integral to mission success. In some environments, their participation is essential. Not every combat role demands the rare physical endurance required for months-long operations in remote mountains. Perimeter security, intelligence gathering, and other specialized tasks are equally vital.

Further, if some missions require female operators, women must consistently train and serve alongside men, developing the trust and cohesion that define effective teams. While women may not meet the grueling physical demands required of some ground combat roles, the same is true for most men. What matters is finding those who can excel—whether they pilot AC-130 gunships, crew CV-22 Ospreys, or secure a perimeter as part of a SEAL team. These are combat positions. Some of these are ground combat roles.

At the same time, if throwing a pack over a Marine Corps wall obstacle translates into faster, more lethal units, we should add that and other necessary requirements to the positions in question. After reassessing what matters for mission success, we should train and hold both men and women to that standard. Those who qualify earn their place.

Rather than making blanket rules that exclude women from ground combat roles, we need policies that prioritize lethal effects. That means defining standards based on actual mission needs, not arbitrary quotas, and applying those standards evenly. Anyone who meets them should be welcomed.

If we intend to value results over diversity, we must follow through. Our standards must reflect what it takes to achieve national objectives, and we must embrace those who can meet those standards—regardless of gender.

May God bless the United States of America.

This Week’s Theme: Unenforceable Ideals

This week, we explore three unenforceable ideals—situations where two conflicting truths can’t coexist.

First, we draw parallels between Prohibition and illegal immigration, highlighting the government’s struggle to control the demand for goods and services.

Second, we examine the logical inconsistency of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

Last, we address the contradiction of prioritizing military effectiveness while excluding women from combat roles.

Let’s begin with the story of Mabel Walker Willebrandt and her fight to enforce Prohibition.

The First Lady of Law

In 1921, President Warren Harding appointed Mabel Walker Willebrandt to the office of Assistant Attorney General of the United States. The appointment made Mabel the highest-ranking woman in the US government in the 1920s. Among her other duties as Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Willebrandt was charged with enforcing the Volstead Act, or National Prohibition Act. Congress passed the Volstead Act to enforce the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which attempted to ban the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.”

Ms. Willebrandt recognized that enforcing Prohibition through raids on speakeasies and small-time bootleggers was ineffective. She described this as “like trying to dry up the Atlantic Ocean with a blotter.” Instead, she enforced the Volstead Act with a two-pronged effort: addressing tax evasion and targeting major criminal enterprises.

Her first effort, addressing tax evasion, was successful. During her service, Willebrandt argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court. One of the most decisive was United States vs. Sullivan (1927). In that case, Willebrandt argued, and the high court agreed, that illegal income was taxable. Because illegal income was taxable, failing to declare income from illegal operations was tax evasion and a felony offense.

Since illegal alcohol sales generated untaxed income, US vs. Sullivan gave the federal government the authority to investigate and prosecute these operations under tax laws. This effort weakened the finances of organized crime. Willebrandt used the precedent set by US vs. Sullivan to prosecute powerful gangsters such as Al Capone for federal tax crimes.

Her second effort, targeting major criminal enterprises, was less effective. It required coordination across multiple federal and state agencies, which often lacked resources and cooperation. Criminal networks adapted faster than enforcement efforts, developing new smuggling routes and distribution systems that outpaced government responses.

Willebrandt’s second effort failed because Prohibition lacked broad public support. In other words, Americans wanted to drink, and no effort by the federal government was going to reduce the demand for alcohol. Although the government found some success in raiding production facilities and intercepting smuggling operations, these initiatives amounted to a game of Whac-A-Mole. As soon as one network was dismantled, another rose in its place.

The failure of Prohibition enforcement is a story about human behavior and governance: government attempts to restrict supply without addressing demand fail. Banning alcohol supply didn’t stop demand; it fueled a thriving black market. Speakeasies became social hubs, and even law-abiding citizens began to view Prohibition as government overreach, fueling resentment toward enforcement.

If we can’t turn off the demand for an item, no government effort to restrict supply will stop it.

This concept also applies to undocumented immigration. Addressing illegal immigration is a complex challenge that, like Prohibition, requires coordination among federal, state, and local agencies, each with competing interests and limited resources.

The most significant hurdle is the strong demand for undocumented labor. Many immigrants risk their lives to come to the United States because they believe they can find employment opportunities. Some employers hire undocumented workers because they may accept lower wages and work under conditions that others refuse.

If businesses face real consequences for hiring undocumented workers, the incentive to cross the border illegally would diminish. By enforcing laws that require employers to verify legal residency, we address the demand side of the issue.

Attempting to control illegal immigration solely through border enforcement is like playing a game of Whac-A-Mole—without reducing the demand for undocumented labor, these efforts are unlikely to succeed.

We can’t advocate for removing undocumented immigrants while opposing requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is a critical first step toward resolving illegal immigration.

Alternatively, we have another option. We don't have to shut off the immigrant pipeline for businesses. By expanding immigrant work programs and accepting more legal immigrants, we can align immigration policies with the economy's labor needs. This approach addresses the demand for workers legally, supporting businesses while upholding the rule of law.

The second unenforceable ideal from this week is the inherent logic fallacy of supporting stricter rules for climate change while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

The Second Unenforceable Ideal: Climate Change and Overturning Chevron Deference

Let's consider the inherent contradiction of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing the overturning of Chevron deference.

On November 25, 2024, the New York Times “The Morning” email discussed climate change regulations. Advocates for robust environmental regulations push for limits on pollution from automobiles, power plants, and factories. They support expanding access to renewable energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Opponents are concerned about the economic impact of stringent regulations and favor a more measured approach.

That morning’s email posited the new administration plans to repeal pollution limits on automobiles, power plants, and factories and expand access to federal oil and gas drilling land. Many of these regulations were established through federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—a process enabled by Chevron deference.

This discussion isn’t about the merits of specific climate policies. It’s about governance and how laws are made and enforced.

The decisive juncture is not the potential repeal of these regulations. It’s Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court overturned on June 28 of this year. Established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Chevron doctrine held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.

Under Chevron deference, federal agencies had been empowered to interpret vague or broadly written laws, effectively creating law without direct congressional approval. The judiciary then deferred to these interpretations, limiting its role in checking executive overreach, alignment with congressional intent, or constitutional principles. While this allowed for faster policy implementation, especially in complex areas like environmental regulation, it also concentrated legislative power within executive branch agencies. The practice bypassed the legislative process, blurred the separation of powers, and weakened constitutional governance.

This violated the Constitution. Article I, Section 1 states that all legislative powers reside in Congress. Allowing agencies to legislate through regulation concentrated power in the executive branch. Chevron deference undermined the legislature’s responsibility to fulfill its constitutional duty.

Article III outlines the judiciary as the independent interpreter of the law. Further, in the precedent case Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Chevron deference stripped the judiciary of its authority to conduct checks and balances.

America owes allegiance to no king, and this principle of divided power is fundamental to American liberty.

Overturning Chevron requires Congress to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation rather than the watered-down ambiguity that federal agencies use to create de facto laws.

Again, this isn’t about climate change regulations; this concept applies to all regulations. When the executive branch changes, the country shouldn’t drastically change directions. Federal agencies need to adhere to Congressional legislation, and overturning Chevron deference helps restore the nation to constitutional footing.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while resisting a new administration’s ability to change agency rules. When agencies have broad interpretive power, regulations change dramatically with each administration, leading to policy instability. Upholding the constitutional separation of powers ensures that laws remain consistent unless altered by Congress.

To achieve lasting and effective climate policies, we should support legislative action that clearly defines regulations and goals. This approach respects the Constitution and provides stability, regardless of changes in the executive branch.

Our final unenforceable ideal this week is the inherent contradiction in claiming to prioritize the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles.

Viper 72 is ‘Winchester’

On April 13 of this year, Iran launched a series of missile and suicide drone attacks against Israel. Iran’s attack was an operation designed to overwhelm Israel’s air defenses. The US condemned the attack and assisted Israel in shooting down the vast majority of missiles and drones.

The nation awarded Major Benjamin Coffey and Captain Lacie Hester the Silver Star for their actions as ‘Airborne Mission Commanders’ that evening. As the command team aboard their F-15E Strike Eagle, they led their squadron that evening to shoot down 70 Iranian drones and three ballistic missiles headed towards Israel. The award is especially significant for Captain Hester, who became the Air Force’s first woman and the tenth woman in the Department of Defense to win the Silver Star.

The Strike Eagle is a complex weapons platform that delivers precision firepower while operating in demanding combat environments. Its advanced systems integrate radar, electronic warfare capabilities, and air-to-ground or air-to-air munitions. The Strike Eagle is a cornerstone of modern air superiority and interdiction missions.

Captain Hester is a weapons system officer (WSO) on the platform. Aboard the Strike Eagle, the pilot and WSO have some interchangeable capabilities. The pilot’s primary duty is to fly the jet. The WSO primarily manages the complexity of coordinating with other assets, identifying targets, and selecting suitable munitions. A WSO’s role is critical to the platform’s mission success. They operate the advanced radar, sensor, and targeting systems that guide the aircraft’s weaponry, enabling precision engagement of air-to-air and air-to-ground threats. They are the tactical brains of the operation.

That’s just Captain Hester’s role on her own platform.

As Airborne Mission Commanders, Major Coffey and Captain Hester take on responsibilities beyond their platform. They are the squadron mission lead, coordinating an entire air mission in real-time. They oversee multiple aircraft, synchronize their actions, and ensure every asset is in the right place at the right time to achieve mission objectives.

Major Clayton Wicks was monitoring a command and signal frequency that evening. Of the event, he said, “A message comes across that just says … Viper 72 is ‘Winchester,’ which means they are out of missiles. They have no bullets left. … That was the first time I was like, ‘Oh my gosh. Command and control can’t keep up with the amount of missiles that are being shot and things that are happening. And that’s the only message they got across.”

In the middle of the chaos, Captain Hester was the tactical brains for the squadron to achieve national objectives.

In addition to the challenges, Coffey and Hester’s platform that evening expended all missiles, engaged suicide drones with their guns at “extremely low altitudes,” and landed with a live, still dangerous missile that had failed to launch.

Coffey and Hester demonstrated what the military values: decisive effects. Achieving efficient violence under extreme conditions is the essence of operational success. Captain Hester’s actions were groundbreaking not because of her gender but because they exemplified leadership in combat.

Some women, like some men, are not suited for combat roles. If we need to strengthen requirements for service members to serve in some units, we should do so. There are men who won’t meet those requirements either. But blanket rules stating that women are not suited for combat roles do a disservice to America. If the military’s mission is to achieve decisive effects, then disqualifying half the population from contributing at the highest levels undermines that mission.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results. We don’t need to make special rules to select women for decisive positions. When given the opportunity, they rise to the challenge. But if we make rules that exclude them, we weaken our ability to achieve decisive effects.

Unenforceable Ideals

Unenforceable ideals are contradictions in which two things cannot be true at the same time.

We can’t be ‘for’ taking action to remove undocumented immigrants while at the same time ‘against’ requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is the first step to resolving illegal immigration.

We need to support employers’ requirements to hire legal residents. Or we could approach the solution from another direction. We could help businesses, expand work programs for immigrants, and accept more legal immigrants.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while also opposing a new administration’s ability to change the rules. If we support limiting presidential power as outlined in the Constitution, Chevron deference is incompatible. When the executive branch can use Chevron deference to make laws, those laws will change with every new administration.

We need to support the premise that the people’s representatives make the law, not federal agencies.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results.

We need to value the ability for the military to achieve results. That means maintaining rules that enable women in combat roles.

May God bless the United States of America.

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

Situation

On November 21, 2024, Dara Lind, a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote a fantastic piece published in the New York Times titled, What ‘Mass Deportation’ Actually Means. Ms. Lind superbly outlines the legal and logistical challenges of such a venture. She states:

“Deporting one million people a year would cost an annual average of $88 billion, and a one-time effort to deport the full unauthorized population of 11 million would cost many times that — and it’s difficult to imagine how long it would take.”

There are several severely complicating factors. There aren’t enough beds or departing flights to achieve mass deportation. Few other nations will accept deportation flights from the US. Past efforts to deport illegal immigrants have been good for political publicity but largely unsuccessful.

Further, all persons in the US, not just citizens, have rights. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protections to all persons in America, not just American citizens. It states:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

In addition to Constitutional protections, there are other additional legal considerations. The US is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This agreement obligates signatory members to provide asylum to individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, ratified by the US in 1968, strengthens these protections.

Last, section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act outlines that eligible persons physically present in the United States or at a port of entry may apply for asylum.

Illegal immigrants have the right to present their asylum argument to an immigration court. Nearly 4 million immigrants are waiting for the courts. These courts are insufficiently resourced.

In short, every state in the union agreed that immigrants have rights. Edmund Burke, the philosophical father of conservatism, asserted that a nation has a solemn duty to uphold its agreements, honoring them across generations. This commitment to personal and national responsibility is a cornerstone of America.

Edmund Burke and Honoring Our Agreements

Edmund Burke, Irish statesman and philosopher, was born on January 12, 1729. He is the father of conservative philosophy. His ideas and writings during the American and French Revolutions significantly influenced the development of conservative thought in both America and Europe.

Burke emphasized personal responsibility and respect for tradition and established institutions as cornerstones of his philosophy.

Burke believed traditions and institutions evolve naturally over time, carrying the collective wisdom of generations. These institutions are essential for stability and continuity and should be preserved and respected. This respect for tradition shaped his skepticism of abrupt, radical change and his belief in the importance of gradual reform. His ideas have had a lasting influence on conservative thought. They highlight the value of continuity, historical context, and careful, incremental progress in societal norms.

In American conservatism, principles like originalism in judicial interpretation demonstrate Burke's respect for tradition. Similarly, the focus on protecting Constitutional rights aligns with Burke’s commitment to preserve established freedoms and the institution that upholds them.

The Constitution’s choice of the word “person” and not “citizen” in the Fifth Amendment underscores the framer’s intent to extend protections to all individuals under US jurisdiction.

Burke would view this amendment as part of the collective wisdom of our founders. Due process protections embodied in the Fifth Amendment align with his belief that laws and institutions are shaped over time to reflect enduring principles of justice and fairness.

Conservatives and progressives alike have offered immigrants the opportunity to move to or stay in America legally. At the same time, no Congress and President has supported open borders. There is no national agreement to support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement.

Interim Summary

Mass deportation of illegal immigrants has been largely unsuccessful. These efforts are hugely expensive. We have a Constitutional obligation to honor immigrant rights to due process of law. However, there is a political desire by politicians and voters alike to deport illegal immigrants en masse.

So, what can we do? Let’s think through some options.

Option 1: Do Nothing

Our first option is to maintain the status quo. We could allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States without significant changes to current policies. Before we write this option off as untenable, we need to think about it.

This approach would rely on existing immigration laws and enforcement to address undocumented immigration on a case-by-case basis. It has some positive aspects. Proponents advocate that it avoids the massive costs of mass deportation and saves billions in taxpayer dollars. It prevents overburdening already overwhelmed immigration courts. It supports human rights, aligns with the Constitutional protections of due process, and reflects our commitment to international treaties. It maintains economic stability as immigrants contribute to various sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, construction, and service industries.

Critics argue that failing to address illegal immigration undermines the rule of law and sows distrust in the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. Undocumented immigration strains communities that continue to face challenges related to healthcare, education, and law enforcement. And this option fails to enable comprehensive immigration reform, leaving millions in legal limbo without a clear path to citizenship.

Let’s be clear—this option has strong advocates. The American Immigration Council outlines that instead of spending $88 billion every year on mass deportation efforts, we could “Build over 40,450 new elementary schools…and construct over 2.9 million new homes in communities around the nation.”

However, this argument is a fallacy. The comparison misleads us by framing deportation costs as a trade-off with other priorities. It implies that federal funds are interchangeable. But federal spending doesn’t work like a household budget. Money from one category can’t be redirected to another. This oversimplification ignores how government spending and resource allocation work.

Frankly, the biggest problem with pursuing this option is the perception that voters told their representatives to do something, and the representatives didn’t. It would look like the name of the option—doing nothing. It would leave a foul taste in the mouths of many Americans.

In sum, this option risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. Doing nothing fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely. It kicks the can down the road for future generations, leading to longer-term challenges. It widens political extremes, creates gridlock, and polarizes public opinion.

All considered it may not be the best choice. Let’s move on to another.

Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability

Our second option is efficient, targeted immigration enforcement to safeguard the nation while addressing the root causes of undocumented immigration. This approach would combine targeted enforcement of threats, streamlined immigration processes, and stronger accountability for employers who exploit undocumented labor.

The keynote of this approach is efficient enforcement. There are 330 million people in America and an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. That means undocumented immigrants make up around three percent of the total population in America. These immigrants are not all in the same place.

So, finding undocumented immigrants by searching for them is inefficient and costly. We will not achieve efficient enforcement by looking for undocumented immigrants.

Rather than spending huge resources looking for all undocumented immigrants, this option would focus resources on removing individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. The biggest difference between this approach and the “Do Nothing” option is what we won’t do.

We won’t sweep employers to search for illegal immigrants. We won’t bog down the legal system with immigrants who don’t commit violent crimes and don’t pose security threats. We will avoid broad, indiscriminate methods of searching for undocumented immigrants who don’t pose problems to the nation.

Instead, we will emphasize removal of individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. We need to rush these individuals to the front of the legal line, conduct their hearings to meet our Fifth Amendment obligations, and deport them. Focusing on genuine security threats and due process demonstrates accountability, restoring public confidence in immigration enforcement.

This approach allocates resources more effectively. It avoids the immense costs and logistical challenges of simultaneously searching for and deporting millions of individuals.

At the same time, we need to address the root causes of undocumented immigration. Immigration courts need more funding and staffing to handle the nearly four million pending cases. Tools like remote hearings and other digital solutions could help expedite case processing while ensuring due process to honor our obligation outlined in the Fifth Amendment. Expanding immigration court capacity could help streamline the process.

And we need to toughen enforcement on employers who hire illegal immigrants. If immigrants can’t find work, this will reduce the demand for many to come to America. To achieve this goal, we need steeper fines and criminal charges for repeat offenders. We should conduct public awareness campaigns to remind businesses of their legal obligations and the consequences of ignoring them. Finally, we need whistleblower protections with robust enforcement to encourage employees to report illegal hiring practices without fear of retaliation. To address potential labor shortages, industries could work with policymakers to create or expand visa programs that legally fill gaps in sectors like agriculture and construction.

This option has downsides. Some political factions may view targeted deportations as too lenient, pushing for broader, more visible enforcement actions. Strict employer enforcement of hiring undocumented immigrants could lead to labor shortages in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Business interests and lobbying groups may oppose stricter accountability. Increasing funding for immigration courts and conducting workplace audits would require substantial investment.

But overall, it’s a tenable option. Let’s consider another.

Option 3: Conduct Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants

Our third option is to pursue mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants in the United States.

This approach would require an unprecedented scale of enforcement to locate, detain, and deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants across the country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies would need to significantly expand to conduct large-scale raids, workplace inspections, and community sweeps. We would need massive investments to house individuals awaiting deportation.

We would have to pay for transporting millions of individuals to detention centers, court hearings, and eventually to their home countries. We would need to dramatically expand immigration courts to process cases quickly. This would likely require thousands of additional judges, attorneys, and support staff.

All told, these requirements drive the reason for the $88 billion annual price tag.

Proponents advocate that this option demonstrates a firm commitment to enforcing immigration laws and addresses illegal entry. If successful, it could reduce demand for public services like healthcare and education in some communities. Proponents support this option because it’s visible. The sight of raids, detentions, and removals implies a perception of strong leadership and accountability. It signals to voters that the institution is upholding immigration laws.

Opponents cite the staggering annual costs. This option also faces the logistical impossibilities of beds, transportation, and cooperation from other nations. These factors make deporting 11 million people impractical, even with expanded resources.

The biggest downside of this option is simple: the government just isn’t good at getting things done on this scale. Even if the most efficient military subset had all the legal protections and resources to fight a known enemy hiding in the population, they couldn’t do it. We tried in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq for 48 years combined and couldn’t achieve it. What makes us think we can achieve it here?

Mass deportation would require unprecedented coordination across federal agencies, state and local governments, and international partners. The sheer logistical complexity—finding, detaining, processing, and deporting 11 million people—is far beyond what the government has successfully managed in the past.

Immigration courts are already overwhelmed with nearly four million pending cases, and detention facilities are stretched thin. Adding this burden would lead to drastic inefficiency, mismanagement, and massive delays.

In short, expecting the government to execute this option effectively is unrealistic.

Those who say that we should deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible are missing a huge point—the immigrants we can find at their workplace and home aren’t the problem. The threats are hiding elsewhere. And if we tie up our resources with the immigrants trying to make an honest living, we are going to miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

All told, this doesn’t seem like a good option. Let’s move on.

Option 4: Expand Asylum Opportunities

Our fourth option is to focus on asylum as a legal pathway for law-abiding, non-threatening undocumented immigrants. This option emphasizes the humane and lawful treatment of individuals seeking protection.

This approach involves strengthening the asylum system to address legitimate claims while simultaneously reducing the strain on immigration courts and other resources.

This option may seem like a throwaway, but it is not. The last president to offer undocumented immigrants asylum while toughening requirements for employers was President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan and the 99th Congress of 1986 offered legalization to undocumented immigrants who had entered the country illegally. Of that event, Wyoming Senator Alan K. Simpson noted that President Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused,” and “anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights.”

We could increase funding and staffing for asylum officers to handle cases more efficiently. We would need dedicated asylum courts to address claims separately from other immigration cases, reducing the overall backlog. We could strengthen initial screening processes at the border to ensure that we identify individuals with valid asylum claims early.

The biggest downside of this option is that many voters would perceive it as a betrayal. Expanding asylum would be viewed as prioritizing undocumented immigrants over enforcing immigration laws. Voters who demanded stricter enforcement would feel ignored or even deceived. Voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

For this reason, this viable option is likely untenable.

What’s Our Best Option?

None of our choices is perfect. Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability, seems to be the most suitable.

It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

Of course, any option needs to be combined with efforts to strengthen border security and reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to come to America while at the same time supporting legal immigration.

We’ve already spent considerable effort discussing improving border security. First, we need to set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border. This will create unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

We need enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment on the border itself.

Further, we’ve already considered how to reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to leave South America. We need a Plan Colombia approach that strengthens economic partnerships while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. This adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

In Sum

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

We covered four distinct options.

Doing nothing risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. It fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely.

Conducting mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants is prohibitively expensive and unachievable. Further, if we tie up our resources with this group, we will miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

Offering expanded asylum, as President Reagan did, would alienate voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration. They would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

All told, our best option is efficient enforcement and employer accountability.

It safeguards America by focusing on reducing criminal activity and security threats. It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

It’s the option we should pursue.

May God bless the United States of America.

If we are going to have meaningful discussions, we need to realize that there are legitimate points on both sides of issues.

I advocate for dissenting points of view in operational and leadership matters. Dissent drives innovation. Even when we disagree with a position, failing to present it drives groupthink. Groupthink stifles growth.

Discussions about military governance and leadership have to balance civilian oversight with the military’s singular purpose: to protect the nation by achieving national objectives through precise and purposeful application of force.

Should the President dismiss senior military officers who have served honorably?

A “Warrior Board” to Recommend Removal of Unfit Officers

On November 12, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an exclusive article titled, Trump Draft Executive Order Would Create Board to Purge Generals. The Journal received an advance copy of the draft order from an undeclared source. If signed, the order intends to focus military brass “on leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.”

The proposed executive order would create a board of retired senior military personnel to review three—and four-star officers and recommend the removal of any deemed unfit for leadership.

On November 13, the WSJ Editorial Board wrote an opinion piece titled Why Trump Wants Hegseth at Defense. The piece rightly identified the nation’s legitimate security issues and stated that military brass needs to be able to focus on their responsibilities and not their political allegiance. The Editorial Board flatly stated the order “would be a mistake that smacks of politicizing the officer corps.”

Critics worry that the order could lead to uncertainty among high-ranking officers. They are concerned that political or ideological alignment would overshadow merit as the criterion for leadership. The same day as the editorial, military.com quoted an unnamed 3-star Army General, who stated, “It could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we're appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.”

This concept of a board to identify and remove unfit leaders isn’t without precedent. Supporters of the draft order point to General George C. Marshall’s plucking boards in 1940. Those boards aimed to streamline leadership and prepare the Army for the high demands of World War II.

Marshall’s approach was driven by his conviction that effective leadership could make or break the Army’s ability to face a global conflict. It was controversial but ultimately successful.

General George C. Marshall and the US Army 1940 Plucking Boards

The great General George C. Marshall became Chief of Staff of the US Army in September 1939. On his first day in office, Germany invaded Poland to kick off World War II.

Twenty years earlier, during World War I, Marshall had observed professionally unfit officers command units with poor results. Military historian Forrest Pogue wrote that Marshall was “haunted by recollections of the droves of unfit commanders” (George C. Marshall, Memoirs of My Services in the World War, 1917-1918 (Boston, 1976), 175-76). Pogue further wrote that Marshall believed he was preparing the Army for war and that it was his duty to the nation to select the right officers for the job. He needed to reform the leadership cadre and ensure the Army was ready for World War II.

Marshall’s plucking boards consisted of six retired officers. They were intended to eliminate officers unfit for command and high rank. He believed swift action was necessary to promote a dynamic set of leaders that would innovate and handle the scale and technology of modern warfare. He recognized that the quality of commanders was crucial as the Army grew and faced more complex missions.

Marshall’s controversial approach prioritized capability over tenure. It aimed to instill a merit-based system that could better adapt to the urgency and unpredictability of wartime demands.

The newly promoted officers played crucial roles in World War II and contributed to American success. The “plucking board” initiative created a more lethal fighting force. Marshall’s boards promoted officers who would go on to shape history. Among them were Dwight D. Eisenhower, the future Supreme Allied Commander Europe and 34th President of the United States; Joseph W. Stillwell, who later commanded all US forces in China, Burma, and India; Omar N. Bradley, the commander of US ground forces during the D-Day invasion at Normandy; and Carl A. Spaatz, the future commander of Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific and the first Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

As Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall conducted his boards using authority delegated by Congressional legislation and existing military regulations. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 included provisions that allowed for the rapid expansion and restructuring of the Army as the nation prepared for involvement in World War II.

Advocates for a modern plucking board note the success of Marshall’s approach. Marshall’s review boards retired some senior officers early and selected junior officers with great potential to lead their units to achieve national objectives.

The success of Marshall’s boards highlights how effective civilian oversight, exercised through delegated authority, can transform military leadership. This authority is enshrined in the Constitution, which mandates a framework for civilian control over the military.

The Constitution and Civilian Oversight of the Military

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military through multiple provisions. These ensure that the armed forces remain accountable to elected leaders rather than independent military authority.

Article II, Section 2 designates the President, a civilian official elected by the people, as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” This gives a civilian elected official the highest military authority and ensures that the military is subordinate to the civilian government rather than acting independently.

At the same time, the Constitution seeks checks and balances. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise and support armies, declare war, regulate military forces, and “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”

Congress exercises this power through its legislative authority by enacting nearly all laws now codified in United States Code Title 10. These laws serve as the framework for organizing the Department of Defense and each branch of the Armed Forces—the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force. Additionally, Congress oversees the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy during wartime or by presidential direction. These laws cover a comprehensive range of military operations, including pay grades, enlistments, commissions, promotions, retirements, training, education, recruitment, and honors. This legal structure underscores the essential role of civilian oversight in guiding military standards, ensuring accountability, and keeping the Armed Forces aligned with the nation’s democratic principles and strategic goals.

This framework supports a democratic republic by placing military authority under civilian oversight, preventing military dominance over the government, and protecting against potential abuses of military power.

As Commander in Chief, the President certainly has the authority to direct or conduct boards to review senior officer promotions. The President further has the authority to delegate the conduct of these boards to the service chiefs.

At the same time, Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to control the environment in which officers are raised to senior positions.

Through its structure, the military serves the people as an instrument of national capability directed by civilian leaders. This alignment preserves our democratic republic by ensuring military influence is a part of the elected government and our principles.

With this understanding, the military’s ultimate purpose is to protect and defend the United States, our Constitution, and its people while supporting national interests. The Constitution demands a lethal military under civilian control.

A Continuation of Policy With Other Means

In On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously described war as “a continuation of policy with other means.” Clausewitz was Prussian, and wrote ‘mit anderen Mitteln’ in the original German. He elaborated that we conduct war to compel the enemy to submit to our will. War combines military force simultaneously with other influences, such as diplomacy, to attempt to achieve political objectives.

In short, wartime operations are diplomacy combined with violence.

Military units do not conduct diplomacy.

Therefore, military officers and the units they command aim to achieve efficient violence in service to national objectives.

Since military officers and their units are tasked with achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives, any review of an officer’s conduct must prioritize their capability to fulfill this mission. Other considerations, such as schools attended, advanced academic degrees, and administrative marks, should be secondary. Military leadership should be assessed based on alignment with the Constitution’s mandate to achieve effects supporting national security goals under civilian direction. Military leaders must ensure their units apply force with precision and purpose.

1940 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt

There’s one more question we should ask regarding the proposed boards: Why did President Franklin D. Roosevelt choose to stand aside and not participate in General Marshall’s plucking boards?

FDR didn’t write about the boards, but he trusted General Marshall explicitly.

Roosevelt recognized that diplomacy was not the military component of influence, and he needed to focus on diplomacy. Separating diplomatic and military responsibilities avoids politicizing military decisions while maintaining strategic focus.

FDR focused on diplomatic efforts worldwide, leaving the Army in Marshall's competent hands. Roosevelt engaged in navigating the US response to the growing threat of World War II. He prioritized diplomatic efforts to support the Allies (such as the Lend-Lease program) and prepare the nation for possible involvement in the war.

Roosevelt trusted Marshall to manage the Army's internal restructuring. FDR respected Marshall’s expertise and gave him considerable autonomy to prepare the military for the growing global conflict. Marshall convened the plucking boards under existing Army regulations and legislation, making them a professional and administrative matter rather than a political one.

By allowing Marshall and his boards to operate independently, Roosevelt ensured the process focused on military effectiveness rather than politics.

In Sum

General Marshall’s plucking boards were controversial but successful. They were instrumental in preparing Army leaders for World War II.

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military. As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to review and dismiss officers for poor performance. At the same time, Congress is responsible for passing legislation supporting an environment that raises officers to be who the nation needs.

Military officers and their units have a mandate to support and defend the Constitution by achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives.

The military’s strength lies in its unity of purpose, where everyone focuses on the mission. Political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic should never distract from the ultimate goal: to apply force with precision and purpose in service to our nation.

Senior officer review boards could make sense if they focus on enhancing military effectiveness, ensuring leaders are equipped to support national objectives through precision, readiness, and lethality in the profession of arms. To best achieve this goal, the President should delegate the authority and responsibility of conducting the boards to the service chiefs and leave the task of diplomacy for themselves.

May God bless the United States of America.

I believe in America— Conceived in liberty, Born at war, Founded on the promise that we are all created equal. Endowed by our Creator with the gifts of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We pledged to each other Our lives, Our fortunes, Our honor. From the beginning, the Almighty declared, “In the sweat of your face, you shall eat bread.” By the work of our hands, we shape the means To warm our homes, To fill our tables, To keep the promise of plenty. And though— If we were angels, We’d need no government, We are not angels. We need governance that holds justice close, That shields the weak, And serves the people it protects. Joel K. Douglas

What an emotional week for the country—and not just because of the election. This week, I talked with some fired-up cattle producers who believe federal agencies overstepped their authority. May we all be gracious in our interactions.

Many Americans fear for their ability to forge the means to achieve heat in the house and food on the table. There’s no quick fix for this systemic problem. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Over the last year, we spent almost half of our effort thinking about how to improve the economy for families across America. This was the decisive effort of the year. We need governance to serve the people and set conditions that enable individual Americans to work and succeed.

Some fear for the security of our borders. At the same time, we recognize the benefit and talents legal immigrants bring to America. Even if we disagree with the premise that drastic changes are necessary to secure our borders, the perception of doing nothing leaves a foul taste in the mouths of Americans. We spent an entire month posing a multi-pronged approach to address border security in an efficient and respectful manner.

Some fear for their liberty or the liberty of others. If we give the government the power to take individual liberty away from any group, we give the government the power to take away our liberty. Inherent in the inalienable right to life is the right to make decisions about ourselves. We may have opinions and personally disagree with others’ choices, but government interference with individual choice violates liberty. No legislative body can support liberty better than stating that men and women of able mind have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. We must protect each other’s rights to ensure our own.

Some fear for the integrity of the institution that is our democratic republic. Few attain the privilege of swearing an oath to the Constitution, and we need to hold those who violate their oath for personal gain accountable. Government exists to serve the people. Any leader who serves themselves is a disgrace to the nation. Too many serve proudly and take this oath as almost a condition of their lives to allow us to water down the commitment of others.

If we were angels, we would need no government

These challenges are not new. Principal framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison outlined the inherent difficulties of governance in Federalist 51.

He addressed setting conditions for governance to secure liberty and justice for Americans.

He helped establish a system of separated powers, ensuring each branch holds the others accountable. The premise is that individual Americans must have the liberty and justice to succeed on their own merits. Government has two aims: securing liberty and justice for individuals and then controlling itself.

Liberty is the freedom to choose how you will live and act, within a framework that respects the same rights for others.

Justice is fairness, ensuring that social and economic structures benefit everyone, even the least advantaged, while correcting wrongs under the law.

Madison famously wrote, ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary.’ He emphasized our duty to prevent one group from oppressing another. Stated another way, we need to set conditions enabling individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to have the same opportunity to achieve prosperity as those from privileged ones. This is the essence of justice. Madison verbatim states we must “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other.”

Our fears today reflect the same fundamental concern: how to preserve liberty and justice when human nature is flawed.

The fundamental bedrock of America is that we are conceived in liberty. No matter our group, we must protect each other’s rights to ensure our own. America demonstrates she will go to war for liberty.

The ambitious promise of America is justice for all. No matter our upbringing or whether we live in urban or rural America, we need to have heat in the house and food on the table. Individuals need to be able to achieve these necessities through the effort of their work.

In sum, the government exists to ensure liberty and justice for all.

I believe in America. Some are worried about our future, but I am not.

The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, expressly stated the primary purpose of the document was first individual liberty and justice, and then control of the government. America bows to no king.

The system Madison and others put in place is resilient.

America will continue to strive for liberty and justice. Just as America was born at war, fighting for liberty, Americans will rise against any group that threatens their inherent rights.

Our challenges today are of liberty and justice, but again, I don’t fear for our future—I know we will overcome them.

May God bless the United States of America.

Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?

Days at elk camp are long. We rise in the wee hours of the morning and hike with headlamps through the mountains in the dark to be where we think elk will be at first light. At the end of the day, we wait where we think the elk will be at last light and hike out with headlamps. We meet at camp at night to share our experiences, food, and drink. Success in the field probably means your group is the last to return to camp, but no one sleeps until everyone returns.

Over food and drink, we catch up. Several camp veterans won’t have seen each other in a year or more. We share pictures of kids and talk about life changes.

We chat generally about anything. We rarely talk about religion, but we talk about God and existence. And we talk about politics.

We don’t all agree on every topic, and there are some strong disagreements. But we accept each other's views, communing over beer and food. We know that the next day, the person you share your disagreement with will help you carry out a heavy load, and they’ll wait for you to return to camp to go to sleep.

A topic at camp this year was representative government. One of the hunters lives in a rural area in a populous eastern state dominated by city politics. He expressed frustration because the city negates the state's interest in the rural area.

The issue at hand is a critique of “winner-take-all” state election systems. In a winner-take-all system, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote in a state wins all of that state's Electoral College votes. If cities vote differently than rural areas, the city still dominates the state’s electoral choice. States prefer this approach as it gives their preferred candidate the maximum advantage. In 1800, only two states had a winner-take-all system. By 1836, all states except for South Carolina used a winner-take-all system. Today, all states except for Maine and Nebraska use a winner-take-all system.

For all the critique of the Electoral College, a winner-take-all system equally undermines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It distorts the national popular will. Those who argue that “land doesn’t vote, people do” often still support a state winner-take-all system, negating the rural influence in their own state. The result of both winner-take-all and the Electoral College is to amplify the power of swing states.

Because there’s nothing new under the sun, this issue has been hotly debated since America was born at war and by none other than the brilliant primary framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison.

August 23, 1823. A letter from James Madison to US District Judge George Hay

James Madison was the primary framer of the US Constitution and a driving force behind the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which created the structure of the American government. His detailed notes from the convention are the most complete of any delegate.

Following the convention, Madison wrote 29 of the 85 Federalist Papers to explain the Constitution and convince states to ratify it. When the states refused to ratify the Constitution without explicit protections for American individual liberty, Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. These amendments protect the liberty of citizens and states.

In short, Madison was central to the creation and ratification of the Constitution. He served the nation as a Congressman, Secretary of State, and was later the fourth President of the United States, serving in that capacity from 1809 to 1817. He was a staunch advocate for states' rights and a rational pragmatist. He recognized that while a states’ rights approach has strong merits, there are practical limits that sometimes necessitate federal intervention.

At the Constitutional Convention, Madison recommended using the national popular vote to decide the office of President. He stated that "the people at large was…the fittest" to choose the executive. But his perspective changed over a lifetime of national service.

In an 1823 letter to George Hay, Madison discussed a potential Constitutional amendment: district-based voting to select Presidential Electors instead of the current Electoral College system. He reflected on the 1787 Constitutional Convention's difficulty in determining a method to elect the President. He acknowledged the compromise that led to the Electoral College system, which was influenced by the need to balance the interests of small and large states and strongly influenced by slave states. He mentioned that the compromise agreement became necessary due to time pressure and the long deliberative process.

Madison suggested that the Electoral College was an imperfect solution.

Towards the end of the letter, Madison outlined his proposal:

Electors should be chosen by districts… If no candidate achieves a majority… the President should be chosen by a joint ballot of both Houses of Congress

Madison’s proposal identifies that each voting district should cast its own vote for the president. Instead of the winner-take-all system or the current Electoral College system, voting districts should each have their vote counted.

In the letter, Madison also doesn’t explicitly discuss the concept of a direct national popular vote for electing the President. Instead, he focuses on the mechanics of the Electoral College and the potential benefits of district-based voting. Madison critiques the current Electoral College system, particularly emphasizing the shortcomings of the winner-take-all approach and the disproportionate influence it can grant to smaller states or individual electors.

Madison’s discussion is more about improving the representational fairness of the Electoral College rather than advocating for a shift to using the national popular vote directly for electing the President. He suggests reforms that would make the Electoral College better reflect the diverse preferences across different regions of the states, aligning Electoral College outcomes more closely with popular vote distributions within those states. His proposal aims to balance the representation of smaller and larger states and address the issues that arise when a few electors or a small number of densely populated areas can determine the majority of electoral votes for an entire state.

As a strong supporter and advocate of a democratic republic and states’ rights, Madison grew to recommend not abandoning the flawed Electoral College but making the system more closely represent the vote of the populace.

So, Why do we have the Electoral College?

Slavery shaped the structure of the Electoral College during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 due to the significant political and economic divisions between slave-holding and free states.

Slave-holding states were concerned about their political influence under a direct national popular vote system. The South had large populations, but a significant portion of those populations were enslaved individuals who had no voting rights. In a popular vote system, these states would have less voting power than the more populous free states if the president were elected purely by the popular vote of free citizens.

To reach a compromise, convention delegates agreed on the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three out of every five slaves as people for congressional representation and taxation. The Electoral College agreement gave Southern states more electoral power than they would have had if slaves were not counted at all.

The Electoral College was also a means for Southern states to influence presidential candidates. Under the compromise agreement, these states could push candidates to consider Southern interests, particularly the preservation of slavery, to seek support from Southern electors.

Right or wrong, the Electoral College helped maintain the union of the states by giving each state—regardless of North or South, large or small—a proportionate influence in the electoral process. It also perpetuated slavery.

Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?

The American Founding Fathers supported a democratic republic and representative government.

At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison himself recommended using the popular vote to determine the president. But the Founding Fathers could reach no such agreement. The Electoral College was a compromise that became necessary for slave-holding states to agree to the method of selecting a President.

Madison had a different recommendation after serving as Congressman, Secretary of State, and President.

We should keep the Electoral College districts, but instead of a winner-take-all system that disregards the one-person, one-vote principle, we should tally each voting district’s vote individually.

It's a compelling idea from one of America’s greatest leaders, who dedicated his lifetime in service to the nation.

May God bless the United States of America.

What does it mean to vote?

You voted for me to go to war in Iraq

A little more than ten years ago, I had a conversation with a woman who strongly opposed the war in Iraq. By then, the war was hugely unpopular. Iraq wasn’t a threat to American sovereignty. They didn’t have weapons of mass destruction ready to rain down on our allies. They maybe didn’t need a new form of government and certainly didn’t want America to help them get there.

Since I had carried a rifle in Iraq, I thought she could cut her lecture short. After some more minutes of lecture, I got frustrated. I should have kept quiet, but I made the situation worse by saying, “You voted for me to go to war in Iraq.”

Of course, that got her going again. Not everyone appreciates that I’m a truth-teller. But it was absolutely true.

Voting in our democratic republic is a willful act to transfer our personal autonomy to a representative.

At the individual level, voting on Election Day is our attempt to choose representatives to whom we delegate further choices. We may or may not vote for our chosen candidate, but a candidate will win. At the end of the vote tally, we know our elected representatives.

That elected representative will then assemble and cast further votes on our behalf.

Because we delegate our vote to an elected representative, their vote becomes ours.

You voted for me to go to war in Iraq because our delegated representatives in the House and Senate passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force for Iraq in October 2002. Even if your preferred candidate didn’t win, you still have an elected representative. Even if your elected representative voted against using military force in Iraq, the House and Senate still passed the measure.

The choices our elected representatives make become our choices. Since we are accountable for the outcomes of our choices, it is our duty to hold our leaders and power structures accountable for their character and decisions. We may delegate our authority, but we can’t delegate our responsibility.

Representation and voting are a central premise to our democratic republic. They are so crucial that America was born at war, fighting for the right to representation.

Thomas Paine and the American Revolutionary War

The Revolutionary War wasn’t just a fight for independence from British tyranny. It was a fight for representation. In the Declaration of Independence, American founders identified several disputes with British rule related to representation. These included…

King George III refused to approve laws in the public's best interest. He refused to pass laws that would give more people representation in government, even though we were willing to give up other rights in exchange. He suspended colonial legislatures and declared he had the power to make laws for them. He dissolved representative assemblies that opposed his policies. He refused to call new elections after dissolving assemblies, leaving the people without representation.

In short, we fought for our right to decide our future through elected representatives.

In 1776, at the dawn of the seven-year war that we fought for independence and representation, British-born philosopher, writer, and revolutionary figure Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense. Paine had moved to the American colonies in 1774 and penned ideas central to the debates surrounding independence from Britain.

Common Sense advocated giving people the power to elect their representatives. Paine saw voting as the core of a new social contract—an idea that resonated with the American colonists who were denied representation in British governance.

This new social contract included a government that derived its authority from the consent of the governed rather than from hereditary monarchy or divine right. His social contract redefined the relationship between the people and their government. It advocated for government based on the people's will, established through free and fair elections. It required representation, wherein elected officials act on behalf of the citizens.

Unlike monarchies, where rulers are not accountable to the people, Paine’s social contract promoted the idea that all citizens are politically equal and government officials are accountable to the electorate. It rejected hereditary rule and argued that no one has a natural right to rule over others simply by birth. He called for breaking these systems and establishing a republic where people chose leaders based on merit and public trust.

Last, he viewed government as a safeguard for liberty and believed the role of government should be to protect the liberty of its citizens. He viewed the government’s role as safeguarding individual freedom rather than imposing control or oppressing the populace.

When we vote, we exercise a fundamental right to shape our government based on our choices. Voting is our opportunity to hold our government accountable. Today, voting is a modern form of delegating decision-making to a representative—a concept that aligns with the principles Paine advocated for in Common Sense.

Paine would remind us that just because a system has been in place for a long time doesn’t make it right. He would challenge us to hold our leaders and power structures accountable and urge us to vote to prevent abuse, ensure accountability, and secure the freedom and security he believed were the ultimate purpose of government.

Paine and the American Revolution laid the foundation for our right to representation, but the story of personal freedom doesn't end there. Let’s fast forward to the 20th century and Jean-Paul Sartre, who logically joined individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Paine advocated for our right to choose our government. Sartre challenged us to embrace the weight of those choices in an indifferent universe. Though separated by time and context, both thinkers converged on a sobering idea: our actions—or inactions—define ourselves and our society.

Jean-Paul Sartre, Radical Freedom, and Personal Responsibility

The existential philosophy of radical freedom by Jean-Paul Sartre reverberates with the act of voting.

Sartre believed in radical freedom—the idea that individuals are free to make their own choices in an indifferent universe without a predetermined purpose. He famously said we are "condemned to be free" because our freedom comes with heavy personal responsibility.

Every person defines themselves through their actions. We can’t blame external forces for our choices and outcomes—we are entirely responsible.

Tied to this notion of personal responsibility, voting in our democratic republic directly means we are accountable for the outcomes of choices our representatives make on our behalf. We delegate our authority to elected officials, but we can’t delegate the responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

This philosophy is starkly relevant in the context of modern voting. Let’s consider some examples. First, a disillusioned voter who decides not to vote. They might think their single ballot won't make a difference. Sartre would argue that the choice to withhold their vote is still one for which they're entirely responsible. By choosing to refuse to vote, they accept any outcome as their choice because they gave up their voice and power to influence change.

Then there’s the individual who votes strictly along party lines without holding their own party accountable. Defaulting to the status quo is still a choice we make. Elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution; some violate their oath. We're responsible for the consequences of electing leaders who subvert their oath to the Constitution or don’t align with American values.

Individuals create meaning through their actions, and we shape the future of our society through the choices we make at the ballot box. We are responsible for those choices.

Voting, then, is more than just a right—it’s an exercise in radical freedom. We are condemned to it and responsible for the leaders we elect and their policies. While heavy, the burden of that responsibility is essential to the functioning of a free society.

In sum

Representation is so essential America was born at war over it. At imminent peril, we pledged to each other our Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor for the right to vote.

I don’t believe in political parties. I believe in America.

Individual liberty and personal responsibility are the foundation of the nation.

Liberty is the right to participate in choosing our representatives. The choices our elected representatives make become our choices.

With liberty comes responsibility. Since we are accountable for the outcomes of our choices, it is our duty to hold our leaders and power structures accountable for their character and decisions.

You are accountable for the choices of your elected representatives.

I am accountable for the choices of my elected representatives.

As an American who swore my oath to support and defend the Constitution for nearly my entire adult life, including days carrying a rifle on foreign soil, I will vote for the Constitution.

As a daughter's father, I will vote for her future to have the individual liberty and personal responsibility that comes with making her own healthcare decisions.

I believe in individual liberty. I will vote for the right of states to protect their interests. I will vote for the right of states to have their votes counted. I will vote against any measure that threatens the individual liberty of any American.

I believe in personal responsibility. I will vote for leaders who uphold the rule of law and against any leader who does not.

May God bless the United States of America.

Here we are, celebrating our second anniversary. One hundred and four weeks in a row. Hooray for us!

I believe in the institution of the American democratic republic and its foundational ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility. I aim to strengthen the American philosophy that the Almighty grants us all freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is the opportunity to struggle and overcome. President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft said, “We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage.”

I also know we have problems to overcome. And we need to address them. We can’t love our country and not our countrymen.

Our biggest challenge is Americans from all classes having food on the table and heat in the house. You can’t put food on the table without the money you get from your work to buy food. And you can’t heat your house unless you have one.

Fighting for food on the table and heat in the house means fighting against a moving bureaucratic machine with rules set to benefit the economic system and corporations. Those rules might benefit the elite, but they exclude individuals. Politicians from both parties feign like they want to address the problem. They take the advice of economists, who recommend funneling taxpayer money through the bureaucratic machine to fund “temporary” social welfare programs. The economists claim that once the system is working, we won’t need social programs anymore. Those temporary programs become permanent. The system perpetuates itself, and today, half of American families depend on social programs.

I can’t think of a worse design. Instead of setting conditions to enable Americans to succeed, we set conditions to benefit the elite and the bureaucratic machine.

Over the last two years, we’ve considered many ideas to enable Americans to succeed. Many of those pieces present ideas to address wages for all classes of American workers and problems in the housing market.

Addressing these two challenges will improve Americans’ lives more than anything else. There are no silver-bullet solutions. It’s a complex system that requires a systemic approach to address several areas.

Let’s get started with our first step: restoring institutional legitimacy.

Restore Institutional Legitimacy

The American people award money to companies through grants and contracts.

A simple overview of this process is the government collects taxes and allocates that money to federal agencies to spend—this is the federal budget. Those agencies purchase goods and services by requesting companies compete to win contracts. If a company wins a contract, the government purchases its goods or services. The companies win awards by being the lowest acceptable bidder.

In some cases, those companies are competitive to win an award because they pay wages less than the social program threshold. But the American people don’t know that.

Then, the American people give those same workers taxpayer money through social programs, even though they already gave the company the funds to pay their workers.

If we asked the American people whether a company should receive precious taxpayer money and then pay poverty wages, I’m confident the answer would be ‘no.’

We would say ‘no’ because it’s an illegitimate use of taxpayer funds.

So, the first step in enabling Americans to succeed is to restore the legitimacy of taxpayer spending. A company either needs to be on board with the American people, or the American people should leave that company behind. In other words, if a company wants to enjoy the benefit of federal contracts, it needs to commit to paying every individual in the company a wage above the poverty level. 

We need to codify this standard first by Executive Order and then in law:

No agency shall award any federal dollars to any entity (including any company, subsidiary, or company that operates on property supported by federal dollars or any entity that sells a product to the people of the United States) that pays workers wages below the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

You can read more about the idea in Double Taxation.

The Executive Order isn’t just about wages. It would make businesses that pay good wages more competitive for awards and enable the government to award legitimate winners. It would represent a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars.

Next, we need to pull wages up by investing in the infrastructure of human capital—the knowledge, skills, and abilities of American workers.

Revitalize Talent to Pull Wages Up

Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation’s overall capability.

Human capital represents a key piece of the market. It’s the training and preparation of individuals. We can’t say there’s a market failure in job training but no market failure in wages. A failure in one area leads to a failure in the other. If low wages indicate a problem in human capital, then a problem in human capital means a problem in wages.

Our lack of relevant training for the working class degrades our ability to drive world markets. Our high schools (and many university programs) don’t teach students lessons directly applicable to the job market. This lack of relevant education further undermines our economic competitiveness and social cohesion. Companies need knowledgeable and experienced professionals to help them innovate.

The need for more relevant worker training is an infrastructure deficiency. We build roads and bridges to enable citizens and businesses to move goods and provide services. Businesses have a vested interest in the infrastructure that is a skilled workforce. Government should invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs, making work more valuable.

To increase the capability of American workers and pull wages up, we need to ensure that education and training systems are responsive to the market’s needs. When there’s a surplus of some skills and a shortage of others, wages reflect that imbalance. Addressing this requires improving our educational institutions and reducing barriers that prevent workers from acquiring new skills, without needing a college degree.

By allowing students to learn about real-world problems and develop potential solutions, we can help them develop the skills they need to innovate and succeed in the workforce.

To achieve this goal, we need to:

Create a network of training and education innovation hubs. With support from local communities, we need to use the nation’s community college infrastructure as an initial base.

Partner with academia to enable students with no education beyond high school to acquire training and professional certifications upon completing the programs.

Partner with businesses to create relevant and engaging educational materials.

You can read more about the idea in Reskilling America: A New Plan for the 21st Century Economy.

In addition to pulling wages up, we need to help small businesses generate revenue so they can pay higher wages.

Generate Small Business Revenue to Increase Wages

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure. Businesses have to build and maintain infrastructure, including physical facilities and technological systems they use to operate. They have to pay taxes. They need to make their product and expend revenue to generate raw materials, manufacturing, and logistics. They have to conduct research and development to improve their offerings.

A business’s ability to maintain healthy wage levels depends on revenue being high enough to support its other costs. In lean years, wages that are too high threaten financial stability. This can lead to a business failing to invest in infrastructure to modernize and compete with new businesses. It could cause a loss of talent due to wage freezes, reductions, or layoffs. It could reduce the ability to move into new markets, slowing growth and strangling the business. Every time a business fails to achieve one of these marks, one of its competitors does. If it misses too many, it dies.

Due to the constraint that high wages threaten business growth and survival in lean years, one principle business leaders consider is their payroll-to-revenue ratio. For many businesses, a good guideline is 15-30% of revenue. In fat years, wages may only be 15% of revenue. In lean years, wages could be 30% or more.

In the long run, businesses can only afford to raise wages if they can increase their revenue. If the business needs to raise wages by 10%, it needs to grow revenue so the payroll-to-revenue ratio is healthy.

In addition to the reality of wages and revenue, small businesses face steep challenges. They are less able to generate revenue than large corporations. They operate on a smaller scale. They have less access to capital, market power, and regulatory influence. They use less infrastructure than large corporations and put less stress on that infrastructure. They have a smaller physical footprint, require fewer resources, and generate less strain on public services like roads, utilities, and waste management. Many are owner-operated and can't pay themselves poverty wages.

To enable small businesses to pay higher wages, we need to help them generate revenue. So we need to give them tax incentives to raise wages. At the same time, we have a public responsibility to make sure those dollars get to the workers. Giving small businesses a tax incentive to pay higher wages will only keep Americans off social programs if those small businesses actually pay livable wages. To receive the tax incentives, small businesses need to prove they paid their workers livable wages.

To achieve this goal, we need a tax incentive for small businesses:

We will reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay livable wages by 10% across the board and target specific industries, such as retail and food service, with even more significant tax breaks.

You can read or listen to this idea in If Businesses Don’t Increase Revenue, They Can’t Raise Wages

And Earned Income Tax Credit and Small Business Taxes.

Whereas small businesses need more revenue to raise wages, large corporations have access to greater revenue sources. Because they have different capabilities, they should have different requirements.

Achieve Livable Wages

We need to encourage businesses to strive for profits and ensure they pay their workers a wage that lifts them above the poverty level. We also need to keep business taxes low, as low business taxes spur investment in America. We need to make sure workers benefit from America’s great business environment. We need strong corporations to strive for profits.

As with small businesses, we have a public responsibility to ensure individuals can survive without social programs. Americans can earn money from two sources: their work or the government.

Choosing to allow corporations to pay low wages means choosing to support social programs.

We need to legislate a fair corporate minimum wage that adjusts automatically over time and takes the cost of living in different areas into account:

Publicly traded corporations shall pay full-time wages representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

From a business competition perspective, this levels the playing field in urban and rural America. The above requirement is locality-based. A federal poverty threshold benefits businesses in more expensive urban areas by requiring companies in low-cost rural areas to pay the same wages as businesses in more costly areas. This federal approach would hurt business activity in less expensive rural America.

From a states-rights perspective, it allows states to influence the cost of living in their state through appropriate locality pay. Different areas have different costs of living. For instance, the cost of living in Manhattan, New York, is very different from that in Manhattan, Kansas.

From a legislative perspective, it is more feasible than taxing the rich but still provides income to American workers. It doesn’t require legislative updates as living costs across the nation rise.

It saves the American taxpayer by reducing the need for social programs. It is not a tax proposal and does not impose a tax burden on the American people.

You can read more about the idea in Horses and Sparrows.

So far, we’ve addressed restoring the legitimacy of the government spending taxpayer dollars, improving the infrastructure of American human capital, and two initiatives to improve Americans’ ability to put food on the table. Now they need a house to put that table in.

Increase the Supply of Homes

John Locke’s great philosophy became the foundation of the US Constitution. He identified people agree to be governed to preserve their property; that is the chief role of the institution. Everyone owns property, even if that property is owning yourself.

To preserve property, we need to create conditions enabling citizens to secure property. Securing basic needs allows individuals to pursue prosperity and stability. You can’t put food on the table without a home to put the table in.

The economic principle of supply and demand strongly influences the housing market. In simple economic terms, as the supply of an item rises relative to the demand for that item, prices in the market will decrease. But the housing market has become untenable. Housing per capita has decreased since 1970, and the supply of first-time homebuyer houses is especially low.

The government needs to set conditions to reverse this trend, but it can’t do so by building government housing. If the government were the lead agent to provide housing for Americans, would everyone get a trailer to live in? That would be ridiculous. The government must work through the market. Building homes must be profitable. If it’s not, builders will find other work.

We need to work through the market to increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families.

Working through the market to increase supply means improving the profitability of builders who build small homes.

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is the best government mechanism to incentivize small businesses. SBIR programs are federal grant programs that encourage small businesses to bring desired products to market. SBIR is competitive and provides the incentive to profit from innovation through commercialization.

There is already an SBIR grant program that, with minor changes, could be used to build small, affordable homes in rural America. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sponsors an SBIR grant program for Rural and Community Development.

Rural and Community Development aims to improve the quality of life in rural America by creating and commercializing technologies that address critical economic and social development issues or challenges. The applications need not be centered on agriculture but may be focused on any area that has the potential to significantly benefit rural Americans.

The Executive Branch must direct USDA to expand its scope and earmark some of this SBIR money specifically for small, affordable homes in rural America.

In urban areas, America could convert empty lots and warehouses, no-longer-used parking lots, and dilapidated housing into small, affordable housing. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development can lead the way. Unfortunately, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development does not sponsor an SBIR program.

We need legislative action to establish an SBIR program under the US Department of Housing and Urban Development that earmarks funds for small, affordable housing in urban areas.

We must implement rules to ensure these homes are sold to owner-occupiers, particularly first-time homebuyers, to prevent them from being snapped up by investors.

You can read or listen to this idea in Small, Affordable Homes.

And in Has Capitalism Failed the Housing Market?.

Increasing the supply of affordable housing will help with housing in the long term, but young Americans still living at home don’t need help with housing eventually. They need help now.

Set Young Americans on the Path to Financial Success

Young Americans don’t just need more housing. To strengthen financial security for young Americans, we need to start by addressing home ownership.

Young Americans need to be able to secure their financial future early in adulthood. This means our young generations need to be able to qualify to purchase their first home at a low interest rate.

We need a first-time-homebuyer incentive of a 3% interest rate, and we need to combine this low interest rate with a US Department of Housing and Urban Development loan, which requires a 3.5% down payment.

After their one-time use, if a family wants to purchase a more expensive home, that’s their decision. If they want to own the asset, they own the risk and higher interest rate that comes with the asset. This plan further needs to disqualify any private equity money or investment firms from receiving these terms. We need to specify single-family homes, single-unit duplexes, apartments, etc.

The initiative’s point isn’t for someone to purchase a commercial building and rent out all but one apartment. That’s an investment.

The initiative aims to improve the financial stability of young Americans. To achieve that goal, all young Americans must be able to take advantage of it.

This proposal benefits young Americans who attend college and those who take up trades. It benefits young Americans who grew up in trailers and suburbs, as well as young Americans in rural and urban America.

You can read more about the idea in Financial Security for Young Americans.

In sum, we need a systemic approach to addressing our biggest challenge: Americans having food on the table and heat in the house. You can’t put food on the table without the money you get from your work to buy food. And you can’t heat your house unless you have a house.

There are no silver-bullet solutions. It’s a complex system. Over the past two years, we’ve considered many ideas. Some were eliminated after more thought, and some weren’t possible. Six big ideas have survived.

We need to restore institutional legitimacy when spending taxpayer dollars.

We need to invest in the infrastructure of human capital to pull wages up.

We need to help small businesses generate revenue so they can pay higher wages.

We need to ensure workers benefit from America’s great business environment and achieve livable wages.

We need to work through the market and increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families.

We need to strengthen financial security for young Americans, starting with addressing home ownership.

Addressing our challenges with these ideas will make life better for Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Fall in the mountains is a beautiful time. I’m going elk hunting. I’ll see you in a couple of weeks. Maybe three.

A one-size-fits-all approach to both small businesses and large corporations isn’t appropriate.

We need to legislate livable wage requirements for large corporations and give small businesses that pay livable wages tax incentives.

The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits

In September 1970, the New York Times published an article by Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman titled The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.

Friedman wrote the article responding to the growing public and academic interest in corporate responsibility regarding environmental issues, civil rights struggles, and consumer protection. His controversial perspective dismissed social, ethical, or environmental concerns unless they directly contributed to profit. Others argued that businesses should consider broader stakeholder interests, including employees, communities, and the environment.

Friedman's premise was that the business of business is business. He emphasized that diverting from pursuing profit is equivalent to spending someone else’s money—shareholders, employees, or customers—for purposes that hadn’t been mutually agreed upon. He likened this spending of other people’s money to taxation without representation.

Friedman argued that a business's primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives should focus solely on maximizing shareholder value within legal and ethical boundaries. He posited that corporate social responsibility blurs the lines between the private and public sectors.

Let me repeat that.

Friedman believed businesses, particularly corporations, should maximize shareholder value and profits. Any deviation toward social justice or environmental concerns is outside a business’s fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. Instead, he asserted that the public sector—or government—should fulfill these societal roles. Addressing and managing social justice and general welfare issues falls under the umbrella of public responsibility.

Friedman posited that we should not blur the lines between corporate and public responsibility. Famous economists tell it like it is: there’s corporate responsibility and public responsibility.

If the business of business is business, and the responsibility of corporations is to increase profits, then what is public responsibility?

Government of the People, By the People, For the People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln gave a short speech to dedicate the battlefield cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Gettysburg Address became the most quoted speech in history. It ends with the words, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The concept of government for the people binds our public responsibility. Lincoln conveyed that governance derives legitimacy from its ability to represent and serve the people, an idea rooted in the US Constitution. The Constitution is the agreement the American people and the states in the Union made to form a government.

Let me emphasize again that the people and states willingly chose to form a government, and they further chose that elected representatives would use the ratified Constitution as its governing document.

The Preamble states the purpose and intent of the document. It includes the words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… (and) promote the general Welfare…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let's expand on the verbiage in the Preamble just a bit.

We've already touched on the first words, "We the People." Lincoln referred to this as government of the people, by the people, for the people. The purpose of government is to serve the people. Friedman later referred to this purpose as the responsibility of the public sector.

So we could rephrase that portion of the Preamble to “It is the responsibility of the public sector and our elected representatives to…”

Next, we address “establish justice and insure domestic tranquility.” Last week, we discussed the concept of justice in the context of Plato. Justice is fair and equal treatment under the law, individual liberty, and the equitable distribution of resources that enable individual opportunity.

Justice creates a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the state's overall well-being. Addressing inequality reduces societal tension, maintains social order, and fosters a peaceful society.

Justice enables people to work and command a livable wage. It’s the equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing that allows people to work and earn a good living. Access to resources gives everyone a fair chance at economic success. Achieving justice ensures domestic tranquility.

Justice isn’t a handout. Government shouldn't continuously redistribute wealth. Instead, we need to create a fair system where opportunities for housing, fair pay, health, education, and economic advancement are accessible to all. Justice is the government setting conditions and rules that enable individuals to achieve success.

With a shared understanding of justice, let’s build on our statement. We can expand it and say: “It is the responsibility of the public sector and our elected representatives to…create a society that strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources…”

Now, we can move on to “promote the general welfare.”

The general welfare is the well-being of citizens. This requirement identifies a responsibility to create conditions that improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Our final expanded statement can be: “It is the responsibility of the public sector and our elected representatives to…create a society that strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources… to enhance the well-being of Americans, and to achieve these goals we establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This language juxtaposes Friedman’s view of corporate and public responsibility. The business of business is business, and corporate responsibility is to increase profits. The business of the public realm is to set conditions and rules that ensure individual success through legislative and regulatory means.

Corporate profit is essential for economic growth. The goal of corporations is to earn profits.

Public responsibility counterbalances the corporate drive for profits. It ensures economic progress contributes to the well-being of citizens and not just corporations. The institution is to maintain a balance between the corporate market and individual justice.

How would this institution of public responsibility achieve this balance?

Why do we treat small businesses like publicly traded corporations?

Like much of economic theory, Friedman’s argument focuses on the role of large corporations in maximizing profits. But there's an apparent disconnect when we apply this framework to small businesses.

Small businesses operate on a smaller scale than corporations. They have less access to capital, market power, and regulatory influence. Despite these differences, policies and expectations often treat them as equal players in the same market.

This leads us to our question: Why do we treat small businesses like publicly traded corporations?

Shouldn't small businesses with fewer resources have more support and different requirements than large corporations? Let's consider two obvious ways small businesses differ from corporations and why they should have different requirements.

First, small businesses use less infrastructure than large corporations and put less stress on that infrastructure, so they shouldn't have the same infrastructure tax requirements. They have a smaller physical footprint, require fewer resources, and generate less strain on public services like roads, utilities, and waste management. While corporations provide goods and services to the public, they also heavily utilize infrastructure—which is a business cost, not a socialized public fund. Businesses are responsible for their operating costs.

Second, many small businesses are owner-operated and can't pay themselves poverty wages. They face the reality of needing a house to heat and food to put on the table. They should get tax cuts to incentivize higher wages, whereas we should have a livable minimum wage standard for corporations. Large corporations have more resources and greater financial capacity; a minimum wage standard for corporations ensures workers are compensated fairly and can contribute to the economy. Tax incentives for small businesses and wage standards for corporations seek a competitive balance.

However, public responsibility still needs to achieve a goal. All Americans need justice, which means food on the table and heat in the house. Furthermore, a second intended outcome is to reduce reliance on social programs by ensuring sufficient wages. Giving small businesses a tax incentive to pay higher wages will only keep Americans off social programs if those small businesses actually pay livable wages. To receive the tax incentives, small businesses need to prove they paid their workers livable wages.

The business of business is to maximize profits. The business of the public realm is justice and the welfare of America. We need to encourage businesses to strive for profits, and we need to ensure corporations pay their workers a wage that lifts them above the poverty level.

We don't need a complex law. We need to legislate a fair corporate minimum wage that adjusts automatically over time and takes the cost of living in different areas into account:

Publicly traded corporations shall pay full-time wages representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

And for small businesses, we need a tax incentive:

We will reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay livable wages by 10% across the board and target specific industries, such as retail and food service, with even more significant tax breaks.

Another benefit of treating small businesses differently than corporations is that it makes them more competitive. A visit to downtowns across America tells a common story about how big-box stores drove small retailers out of business. Large corporations leverage economies of scale to offer lower prices that small businesses can’t match, leading to a decline in local economic diversity. This phenomenon has reshaped downtown areas, resulting in economic blight and decreased community cohesion. We’re not going to put publicly traded corporations out of business, but we need to make small businesses more competitive.

A one-size-fits-all approach to both small businesses and large corporations isn’t appropriate.

The business of business is to maximize profits.

The business of the public realm is justice and the welfare of America. Justice is food on the table and heat in the house.

We need to legislate livable wage requirements for large corporations and give small businesses that pay livable wages tax incentives.

May God bless the United States of America.

Why is remembering American history so hard? It’s a question that needs an answer because Black history is American history, and federal agencies decided to ban Black History Month.

Black history isn’t just Black history. It’s a record of our constant battle between order and justice. To erase it is to erase the struggle that defines our national identity. It may be easier to maintain a neat, sanitized version of our history than to confront the struggle and resistance justice demands, but that ease is detrimental to America.

If remembering Black history is too difficult, maybe we should turn to the one document that defines our national values. Every state in the Union agreed with the verbiage. You’d think it would offer clarity.

But even there, justice and order are locked in a constant struggle. The Constitution sets both as national goals, side by side. Then, history demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash and how essential they are to each other.

Justice Disrupts Order, and Order Suppresses Justice

Last week, we discussed the inherent tension between justice and order. Ensuring domestic tranquility and establishing justice are two of our six national goals, but they are often at odds.

Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect. Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain a collective structure.

Justice is the foundation for a society in which individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nation’s well-being. It includes fair and equal treatment under the law, equal access to individual opportunity, and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing.

Justice threatens order. We build institutions and cultural norms around systems that offer stability but perpetuate inequality and power imbalance. Calls for justice expose inherent flaws. They challenge the status quo.

Order threatens justice. While order is necessary for social stability, the rigid pursuit of order obstructs justice. Groups in power preserve the status quo instead of addressing systemic imbalances. They argue that stability must be maintained at all costs. This focus on order suppresses dissent and marginalizes groups that call for reform.

No American better embodies the tension between justice and order than the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But to really understand the challenge of justice, order, and Dr. King, we need to first understand Reverend Billy Graham.

Billy Graham Believed in Order

In 1954, TIME Magazine called Reverend Billy Graham “the best-known, most talked-about Christian leader in the world today, barring the Pope.” US presidents sought his council. He became the moral advisor to the nation.

By 1957, Graham was at the height of his influence as America’s most prominent evangelist. That year marked his landmark New York City Crusade. The 16-week revival held at Madison Square Garden drew massive crowds. Over two million people attended, and more than 60,000 responded to his call for conversion.

Graham’s sermons emphasized personal salvation and moral living. His message resonated with many Americans wrestling with Cold War anxiety and social change. It offered comfort in uncertain times.

During this crusade, Graham crossed paths with a young reverend, Martin Luther King Jr., for the first time. Graham hoped to expand the reach of his message to a broader audience and invited King to speak in New York. King spoke of a brotherhood that transcended race and color. He hoped alliances with influential figures like Graham could accelerate the fight for civil rights.

By 1960, differences between the two men’s approaches emerged. Graham made it clear he valued social order above civil disobedience. He stated…

“I do believe that we have a responsibility to obey the law. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And, no matter what that law may be—it may be an unjust law—I believe we have a Christian responsibility to obey it.”

There it is. Order versus justice.

Graham wasn’t just preaching personal salvation—he was tapping into a national desire for stability in a time of upheaval. For many, his message was a soothing alternative to the discomfort of systemic injustice.

Graham’s stance reflected the views of many Americans at the time. They were uncomfortable with the confrontational approach of the Civil Rights movement. They preferred order to justice. Graham’s supporters argue he wasn’t racist. They argue he was called to a mission focused on personal salvation rather than political activism. His critics argue that his reluctance to challenge unjust laws reflected a failure to meet the moral urgency of the moment.

No matter the reason, his line was drawn by April 1963. As Graham envisioned order, King led the Birmingham Campaign. This bold, nonviolent movement targeted deep-rooted segregation and racial injustice in one of America’s most racially divided cities.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

In April 1963, Birmingham, Alabama, was the most violently racist city in the United States. Its aggressive resistance to desegregation earned it the nickname “Bombingham” due to the frequent bombings of Black homes and churches by white supremacists. From 1945 to 1962, white supremacists conducted 50 racially motivated bombings of Black American homes, businesses, and churches.

They bombed the home of Reverend Milton Curry Jr. on August 2, 1949. The home of Monroe and Mary Means Monk on December 21, 1950. The home of the minister of Bethel Baptist Church, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, on December 24, 1956. The Ku Klux Klan bombed Bethel Baptist Church on June 29, 1958. It was the second time the Klan had bombed the church.

On and on. 50 bombings.

Amid the years of bombings, Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor led the city government to openly enforce Jim Crow laws with brutal tactics. They used police dogs, fire hoses, and mass arrests to suppress civil rights demonstrations.

Quite a backdrop.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. arrived in Birmingham, Alabama, on April 3, 1963, to lead the Birmingham Campaign. It was the season of the major Christian holiday of Easter. On Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his love for humanity. We remember our vow to love God and love others.

King’s Birmingham Campaign included nonviolent protests against segregation and racial injustice. King and other activists planned sit-ins, marches, and boycotts targeting businesses that upheld segregation.

On April 10, 1963, Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama W. A. Jenkins, Jr. issued an injunction prohibiting the demonstrations.

King and others chose to defy the order. They viewed it as an unjust law meant to suppress their Constitutional rights. On April 12, Good Friday, the day Christians remember the Romans putting Christ to death, authorities arrested King and at least 55 other leaders for “parading without a permit.” King spent 9 days in jail. They loved him so much they denied him even his phone call.

While in jail, King read a public letter from eight white Alabama clergymen who criticized the protests as “unwise and untimely.” They urged activists to seek justice through the courts rather than the streets.

King wrote his response to the letter in the margins of a newspaper and on scraps of paper smuggled in by friends. The pieces became the iconic Letter from Birmingham Jail. In it, King defends civil disobedience and highlights the moral urgency of confronting injustice.

King explicitly calls out Americans who are “more devoted to order than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

There it is again. Order versus justice.

…

Let’s reestablish that this is not a Black history topic. This is a Constitutional topic. This is the interlocked American history of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. Just as we have a national goal to ensure order, we have a national goal to establish justice.

Order and justice. Two ideals, forever competing. Let’s pause for a minute and honor the genius of Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, who wrote the Preamble; the founding fathers that agreed to the verbiage; and each state in the Union for ratifying the document. Together, they laid out national goals that were almost impossible to achieve. They understood the delicate balance needed to hold a diverse and divided nation together.

In the ultimate irony, they placed the words establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility side by side in the Preamble.

They knew a society striving for justice would inevitably disrupt the status quo. We would challenge entrenched power. It would create tension. At the same time, they recognized that without order, society could descend into chaos. Chaos makes justice impossible to sustain. This tension is a feature of the system. The struggle forces every generation to wrestle with competing ideals.

Each principle threatens the other. But that’s not why they are next to each other in the Constitution.

They’re next to each other because each value is essential to achieve the other.

Justice Enables Order

Justice sets the conditions for trust. In an environment of justice, people trust that they have rights, that those rights are protected, and that fairness governs social interactions. They trust that they are treated equitably, regardless of race, class, or background.

In a just society, people respect the rules and institutions that govern their lives. Justice fosters legitimacy, and legitimacy is the foundation of stable, lasting order.

Enforcing order without justice is impossible. Without justice, any semblance of order is fragile. Authorities may attempt to maintain control through fear, repression, or coercion, but this “order” is unsustainable. It breeds resentment, resistance, and unrest. A society that values individuals, respects rights, and offers real opportunities for prosperity doesn’t need to police itself into submission.

Back to Birmingham in 1963. Authorities claimed they were maintaining order, but that “order” depended on segregation, discrimination, and suppression. It wasn’t order—it was controlled instability. The American people’s demand for justice didn’t just disrupt order—it exposed what many called ‘order’ was a system built on oppression.

On the surface, one might assume that justice threatens order. But justice and order are not rivals. Justice isn’t just compatible with order—it’s the only thing that makes order possible.

As justice enables order, order sustains justice.

Order Sustains Justice

Order is necessary to sustain justice. Justice requires a strong institution of structure, law, and social framework to establish and maintain it. Without order, these systems collapse. This collapse makes it impossible to protect individual rights, ensure fairness, or maintain trust in governance.

History demonstrates that righteous justice movements rely on some level of structure to succeed.

Back again to Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Movement made lasting change in the nation. But dismantling segregation depended on legal victories, organized protests, and strategic leadership. Without disciplined nonviolent resistance combined with a functioning legal system to challenge unjust laws, racial justice would have remained an ideal rather than a reality.

Even when we achieve justice, we still have a duty to preserve it. A just society cannot exist in a constant state of upheaval. Laws must be enforced, rights must be protected, and institutions must remain strong to prevent injustice from creeping back in. Without order, justice is fleeting. It becomes a moment of fairness swallowed by instability.

Justice corrects and refines order, but order provides the structure that allows justice to endure.

American History

Justice and order are not Black history. They are American history.

They are the interlocked American history of Reverend Billy Graham, who believed in order, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who knew order was not possible without justice.

This is a Constitutional topic. Just as we have a national goal to maintain order, we have a national goal to establish justice.

Today, we continue to struggle with order and justice. We will always struggle with order and justice. History demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash.

When we look deeper, we see how essential they are to each other. There is no order without justice. We cannot sustain justice without order.

We don’t have to do it in February every year, but if we don’t study Black history, how will we remember American history?

May God bless the United States of America.

This didn’t push to the podcast hosts; reaccomplishing.

—

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

Milton Friedman (our subject of the last two weeks) wasn’t the only renowned economist of the 20th century whose ideas continue to influence US economic policy. Friedman was influential, no doubt. From the 1980s to the early 2000s, his emphasis on monetary policy, central banks controlling inflation, and the belief in free markets became the mainstream approach to economic management in many parts of the world.

But John Maynard Keynes is the father of macroeconomics. Each economist’s prominence fluctuates with the economic conditions of the time.

Since we considered our questions using Friedman’s ideas as a guide last week, we’ll start with Keynes this week.

To appreciate Keynes ideas, we need to explore the foundational concept of justice articulated by the ancient philosopher Plato. Plato’s justice provides a foundational understanding of societal roles and responsibilities.

Plato and Justice

Plato (427 to 347 BC) was a Greek philosopher and one of the most influential figures in Western philosophy and culture. He was a student of Socrates and taught Aristotle. The three form the foundational trio of ancient Greek philosophers whose ideas have shaped much of Western thought.

Plato founded the Academy, one of the world’s first universities. Many of his writings come from his time teaching there. He wrote in dialogue style, using stories to convey ideas.

His still-influential The Republic explores the “soul of a nation and an individual.” Its central theme is justice—how to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state. Plato divided society into three classes: rulers (philosopher-kings), warriors (auxiliaries), and producers (farmers, artisans, etc.). Each class has its specific role, and society achieves justice when each class fulfills its responsibilities.

It’s worth repeating: we achieve justice when each individual fills their role. Justice means individuals should be treated fairly and equally under the law, but it also means society upholds individual liberty for all. Justice for all means society strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. While Plato didn't discuss modern concepts like public education or healthcare, we can extend his emphasis on each person fulfilling their role in today's context. Ensuring access to education and housing allows individuals to develop their abilities and contribute to society, aligning with Plato's vision of justice.

Justice includes education and housing. Justice enables people to work. Let’s consider an example from today’s America with a question:

Can you work and command a good living from society if you can’t access proper education and suitable housing? No.

Do the American people, acting through our elected representatives, sponsor and fund education and training, and control the conditions to shepherd the housing market? Yes.

Are we really saying it's the individual's fault if they can't secure a good job due to a lack of education and training or afford a home in our absurdly inflated market?

It’s a challenging question that John Maynard Keynes thought about a lot. Plato envisioned a just society where each individual fulfills their role for the common good. Similarly, Keynes argued that when the market fails to provide opportunities for individuals to contribute, it becomes the government's responsibility to step in. Both perspectives highlight that a society thrives when members are empowered to reach their potential.

John Maynard Keynes and Government Spending

John Maynard Keynes (1883 to 1946) was a British economist and the father of macroeconomics. More than any other economist, his ideas profoundly influenced modern macroeconomic theory. He is best known for developing Keynesian economics, a school of thought that advocates for active government intervention in the economy, particularly during recessions, to manage aggregate demand and maintain full employment.

In simple terms, this idea suggests that the government should help the economy during tough times, like recessions, by boosting spending to keep people working and ensure there's enough demand for goods and services.

Recent real-world examples of Keynesian economics are the government responses to the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19. The economy was in trouble. The government injected stimulus funds by increasing spending, offering financial aid, and giving money to businesses and individuals. The goal was to boost demand to get people to buy things and keep people employed, helping the economy recover faster.

Keynes believed governments should actively manage economic cycles. He argued for deficit spending during depressions and recessions—borrowing money to finance public projects, infrastructure, and social programs. And he argued for government austerity during healthy periods. He claimed deficit spending would jump-start the economy, and once the economy recovered, the government could reduce spending and pay down the debt. During World War II, Keynes argued for funding the British war effort and that it was better to prioritize winning the war and maintaining the economy than to worry about balancing the budget.

Keynes understood that markets don’t always self-correct. People can’t just "work harder" to succeed. His solution was clear: when the private sector can’t provide enough jobs or income, the government has a responsibility to step in and keep the economy running by spending on public projects, infrastructure, and social programs.

He argued that when the market isn’t working, people need support. This support helps the individual and stabilizes society as a whole.

And he argued for government intervention as a temporary measure for use during periods of economic crisis. His central idea was that government should stimulate demand and create jobs when the private sector couldn’t. His goal was to jump-start the economy so that individuals could find employment and earn a good living once conditions improved.

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) he wrote: The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.

Keynes argued that work should be the primary source of income for individuals. He believed the government should correct the market failures of too few good jobs. He argued the government should invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs, making work more valuable. He supported a livable minimum wage as a means to distribute wealth fairly.

He wrote: The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.

Keynes did not advocate for permanent dependency on social programs. He argued for government intervention when the market failed to provide full employment and fair wages. His writings emphasized temporary government support, focusing on creating the conditions for self-sufficiency by addressing market failures.

In short, Keynes believed in setting rules that supported individual success. He advocated for government intervention in challenging times and for governments to pay off their debts in good times.

Though a couple thousand years apart, Plato’s philosophy and Keynesian economics agree on many points.

Plato and Keynes Intersect

Let’s break down Plato’s philosophy.

We achieve justice when every individual fulfills their role in society.

Society suffers if individuals cannot fulfill their roles due to a lack of opportunity, education, or resources.

Every individual must be able to contribute according to their abilities.

But what happens if you can't work to your potential due to a lack of education and training?

If you can’t access these resources, you can’t fulfill your role in society.

You’re stuck trying to survive, worrying only about basic needs like heat in the house and food on the table.

This condition is injustice because individuals are denied the opportunity to contribute and thrive.

And we examine Keynesian economics.

Work is the primary source of income for individuals.

Government must invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs and make work more valuable. Plato argues that these are the same tools individuals need to fulfill their roles in society.

If the market doesn't provide adequate employment opportunities or wages, the government has to set rules for livable wages.

The intent is to create conditions for self-sufficiency, which reduces dependency on social programs and aligns with Plato's idea of enabling individuals to fulfill their societal role.

To lighten the mood and offer a fresh perspective, let’s introduce Jessica, insightful comedian, to share her thoughts on the state of our economic policies.

Jessica: Hey folks! Let's dive headfirst into the circus we call life, shall we? You ever notice how everyone has the ultimate fix for all our problems? It’s like being at a potluck where everyone brings their “world-famous” casserole. You've got the kale enthusiasts over here, chanting, “Kale will save us all!” Sure, Brenda, because nothing says “solution” like bitter leaves that taste like freshly mowed lawn.

Then Aunt Karen rolls in with her legendary tofu surprise. Surprise! It still tastes like disappointment. Listen, Karen, tofu wasn’t on anyone’s wish list unless that list is titled “Things That Pretend to Be Food but Aren’t.”

And speaking of solutions, let's talk about Uncle Sam’s idea of help these days. Handing out cash without any real support is like giving someone a spoon when they’re drowning. “Here, maybe you can paddle your way out!” It’s like tossing a life jacket to someone in a desert—thanks, but that's not really addressing the problem, is it?

Now, let’s chat about paychecks. You ever open yours and think, “Is this a typo or a cruel joke?” You work like a dog all week, and your bank account’s like, “Better luck next time!” It’s like ordering a steak dinner and getting served a single crouton and a side of air. “Enjoy your meal!” Oh, I will, once I find it.

We’re setting the bar so low, it's a tripping hazard. People celebrating that they can afford rent this month like they've won the lottery. “Yes! I get to live indoors for another 30 days!” Congratulations, you've achieved the bare minimum required for survival. Next up: dreaming about affording that extra guacamole at the burrito place.

Life shouldn’t be about just scraping by. It should be about thriving, reaching for the stars, and maybe snagging a moon rock or two. And let's be honest, who doesn't want a slice of cake to celebrate the little victories? Cake is essential, people! It's the edible high-five.

At the end of the day, we need to stop serving the same bland policy porridge and start whipping up a recipe that actually tastes good. Can we please retire the economic microwave dinners? I'm tired of peeling back the plastic to find half-cooked ideas and freezer-burned promises.

So let’s roll up our sleeves and cook up a feast where everyone’s invited, the portions are fair, and nobody leaves hungry—or hangry, for that matter. Because success isn’t about handing out snacks to keep people quiet; it's about giving them the ingredients to bake their own gourmet creations.

Thanks for tuning in, everybody! Remember, individualism isn't just about surviving—it's about giving people the tools to thrive and maybe, just maybe, a chance to have their cake and eat it too. Who’s up for dessert?

The Reality of Economics

The reality of economics is people don’t run on hope.

Jessica's witty observations highlight how quick fixes and handouts fail to address the root causes of economic hardship. Systemic solutions empower individuals.

People need a house to heat and money to put food on the table. This benefits the individual and society writ large. The proof of this statement is that liberal and conservative economists alike recommend social programs to alleviate poverty. They know if people don’t have enough money to survive from their work, the other source is the government.

But instead of thinking about how to make social programs work better, we need to think about how to eliminate the need for social programs.

We can make the rules work for individuals without hurting small businesses. We can pay for things like improving education to enable individuals to succeed.

If we refuse to do those things, we choose to pay for social programs.

Some argue that social programs lead to socialism. But socialism emerges when individualism fails.

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

Milton Friedman (our subject of the last two weeks) wasn’t the only renowned economist of the 20th century whose ideas continue to influence US economic policy. Friedman was influential, no doubt. From the 1980s to the early 2000s, his emphasis on monetary policy, central banks controlling inflation, and the belief in free markets became the mainstream approach to economic management in many parts of the world.

But John Maynard Keynes is the father of macroeconomics. Each economist’s prominence fluctuates with the economic conditions of the time.

Since we considered our questions using Friedman’s ideas as a guide last week, we’ll start with Keynes this week.

To appreciate Keynes ideas, we need to explore the foundational concept of justice articulated by the ancient philosopher Plato. Plato’s justice provides a foundational understanding of societal roles and responsibilities.

Plato and Justice

Plato (427 to 347 BC) was a Greek philosopher and one of the most influential figures in Western philosophy and culture. He was a student of Socrates and taught Aristotle. The three form the foundational trio of ancient Greek philosophers whose ideas have shaped much of Western thought.

Plato founded the Academy, one of the world’s first universities. Many of his writings come from his time teaching there. He wrote in dialogue style, using stories to convey ideas.

His still-influential The Republic explores the “soul of a nation and an individual.” Its central theme is justice—how to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state. Plato divided society into three classes: rulers (philosopher-kings), warriors (auxiliaries), and producers (farmers, artisans, etc.). Each class has its specific role, and society achieves justice when each class fulfills its responsibilities.

It’s worth repeating: we achieve justice when each individual fills their role. Justice means individuals should be treated fairly and equally under the law, but it also means society upholds individual liberty for all. Justice for all means society strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. While Plato didn't discuss modern concepts like public education or healthcare, we can extend his emphasis on each person fulfilling their role in today's context. Ensuring access to education and housing allows individuals to develop their abilities and contribute to society, aligning with Plato's vision of justice.

Justice includes education and housing. Justice enables people to work. Let’s consider an example from today’s America with a question:

Can you work and command a good living from society if you can’t access proper education and suitable housing? No.

Do the American people, acting through our elected representatives, sponsor and fund education and training, and control the conditions to shepherd the housing market? Yes.

Are we really saying it's the individual's fault if they can't secure a good job due to a lack of education and training or afford a home in our absurdly inflated market?

It’s a challenging question that John Maynard Keynes thought about a lot. Plato envisioned a just society where each individual fulfills their role for the common good. Similarly, Keynes argued that when the market fails to provide opportunities for individuals to contribute, it becomes the government's responsibility to step in. Both perspectives highlight that a society thrives when members are empowered to reach their potential.

John Maynard Keynes and Government Spending

John Maynard Keynes (1883 to 1946) was a British economist and the father of macroeconomics. More than any other economist, his ideas profoundly influenced modern macroeconomic theory. He is best known for developing Keynesian economics, a school of thought that advocates for active government intervention in the economy, particularly during recessions, to manage aggregate demand and maintain full employment.

In simple terms, this idea suggests that the government should help the economy during tough times, like recessions, by boosting spending to keep people working and ensure there's enough demand for goods and services.

Recent real-world examples of Keynesian economics are the government responses to the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19. The economy was in trouble. The government injected stimulus funds by increasing spending, offering financial aid, and giving money to businesses and individuals. The goal was to boost demand to get people to buy things and keep people employed, helping the economy recover faster.

Keynes believed governments should actively manage economic cycles. He argued for deficit spending during depressions and recessions—borrowing money to finance public projects, infrastructure, and social programs. And he argued for government austerity during healthy periods. He claimed deficit spending would jump-start the economy, and once the economy recovered, the government could reduce spending and pay down the debt. During World War II, Keynes argued for funding the British war effort and that it was better to prioritize winning the war and maintaining the economy than to worry about balancing the budget.

Keynes understood that markets don’t always self-correct. People can’t just "work harder" to succeed. His solution was clear: when the private sector can’t provide enough jobs or income, the government has a responsibility to step in and keep the economy running by spending on public projects, infrastructure, and social programs.

He argued that when the market isn’t working, people need support. This support helps the individual and stabilizes society as a whole.

And he argued for government intervention as a temporary measure for use during periods of economic crisis. His central idea was that government should stimulate demand and create jobs when the private sector couldn’t. His goal was to jump-start the economy so that individuals could find employment and earn a good living once conditions improved.

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) he wrote: The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.

Keynes argued that work should be the primary source of income for individuals. He believed the government should correct the market failures of too few good jobs. He argued the government should invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs, making work more valuable. He supported a livable minimum wage as a means to distribute wealth fairly.

He wrote: The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.

Keynes did not advocate for permanent dependency on social programs. He argued for government intervention when the market failed to provide full employment and fair wages. His writings emphasized temporary government support, focusing on creating the conditions for self-sufficiency by addressing market failures.

In short, Keynes believed in setting rules that supported individual success. He advocated for government intervention in challenging times and for governments to pay off their debts in good times.

Though a couple thousand years apart, Plato’s philosophy and Keynesian economics agree on many points.

Plato and Keynes Intersect

Let’s break down Plato’s philosophy.

We achieve justice when every individual fulfills their role in society.

Society suffers if individuals cannot fulfill their roles due to a lack of opportunity, education, or resources.

Every individual must be able to contribute according to their abilities.

But what happens if you can't work to your potential due to a lack of education and training?

If you can’t access these resources, you can’t fulfill your role in society.

You’re stuck trying to survive, worrying only about basic needs like heat in the house and food on the table.

This condition is injustice because individuals are denied the opportunity to contribute and thrive.

And we examine Keynesian economics.

Work is the primary source of income for individuals.

Government must invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs and make work more valuable. Plato argues that these are the same tools individuals need to fulfill their roles in society.

If the market doesn't provide adequate employment opportunities or wages, the government has to set rules for livable wages.

The intent is to create conditions for self-sufficiency, which reduces dependency on social programs and aligns with Plato's idea of enabling individuals to fulfill their societal role.

To lighten the mood and offer a fresh perspective, let’s introduce Jessica, insightful comedian, to share her thoughts on the state of our economic policies.

Jessica: Hey folks! Let's dive headfirst into the circus we call life, shall we? You ever notice how everyone has the ultimate fix for all our problems? It’s like being at a potluck where everyone brings their “world-famous” casserole. You've got the kale enthusiasts over here, chanting, “Kale will save us all!” Sure, Brenda, because nothing says “solution” like bitter leaves that taste like freshly mowed lawn.

Then Aunt Karen rolls in with her legendary tofu surprise. Surprise! It still tastes like disappointment. Listen, Karen, tofu wasn’t on anyone’s wish list unless that list is titled “Things That Pretend to Be Food but Aren’t.”

And speaking of solutions, let's talk about Uncle Sam’s idea of help these days. Handing out cash without any real support is like giving someone a spoon when they’re drowning. “Here, maybe you can paddle your way out!” It’s like tossing a life jacket to someone in a desert—thanks, but that's not really addressing the problem, is it?

Now, let’s chat about paychecks. You ever open yours and think, “Is this a typo or a cruel joke?” You work like a dog all week, and your bank account’s like, “Better luck next time!” It’s like ordering a steak dinner and getting served a single crouton and a side of air. “Enjoy your meal!” Oh, I will, once I find it.

We’re setting the bar so low, it's a tripping hazard. People celebrating that they can afford rent this month like they've won the lottery. “Yes! I get to live indoors for another 30 days!” Congratulations, you've achieved the bare minimum required for survival. Next up: dreaming about affording that extra guacamole at the burrito place.

Life shouldn’t be about just scraping by. It should be about thriving, reaching for the stars, and maybe snagging a moon rock or two. And let's be honest, who doesn't want a slice of cake to celebrate the little victories? Cake is essential, people! It's the edible high-five.

At the end of the day, we need to stop serving the same bland policy porridge and start whipping up a recipe that actually tastes good. Can we please retire the economic microwave dinners? I'm tired of peeling back the plastic to find half-cooked ideas and freezer-burned promises.

So let’s roll up our sleeves and cook up a feast where everyone’s invited, the portions are fair, and nobody leaves hungry—or hangry, for that matter. Because success isn’t about handing out snacks to keep people quiet; it's about giving them the ingredients to bake their own gourmet creations.

Thanks for tuning in, everybody! Remember, individualism isn't just about surviving—it's about giving people the tools to thrive and maybe, just maybe, a chance to have their cake and eat it too. Who’s up for dessert?

The Reality of Economics

The reality of economics is people don’t run on hope.

Jessica's witty observations highlight how quick fixes and handouts fail to address the root causes of economic hardship. Systemic solutions empower individuals.

People need a house to heat and money to put food on the table. This benefits the individual and society writ large. The proof of this statement is that liberal and conservative economists alike recommend social programs to alleviate poverty. They know if people don’t have enough money to survive from their work, the other source is the government.

But instead of thinking about how to make social programs work better, we need to think about how to eliminate the need for social programs.

We can make the rules work for individuals without hurting small businesses. We can pay for things like improving education to enable individuals to succeed.

If we refuse to do those things, we choose to pay for social programs.

Some argue that social programs lead to socialism. But socialism emerges when individualism fails.

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

Supporting low wages inherently means relying on social programs.

Milton Friedman, the famous Nobel laureate economist, presented a dichotomy. He argued that government solutions don’t solve problems and often make them worse, yet he also recommended government solutions to address poverty.

Last week, we explored the first of two questions about this dichotomy. We determined that higher wages don’t cause inflation, so there's no inflationary reason not to pay livable wages. Resolving the inflation question leads us to reconsider the government's role in economically supporting individuals. Without inflationary concerns, there’s less reason not to support livable wages.

This week, we explore our second question by having an AI-enabled discussion with the late Dr. Friedman. That question is:

If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If it's necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Since government intervention is necessary to address poverty caused by low wages, we should prioritize policies that directly support individuals by promoting livable wages instead of relying on bureaucratic social programs that perpetuate dependency and inefficiency.

Dr. Friedman and I don’t agree on everything. His work suggests he viewed the economic system as more important than the individual. I agree with his premise, but I'm against dependency on social programs. When wages are too low, we throw money at the bureaucracy—giving some of that money to other people, and the machine eats the rest.

I recognize the importance of the economic system. I believe individuals having heat in the house and food on the table is more important than the system itself, and I recognize that a healthy system is the best way to achieve that goal.

Let’s get started with an introduction to Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman

For those who didn’t get a chance to listen to last week’s piece, Milton Friedman (1912 to 2006) was a Nobel laureate and a leading figure in the Chicago School of Economics. He significantly influenced national economic policy, particularly during the 1970s stagflation and into the era of Reaganomics.

His economic brilliance at the University of Chicago led to advisory roles for Presidents Nixon and Reagan. He shaped modern economic thought by advocating for free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. His theories laid the foundation for supply-side economics, widely known as Reaganomics. Reaganomics promoted major tax cuts, reduced regulation, and controlled the money supply to stimulate growth and curb inflation.

Reaganomics was a solution for its time but increased poverty and inequality over the long term. Forty years of stagnating wages point to a diseased system. Reagan himself expanded some social programs.

Friedman was a brilliant and accomplished economist with a conservative flair. But he presented a fascinating dichotomy. Despite his advocacy for minimal government, he proposed a government-administered solution to address poverty.

Let's explore this intriguing contradiction in more detail.

Friedman’s Dichotomy

Friedman disavowed government solutions to economic problems. In An Economist’s Protest (1975), he wrote:

I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.

At the same time, Friedman recognized that some lived in poverty, and we had a shared duty to alleviate that poverty. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), he wrote:

We might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing to contribute the same amount without such assurance.

This dichotomy begs a question:

If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is also needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If it's necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Friedman was skeptical about governmental influence on the economy but pitched a social program to reduce poverty. Instead of advocating for a minimum wage for the lowest earners, he had another idea: a Negative Income Tax (NIT). NIT embodied a practical resolution to Friedman’s dichotomy—in his view, an attempt to minimize government interference while addressing poverty.

Negative Income Tax

So, what exactly is the Negative Income Tax?

As theorized by Friedman, NIT was a system intended to replace various welfare programs by providing direct financial assistance to individuals below a certain income threshold. He introduced this idea as a more efficient and less bureaucratic alternative to traditional welfare systems.

Under NIT, anyone with earnings below a certain income threshold would receive governmental supplementary pay to boost their income to a specified minimum level, ensuring a basic standard of living. This support would provide enough to meet basic needs without discouraging work.

Unlike welfare programs that cut benefits once an individual reaches a certain income level, NIT would gradually phase out as the individual’s income rises. This design was meant to avoid the "welfare trap" that discourages beneficiaries from earning more because they would lose benefits at a rate that negates the value of working.

Friedman theorized that NIT would reduce the need for a large bureaucracy to administer various welfare programs since the existing tax system could be used to distribute the negative income tax. It would further incentivize work by allowing individuals to keep a portion of their earnings along with the tax benefit.

Let’s look at a couple of examples for clarity.

In our first example, assume an individual earns $30,000 annually. Under our NIT program, the income threshold is $50,000, and the negative tax rate is 50%. The individual would receive no other benefits like food stamps, housing vouchers, or other forms of direct aid. The difference between the individual’s income and the threshold is $20,000. Applying the negative tax rate, the individual would receive a supplemental payment of $10,000 from the government. This would increase their total income to $40,000, bridging part of the gap between their actual earnings and the threshold while providing an incentive to earn more without losing all benefits.

In the second example, assume the individual has no income at all. Again, they receive no other benefits like food stamps or housing vouchers. The difference between their income and the $50,000 threshold is the full $50,000. With a negative tax rate of 50%, the government would provide this individual with a payment of $25,000. This amount represents the guaranteed minimum income level under this NIT system, ensuring every individual has at least $25,000 in annual income, regardless of their actual earnings. This setup was designed to provide a safety net that discourages poverty without disincentivizing additional income generation through employment.

You can watch Friedman discuss the Negative Income Tax here:

NIT may sound similar to Universal Basic Income (UBI), but they take different approaches to income support. UBI is unconditional money, theorized to provide all individuals with additional funds regardless of their income level or employment status. Instead of moving low earners to a suitable income level, UBI intends to create a universal safety net. Further, UBI programs lack conditions tied to receiving the benefit; they do not depend on income, employment, or other criteria.

NIT also resembles another social welfare program: the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program, which President Reagan significantly expanded. However, EITC targets working individuals and families—particularly those with children—and aims to incentivize work. NIT was broader and designed as a general income supplement for all individuals, potentially replacing other forms of welfare. NIT would provide a basic income guarantee regardless of work status, though the benefit would decrease as income increases.

As Friedman originally envisioned, NIT would replace existing social welfare programs, streamlining support into a single system to reduce bureaucracy and administrative overhead. In contrast, EITC operates alongside other social welfare programs such as food stamps and housing vouchers.

Friedman's NIT was a bold proposal aimed at reducing poverty while minimizing government intervention. But how does this theory hold up in the context of our modern economy?

Social Program Relevance for Today

Now, let's add some relevance to our discussion of social welfare programs.

Supporting low wages inherently means relying on social programs.

Individuals have two sources of money: their work or the government, which represents the American people’s money.

We have a systemic job skills and wage problem. There are approximately 84 million families in America. Of these, 42 million, or half, receive social program dollars. Many of these Americans don’t even realize they're getting social program support because it’s hidden in their tax filings and again in this year’s federal deficit.

Half of American families need social program support because wages are too low. My question for Friedman would be: when would you argue to raise wages instead of supplementing the wages businesses pay with social program funds? Would it be when 75% of families need government support? 90%?

A key piece of the market is the training and preparation of individuals. We can’t say there’s a market failure in job training but no market failure in wages. A failure in one area leads to a failure in the other.

At what point does the scale of reliance on social programs to supplement wages indicate a fundamental problem in the market itself?

The Interview

To think about our questions, I fed ChatGPT with Friedman's writings and asked it to answer as if it were Dr. Friedman for an interview.

Joel: If we told American high school students that they have a clear path to prosperity through specific training opportunities and provided them with the means to pursue this training, most would likely seize the opportunity.

Friedman: Absolutely. It's crucial to inform high school students about effective training paths that lead to prosperity. If they know that specific skills are in demand and that acquiring them will lead to better job prospects, most would take advantage of these opportunities. It's essential that educational programs align with market demands and remain accessible, ensuring students are equipped for the evolving job market.

Joel: But of course, the job market doesn’t do that, and sometimes these Americans end up with misaligned job skills and low wages. Don't low wages indicate a failure in the market?

Friedman: Low wages can indeed indicate a mismatch between the skills workers have and those that are in demand. However, I wouldn't necessarily call it a market failure. Markets are dynamic and adjust over time. The key is to ensure that education and training systems are responsive to the needs of the economy. When there's a surplus of certain skills and a shortage of others, wages will reflect that imbalance. Addressing this requires improving our educational institutions and perhaps reducing barriers that prevent workers from acquiring new skills.

Joel: But you’re against government intervention, even though people need to be able to have food on the table and heat in the house.

Friedman: While I advocate for minimal government intervention, I recognize that a safety net is necessary to support those who are truly in need. The challenge is to provide assistance in a way that doesn't create long-term dependency or distort market incentives. Programs should be designed to help individuals get back on their feet and become self-sufficient, rather than fostering reliance on government support.

Joel: Didn’t you propose a social program that became the Earned Income Tax Credit? This program perpetuates government dependency today because half of American families receive benefits from it.

Friedman: I proposed the Negative Income Tax as a more efficient alternative to the myriad of welfare programs. The idea was to simplify the system, reduce administrative costs, and provide direct assistance to those below a certain income level without discouraging work. If a significant portion of the population relies on programs like EITC, it suggests deeper economic issues such as inadequate education, lack of opportunities, or policies that inhibit economic growth. The goal should be to address these root causes rather than viewing the assistance program itself as the problem.

Joel: If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Friedman: My preference is always for solutions that minimize government intervention and maximize individual freedom. If intervention is necessary, it should aim to empower individuals rather than expand bureaucratic systems. Direct support mechanisms, like the Negative Income Tax, are designed to help individuals without the complexities and inefficiencies of a large administrative apparatus. By simplifying the process and reducing bureaucracy, more resources can reach those in need, and individuals retain the freedom to make their own choices.

Joel: What do you think about a system in which businesses receive tax incentives after they prove they pay wages above the poverty line?

Friedman: Providing tax incentives to businesses that pay higher wages could be a market-friendly approach to encouraging better compensation. It rewards positive behavior without imposing mandates that might lead to unintended consequences like reduced employment opportunities. However, it's important to consider the potential for manipulation and ensure that such a system doesn't create distortions or unfair advantages. The best solutions typically involve creating a healthy economic environment where businesses naturally compete for workers by offering better wages and conditions.

Joel: Dr. Friedman, thanks for the chat. Do you have any final thoughts?

Friedman: Thank you for the engaging discussion. In closing, it's important to remember that economic policies should aim to enhance individual freedom and responsibility. By fostering a vibrant, competitive market and ensuring opportunities for all to participate, we can address many of the challenges we face. Government interventions, when necessary, should be carefully designed to support—not replace—the mechanisms that allow individuals to improve their own circumstances.

While Dr. Friedman and I agree on the importance of a healthy economic system, we differ on how to best support individuals within that system.

Reflecting on Government Intervention

If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Friedman was a brilliant economist, but we don’t agree on everything. His work suggests he viewed the economic system as more important than the individual. In his view, paying wages higher than the market dictates distorts the system. He would rather preserve the market and use the tax system to pay for social programs.

I agree with his premise about the importance of a healthy economic system, but I'm against dependency on social programs. When wages are too low, we throw money at the bureaucracy—giving some of that money to other people, and the machine eats the rest. Friedman viewed social program support as temporary, but trickle-down economics has demonstrated it doesn’t work. It doesn’t improve the financial position of low earners; they stay on social programs.

I’m not against Americans who need social programs. I'm not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans. But if half of American families rely on social programs, the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

I recognize the importance of the economic system. I believe individuals having heat in the house and food on the table is more important than the system itself, and I recognize that a healthy system is the best way to achieve that goal.

Of course, the wage problem is systemic and doesn’t have a simple solution. Systemic problems require systemic solutions.

We won’t be able to eliminate social programs, but we need to address low wages, social program dependency, and the problems that cause them.

Since government intervention is necessary to address poverty caused by low wages, we should prioritize policies that directly support individuals by promoting livable wages instead of relying on bureaucratic social programs that perpetuate dependency and inefficiency.

May God bless the United States of America.

This week, we explore a pivotal economic question inspired by Milton Friedman. Do higher wages cause inflation, or are they a tool for economic stability?

It's important to remember that supporting low wages inherently means supporting social programs. So, should we raise wages for the lowest earners, or should we allow the bureaucracy to manage the funds? If we choose to raise wages, does this lead to increased inflation?

This question forms the basis of our discussion today and is the first of two key inquiries related to Friedman’s economic theories.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman (1912 to 2006) was a highly influential American economist, statistician, and leading proponent of the Chicago School of Economics. He taught economics at the University of Chicago for over 30 years and advised Presidents Nixon and Reagan on economic policy. In 1976, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his achievements in economics. In the 1970s, during a period of severe economic stagnation and high inflation known as stagflation, Friedman gained notoriety by disproving prevalent economic theories that did not consider stagflation possible.

We remember Friedman for his strong belief in free-market capitalism and skepticism of government intervention in the economy. He argued that the primary responsibility of a business is to be profitable and return value to stakeholders. In doing so, these stakeholders would have the resources to make decisions and achieve autonomy consistent with their values. He believed that the role of government in the economy should primarily be to increase the money supply at the same rate as the potential growth of gross domestic product (GDP) and to otherwise not interfere. Increasing the money supply at a rate faster than economic growth only increases inflation without driving economic growth.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency, Friedman’s advocacy for free-market principles significantly influenced supply-side economics. Supply-side economics became commonly known as Reaganomics. Core aspects of Reaganomics included significant business tax cuts intended to stimulate investment and economic growth by increasing the after-tax return on investment.

Reaganomics reduced government regulation. Friedman argued this effort would eliminate inefficiencies and encourage entrepreneurship. To address inflation, Reaganomics intended to control the money supply, a direct application of Friedman’s monetary theory. Finally, the push for reduced government spending reflected Friedman’s skepticism about the government's role in the economy. He advocated for a system where market forces could operate with minimal government interference. These policies intended to reduce government influence in the economic sector, enhance individual freedom, and promote economic growth.

Reaganomics, while aimed at economic revitalization, also increased poverty and inequality. Reagan himself expanded some social programs. We’ll remember that as related to the theme for next week.

This nuanced outcome leads us to Friedman's dichotomy: the economist who disavowed government solutions to economic problems also recognized the necessity of addressing poverty.

Friedman’s Dichotomy

Friedman famously disavowed government solutions to economic problems. In An Economist’s Protest (1975), he wrote:

I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.

But in an interesting twist, Friedman recognized that some lived in poverty, and we had a shared duty to alleviate that poverty. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), he wrote:

We might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing to contribute the same amount without such assurance.

Friedman’s dichotomy, which states that government solutions don’t improve problems while recognizing the need for government solutions to address poverty, raises two inherent questions.

* Friedman spent much of his professional career addressing the causes of inflation. We often hear others say that we can’t raise wages because doing so would drive inflation. Do higher wages cause inflation?

* If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

First is the inflation question.

Wages and Inflation

Several factors cause inflation. These include demand-pull inflation, cost-push inflation, and monetary inflation.

In simple terms, think of these as inflation being caused by three separate forces. In the first, demand pulls prices up. For the second, costs push prices up. The third involves devaluing money, so you need more to buy something, which looks like prices are increasing.

First, demand-pull inflation. As summarized by Forbes, “Demand-pull inflation is when growing demand for goods or services meets insufficient supply, which drives prices higher.”

When demand exceeds supply, prices rise because some people are willing to spend more to outcompete others. This is a significant driver in today’s housing market. Because demand exceeds supply, and some are willing to spend more to outcompete others for a house, prices rise dramatically.

However, unlike the housing market, increased wages for low-income workers don’t increase demand-pull inflation because workers don’t have more money. There are two sources an American can get money. One is their work. The other is the government, which represents the American people’s money. If wages rise for low-income workers, they might get more money from their labor and less from social program support, but the total resources available are roughly the same.

Ultimately, the net effect of higher wages on demand-pull inflation is negligible.

Second, cost-push inflation. A University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) study examined The Concept of Wage-Push Inflation: Development and Policy. Daniel Mitchell and Christopher Erickson led the effort. An excerpt:

Wage-push inflation…was associated with powerful, aggressive unions pushing wages up. In its simple form…costs go up which hapless employers are forced to pass through as price increases. The price increases trigger compensatory wage increases by unions and the cycle repeats…Few economists ever subscribed to such a simplistic view which suggested that the process occurred indefinitely without regard to economic circumstances. Nonetheless, popularizing the simple view was seen as advantageous to elements of the business community….

In cost-push or wage-push inflation, the costs of production increase (like raw materials or wages), and businesses pass these higher costs onto consumers in the form of increased prices.

But arguing against higher wages using a wage-push inflation argument negates the reality that if employers can’t, or refuse to, pay higher wages to control costs, they push the true cost of that labor onto the American taxpayer. If your business model requires you to pay poverty wages to maintain competitive prices, it’s not sustainable.

Ultimately, arguing that higher wages push prices higher is an argument in favor of passing the actual cost of wages onto the taxpayer. Wages indeed represent a business cost. The business, not the taxpayer, is responsible for paying for the cost of its labor.

The third type of inflation to consider is monetary inflation. When the total supply of money in the economy exceeds the country’s economic growth, this decreases the value of money and leads to higher prices. The stark rise in inflation following COVID was caused by government officials generating excess money that was not offset by productivity growth.

Dr. Friedman studied monetary inflation. He believed that the role of government in the economy should primarily be to increase the money supply at the same rate as the potential growth of gross domestic product (GDP) and not interfere otherwise. Increasing the money supply at a rate faster than economic growth only increases inflation without driving economic growth.

Higher wages don’t drive monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is a government phenomenon that is not associated with wages.

In sum, higher wages don’t drive demand-pull inflation.

Further, wages above poverty levels are irrelevant to the argument for cost-push inflation.

Finally, higher wages don’t drive monetary inflation.

So, higher wages don’t affect any of the inflation drivers. It seems that businesses paying higher wages doesn’t impact inflation after all.

Counterarguments

Higher wages can disproportionately impact small businesses, which operate on tighter budgets than large corporations. This is true, especially in the short term.

To mitigate the impact on America’s small businesses, we can offer tax incentives to small businesses that pay higher wages to help offset the increased labor costs. We can provide access to training to improve business efficiency and help small businesses manage higher wages without sacrificing profitability.

Retail and hospitality, which traditionally rely on low-wage labor, might be particularly vulnerable to wage increases. Higher labor costs could lead to higher service prices, potentially reducing consumer demand.

We should offer more tax incentives to small business service industries to keep low-margin small businesses competitive with large corporations.

Further, higher wages would lead to increased consumer spending, stimulating economic growth. This increase in demand could offset the impact of higher costs on businesses. Higher wages would also lead to lower employee turnover and higher productivity, offsetting some of the costs of higher wages for businesses.

Critics argue that higher wages might squeeze the margins of small businesses, leading to job cuts or business closures. Proponents argue for a different perspective. They suggest that a dynamic economy, spurred by increased consumer spending, small business tax relief, and dedicated support, can more than offset the initial challenges associated with rising wages. This approach addresses small businesses’ immediate financial concerns and promotes long-term economic growth and stability for individuals, reflecting Friedman’s advocacy for a robust and adaptable market economy.

Milton Friedman’s dichotomy, which states that government solutions don’t improve problems while recognizing the need for government solutions to address poverty, raises two inherent questions.

Friedman spent much of his professional career addressing the causes of inflation. We often hear others say that we can’t raise wages because doing so would drive inflation. Do higher wages cause inflation?

Higher wages don’t drive demand-pull inflation. If wages rise for low-income workers, they might get more money from their labor and less from social program support, but the net effect of higher wages is negligible.

Livable wages are irrelevant to the argument for cost-push inflation. Arguing that higher wages push prices higher favors passing the actual cost of wages onto the taxpayer. The business, not the taxpayer, is responsible for paying for the cost of its labor.

Finally, higher wages don’t drive monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is a government phenomenon that is not associated with wages.

It seems like businesses paying higher wages doesn’t impact inflation after all.

Next week, we can consider our second question: If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

May God bless the United States of America.

Can beer and the NFL unite America?

What a ridiculous question.

Team Colors and Community Ties

Recently, I was in my local grocery store early on a Saturday morning, wearing a Kansas City Chiefs hoody, though I now live in the Mountain West region. It’s August, but many mornings are cool year-round when you live at 6200 feet elevation.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Chiefs, they are a professional American football team. I was born in Kansas City and grew up watching Chiefs games. As a kid, my favorite players were Christian Okoye and Derrick Thomas. There were enough fans in my town that church let out early when the Chiefs played the first game on Sunday so everyone could be home by kickoff.

While shopping this particular Saturday morning, a woman I didn’t know passed and remarked she hated my sweatshirt. The comment might elicit a negative response in many scenarios.

I gave the obvious response, “Thank you!” The Chiefs have won three of the last five Super Bowls, played in another, and have the world’s biggest pop star on our side (that would be none other than the illustrious and acclaimed singer-songwriter Taylor Swift). Chiefs’ colors attract some attention. I followed the stranger’s challenge by predicting Bo Nix and Sean Payton would make our division tough this year. I’m less than two hours north of Denver, and most people who comment on my team colors are Denver Broncos fans.

She laughed and said she was a Dallas Cowboys fan. After sharing her thoughts on her team, she went about her shopping way.

In my experience, that’s a pretty normal encounter with fellow NFL fans. I’ve come to understand that if I’m going to wear team colors, I will meet other fans who expect I’m current on events, and I will share brief conversations with strangers about the league. If you’re going to wear Chiefs colors, you need to know the Las Vegas Raiders took us out behind the woodshed and bloodied our mouths on Christmas Day last year, Russell Wilson is now with the Pittsburg Steelers and not the Broncos, Bo Nix won the starting Broncos quarterback job, and the Los Angeles Chargers brought in Jim Harbaugh to right the ship.

Many of these conversations start with a pseudo-challenge or feined insult. But they end up with smiles and fist bumps, even when we root for rival teams.

May we strive for the same in all of our encounters. We have differences, but we should emulate the respect NFL fans share for each other, even when we root for rivals. Part of that respect is how we interpret intent—we need to orient our perspective to assume others mean us no ill will. And part of that respect is that we mean no ill will towards others.

Humans are inherently social animals; we support and are supported by our communities. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle extensively explored this notion.

Philosophy of Society

Aristotle (384 to 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher and scientist. He is one of Western philosophy's most important founding figures, and philosophers still study his works today. At a time when the world had few texts for education, Aristotle created texts that we still use 2000 years later. His ability to systematically explore and document various fields formed the cornerstone of Western education and encouraged critical thinking across diverse disciplines.

Aristotle studied under Plato and later tutored Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects across philosophy, politics, and science.

Aristotle’s concept of the "social animal" is foundational to his philosophy. He posited humans inherently form communities to survive. He detailed this concept in his work Politics, which explored society's origin, structure, and purpose.

He declared,

Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.

Society is natural, and humans are inherently driven to form social bonds. Society exists primarily to enable citizens to live a good and virtuous life. Happiness can only be developed within a community. Every person has a role to fulfill, contributing to the common good and supporting individual development and well-being.

Individuality and Community

Let's use Aristotle's logic that flourishing comes from living well within a community to conduct a thought experiment that examines individuality and community:

Humans have a duty to support our communities if society precedes the individual, and we can’t survive outside of it. This interdependence defines human social structures.

If we must support society at the individual level, humans from varied backgrounds must be able to support their community. Individual liberty is the means to express our contribution to society.

Liberty is necessary for human development. Liberty enables us to make choices, leading to personal growth. We all require individual liberty because individuality promotes vibrant and supportive communities.

To secure liberty for ourselves, each of us has the duty to ensure liberty for others. We are all a part of humanity. Some would strip rights from others. One day the bell will toll for us. When one of us loses our rights, we all lose.

Acknowledging that others will make choices, we must accept that some will be different from our own. Embracing differences fosters a tolerant and resilient society.

To willingly accept others making different choices, we must build mutual respect for those choices. We cultivate this respect through shared experiences and consensus-building.

One way we share and build consensus is to engage in communal activities, such as drinking beer together. These shared moments allow us to bridge differences, understand new perspectives, and reinforce our communal bonds.

Presidential Perspectives

We don’t need the fermented grain and hops liquid we know as beer, but we need the community we gain by sharing beer. We build consensus by forming communities.

A quote from President Abraham Lincoln:

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts, and beer.

Beer represents community, and we need community.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the occasion of signing the repeal of prohibition, said:

I think this would be a good time for a beer.

FDR highlights a great point. When is a good time for a beer?

Classrooms and Communion

We can’t confine the philosophy of individuality and community to classrooms or sports rivalries. It extends into our personal lives.

In September 2017, I led a squadron that stood watch over America day and night, ready to provide decisive effects at all times worldwide. It was our privilege to provide combat capability for the nation.

That same month, one of our teammates passed away. Most of the squadron traveled to the member’s small hometown for the funeral, with support from our sister squadrons for the watch.

We arrived the day before the funeral to attend the visitation. Due to the small town, I expected a small gathering. I was mistaken. When we arrived, dressed in Service Dress Uniform, we were greeted by more than a thousand people who had traveled from neighboring communities for the service. The Catholic Church was full, with a line stretching out the door and around the block. The crowd made way and welcomed the squadron past the line.

The family had reserved the squadron the front two rows of the beautiful church. Ushers led those who wished to share in the Sacrament of Communion to the priest. I wanted to participate in Communion, but being Protestant, I crossed my arms over my chest to demonstrate I could not participate in the ceremony as a Catholic.

The priest looked at me with unmistakable grace, made the sign of the cross on my forehead, and prayed for me and the squadron. I have seldom felt such love and unity in our shared grief as I did during his prayer for us.

We helped lead the ceremony the next morning. The squadron carried the body to the grave, stood at attention, saluted the flag during Taps and the gun salute, and cried in place.

At the request of the deceased member’s father, the squadron remained behind at the gravesite following the service. We pinned our combat “wings” on the casket and shared a beer.

The father said he had wanted to travel to his son’s duty location to have a beer with his son and his military friends, but he never got the chance. He brought out several coolers at the gravesite to share that beer with us alongside his son.

I know we didn’t all have the same views. The squadron was a melting pot. We had long-established Americans, immigrants, men and women, LGBTQ members, and kids who grew up from Brooklyn to rural Nebraska. We had only one commonality—we all raised our hands to volunteer to serve, and it was our privilege to provide combat capability for the nation.

That September morning, we set aside our differences to share a second communion over a beer. No priest stayed to say a prayer. Instead, we told stories about the fallen with his parents at a gravesite in America’s heartland.

Can beer and the NFL unite America?

Beer and the NFL alone can’t help fix societal issues. But they represent a seed of shared experiences that bridge divides and strengthen community bonds.

Instead of asking if beer and the NFL can unite America, let’s rephrase the question.

Should we orient our perspective to assume strangers don’t mean us ill will, even when our views are opposed?

Should we intend no ill will towards others, even when we disagree with their choices?

Should we set aside our differences, respect the individuality that strengthens our communities, and share communion?

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Today marks the 52nd consecutive week, or year, of I Believe's audio version. In addition to researching the topics, I’ve learned a ton about audio editing and production.

I recorded the first audio version with the built-in computer microphone in one take. Because I didn't use or even have audio editing software, I couldn’t edit any portions of the audio that weren’t good.

But I knew it was important to start. I knew I would be unsatisfied with the quality, and I would make it better. Much of my professional life has focused on innovation through relentless process improvement, which may be the most critical lesson ingrained in Air Force Weapons School students. I may no longer study or teach there, but you don’t forget those lessons.

After a couple of episodes, I started using a decent dynamic microphone. I learned to use professional audio software, Adobe Audition, to enhance audio sections and reduce background noise and unwanted sounds. I created, changed, and recreated a podcast intro. The introduction is 12 seconds long because I personally hate watching a video and wasting precious minutes listening to a prolonged introduction.

I discovered ElevenLabs technology, which opened up a world of audiobook voices as storytellers. I audio-dubbed my voice and recorded two podcasts in which my voice spoke foreign languages, including Spanish and Ukrainian, along with the English version. My audiobook characters give extra variety to each episode and help highlight alternating points of view.

If you only read the articles, thank you. I invite you to try out the audio version. The varied voices bring extra clarity to the sometimes complex topics. You can subscribe at Substack, where you will get a written and audio version on the same screen, or to Apple Podcasts and Spotify podcasts. Or enter your email below.

This week, we consider whether CEOs should take a big bonus even if they don’t intend to pay one to their employees.

We’ll explore perspectives from two seemingly opposed philosophers to guide our thoughts. First, Ayn Rand, a staunch advocate of libertarian principles who champions individual rights and achievements. And then John Rawls, whose commitment to justice, equality, and fairness challenges us to consider the welfare of society's least advantaged.

And now, an introduction to the dilemma.

Hi, I’m Neil.

Thirty-two years ago, I took out a personal loan from my local bank and started my own business. For a couple of years, it was just me. My wife helped with the books in the evening. The business was going pretty well, but I always needed help.

Hiring employees was really scary. Still is sometimes. I was always worried that the business would have a bad year and I wouldn’t be able to pay someone. And I wanted to pay everyone a good wage so they could have a proud living. I don’t view paying good wages as just the business’s responsibility. I view it as my responsibility. I started the business, and it’s a part of me. I take pride in being a small business owner.

We aren’t as small now, though. We expanded a couple of times, and last year, we hired our 42nd team member. The business is doing really well!

This year is a year for celebration. My daughter is graduating from college, and my son is getting married. My wife and I wanted both of our kids to take ownership of their lives, so we told them if they wanted to go to college, they needed to make good money choices and figure out a way to pay for it.

We are really proud of the people they have become, and we want to pay off our daughter’s student loan and send our son and his bride on a Tahiti honeymoon.

We make a comfortable living from what I pay myself out of the business, but we don’t show off. At the same time, my shop supervisor tells me the employees always want better raises.

I want to take a big bonus this year to pay for my kids’ school loan and honeymoon. I should be able to do that, right?

After 32 years of dedication and personal sacrifice, Neil’s question about taking a substantial bonus isn’t about the money. It’s about our duty as individual creators and our responsibility to others.

Ayn Rand and John Rawls are seemingly opposed philosophers who can guide our debate.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a Russian-American writer and philosopher best known for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism. She was born in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and moved to the United States in 1926, where she established herself as a screenwriter and novelist.

Rand's philosophy of objectivism concerns reality, reason, ethics, and structure. It strongly supports the idea that we have a moral right to the fruit of our labor. Through this lens, a business owner or CEO’s decisions about compensation are extensions of their personal liberty and responsibility to themselves as individuals. Rand highlighted that:

Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

Rand (and Random House) published Atlas Shrugged in 1957 to highlight the principles of objectivism. In this fictional work, she explores the world’s creators—innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists—going on strike against a society that increasingly demands their goods and services while demonizing their success. She argues for the greatness of the individual and the service that individuals provide to society through progress. Society benefits most when individuals can pursue their aspirations without undue interference.

If society benefits when individuals can pursue their interests, acting in one’s rational self-interest is a moral duty to fulfill one's potential. Individual achievements create value and advance human knowledge and civilization. Success and money incentivize individual achievement.

CEOs, business owners, innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists strive for individual greatness and advance society by doing so. We should not demonize them for their success and the prosperity their success brings.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

On the other hand, there’s John Rawls.

John Rawls (1921-2002) was an influential American philosopher widely regarded as one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. Rawls is best known for his work in political philosophy and his theory of justice as fairness. He pursued an academic career at Harvard University for almost 40 years.

In his great work A Theory of Justice, Rawls outlines two principles of justice. The first is the right to fundamental liberty. The second principle of justice, which he called the Difference Principle, states that the basic structure of society should offer advantages for everyone and that positions of authority or opportunity should be achievable by anyone under conditions of equality of opportunity. To provide advantages for everyone, Rawls advocated that we should structure society to benefit even our least advantaged members.

In other words, we have to work harder to give the disadvantaged a better chance of success.

Rawls argued that while inequality can exist, our structure should benefit society's least advantaged members. This can mean, for example, that higher earnings for CEOs should somehow contribute to better wages or working conditions for lower-level employees. This principle doesn't mean everyone is offered the same choices. Rawls emphasized "fair equality of opportunity," which means we should level the playing field so that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds have the same opportunity to achieve prosperity as those from more privileged ones.

Practical Implications for Neil

Let’s combine Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and John Rawls' theory of justice to address Neil’s dilemma of taking a big CEO bonus.

Rand’s philosophy would support Neil’s right to claim the CEO bonus as a reward for his contribution to the company's success. As the long-dedicated individual creator, leader, and risk-taker, he has a moral duty to enjoy the fruits of his labor. In Rand’s view, the bonus isn’t simply justified; it’s morally proper for him to claim it. Neil created value that benefits stakeholders by sustaining and growing the business. It would be ethically wrong for Neil to not prosper as a result.

Rawls’ philosophy is more aspirational and challenging. Rawls would emphasize that any economic inequality, like a large bonus for the CEO, needs to benefit the least advantaged members of the company. This doesn’t mean that the CEO shouldn’t take the bonus, but it should be structured so it doesn’t harm others, particularly the most vulnerable. For Neil to justify the bonus, he needs to pay livable wages to all his employees. The bonus shouldn't come at the cost of necessary expenditures to improve employee welfare or job security.

Further, Rawls' philosophy stresses that the conditions allowing Neil to earn the bonus should be part of a fair and transparent system of compensation and advancement available to all employees.

Let’s combine the philosophies. There’s “a” way to look at the bonus through both lenses. Namely, Neil should implement company policies that promote both individual achievement (aligned with Rand’s values) and the well-being of all employees (aligned with Rawls' values). This interpretation could mean ensuring bonuses are part of a structured compensation plan that includes employee performance incentives, promoting a culture of meritocracy and fairness.

But that’s the wrong focus. The decisive effort is not the money, despite how many articles we see about the financial disparity between CEOs and workers. The commonplace worldview might focus on the monetary bonus, but that view is a shortsighted interpretation of Rawls’ philosophy.

Instead, we should consider the bonus through the combined lenses of achievement and opportunity. Neil started the business and put in the work and risk for 32 years. If an employee wants a big CEO bonus, shouldn’t they have the opportunity to do the same thing Neil did?

Rawls’ second principle of justice and equality of opportunity suggests that everyone should have the opportunity to undertake similar risks and start their own ventures. Doing so could potentially earn them similar rewards.

In other words, employees shouldn’t necessarily have the opportunity to receive the same financial bonus. They should have the opportunity to start their own business and work for 30 years, also earning their CEO bonus.

That said, Neil isn’t off the hook. Rawls’ philosophy does require commitment from Neil. He should foster a business environment encouraging his employees to develop entrepreneurial skills. He should provide opportunities for them to lead projects or spin-offs, promoting a competitive innovation mindset within the company. He should offer a merit-based reward system to reward employees who demonstrate long-term investment and risk. Then, other employees also see a pathway to significant achievement based on their contributions.

Neil should go further to achieve the exceedingly high intent of Rawls’ philosophy. When he started his business, he probably had or needed a mentor, so he needs to be one. Neil can help employees acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in their current roles or to prepare for entrepreneurial ventures. Mentorship supports employee individual growth, aligning with Rand’s principles of personal excellence and self-interest.

He might need to consider offering a partnership as a business spinoff to grow his own business. Offering partnership opportunities to employees encourages a sense of ownership and responsibility, advancing innovation and commitment. This initiative exemplifies Rawls' principle of opening up high-reward positions to all capable and interested employees, not just the higher echelons.

Neil needed seed money that he got from a personal loan, but his employees might not have the opportunity to get a personal loan. Providing seed money for rigorously thorough employee business ideas fosters an entrepreneurial spirit within the company, driving innovation and potentially new business opportunities. This action supports Rand’s view that investing in one’s ideas is a pathway to personal and financial success.

Neil should offer assistance with tuition for relevant study programs. By supporting further education, Neil invests in his employees' intellectual and professional growth, benefitting both the employees and the business. Education can lead to more innovative ideas and improved business practices, boosting the company's competitiveness and market position. This effort would further support Rawls' principle of opening up high-reward opportunities to all capable and interested employees.

Neil might also sponsor an employee to start a business spinoff and let other employees move to this partner location, setting them off on the right foot. Employees who feel valued and see clear paths to advancement are more dedicated and motivated. These initiatives help create a company culture where everyone, not just Neil, feels responsible for the business's success.

At first glance, the philosophies of Ayn Rand and John Rawls appear opposed, with Rand championing the sovereign individual and Rawls advocating for a society structured to lift the least advantaged. But they’re not opposed; they’re complementary.

Integrating Rand’s emphasis on individual achievement with Rawls’ focus on equitable social structures yields a holistic approach to address both personal success and societal fairness.

Neil should take the bonus and feel no guilt. He has a moral right to the fruit of his labor. As a society, we should not demonize our creators—innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists—for their success. Individual achievements create value and advance human knowledge and civilization.

At the same time, Neil should lead initiatives to enable his employees to achieve the same success. To the best of his ability, he is responsible for making sound decisions and paying livable wages while offering long-term stability. He further needs to lead initiatives to enable everyone to have the opportunity to start their own business and work for 30 years, also earning their CEO bonus.

This effort is Neil's big commitment. He needs to be a mentor and partner, potentially offer the opportunity to get seed money, offer tuition assistance for relevant studies, and sponsor partner spinoffs. These are not small commitments.

We spend too much time focusing on society's inequality. We do need to improve wages to help our fellow Americans, especially from our fine working class, but the world always has inequality. Instead, our decisive focus must be tangible approaches to helping the most disadvantaged lift themselves. This is our real commitment to our inherent right to pursue happiness.

May God bless the United States of America.

There’s another side to the wages debate we didn’t examine last week. We outlined we can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes. But it’s a complex dilemma, and that statement only captures part of the muddle.

Let’s consider another aspect. If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

The Philosophy of Wages

Three weeks ago, we learned about John Stuart Mill in the piece, On Liberty. Mill (1806-1873) was a philosopher known for his writings on logic, economics, and ethics. He was the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century, and his philosophical work laid the groundwork for the way we now think about personal freedom and liberty.

Mill was not only a brilliant philosopher. He was also a luminary economist. He promoted fairness and the welfare of workers, supported cooperative movements and women’s rights, and believed in social justice. Mill provided a theoretical framework that continues to influence contemporary economic thought.

His treatise Principles of Political Economy (1848) is considered one of the most important works in the history of economics. Just as Mill outlined that individual liberty is essential for a just and progressive society, he refined existing theories of economic production, distribution, and exchange. He integrated economic theory with broad social themes, arguing for economic policies that considered the welfare of cultures. His basis of an economic framework that considered social and ethical factors was revolutionary in his time.

Mill's most important contribution to economics was his theory of the wage fund. He analyzed the impact of economic growth, productivity, and capital availability on wages. He tied wages conceptually to revenue, aligning both with broader economic activity.

Let’s take a minute to gain a common understanding of wages. Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure. Businesses have to build and maintain infrastructure, including physical facilities and technological systems they use to operate. They have to pay taxes. They need to make their product and expend revenue to generate raw materials, manufacturing, and logistics. They have to conduct research and development to improve their offerings.

A business's ability to maintain healthy wage levels depends on revenue being high enough to support their other costs. In lean years, wages that are too high threaten financial stability. This can lead to a business failing to invest in infrastructure to modernize and compete with new businesses. It could cause a loss of talent due to wage freezes, reductions, or layoffs. It could reduce the ability to move into new markets, slowing growth and strangling the business. Every time a business fails to achieve one of these marks, one of its competitors does. If it misses too many, it dies.

Due to this constraint that high wages threaten business growth and survival in lean years, one principle business leaders consider is their payroll-to-revenue ratio. For many businesses, a good guideline is 15-30%. In fat years, wages may only be 15% of revenue. In lean years, wages could be 30% or more.

In the long run, businesses can only afford to raise wages if they can increase their revenue. If the business needs to raise wages by 10%, it needs to grow revenue so the payroll-to-revenue ratio is still in a healthy range.

Mill's theory of the wage fund was a simplified model of how wages are determined. In Principles of Political Economy, he outlined wage levels and the impacts of economic factors such as population and capital. Mill’s wage fund concept suggested that at any given time, there is a fixed amount of capital available to pay wages. This fund is influenced by the total revenue and the number of workers available, meaning wages are determined by the division of this fund among the workforce. In Mill’s theory, all the workers were paid the same.

While Mill's theory is no longer accepted in its original form, it is still helpful to understand how wages are determined. Businesses don’t generate the same revenue every year, and there’s no fixed fund for wages. Some workers make more than others. As noted, businesses now think of the payroll-to-revenue ratio, not a fixed fund.

Mill revised his economic theory to a more flexible understanding of capital and wages. But Mill’s theory that wages are a component of revenue and a critical component of business viability survived even in its original form.

This theory explains why raising the minimum wage to a federal family-supporting livable wage level is politically divisive. Raising the minimum wage so it’s functional for families in high cost of living areas threatens some businesses and weakens others.

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

The Wages Dilemma

Let’s reiterate the dilemma that’s been building for the last two months.

* Americans need to be able to prosper. This aspect of our dilemma is non-negotiable. No matter what actions we take, if American individuals and families can’t prosper, we have failed. A component of prosperity is livable income.

* We can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes. We have to either support higher wages or support social programs.

* Funneling American taxpayer dollars through the government to aid needy Americans leads to significant administrative overhead costs, diminishing the funds actually reaching those in need. For instance, administrative costs account for approximately 30% of total expenditures within private healthcare companies. In the military, bureaucratic expenses consume 70% of allocated funds due to extensive logistical and support structures. Based on these examples, we will assume that government bureaucracy absorbs 40% of the funds intended for social programs. More than one layer of bureaucracy, i.e., money that passes through both federal and state levels, cuts taxpayer dollars even more. These government functions aren’t inherently evil. They have familiar names, like Human Resources (HR), finance, building and grounds maintenance, and logistics.

* If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages. Taking across-the-board action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability. As a result, this approach is politically untenable.

All combined, it’s a tough problem.

It’s easiest to politically avoid the problem and hide the real cost of sustainable wages in the federal deficit. This avoidance gives rise to social programs. That’s why half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs, and 99 million Americans receive social program benefits.

We aren’t going to avoid the problem, though. Let’s transition to a mental exercise to think about how we could approach a solution.

A Mental Exercise

Nicholas: Hi, I’m Nicholas. I’m a 37-year-old married parent of three daughters. I work full-time, and my wife works part-time to support our childcare needs. We file our taxes jointly. All combined, we will make $60,000 this year.

Nicholas and his family qualify for a social program called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). EITC is designed to benefit low—to moderate-income working individuals and families, particularly those with children. It aims to reduce poverty, incentivize work, stimulate the economy, and reduce income inequality.

President Ford (R) signed the program into law in 1975. President Reagan (R), President George HW Bush (R), and President Clinton (D) significantly expanded it. President Reagan (R) said EITC was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Since Nicholas and his wife have three daughters, file their taxes jointly, and make less than the threshold of $66,819 for 2024, they will qualify to get taxpayer social program benefits in the amount of $6,819 this year when they file their taxes.

Now for a tough question: How much does it cost the American taxpayer to give $6,819 to Nicholas and his family? Assuming the factor we mentioned earlier, that bureaucracy absorbs 40% of funds, this $6,819 is 60% of the total. The government absorbs the other 40%, or $4,546.

Adding the sums together results in…a cost to America of $11,365 to give Nicholas and his family $6,819.

There are approximately 84 million families in America. Of these, 42 million, or half, get social program dollars. Many of these Americans don’t even know they get social program support because it’s hidden in their tax filing and hidden again in this year’s federal deficit.

Assuming these 42 million families all got a similar benefit, $11,365 multiplied across those families totals $477,330,000,000 of the federal deficit. Almost a half trillion dollars a year.

A Proposed Solution

Is there a path around this problem? Yes.

There are only two sources for an American worker to get money. One is the government, which represents funneling the American people’s money through bureaucracy. We just covered how efficient this approach is.

The other is their work. But government livable wage mandates threaten business vigor and viability, making this approach politically untenable. Since raising the minimum wage to a family-supporting livable wage isn’t going to politically work, we have to reorient our perspective and approach the problem with new eyes.

Let’s also remember that to raise wages, businesses need to grow revenue.

So how would we grow business revenue, allowing us at the same time to mandate higher wages? Where would this additional revenue come from?

Let’s go back to our common understanding of wages. Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure.

Businesses have to pay taxes. Make a mental note to remember that.

Also, systemic problems require systemic solutions. There’s no silver bullet that will solve the problem. We need to take more than one approach.

The Earned Income Tax Credit table for 2024 shows that the minimum wage for a married worker claiming no children to be above the social program threshold is $12.27 per hour. The figure is based on the EITC-threshold $25,511 income divided across 2080 hours or a 40-hour week for 52 weeks. For a married worker claiming one child, that minimum wage rises to $26.93. Married with two children is $30.14. Married with three children is $32.13.

These figures make sense because if someone is married but claims no children, both Americans can work. $12.27 an hour multiplied by two people is $24.54 an hour combined. That’s what a living wage is.

One child means one of the parents needs to be at home, or if not at home, they have to pay for childcare, which costs one entire income. A second child costs more, but not much more than the first, and a third child costs a little less than the second.

It’s pretty obvious that the minimum wage must be at least $12.27 per hour. There is no better definition of ‘minimum’ than a rate ensuring that if someone works, the American taxpayer doesn’t have to subsidize wages through government assistance. This minimum wage means that, at a minimum, it supports an individual to stand independently. I have no sympathy for businesses that offer poverty wages and let the American taxpayer pick up the tab.

Now we arrive at our dilemma.

How do we cover the difference between $12.27 an hour and $26.93 an hour when the family chooses to have children? America needs to grow. Just as a shrinking business is a dying business, a shrinking nation is a dying nation. So we need to incentivize young Americans to have children.

We also need to generate business revenue to raise wages.

If we refuse to help businesses generate this revenue, 42 million American families will receive social program benefits, which will cost the nation almost a half trillion dollars a year.

The Proposal

We need to reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay wages sufficient to keep Americans off social programs by 10% across the board and target specific industries with even more significant tax breaks. Businesses need to prove in their annual taxes they paid wages above social program levels to qualify. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay wages sufficient to enable workers to provide for themselves and reduce the national need for poverty programs.

We might need a more significant tax credit for certain sectors, such as retail and food service businesses. These businesses might need a 25% tax break to incentivize paying higher wages. We need to phase in the tax credit over time. This design would give businesses more time to adjust to the higher cost of paying livable wages.

With this approach, less social program dollars get funneled through the government, reducing waste.

Worker wages go up.

Businesses keep more of their revenue, so they can pay higher wages.

I’m personally having a hard time finding a downside.

Views of Others

Some will say this is just a subsidy for businesses instead of individuals. This proposal is different from a trickle-down approach. It saves the American taxpayer half a trillion dollars a year that don’t get funneled through government bureaucracy. And for a business to get the money, the dollars have to actually get to the workers.

Some will say that instead of giving businesses tax cuts, we should raise the minimum wage across the board to a livable wage. That becomes a complex political issue that ends up in gridlock. This gridlock means nothing is done and Americans don’t have the money they need to live without social program support. Trying to raise the minimum wage to a functional level keeps 42 million American families on welfare programs.

Some will say it’s not enough incentive for the business, and the 10% tax break doesn’t cover the entire cost of the wage difference. That will be true for some businesses. But it’s part of a systemic solution. It will make some businesses more competitive, and other businesses will copy them so they can also be more competitive. We don’t need a social program to support all businesses. We need a program to make businesses compete for the benefit of the American worker.

Some will say the taxpayer shouldn’t support the workers at all. They should gain skills to justify raising their own wages. The premise of this argument is short-sided. When people have to work multiple full-time jobs to put food on the table, they don’t have time to improve their skills. This cycle just keeps 42 million American families on welfare programs.

We need to incentivize businesses to pay higher wages.

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

To achieve our goal, we need to help businesses grow revenue. Without higher revenue, mandated wage hikes threaten business survival.

We need businesses to pass this expanded revenue on to their workers.

To achieve our goal, we need to reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay wages sufficient to keep Americans off social programs by 10% across the board and target specific industries with even more significant tax breaks. To qualify, businesses need to prove in their annual taxes they paid wages above social program levels. For a business to get the money, the dollars have to actually get to the workers.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, we discussed the inherent limitations of social welfare programs and their effects on American families. But we overlooked some essential philosophy: the principle of non-contradiction, which guides our understanding of truth and reality.

The principle is simple. You can’t ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time. Said another way, you can’t stand on both the beach and a mountaintop at the same time. You have to choose one or the other.

We use this principle every day, and it applies to governance. We can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.

Aristotle was the first to systematically explore and defend the principle of non-contradiction in his work, Metaphysics, written around 350 BC. The tome explored the foundations of reality, existence, and being. Aristotle emphasized that without non-contradiction, distinguishing between truth and fiction becomes impossible and leads to absurdity.

He argued that if we deny this principle, we blur the lines between what is true and false, making reality both true and false simultaneously. It would destroy the foundation for debate or discourse. If all contradictions are true, then we would have to logically accept unsound arguments as true. This would effectively mean everything is true, and nothing is true. Aristotle stated, “Without the principle of non-contradiction, we could not know anything that we do know.”

Aristotle’s philosophy directly influenced one of America’s most revered leaders, President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s leadership exemplified the practical application of non-contradiction.

President Lincoln strongly agreed with Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. Before his service as president, Lincoln was a lawyer. He was known for his clear reasoning, persuasive arguments, and ability to simplify complex legal issues.

During the Civil War, Lincoln’s approach to leadership demonstrated the principle in action. In an 1862 draft titled Meditation on the Divine Will, Lincoln wrote, “God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time.” He argued that the union couldn’t sustain itself half-slave and half-free; it must be one or the other. He believed in a clear, non-contradictory stance in policy and morality.

Additionally, Lincoln had a strong focus on labor and the value of one’s work. This influenced his opinion on freedom for black Americans. There were limited social programs in Lincoln’s time. But Lincoln believed in the value of labor inside the capitalist structure. In his work Fragments of a Tariff Discussion, Lincoln wrote that at creation, the Almighty said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.’’

In the same piece, he wrote that the goal of government, or “a most worthy object of any good government,” is to ensure that each worker receives a livable share of his work, or “each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible.”

He was committed to fairness and justice within the economic system. Free workers had a right to pursue prosperity as a product of their work, and enslaved workers had both a right to freedom and a right to pursue prosperity through their work.

Some claim Lincoln didn’t lead the fight for labor rights, and we didn’t fight the war over slavery. In fact, Lincoln led the fight for the right of enslaved workers to be paid at all.

Lincoln’s commitment to non-contradictory principles in governance echoes the Constitution, itself a non-contradictory legal framework.

The foundational principles of fairness and equality embedded in American governance and the legal philosophy of the US Constitution support Lincoln’s view that workers should be paid a livable share of wages. From the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…establish Justice…(and)…promote the general Welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble’s objectives create a framework for laws that support citizens’ economic well-being. From Lincoln’s perspective, maintaining a union meant conserving a system in which laws aligned with the fundamental values of fairness and equality.

The Constitution derives the premise that individuals have the right to pursue a prosperous livelihood from the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Though not legally binding, the Declaration philosophically informs the Constitution. Individuals earning a living from their work is part of their pursuit of happiness and liberty.

Lincoln’s non-contradictory logic applied to modern labor suggests that if a government commits to the welfare of its citizens, it can’t simultaneously endorse policies that undermine individual economic security. This translates into an employer’s responsibility to pay fair wages and a government duty to regulate that standard.

The government’s role, therefore, is to ensure that the economic system operates without contradictions that would undermine the ability of Americans to live prosperously. To repeat Lincoln’s words again, “To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.”

The constitutional framework as a non-contradictory legal system sets the stage for addressing tough policy challenges, including our debates over wages and social programs.

If we reject the premise that every American should be paid a decent wage for their labor because we judge that some jobs aren’t worthy of those wages, there’s another source of possible income for individual Americans: taxes paid by the American people.

I’m not going to outline an argument in support of social programs. I will say that if government leaders fail to fulfill their duty to regulate decent wages, individual Americans first need to be able to earn a living.

Obviously, there’s a failure in the system, because half of American families depend on social program support.

These social programs benefit the neediest Americans, and we love our countrymen. But social programs aren’t the preferred method for individuals to earn a living and pursue happiness.

Social program money doesn’t give individuals the dignity and pride of earning a living and supporting their families from their work. Government housing robs families of the opportunity to feel the accomplishment of buying a home. Buying groceries with food stamps or WIC vouchers results in Americans who feel shame at the checkout. Funneling money through the bureaucracy wastes the majority of it instead of ensuring it reaches families in need.

To be clear, many Americans earn good wages and don’t need social program support. America has never been more prosperous. Few of us have no clean water or access to electricity. The vast majority of Americans have never set foot on a dairy and still have butter for their toast. Many business owners pay good wages to all their workers.

The one hundred million Americans who receive benefits from social programs need help, but most of them don’t need social programs. They need to earn a decent wage from their jobs, regardless of their skill level or education.

Back to the law of non-contradiction.

We can’t support policies that allow businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.

When we fail to fulfill our duty to ensure the system works to pay all workers decent wages for any job, we perpetuate a system that incentivizes social programs.

That’s just the reality. We can’t stand on top of the mountain and stand on the beach at the same time.

May God bless the United States of America.

In principle, we should be against Social Welfare programs.

And maybe ‘against’ isn’t the right word. It's not that we're ‘against’ social programs. We can’t love our country and not love our countrymen. So, we’re not against Americans who need social programs. We're not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans.

But if half of American families rely on social programs, that means the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

We are ‘against’ social programs because the goal is for Americans to succeed as individuals and not need social programs.

Florence Owens Thompson was born Florence Leona Christie in 1903 in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. A mother of seven children, Florence struggled to support her family during the Great Depression after her husband died of tuberculosis in 1931. To survive, she traveled with her children and other relatives as migrant farm workers from Oklahoma to California, picking cotton and other crops.

In March 1936, Florence and her family were traveling on US Highway 101 in California towards Watsonville. She intended to work in the lettuce fields of the Pajaro Valley. However, their car broke down near a pea pickers camp in Nipomo.

A photographer, Dorothea Lange, found her there. Lange was working for the Resettlement Administration (later the Farm Security Administration) and was concluding a month-long photography trip when she came across Florence and her family in the camp. Lange took several photographs of Florence and her children.

Florence became an iconic figure of the Great Depression through the photograph that became known as “Migrant Mother.” Lange described the encounter:

I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it. (From Lange's "The Assignment I'll Never Forget: Migrant Mother," Popular Photography, Feb. 1960).

Personal accounts of the day since 1936 reveal some irregularities in the reporting. Nonetheless, the image became one of the most enduring symbols of the Great Depression, highlighting the intense struggle and enduring spirit of countless Americans during that time. The photographs were published in newspapers and magazines nationwide. They became a symbol of the plight of migrant workers and the desperate conditions faced by many Americans. This exposure helped draw attention to the need for aid and led to increased government action to support the destitute workers and social programs nationwide.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) enacted numerous social programs as part of his New Deal, a series of reforms enacted during the Great Depression to address widespread economic hardship, unemployment, and social strife. These programs included union protection programs, the Social Security Act, programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers, banking reform laws, emergency and work relief programs, and agricultural programs. The programs helped lift the nation out of the depths of the Great Depression.

At the same time, the New Deal had downsides. Some downsides were obvious, as they excluded or marginalized black Americans, women, and other minority groups. Further, the programs were expensive and led to significant increases in government debt.

Other downsides are less obvious. The New Deal created a dependency culture wherein individuals and communities rely more on government assistance than on self-reliance or local and state initiatives. This dependency stifles innovation and the motivation for self-improvement.

The New Deal also shifted American expectations of government permanently. Before FDR, Americans had a laissez-faire view of government. After, intervention in the economy and individual lives was more acceptable.

Today, government intervention in individual lives is a near expectation.

The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Services Policy released data analyzing social program participation in January 2023. That study found:

* Half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs.

* Nearly 30% of individual Americans receive benefits from the programs.

Those are pretty high numbers. There are 330 million people in the US. If 30% of them receive social program benefits, that means 99 million Americans receive social program benefits. And let’s repeat the first one again. Half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs.

The study suggests that a substantial portion of the population depends on government assistance. We can view this dependency in different ways. First, as a necessary support system that helps stabilize and provide for families in need. Second, as a potential issue where too large a portion of the population relies on government aid. This is unsustainable and indicative of broader economic problems.

Both can be true at the same time. It's not that we're ‘against’ social programs. We can’t love our country and not love our countrymen. So, we’re not against Americans who need social programs. We're not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans.

But if half of American families rely on social programs, that means the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

In principle, we should oppose social programs, but not because we don’t love the people who need them to survive.

We should be against social programs because if half of American families need them, that means we have a systemic failure of the system.

Let’s consider an example, highlighted by a statement I hear often, “That job isn’t worth paying someone well to do it. They need to pull themselves up, move on, and find a better-paying job. And they need to get off the government dole.”

To make our example easier to follow, let’s call this job “dishwasher.”

If we judge, and the rules support, that the dishwasher job isn't worth paying someone a decent wage to do it, they might go to night school, move on, and find a higher-quality job. But in the meantime, they get social program dollars. When we make rules that don’t enable all individuals to succeed from their work, we open the door for social programs.

When a job consistently pays wages that aren’t enough for workers to sustain themselves without additional government aid (like food stamps, housing assistance, or healthcare subsidies), the employer relies on taxpayer dollars to supplement their employees’ incomes. These rules allow businesses to maintain profitability by offloading some of the true costs of labor onto the American people.

Let’s stay on our logic train. The first dishwasher does move on and finds a higher-paying job. Then the second dishwasher finds a better-paying job. And the third, on and on.

But, the business owner fills the dishwasher job as a low-paying job and continues to fill it as a low-paying job year after year, making it a permanently funded taxpayer-subsidized job.

If half the jobs in the country don’t pay well enough for American families to thrive without social programs support, we end up with…half of American families that need social programs.

Every year, the dishwasher receives money from their fellow Americans in the form of social program dollars that help them put food on the table. The person washing the dishes changes, but the American people keep paying for the dishwasher anyway.

Some might say the taxpayer is subsidizing low-skill Americans and not the business. However, the point remains—it isn’t appropriate for taxpayers to subsidize workers, businesses, or the government at all.

This is a systemic problem. We perpetuate many jobs as low-wage, not because they inherently must be low-wage but because the system encourages low wages.

Further, the cook only makes $2 more per hour than the dishwasher, because if the American people will subsidize the dishwasher, why not the cook too? When there’s no upward pressure for higher wages for dishwasher jobs, there’s no wage pressure for other jobs.

This creates a cycle in which individual workers may advance to seek better opportunities, but the systemic problem remains the same.

The first part of the systemic problem is Americans aren’t succeeding on their own with the business rules we have in place now. We cut business taxes, but without a drive to raise wages along with the tax cuts, those dollars don’t trickle down to workers. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work.

The second part of the systemic problem is that funneling money through the government is inherently wasteful. The majority of that money is absorbed by administrative functions. Government programs perpetuate themselves. Government agencies don’t intend to eliminate themselves—they want to be functional. Lifting Americans out of poverty with social programs doesn’t work, or at least doesn’t work very well.

The American people paying government officials to send their money to an individual living in poverty doesn’t make sense. They just wasted 70% of it funneling it through the bureaucracy. Instead of the government acting as a bloated middleman, Americans need to earn sufficient money from their work, and the rules need to support wages high enough for individuals to succeed.

We need leaders to make the rules work for individuals. We don’t need rules that work just for businesses, and we don’t need rules that work for the government to support more Americans to get social program dollars. One helps businesses; one helps the government. Neither helps the American family.

I recognize and value the role of social welfare programs in supporting vulnerable populations.

But our broader goal should be to reform the system to promote independence and reduce dependency. We need to address the root causes of why half of American families with children need social programs.

America is an individualist nation. We need to prioritize policies that enable personal responsibility and self-sufficiency rather than giving businesses tax cuts or expanding inefficient, burdensome government assistance programs.

Individualism can only thrive if we set conditions that enable individuals to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Raising the minimum wage is a crude way to improve resources for American families. It’s not a great mechanism because it’s too politically divisive, but establishing a minimum full-time wage representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents for that locality might work.

I invite you to read Horses and Sparrows to consider that idea.

A way to improve resources for American families and support small businesses at the same time would be to give businesses tax cuts once they prove that none of their workers needs social program support.

I invite you to read or listen to Earned Income Tax Credit and Small Business Taxes for that idea.

Amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require directors and officers of publicly traded corporations to act in the best interests of the corporation, its shareholders, and its workers would give workers a seat at the wages table.

I invite you to read The Future of Work: A Stakeholder Approach to consider that idea.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. It’s been nearly a hundred years since the advent of FDR’s social programs lifted the country out of the depression. We won’t fix the system overnight, and it will take more than one approach working together.

We can debate whether we call ourselves a democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic. We can debate Social Security, wages, housing programs, small business taxes, our energy grid, border security, and whether to support military programs.

But we can’t debate that the foundational premise of America is individual liberty. From liberty comes personal responsibility. And if you have a right to individual liberty, so does everyone else. Even when we disagree with how others express that right.

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a philosopher and economist known for his writings on logic, economics, and ethics. He is regarded as “the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century.” His philosophical work laid the groundwork for the way we now think about personal freedom and liberty.

Mill wrote several journals on topics ranging from the scientific method to happiness and reality. But his most compelling philosophical thinking concerned the contradiction between individual liberty and the good of society, for which he used the term utilitarianism.

His essay On Liberty is a cornerstone of liberal thought. It advocates for individual autonomy free from societal and governmental intrusion, except in cases where an individual’s choice harms others. Mill's ideas on freedom of expression, such as freedom of speech, equality, and moral progress, continue to influence contemporary discussions on civil rights and public policy.

Two years after publishing On Liberty, he wrote Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism suggests that the best action for society is the one that maximizes utility, generally defined as that which produces the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people.

The tension between individual liberty and utilitarianism is a notable philosophical challenge.

Proponents of liberty consider personal freedom to be sacred. For example, Patrick Henry's famous 1775 speech was part of a debate on whether America should seek peace with Britain or pursue independence from British tyranny. His speech ended with the memorable words, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!"

On the other hand, proponents of utilitarianism believe that we have an ethical and moral responsibility to pursue the greatest good for society. According to utilitarian principles, if an action can improve the happiness of the majority, it should be pursued. This can clash with the principle of protecting individual liberty, especially when the majority's pursuit of the greater good infringes on the liberty of individuals.

Mill’s notable contribution wasn’t the two philosophical theories alone. Patrick Henry made his fiery statement before Mill was born, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau championed the concept of the greater good a century before Mill.

Mill’s significant contribution was resolving and connecting the two philosophical theories. He argued that protecting individual liberty leads to the best outcomes for society as a whole. Expressing individual liberty promotes intellectual and moral developments that won’t happen if individuals don’t have the freedom of action to make those decisions. From individual liberty, one derives personal responsibility.

Let’s follow Mill’s line of reasoning from Chapter 3 of On Liberty. If we let society or our environment dictate our life choices, we're just mimicking others and not really thinking for ourselves.

When we choose our own path, we engage ourselves. We observe, plan, and make decisions. We develop skills and talents to the extent that we rely on our own logic and intuition.

What we do isn’t the only thing that matters; it's what kind of person we become by doing it. By choosing our own path, we utilize our intellectual and emotional capacity and shape our character and identity at the same time.

This autonomy fosters critical thinking and decision-making skills. Conforming to societal expectations stifles personal growth and reduces our contributions to society.

In short, a life led by individual liberty cultivates effective, wise, and morally sound individuals.

Then, in Chapter 4, Mill drops the hammer. He asks: what is the rightful limit to an individual's sovereignty over themselves, and where does society's authority begin?

He discusses a logic sequence invoking a philosophy similar to the American Western principle, “Ride for the Brand.” Society isn’t based on a formal contract, but living in society requires each person to follow certain rules toward others. If an individual shows insufficient consideration for others without violating any constituted rights, the offender may then be justly punished by public opinion, though not by law. Therefore, an individual should be free to act and face the consequences.

If we are free to act and face the consequences, then no one has the right to tell another that they can’t do what they choose with their life. Each person is most interested in their well-being, and our direct interest in others is trivial in comparison.

If others have little direct interest in our choices, then public opinion on individual conduct is as likely to be wrong as right since it reflects some people's opinions on what they think is good or bad for others. Many people see conduct they dislike as an injury to themselves and resent it, as a bigot may resent others' beliefs. Moralists teach that their conduct is right because they feel it to be so, applying personal feelings as moral laws. This approach leads the public to enforce personal preferences as societal norms, ignoring individual freedom.

Therefore, public interference in personal conduct denies others individual freedom. It stifles liberty and self-determination. Society's role should be limited to preventing harm to others, not imposing conformity to its preferences. Respect for individual liberty is essential for a just and progressive society.

So, according to Mill, we cannot have personal responsibility without liberty. If we take away liberty, we lose accountability and responsibility in society. Therefore, government and society have a duty to ensure individual liberty as the basis for humanity.

American presidents support Mill’s philosophy. Here are some quotes…

If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.

It is time to restore the American precept that every individual is accountable for his actions.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

Okay, so that’s all one president, namely our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. If John Stuart Mill was the preeminent liberal thinker of the 19th Century, Reagan sounds pretty liberal to me. Of course, we misuse the term. All Americans are liberals.

Reagan sounds like a liberal because he sought to conserve the American democratic republic, which is based on Enlightenment liberalism. Conserving the liberal democratic republic makes you a liberal.

We need to restore conservatives to align with the American institution again.

Give me liberty or give me death means “Give us all liberty!” All Americans have the God-given right to liberty.

Liberty is the right to make decisions about our own property, including our bodies. This means the right for adults to make decisions for themselves and their children about their healthcare. Even when other people disagree with those choices. Applying personal morals to dictate someone else’s choices violates our right to individual liberty.

Liberty is the right to speak and expose ourselves and our children to ideas. Many of these ideas are found in books. If you don’t want your children exposed to these ideas in schools, you have a right to homeschool your child. Applying our personal beliefs to governance violates the individual liberty of others.

Liberty is your right to burn my flag. I find this act personally detestable. If I told you I didn’t support your right to burn my flag, wouldn’t that be telling you I thought you didn’t deserve your right to individual liberty?

Liberty is freedom of religion. Liberty is freedom from religion.

Liberty is our elected leaders adhering to Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, which states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them…against domestic Violence.” Attempting to nullify votes from states in the Union and then attempting a violent overthrow of the proceedings at the US Capitol violates individual liberty. We are the United States because the citizens of each state agreed to form the union. A part of that agreement was that each state would have the right for their vote to be counted. Refusing to recognize the vote from states and refusing to transfer power peacefully directly leads to domestic violence and violates individual liberty.

I call on conservatives to realign themselves, ourselves, with the foundational premise of America. The Almighty gave us all our right to life and liberty, and inherent in that gift is our right to make decisions to benefit ourselves, free from the rules of others in society or government.

We can debate whether we call ourselves a democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic. We can debate Social Security, wages, housing programs, small business taxes, our energy grid, border security, and whether to support military programs.

But we can’t debate that the foundational premise of America is individual liberty. From liberty comes personal responsibility. And if you have a right to individual liberty, so does everyone else. Even when we disagree with how others express that right.

May God bless the United States of America.

To receive new posts, consider becoming a free subscriber.

Before we discuss progressives today and ask, “Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’”, we need some context. We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.

Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.

But progressivism’s focus drifted. To meet our goals, we must restore it as a center of gravity—focused on the people, not just the government.

…

Conservatives believe in America and strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. Their principles respect tradition, state and local governance, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Their philosophy values the wisdom of the past, seeks cautious progress in the present, and envisions a stable, prosperous future.

From a business standpoint, conservatives rely on their commitment to personal responsibility. They advocate for free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. They believe that to command higher wages, workers are responsible for increasing their value. They oppose unfunded federal mandates because they face the reality that to pay higher wages, businesses must increase revenue or face elimination. High worker pay reduces profitability and can threaten business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to minimize wages to maximize profits.

Conservative values strongly benefit America. They advance living standards by driving economic growth, encouraging innovation, and fostering competition.

Democrats and Republicans alike can be conservatives.

…

Like conservatives, progressives believe in the American ideal.

Progressives view the government as a go-between representative for the people. An intermediary. Strong progressives advocate for fairness and equality across American society. They believe the government must set conditions enabling every individual to have a fair chance to be great.

Regarding business, progressives believe the government must set conditions enabling fair workplace environments, including pay, safety, and hours. They pass federal mandates that benefit workers and America as a whole. They seek to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state.

Progressive values strongly benefit America. They advance American society by promoting justice and economic stability, protecting worker rights, and ensuring fair wages. Government regulations create safer workplaces, prevent exploitation, and help sustain a middle class that drives consumer demand.

Republicans and Democrats alike can be progressives.

…

As a related topic, let’s recall there are six national goals outlined in the Constitution. Union… Order… Defense… Welfare… Justice… and Liberty…

Some might view the goals as having different priorities. For example, conservatives might lean toward order over justice, while progressives might choose the opposite. But the truth is that all six goals carry the same weight.

So … if conservatives and progressives see different priorities—but the goals themselves are equal—then we need both perspectives to achieve them. Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.

Now that we have shared context, that brings us to this week’s question.

Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’

Representative AOC and Jon Stewart

On the January 23 episode of The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)—better known simply as AOC—joined host, hilarious comedian, and all-around great American Jon Stewart for a lengthy interview.

At around 45:20, Stewart and AOC begin a portion of their conversation that YouTube has named “What is the Process of Redefining what the Democratic Party Represents?”

Stewart comments—

“People are thirsty for … leadership. The Democrats, I think, have had a really difficult time responding to that thirst, responding to that action. What is the process then of redefining what this party is, what it represents moving forward, and are there leaders there?”

Representative AOC responds—

“If you ask a working-class American or just any normal American, what is a Democrat? What do they stand for? They will not really be able to give you a clear answer …”

A meaningful exchange.

…

Okay. Let’s tie our thoughts together.

We need both conservative and progressive ideas to attempt to achieve the goals outlined in the Constitution.

Conservatives have not wavered in their commitment to personal responsibility. They believe workers are responsible for their own wages. They oppose unfunded federal mandates. They support business profitability, recognizing the challenges of balancing profitability and survival.

Now for progressives. While both parties can have progressives, Democrats lean that way more often.

So…to answer AOC’s question…what do progressives stand for?

Working-class Americans no longer see a strong group of progressives fighting on their behalf. Progressives face a crisis of identity. They have become the party of government, not the party of the people. Leaders like AOC openly acknowledge this gap.

Let’s ask again. Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’

Do Progressives Believe in the People?

There are two points to be made here.

The first is a fundamental truth in life. Never reinforce your shaping effort—focus everything on the decisive action that brings real change. Save and expend all your resources, or as many as possible, towards your decisive effort.

For progressives, this means fighting against conservatives is a waste of time and resources. Political battles for the sake of winning political theater don’t serve the American people. In the fleeting moments when progressives have both the public will and the political consensus to create meaningful change, every ounce of decisive effort must be spent on delivering tangible results. Wasting that energy on ideological fights, political purity tests, or symbolic victories only kills progress for those who need it most.

Progressives need to fight for the people, not against conservatives. Every moment spent trying to score points against the opposition is a moment not spent improving wages, expanding opportunity for kids who live in projects or leaky trailers, or securing a better future for working Americans. If progressives are serious about governance, their singular focus must be delivering real, lasting benefits to the people they claim to represent. Anything less is a waste of precious time and resources.

The second point is even more fundamental: the point of government is not government.

Government does not exist to serve itself. It is not meant to perpetuate its own power or sustain bureaucratic inertia. The entire premise of American governance is that it is of, by, and for the people. That means every policy, every law, and every decision should be measured against a simple standard: Does this advance American interests toward achieving one of our six goals for the American people?

Progressives lose sight of this. Their attention drifts to prioritizing expanded government authority or making governance easier over empowering individuals. They allow their focus to change toward maintaining political control instead of achieving progress for working-class America. This breaks the trust of the people they claim to serve.

So the question remains: Do progressives believe in the people? If they do, then their path is clear. They must fight for them, not against their political opponents. They must use government as a tool to uplift Americans, not as a means to sustain itself. And they must never forget that political victory is not a measure of success. It’s measured by the prosperity of the working-class people they serve.

Many of us are both conservatives and progressives. We strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. And we believe in progress toward achieving our national goals for the American people.

Because we are both conservatives and progressives, we can reword our takeaways to make them more relevant.

Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.

Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.

The point of government is not government. Political victory is not a measure of success.

We measure our success by the prosperity of the working-class people we serve.

We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, we introduced Project 2025's first stated goal: "Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children." This week, we'll expand on that thought.

How could we improve the well-being of the American family while promoting interwoven, overlapping communities?

Presidential Perspectives on Homeownership: A Pillar of American Values

The conservative fourth President of the United States, and the primary author of the US Constitution, President James Madison: The Freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In modern verbiage, we might paraphrase this by saying, ‘The property owners of the country would be the best protectors of Republican liberty.’

The liberal transformative thirty-second President of the United States, and a central figure in guiding the nation through the Great Depression and World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt: A nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable.

The GI Bill

On June 22, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 into law. The bill passed both the House and Senate unanimously and became commonly known as the GI Bill.

The GI Bill enabled veterans returning home from World War II to access higher education, job training, and home ownership. By 1951, eight million veterans used the benefit to advance their education, and another two and a half million used it to buy a home, farm, or business.

The bill reshaped social, economic, and educational landscapes in post-WWII America. It led to unprecedented levels of college attendance and homeownership among veterans of working-class backgrounds. The surge in educated and financially stable individuals contributed significantly to the growth of the middle class and the expansion of the US economy in the decades following the war.

The GI Bill demonstrated that the government could successfully act through the capitalist housing market to set conditions that would prompt housing market growth.

Owning a home became synonymous with the American Dream. It symbolized stability and a better future. The increase in homeownership shaped the cultural landscape of America, promoting values centered around family, home, and community.

***Note*** The 1950s was a time of extreme racism and unequal treatment of Americans. We should not return to the American culture of the 1950s.

In sum, with the GI Bill, government leaders acted through the capitalist housing market to set conditions to spur housing market growth. How did the capitalist housing market respond?

The Capitalist Housing Market Responds

The capitalist housing market responded by building homes for first-time homebuyers. Let’s look at an example.

Following World War II, America faced a severe housing shortage. Millions of veterans came home needing housing, adding sudden and intense demand to the housing market. During the war, construction materials and labor were redirected toward the war effort, significantly reducing residential construction. Young Americans were having babies at a high rate, birthing a generation we call the Baby Boomers.

Through this storm, families struggled to find suitable shelter. Some lived in boxcars, chicken coops, and large iceboxes.

Enterprising business leaders recognized the potential for profits in the housing market and sprang into action.

On August 2, 1947, Levitt & Sons broke ground for Levittown, New York, the first of three Levittowns they developed. Levittown and similar projects gave rise to the American suburbs and promised homeownership for working-class Americans who could not have dreamed of homeownership before the war.

The influence of Levittown extended beyond veteran communities. Builders across the country adopted the Levittown model, improving housing availability and making homes more accessible and affordable. The construction boom created jobs that benefited communities nationwide, improving the standard of living for many Americans. The demand led to innovation in building technology and practices, reducing costs and increasing the speed of construction.

New housing rules gave Americans new economic benefits. Before the new Veterans Administration (VA) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) initiatives, first-time homebuyers had to put down an average of 58% of a home's purchase price to secure a mortgage (source: Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 204 and 236.) With the new rules in place, Levitt & Sons could qualify veterans for mortgages with no money down.

Over time, the GI Bill, Levittown, and similar initiatives shaped the American landscape and made homeownership a central element of the American Dream. National leaders expanded housing availability through the GI Bill and other initiatives, causing homeownership rates to soar by 20% from 1940 to 1960. Homeownership brought stability to many Americans of that generation.

Could we apply the GI Bill model to improve the well-being of American families and promote interwoven, vibrant communities? How might we incentivize young generations to protect American liberty and contribute to their communities?

There’s another personal piece relevant for context here.

I once returned home from fighting in a combat zone. I rotated out of theater, flew back to Baltimore, stayed overnight, and had my first bourbon in months. The next day, I flew the rest of the way home. I came home to my wife and one-year-old, and to a house we had purchased with the assistance of a GI Bill loan. The GI Bill cemented our stability and community reintegration.

In the months I was gone, I had forgotten parts of American culture. Everything was shockingly different—the cars, music, beautiful farms and ranches, churches, and communities. It was good to be back in America.

It’s not just veterans who make America great. Americans make America great.

Veterans serve their country with distinction, and so do other Americans. They volunteer at arts and theater events, nonprofits, and churches. They help keep neighborhoods safe and respond to fires and crashes. They volunteer their time and talents to improve their communities. Just as the GI Bill provided veterans like me with crucial support, extending homeownership benefits to Americans who serve their communities could strengthen our national fabric.

Should we incentivize civilian service with housing benefits akin to the GI Bill for veterans to enhance the well-being of American families and build cohesive communities?

There would be many specifics to iron out. How many years of community service would qualify? How would we verify that individuals met their commitments? Would all nonprofits qualify?

I’m inclined to believe that the vast majority of people are good, and we need to extend benefits to first-time homebuyers simply because it’s the right thing to do for American families and, by extension, the country. Too many presidents from both parties across our history share the same opinion to believe in random chance.

However, part of the legislative process is communication and deliberation between parties. We should have frank discussions about how to strengthen American families while benefitting communities.

Let’s tie this all together.

Government leaders from both parties have demonstrated that we can act through the capitalist housing market to set conditions to spur housing market growth. The housing market has demonstrated that it responds to these initiatives.

Americans make America great, and many Americans serve their communities.

We can encourage Americans to serve their communities with homebuyer benefits to improve the well-being of American families and promote interwoven, vibrant communities.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Some more Presidential Perspectives on Homeownership

President Thomas Jefferson: The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

President James Madison: The Freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty.

President Calvin Coolidge: No Greater contribution could be made to the stability of the Nation, and the advancement of its ideals, than to make it a Nation of homeowning families.

President Herbert Hoover: [Homeownership makes] a more wholesome, healthful and happy atmosphere in which to bring up children.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: A nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable.

President George W. Bush: To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will…widen the ownership of homes and businesses…preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.

President Barack Obama: We’ll make owning a home a symbol of responsibility, not speculation — a source of security for generations to come, just like it was for my grandparents.

To receive new written and audio posts, consider becoming a subscriber.

Do national leaders have a duty to enhance the welfare of citizens?

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) was a Roman statesman, orator, lawyer, and philosopher widely regarded as one of the Roman Republic’s greatest orators and writers.

During the late Roman Republic, extreme wealth disparity tore the social fabric of Rome. Conquests brought immense wealth, but only to a few elite families. This wealth disparity led to struggles between the plebeians (the people) and patricians (the aristocrats) over land, political equality, and access to resources.

For much of the republic, soldiers were typically small landowners. As wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, aristocrats increasingly bought up this resource. Soldiers became landless men. Commanders promised the soldiers care and stability, and soldiers became more loyal to their commanders than to the republic.

Powerful and ambitious leaders like Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Crassus rose. These men formed an unofficial political alliance that historians call the First Triumvirate to challenge the republic’s governance structures. Their rivalries and personal armies led to a series of civil wars.

Political corruption ensued. Politicians bought offices and votes, eroding the principles of Roman governance and public trust. Influential individuals exploited the largely unwritten and tradition-based Roman Constitution, pushing its boundaries to achieve their ends and ultimately breaking constitutional norms.

The assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC led to more civil wars. Octavian (later Augustus) prevailed in these conflicts and became the first emperor of Rome in 27 BC, marking the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire.

In this turbulent context, Cicero championed the potential of philosophy to improve governance and society. He believed in applying philosophical concepts pragmatically to address Rome’s challenges. His work, De Re Publica (On the Republic, written around 54-51 BC), explored the nature of Roman government and proposed an ideal state structured around a balanced mix of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This mixed system, he argued, would prevent tyranny by dividing power among the people, the senate, and a monarch, ensuring no single group could dominate.

Cicero discussed the importance of setting a moral example and leading by that example to foster unity and ethical behavior among citizens. He posited public leadership as a service to the nation and not a means to accumulate personal gain, power, or wealth. Leaders are the guardians of the state’s traditions and must strive to enhance the welfare of its citizens.

Cicero's republican philosophy balanced moral integrity, the rule of law, and the distribution of power. His philosophy later significantly influenced John Locke and Enlightenment Liberal thought and, therefore, the US Constitution.

It’s been almost 2100 years since Cicero penned his theses, but much of his philosophy is still relevant today. Sufficiently dividing power between groups weakens each group, preventing them from robbing individuals of their liberty. National service is a privilege and not a means to achieve personal gain. National leaders must strive to enhance the welfare of citizens, not to strengthen their own political party.

Recently, Project 2025 has sparked debate over its vision for America’s future. Their work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, claims to advance “positive change for America” towards “the drive to make our country better.”

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C. think tank, is leading the effort. We shouldn’t be against think tanks positing ideas. American leaders need to care about America, not party; good ideas come from many sources. The balance between liberal and conservative thought is a cornerstone that makes America great.

America needs strong liberal leaders to advance progress toward the opportunity for all Americans to be born from nothing and achieve greatness. After all, one of the foundational beliefs in America is that we are all created equal and have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Throughout our history, we have fallen short of this stated goal, and we need liberal leaders to advance our progress toward it.

America needs strong conservative leaders to conserve the institution that is the structure of our constitutional democratic republic. Conservatives advocate for limited government and divided power, a philosophy outlined by Cicero and Locke. They argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives, successes, and failures rather than rely on government assistance or intervention. This principle is consistent with Cicero’s and Locke’s views of moral integrity and the natural right of individuals to own themselves and the product of their labor. We need strong conservative leaders to preserve the institution that is the American Republic.

So, I have no heartburn with the Heritage Foundation or other think tanks proposing ideas, many of which are outlined in Project 2025.

My problem with Project 2025 is that it’s poorly done. As a conservative playbook, it falls short. It needs to reorient towards the decisive effort of American conservatism and focus on preserving the American institution.

Here’s an example…

Page 4 of the report outlines Project 2025's Promise #1: Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children. The first sentence of the section is…

The next conservative President must get to work pursuing the true priority of politics—the well-being of the American family.

This is an admirable goal. It echoes back to Cicero’s position that leaders must strive to enhance the welfare of citizens.

Unfortunately, the reader can’t make it past that same page without reading about fatherlessness and the terms “woke progressivism” and “woke culture warriors.”

This continued effort to participate in a perceived culture war is unproductive. The premise of individual liberty is that if you have the right to individual liberty, so does everyone else, even if they express it in a manner objectionable to you. Leaders need to stop focusing on culture wars and focus on governance.

Further, focusing on culture wars detracts from the goal of improving the well-being of the American family. And we severely need to enhance the well-being of the American family.

What’s the one thing that, more than anything else, promotes families to have economic and, therefore, community and emotional stability? Is it whether a woman can make decisions about her property? Which books are available for a child in a school library? The tax status of my local church? Which bathroom a teenager can use? No. None of these.

More than any other factor, families need to be able to heat their houses and put food on the table. To have rooms to heat and tables to put food on, families need the opportunity to buy a home.

One of our nation’s best presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, was a conservative who championed a square deal for the American people. And we need a conservative approach to our housing market challenge.

We aren’t going to achieve stability through homeownership for families with government programs. Government programs build government housing, and individuals don’t get to own government housing.

Instead, we need leaders to work through the market to make homeownership attainable for families. We need to enable first-time homebuyers the opportunity to buy homes at a low interest rate so they can have stability in any financial environment. Families need to be able to purchase these homes with the earnings from one full-time job to have the stability of a parent at home.

This is just one example of a conservative approach to pursuing the true priority of national leadership—the well-being of the American family. This most decisive family support element needed the center-stage spotlight in Project 2025.

From the Cicerean philosophy of the ancient Roman Republic to John Locke's ideas that underpin the US Constitution to the legacy of the great conservative President Teddy Roosevelt, it is evident that national leaders have a duty to enhance the welfare of their citizens.

We need to stop focusing on culture wars and focus on governance.

Homeownership is the decisive governance element that would improve the stability of American families.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

I strongly condemn the assassination attempt on President Trump. We have radical disagreements across America, but political violence is reprehensible.

I invite you to read Financial Security for Young Americans for more about homeownership for young Americans and a pitch to support first-time homebuyers.

I invite you to read or listen to Small, Affordable Homes to consider how we might work through the market to expand the availability of homes for first-time homebuyers.

I invite you to read or listen to Has Capitalism Failed the Housing Market to consider a national leader’s duty to work through the market.

I invite you to read or listen to Progressives for more details about the great conservative President Teddy Roosevelt.

Last week, the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of presidential immunity during official acts, and many people were very upset about it.

Many hysterically claimed the court weighed in favor of conservatives and ruled the court gave the president unchecked power. Media sources said it was a “Blueprint for Dictatorship.”

Should we charge every president with a crime when they leave office?

During the Global War on Terror, the US killed about 4700 suspected or alleged terrorists with drone strikes. The majority of those drone strikes occurred during President Obama’s tenure.

The harsh truth of those drone strikes is that President Obama acted in accordance with what he believed was his duty. All presidents are bound by oath to act…

And will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

On May 22, 2013, the Brookings Institute reported that former US Attorney General Eric Holder said some of those drone strikes killed American citizens. Those Americans were suspected terrorists and were internal enemies of the state.

However, President Obama ordered, and the military conducted, the strikes against American citizens in violation of several Constitutional principles. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The killing of American citizens without a trial or any form of judicial process directly violates this fundamental right. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to a trial. Executing American citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial denies them this constitutional right.

In Hobbesian terms, the absence of a world government results in global anarchy and compels states to ensure their own security. Violent extremism threatens US security. The president has a duty to maintain regional stability, which is crucial for protecting the American homeland.

Should we have charged President Obama with crimes when he left office? No. He had immunity for the conduct necessary to support his Constitutional duties.

How about FDR and Heart Mountain?

During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent through Executive Order 9066. Conditions in the camps were brutal, with inadequate housing, poor sanitation, and limited medical care. The forced removal of Japanese Americans from their homes without warrants or cause and the confiscation of their property violated the 4th Amendment. Detaining the Americans without charges or a fair opportunity to contest their detention in court violated their right to Habeas Corpus (Article I, Section 9).

We now consider the internment of Japanese Americans one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties in American history. The event demonstrates the importance of protecting constitutional rights, especially during times of national crisis.

Would we today charge FDR with crimes?

One could argue that both Obama and FDR acted in what they believed was the nation’s best interest. But what about clear cases of corruption?

How about President Warren G. Harding, who transferred control of the Teapot Dome oil field in Wyoming to Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall? Private oil companies then paid Fall bribes equivalent to about $6 million today. Though Harding didn’t get any money, what role did he play in the event?

Or Ulysses S. Grant and the Whiskey Ring Scandal? The ring involved bribing Treasury Department officials to underreport the amount of whiskey produced, reducing owed taxes. The conspirators then shared the defrauded taxes amongst themselves. Only President Grant’s testimony on behalf of his personal secretary and friend, General Orville Babcock, saved Babcock from conviction for his participation in the ring.

More than one president could have been subject to criminal charges for their actions. Are presidents above the law? No. But we have treated them with immunity.

Back to the matter at hand.

We can judge whether President Trump’s acts on and around January 6th were official duties, and the courts will weigh in in the coming months. I doubt the courts will turn fast enough to judge his role in the mob desecration of the US Capitol Building before the election. The real jury of whether the mob attempted to overthrow the republic will be the American people on November 5th.

However, regarding immunity, America has demonstrated for many years that presidents have immunity during official acts and have presumptuous immunity for even unofficial acts. The Supreme Court’s decision only affirms how we have acted since our earliest years.

America is an imperfect democratic republic. Presidents make tough choices, and we need to elect people of high character.

Presidents from either party must be able to act to preserve, protect, and defend the republic without fear of being charged with a crime when they leave office.

May God bless the United States of America.

Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove the concept works, and advocates say we should support it.

Is Universal Basic Income a silver bullet solution to societal issues or a band-aid on deep wounds?

What is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a financial policy proposal under consideration by many municipalities across America. Under UBI, the people of a municipality, acting through the government, provide regular, unconditional payments to all citizens regardless of income or employment status.

The premise of UBI is to ensure a minimum standard of living and reduce poverty and inequality. UBI programs intend to simplify welfare systems, reduce bureaucracy, and provide economic security for the lowest-income earners.

On June 22, 2024, in the LA Times, writer Rebecca Plevin reported, “More than 200 guaranteed-income experiments have popped up nationwide over the last four years in response to the pandemic, as well as racial injustice and widening economic inequality.” In a separate piece published June 26th, Business Insider identified a couple of residents of St. Louis, Missouri, sued the City of St. Louis over objections to its taxpayer-funded UBI program.

How is UBI funded?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposals are funded through various mechanisms. Common funding sources include:

* Private contributions. Funding for some pilot programs, such as those used for Arlington’s Guarantee Pilot Evaluation conducted in Arlington, Virginia, were from private sources. The Arlington Community Foundation acquired all funding from private donors, business donations, faith communities, and other foundations. They used no public dollars for the study.

* Taxes. Proponents often pose income taxes, consumption taxes, or new forms of taxes such as a carbon tax or wealth tax for UBI funding.

* Reduction of Existing Welfare. Some proposals suggest funding UBI by streamlining or eliminating current welfare programs and redirecting those funds into the UBI pool.

* Other sources might include natural resources such as Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend. They might also include investment funds owned by the state or from sources like surplus revenues.

UBI Programs Work

So many municipalities are considering UBI because the pilot programs prove it works. Americans aren’t irresponsible with money, or lazy, or stupid. They use the money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications.

They work MORE with the extra funds, not less. And the work they do is more meaningful.

Or, to be more correct, Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives.

With so much decisive information proving UBI works, I should be arguing for UBI, right? But I’m not going to.

UBI is a Symptom, Not a Solution

Proponents of UBI argue that the programs reduce poverty, simplify welfare, reduce the cost of administering welfare, reduce income inequality, and have still other benefits. They write passionate pieces that convey how UBI programs help those most in need. I don’t disagree with their position.

Though I often write about problems, including low worker wages and how we might address housing challenges, that’s not my decisive effort.

I write about America. I believe in the principles that formed America and in individual liberty. I believe that given the right conditions, individuals will succeed on their own.

UBI programs demonstrate that America is at a crossroads. They are symptomatic of deeper structural issues rather than a solution to them. UBI programs demonstrate that conditions in America are such that individual Americans aren’t surviving on their own. The system is broken. More people than ever are working multiple full-time jobs to survive. Buying housing is out of the question for many. For the first time since the end of the Great Depression, more 18- to 29-year-old adults live with their parents than on their own. UBI programs highlight that the problem is so dire that some would give others money for not even working.

UBI programs are a Progressive response to poverty. I’m not a huge fan of Progressive solutions to move money when there are other options.

It’s not that I’m anti-government. Government is necessary. It provides a means for individuals to combine resources and generate essential services that individuals cannot achieve on their own, such as infrastructure, defense, and education. Without government, we have no interstate market access, no roads for transit, and no financial system to support trade between individuals.

At the same time, government is inherently wasteful. One of the most studied examples that highlights this phenomenon is the US military’s tooth-to-tail ratio, or the ratio of combat effects forces to support forces. At no point in the last 150 years has the military had more than 28% of combat effects forces, with 72% support forces. These support forces have familiar names such as Human Resources (HR), finance, maintenance, and logistics.

All government entities have support forces, and this same principle applies. Larger government waste isn’t studied the same way outside the Department of Defense. But even if the percentages are somewhat different, the point is the same: Funneling money through the government results in the majority of that money being absorbed by support functions. The support is necessary, but it reduces the money that can be directly applied to the problem.

The American people paying government officials to provide a service benefitting multiple Americans is a good use of resources. Yes, the government still gets this funding, but the intent is to provide the service, and the government can achieve the intent.

The American people paying government officials to send their money to an individual living in poverty doesn’t make sense. They just wasted 70% of it funneling it through the bureaucracy. Americans need to earn sufficient money from their work, and the rules need to support wages high enough for individuals to succeed. The intent the government can achieve is to make the rules work for individuals.

As we grapple with UBI and the broader role of government in America, we can revisit the wisdom of historical figures who navigated similar crossroads.

Edmond Burke is the world’s most renowned Conservative philosopher. Just before the American Revolution, Burke sounded a strong call for systemic change to conserve the integrity of the British Empire. He urged King George to address the British government's missteps and expressed that England should pursue conciliatory measures with the colonies.

Burke knew that saving the British Empire meant change.

King George rejected Burke’s counsel, and America was born at war.

If we are going to save the American dream, we can’t say the system is working and bury our heads in the sand.

If Americans can’t succeed as individuals, they will increasingly turn to social programs. America is built on individual liberty, not collective social programs.

When the American people pay tax dollars to fund the government, the decisive effort of those dollars needs to set conditions for individuals to succeed.

Individuals can succeed when they have heat in the house and food on the table from working one full-time job while still being able to go to school at night to expand their skills. They need to be able to buy a house and feed their family on one income. Single mothers need to make enough to pay for childcare so they can go to work and still feed their kids.

To support this individual capability, we need leaders who work for the American people, not just for businesses and not for the government.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Last week, I found myself in the middle of a discussion centered on Presidential obligation and authority. The subject was the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the semiautomatic firearms bump stock ban on the grounds that the Trump administration had overstepped its authority. One passionate advocate emphasized that the executive had a responsibility to protect the greater good, while others said that the ban required congressional action.

Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981, desegregating the US military. More than one million black Americans proudly fought in every theater of operations in World War II, only to return home to face segregation across America. Truman, who himself had grown up with white supremacist views in Missouri, was profoundly disturbed by the treatment of these veterans. He expressed his disgust, stating, “My stomach turned over when I learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten.”

EO 9981 helped set the stage for later broad desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement. It was a major policy change by the executive branch. It used the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to enforce principles of equality and non-discrimination within the armed forces.

Two sections of the executive order are compelling for our discussion. The first reads…

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows…

The Constitution endows the Presidency with both authority and duty. The President holds the authority to lead and execute the federal government's directives and the duty to uphold and enforce the laws and principles delineated in the Constitution.

By referencing the Constitution in the executive order, President Truman made a clear statement that his actions were within the scope of his powers. This responsibility stems from the President's oath of office, which commits to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This oath is a testament to the President's commitment to the law and the principles it upholds.

The second notable section states…

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.

The executive order echoes the Constitution. The Constitution mandates that all branches of government operate consistently with principles of equality of treatment and opportunity.

These broad principles are found in the Preamble as a mandate to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” They are reinforced by the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Furthermore, Article II, Section 3 identifies the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” mandating enforcement of laws in a manner consistent with the Constitution's principles of equality and justice.

Truman signed Executive Order 9981 for the greater good, but it clearly had a constitutional authority and duty component. This is just one example of how a President can use their authority to act for the greater good.

However, another critical aspect of the order was the applicability of the location. Truman ordered equal treatment of all inside the US military. As Commander in Chief, he had the authority to direct desegregation in the services. Outside the executive branch, he didn’t have the ability to order desegregation for all. That feat took overcoming heated resistance and was only achieved 16 years later when Congress finally passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Let’s apply this conceptual philosophy to our question. Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

Yes and no. The Presidential Oath of Office explicitly binds the President to uphold and defend the Constitution and to execute their duties faithfully. This oath grants them authority to govern where this authority applies, primarily within the executive branch. However, it's important to note that it doesn't extend the President's authority to direct actions outside the executive branch. This is a critical aspect of the Presidential role.

How about an example?

Consider taxpayer money: Our taxes fund various government activities, including awarding contracts and grants to companies. Suppose the government awards a contract to Company X, which then hires a worker at poverty wages. Due to these low wages, the worker qualifies for government assistance programs to meet basic needs like food on the table and heat in the house.

The American people end up paying twice for this worker: once through the payment to Company X under the government contract and again through social welfare programs because Company X pays the worker insufficient earnings to meet these basic needs.

This dual payment represents an irresponsible and wasteful use of funds by the executive. Careless and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars violates Constitutional principles. The Constitution compels the President to faithfully execute the law, which includes managing resources effectively and preventing wasteful spending.

But the President can’t direct companies to pay wages that would prevent workers from qualifying for social programs, and companies won’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

The President could sign an executive order directing executive federal agencies to award contracts or grants only to companies that pay all employees wages above the social program level. This order would ensure that government funds are used responsibly and prudently and reduce government spending on social programs for low-income workers.

This approach ensures workers can earn enough to support themselves without needing supplemental government assistance, representing an appropriate use of government funds. It would reduce government spending on social programs for low-income workers. Higher wages could increase consumer spending, boost the economy, and promote sustainable economic growth.

The President should have the authority to sign this order. They aren’t compelling companies to pay higher wages. A company can choose to withdraw from competing for government funding. The executive is directing their branch of government to allocate the funds issued by Congress responsibly and prudently.

Counterarguments that some jobs are entry-level positions that don’t justify wages sufficient for Americans to have food on the table and heat in the house are empty. That is an argument to support social programs.

Americans should not subsidize companies that benefit from taxpayer funding and pay low wages.

The ideal solution is for Congress to pass laws to help Americans succeed as individuals and eliminate the need for broad social programs.

Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

Yes, the Oath implies these duties but gives the President limited power to execute them.

The President can still innovate and act inside their authority for the greater good.

May God bless the United States of America.

It’s not uncommon in my social circle to discuss Constitutional matters. Many of us swore oaths to the Constitution and remain committed to that ideal.

I recently had a friend posit that we should repeal the 12th Amendment. It’s a fascinating topic…

The 1800 Election

On February 17, 1801, following a protracted and contentious 1800 election, the US House of Representatives of the 6th Congress resolved a tie for the office of President between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. After a grueling 36 rounds of ballots, the House chose Jefferson as the third President of the United States. He served in the office from 1801 to 1809.

In the 1800 presidential election, the total number of possible electoral votes was 138. Therefore, candidates needed 70 electoral votes to win the presidency. Sitting President John Adams won 65 votes. Both Jefferson and Burr won 73 votes, enough ballots for each to win the Presidency outright. This deadlock threw the election into the House of Representatives.

This was only the fourth national Presidential election. There were 36 rounds of ballots and backroom negotiations, and the House of Representatives, rather than the vote, decided the presidency.

The original Constitution did not account for political parties and allowed voters to cast two votes for President, with both votes carrying equal weight. The candidate with the most votes became President, and the runner-up became Vice President. The event demonstrated electoral framework shortfalls and led to the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804. The new text outlined:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President…

The Amendment refined the electoral process by requiring electors to cast separate votes for President and Vice President, aiming to prevent future electoral impasses and delineate between the top two offices.

Teams of Rivals

In contrast to the 1800 election, parties today nominate only one person for the Presidency through a series of primaries and caucuses leading up to their respective national convention.

My friend posits we should repeal the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution so that the vice president will be from the opposing party and encourage the parties to work together. This divided relationship occurred in the 1796 election. President Adams had his political rival, Jefferson, as his Vice President.

The 1796 to 1800 Adams-Jefferson partnership was not a high-functioning executive team. However, President Lincoln later took this exact approach and saved the Union.

In her book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin discusses how Lincoln appointed political adversaries to key positions in his administration. Lincoln believed the nation would benefit from the collective talents and strengths of the best minds, even if they had previously opposed him. During America’s most divisive period, he put preserving the Union above all other priorities and didn’t care what political party helped achieve that aim.

Lincoln’s humility gifted him with the ability to harness a wide range of ideas and perspectives, crucial for navigating the complex political and military challenges of the Civil War.

The 12th Amendment Today

The 12th Amendment is still relevant today.

In the 2020 election, Presidential candidates Trump and Biden needed at least 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win the office. President Biden won 306 votes, and President Trump won 232 votes. But it was closer than the final tally suggests.

Three states had razor-thin margins that could have theoretically shifted the outcome:

* Georgia (16 electoral votes) - Biden won by 12,670 votes, a margin of 0.23%.

* Arizona (11 electoral votes) - Biden won by 10,457 votes, 0.3%.

* Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) - Biden won by 20,682 votes, 0.63%.

These states collectively have 37 electoral votes. All told, less than 44,000 votes in these three states swung the office to President Biden. If they had flipped in favor of Trump, neither candidate would have achieved the 270 electoral vote majority required to win outright. Both candidates would have had 269 electoral votes, resulting in a contingent election as outlined by the 12th Amendment.

In such a scenario, the election would have been decided by the House of Representatives, where each state delegation casts one vote. The 12th Amendment specifies this process, which becomes critical when no candidate secures a majority of the electoral votes. At the time, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives of the 117th Congress.

But that wasn’t the makeup of the state delegations.

On January 6, 2021, the day of the mob desecration of the US Capitol Building and immediately following the start of the 117th Congress, the composition of state delegations in the House of Representatives was as follows:

* Democrat-majority state delegations: 22

* Republican-majority state delegations: 26

* Evenly split state delegations: 2 (Georgia and Pennsylvania, which had an equal number of Democratic and Republican representatives)

This means that, in the event of a contingent election in the House of Representatives, the Republican-majority state delegations would have had the advantage, as they controlled 26 state delegations compared to 22 controlled by the Democrats, with two delegations evenly split.

Would that have made a difference in the 2020 election?

The Vote

America is not a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic. Pure democracy threatens individual liberty. Liberty is the foundation of the Constitution. The founders designed America as a democratic republic to protect individual rights and prevent the tyranny of the majority by mediating public decisions through layers of divided power. This structure balances the will of the majority with the rights of the individual, ensuring a stable and just governance system. We try to be a democracy without the problems of democracy.

The founders, in their wisdom, passed the 12th Amendment after the 1800 election. Their aim was clear: to ensure that every vote, every voice, counts. This amendment was a crucial step in minimizing House of Representatives intervention in future presidential elections, paving the way for individual American votes to hold more weight.

We try to be a democracy that protects individual liberty, including the right for individual votes to count.

Should we repeal the 12th Amendment?

It would create more teams of rivals, which could enrich the executive branch with diverse ideas and solutions from across the political spectrum.

It would lead to divisiveness in the executive branch and challenge the smooth operation of government unless managed with exceptional humility, skill, and integrity.

A President who puts America above party could make it work. May we all hope for leaders with the wisdom and courage to put the nation first.

May God bless the United States of America.

This is week 2 of considering…can I register an agricultural product on the blockchain without paying a dedicated blockchain team to help?

We are now in the second week of our capability demonstration to register hops on the blockchain. Last week, we conceptualized how to integrate agriculture and blockchain operations, considered the advantages and disadvantages of different blockchain platforms, and identified our agricultural test bed product.

Agriculture producers interested in directly marketing their product to a specific market benefit from traceability to verify their product’s quality. Blockchain offers an opportunity for traceability. This test will consider: can I register an agricultural product on the blockchain without a dedicated blockchain team to help?

Considering both capability and cost, we narrowed our initial test bed of blockchain tokens down to two: Polkadot and Cardano.

Polkadot supports the use of several token types across various blockchains through a central relay chain. For agricultural cooperatives, Polkadot allows developers to customize blockchain features to suit specific needs, such as supply chain management and financial transactions.

There is a downside to Polkadot: the cost of securing a parachain slot. Winning a slot can be expensive, depending on the demand and the strategic importance of the slot duration. Costs can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in equivalent DOT, making it a significant barrier for smaller projects or startups. Agricultural cooperatives might be able to handle the cost, but individual producers would not.

Cardano offers advanced security and sustainability features, aiming to provide more advanced and efficient smart contract capabilities. Cardano supports smart contracts and decentralized applications. Its smart contract capabilities can handle agricultural traceability, such as recording detailed data about animal or plant care, harvest, and distribution.

Cardano also has downsides. Its user base is smaller than more established blockchains like Ethereum. With a smaller user base, there’s less support and features. And while Cardano is rolling out scalability solutions, those aren’t all in place yet.

A compelling feature of both Polkadot and Cardano is their test net environments. These test nets are essential for experimentation, learning, and validation before deploying solutions on the main net. Test nets allow developers to test blockchain applications for free. This is particularly beneficial for startups and individual developers. These test nets provide a safe environment to experiment and make mistakes without the risk of losing funds or impacting the business.

The intent of this capability demonstration is to understand how we can apply blockchain innovation to enhance agricultural practices and cooperative management.

But we have bigger aims.

Our overall intent is to give agricultural producers another avenue to market their products directly to their customers rather than competing in the wholesale agricultural commodity market. Agricultural producers who use blockchain traceability can provide undeniable proof of the quality, origin, and methods used to produce their goods. For consumers increasingly concerned about these factors, this level of transparency builds trust.

This approach has the potential to return more profits to the agricultural producer. It can eliminate middlemen, cutting fees and commissions out of the supply chain. It can help verify the quality and origin of products, enabling producers to justify premium pricing. Consumers are often willing to pay more for products that are guaranteed to be fresh, organic, sustainably sourced, non-GMO, or free-range, which often carry higher price tags.

Traceability offers consumers a directly sourced, high-quality, fresh, and local product. Consumers can access blockchain data to confirm that the product is directly sourced without intermediary tampering or repackaging. They can see exactly who is responsible for their food production. This fosters a direct connection with the farmer or producer, enhancing trust and supporting local economies.

We are going to start with a test net. Before we can begin interacting with the Cardano test net and deploying smart contracts, we need to set up the development environment.

Set Up The Development Environment

To set up the development environment, we need to install Node.js and the Node Package Manager (npm). These are tools for blockchain development and network interaction. Node.js is a runtime environment that allows us to run JavaScript, and npm is its package manager, which facilitates the installation of libraries and tools. The npm repository has a vast array of libraries and tools to enhance blockchain development.

Node is available for Windows, macOS, or Linux. I’ll be installing the version for macOS…

No problems with installation. The Mac terminal verifies success. A quick “Hello, World!” command reporting back to the Terminal verifies that Node is working.

We also need to install the Cardano Command Line Interface (CLI) to interact with the Cardano blockchain. We can download it from the official Cardano repositories. I’ll spare you the setup, which includes downloading XCode and Homebrew. I will note that installing programming software always feels like I will break something.

Next, we need to become familiar with Plutus.

The Plutus Playground

Plutus is a smart contract platform for Cardano. It’s based on the programming language Haskell. Haskell is a purely functional language, which means that it treats all computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions. Here’s a simple example of a Haskell function:

-- This function adds two numbers add :: Int -> Int -> Int add x y = x + y

You can find more resources and tutorials on the Plutus Platform GitHub page or through the Cardano developers portal.

With some configuration effort, I get a simple “Hello, Haskell!” command to work.

My goal is to get to the Plutus Playground. This test environment should allow us to test Cardano smart contracts.

But I hit a snag. Plutus was a platform maintained online by Cardano, but they’ve stopped. To run Plutus, I have to set up on my local machine. I may not even need Plutus to do what I need.

I told you I would share both successes and failures. I expect failures. No test is a failure, because even if you don’t achieve your goal, you learn something that didn’t work.

Blockchain traceability for agriculture has to be achievable for individual agriculture producers or it won’t gain mainstream adoption. I’ll get there.

Let’s begin the process of registering an agricultural product on a blockchain as a capability demonstration for agricultural cooperatives!

Let’s pick up where we left off with agricultural blockchain cooperatives by addressing a couple of listener questions.

1. With this blockchain partnership, how does the rancher or farmer expect to be paid?

The rancher needs to be paid in US dollars. While cryptocurrency is a form of payment, ranchers and farmers run their operations in dollars. The blockchain tokens do have a value, but their role in the agricultural cooperative is verification of quality and traceability, not payment. The tokens also automate the amount of payment that goes to each rancher in the cooperative based on the number held by each rancher.

This system's advantages include transparency. Each transaction and token exchange is recorded on the blockchain, providing a clear history of ownership, responsibility, and quality. Further, payments are automated and distributed based on the smart contracts, significantly reducing administrative overhead and the potential for human error.

Ranching and Blockchain Pathways Separate from US Dollar Payments

In the diagram above, agricultural operations are colored in red. These steps cover the physical handling of cattle from birth through different phases of growth and finally to processing.

Blockchain operations are shaded in blue. These include the creation of tokens and registering detailed data such as tag numbers, health data, and genetics on the blockchain. Tokens are awarded as cattle progress through various stages, attributing a digital value to the efforts of each contributor.

US dollar payment operations are shaded in green. After the beef is processed and sold, the revenue generated is distributed among participants based on the tokens they hold. Using tokens as a measure of contribution ensures that each participant is fairly compensated according to their role in the value chain. This arrangement links the blockchain-tracked contributions directly to financial rewards.

Agricultural and blockchain operations run concurrently. Once both operations conclude and the beef is sold to buyers, producers receive payment in US dollars.

This hybrid model leverages the strengths of blockchain for data integrity and traceability while maintaining the usability of conventional currency systems for easy commerce and trade.

2. And a follow-up question: don’t the tokens cost money to acquire and use?

Yes, blockchain tokens do have a monetary cost.

For some examples, one Bitcoin (BTC) token is around $67,000 USD, one Ethereum (ETH) token is approximately $3,800 USD, one Solana (SOL) token is approximately $170, one Polkadot (DOT) token is approximately $7 USD, and one Cardano (ADA) token is around fifty cents.

Further, different blockchain systems offer different capabilities.

Bitcoin is primarily used for monetary transactions and as a long-term store of value. Its network is robust and secure, though it lacks the flexibility for complex smart contracts. Because of this, it would not be a good choice as an agricultural cooperative token.

Ethereum offers comprehensive smart contract functionality that supports a wide range of decentralized applications, making it foundational in decentralized finance (DeFi). If a producer found the cost acceptable, it would be a good choice for an agricultural cooperative. Ethereum's capabilities would allow for detailed tracking, verifiable traceability of produce, and automated financial distributions, making it a strong candidate if the cooperative can manage the associated costs.

Solana is an Ethereum competitor. It offers fast transaction speeds and lower costs, making it ideal for high-frequency trading and decentralized applications that require rapid state changes. Solana supports smart contracts and decentralized applications, making it a viable choice for agricultural cooperatives that prioritize speed and efficiency.

Polkadot supports the use of several token types across various blockchains through a central relay chain. For agricultural cooperatives, Polkadot allows for the customization of blockchain features to suit specific needs like supply chain management and financial transactions. Polkadot's scalable architecture ensures that as a cooperative grows, the system can handle increased transaction volumes efficiently. Each Polkadot parachain can process transactions independently, transferring any type of data or asset across chains, aiming to solve scalability issues that currently affect Ethereum.

Cardano is another Ethereum competitor. It offers advanced security and sustainability features, aiming to provide more advanced and efficient smart contract capabilities. Cardano supports smart contracts and decentralized applications.

You can start to see the benefits and disadvantages of each blockchain type. Polkadot seems to be a good place to start because of its customization ability and reasonable cost. But because of its advanced security features and low fees, let’s not rule out Cardano for a cooperative concerned with data integrity.

If we are going to register an agricultural product on a blockchain as a capability demonstration, we need an agricultural product. And we are in luck, as I happen to have some hop plants to use for the capability demonstration.

About Hops

Hops are the flowers of the hop plant Humulus lupulus. They are used primarily to bitter and flavor beer while imparting floral, fruity, or citrus flavors and aromas. Brewers add hops to beer to balance the sweetness of the malt and contribute additional flavors and aromas. The hop plant is a vigorous, viney, climbing, herbaceous perennial. Hops growers train the hops to grow up strings or on horizontal trellises.

The first written use of hops in brewing was recorded in the 9th century. Traditionally, hops were grown in regions of Germany, the Czech Republic, and England, but now the United States, particularly the Pacific Northwest, has become a major hop-producing area.

Strong winds are detrimental to growing hops (and really any plant). Wyoming is known for strong winds. To protect my hops, I'm growing them in a greenhouse structure. The planting date was May 17, 2024. The plants get water from a custom-built drip water system.

I’m growing three varieties of hops: Cascade, Chinook, and Super Alpha. Each has different characteristics.

Cascade Hops

Cascade hops are one of the most popular hop varieties in craft and home brewing. They are known for their distinct floral, citrus, and grapefruit character. Originating in Oregon in the 1950s, Cascade was the first commercially successful American hop variety that came from the USDA breeding program. Cascade hops are used in a wide range of beer styles, particularly American Pale Ales and India Pale Ales.

Chinook Hops

Chinook hops were developed in Washington State and released in 1985. Known for their piney, spicy bouquet, and robust flavor, they are often used in the brewing of American-style Pale Ales, IPAs, and Stouts. Chinook hops are excellent for adding considerable bitterness. Their distinct aroma profile allows them to be used as a late addition to the boil or in dry hopping to enhance the beer’s aroma.

Super Alpha Hops

Super Alpha is a New Zealand hop variety developed in the 1970s. It is noted for its clean bittering properties and a complex mix of lemongrass, pine, and herbal notes. Super Alpha hops are particularly well-suited for Lagers, Pale Ales, and IPAs where a clean, sharp bitterness is desired. Their vibrant, aromatic lift complements other ingredients.

Each of these hop varieties brings a unique set of characteristics to the brewing process. They allow brewers to experiment with a range of flavors and aromas to create distinct and memorable beers.

This hops environment supports plant health and offers a consistent framework for our blockchain experiment.

Future Episodes

In future episodes, we will:

* Set up the blockchain environment and begin the registration process for each hop variety.

* Openly discuss the successes and failures of the blockchain and the growing process.

* Discuss the specific blockchain platform chosen for this demonstration and rationale.

* Integrate real-time data from our hops into the blockchain for live tracking and management.

The capability demonstration's intent is to understand how we can practically apply blockchain innovation to enhance agricultural practices and cooperative management.

Stay tuned!

May God bless the United States of America.

How might we change the premise of Social Security to make it fully funded, more equitable, and sustainable indefinitely?

Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. It’s intended to protect individuals against income loss due to retirement, disability, or death. It supports disabled individuals, survivors, and children and reduces poverty.

Social Security protects taxpayers across American society. Without Social Security, millions would face poverty, straining families and state and local governments, increasing inequality, and destabilizing the economy.

But Social Security isn’t without its problems. It relies on a larger future generation funding the current generation of older Americans. This model is projected to run out of full funding between 2034 and 2037 for the Boomer generation. With the Millennial generation larger than Gen X, the shortfall might right itself during the Gen X retirement period.

We need to explore innovative solutions beyond increasing taxes, reducing benefits, or expanding the workforce. How about we explore an approach so simple that it would be a radical, permanent solution?

Before we begin, we need to establish an objective to guide our mental efforts.

To ensure each future generation has access to the social insurance program, we must orient the program to be:

* Fully funded by the individual, not the following generation

* Funding achievable by an individual in their earnings lifetime

* Sustainable, such that the program will incur no government debt and weather future changes in population growth

This is achievable.

What if the American people invested $100,000 in every newborn, purchasing a 65-year government bond on their behalf that guaranteed a 3.5% annual return?

Then, throughout each individual’s lifetime, both the individual and their employer would contribute to Social Security taxes, repaying this investment. This structure would mirror the existing Social Security tax system.

The individual would have access to the funds when they reach 65 years old. The fund would project to pay out 30 years of benefit to age 95 at a fixed monthly rate.

The government would incur no permanent debt with this approach.

Let’s consider the feasibility of this proposal. If America invested $100K at a baby’s birth and the trust grew tax-free and returned a 3.5% annual return, the $100K would grow to $935,670 when the baby turned 65.

If we wanted that money to last until the individual reached age 95, that $935K would pay $2600 per month, or $935,670 spread across 360 months. $2600 per month is $31,200 per year, which is above the 2024 federal poverty level of $30,000 for a family of four. The average Social Security check today for retired workers is $1915 per month, a figure published in April 2024.

Let’s break it down piece by piece.

Equitable Access and Personal Responsibility

The premise of this approach is equitable treatment and personal responsibility. Every American, irrespective of background, would contribute to and benefit from the fund equally, eliminating disparities from unequal lifetime earnings. Each participant would receive the same initial investment, with repayment terms identical for all. No generation would be responsible for supporting another.

Ultimately, this model aims to balance the collective security of traditional social insurance with the individual responsibility of personal investment.

Once the individual returns the initial investment to the American people, the individual should no longer owe Social Security taxes. Their additional income could be redirected towards other financial goals, such as saving for retirement or investing. This would accelerate financial security as individuals approach retirement, providing more flexibility in financial planning.

Projects 30 years of Benefit with No Permanent Government Debt

In 2020, 33% of the US population was older than 65, and only 0.6% was older than 95.

Projecting benefits to age 95 ensures the program plans for the vast majority of Americans. Those who survive past 95 would continue to receive their benefits. Individuals receiving benefits past 95 is achievable because most don’t survive to that fine old age.

Because Social Security is a social insurance plan and not an individual retirement plan, the funds not paid out to individuals would remain in the Social Security fund.

This is not different from Social Security today.

Access to the Funds

Adjusting the age of funds distribution, similar to Social Security today would result in modest changes to the monthly payment.

If individuals chose to take early distributions at age 62, the payout would change to $2,362 per month.

If individuals chose to wait to take distributions at age 70, the payout would change to $3,118 per month.

Funding Achievable by an Individual

A worker repaying their $100K investment back to the American people is achievable.

Let’s assume a worker works for 40 years by the time they reach 65. At the current Social Security tax rate of 6.2%, that worker would need to earn $806,451 to repay $50,000 in Social Security taxes over their lifetime.

To achieve this lifetime earnings mark in 40 years, the worker would need to have an average annual wage of $20,161.29.

This is a simplified model that assumes consistent earnings over the entire career without interruptions and no change to the Social Security tax structure.

Individual Benefit Clearly Outweighs the Cost

The benefits of this model are exceedingly strong for the individual because the American people made the initial investment at birth. The timing of the contribution is such that the fund can grow for decades before the individual makes their individual retirement account investments.

Repaying the American people’s $100K investment would result in a monthly payment of $2600 to the individual.

If the individual lives 3.2 years past 65, they would receive more than their Social Security contribution.

Further, many individuals will repay their Social Security investment early in their careers and stop paying Social Security taxes. They can then focus the remainder of their retirement planning on their individual accounts.

The proposal has risks, including changes in economic conditions, varying bond yields, and the impact of these factors on the proposed payouts.

The transition from the current model to this sustainable model would require strong political consensus to gain public and political support for such an overhaul.

How might we change the premise of Social Security to make it fully funded, more equitable, and sustainable indefinitely?

To ensure each future generation has access to the social insurance program, we need to reorient the program.

We must make it fully funded by the individual and not the following generation. Individuals need to be able to easily repay the American people’s investment in their earnings lifetime. The program needs to be sustainable, such that it will incur no government debt and weather future changes in population growth.

These goals are achievable, and using this model would ensure future Americans would enter retirement more financially secure.

May God bless the United States of America.

Piece originally published at American Thinker on May 24, 2024, here.

“Drain the swamp” is a metaphor likening the government to a swamp that needs to be drained to remove undesirable elements.

But who’s the swamp? It’s not the people, and characterizing it as such is political theater. Most Americans who work in government want to make life better for other Americans.

The real swamp is the self-serving rules—government working for itself, not the people. We need to drain this swamp.

The Chevron Doctrine

In March 2018, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enacted a rule requiring fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors in the New England groundfish fishery. The intent was noble: to enhance the fishery's sustainability.

Fishermen did not object to the observers. No one is more invested in the sustainability of fisheries than those who rely on them. Both NMFS and the fishermen aim to improve the resource's sustainability.

However, as private small businesses, the fishermen opposed the financial burden of paying for regulatory observers. These observers weren’t aiding the fishermen with their jobs. Regulatory observers are a governmental function; if they are truly necessary, taxpayer dollars should fund them.

Said another way: if it’s not vital enough to justify taxpayer funding, the government should not be involved.

The fishermen challenged the NMFS rule in court, arguing that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act didn’t direct the fishermen to foot the bill for regulatory observers. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia gave the initial ruling, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave a second ruling. Both courts sided with the NMFS, upholding the rule on the grounds that the agency's interpretation of the rule was reasonable. The courts applied the Chevron deference, a principle stemming from the US Supreme Court's Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council decision.

Under the Chevron doctrine, courts defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, provided the interpretation is reasonable.

The fishermen appealed the ruling. The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and in January 2024, the high court heard arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. The court should weigh in this summer, and many experts believe the US Supreme Court will overturn or severely weaken the Chevron deference.

Despite being under the radar, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has the potential to become one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in decades. The decision could reshape US Executive Branch regulatory authority and administrative law. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency relies on Chevron deference to interpret and enforce environmental laws. Department of Health and Human Services enforces provisions of the Affordable Care Act using the Chevron doctrine. The Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board use Chevron deference to implement and enforce labor laws.

In short, every federal agency uses Chevron to interpret statutory mandates to guide national affairs. Chevron allows agencies to create laws, bypassing the legislative process and overstepping constitutional boundaries. Chevron also limits the judiciary's role in checking and balancing the executive branch's power. The court’s deference to agency interpretations precludes them from thoroughly reviewing whether those interpretations align with congressional intent or constitutional principles.

Overturning Chevron would strongly benefit Americans. It would promote federal agencies to work for the people and not for themselves, and it would restore the balance of power intended by the Constitution.

Making Federal Agencies Work for the People

Federal agencies are meant to serve a public purpose.

But a reality of government is that once you create an organization, its primary purpose becomes to sustain itself. While not necessarily bad, the primary purpose of a federal agency is not to preserve itself. It’s to serve Americans, even at the expense of itself.

No federal agency makes rules that make life for itself more difficult, even if those rules would benefit Americans. Federal agencies aim to be more efficient and fulfill their mandate. Sometimes, this means at the expense of Americans.

An example? It would be much better for America if the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) installed solar panels on the endless landscape of federal parking lots rather than our fine American wildlife lands. But BLM intends to install solar panels on nearly a million acres of public lands, threatening wildlife habitat and natural beauty.

Congress did pass Public Law 116-260, authorizing the executive branch to support solar technology and its use on public lands. However, the law also states the executive branch must…“reduce and mitigate potential life cycle negative impacts of solar energy technologies on human communities, wildlife, and wildlife habitats.” The terms “reduce and mitigate” are ambiguous, but the best way to mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife is to leave the land undisturbed.

Putting solar panels atop parking lots would cost more and be less efficient, but it’s better for America than removing wildlife habitat.

Overturning Chevron would require federal agencies to follow the exact language of congressional laws more closely rather than interpreting ambiguous statutes in a way that expands their regulatory scope. This would lead to agencies being more accountable to Americans. Agency actions would have to align more directly with the legislation passed by elected officials. This alignment would ensure agencies operate within their designated boundaries, prioritizing public interest over bureaucratic agendas.

Further, without Chevron deference, agencies would need to provide more rigorous justifications for their rules, making their decision-making processes more transparent. This transparency could enable better public scrutiny and participation in the regulatory process, enhancing democratic governance.

Restore a Balance of Power

The US Constitution, inspired by philosopher John Locke, established a democratic republic with a balance of power divided between three branches instead of a monarchy. Chevron throws off the balance by enabling executive branch agencies to make laws. If one of those branches can make and execute laws and appoint justices to sit on the courts that defer to that branch, the President becomes a king.

America owes allegiance to no king.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states that all legislative powers reside in Congress, reinforcing the premise that agencies should not legislate from the executive branch. Further, the judiciary's role is to interpret the law independently without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations.

This principle is decisive to our national identity, as the foundation of America is individual liberty.

In Federalist Paper No. 47 (1788), James Madison outlined the idea that power concentration in the hands of a few threatens individual liberty. Madison continued the premise in Federalist Paper No. 51 (also 1788). It builds on Federalist 47 by stressing the need for each branch to have both the constitutional mechanisms and personal incentives to check the powers of the others.

Despite these clear national guidelines, the judicial branch currently defers to the executive branch to decide what the legislative branch intends in legislation. This gives the executive branch the authority to make and enforce laws (through interpretation).

Overturning Chevron restores the Constitutional balance of power. Congress makes laws, the executive branch executes them, and the judicial branch interprets ambiguous laws. This balance of power protects against government tyranny.

We need to drain the swamp. The swamp isn’t the people who work in government; it's the overreaching regulations that serve agencies rather than the people.

Federal agencies need to work on behalf of the people, not the agency.

This balance of power is a decisive tenet of our democratic republic. One that we need to restore.

May God bless the United States of America.

I love hearing from listeners and readers. While I don’t always respond with a dedicated piece, I genuinely appreciate the feedback and seriously consider the questions.

This week, John left a comment at Substack on Reward Work, Build Opportunity:

"Perhaps, instead of waiting for Washington D.C. to work for us, those with skills needed to stimulate the economy and create new jobs could work together."

I love the comment. It challenges the premise that “We, the People,” have a collective mandate to organize and address inequality. It reflects frustration with our elected officials’ inability to fulfill their Constitutional duty. But more than that, it suggests a belief that we can make America better—even without complete consensus.

So! … Let’s explore it.

Capitalism

The heart of John’s comment gets into capitalism as our foundational economic system. The fundamental truth of capitalism is best illustrated by a 1776 quote from Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

In a capitalist system, private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity.

Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation. It undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. Supported by order and defense, capitalism is the foundation of America’s high standard of living.

Let’s consider a series of questions as an example of this exceedingly high standard of living. How many of us put milk or cream in our coffee or butter on our toast this morning? How many of us woke up at four to milk the cow and churn the butter? After months or years working on a dairy, you will never take cream or butter for granted. Our national abundance of butter comes from capitalism.

Our butter example highlights one of capitalism’s great strengths: its ability to pool individual effort into a system that delivers abundance for others. Producers work to meet consumer demand in ways that create economic growth and improve living standards for everyone. As John’s comment suggests, collaboration within this framework—through competition, business partnerships, innovation, or shared effort— creates even more opportunity.

A capitalist system aims to enable individuals to act in their self-interest. Its success—economic growth, innovation, and increased living standards—motivates us to keep it as the foundational economic system.

A Simplified Premise

Let’s pose a simplified premise: inside this capitalist system, there are business owners (such as corporations, small businesses, etc.), and there are individual workers.

Businesses are solely responsible to their shareholders. They focus on profit and maximizing business value within legal and ethical limits. Diverting resources away from profit involves using others’ money—shareholders, employees, or customers—without their consent.

Some criticize this focus on profit, but it serves a vital role in a capitalist system. Profits enable businesses to reinvest, innovate, expand, and create more opportunities for workers and consumers. Without this commitment to profitability, businesses fail, jobs disappear, and economic progress stalls. In essence, by focusing on their bottom line, businesses indirectly contribute to the broader economy. Profits are what remains from revenue after expenses, taxes, and costs.

Worker pay is a component of revenue. Businesses generate revenue by selling goods or services, using part to pay wages among other expenses. They also invest in infrastructure, technology, taxes, raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, and research and development.

In sum, high worker pay reduces profitability and threatens business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to cut wages to maximize profits.

Let’s keep pulling on this thread. In this simplified system, individual workers command higher pay by raising their value. Workers seeking to raise their value need to change their position on the ‘Supply and Demand’ scale.

In simple systems, supply and demand explain free market prices. Supply refers to how much of a product or service is available, and demand is how much people want it. This applies to wages, too. Supply represents the number of workers available with the skills needed for a particular job, and demand represents how many employers compete for those skills.

For example, consider a dishwasher. It’s easy to find people capable of washing dishes, though maybe not easy to find someone willing to do so. The perceived value of the job remains low because the skill level required is minimal, and employers can usually find enough workers to fill the gap.

On the other hand, consider a computer engineer. It’s harder to find someone who can do the job because the skills required are specialized and take training, education, and time to develop. The limited supply of qualified engineers, coupled with the high demand for their expertise, drives their wages higher. Employers in this scenario must compete more aggressively for skilled talent. This competition means they offer higher pay and better benefits to attract the best candidates.

This back-and-forth illustrates why raising worker value is vital to supporting both workers and businesses. Workers who invest in learning new skills, gaining certifications, or entering high-demand fields improve their position on the supply-demand scale. They move into roles where their skills are scarce, making them more valuable to employers. As a result, they command higher wages. Businesses leverage their increased value to innovate and grow revenue, which supports paying higher wages.

Now that we have a common understanding of these basics let’s return to John’s comment. His suggestion touches on the idea that workers, business owners, and communities can collaborate within this system to raise worker value and create opportunities that benefit everyone.

Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs

John suggests we work together through our capitalist system to create higher-paying jobs. In a non-regulated free market economy, this means raising worker value so businesses can innovate and grow revenue. As businesses grow, this revenue allows workers to command higher wages in the market.

Working together to raise worker value without taxpayer dollars or regulation likely involves creating a non-profit organization that would enhance the professional development of young workers. This organization could become a collaboration hub where businesses, educators, and communities work toward a shared goal of preparing local workers with in-demand skills.

This non-profit organization would establish a vision, mission, task, and purpose. Funding would come from private sources—particularly businesses needing a more skilled workforce. Local businesses would be instrumental in shaping the training programs, ensuring they align with actual market needs. With these resources, the organization could develop educational and training materials tailored to young individuals with no education and training beyond high school. These workers, equipped with quality skills, would enter businesses ready to innovate, boost productivity, and generate revenue. In turn, they could command higher wages, benefiting both themselves and the broader economy.

This organization would need to track results, such as job placements, wage increases, and productivity gains, to ensure its programs remain effective and relevant.

Of course, there would be severe challenges. Securing funding, maintaining a relevant curriculum, and scaling the program require focus and determination. But with the right partnerships and a clear purpose, it’s possible. Businesses, workers, and communities would need to come together, but the potential payoff of a more skilled workforce and a stronger economy is worth the effort.

It wouldn’t be easy, but it would provide businesses and individuals with a solution that works within our capitalist system. And it supports John’s idea of taking ownership of our shared future instead of waiting for the government to act.

…

In the meantime, we are spending the American people’s money to support society as a result of low wages. Half of American working families needing social program support is wildly excessive. Because businesses exist to achieve profitability, they seek to cut wages to maximize profits. Building consensus to reduce inequality through regulation is necessary and must continue.

Build Consensus…

Changing culture is hard. It takes dedicated and sustained effort.

A part of realigning our culture with the American ideal is building consensus.

Building consensus involves developing messages that resonate broadly across diverse populations, reminding us of our shared goals and the principles that unite us.

If we are to orient our perspective towards the goals that are America, we have to use our decisive effort to achieve our goals. It could take ten or more years.

So! … In the meantime, we focus on these guiding principles: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.

We conserve the institution that is our Constitutional democratic Republic.

We progress toward the opportunity for all Americans to be born from nothing and achieve greatness.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, we examined the goal of traceability in beef markets. Traceability helps ensure a safe food supply and keeps markets open.

Further expanding traceability from birth to beef empowers individual choice and supports American ranchers.

USDA doesn’t have to achieve this goal alone. Blockchain-driven agricultural cooperatives could play a crucial role in achieving these goals. As the demand for traceable and sustainable beef grows, blockchain technology and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) offer transformative solutions for American ranchers.

How could a blockchain-driven Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) revolutionize cattle ranching?

What is Blockchain-Driven?

Imagine a group of bookkeepers who work for different companies. The companies recently formed a partnership. They don’t have much history working together, and each company's survival depends on getting its portion of the revenue from the partnership. Record keeping and transparency are vital pieces of their joint venture.

To ensure each company gets its correct share of the profits, they bring their bookkeepers together in one office. They record all transactions on a large whiteboard on the wall. The bookkeepers arrive and leave at the same time every day, ensuring that everyone can see and verify their records and everyone else's.

That’s blockchain in a nutshell.

In industries where partnerships are critical and trust must be built from scratch, blockchain provides a secure, transparent system for transactions without a central authority.

The bookkeepers working in one office where they can see each other's work mirror the decentralized nature of blockchain. In blockchain, all participants (nodes) in the network have access to the entire ledger. They can independently verify the ledger’s accuracy and the validity of new entries.

The whiteboard represents the blockchain ledger, a cryptographically encoded digital record of all transactions executed and confirmed by the network. The ledger is visible to all parties at all times.

The bookkeepers opening and closing the office together symbolize the consensus mechanism used in blockchains. Like all bookkeepers agreeing to open and close the office, record keepers in blockchain technology must gain consensus before a new block can be added to the chain.

The nature of blockchain ensures that all transactions are openly recorded on the ledger and accessible to all involved parties. This helps prevent disputes and ensures that each party receives their due, per the agreement.

Blockchain provides a framework for fairness, transparency, and security in joint ventures without needing a trusted third party. Applications such as supply chain management, financial services, and other sectors where joint ventures are common can benefit from blockchains. One structure that benefits from blockchain technology is a DAO.

What is a DAO?

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) operate through smart contracts, like automated agreements coded into a blockchain. When predefined conditions are met, these programs automatically execute actions (like payments). This ensures that all participants adhere to the rules without the need for intermediaries like lawyers or banks.

DAOs aren’t governed by a single entity like a CEO or Board of Directors. They operate in a distributed manner across a network of computers. Members of a DAO collaboratively discuss and democratically vote on the rules governing their interactions and the organization's operations. Computers then automatically execute these agreements, mitigating the risks of centralized corruption and avoiding single points of failure.

When agreed-upon business conditions are met, the computer executes specified actions without human intervention. This means the organization can run efficiently and consistently without bureaucracy.

All transactions and rules in a DAO are recorded on the blockchain, making them fully transparent and easily auditable by anyone in the partnership. This transparency builds trust among participants and can make organizational decision-making more accountable and fair.

Essentially, DAOs represent a new approach to organizing collective efforts. By harnessing blockchain technology, DAOs ensure operations are democratic, transparent, and efficient. They represent the potential to usher in a new era of partnership management. Implementing blockchain through DAOs could radically streamline cattle ranching in America.

What is Cattle Ranching?

Cattle ranching involves raising cattle for beef. It requires experts in animal husbandry, pasture management, veterinary medicine, and nutrition. Ranchers must understand and respond to environmental conditions such as weather patterns, soil health, and water availability. They also need expertise in sustainability, market fluctuations, trade regulations, and economic policies to be profitable and make sound decisions.

Further, national cattle ranching is a segregated operation. Figure 7, below (also shown last week), taken from USDA Economic Research Service Report Number 830, depicts the complexity of beef commodities.

An important note about the diagram: most cattle ranchers don’t operate in more than one sphere. Cow-calf operators are not also stockers. Stockers don’t run feedlots, and feedlot operators don’t slaughter and process animals. Each segment of the ranching industry is largely segregated from the next.

Enter the possibility of blockchain-driven Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) revolutionizing cattle ranching.

Let’s take a simple example: A large operation cow-calf operator in Wyoming with excellent genetics, a stocker in Kansas, and a processing agent in Missouri agree to form a partnership. They all want to realize the increased profit potential of the direct-to-consumer market for high-quality, pasture-finished beef. They need to share ownership from birth to beef to achieve their aim. But they individually don’t have the resources to do it alone.

The cow-calf operator needs the partnership because she doesn’t have enough grass to feed her calves year-round. The stocker agrees because he doesn’t have many cows to have calves, but he has outstanding overwintering forage. The processing agent agrees because he thinks there’s more profit potential than in the beef commodity market. The processing agent runs a USDA-inspected facility, so the beef will have a final USDA grade and be sellable to restaurants and grocers. They find a restaurant customer for the finest cuts, the Golden Ox in Kansas City, which overlooks the historic Kansas City stockyards. The rest of the cuts will go to local area butchers.

They agree to establish a DAO. They all agree that Ethereum is a good blockchain platform because of its widespread use and robust support for smart contracts. The calves each have their tag number registered on the blockchain, and the processing agent agrees to maintain the blockchain information post-processing.

They agree that each of them will earn one token, or share, for each calf they transfer to the following individual. So, the Wyoming producer earns a token when a calf arrives in Kansas, and the Kansas producer earns a token when the calf arrives at the processing facility. This arrangement promotes responsibility and ensures each participant is invested in the health and quality of the cattle as they pass through the supply chain.

The total revenue is continually divided by the number of tokens, paying out the total. Over time, their revenue increases because they compete in the lucrative direct-to-consumer beef market instead of the wholesale beef commodity market.

Three ranchers agreeing to a DAO partnership grows into ten, then fifty. It keeps growing and Americans start to expect traceability from birth to beef.

By forming a DAO, the ranchers leverage blockchain technology to:

Track and Verify Genetic Quality and Handling: From the calf's birth through its growth at the stocker to its processing, all data can be recorded on the blockchain. This includes genetic information, health records, feed type, and USDA beef grade.

Automate Revenue Sharing: As each participant adds value (e.g., the cow-calf operator providing calves, the stocker raising them, the processor handling slaughtering and packaging), they receive tokens representing their contribution. Smart contracts automatically calculate and distribute revenue based on the number of tokens each member holds, ensuring fair compensation.

Access Data in Real Time: All parties can access the blockchain ledger to see each animal's status, location, and health. This transparency helps in planning and management.

Maintain Compliance and Quality Assurance: The processing agent maintains blockchain records post-processing, which adds a layer of compliance and quality assurance. Restaurants and butchers purchasing the beef can verify its USDA grade and trace its entire history, a significant selling point.

There are some downsides to setting up the DAO. For example, the DAO partnership maintaining ownership of the animals from birth to beef means the cow-calf producer won’t be paid for two years. Producers would have to accept the technology and arrangement. Regulatory environments for blockchain technologies aren’t the same across the nation. Consumers would need to accept the technology as proof of the quality of the product.

Even with the challenges, there is significant upside to cattle ranchers competing in the lucrative direct-to-consumer beef market instead of the wholesale commodity beef market.

Blockchain-driven DAOs are a way to enhance transparency, increase efficiency, and open up new markets for ranchers.

Traceability from birth to beef enables individual Americans with the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

Traceability further improves ranch management and profitability, bringing more funds to rural communities.

Entities such as blockchain-driven agriculture cooperatives will drive innovation in cattle ranching.

May God bless the United States of America.

Do you know where your beef comes from?

Cattle wear earrings. They’re not decorative; their primary purpose is to assist ranchers in managing and aiding their herds. The earrings have unique patterns of numbers or letters, allowing ranchers to identify individual cattle.

On April 26, 2024, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) passed a final rule requiring animal agriculture producers to use electronic identification eartags for cattle and bison. Electronic identification tags don’t store any information on their own. Rather, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology allows readers and data systems to quickly scan the tags and build comprehensive location and animal health profiles.

USDA calls their earrings Official Identification (Official ID). When the April 26th rule goes into effect, cattle and bison over 18 months of age and all dairy cattle moving across state lines must have electronic identification earrings. Previously, USDA allowed both metal and electronic identification tags. Other smaller classifications of cattle, such as rodeo stock, will require electronic identification. The entire rule can be reviewed here if you are interested in the specifics.

With the rule change, USDA intends to strengthen animal disease traceability (ADT) “to help quickly pinpoint and respond to costly foreign animal diseases.” Traceability is “one of the best protections against disease outbreaks…that allows for quick tracing of sick and exposed animals to stop disease spread.”

Animal Disease Traceability achieves two goals.

* ADT helps achieve a safe food supply.

ADT enables animal health officials at federal and state levels to quickly locate and quarantine potentially diseased or exposed animals. Quicker response times to disease outbreaks prevent potentially contaminated meat from entering the consumer market.

Traceability in beef markets is exceptionally difficult. Figure 7, below, taken from USDA Economic Research Service Report Number 830, depicts the complexity of beef commodities. Electronic tags facilitate real-time data access across the supply chain, enhancing responsiveness during disease outbreaks.

To make the figure more relevant, we need to keep in mind that there are 92 million cattle in the US. Cattle move in a near-constant state between these various locations. There are cow-calf operators, stockers, feedlots, and processing plants across the country. On average (based on a conservative assumption of three movements per lifetime), approximately 285,000 cattle move to a new location in the US every day.

ADT helps achieve a second goal.

* ADT helps keep markets open.

Disease outbreaks shut markets down.

During the 2001 Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak in Britain, officials initially responded slowly, and animals passed the highly infectious and sometimes fatal FMD through markets. Eventually, Britain shut down all animal markets to attempt to contain the disease spread. During the outbreak, Britain slaughtered more than six million cattle and sheep. The total cost of the outbreak exceeded $17 billion US dollars, expressed in today’s dollars. The new USDA rules could prevent such a scenario in the US by enabling quicker disease response.

The benefits of this new rule are clear. Further, its implementation presents two big opportunities for the future of American agriculture: individual consumer choice and improved ranch management.

Individual Consumer Choice

Consumers must have the knowledge and freedom to choose products and services that align with their values and needs.

Economist and philosopher Amartya Sen won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economics. He outlined a capability approach to humanity, detailed in his 1999 book Development as Freedom. Sen posits that true economic development comes from enhancing individual capabilities and choices, not just GDP growth.

For Sen, capability refers to the opportunity to achieve well-being. Freedom encompasses the real choices individuals have to select from these capabilities.

We can debate the attainability of Sen’s ideas, such as transparent, ethical markets. However, the premise that knowledge enables consumer freedom is relevant to our discussion. His theory establishes consumers need to be able to evaluate how well products align with their ethical beliefs, health requirements, or personal preferences. When possible, markets should empower consumers to have sufficient information to make choices that reflect their values and needs.

Let’s apply Sen’s ideas to our question: Do you know where your beef comes from?

To meet Sen’s ideal, consumers need the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their values and needs. In this case, capability is the knowledge of the beef's characteristics and origin, and freedom is the ability to choose based on this knowledge.

Today, unless consumers make a deliberate effort to buy beef directly from a source (such as from a ranch), they don’t have the capability to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

As an example, let’s assume climate change is important to you, and you want to buy beef from companies that do not source beef from deforested Amazon rainforests. Two-thirds of deforested land in the Amazon becomes cattle pasture. The vast majority of rainforest beef goes to China, but the same companies that send this beef to China also deal in beef in the US. You want to stop supporting these companies.

So, you arm yourself with the right knowledge by researching the companies that support deforestation. And then go to the butcher or grocery store, and…you end up buying the steak that looks the best.

Because of the packaging, you don’t and can’t know where that animal came from. The package only has a USDA grade and a price label.

The April 26 USDA rule marks a significant step towards improving traceability from farm to table. Other USDA departments must support this initiative and extend traceability to include detailed labeling. The labeling needs to detail meat sourcing and production practices so consumers can choose products that align with their needs and values.

The second opportunity the new rule enables is improved ranch management.

Improved Ranch Management

Farmers and ranchers compete for profits primarily in either the wholesale commodity market or the specialty beef market.

Beef intended for the wholesale commodity market commands small profit margins. In total, at an average steer dress weight of 885 lbs., the meat packer might generate $2603 ($294.20/100wt) per carcass that grades USDA Choice, or $2546 ($287.65/100wt) per carcass that grades USDA Select, plus the value of by-product such as hides, approximately $100 (11.28/100wt), per the May 3, 2024 National Daily Cattle & Beef Summary. This value represents all grass, water, fuel, and infrastructure costs to raise beef. These small profit margins dictate high throughput at large meat processing facilities. Further, a White House 2021 report found that “four large conglomerates control approximately 55-85% of the market for pork, beef, and poultry, and these middlemen were using their market power to increase prices and underpay farmers.” Due to ongoing price pressures and the meat packer monopoly in the US, meat packers have historically engaged in practices such as price fixing and limiting payments to ranchers.

In contrast, consumers pay premium prices for beef with desirable attributes. For example, wholesale commodity sirloin steak brought $6.75/lb. in April 2024, whereas grass-fed direct-to-consumer sirloin steak brought $13.42/lb. A farm or ranch operation raising beef with preferred credible attributes commands higher market prices and improves ranch profitability.

Because of a lack of traceability, most ranchers have to compete against high-volume producers in the wholesale commodity market when they could be competing in the specialty beef markets instead.

Traceability from birth to beef would further allow ranchers to share information to improve their operational efficiency. As cattle move through stages in the supply system, little or no information is relayed back to the previous rancher. Ranchers don’t know the answers to even simple questions, such as whether cow X or cow Y birthed a calf that graded US Choice. A traceability system from birth to beef would improve management practices for ranchers across the nation, making US markets more competitive.

Traceability would improve profitability for ranchers and bring more funds to their rural communities.

The new USDA electronic identification rule strongly benefits America. It helps officials respond quicker to disease outbreaks.

It helps achieve a national safe food supply.

It keeps agricultural markets open.

But…do you know where your beef comes from?

USDA needs to go further and expand traceability from birth to beef.

This traceability would empower individual Americans with the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

It would further improve ranch management and profitability, bringing more funds to rural communities.

USDA doesn’t have to achieve this goal alone. Entities such as blockchain-driven agriculture cooperatives could strongly assist. USDA has to change the rules to make the effort possible.

May God bless the United States of America.

Чи підтримує Америка боротьбу України проти Росії, бо це відповідає її власним інтересам? Чи слід нам припинити фінансування цих зусиль в Україні?

Філософія

Томас Гоббс у своїй праці "Левіафан", опублікованій у 1651 році, виклав свої погляди на теорію суспільного договору. Протягом цього періоду Англія пережила значні потрясіння. Громадянська війна в Англії була на піку, фракції боролися за владу монархії, релігійні розбіжності та соціальні заворушення. Нестабільність і насильство врешті-решт призвели до суду та страти короля Карла I у 1649 році.

У цьому контексті Гоббс розробив філософію, засновану на досить похмурому погляді на людську природу. Він вважав людство конкурентоспроможним і стверджував, що особи переважно діють у власних інтересах. Гоббс стверджував, що люди роблять вибір, який, на їхню думку, максимізує їхні переваги або користь, навіть за рахунок інших.

Гоббс окреслив, що особи живуть у постійному страху перед насильством, що призводить до життя, яке є "самітнім, бідним, підлим, жорстоким і коротким". Цей концептуальний каркас пояснював, чому він вважав, що суверени необхідні — щоб нав'язувати порядок та запобігати війні всіх проти всіх. На думку Гоббса, особи керуються раціональним егоїзмом. Вони погоджуються укласти суспільний договір і створити суверена, щоб уникнути цього вічного конфлікту та забезпечити власне виживання.

Вибір назви Гоббсом є захоплюючим. Він назвав свої погляди на теорію суспільного договору Левіафаном на честь біблійного морського чудовиська з єврейських текстів. У Книзі Йова, написаній близько 2000 року до н.е., Левіафан є потужною істотою, яку може підкорити лише Бог. У Книзі Псалмів Левіафан чекає, коли Бог його нагодує.

Гоббс використав Левіафана для символізації абсолютистської держави. Щоб підтримувати мир і порядок, держава повинна мати вищу владу, як Левіафан. Ця влада була необхідна, щоб запобігти анархії людської природи, яка могла б привести суспільство до безладу і насильства. Його метафора підкреслювала його аргумент про природу людей і структуру суспільства, виступаючи за сильну центральну владу для досягнення мирного і стабільного суспільного порядку.

Сучасні теоретики застосовують принципи Гоббса до міжнародних відносин.

У книзі "Війна та зміни у світовій політиці", опублікованій у 1981 році, Роберт Гілпін використовує реалізм Гоббса. На відміну від Гоббса, який концептуалізував індивідів та їхні інтереси, Гілпін розглядав нації. Індивіди об'єднуються для розвитку коаліцій, і ці коаліції мають інтереси. Коли коаліції є націями, нації створюють міжнародні партнерства для розвитку своїх інтересів. Ці міжнародні партнерства представляють Левіафан.

Отже, з гоббсіанської точки зору, нації перш за все турбуються про власне виживання і владу. Вони діють самостійно і разом з партнерськими націями, створюючи сприятливі умови та забезпечуючи та підтримуючи свободу дій і вплив. Ці нації формують коаліції та міжнародні партнерства не з альтруїзму, а як стратегічне зусилля для посилення власної сили, стабільності та інтересів.

Підсумовуючи, для забезпечення безпеки у світі гоббсіанського реалізму:

Нації повинні діяти незалежно: нації діють автономно, щоб захистити та просувати власні інтереси.

Нації діють через партнерства: нації вступають у союзи, щоб зміцнити свою силу та стабільність, покращуючи своє стратегічне положення у світі.

Ці принципи застосовуються до фінансування Америкою зусиль України захищати себе від вторгнення Росії. Фінансуючи Україну, Америка діє як незалежно, так і через партнерства, щоб підсилити власну силу, стабільність та інтереси.

Америка діє незалежно заради України та американського народу

Фінансуючи зусилля України захистити себе, Америка діє, щоб підсилити власну безпеку та стабільність. Америку змушують діяти, оскільки Росія фінансує насильницький екстремізм проти Америки. Підтримка України безпосередньо зменшує здатність Росії спонсорувати цей екстремізм, тим самим збільшуючи безпеку для американського народу.

Сьогодні Росія та російські групи спонсорують насильницький екстремізм в Африці та на Близькому Сході. Посол та директор Вільсонівського центру Марк Грін вказав, що «регіон підсахарної Африки зазнав значного зростання екстремістського насильства, що становить більше ніж 40% від загальносвітових смертей, пов'язаних з тероризмом у 2022 році.» Двадцять один рік тому насильницький екстремізм став причиною найсмертоноснішої атаки на території США в нашій історії.

Сванте Корнелл, доктор філософії, співзасновник та директор Інституту політики безпеки та розвитку, свідчив перед Комітетом з закордонних справ Палати представників США у 2017 році. Він підсумував цілі Росії щодо Америки:

Основна мета Росії — підірвати лідерство США у світі, і коли повстанці та терористи якимось чином сприяють цій меті, Росія не має проблем із координацією з ними, підтримкою їх і, звичайно, маніпулюванням ними.

У відповідь на ці загрози США стратегічно обирають підтримку України. Ця підтримка відображає широке зобов'язання стабілізувати міжнародні відносини та забезпечити наші власні внутрішні інтереси. Ми стримуємо подальшу російську агресію, зберігаючи регіональну стабільність, яка є життєво важливою для безпеки американської батьківщини. Зменшення здатності Росії спонсорувати екстремізм зміцнює глобальний порядок, що стримує держави від підриву безпеки один одного.

Насильницький екстремізм загрожує безпеці США. Росія спонсорує насильницький екстремізм. Тому Росія загрожує безпеці США. Америка має діяти самостійно, щоб протидіяти цілям Росії.

У гоббсіанських термінах, відсутність світового уряду призводить до глобальної анархії і змушує держави забезпечувати власну безпеку. Спонсорство Росією насильницького екстремізму є спробою скористатися цією анархією, ослабити своїх противників та змінити баланс сил на свою користь, щоб повернути вплив, втрачений після розпаду Радянського Союзу.

Підтримка США Україні стримує подальшу російську агресію і зберігає регіональну стабільність. Це допомагає забезпечити безпеку американської батьківщини, зменшуючи здатність Росії спонсорувати екстремізм, який міг би загрожувати нашим інтересам. Це також зміцнює глобальний порядок, що стримує держави від підриву безпеки один одного.

Америка діє через партнерства для захисту американського народу

Жодна нація не може одноосібно підтримувати глобальну стабільність.

Міжнародні альянси виступають як паралелі до Левіафана Гоббса. Цей сучасний Левіафан діє як надсуверенна сила, що нав'язує порядок у міжнародній системі та запобігає занепаду в хаос і насильство. Америка діє разом і підтримує наших міжнародних партнерів, щоб підтримувати Левіафана, який сприяє глобальній стабільності.

Гоббс розглядав Левіафана як всемогутнього суверена, який міг нав'язати порядок і запобігти природному стану війни серед людей. У сучасних міжнародних відносинах жодна нація не є глобальним сувереном; коаліції, такі як НАТО, є колективними Левіафанами. Ці альянси об'єднують силу окремих держав, щоб сформувати коаліції, які діють, щоб підтримувати мир і стабільність на широку масштабу.

Зокрема, НАТО було створено після Другої світової війни, перш за все як засіб стримування радянської агресії в Європі. Його роль еволюціонувала до включення управління кризами та кооперативної безпеки. Ця еволюція показує, як НАТО нав'язує порядок і запобігає конфліктам через стратегічний баланс сил.

У лютому міністр оборони США Ллойд Дж. Остін III підкреслив, що ця міжнародна коаліція “надала більше ніж 87 мільярдів доларів допомоги в галузі безпеки Україні з початку війни Путіна, включаючи 15 союзників США, які, як відсоток від ВВП, вносять більший внесок у потреби України у спроможностях, ніж Сполучені Штати”.

Росія загрожує партнерам у наших міжнародних альянсах. Росія проводить кібератаки та кампанії дезінформації проти Америки та наших партнерів по НАТО. Росія також становить фізичну загрозу партнерським націям НАТО, включаючи фізичні загрози проти прикордонної країни Фінляндії, найновішого члена НАТО. Путін стверджує, що загрожує нашим партнерам по НАТО, щоб “нейтралізувати загрози, пов'язані з останнім розширенням НАТО”.

НАТО та інші міжнародні альянси діють, щоб нав'язати порядок у міжнародній системі та запобігти хаосу та насильству. Америка діє через ці партнерства, щоб служити нашим власним інтересам та збільшувати безпеку та стабільність для американців.

Наша зобов'язання щодо України, яка не є членом НАТО, є зобов'язанням перед нашими партнерами по НАТО та іншими європейськими партнерами. Підтримуючи Україну, ми підтримуємо міжнародну систему, яку наші альянси впливають.

Твердження про те, що ми не повинні підтримувати Україну, тому що вона не є членом НАТО, і її безпека не має нічого спільного з нашою безпекою, ігнорує наше зобов'язання перед нашими партнерами. Наші партнери по НАТО підтримували операції в Афганістані протягом 18 років разом з Америкою. Чи вплинула наша безпека в Афганістані на їхню? Швидше за все, ні. Але вони виконали своє зобов'язання перед Америкою, і ми повинні зробити те ж саме. Більше того, якби Україна була членом НАТО, ми вже були б у стані війни. Фінансування зусиль України проти Росії вимагає значно менших витрат грошей і крові, ніж військові операції.

І... Конституція США

Ще одне питання, яке ми повинні задати щодо нашого зобов'язання перед Україною, це те, що Конституція США говорить про безпеку. З преамбули:

Ми, народ Сполучених Штатів, з метою… забезпечити спільний захист

Америка існує як нація, щоб забезпечувати безпеку для американського народу, серед інших причин. Це буквально частина причини, чому кожна група людей, організована як штат, погодилася сформувати Союз Сполучених Штатів.

Олександр Гамільтон, пишучи Федералістський нарис № 23, явно виправдав логіку Конституції та окреслив мету Союзу. Його основні цілі включали захист членських штатів, підтримання миру всередині країни та проти зовнішніх загроз, регулювання торгівлі з іншими країнами та між штатами, а також нагляд за нашими взаємодіями з іншими країнами.

Конституція конкретно доручає обраним представникам забезпечувати спільний захист та нагляд за взаємодіями з іншими націями. Це завдання може бути прямо пов'язане з сучасними рішеннями зовнішньої політики. Ми підтримуємо оборону України, щоб стримувати російську агресію, стабілізувати регіон, зменшити загрози для європейських союзників та захистити американський народ.

Прихильність Конституції до спільного захисту є сучасним втіленням гоббсіанського принципу сильної влади, яка забезпечує безпеку та мир. Ця влада підтримує міжнародний порядок та запобігає широкій регіональній нестабільності.

Гоббсіанська філософія розглядає людську природу як стан анархії та насильства. Його Левіафан представляє потужний символ порядку та стабільності.

Жодна нація не може одноосібно підтримувати глобальну стабільність.

Щоб здобути та підтримати безпеку для американського народу, Америка має діяти самостійно та в рамках міжнародних коаліцій, щоб створити цього Левіафана.

Росія спонсорує насильницький екстремізм, який загрожує американському народу.

Росія атакує наші міжнародні альянси, що загрожує міжнародному порядку та безпеці американського народу.

Ми не підтримуємо Україну за рахунок американського народу. Ми підтримуємо Україну, щоб захистити американський народ.

Чи підтримує Америка боротьбу України проти Росії, діючи у власних інтересах?

Ці зусилля відповідають нашим власним інтересам з підтримання глобального порядку та мінімізації насильства.

Нехай Бог благословить Україну.

Is America supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, acting in our self-interest? Or should we stop funding the effort in Ukraine?

Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, published in 1651, presented his views on social contract theory. During this period, England experienced significant upheaval. The English Civil War raged, with factions fighting over monarchy power, religious discord, and social upheaval. The instability and violence ultimately led to the trial and execution of King Charles I in 1649.

In this context, Hobbes developed a philosophy based on a rather bleak view of human nature. He viewed humankind as competitive and posited individuals primarily act in their own self-interest. Hobbes asserted individuals make choices that they perceive maximize their advantage or benefit, even at the expense of others.

Hobbes outlined individuals live in constant fear of violence, leading to a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This conceptual framework explained why he believed sovereigns were necessary—to impose order and prevent the war of all against all. In Hobbes’ view, individuals are driven by rational self-interest. They agree to form a social contract and establish a sovereign to escape this perpetual conflict and ensure their own survival.

Hobbes’ choice of title is fascinating. He named his views on the social contract theory Leviathan in reference to a biblical sea monster from Hebrew texts. In the Book of Job, written about 2000 BC, the Leviathan is a powerful creature that only God can subdue. In the Book of Psalms, the Leviathan waits for God to feed it.

Hobbes used the Leviathan to symbolize the absolutist state. To maintain peace and order, the state must have supreme power, like the Leviathan. This power was necessary to prevent the anarchy of human nature from leading society into disorder and violence. His metaphor emphasized his argument about the nature of human beings and the structure of society, advocating for a strong central authority to achieve a peaceful and stable social order.

Modern theorists apply Hobbesian principles to international relations.

In War and Change in World Politics, published in 1981, Robert Gilpin draws on Hobbesian realism. In contrast to Hobbes, who conceptualized individuals and their interests, Gilpin considered nations. Individuals join to develop coalitions, and these coalitions have interests. When the coalitions are nations, the nations create international partnerships to advance their interests. These international partnerships represent a Leviathan.

Therefore, from a Hobbesian perspective, nations are primarily concerned with their own survival and power. They act alone and with partner nations to create favorable conditions and gain and maintain freedom of action and influence. These nations form coalitions and international partnerships not out of altruism but as a strategic effort to enhance their own strength, stability, and interests.

In summary, to ensure security in a world of Hobbesian realism:

* Nations must take independent action: Nations act autonomously to safeguard and promote their own interests.

* Nations act through partnerships: Nations engage in alliances to bolster their strength and stability, enhancing their strategic position globally.

These principles apply to America funding Ukraine’s effort to defend itself against Russia’s invasion. By funding Ukraine, America acts both independently and through partnerships to enhance our own strength, stability, and interests.

America Acts Independently for Ukraine and the American People

By funding Ukraine’s effort to defend itself, America acts to enhance our own security and stability. America is compelled to act because Russia funds violent extremism against America. Supporting Ukraine directly reduces Russia’s capacity to sponsor this extremism, thereby increasing security for the American people.

Today, Russia and Russian groups sponsor violent extremism in Africa and the Middle East. Ambassador and Director of the Wilson Center Mark Green identified, “The sub-Saharan region has seen a significant rise in extremist violence, accounting for more than 40% of global terrorism-related deaths in 2022.” Twenty-one years ago, violent extremism was the cause of the most deadly attack on US soil in our history.

Svante Cornell, PhD, co-founder and Director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy, testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives in 2017. He summed up Russia’s aims with regard to America:

Russia's main aim is to undermine U.S. leadership in the world, and when insurgents and terrorists contribute to this goal in one way or another, Russia has no problem with coordinating with them, supporting them, and, of course, manipulating them.

In response to these threats, the US strategically chooses to support Ukraine. This support reflects a broad commitment to stabilize international relations and secure our own domestic interests. We deter further Russian aggression to maintain regional stability, which is crucial for the security of the American homeland. Reducing Russia's capability to sponsor extremism strengthens the global order that discourages states from undermining each other's security.

Violent extremism threatens US security. Russia sponsors violent extremism. Therefore, Russia threatens US security. America must act on its own to counter Russia’s aims.

In Hobbesian terms, the absence of a world government results in global anarchy and compels states to ensure their own security. Russia's sponsorship of violent extremism is an attempt to exploit this anarchy, weaken its adversaries, and alter the balance of power in its favor to gain back the influence it lost when the Soviet Union dissolved.

US support for Ukraine deters further Russian aggression and maintains regional stability. This helps secure the American homeland by reducing Russia’s capability to sponsor extremism that could threaten our interests. It also strengthens a global order that discourages states from undermining each other’s security.

America Acts Through Partnerships to Protect the American People

No single nation can unilaterally maintain global stability.

International alliances serve as parallels to Hobbes's Leviathan. This modern-day Leviathan acts as a super-sovereign power that imposes order in the international system and prevents descent into chaos and violence. America acts with and supports our international partners to maintain the Leviathan that promotes global stability.

Hobbes viewed the Leviathan as an all-powerful sovereign that could impose order and prevent the natural state of war among humans. In modern international relations, no single nation is a global sovereign; coalitions such as NATO are collective Leviathans. These alliances aggregate the power of individual states to form coalitions that act to maintain peace and stability on a broad scale.

NATO, in particular, was established in the aftermath of World War II, primarily as a means of deterring Soviet aggression in Europe. Its role has evolved to include crisis management and cooperative security. This evolution shows how NATO imposes order and prevents conflict through a strategic balance of power.

In February, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III highlighted this international coalition has “committed more than $87 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Putin's war—including 15 U.S. allies that, as a percentage of GDP, contribute more to Ukraine's capability needs than the United States.”

Russia threatens partners in our international alliances. Russia conducts cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns against America and our NATO partners. Russia also poses physical threats to partner NATO nations, including issuing physical threats against border nation Finland, NATO’s newest member. Putin claims to threaten our NATO partners in order to “neutralize threats connected to the latest expansion of NATO.”

NATO and other international alliances act to impose order in the international system and prevent chaos and violence. America acts through these partnerships to serve our own interests and increase security and stability for Americans.

Our commitment to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, is a commitment to our NATO and other European partners. By supporting Ukraine, we support the international system that our alliances influence.

Arguing that we shouldn’t support Ukraine because it isn’t a NATO member and its security has nothing to do with our security overlooks our commitment to our partners. Our NATO partners supported operations in Afghanistan for 18 years alongside America. Did our security in Afghanistan impact theirs? Likely not. But they honored their commitment to America, and we need to do the same. Further, if Ukraine were a NATO member, we would already be at war. Funding Ukraine’s efforts against Russia requires significantly less treasure in money and blood than military operations.

And…The US Constitution

Another question we should ask regarding our commitment to Ukraine is what the US Constitution says about security. From the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…provide for the common defense

America exists as a nation to provide security for the American people, among other reasons. It’s literally part of the reason each group of people, organized as a state, agreed to form the Union of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton, writing Federalist Paper No. 23, explicitly justified the logic of the Constitution and outlined the purpose of the Union. Its primary goals included defending the member states, maintaining peace within the country and against external threats, regulating commerce with other nations and between states, and overseeing our interactions with other countries.

The Constitution specifically tasks elected representatives with providing for the common defense and overseeing interactions with other nations. This mandate can be linked directly to contemporary foreign policy decisions. We support Ukraine’s defense in order to deter Russian aggression, stabilize the region, reduce threats to European allies, and protect the American people.

The Constitution's dedication to common defense is a modern implementation of the Hobbesian principle for a strong authority to ensure security and peace. This authority maintains international order and prevents broad regional instability.

Hobbesian philosophy views human nature as a state of anarchy and violence. His Leviathan represents a powerful symbol of order and stability.

No single nation can unilaterally maintain global stability.

To gain and maintain security for the American people, America must act on its own and within international coalitions to create this Leviathan.

Russia sponsors violent extremism, which threatens the American people.

Russia attacks our international alliances, which threatens international order and the security of the American people.

We don’t support Ukraine at the expense of the American people. We support Ukraine to protect the American people.

Is America supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, acting in our self-interest?

These efforts are in our own self-interest to maintain global order and minimize violence.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

For those who would argue we should secure our own border first, here’s a link to a four-part series on US southern border security:

The Rise and Fall of an Industrial Giant

The lack of tariffs on foreign steel led to the downfall of American steel. We watched as plants closed and people lost their jobs amid a significant decline in the domestic industry's global competitiveness.

Augustus Wolle founded the Saucona Iron Company in 1857 in Saucon Valley, Pennsylvania. The company moved to Bethlehem in 1861 and rebranded as Bethlehem Steel Corporation in 1903 under Charles Schwab’s presidency. Schwab elevated the company to new heights, making it a manufacturing juggernaut instrumental in shaping American infrastructure. Bethlehem Steel became the largest munitions supplier for the Allies during WWI and produced more ship tonnage than any other US company in WWII.

Bethlehem Steel was foundational to constructing American icons. The company's steel formed the backbone of 80 percent of the New York skyline, including landmarks like the Empire State Building, George Washington Bridge, Madison Square Garden, and Rockefeller Center. Landmarks outside New York included the Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, and the US Supreme Court Building. Throughout the 20th Century, Bethlehem Steel exemplified American industrial leadership.

The landscape shifted in the 1970s and 1980s as cheaper steel imports from emerging markets, including China, began flooding the US market. Asian governments subsidized their steel production, and their imports were priced lower than American steel. Bethlehem struggled to compete due to its older plants, higher labor costs, and stricter domestic environmental regulations compared to those in emerging markets. The company faced layoffs and plant closures.

Globalization intensified in the 1990s with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the prospect of China joining the World Trade Organization. By 2001, unable to innovate or modernize, Bethlehem Steel filed for bankruptcy. In 2003, International Steel Group Inc. acquired the company. Pennsylvania redeveloped the former Bethlehem Steel site into a mixed-use facility featuring a casino, museum, and cultural center.

Today, Bethlehem Steel's legacy continues to inform ongoing discussions in America regarding trade policies, national security, and our economic future, particularly in debates concerning tariffs with China. This history serves as a critical lesson in the consequences of unprotected industries and the importance of thoughtful trade policy.

Current Debates on Tariffs and Environmental Policy

Tariffs are traditional tools for protecting domestic industries, but they also have the potential to address global environmental challenges.

The Wall Street Journal on April 17 reported that President Biden intended to significantly increase tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum products. The proposed tariffs, which would more than triple the current rate to 25% from 7.5%, are part of a broader strategy to protect domestic industries. This move follows the tariffs imposed by President Trump’s administration, further fueling the ongoing debates on trade policies and the steel industry.

There is strong concern about Chinese manufacturing goods flooding the market. To attempt to kickstart its economy, China is pushing cheap goods onto other countries. On April 19, WSJ reported that in the past year, “China exported 95 million metric tons of steel…a sum that exceeds estimates for total U.S. steel consumption in all of 2022.” Experts liken this surge to the early 2000s, which cost the US around two million manufacturing jobs.

We consider tariffs vital to maintaining US manufacturing jobs, capability, and competitiveness. However, another critical aspect often overlooked in discussions about tariffs is the economic cost of climate change.

We debate the cause and impact of climate change, but we can’t debate that it is happening. Some argue that man-made emissions from activities such as burning fossil fuels are the primary cause. They emphasize human activity's impact on increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Others contend that natural phenomena like wildfires and volcanic eruptions are more influential.

No matter your opinion of the cause, the effect is proven. The Earth is warming.

To connect the discussion on tariffs and climate change, we need to make a couple of assumptions. An assumption is a premise or starting point accepted as true for the purposes of argument or investigation.

First, we assume that humankind burning fossil fuels causes a buildup of greenhouse gases, which warms the Earth. The scientific community widely supports this position.

Second, we assume that imposing tariffs on imported goods from countries with less stringent environmental regulations could incentivize these countries to adopt cleaner, more sustainable manufacturing practices. Historical precedents in environmental economics show that economic incentives drive substantial policy changes and technological innovations in manufacturing.

These assumptions allow us to explore the potential that tariffs, traditionally seen as instruments of economic policy, can also be strategically used to encourage stricter global environmental standards.

Proposed Solutions and Global Cooperation

Climate change has a high cost to American taxpayers in real US dollars.

The January 2022 Deloitte Economics Institute report, The Turning Point: A New Economic Climate in the United States, found that inaction on climate change could “result in economic losses to the US economy of $14.5 trillion (in present-value terms) over the next 50 years.” Preventative measures like tariffs could be economically beneficial in the long run compared to the costs of climate inaction.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America exported manufacturing jobs overseas, often to countries with less stringent environmental practices. Jack Welch and General Electric (GE) were at the forefront of this movement, leading the American push to offshore jobs to maintain a competitive edge. As more American companies joined the trend, it eroded US manufacturing capability and inadvertently contributed to the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.

That was our moment to save Bethlehem Steel. Instead, we chose to export our manufacturing base overseas. Had we implemented protective tariffs during the 1960s and 1970s to level the playing field for American manufacturers, some of those jobs would have stayed here. Those companies would have had better environmental practices, potentially reducing overall global emissions. Instead, when we sent manufacturing abroad to countries with little or no environmental regulations, we increased the level of greenhouse gases in the global environment.

Tariffs today could still make a difference and influence environmental policies abroad. Imposing tariffs on goods produced with poor environmental standards encourages sustainable manufacturing practices worldwide. They would reduce the market for goods made with poor practices.

These proposed tariffs aren’t intended to be punitive. By setting higher standards for imported goods, we aim to elevate global manufacturing processes to promote a cleaner, more sustainable manufacturing sector worldwide.

Strengthening environmental standards through tariffs helps combat climate change and boosts the competitiveness of American businesses. By ensuring that foreign manufacturers meet high environmental standards, we level the playing field for American companies that already adhere to strict regulations. This dual benefit of protecting the environment while leveling the playing field for American businesses is a point on which both political parties can agree.

As an additional benefit, working with global partners to establish this standard would make American businesses more competitive at home and abroad. The effort would keep more jobs here at home.

Challenges and Mitigation

We can mitigate the approach's downsides, but higher tariffs will cause short-term economic adjustments. Countries affected by the tariffs could respond with retaliatory tariffs. Tariffs generally lead to higher prices for imported goods, which are passed on to consumers. Determining and monitoring the environmental standards of manufacturing practices in other countries can be challenging. These tariffs could strain diplomatic relations, especially with major trading partners.

The long-term benefits of sustainable economic growth, reduced climate impact, and improved global health far outweigh these initial challenges.

We should have saved Bethlehem Steel and American manufacturing in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead, we exported our manufacturing overseas.

When we sent manufacturing abroad, companies chose to make goods using poor environmental practices.

Climate change has a high cost to American taxpayers in real US dollars.

We missed our chance to save American manufacturing and environmental health with tariffs. But the best time to build a future that values economic prosperity alongside environmental integrity is now.

We shouldn’t increase tariffs on Chinese steel because it’s Chinese. We should increase tariffs on all manufacturing goods that aren’t made to the same environmental standards as American goods.

May God bless the United States of America.

We often hear that land doesn’t vote; people do.

How about a different perspective?

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

We often hear that “land doesn’t vote; people do.” This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.

The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.

Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.

This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenship’s roots grow into this concept of the soil.

Citizenship

Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.

In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wong’s entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized America’s ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.

Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendment’s first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.

Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belonging—rights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.

Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.

Representation

The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.

The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.

Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesn’t vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.

“Land doesn’t vote; people do” is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republic—every vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.

In short, land doesn’t bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.

The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.

National Service

Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” If you weren’t born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nation’s highest office.

The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.

Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.

National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.

Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship isn’t a legal formality. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.

Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.

Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.

Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.

Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.

Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.

The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soil—whether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of states—in defining what it means to be American.

National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

Has capitalism failed the housing market?

We need to examine the decisive points that lead us through some philosophy to consider capitalism’s impact on housing affordability and supply.

Ultimately, our goal should be to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Capitalism and Housing

Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith speaking on capitalism in 1776:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of production and operations for profit. Central tenets of capitalism include wealth accumulation, competitive markets, private property, and the recognition of property rights. Private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity. Production, distribution, income, and prices are determined mainly through markets rather than governments.

Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation and increases standards of living. However, it can also lead to exploitation and economic inequality. Capitalism proponents assert that the most efficient use of resources occurs when individuals make decisions based on market signals without government influence.

The American housing market thrives on capitalism, but the system is a double-edged sword.

Capitalism undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. It benefits America’s housing market through innovation, efficiency, and investment opportunities. The drive for profit encourages innovation and efficiency. Capitalism supports a robust real estate market. Markets allow individuals to invest in property, contributing to personal wealth and economic growth.

However, capitalism also leads to systemic challenges in the housing market. It creates affordability challenges and widens income inequality. In many urban and desirable areas, housing prices have escalated beyond the reach of middle- and lower-income families.

Moving from Adam Smith's capitalist ideals, which highlight market-driven self-interest, to John Locke's philosophical stance, we encounter a compelling case for governance that honors and protects natural rights, including the essential need for housing.

The Role of Government in Capitalism

John Locke, the foundational philosopher of the US Constitution, championed a government that actively preserved property rights. He viewed these rights as more than just material possessions. They extended beyond physical holdings to include individual liberty and the fruits of one’s labor. His vision extended beyond debates about regulation.

Regarding property, Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, 1690, said:

The great and chief end…of men’s…putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

In essence, Locke believed individuals consent to government to preserve their property—not just physical possessions but life, liberty, and personal estate. Protecting these elements justifies government within society. Some might argue his focus on property rights disregards the needs of those who may not have property or the means to acquire it. However, Locke’s premise was that everyone owns property, even if that property is owning yourself.

Locke’s view of property rights relates to today’s affordable housing challenges through his understanding of the government’s responsibility. We have a duty not only to protect these rights but also to create conditions under which citizens can secure their own properties, which in a modern sense includes affordable housing.

Securing basic needs allows individuals to pursue prosperity and stability. These can’t be achieved without heat in the house and food on the table, and you can’t put food on the table without a home to put it in.

Therefore, the people who lead government must address the broader economic conditions that enable individuals to acquire and enjoy property. These conditions include access to affordable housing, fair market practices, and the protection of investments.

The Current State of the Housing Market

The housing market has become untenable. The challenges aren’t an inherent failure of capitalism. They’re a symptom of market-driven systems operating with added government influence but without sufficient intervention to address societal needs.

Government officials at many levels, including cities, counties, states, and the federal level, levy additional housing rules on builders. Many of these requirements are strongly beneficial, such as plumbing, electrical, and personal safety standards. Other requirements, such as zoning, increase housing costs. All combined, the requirements represent government interference that increases the cost of building housing.

The impact of increased building costs is a reduced supply of affordable housing, which has been decreasing since 1960. Builders build bigger homes to recoup their costs. Figure 4-6 below shows a long-term trend in housing production per capita, with a notable decrease in the construction of single-family homes. This downturn in housing is especially pronounced during economic recessions, as evidenced by the gray bars. The data suggests that in our regulatory environment, market-driven production alone doesn’t meet the population's housing needs.

The supply of first-time homebuyer houses is especially low. Figure 4-7 below presents a stark visual representation of the declining trend in the construction of smaller single-family homes since the 1970s. As these homes are often more affordable for first-time homebuyers and lower-income families, the sharp decrease from nearly 40% of homes to just over 5% signifies a shift away from affordable housing. This shift isn’t just a reflection of consumer preference. It indicates market and policy failures.

Adam Smith, the capitalist philosopher, identified we can’t ask builders to build more inexpensive, smaller homes for first-time homebuyers out of the goodness of their hearts. We have to appeal to their self-interest. Building smaller homes has to be profitable.

The government's role, in the Lockean sense, needs to evolve to address the challenges presented by the housing market. The decline in affordable housing isn’t a market outcome. It’s a central concern for policy intervention.

Counterarguments

Critics argue that government regulations like zoning laws and building codes inherently disrupt market efficiencies. However, we need more than unchecked capitalism to ensure equitable access to housing. Targeted government intervention, informed by Locke's principle of protecting property rights and individual liberty, can help correct market failures without undermining overall market efficiency.

Another common critique is that merely increasing the housing supply does not address the deeper issues of market greed and speculation, which can continue to drive prices up, outpacing increases in supply. This argument overlooks the role of targeted policy measures in shaping the type of supply that comes to market. By incentivizing the construction of affordable housing through tax credits, grants, and revised zoning regulations, government action can ensure that increased supply directly addresses the needs of low- and middle-income families.

A more philosophical critique posits that capitalism is inherently unjust, leading to inequality and prioritizing profit over human needs. While capitalism does have its flaws, it is also the driving force behind innovation and economic growth. The issue is not capitalism itself but how it is regulated and directed. By aligning capitalist incentives with societal needs, such as creating affordable housing, we can retain capitalism’s strengths while mitigating its weaknesses.

Proposal

We have examined capitalism's double-edged sword and recognized the duty of government officials to safeguard an individual's rights, including the fundamental right to secure necessary resources. With this common understanding of the philosophy, we can answer our question: Has capitalism failed the housing market?

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market.

Capitalism can’t fail the housing market because it’s an economic system. It’s not accountable to anyone, and no one directs capitalism. It doesn’t aim to achieve housing for low- and middle-income individuals; the goal of a capitalist system is to enable individuals to act in their interest. The success of capitalism—economic growth, innovation, and increased living standards—orients us to keep capitalism for the housing market.

We need to work through the market and increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families. In simple economic terms, as the supply of an item rises relative to the demand for that item, the price in the market will decrease. In a capitalist market, the approach to reducing the cost of houses for first-time homebuyers is to increase the supply.

As an example, imagine there are only a few slices of pizza left, and everyone wants one. The price will be high because everyone wants a slice, and they are willing to pay more to get one. But if the kitchen suddenly makes more pizzas, there will be enough for everyone. The price will come down because there's no longer competition for the limited slices. This is similar to what happens in housing. When there are fewer houses available than people who want them (or low supply, high demand), prices go up.

As the latest Congressional Research Service US housing supply report implies, the supply of first-time homebuyer houses is too low. Home prices are unaffordable for low- to middle-income families. The report mentions some ideas, like grants, to reduce the challenges of building new houses. These challenges could be things like permits, zoning laws, or other regulations that make it more expensive or time-consuming to build.

The CRS report identifies other possibilities, such as tax credits for first-time homebuyers and setting goals to increase the supply of building materials. But the reality is those items aren’t direct indicators of affordability for first-time homebuyers.

The direct indicator of housing affordability is the ratio of median household incomes and home prices. The median household income in 1960 was $5,600, and the median cost of a home was $11,900. We need to measure our progress to achieve that 2:1 standard.

In addition to current efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, we need to set a goal. We need to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Has Capitalism failed the housing market?

Capitalism is an economic system. The system drives economic growth and innovation and increases our standard of living.

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market. The goal of a capitalist system isn’t to make housing affordable. The goal is to enable individuals to act in their self-interest.

But while capitalism hasn’t failed per se, it has created a scenario where intervention is necessary to safeguard individual rights. This includes the fundamental right to secure housing.

To enable Americans the ability to secure their own needs, we need to set and measure progress toward a goal. That goal is a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. Desde los debates sobre el idioma del siglo XVIII hasta la reciente tragedia en Baltimore, no necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

¿Cuál es el idioma oficial de América?

El 9 de enero de 1794, un grupo de germano-americanos en Virginia solicitó al tercer Congreso de los Estados Unidos que imprimiera las leyes federales tanto en inglés como en alemán para poder entenderlas mejor. En enero de 1795, la Cámara votó en contra y el proyecto de ley no prosperó.

La votación en el pleno de la Cámara fue de 42-41. Durante al menos doscientos años después de la derrota del proyecto de ley, persistió el mito de que el Congreso casi cambia el idioma oficial americano al alemán. Eso nunca fue el caso.

De hecho, el idioma oficial americano nunca estuvo en duda.

América no tiene un idioma oficial.

El 17 de noviembre de 2000. A los 22 años, recién salido de la universidad y como un flamante oficial comisionado de las fuerzas armadas, emprendí mi primer viaje a través de América. Tras mi ceremonia de graduación como oficial, tenía en mano órdenes con 10 días para llegar a mi base de entrenamiento en la costa de California. Con un par de días de sobra, hice un desvío para ir a casa por el Missouri rural para visitar a mis padres y a mi futura esposa. Después de la visita, un amigo y yo nos encontramos justo fuera de St. Louis para viajar juntos el resto del camino. Hasta ese momento, había pasado muy pocos días fuera del Missouri rural.

Viajamos a través de Oklahoma, el panhandle de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona sin incidentes. En la frontera de California, el agente de inspección se llevó la manzana que iba a comer como merienda, no se permiten frutas del exterior. Justo fuera de Los Ángeles, me detuve en una gasolinera para llenar el tanque. Había escuchado que el tráfico en LA podría ser complicado y no quería quedarme sin gasolina atascado en el tráfico. El empleado no hablaba inglés, y yo no hablaba español. Sin embargo, no hubo problema. Encontramos una manera para que pudiera pagar la gasolina y una Coca-Cola.

En ese momento pensaba que alguien que viviera en América debería hablar inglés. Ahora, eso no me parece importante.

Desde ese día, serví con muchos estadounidenses que levantaron la mano para ofrecerse voluntarios para servir a su nación, y no solo en el ejército. También en el Departamento de Estado, miembros bilingües brillantes de la Actividad Educativa del DoD (DoDEA), la CIA, la NSA, el Cuerpo de Paz, el USDA, y así sucesivamente.

Todos hablaban inglés, pero muchos de sus padres no lo hacían o lo hablaban mal. Pero sus padres habían buscado el individualismo inherente a América, y sus hijos sirvieron a nuestra nación como agradecimiento. Ese hombre en la gasolinera fuera de Los Ángeles, y muchos otros como él, crían a hijos que sirven a nuestra nación con distinción.

Mis experiencias personales destacan que, aunque los estadounidenses no compartamos un idioma común, podemos respetar la libertad individual de los demás. Este principio se refleja en una serie de fallos de la Corte Suprema que han abordado los derechos lingüísticos en la sociedad estadounidense.

Varios casos fascinantes de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. tratan sobre el idioma y los derechos de los hablantes no angloparlantes en América.

En el primero, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), el alto tribunal bloqueó una ley de Nebraska que prohibía enseñar idiomas distintos al inglés a los escolares. El Sr. Meyer, quien enseñaba alemán en una escuela luterana, fue condenado bajo esta ley. Apeló su condena. La corte tomó el caso y encontró que la ley violaba su derecho a enseñar alemán y la libertad individual de los padres para controlar la educación de sus hijos, protegida por la 14.ª Enmienda.

En ese momento, la ley de Nebraska buscaba prevenir que las escuelas enseñaran alemán. La ley pretendía "promover el desarrollo cívico inhibiendo la formación y educación de los inmaduros en lenguas e ideales extranjeros antes de que pudieran aprender inglés y adquirir ideales americanos."

En la opinión mayoritaria, el juez James C. McReynolds afirmó que "el mero conocimiento del idioma alemán no puede considerarse razonablemente como dañino."

Nuestro resumen hasta ahora: América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir la enseñanza a los estadounidenses más jóvenes de un idioma distinto al inglés.

El 22 de noviembre de 2008: Estaba en camino a Irak para unirme a una unidad del Cuerpo de Marines de EE. UU. por varios meses. Antes de mi viaje al campo, me quedé un par de días en el Campamento Buehring, Kuwait, a 15 millas de la frontera sur de Irak. Estaba en el Campamento Buehring para recibir un entrenamiento final en sistemas técnicos utilizados por las fuerzas británicas y estadounidenses. No pude recibir el entrenamiento en EE. UU. porque no teníamos experiencia con el equipo británico.

Nuestro joven instructor británico hablaba con un acento inglés grueso e indescifrable. Comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento contando chistes.

Al principio, ninguno de los estadounidenses en la sala entendía nada de lo que decía. El británico seguía contando chistes.

Después de un par de minutos, algunos de los estadounidenses comenzaron a reírse de los chistes. ¡Eventualmente, todos en la sala estaban aullando de risa! El instructor era realmente gracioso.

Fue entonces cuando el instructor británico comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento. Dijo que podía darse cuenta de cuándo todos comenzábamos a entender su acento porque nos reíamos de los chistes.

Incluso hablar el mismo idioma no significa que nos entendamos entre nosotros.

Un segundo caso fascinante de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. involucrando el idioma fue Lau v. Nichols (1974). En 1971, las escuelas de San Francisco, California, se integraron y absorbieron a más de 2,800 niños chino-americanos que no dominaban el inglés. El sistema escolar público se negó a ofrecer a los niños educación suplementaria en el idioma inglés y enseñó las clases solo en inglés. Como resultado, los niños no pudieron participar en los programas educativos proporcionados por las escuelas. Los estudiantes llevaron su situación ante el tribunal superior.

En la decisión unánime, la corte dictaminó que un distrito escolar tiene el deber de proporcionar instrucción lingüística suplementaria para los estudiantes que hablan un idioma diferente al inglés. La corte encontró que el distrito escolar de San Francisco violó la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y negó a los estudiantes la oportunidad de participar en el programa de educación pública. La Corte razonó que simplemente tratar a los estudiantes igual independientemente de sus necesidades lingüísticas no garantizaba su acceso equitativo a la educación.

Basándonos en nuestro resumen, América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir enseñar a los estadounidenses más jóvenes un idioma diferente al inglés. Sin embargo, el pueblo estadounidense tiene el deber de enseñar inglés a los estudiantes cuando existe una barrera lingüística que impide el acceso equitativo a la educación.

Avanzando rápido al 29 de junio de 2017. Tuve el privilegio de liderar un escuadrón militar como su oficial comandante. Un tercio completo de los miembros del escuadrón eran inmigrantes de primera o segunda generación. Todos los miembros del escuadrón hablaban inglés, pero algunos tenían un fuerte acento. Muchos miembros del escuadrón eran bilingües. Operábamos sistemas técnicos distribuidos y nos comunicábamos con radios y teléfonos. A menudo, el enriquecimiento de la comunicación a través del lenguaje corporal no estaba disponible.

Tuvimos algunos desafíos de comunicación, pero todos compartíamos un compromiso mutuo y con nuestra misión. A pesar de nuestros desafíos, logramos los más altos niveles de seguridad, protección y preparación operativa en comparación con cualquier otro escuadrón durante esos dos años. Sin importar nuestro lugar de nacimiento, todos éramos estadounidenses, proporcionando capacidad de combate para la nación.

Sí, teníamos barreras lingüísticas, pero todos éramos parte de un equipo excepcional.

Un último caso de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. relacionado con el idioma fue Plyler v. Doe (1982). El caso impugnó una ley de Texas que retenía fondos estatales de los distritos escolares locales necesarios para educar a niños que no habían sido legalmente admitidos en los Estados Unidos. La ley también autorizaba a los distritos escolares a negar la inscripción a estos niños.

El juez William J. Brennan Jr. escribió la opinión mayoritaria. Afirmó: "Al negarles a estos niños una educación básica, les negamos la capacidad de vivir dentro de la estructura de nuestras instituciones cívicas y cerramos cualquier posibilidad realista de que contribuyan de la menor manera al progreso de nuestra Nación."

Varios estados posteriormente impugnaron la sentencia, incluidos California en 1994, Illinois en 2006 y Alabama en 2011. Plyler v. Doe es crucial para los derechos lingüísticos ya que asegura el acceso a la educación para los estudiantes que no hablan inglés, muchos de los cuales son inmigrantes.

Este acceso es crítico para aprender inglés y participar plenamente en la sociedad estadounidense.

Temprano en la mañana del martes 26 de marzo de 2024, un buque contenedor chocó contra el Puente Francis Scott Key en Baltimore. Ocho obreros de construcción que trabajaban para proporcionar capacidad nacional a través del soporte de infraestructura fueron arrojados al agua; solo dos de los hombres sobrevivieron. The Associated Press identificó que los hombres eran de México, Guatemala, Honduras y El Salvador.

El gobernador de Maryland, Wes Moore, se dirigió a las familias en español después del incidente, diciendo: “Estamos contigo, ahora y siempre”. Su elección del idioma refleja un entendimiento de que nuestro compromiso mutuo es más profundo que una barrera lingüística. Su discurso fue un reconocimiento a nuestra herencia multilingüe, mostrando que los estadounidenses hablan muchos idiomas.

Ser estadounidense no se trata de hablar un solo idioma. América representa abrazar los principios de la libertad individual y aceptar la responsabilidad personal de contribuir a la nación. Agradezco a los trabajadores por su compromiso.

Debatimos nuestro idioma y lo que significa ser estadounidense. Los debates legislativos del siglo XVIII continúan hasta nuestros días, enfrentando desafíos contemporáneos y tragedias. Nos recuerdan la libertad, la dignidad y la búsqueda de unidad en la diversidad que nos definen.

América no tiene un idioma oficial. Por haber sido una colonia británica, usamos el inglés en el gobierno y para satisfacer la necesidad práctica de un idioma común.

América es un crisol de muchas culturas. Los inmigrantes legales vienen a América en busca de oportunidad e individualismo. Al mismo tiempo, muchos de estos inmigrantes hablan poco o nada de inglés.

Nuestro tribunal supremo ha mostrado repetidamente dignidad al asegurar que los estadounidenses tengan el derecho a la libertad individual, sin importar su idioma.

Haciendo eco de la corte, mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. No necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

Que Dios bendiga a los Estados Unidos de América.

We show our commitment to the American ideal when we interact with each other with grace and dignity. From 18th-century debates on language to the recent tragedy in Baltimore, we don’t need to speak the same language to respect the rights of others and thank each other for our service.

What’s America’s official language?

On January 9, 1794, a group of German-Americans in Virginia petitioned the 3rd United States Congress to print federal laws in both English and German so that they could better understand them. In January 1795, the House voted against it, and the bill died.

The vote on the House floor was 42-41. For at least two hundred years after the bill’s defeat, a myth persisted that Congress nearly changed the official American language to German. That was never the case.

In fact, the official American language was never in doubt.

America doesn’t have an official language.

November 17, 2000. At 22, fresh out of college and a brand new commissioned officer in the armed forces, I set off on my first cross-country trip across America. Following my officer graduation ceremony, I was orders-in-hand with 10 days to make it to my California coast training base. With a couple of days to spare, I made a detour to go home through rural Missouri to visit my parents and future wife. After the visit, a buddy and I linked up just outside St. Louis to travel the rest of the way together. At that point I hadn’t been outside of rural Missouri many days of my life.

We traveled through Oklahoma, the Texas panhandle, New Mexico, and Arizona without incident. At the California border, the inspection agent took the apple I was going to eat for a snack–no outside fruit allowed. Just outside of Los Angeles, I stopped at a gas station to fill up. I had heard the traffic in LA could be rough and I didn’t want to run out of gas stuck in traffic. The attendant spoke no English, and I spoke no Spanish. No worries, though. We figured out a way for me to pay for the gas and a Coca-Cola.

At the time I thought someone who lived in America should speak English. Now, that’s not important to me. 

Since that day, I served with many Americans who raised their hand to volunteer to serve their nation—and not just in the military. Also at the State Department, brilliant bilingual members of the DoD Education Activity (DoDEA), the CIA, NSA, Peace Corps, USDA, and on and on.

They all spoke English, but many of their parents did not or spoke it poorly. But their parents had sought out America’s inherent individualism, and their children served our nation as thanks. That man at the gas station outside of LA, and many others like him, raise children who serve our nation with distinction.

My personal experiences highlight that even though Americans don’t share a common language, we can respect the individual liberty of others. This principle is echoed in a series of Supreme Court rulings that have addressed language rights in American society.

Several fascinating US Supreme Court cases deal with language and the rights of non-English speakers in America.

In the first, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the high court blocked a Nebraska law that banned teaching languages other than English to schoolchildren. Mr. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under the law. He appealed his conviction. The court took up the case and found the law violated his right to teach German and the individual liberty of parents to control their child’s education, protected by the 14th Amendment.

At the time, the Nebraska law sought to prevent schools from teaching German. The law intended to “promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals.”

In the majority opinion, Justice James C. McReynolds stated that “mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful.”

Our summary so far: America has no official language, and it is unconstitutional to prevent teaching even the youngest Americans a language other than English.

November 22, 2008: I was headed into Iraq to link up with a US Marine Corps unit for several months. Before my trip downrange, I stayed a couple of days at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, 15 miles from the Iraqi southern border. I was at Camp Buerhring for some final training on technical systems used by British and American forces. I couldn’t get the training in the US because we didn’t have expertise with the British equipment.

Our young British instructor spoke with an indecipherable, thick English accent. He kicked off the training session by telling jokes.

At first, none of the Americans in the room understood anything he said. The Brit kept telling jokes.

After a couple of minutes, some of the Americans started to laugh at the jokes. Eventually, everyone in the room was howling! The instructor was really funny!

That’s when the British instructor started the training session. He said he could tell when all of us started to understand his accent because we would laugh at the jokes.

Even speaking the same language doesn’t mean we understand each other.

A second captivating US Supreme Court case involving language was Lau v. Nichols (1974). In 1971, San Francisco, California, schools integrated and absorbed more than 2,800 Chinese-American children who were not proficient in English. The public school system refused the children supplemental English language education and taught classes only in English. As a result, the children were unable to participate in the educational programs provided by the schools. The students appealed their plight to the high court.

In the unanimous decision, the court ruled that a school district has the duty to provide supplemental language instruction for students who speak a language other than English. The court found the San Francisco school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and denied students the opportunity to participate in the public education program. The Court reasoned that simply treating students the same regardless of their language needs did not ensure their equal access to education.

Building on our summary, America has no official language, and it is unconstitutional to prevent teaching even the youngest Americans a language other than English. However, the American people have a duty to teach students English when there is a language barrier preventing equal access to education.

Fast-forward to June 29, 2017. I had the privilege of leading a military squadron as its commanding officer. A full one-third of the squadron members were either first- or second-generation immigrants. All the squadron members spoke English, but some had a strong accent. Many squadron members were bilingual. We operated distributed technical systems and communicated with radios and telephones. The added communication enhancement of body language was often not available.

We had some communication challenges, but we all shared a commitment to each other and our mission. Despite our challenges, we achieved the highest levels of security, safety, and operational readiness compared to any squadron over those two years. No matter our place of birth, we were all Americans, providing combat capability for the nation.

Yes, we had language barriers, but everyone was part of an exceptional team.

A final US Supreme Court case involving language was Plyler v. Doe (1982). The case challenged a Texas statute that withheld state funds from local school districts needed to educate children who had not been legally admitted to the United States. The statute further authorized school districts to deny enrollment to these children.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion. He stated, "By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation."

Several states have subsequently challenged the ruling, including California in 1994, Illinois in 2006, and Alabama in 2011. Plyler v. Doe is crucial for language rights in that it ensures access to education for non-English-speaking students, many of whom are immigrants.

This access is critical for learning English and fully participating in American society.

Early in the morning on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, a container vessel crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. Eight construction crewmen working to provide national capability through infrastructure support were thrown into the water; only two of the men survived. The Associated Press identified the men were from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore addressed the families in Spanish following the incident, saying, “Estamos contigo, ahora y siempre,” or, “We are with you, now and always.” His choice of language reflects an understanding that our commitment to each other is deeper than a language barrier. His address was a nod to our multilingual heritage, showing that Americans speak many languages.

Being American isn’t about speaking one language. America represents embracing the principles of individual liberty and accepting the personal responsibility to give back to the nation.

We debate our language and what it means to be American. 18th-century legislative debates continue into contemporary challenges and tragedies. We are reminded of the liberty, dignity, and pursuit of unity in diversity that define us.

America doesn’t have an official language. Because we were a British colony, we used English in government and to meet the practical need for a common language.

America is a melting pot of many cultures. Legal immigrants come to America seeking opportunity and individualism. At the same time, many of these immigrants speak poor, or no, English.

Our highest court has repeatedly shown dignity in ensuring Americans have the right to individual liberty, no matter their language.

Echoing the court, we show our commitment to the American ideal when we interact with each other with grace and dignity. We don’t need to speak the same language to respect the rights of others and thank each other for our service.

May God bless the United States of America.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free subscriber!

Some grow frustrated with our progress in convincing Russia to leave Ukraine. We could take deliberate steps to increase our negotiating strength.

Just as a thought experiment, a case study—should we enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad?

June 24, 1948. Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader during World War II, directed a blockade of all supplies going into West Berlin, Germany, by road, rail, or river. Despite controlling the surrounding territory, the Soviets could not stop air transit into and out of the isolated city.

The US and our allies responded to the Soviet blockade by airlifting all supplies for two million people into and out of West Berlin for the next 322 days. Planes brought coal for heat and electricity, as well as oil and gas. They brought food, coffee, medicine, raw materials for clothing, and other essentials. Planes even brought candy, highlighting a human touch during political tensions. At the peak of the Berlin Airlift, a plane filled with supplies landed in Berlin every 45 seconds.

May 12, 1949. The Soviets stopped the blockade due to the demonstrated American and Allied commitment to West Berlin. This airlift foreshadowed the enduring geopolitical tensions that would characterize the Cold War. It highlighted the enduring importance of resilience, innovation, and international cooperation in the face of adversity.

A key point here is that, even if it failed, the Soviets illustrated that a blockade is an acceptable strategy to exert negotiating pressure on America and our Western European partners.

The other key point is that the Soviet blockade failed due to determined American and Allied commitment.

The legacy of the Berlin Airlift echoes across the modern geopolitical landscape, particularly in the face of continued Russian ambitions to exert influence beyond its borders.

February 24, 2022. Russian forces directed by Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. The invasion drew widespread international condemnation and led to a series of sanctions against Russia.

Two years later, in a statement on February 23, 2024, American President Biden reiterated that Russian aggression in Ukraine is a threat to all of Europe and the rest of the world, including the United States.

The same day, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III outlined America’s goals for Ukraine. He stated that as a global coalition, we intend to:

Ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities that it needs to defend its people from Russian aggression, and

Take back its sovereign territory

Secretary Austin III highlighted, “This historic coalition has committed more than $87 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Putin's war—including 15 U.S. allies that, as a percentage of GDP, contribute more to Ukraine's capability needs than the United States.”

Unfortunately, the sanctions and aid supplied to Ukraine have not resulted in Russian forces leaving Ukraine. Russian forces are entrenched. Forcibly removing them from Ukraine is a challenging task.

How might we reinforce our negotiating position with Russia?

Successful negotiation starts from a position of strength. This strength relies on strategic preparation and a superior Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and later Bruce Patton introduced the BATNA concept in their 1981 book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

A strong BATNA means having a robust and viable plan that can be executed if negotiations fail. This ensures negotiation isn’t the only path to achieving your objectives, thereby reducing desperation and improving leverage.

Strength in negotiation also comes from assessing and influencing the other party's BATNA. Understanding and weakening the other party's alternatives enhances your position.

Our BATNA is a stronger North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), improved already by enhanced military readiness (Steadfast Defender 24 exercises), new memberships (Finland and Sweden), and increased defense spending. That’s not to say we aren’t committed to Ukraine. Our commitment to our partners highlights our resolve to uphold the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We can assess Russia as desiring a frozen conflict. In a frozen conflict, active, large-scale military hostilities cease, but the nations don’t agree to peaceful terms. These conflicts often linger indefinitely, with sporadic outbreaks of violence. This would enable Russia a degree of control and influence over the contested area without the full costs of war. Russia currently has frozen conflicts in areas of Moldova and Georgia.

One strategy to enhance our negotiating leverage against Russia would be to enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad is strategically important to Russia. It’s Russia’s only deep-sea port that remains ice-free year-round. It serves as a critical military and logistical hub.

Kaliningrad is physically separated from the rest of Russia. It borders open water or a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nation on all sides. Its unique geographical position—isolated from the Russian mainland and surrounded by NATO members and the Baltic Sea—renders it particularly vulnerable to blockade strategies. This isolation is a leverage point in negotiations. Russia acts nervous about Kaliningrad’s isolation. In June 2022, Russia claimed Lithuania blockaded Kaliningrad when Lithuania began enforcing European Union sanctions that were a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

There’s another relevant geographic feature in the region. The Suwalki Gap is a strategically significant stretch of land approximately 60 miles long, located on the border between Poland (a NATO member) and Lithuania (also a NATO member). This narrow corridor is strategically important because it is the only land connection between the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the rest of NATO. It separates Belarus, a Russian ally, and Kaliningrad. Securing this stretch of land would be paramount to maintaining the integrity of NATO's eastern flank.

Kaliningrad isn’t a Russian city. Its real name is Königsberg. Königsberg was a Prussian (German) city for 700 years before being annexed by the Soviets after World War II. Kaliningrad has a complex identity that distinguishes it from other Russian cities. This historical and cultural distinction complicates Russia's claims over the territory.

Implementing a blockade of Kaliningrad would apply pressure that Russia could not easily ignore. The strategy would require careful planning, support, and coordination among NATO allies and a readiness to manage potential escalatory responses from Russia. As a permanent member of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, Russia would veto the blockade if it were brought to a vote there.

The ultimate goal of the blockade wouldn’t be to escalate hostilities. It would be to bring Russia to the negotiating table with a genuine interest in coming to an agreement to end the blockade of Kaliningrad. Our bargaining chip? Russian forces leaving Ukraine.

The blockade of Kaliningrad could serve as a tangible demonstration of NATO's capability and willingness to impose significant costs on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The biggest risk of enforcing a blockade of Kaliningrad? A blockade is a deliberate act of war. An act of war against Russia in a NATO nation risks increasing the likelihood of expanding the war to include all of NATO.

Back to our question. Should we enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad to reinforce our negotiating position with Russia?

We should consider a perspective from one of NATO’s newest members, Finland. Finland shares an 835-mile border with Russia.

Recent remarks from Finland’s new president emphasize “a Finnish approach” to the Russian situation, i.e., “cool, calm, and collected, but determined.” This perspective highlights the importance of a levelheaded approach.

Another point regarding a determined approach: our NATO partners supported operations in Afghanistan for 18 years alongside America. Just like their support, our commitment to Ukraine and our NATO partners isn’t a short-term event.

Over the long term, patient diplomacy and economic partnership are more decisive than military operations.

That’s not to say we aren’t ready to take decisive action. Blockading Kaliningrad is a viable course of action to increase pressure on Russia without resorting to full-scale conflict. However, as it directly impacts their regional security, we would require strong consensus with our NATO partners. It's their backyard, and their willingness to support the strategy is essential for its legitimacy.

The imagined scenario to blockade Kaliningrad would be a drastic measure. It carries significant risks and challenges. It would be an act of war.

A blockade of Kaliningrad would be possible but dangerous.

History doesn’t predict future events, but looking back at the Soviet blockade of West Berlin offers a lesson: the Berlin blockade didn't win the day; patient determination won.

Diplomacy, strong partnerships, and continued economic support to Ukraine and our partners in Europe are more decisive than immediate incendiary action.

May God bless the United States of America.

We often hear that land doesn’t vote; people do.

How about a different perspective?

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

We often hear that “land doesn’t vote; people do.” This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.

The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.

Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.

This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenship’s roots grow into this concept of the soil.

Citizenship

Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.

In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wong’s entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized America’s ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.

Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendment’s first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.

Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belonging—rights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.

Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.

Representation

The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.

The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.

Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesn’t vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.

“Land doesn’t vote; people do” is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republic—every vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.

In short, land doesn’t bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.

The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.

National Service

Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” If you weren’t born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nation’s highest office.

The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.

Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.

National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.

Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship isn’t a legal formality. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.

Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.

Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.

Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.

Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.

Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.

The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soil—whether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of states—in defining what it means to be American.

National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

We are endowed with radical freedom, but this freedom is inherently linked to societal obligations and responsibilities.

Where is the line between personal liberty and our obligation to society?

What about when others disagree with our healthcare decisions?

We are Condemned to be Free.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, and novelist. He saw first-hand two world wars and the German occupation of France during World War II. Sartre’s philosophy explored the nature of existence, freedom, consciousness, and the human condition. He described himself as an anarchist; the only cause he believed in was human freedom.

The central concept of Sartre’s philosophy was the existentialist view that individuals create their own meaning in an indifferent universe. He believed in radical freedom and the inherent responsibility that freedom enabled. He disavowed belief in a deity. As an atheist he posited individuals are free to make their own choices and create meaning in a world that does not provide meaning.

But he also posited that we are condemned to be free. This freedom is not liberating. It’s a prison of condemnation because it comes with weighty personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences.

For Sartre, the absence of a predetermined purpose meant that each person must define their essence through actions. This freedom is inescapable. The responsibility it entails can feel burdensome, as individuals cannot blame their circumstances, society, or a deity for their choices and outcomes. They are fully responsible for defining their own existence.

Sartre could have been a libertarian if not for his belief in social responsibility and the collective struggle for justice and equality. He strongly rejected authoritarian structures and traditional societal norms. He did not advocate for anarchism as a governance structure; he was more of a socialist.

In sum, Sartre was, in part, a radical individualist. But his blend of existentialist thought, atheism, and commitment to social responsibility make him a complex philosophical figure.

Individualism and social responsibility seemingly contradict. Let’s keep digging into this unique nature of individual freedom.

There’s another concept that intersects with existentialist thought…to explore it, let's head to the American West.

Ride for the Brand!

Ride for the Brand is a phrase from the American West originating from cattle ranching culture. It embodies loyalty, dedication, and commitment to a group or cause. It refers to a cowboy's loyalty to the ranch owner or the "brand" of cattle he worked for.

The saying is widely known in the West. It symbolizes standing by your commitments, working for the greater good of the community or organization you're part of, and upholding the values and principles that define it.

Possibly the earliest written reference to Ride for the Brand is Western writer Zane Grey’s 1934 novel Code of the West. The Code of the West isn’t a set of laws; it’s a social contract. Those who broke the code became social outcasts. This social contract, underpinned by unwavering loyalty to one's commitments, was crucial in shaping social norms and expectations.

Ride for the Brand isn’t an ethos of blind loyalty. It’s a duty to uphold your commitment to a community or group's collective values and goals.

The American West’s “Ride for the Brand” demonstrates how individual freedom and social commitment coexist. We make choices, and those choices come with obligations. By riding for the brand, we commit to honoring our obligations.

We all make choices, either willingly or by the station of our birth.

Our choices represent individual freedom. Some choices are forced on us. Our parents and grandparents choose our place of birth. Our elected representatives choose other societal conditions on our behalf. We choose to pay taxes, to obey laws, and to respect the rights of others. Though we don’t explicitly make every one of our choices, they are our choices nonetheless.

These choices come with obligations.

Edmund Burke, the world’s decisive Conservative philosopher, said we have “obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact.” Burke recognized that even if we didn’t explicitly choose the station of our birth, we still have obligations resulting from those choices.

We commit to honoring our obligations. We make commitments to ourselves, our communities, and our society. These commitments represent our social contract.

Here’s a mind map that graphically represents our text.

Our commitment to radical freedom is a component of the social contract. So are our societal obligations and the consequences of our choices. Our loyalty and collective values, expressed by our unspoken law to ride for the brand, are a part of our social contract.

While we each have the personal freedom to define our existence, we do so within a social framework that levies responsibilities and consequences. Our individual choices echo through our social structures, impacting others. They influence and are influenced by our collective values and commitments, much like our duty to ride for the brand.

Let’s have a concrete example…

Measles Vaccinations

Measles is a highly contagious viral disease. It’s so contagious that up to 90% of people near an infected area can become infected if they aren’t vaccinated. Measles stays in a room for up to two hours after the infected person leaves. You can catch measles just by entering this room in those two hours.

Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, says, “For every 10,000 children infected with measles, 2,000 will be hospitalized; 1,000 will develop ear infections with the potential for permanent hearing loss; 500 will develop pneumonia; and 10 to 30 will die.” Possible long-term effects of measles include memory loss, seizures, and blindness; these effects can emerge as long as eight years after infection.

Babies are a genuine concern. You can’t vaccinate a child until they are 12 months old. Michael Mina, MD, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, identified that before the vaccine, measles was “likely associated with at least half of all childhood deaths from infectious diseases.”

But there’s good news! There’s a really good vaccine to protect against measles infection. Two MMR shots are 97% effective at preventing measles infection.

Unfortunately, as of a week ago, 17 states here in America have measles outbreaks.

In sum, we’ve established measles as a highly contagious viral disease that is preventable by the individual choice to be vaccinated. When enough people are vaccinated in a community, the entire community will be disease-free. Let’s consider a philosophical case study of public schools, existentialism, and loyalty to our communities.

Do you have a radical freedom right to refuse the vaccine? Yes. You can do so on whatever grounds you prefer, the most common being a religious exemption. You absolutely have a right to make your own healthcare decisions. The government should have no say in the matter.

At the same time, if you choose to use public resources such as schools, this choice violates our social contract. You can’t refuse to adhere to public safety standards and, at the same time, use public resources. This personal choice echoes through our social structures, impacting others.

If you choose to participate in social structures such as sending your kids to public schools, you have to ride for the brand. When you make the choice, you take on the responsibility. Doing so upholds the collective values and goals of your community.

Alternatively, you have a right to refuse to participate in society. There are Supreme Court cases that establish your precedent to home school for religious reasons. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) supports parental rights. In the case, the high court ruled that a parent’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was more compelling than the state’s interest in educating their children. Courts have repeatedly found home education a viable pathway to citizenship.

There’s another consideration here: the role of government officials. Do officials first have a responsibility to protect the rights of individuals? Or do they first have a duty to uphold the public interest, including public safety? Yes, and yes.

Government officials are responsible for protecting America's bedrock—individual liberty. There is no higher obligation.

But when individual choices infringe on the rights of others, officials have a duty to protect the individual rights of the people. When individuals make choices that endanger others, they violate our social contract. Just as officials are responsible for maintaining individual rights, they have a responsibility to conserve the institution. In this case, we are still protecting the rights of individuals to make their choice. But if they choose to threaten public safety, they shouldn’t also be able to choose to use public resources.

There is no higher principle than individual liberty. No matter your belief in a deity, individuals are inherently free to make their own choices and create meaning in the world.

At the same time, this freedom comes with weighty personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences.

We are condemned to be free.

When we choose to participate in society, we must honor our social contract and commit to upholding our community’s collective values and goals.

We ride for the brand.

May God bless the United States of America.

America is torn by division. The battle for the nation's soul rages on, touching every aspect of society. An intense struggle over American culture and individual rights unfolds, fueled by deep-seated disagreements over social reform. Voices on both sides of the spectrum argue passionately. We are a society at a crossroads.

The political scene is characterized by unprecedented divisiveness. Disenfranchised communities rise against an entrenched power of elites, demanding fairer economic practices. The fire for change is a response to growing economic disparities and widespread inequality fueled by rapid technological advancements.

The media landscape has transformed, with new technologies amplifying voices like never before. This enables the media to reach new audiences. Information—and equally, misinformation—spreads at breakneck speed, influencing public opinion and shaping the national dialogue.

Immigration is a hot-button issue, igniting debates on assimilation, employment, and cultural impact. These discussions often veer into prejudice and nativism, challenging politicians and their constituents to confront the nation's values head-on.

Amid the turmoil stand two presidential candidates, both former Presidents, who have managed to alienate significant portions of their party. Their candidacies test the limits of political loyalty and ideological purity.

Of course, the subject is the 1892 US Presidential election.

America has always had culture wars.

Today, we fight over various issues: economic concerns, wealth inequality, immigration, and individual liberty. These are broad themes in American history. The 1892 contest between presidential candidates Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison shares similarities with today. Here are a few parallels:

Economic Concerns and Wealth Inequality

The late 19th century Industrial Revolution saw rapid industrialization and businessmen looking to gain power and wealth on the backs of American workers. The nation experienced significant economic growth alongside marked inequality and labor unrest, with stark disparities in wealth and power between the industrial elite and the working class. In a book of the same name, Mark Twain coined the late 19th-century period the Gilded Age, meaning it was beautiful on the surface but corrupt underneath. At the time, this led to intense debates over economic policy, particularly tariffs.

In contrast, today, we are experiencing rapid digital advancement. The Digital Revolution has reshaped the economy through information technology, automation, and artificial intelligence. These changes have increased productivity but also raised concerns about job displacement and the skills gap. Similar to the Gilded Age, we have significant economic inequality. The wealth gap has widened, with a substantial portion of wealth concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of individuals, particularly those with ties to the tech industry and other high-growth sectors. Movements advocating for economic justice, workers' rights, environmental sustainability, and social equity are pressing for systemic changes.

Immigration

The 1890s was one of America’s peak immigration periods. Millions arrived from Europe, fleeing economic hardship, religious persecution, and political turmoil. Immigrants fueled the nation's industrial boom, providing the labor force that powered factories, built railways, and transformed the American economy. At the same time, Americans feared damage to society, the economy, and national identity. Many immigrants spoke no English. Concerns about assimilation, competition for jobs, and cultural impact led to nativist sentiments and calls for restrictions on immigration.

Today, people migrate to America for many reasons—seeking better economic opportunities, fleeing persecution or conflict, or joining family members. Debates center on issues of illegal immigration and border security, especially at the southern border. Americans question the impact of immigration on jobs, wages, and social services.

Individual Liberty

Individual liberty was central to the political and social debates of the late 19th century. The culture war burned bright.

Passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1868) granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved people. The 15th Amendment (ratified in 1870) enabled voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." However, the Gilded Age witnessed the rise of Jim Crow laws in the Southern states. These laws created a broad system of racial segregation and discrimination. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory practices disenfranchised Black Americans.

Senator Aaron A. Sargent (R) introduced a proposed Constitutional Amendment to secure women’s right to vote in 1878. Congress didn’t pass the Amendment for 41 years. Tennessee’s ratification in 1920 incorporated it into the Constitution. Opponents claimed a woman’s place was in the home, and women lacked the education to be informed voters. Some opponents feared that giving women the right to vote would radically change society and cause a breakdown in marriage and families. Finally, fearmongers spread talk of a decline in societal morals, which they said would lead to the degradation of the social order.

Culture wars, indeed. Today, we still fight over the culture of America. Our fight over individual liberty includes education, such as who gets to decide whether a child can read certain books in school that might offend someone else’s parents. But it also includes the right to freedom of speech and expression, such as whether the government can dictate what clothes someone can’t wear. We even fight over the role of technology in shaping societal norms, such as the impact of social media on democracy and privacy, the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, and the digital divide's effect on educational and economic opportunities. But the age-old fights remain. Today, women have the right to vote but not the right to make their own healthcare decisions.

Both the Gilded Age and the Digital Age reveal the recurring themes of America's struggle with economic disparities, the challenges of technological advancement, and the continuous evolution of societal values. These parallels underline the cyclical nature of history, where each new era brings challenges, debates, and opportunities for growth and reform.

The contrast between both periods identifies the same issues. They present themselves in new ways, but the fight is the same. One hundred thirty years later, we can draw lasting conclusions about the divisiveness surrounding the 1892 election.

First, working Americans deserve the ability to decide their own fate. This personal responsibility directly derives from the ability to have food on the table and heat in the house. We shouldn’t support Americans on social welfare programs because we shouldn’t HAVE to support Americans on welfare programs. Americans need to make enough money from their labor to care for themselves.

At the same time, not all businesses are the same. A hard and fast rule to raise the minimum wage would disproportionately impact retail and food service industries, which have a high percentage of low earners. In addition to raising the minimum wage, we need to give small businesses that pay livable wages tax credits. This would reward the many great American businesses that pay livable wages, raise wages for workers, and reduce the need for social welfare programs.

Second, immigrants didn’t destroy America. Immigrants became Americans because that’s what all immigrants become. Immigrants come to America because they want to be Americans. They don’t come to America intent on destroying her. We don’t support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement. But we have no reason not to support legal immigration. At the same time, we can address security along our southern border with decisive measures.

Third, instead of the Gilded Age fight over a woman’s right to vote, we fight over a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions. Just like we enshrined a woman’s right to vote in the Constitution with the 19th Amendment, we must enshrine her right to make her own healthcare decisions. Every competent American adult should have the right to make his or her own healthcare decisions. We must further restrict the government’s knowledge of individual healthcare decisions in the same Amendment. The government deciding someone’s personal choice is an unparalleled insult to individual liberty and clearly violates founding American principles. We can have our own opinions of the ethics, but the government has no place in the matter.

The biggest lesson we can learn from the one hundred and thirty years since the 1892 election is that the American system is resilient. Our democratic republic will sway in the winds of the 2024 election. We will continue to progress toward the American ideal, and we will never be perfect. No matter the victor this year, the American ideal will fight on.

May God bless the United States of America.

Two weeks ago, we asserted that Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications. Further, we posited that building collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness. We concluded that individuals collectively need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to build national capability.

Last week, we determined that ‘We the People’ collectively choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. This includes education. We make this choice by electing representatives to act on our behalf. Representatives in every state in the union fund a public university. We concluded that this voluntary funding to enable access to education fulfills part of our social contract.

Now for the week's question: should we fund Women’s Studies programs at public universities?

Women’s Studies programs and other diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) study programs attract controversy. They challenge traditional narratives by reevaluating history and society. They question established power structures and advocate for systemic change. These challenges spark disagreement among those who perceive them as an attack on cultural values.

Now that we understand the controversy, we can ask some questions to orient ourselves on the basis of Women’s Studies.

Joel: Ava, how should we introduce our debate on Women’s Studies?

Ava: Joel, let’s start with the philosophy of the foundation of America, our Declaration of Independence.

Our shared philosophy asserts the equality of all individuals. It states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The emphasis on equality and the right to pursue happiness supports the need for education to address historical inequalities. Achieving equality of opportunity means identifying inequality.

Joel: And we weren’t perfect. We should recognize the canyon between the philosophy and the history. The founders signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. In 1790, President Washington signed the Nationality Act into law. The law established citizenship guidelines to include only white male property owners. It excluded women, nonwhite persons, and servants.

Today, we are better, but we still need to improve. With diligent effort, we continue to strive towards equality of opportunity. Much work remains.

This dichotomy between philosophical ideal and reality highlights the importance of understanding and addressing systemic inequalities. We say we believe in equality. It’s a foundational premise of America.

But we can’t say we believe we are all created equal and, at the same time, ignore deficiencies. To identify shortcomings in women’s rights, we have to look for them. To look for them means we have to study women’s rights.

Ava: At the same time, there are detractors of Women’s Studies.

Some debate the academic rigor and practical value of Women's Studies programs. Critics question the impact of these programs on students' career prospects and overall contribution to the workforce. They argue that the discipline doesn’t provide practical skills.

Critics argue that Women's Studies programs are ideologically driven and lack objectivity. They suggest that focusing on gender equity and social justice introduces bias in research and teaching.

Resistance to Women's Studies is sometimes rooted in broader political or cultural opposition to feminism and social justice movements. Critics see the discipline as promoting a particular political agenda.

Joel: Let’s look at Women’s Studies through the lens of the purpose of education for individuals.

Education for individuals builds capacity for personal responsibility.

Education fosters self-reliance. It teaches individuals to think critically, solve problems independently, and make informed decisions. It encourages self-sufficiency. It enables individuals to rely on their abilities and judgment in navigating personal and professional challenges.

Education empowers individuals by providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve their circumstances and achieve their goals.

We can further examine education through the lens of national capability.

Education builds a nation's capability to establish favorable world conditions.

Education contributes directly to economic development and global competitiveness. It drives innovation, productivity, and economic growth. Diversity of thought achieved through education contributes to national security by developing citizens who can engage with complex global issues.

Do Women’s Studies programs achieve these aims?

Ava: Women’s Studies programs promote ethical reasoning, enabling students to navigate complex moral landscapes and make conscientious decisions. They empower individuals to recognize systemic barriers and personal agency. They foster personal responsibility in understanding, interacting with, and seeking to change the world.

Those who study Women's Studies programs enter various fields, from public policy and education to business and law. They contribute diverse perspectives that drive innovation and address complex societal issues.

Joel: Women’s Studies sound abstract. Do you have any concrete examples?

Ava: Sure. Let’s examine how Women's Studies scholars contribute to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). STEM fields face skilled labor shortages. Women’s participation helps address these gaps, ensuring that the most capable minds contribute to advancements in technology and science, irrespective of gender.

At the same time, research by Women’s Studies scholars highlights systemic biases in STEM education and workplaces. The March 2024 State of Girls and Women in STEM report from the National Girls Collaborative Project finds that women comprise 48% of the workforce but only 35% of the STEM workforce. Minority women make up less than 10% of the STEM workforce.

These same scholars help develop solutions to mitigate the problem. Advocates work to increase the representation of women in STEM fields. They help develop mentoring programs, scholarships, and awareness campaigns. Initiatives like Girls Who Code and the Society of Women Engineers benefit from the input of individuals knowledgeable in gender studies. They aim to inspire and support young women and girls to pursue STEM careers.

University programs sponsor Women in STEM Conferences and Women’s Mentor Programs to assist women in navigating challenges in the academic and industry workforce.

Joel: The push to improve women’s participation in STEM fields began in earnest in the 1960s. Between 1966 and 1977, researchers asked 5,000 schoolgirls to draw a scientist. Less than 1% of them drew a scientist who was a woman. In 1985, that number rose to 33%. In 2016, 58% of schoolgirls drew a female scientist.

In 1970, women comprised 8% of the STEM workforce. Diligent effort improved our capability over time.

The biggest argument in favor of Women's Studies and DEI programs hinges on whether we have a self-sustaining solution to the cycle of underrepresentation. These programs offer a self-reinforcing cycle of recruiting more brilliant individuals to generate capability, regardless of gender or background.

Education, empowerment, and leadership cultivate a society that drives capability.

Not diversity for the sake of diversity. Diversity as a source of strength and innovation.

Let’s simplify the rationale for Women’s Studies, still using STEM careers as an example.

* Brilliant people of any gender bring great capability to STEM fields.

* For many societal reasons, women historically participate in these fields at a lower level than men.

* Women’s Studies programs make measurable improvements to increase women’s participation in STEM. These efforts increase the total number of brilliant people in STEM. More involvement in STEM by brilliant individuals generates increased national capability.

Therefore:

Education in fields that challenge and expand our understanding of gender and society increases the nation's overall capability and global competitiveness.

Our pursuit of equality and liberty is an ongoing endeavor. We believe in the ideal, but we aren’t perfect yet.

We can’t say we believe we are all created equal and, at the same time, ignore deficiencies. To identify shortcomings in women’s rights, we have to look for them. To look for them means we have to study women’s rights.

Women's Studies and other diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are essential to our national toolkit. We're actively cultivating a capable and innovative workforce poised to lead on the global stage.

There are arguments against Women’s Studies and other DEI study programs. But the results speak for themselves.

To increase national capability, we need to identify and engage brilliant people in areas where they can demonstrate their talents.

May God bless the United States of America.

What is the philosophical basis for education and public funding?

The context of this piece is the premise that Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

Individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their potential. Enhancing collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

The infrastructure in question is human capital — people's knowledge, skills, and abilities. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

To set the stage for this experiment, my voice is my own. The other voice for this piece is Ava, the name of the ChatGPT voice. Brilliant ElevenLabs Text To Speech created the voice. I edited Ava’s responses so they were shorter and more focused.

Joel: What is the philosophical basis for advancing your education?

Ava: Advancing education can be explored through multiple lenses, including personal growth, societal contribution, and the pursuit of truth.

Philosopher John Dewey emphasized education's role in fostering critical thinking, creativity, and personal fulfillment. This perspective aligns with the concept of self-actualization in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, suggesting that education can help individuals achieve their highest potential.

From a societal perspective, education is crucial for cultivating informed and responsible citizens. It equips individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute positively to society and to participate effectively in democratic processes. Plato, in his work The Republic, argued for the importance of education in creating a just society. He highlighted its role in preparing leaders and citizens who can contribute to the common good.

Philosophically, the pursuit of education emphasizes the intrinsic value of knowledge and the intellectual fulfillment that comes from understanding the world.

Joel: That’s a very utopian view of education, and I don’t disagree with the point. But utopian ideals lack teeth. Is the philosophical basis for education not the right to own yourself?

Ava: The concept of self-ownership, or the idea that individuals have the right to control their own bodies and lives, is indeed another philosophical basis for furthering education, albeit from a different angle. This perspective is grounded in libertarian and classical liberal philosophies, which emphasize individual autonomy, freedom, and rights.

Philosophers like John Locke and Robert Nozick have argued for the principle of self-ownership, which asserts that individuals own themselves and, by extension, have the right to the fruits of their labor and the freedom to pursue their own happiness. Education empowers individuals by enhancing their autonomy and ability to make informed decisions about their lives.

Education enables individuals to develop their capacity, make autonomous choices, and engage in the exercise of their freedoms. With education, an individual can better assert control over their life trajectory, make choices that reflect their values and interests, and resist coercion.

Additionally, furthering education can lead to greater economic independence and self-reliance, aspects that are closely tied to the concept of self-ownership. With higher levels of education, individuals are often better positioned to secure employment, achieve financial independence, and contribute to society in meaningful ways, thereby exercising their self-ownership through economic means.

Joel: I’m familiar with John Locke. He is the source of individualism and, therefore, American theory. He’s the philosopher who advanced the principles that became the US Constitution. Who was Robert Nozick?

Ava: Robert Nozick (1938–2002) was an American philosopher and prominent figure in political philosophy, ethics, and epistemology. He was a professor at Harvard University and is best known for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, published in 1974 by Blackwell Publishers.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia argued for a libertarian minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, and enforcement of contracts.

Nozick's libertarian philosophy is grounded in the principle of self-ownership, where individuals have the right to control their own bodies, actions, and the fruits of their labor. He argued against the redistribution of wealth by the state on the grounds that it violates individuals' rights.

Joel: What would Nozick have thought about the state ensuring people have a right to access to education?

Ava: Consistent with his libertarian views, Nozick would likely see education as a private good that individuals should obtain through their own efforts and resources or through voluntary exchanges and agreements.

Nozick championed a minimal state, strictly limited to protecting individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. This minimal state is contrasted with a more expansive state that might engage in redistributive policies or provide a wide range of public services, including education.

Based on Nozick's libertarian principles, he would likely oppose any system that funds public education through compulsory taxation, seeing it as a form of redistribution that infringes on individuals' rights to their property. He argued that redistributive policies violate the principle of self-ownership and entitlement theory, which holds that people are entitled to their holdings (e.g., income, property) if they have acquired them through just means.

While Nozick might oppose state-mandated funding for education through taxation, he could potentially support voluntary efforts to provide educational opportunities. This could include private schooling, scholarships funded by private donations, or community-funded educational initiatives, so long as participation and funding are voluntary and do not involve coercion by the state.

Joel: So, Nozick would be against the entire public American university system? What was Nozick's background before he taught at Harvard?

Ava: Before Robert Nozick became a prominent figure in philosophy and a professor at Harvard University, he had a diverse educational and professional background that shaped his intellectual development.

For his higher education, Nozick attended Columbia College, where he earned his Bachelor's degree in 1959. He then went on to pursue graduate studies at Princeton University, where he completed his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1963. His doctoral dissertation focused on decision theory, which already hinted at his interest in the foundations of rational choice and ethical decision-making.

After receiving his Ph.D., Nozick took up a position at Princeton University, where he started his academic career. He remained at Princeton for a short period before moving to other academic institutions. Before his tenure at Harvard, he also taught at the University of Virginia and Rockefeller University. These positions allowed him to develop and refine his philosophical views, particularly in political philosophy, ethics, and epistemology.

At this point in our conversation, I became annoyed by the logic break.

Joel: He taught at publicly funded institutions as well as private?

Ava: Yes, Robert Nozick taught at both publicly funded and private institutions throughout his academic career.

The University of Virginia is a public university and one of the places where Nozick taught early in his career. The University of Virginia is known for its strong commitment to liberal arts education and has a significant history as it was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819. Teaching at a public institution like the University of Virginia would have given Nozick insight into the operations and values of publicly funded higher education in the United States.

Nozick's experience across these diverse academic settings—public and private—contributed to his broad perspective on education, research, and intellectual inquiry. However, it's important to note that while Nozick argued philosophically against certain roles of the state, including extensive public funding for services like education, his professional career did intersect with publicly funded institutions.

Joel: Would he have made it to Harvard had he not taught at UVA? I find it ironic that he would use a publicly funded resource for his own career and then later criticize public funding for others.

Ava: The perceived irony of utilizing publicly funded platforms while critiquing certain aspects of public funding and state involvement in individual lives is not unique to Nozick. Many intellectuals and academics work within publicly funded institutions, contributing valuable research and teaching that benefits society at large, even as they might critique aspects of those very systems.

Joel: Let’s dig a little deeper. Does Harvard receive public funding through grants, awards, etc?

Ava: Yes, Harvard University, like many private universities in the United States, receives public funding in the form of grants, awards, and other financial support, primarily for research purposes. These funds can come from various sources, including federal government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense (DoD), and other entities. This funding supports a wide range of research activities across disciplines, including but not limited to medical research, science and engineering, public policy, and the social sciences.

While Harvard's operational budget is significantly supported by its endowment, tuition fees, and private donations, federal and state research grants are a crucial component of the university's research ecosystem.

:-|

Joel: Okay, let's redirect our conversation. Nozick believed in enforcing the social contract. Americans have a social contract wherein we believe we share the inalienable right to pursue happiness. If someone requires education to pursue happiness, do we not inherently believe in contributing to others' ability to pursue happiness by supporting educational institutions?

Ava: Robert Nozick's views, particularly as presented in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, provide a unique perspective on the concept of the social contract and the pursuit of happiness. While Nozick does argue for the enforcement of contracts and the protection of individual rights as central functions of the state, his interpretation of the social contract significantly diverges from the idea that this necessarily includes a duty to redistribute funds to ensure everyone's ability to pursue happiness through education or other means.

Nozick's Entitlement Theory of Justice suggests that the redistribution of funds for social welfare programs, including publicly funded education, is unjust if it infringes upon individuals' rights to their property. According to Nozick, unless individuals voluntarily choose to contribute their resources for the benefit of others, compelling them to do so through taxation constitutes a violation of their rights.

In essence, while Nozick deeply values the pursuit of happiness, his philosophical stance does not inherently support the idea of redistributing funds for education or other means of enabling this pursuit as a state-enforced obligation.

Joel: I didn't mean to imply a redistribution of funds. I mean Americans, by virtue of being American, choose to willingly give some funds to enable others to achieve their pursuit of happiness at some level. What would Nozick think of this position?

Ava: Robert Nozick would likely view the position that Americans choose to willingly give some funds to enable others to achieve their pursuit of happiness as a reflection of individual autonomy and voluntary association. As long as these contributions are not compelled by the state and respect the principles of individual rights and consent, they could be seen as consistent with his philosophical framework. This perspective underscores the distinction between voluntary acts of support and charity, which are compatible with libertarian principles, and compulsory redistribution, which is not.

Ava isn’t getting my point. The contributions are compelled by the state. They’re called taxes. But we do choose to pay them.

Joel: Ava, here in America, we elect representatives. Our representatives choose to, on our behalf, fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. Every state in the union has a public university. Therefore, we as individuals choose to fund public institutions. Further, this means our commitment to education isn't compulsory; it's voluntary.

Ava: Your argument posits an interesting perspective on the democratic process and the funding of public institutions in the United States, including education. This view suggests that because Americans elect representatives who make decisions on public funding, including for education, this process is essentially a form of collective voluntary choice rather than compulsory imposition.

Of course, conversing with a large language model has no end. You type, and it writes back. And Ava is not the esteemed Dr. Nozick.

Individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their potential. Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

Enhancing collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

Human capital infrastructure — people's knowledge, skills, and abilities- is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

In our democratic republic, we elect representatives to act on our behalf. These representatives choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. Every state in the union has a public university.

Therefore, we as individuals choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness.

May God bless the United States of America.