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.

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

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.