Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 1) - Philosophy of Government

This is the first part of a series of posts dealing with government based upon Natural Law.

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated.  Neither may a government determine the aesthetic values of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression.  Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious or philosophical doctrines.  Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain their freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”

Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize winning physicist

Introduction

The purpose of this series of documents is to present how I believe a government should function so that it is consistent with what is called Natural Law, sometimes called Universal or Divine Law. Natural Law is here defined as those laws determined by our Creator, that when followed in universally consistent ways, facilitate the spiritual and moral evolution of mankind.

The policies advocated here are consistent with my core beliefs, which can be found here. I then state my philosophy of government, which I believe to be consistent with these core beliefs. This is followed by a list of the particular topics that will be covered in the series on good government. 

My intention is to present a philosophy of government that, if adopted, will lead to peace and prosperity for all people of good will as well as to provide an environment conducive to spiritual growth, for those who so desire. If done properly, a government following these principles could be the first sustainable government.

Philosophy of Government 

A philosophy of government concerns the role of government in the affairs of its citizens. One’s governmental philosophy must be consistent with one’s core philosophical beliefs.

As freedom and peace are so important to our material, physical and spiritual growth, the core tenant of my philosophy of government is that the main purpose of government is to help to protect each individual’s right to live and grow in peace.

Because the philosophy of government presented here contends that the primary purpose of government is to keep the peace, many atheists and agnostics will find that they substantially agree with this governmental philosophy, even though they might disagree with some of my core philosophical beliefs. 

In a country such as the United States, which properly operates by the rule of law, the manner in which government protects our rights is through our laws. Hence, our laws should be centered upon the protection of the people’s right to live life as they see fit, as long as this is done in peace.

Thus a good law is one which says that if a person is convicted of violating the life, liberty, or property of another, then a penalty may be imposed, which penalty itself will remove either the life, liberty or property of the violator.

The most common such laws prohibit murder, rape, child abuse, theft, assault, fraud, and coercion. In addition, since pollution can have a detrimental effect on a person’s life or property, laws that regulate harmful pollution in a rational way are also good laws.

Conversely, bad laws are those that prohibit a belief, or that prohibit any action or behavior that does not interfere with the right of others to their life, liberty or property. For example, the world’s great religions and great civilizations all have prohibitions against such acts as adultery, homosexual sex, greed, and even gluttony. However, legislation making these illegal would be inappropriate, because these acts do not interfere with the rights of others.  Similarly, laws against adults privately using the various forms of drugs would not be appropriate laws.

Another way to look at this is to realize that if a person is convicted of violating a law, the penalty always entails the loss of life, liberty and/or property of that person. Hence, the only good laws are those that penalize only persons who violate the life, liberty and/or property of another.

Christ said that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself, and even to love our enemies. If each of us did this, the world would be immediately transformed. Yet, it is not the place of government to require us to obey these commandments; the government ought not to legislate what beliefs we should follow, or even how we are to lead our lives, as long as our actions do not cause harm to another.

This governmental platform therefore contains only legislation that I believe is in alignment with these criteria; it is not a list of all good things that we should do, nor is it list of prohibitions of all the bad things we ought not to do. Rather, it only deals with legislation that prohibits a person or group of persons from causing harm to another.

Additionally, because the natural resources belong to the people as a whole, legislation with respect to our natural resources is also a responsibility of government.

Jefferson said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Therefore, I believe it important to limit the role of government so as to protect our liberties. In this vein, the US Constitution specifically enumerates what may be legislated by Congress (called the ‘enumerated powers’). Furthermore, the 10th Amendment stipulates that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution be reserved to the States or to the people. Accordingly, another criterion for being a good federal law is that the law can be justified under one of its Constitutionally-enumerated powers. Furthermore, any current federal laws or programs or expenditures that cannot be justified under one of the enumerated powers should be phased out, or, alternatively, the Constitution could be amended to add such a program to one of its enumerated powers.

The intention therefore, is to provide a governmental platform that protects each person’s right to live in peace, as well as to prevent the encroachment of government on those rights. To say this in a different way, we believe that government serves us best when it protects all free markets – meaning those interactions that are voluntary and informed - free markets to trade goods and services; free markets of ideas, science, art, and music; free markets of religion, education, association, and friendship. Good government ought to protect all of these freedoms, and more.

The type of government described in the following series is the only one that is sustainable - one the could last indefinitely.  And that is because it not only allows its citizens to lead their lives as they see fit, but protects the right to do so.

Government Based on Natural Law Topics

For the convenience of the reader, below is an alphabetical list of the government-related items discussed in detail in the remaining parts of this series.

Appointment of Justices

Abortion

Businesses and Prosperity

Border and Port Security
Children

Defense and Military Policy

Drug Policy

Economic Policy

Educational Benefit Subsidy

Energy Policy and Nuclear Power

English as the official language of the United States

Environmental Policy

Foreign Aid

Foreign Trade

Global Warming

Government Control of Private Organizations

Government Sponsored Gambling

Hate-Crime Laws

Immigration Policy

Marriage and Society

Medical Benefit Subsidy

Monetary Policy

Natural Resource Tax Subsidy

Protection from Criminals

Social Security and Retirement

Taxes and Spending

The Right to Own and Bear Arms

Women in Combat

Voting System Reform

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer and Graduate Adviser in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author.  You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Black Holes

How about a bit of science?

Everyone's heard about Black Holes, but what the heck are they?

First, a little background.  If you throw a ball up from the Earth, it will slow down and eventually fall back to the Earth.  No matter how fast you throw it up, it will always come back down.  Suppose you used a nice, fancy machine to throw it up faster than you can.  Will it always come back down?

Happily, the answer is no.  If you have a very powerful machine, (and we don't have one yet that can do this), that can throw the ball so that when it leaves the machine it is traveling at around 7 miles per second, the ball will go up and never come back down.  It will indeed slow down continuously, but not enough to head back toward Earth.  This speed that an object needs to leave a planet or any other mass, is called its escape velocity.  For instance the Moon has an escape velocity of about 1.5 miles per second.

You can probably guess that the more massive and dense the object, the higher its escape velocity is.

But can an object be so massive and dense so that nothing can escape from it, not even light?  Once again, we are happy, because the answer is yes, and such an object is called, not surprisingly, a Black Hole.

And that's why they are black. Not even light can escape from one.  Do we know for sure that such objects exist?  Not quite.  There is some pretty good evidence for Black Holes, and most astronomers believe they exist.

Black Holes were first predicted as a result of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which is actually mostly a theory of gravity. And they are a bit more complicated that they seem.

The outer 'surface' of a Black Hole is called the event horizon.  From the outside, anyone looking toward a Black Hole would see only black within the event horizon.

What would happen if Jill unwisely decided to take a trip in a rocket ship into a Black Hole.  Well, it somewhat depends on the size of the Black Hole.  Right now, our best evidence in that most galaxies have huge Black Holes at their centers.  So she travels toward the center of our galaxy (which would take millions or years at the current speeds of our rockets, so Jill will get very bored and hungry). She could actually travel right through the event horizon and wouldn't even know it.  Sadly, if she tried to get back out, it ain't going to happen.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride, Jill.  Because she will inexorably be pulled toward the center of the Black Hole, a mysterious place called the Singularity. This Singularity contains all the mass of the Black Hole.  Einstein's equations predict that this is a point of infinite density, and no size.  Try not to think about that.

Once she gets close enough to this Singularity, she and her rocket will begin to be stretched toward the Singularity. This is because gravity will be stronger at the tip of the spacecraft than it is at its end. This stretching is actually called spaghettification.  It would not be a pleasant experience, even though it sounds delicious. Once she reaches the Singularity, she will be completely crushed into it, and have no volume.  Do not be concerned about this, as she will be dead long before this happens.

Here's a very interesting phenomena associated with Black Holes.

Let's switch the frame of reference to an observer, Jack, quite a distance from the Black Hole. Jack would see Jill fly toward the large black hole in her spaceship. But Jack would see her ship slow down as it got closer to its event horizon – which is the point of no return.  As time went by for Jack, he would see her ship going slower and slower, and the light he would see coming from her ship would get shifted to the red part of the spectrum, and eventually to shorter and shorter radio waves, so that Jack will never see her ship cross the event horizon- ever!

Who is right, Jack or Jill? That's the thing about relativity - they are both right, from their own frames of reference.  How can that be?  Either Jill flies through the event horizon into the Singularity or she never makes it to the Singularity.

Take about 5 university-level physics courses, and it will be almost make sense.

Almost.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

 

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 14) - Health Care

What is the current state of health care in the U.S. 

Currently our government is subsidizing health care in many ways, such as with the programs of Medicare (for those of retirement age) and Medicaid (for the poor), as well and other health-care laws passed by Congress. In addition most people still get heath insurance from their employer.  And anyone who walks into a county hospital can get medical care. 

Medicaid is not a very well-run program.  The amount it reimburses doctors is so low that many doctors do not take Medicaid patients.  My doctor takes Medicaid patients but only if they pay up front for the services provided.  The patient can then send the paperwork to the government to get reimbursed.

There are a number of unworkable and undesirable other things about the way the health care is handled.  One is that these programs are underfunded by over $40 trillion.  This means that the government has made health care promises but eventually not enough income to meet them, so some changes will have to be made.  Even so, not everyone is covered.  And we spend about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care, higher than almost all other countries in the world.

Most people receive health-insurance subsidies from their employer, which creates its own sets of problems.  For instance, if a person quits their job or is fired, they must find another company to work for, or they must soon find their own health insurance. And if they have any pre-existing health conditions, this insurance could be prohibitively expensive.  The only reason employers got involved with providing health insurance for its employees was that during World War II, the government made it a tax write off, as an encouragement to employers.  It no longer makes any sense to have employers involved with health insurance, and creates many inefficiencies and problems.

On the other hand, most Americans are happy with the quality of health care that they receive. Therefore, we want to maintain at least the same quality, while providing good health care to all, and at an affordable price to the taxpayers.

(Eventually, likely many decades from now, we will be prosperous enough so that almost all people would be able to provide their own health care.  The few remaining individuals who cannot do so could easily be provided for through charity.  At that point the government would have no role, except for the important role of having laws that protect consumers from fraud, etc. While it may be ideal for most of us to be prosperous enough to provide our own health care, it is something that will have to come about only when prosperity for most ensues).

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, I think that health care, like education, should be subsidized for all Americans (and permanent residents).  And Americans should be able to choose their own doctors, chiropractors, osteopaths, ophthalmologists, dentists, etc., that they believe best meets their needs. 

What is the best way we can provide pretty good health care for all? 

My proposal will 1) Provide health care for all Americans, 2) Do so affordably using taxes, 3) Remove the pre-existing condition problem, and 4) Be fully funded, so that we don't pass on more debt to our children.  

The essence of the proposal is to provide and fund a Health-Care Account (HCA) for each American adult, paid for through taxes.  Half of this amount would be used to purchase a high-deductible health insurance policy, and the other half would be used to pay for medical services until the deductible is met. For most people, in most years, the deductible won't be met.  Keep in mind that money for the deductible is part of the HCA and would be paid for using a patient's HCA card. 

Specifically, the government would take 10% of GDP, and provide an equal amount of this to every adult (age 18 or older).  With a GDP in 2013 of about $17 trillion, this comes out to over $12,000 per year per adult.  Thus each adult would use their HCA card buy a $6,000 per year (in 2013 dollars) high-deductible health-insurance policy, and would have $6,000 per year to spend as cash (using their HCA card) for their deductible. This very high deductible greatly helps to keep the insurance premium down.  Also, the health-insurance companies that wish to be involved in this would also be required to provide insurance for any children the adult may have. 

Here's an example as to how this would work. We'll assume that all Americans and permanent residents already have been given their HCA card.  You have the flu and go to the doctor of your choice.  Say the doctor charges $150 for a visit.  You would provide your HCA card and $150 would be deducted from your $6,000 deductible.  And that's it. It costs you nothing, and your doctor gets paid immediately.  

Now suppose that something catastrophic occurs, such as a fall resulting in two broken legs and a concussion.  The hospital costs would likely be more than the $6,000 deductible.  The hospital would first use whatever deductible was left on you HCA card, and then your insurance company would pay the remainder of the costs at 100%.  

This would provide very good coverage for all, and would save money at the same time, since we would be spending 10% of GDP on health care instead of 16%.  And it would still keep the advantages of a free-market in health care, because patients could choose their own doctors, hospitals, etc.  This is what would make it better than the "single-payer" plans that most developed countries have, because they dictate the cost of doctor's visits, as well as the costs of various procedures, and lead to many delays in obtaining health care. 

What would health-insurance companies need to do to qualify to be part of this program?  

The United States Congress would certify participating insurance companies who would have to agree to accept the amounts given above and would have to agree to accept any person, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.  They would also have to agree to insure any children of the covered adult. As is true now, they would also have to be fiscally sound. 

Also, once a person has met the deductible, their insurance company would have to agree cover 100% of covered medical costs.  There would be no more co-payments for the year.

Would health insurance companies want to participate in this program? 

Yes.  Keep in mind that these payments start at age 18.  Usually, people up to the age of 40 or 50 would not meet their deductible, but the health-insurance companies would be getting premiums during this time.  People who are older or are frequently ill would be using the insurance most years, and so essentially insurance companies would be making money on most young or healthy people, and losing money on older or less healthy people.  The difference should provide a reasonable profit for an insurance company, so that many would want to be a participant in this program.  This cushion of starting to get premiums at age 18 should also provide enough money to be able to handle the costs of pre-existing conditions.  The specifics as to what is covered and what isn't would need to be worked out so as to insure that insurance companies would want to participate. 

Q and A's

Since this would be a new government program, would it require a tax increase?

All things being equal, it would require a tax increase.  But the overall cost to individuals would decrease.  This is because they would no longer be paying their part of the health insurance provided by their employer.  Also, companies would be saving money because they would no longer be providing health insurance, and they would no longer have to have large human resource departments to deal with this.  Thus, they could afford to give raises to their employees.

Would eye care and dental care be covered?

Yes, this would be required of all participating insurance companies. 

Would all medical conditions and procedures be covered, and would coverage be unlimited? 

No. Just as now, certain conditions are not covered by Medicare, certain conditions would not be covered by this plan.  For example, a heart transplant would likely not be covered.  Similarly, cosmetic surgery would not be covered, although one could use the cash portion to pay for it. Also, a person could accumulated cash in their account which they would be able to use this for such procedures. 

Probably a lifetime maximum of around $2 million would be in place.  It's important to get good coverage for all, so some limitations must apply for this to occur.  

Would this program replace all other government health-care programs?  

Yes, and that is one way the government will save money on health-care programs.  No programs such as Medicare and Medicaid would be needed.  Taxpayers would also save money because they would no longer have to pay for county hospitals because everyone would be covered.  (A possible exception is that veterans who are injured in the line of duty would not have the limitations mentioned above.  They would have the same essential plan but any injuries they sustained would be covered, and the lifetime maximum would be increased.  There would be no more need for Veteran's Hospitals, since veterans could get their health care at any hospital). 

Studies have shown that people who take care of themselves physically spend less on health care.  Would there be incentives in place to encourage this?  

The government would not directly apply such incentives, but insurance companies would be allowed to.  For instance, an insurance company could say, "If you keep your weight in the ideal range for your age and sex, and if you keep yourself reasonably fit, and if you get regular physical, eye-care and dental checkups, we'll refund a portion of your monthly payment, and you can use that money anyway you wish."

This would be a valuable incentive to keep ourselves physically healthy.  And of course there would be the additional benefit that healthier individuals are happier and more productive. 

Are you sure it would be a good idea to sever the relationship between employment and health care? 

Very much so.  Economist Albert Brenner has said this about health care: “ Industry and commerce are not well-served by a labor force unwilling to change jobs for fear of losing health-insurance benefits.  I have seen little discussion of this issue in connection with health care reform, but health-insurance benefits are a major reason for individuals to accept employment and to continue their employment even if they are not satisfied, challenged, or motivated by their job.  The current system thereby promotes an inefficient utilization of labor by restricting labor mobility.  This inefficiency reduces productivity, profits, and economic growth and output.  Since labor costs are by far the single largest resource cost in the production of goods and services, a reform that promises to make labor utilization more efficient promises to improve productivity and to increase economic output.” 

Would health-insurance co-operatives be allowed to participate? 

Yes, as long as they meet the same regulatory standards that for-profit health-insurance companies must meet.
(Health insurance co-operatives are owned by those who purchase health-insurance policies through them.  Any profits made can be returned to the policy owners, or can be used to reduce premiums.  Thus, they may wish to provide additional incentives for its members to be physically fit). 

What could a person do with money that accumulates in their HCA? 

They could do a number of things.  A person could choose to get a refund each year for any deductible money they did not use. This would provide an incentive to find good, yet cost-effective doctors and hospitals. 

Also, they would be allowed to transfer their money to another's account.  This could be useful if, for example, a family member needed a heart transplant, or something that wasn't covered by the insurance policy.

And they could stipulate in their will that any excess money be given to another person(s).  This would add more incentive to take care of oneself physically. 

Could a person use their own money to get additional benefits by increasing their health-insurance premiums?

Certainly.  This must be the case in a free country. 

Can the well-off do something to lessen the cost of this program? 

Yes.  There should be an easy way for someone to opt out of this program, and those that are well-to-do would be encouraged to do so.  For instance, the government might ask those families who earn over $150,000 to opt out of the program and pay for their own medical care.  As our country becomes more prosperous, more people would be able to opt out, saving the government money.  The government could send a nice thank-you letter each year to individuals who opted out, to show their appreciation. 

Would this program be constitutional?

Although the Supreme Court would likely rule it to be, I don't think it would be constitutional.  There is nothing in the Constitution about the government providing health-care subsidies.  Therefore, I would want a Constitutional Amendment passed to allow for this program. The amendment would specify that up to 10% of GDP could be used for the subsidy, and that sufficient taxes should be levied so that no debt would arise as a result of it. 

It would also state that this subsidy is not a right. This is because I don't believe one can have a right that requires someone else to pay for that right. 

As an aside, are there other subsidies that you’d like the government to provide? 

Yes.  Until our civilization advances enough, I believe that government should subsidize both education and health care for all.

Additionally, I’ve previously described a Natural-Resource Dividend.  This is an amount of money that would be given each month to every American adult, to compensate for others’ use of our common natural resources. 

For example, a  family would be getting about $2000 per month from the Natural-Resource Dividend, plus government-subsidized health care and education.  These should provide a reasonable economic base for families, and would also allow most mothers of young children to not have to work for money.

Between these subsidies and the Natural-Resource Dividend, we can eliminate all other subsidies that the government provides, both to businesses and individuals.  This would save a large sum of money by eliminating all of the bureaucracy involved in these programs. 

Note also a very important point: every American would be given the same amount of money for each of these subsidies.  This will save money by reducing the bureaucracy involved, and will satisfy the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment, which are both meant to have laws that apply equally to all citizens. 

Conclusion 

Having a health-care subsidy that a) provides good health care to all Americans without going into debt; b) that saves money as well; c) that encourages us to take care of our physical health; and d) that still allows individuals free choices as to how to obtain their health care, is a plan that we should adopt as soon as possible.

_____________________________________

 
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 6) - Military Policy

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, and to have with them as little political connection as possible.” 

George Washington

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.” 

Thomas Jefferson

 

Introduction

We should have cordial relations with all countries who act peacefully.  No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will end up suffering more than we will.  “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be.  This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions.  The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund attempt to do this, and we should have nothing to do with them.

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow.  What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same.

And what this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place. 

US Military Policy 

Purpose 

The purpose of the United States military should be to defend the USA if it is attacked, and to prevent an attack if a country or group has said that it intends to attack us.  This also includes eliminating in some fashion those who have already attacked us.

A possible addition to this is that if a close ally of ours is attacked, and if they request our assistance, and if we are able to help, we should carefully consider whether to use our military to aid the ally. 

Having the Best Military in the World 

Of course, the best outcome of having the best military in the world is that no rational country would attack us or even threaten to attack us. And indeed, since we developed nuclear weapons, not a single country has attacked us.

The quality of our troops, their training, and the quality of our leadership are the reasons why we have the best military.  And along with this is that we have thousands of nuclear weapons. (We used to have over 30,000 but it seems like having 1,000 would be enough of a deterrent, and much less expensive to maintain).

Some people have a desire to have a 'nuclear free' world, meaning that all nuclear weapons should be dismantled.  This is a terrible idea.  Our enemies would be ecstatic if we got rid of our nuclear weapons.  And, of course, there is no way to be sure that all other countries do not have or will not develop nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, our nuclear weapons are the greatest deterrent to those who would consider attacking us. As mentioned above, not a single country has attacked us since we developed nuclear weapons.

And because the United States is not imperialistic and does not steal natural resources from other countries, I suspect that if you privately asked most people around the world which country should have the best military, they would choose the USA. 

We should not be the Policeman of the World 

One implication of the purpose of the military given above is that we should not be the policemen of the world.  People and countries have fought each other since the beginning of recorded history, and it is not the business or purpose of the United States to intervene in such fights, unless, of course, we are attacked or threatened with an attack.  The last war that we should have fought was World War II.  Our wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been misguided, although they were likely well intentioned.

Another implication of this is that we should not have our military stationed in any other countries, unless we are at war.  Currently, we have troops stationed in over 100 countries.  How many countries have troops stationed in the United States? None. This has created enmity and dependency, as well costing taxpayers a great deal of money.  It may help to create temporary stability in a given region, but is this truly our business? 

The Department of Defense has stated that we even need fewer military bases in the USA, but Congress has been loathe to remove bases in the states that they represent, for fear of losing jobs. 

How Different Would our Military be given the above Purpose of the Military 

If we eliminated foreign bases, wouldn't our ability to defend ourselves be degraded?  I think the opposite would be the case.  Countries would no longer be telling us to mind our own business, and terrorists would not be telling us to get out of their countries, and would have fewer reasons to attack us.

Here's a brief summary of what I believe would be the best way to protect our country:

1) Remove our troops from all foreign countries (over time).

2) We would not even need a standing army, because we are not going to get involved with policing the world, or overturning governments.

3) We could use the National Guard in this country to strictly guard our borders and ports.  Their main purpose would be to see that no WMDs, especially nuclear bombs are smuggled into this country.  And the secondary purpose would be to see that those who come into our country are legally allowed to be here.

4) As far as threats from other countries, we can use our intelligence agencies (which can of course operate overseas), our intelligence-gathering space satellites, and our Aircraft Carrier Groups, which operate in international waters, and that dominate the oceans.  No sneak attacks from other countries are at all likely to occur.

5) As far as threats from terrorist groups or other such groups who wish to harm us, again our intelligence agencies are the main line of defense, along with the border and port controls.  If an overseas threat is found, we would send in our Special Operations groups to eliminate those threats. 

Note that if all countries had this same military philosophy, there would be no war! 

Conclusion 

Following these military policies will, in the long run, bring the world close to peace, because we would not be interfering with other countries, and we would be setting a good example for other countries to follow.

A very nice side benefit is that this could almost cut in half the military budget, and make us safer at the same time.

One other way to reduce the likelihood of war will be discussed in a future post.  It deals with free trade.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 13) - Retirement and Social Security

The History and Future of Social Security

Social Security is a poorly planned system that is not economically sound, and is unfunded.  The current Social Security tax rate is 12.5% and this money is used to pay current retirees; thus none of the Social Security taxes paid by an individual are actually invested for that individual.  This is why it is considered unfunded.  Because of this and because of the aging population that is occurring all over the world, Social Security benefits are becoming an increasingly large inhibitor of economic growth, and are taking up a larger and larger share of federal spending. In 2009, it has been estimated that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by around $50 trillion.  This means that if the benefits remain the same, and the FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax rate remains the same, an additional $50 trillion would still be needed.  Any company that had such a retirement program would rightly be prosecuted.

To show how badly out-of-balance these programs have become, between 1966 and 2006, Medicare and Social Security grew from 16% of the federal budget to 40%. (Defense spending declined from 43% to 20% of the budget during that period.)  By 2050, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is estimated to take up the entire federal budget, if the budget were to remain the same proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as it is today.  (This does not even include the interest on the federal debt, which is increasing even more rapidly; it is projected to be three times the entire GDP by 2050.)  Obviously something will have to be done, and it will not be pretty.

Even worse, as of 2010 or so, people are paying more into Social Security than they, on average, will get out of it.  For instance, if a person turned 65 in 2010, they will have paid into Social Security about $588,000 and will only get $555,000 in benefits.  And these figures get worse every year.   Thus, people are getting a negative return on their 'investment'.

Most people are not aware that when Roosevelt and Congress started Social Security, the FICA tax rate was only 2%, and even then only those who earned over the median income paid into it.  Also, it was only intended to supplement one’s retirement.  Now, virtually everyone who works pays into Social Security at a rate of about 12% of income, and it still is only intended to supplement to one’s retirement.  This is truly pitiful and unbecoming of a great country. 

Retirement Planning

In a system based upon personal responsibility, individuals are responsible for their own retirement funds.  It would be wise to invest at least 10% of one’s income into a retirement plan.  I would recommend that children be taught in school the importance of saving for retirement from their very first paycheck.

To make the transition from our current system, we might require individuals to invest this money, although this would still slightly violate the premise of personal responsibility.

(As an aside, another 5% or so should be used to purchase long-term care insurance, and to purchase disability insurance as well.  Surprisingly often, many people will at some point become disabled, and/or need long-term care).

This 10% of one’s income would be invested in one of a number of government-approved investment companies.  Such companies would have to meet certain strict standards, as determined by the government.  These funds would be held in a segregated account in the individual’s name, so that such savings are immune from the solvency of an employer or the investment company.  This is similar to many retirement plans many States use for State employees.

To get an idea of how much money a person could have at retirement, let’s assume that the person works for 40 years, and has a starting salary of $36,000.  Let’s also assume that the person only gets a raise equal to the rate of inflation, so that they are essentially making $36,000 in today’s dollars for their entire working life.  This is a rather conservative assumption, since the median income of men who worked full time in the U.S. in 2007 was about $45,000.  The final assumption is that the entire amount is invested in a stock-index fund that mirrors that entire stock market.  Over any 40-year period since the modern stock market began in 1920, the stock market averaged a gain of at least 10% annually.

Whipping out my financial calculator, and investing $300 monthly (10% of the $3,000 monthly salary) for 40 years, earning 10% per year, gives almost $2 million in today’s dollars.  (The actual amount would be the value of $2 million of today’s dollars 40 years into the future, a much larger figure.)

Once you retire, you can safely take out 5% of this $2 million each year without reducing the principle, so this would give an income of $100,000 per year for the rest of your life!  And you would never have to worry about running out of money.  When you die, the $2 million could be willed to one’s spouse, children, charity, etc.

Imagine how much better this is than the current Social Security system, which takes over 12% of your income, and gives you about $25,000 per year for life at retirement.  This is what happens when government takes charge of your life.

Even better, we would no longer need to save additional money for retirement as we do now.  For instance, I work at the University of Texas at Dallas.  I pay 12.5% of my income (between me and my employer) into Social Security.  In addition, I am required to pay 15.5% into my retirement plan.  Under the plan I gave above, it would only cost 15% of one’s income (which includes long-term care and disability insurance as well as retirement).  That means I’d have an immediate additional 13% of income to spend.  Would you like a 13% raise?

Conclusion

We need to immediately implement a retirement program as described above.  At the same time, we need to phase out the fiscally irresponsible and damaging Social Security program.  But this needs to be done without harming those retired or near retirement.  This will be expensive to do, but will only get more expensive the longer we wait.  It is likely that the best way to make the transition is to require individuals to put 15% of their income into their own retirement/disability program, and yet still pay FICA taxes until almost everyone has their own well-funded retirement program.  This will take decades, but it took us decades to get to where we are now.  As usual, the piper must always be paid.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

The Top Five Lies and Half-Truths Found in Movies

Movies help to define and influence our culture.  But movies frequently reflect lies and half-truths about what is good and what is bad for humanity, and many do so in such a manner as to degrade our culture.

What are some of myths, lies, and half-truths perpetuated by movies?

1) Myth: Nuclear power is dangerous and has caused untold harm to us and the Earth.  Radioactivity has caused an untold number of mutations to humans, and to plants and animals.  Many movie monsters are the result of mutations due to radioactivity. 

The Reality: Nuclear power provides the safest, least- polluting, baseload of energy that mankind has even known.  Not a single American has died as a result of radiation from a commercial nuclear power plant.  And this includes Americans on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.  This level of safety is unheard of in the history of humanity.

Another major advantage of using nuclear power is that we would no longer need to depend on countries hostile to us.  For instance, the most likely nuclear fuel in the future will be Thorium, which the U.S. has plenty of.  Some are estimating that we have over a million years of nuclear fuel remaining.

Nuclear wastes?  Not to worry.  The new reactor designs use the energy in current wastes to generate even more energy, while eliminating most of the wastes.  And when car batteries become more efficient, we can charge them with electricity generated from a nuclear-power plant, and eliminate autos as a source of pollution.

What about the nuclear-reactor problems in Japan?  Well, Japan had a (1-in-every-400-year) 9.0 earthquake, resulting in devastating tsunamis, which killed well over 20,000 people.  Some of their 40-year-old nuclear reactors were severely damaged, and released some radiation.  Of the 20,000 people killed, how many were reportedly killed by radiation?  If you've read the hundreds of hysterical articles about the damaged nuclear reactors, you'd think the answer would be thousands.  But as of 2012, the answer is -- you guessed it -- 0.

Would you like to scare 95% of the American population?  Use the work "nuclear" in a sentence.

There is a source of radiation that kills thousands every year -- the Sun.  These are mostly deaths due to skin cancer.  We must do something about that pesky Sun.  We do need about 10-15 minutes of sunlight a day to get our vitamin D.  But if you want to minimize your chances of getting skin cancer, after your few minutes in the Sun, head to a nuclear power plant.  If they let you in, you'll be safe from any radiation there.

2) Myth: Businesses are bad.  They destroy the environment, they make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  Businessmen are unscrupulous and only care about how much money they make, and how to increase the value of their stock.

The Reality: Sure, some businesses and some businessmen are bad, but this can be said about any group and about many individuals and is just a reflection of the fact that we humans are flawed.  But because we allow free-enterprise more than most countries, we have provided an environment in which our best people created the best products in the world, because they can profit from this.  Americans created electric lighting, the telephone, cell phones, computers, affordable cars, the Internet, GPS, YouTube, the polio vaccine and other wonder drugs, indoor plumbing, IBM, Google, Intel, and thousands of businesses whose products have made each of our lives better.  Without privately-owned businesses, we'd be about as prosperous as Cuba and North Korea.  And remember how well the Soviet Union worked out.

3) Myth: We are destroying the Earth.  Humans are responsible for most of the pollution and global warming that are causing this destruction.

The Reality: There is nothing humans can do to destroy the Earth.  The huge asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs and many other species around 65 million years ago did more harm than we could possibly do.  The Earth could not have cared less.  And yet many paleo-biologists believe that the death of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to flourish, eventually allowing Homo sapiens to flourish.

Surely we would all like to create less pollution, to grow more organic foods, to conserve more, etc.  And other entries in this blog tell how we can do this.  But none of what we're doing is "destroying the Earth."

Furthermore, prosperous countries tend to be the least- polluted ones, because they can afford pollution controls.  How many movies that seem to be concerned about pollution point that fact out?  Instead, prosperous countries and prosperous people are ridiculed and called greedy.  Want a cleaner Earth?  Do what it takes to be more prosperous.

As one of many movie examples, in the latest remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, the main alien, played by Keanu Reeves, said the humans must be wiped out because there are not that many habitable planets in the galaxy and his galactic alliance couldn't allow humans to destroy the Earth.

Keanu didn't explain how humans were destroying the Earth.  This was fortunate, because his explanation would have been nonsensical.  Presumably, it was related to human pollution and human-caused global warming.  Such things could kill some humans and some species, but would not come close to "destroying the Earth."  

I can't imagine what his galactic alliance was thinking, or, more to the point, what the movie's writers were thinking.  Couldn't this galactic alliance have shown us a way to generate inexpensive, non-polluting energy?  Instead, they decided to destroy the entire human race, just so some other alien race might use the "clean" Earth in the future.  (Keanu Reeves did relent and stop the genocide of the human race, but that did not change the premise of the movie).  There is so much nonsense here, one could make another movie about the irrationality of this movie.  For instance, suppose that humans did stop polluting (or whatever was bothering Keanu)?  This would do the aliens no good at all, since humans would still be occupying the Earth, and not the aliens.  So really, if the aliens value the Earth so much, the rational thing to do would be to destroy us before we can defend ourselves.  Of course, they would accumulate some very bad karma doing this, but what the heck?

We'd be much better off with a galactic alliance headed by Darth Vader.

How can a movie that makes those who intended the genocide of humanity seem like the good guys?  Only a movie made by those who value snails and whales more than humans.

4) Myth: The rich are bad.  They are greedy.  They take away jobs from the rest of us, have a huge "carbon footprint", and will certainly not get into Heaven.

The Reality: Name a country with very few rich, and you've just named a country where almost everyone is poor.  Most people who are rich earned their money by starting a business (as opposed to inheriting their money).  These businesses create millions of jobs that create prosperity for the rest of us.  Microsoft, Intel, Facebook, and Google are just a few of the companies started by individuals who are now rich.  We should be happy for them, and thankful that we live in a country that protects people's right to start and profit from a business.  Countries that don't protect such freedoms are now mostly former countries, such as the Soviet Union and its satellites.  Those countries still around that don't protect such freedoms will soon be former countries themselves, unless they start to change and allow their citizens to be free to live in peace.

Of course there are rich individuals who do bad things.  For instance, someone who becomes rich but does not pay his employees their fair share of what they have produced is going to get some bad karma.  Not as much as the aliens who destroy all of the intelligent life on a planet, but bad karma nonetheless.

Movies that show disrespect to "the rich" help to create class envy.  And nothing good comes from envy.  It harms a person physically, mentally and spiritually.  And it even makes them less likely to become prosperous, because an envious person can blame the rich for their woes, rather than take responsibility for their life.  And it allows our politicians to play "the-rich-are-bad-and-are- responsible-for-your-misery" game.  Instead, our politicians should be telling us what they would do to help increase the prosperity for all good Americans who are willing to work.

5) Myth: There are few religious people in the United States.  Few mention God, few pray, and many make fun of those who are religious.

The Reality: Recent polls have shown that about 80-85% of Americans believe in God.  But check out almost any movie you can think of.  Rarely is God even mentioned, and even more rarely is someone shown praying.  An alien who tried to deduce what humans believed just from movies would deduce that most of us were atheists, and and that those who were religious were irrational.

The disparaging of those who are religious is a very dangerous trend.  A country that is not predominantly religious will eventually get into trouble.  The biggest mass murderers in history, such as Stalin, (former president of the U.S.S.R.), Pol Pot (former president of Viet Nam), Mao (former chairman of China), Hitler (former dictator of Germany), and Tojo (former emperor of Japan), were not in the least concerned with how God felt about what they did.

And if God is not the source of one's morality, then usually one looks to government for guidance and to solve one's problems.  And it's abundantly clear how well that works. 

The founding document of our country, the Declaration of Independence, states that our rights come from our Creator.  If one doesn't believe in a Creator, then our rights are up for grabs.  No thanks.

 

Conclusion: Many movies get released that have some major inaccuracy that contributes to our country's debasement or lack of knowledge.  And yet movies, like most other things, can be used to uplift or to degrade.  There are many good movies out there that leave one with a desire to make things better, that cause one's soul to soar.  We can only aspire to creating a culture in which these will dominate the industry.

______________________________________

 

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________