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.