Privately Run Cities

What are Private Cities?  Private cities are cities that run a city just like a company, they have investors, their customers are the people who live on the land that the private city owns.  They set the rules and regulations of the land not government.  They typically are sanctioned by the government to have a separate entity by itself, meaning, if you are in the private city you must obey the rules of the city not necessarily the country’s laws and regulations.  The reason why countries want these privately held cities is that they would create jobs in six digit figures.

Why won’t the country change the laws to fit a better business environment?  It is mostly because of control and disagreement within the government body of the country, so, they set a plot of land that they give to private investors to create a city for them.  This means the government isn't able to carve out legislation that would able for them to become economically viable.  Which, is quite sad in some regards, due to the people that don’t want to change, but then again, it is kind of a libertarian stance that if people don’t want to change then let them not change.  It is libertarian not to force change upon people.  This is why property rights is very important issue.  Those who have the rights of the property, should have dominance over their property, unless it affects other property owners.

Is this idea viable in the states? No, not really because we as a society is very wealthy and our governmental system is kind of set up for this.  Instead of cities, it is states that do the bidding.  This is why Texas is expanding their economy due to their ease of business creation and expansion.  If I was going to start a business, one of the states would quite possibly be Texas to start.  It greatly depends on what I’m doing but in general I would be more willing to start one down in Texas than say Minnesota (the current state that I live in).

All in all, private cities are a good idea, especially for the countries that are struggling to create jobs.  I would enjoy if I had the money to have a property management firm, that would do something like this but it would have to be in the context of under the government not separate from government, just because it would be easier and faster to do, instead of trying to have a tax free zone.  That means I would have to get the Federal government involved, which could be messy.  I rather not deal with the Federal government more than I have to.

Like what you see? You can donate here:

Bitcoin Address:

19yxSKhGBuzNLhbk42qdNM5VhPV2ezuSPL

I only accept Bitcoin, as a donation.

Minimum Wage Increase?

In Minnesota politics there is a lot of talk about getting the minimum wage to be increased.  This agreement about raising the minimum wage is wrong in many ways.

First question to ask; is it moral to even have the minimum wage?
Lets begin to unpack this particular question.  Is it right to take away a person's property by force? Answer No.  Is it right to higher someone to take away a person's property by force?  Answer No.  But what if you vote for someone who is going to take away property from one group of people to another?  Is this right? No.  Then why should the owners of these companies be forced to pay more for their employees?  Is it because they are helping the company to grow?  Then if that was the case then, these employees can do one of these four things.  The employees could ask for a pay increase and show that company is going to prosper more because the employees are most likely going to say longer with the company.  Second, they can look for another job that pays more so the company is going to lose their star employees.  Third, they can keep working at that company and "suck it up."  Fourthly, they could become their own boss.  There is another option that can be played out, they can vote for a politician that would give them a wage increase forced by the government.  Back to the beginning of this paragraph, I established that it is wrong to take away property form one person or group to another person or group.  So, why is it wrong to increase the wage of the employees by the force of the government?  Essentially what is going on is that the government says that a company can higher at a rate of $X.XX or higher.  If the market has established the rate lower than that of the government one of two things happen (or a combination of the two).  One way is that the company simply won't hire those who are economically worth less than the minimum wage.  Or the company is going to raise the prices of their products/services.  Which they can, if all of the other companies in the industry is going that route.

Second question to ask; what are the ramifications of government involvement in the wage market?
The ones who get hurt the most are those who are economically worth less than the minimum wage.  These are typically people who are below the age of 25 mostly teenagers.  Out of these groups that are hurt the most black people get the most of the overall punishment of the minimum wage laws.  In order to help the poor people of our society is not to have an minimum wage but to have no laws in regards to the minimum wage.  That means businesses can hire a person for $2/hour that is worth $2/hour.  Why would I hire a person who is economically only worth $2/hour but have to hire them at $7.25/hour (current minimum wage in MN)?  It doesn't make any economical since.  In the case of bigger companies, they can "hire" people that are worth less than the minimum wage but they may not get the hours that they need.  There are a couple of people that comes to mind that would actually be helped if there were no restrictions of wages.  They all have jobs but they only get maybe at the most 10 hours a week because they are worth less than the minimum wage.  This is why bigger companies like McDonald's and Walmart is able to "give" jobs to those who are worth less than the mandated wage, they only get maybe 10 hours a week.

One of the "good" aspects of the minimum wage is that those who have the job are able to make it much better than those who don't.  This is why there is a lot of support of the minimum wage from those who are the top performers because the companies are either going to cut the amount of people on staff which would bring more work for those who are still around, but at the same time it would bring more stress to these workers that happen to survive the cuts due to minimum wage increases, which in turns the more demanding these businesses will be to the workers.  The by product of having the minimum wage is there will be unemployment.  I would rather get a job at $2/hour than having no job at, even though it won't be lot but a job is a job, then I can improve my performance and move up in the company or go somewhere else.

These are my thoughts about the whole minimum wage debate brewing in Minnesota politics.

References:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/03/the-min-wage-harms-the-most-vulnerable

Bitcoin Address:
19yxSKhGBuzNLhbk42qdNM5VhPV2ezuSPL

Once Again

Back in 2007, I got into politics and was really into it because I knew that I was going to be able to vote in November of 2008.  Before that I didn't really care that much for politics, because I had very little say.  In the election cycle of 2012, I kind of ended my politicking and focused on other things.  Of course back then I wanted out of politics completely for various reasons.  I was basically cornered about my beliefs both in politics and religion.  I'm a follower of Christ and because my church was standing for an amendment that would make homosexual marriages illegal in the state of Minnesota.  Now, I did vote for the amendment not because of the homosexual marriage issue, but because the issue of who do I follow?  Do I follow Christ or a philosophy?  I didn't want to vote for the amendment but had to because my pastor told me to.  I still disagree with my pastor on his decision of making the case that I should vote for the amendment but still love him as my pastor.  

After that whole episode about me not participating in politics, I've decided to get back in.  Here are a couple of reasons why I ending up choosing to go back into politics.  Politics affects everyone's life here on earth.  It is a very important issue to discuss.  Even though it doesn't have the effects of religion in regards to what happens to you after you die but it is second in importance of topics that is discussed.  So, I'm taking back of what I said about politics in general.  I still think politics is stupid (in this time on earth in the USA).  But it is still important issue to discuss.  This whole thing about me getting back into politics is a big deal for me because I still hold the values of ownership of property in high regards, I don't want to get taxed at all nor I don't want to see my fellow citizens getting the taxed either,  I would like to see great deal of government power being reduced in all sectors both the economy and personal life.

This is why I'm coming back into the political scene, because politics is important but not as important as a person's standing in regards to Jesus Christ.  None the less politics is important topic to talk about.

Why I voted Yes

In Minnesota, there was an amendment that would have allowed only traditional marriages.  Why I voted for this amendment is because simply my pastor told me too.  Now, I thought about it for a while and was at a cross roads.  It came down to should I follow others that aren't Christians or should I listen to my pastor who is a Christian and not only that he is also my leader.  So, I did vote for the amendment not because of what I personally thought of, because I thought it was stupid to have an amendment on this issue to the Minnesota Constitution.  Originally I planed to vote No, but I had to vote Yes because it was an authority issue for me, because my pastor urged the congregation to vote Yes on the amendment.  I do however disagree with my pastor's decision on the matter in regards to have government involvement in the first place.  The simplest answer to my political views is that Government should be privatized all except the courts and the police, which I will post this on another topic.  That is why I disagreed with my pastor's decision on the matter of the amendment but voted yes because it was an authority issue for me.

360 of Politics

I took an unexpected reason of why I left politics but since then my good time friend who I debate about politics a lot said something to the effect that Christians should be in politics because of nations like North Korea.  God has given the people to decide our leaders.  In the past espically in Europe, the Kings and Queens made all of the important decisions of the nation, now God had let us decide our next leader would be.  That puts every citizen's responsibility to really look at what is going on in politics whether or not they want to or not.  So in effect the United States has about 300+million kings and queens that elect people to rule on their behalf.  Now I'm saying that in this country it is important that every person who is able to vote should vote.  This makes the average citizen more important than other types of governments.  In regards to my personal take on politics I did a 360 in politics meaning, politics is important, to politics is stupid and Jesus is the answer, and politics is imporant and Jesus is the answer.  So, now after the elections I'm getting back into politics.  I did vote because I was on the fence whether I should vote or not.  I was on the fence of voting due to this book that I read called Myth of a Christian Nation by Gregory Boyd.  He made some good points in regards of the Church should be more involved in the community.  But he is looking at the view point of that the church is in politics too much and that they are missing the point in what it means to be the hands and feet of Jesus.  This might be true for a lot of people who follow Jesus but in general those who follow Jesus needs that lives in this type of government needs to do their civic duty.  I didn't do my civic duty in regards to trying to the lower level offices in government because I was largly on the fence.  My pre-resolution for 2013 is at least go to two of the city government meetings.

Did the CIA needed to Intervene Iran back in the 1950s?

     The reason why the CIA intervened in Iran because the British was resentful of the nationalization of the oil industry that Iran had taken in the 1950s.  The British asked the United States for help and of course the CIA wanted to do so they can justified its existent.  Doing something is better than doing nothing at all, then why we need a CIA if they don't do anything.  Iran had a valid reason to want more control over its oil because they want it the profits to stay with in Iran instead of being outsourced also the British had also a valid reason to keep its oil corporations because it is either going to be the British cashing in or Iran cashing in.  If I had to take a side in all of this I would have to side with the people of Iran.  But this is a highly un-libertarian way of thinking state vs state on the issue of oil.  The reason why I would choose Iran over the British is because the British people don't live in Iran.  What the British corporations should of done was to actually work with the people of Iran to insure that both sides would win.  They could of "share" some of the profits to an organization that would help the people of Iran to better themselves.  So, the corporations would set up organizations that would be run by the Iranians that would best help the Iranian people, this could be done through various ways.  What came to mine was helping Iranians to be successful business owners or giving out loans to the Iranian business so that they could grow and prosper, but instead the corporations had to look towards the British government to help them out and the British wanted the United States to help because the United States had more of an expertise in foreign intelligence.  Iran would be a lot more prosperous if the corporations gave back to the local communities in a business way, maybe even charitable ways, but in this case it would be more appropriate for corporations to set up organizations that would help other organization like business owners and educational organizations.  This whole idea having to intervene in Iran would of never been thought of if the corporations were good to its surrounding communities.

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter1.html

Libertarians being Pro-Union?

Now, you might be thinking that a Libertarians are against Unions, some libertarians are anti-unions but for me I'm for private individuals forming an organization that would help them negotiate deals with the employers this would describe a union.  Unions have and still should be in the forefront of our economy.  Unions did some good things like help increase the average wage of Americans.  They provided safer working conditions, help workers getting payed more and some other things.  What I do disagree about unions is their tendency to use government force for their benefit (this is also true for a lot of businesses like instead of going to a bank to get a loan they go to government).  Not all unions are equal because I do favor private sector unions but government unions should be disbanded.  Now about government unions are in the most technical since private but because they keep pressuring the politicians to increase their benefits (which in itself I don't have a problem), but the politicians tends to over due the benefits of public employees in the time of economic boom then when the economy goes under then the issues really come to arise.  The sad thing is that the politicians that are responsible are long gone, in this current situation (especially in California's cities) I would be against the idea of public sector unions.  Now, if the politicians were held to a really high standard then they wouldn't be put into these lucrative situations.  We live in a time where unions is a "dirty word" but I do have to give them the respect that I do for any other private organization.