Philosophy

Big business wants to maintain total control of the economy. One method that they are using to do this is by influencing the government into passing laws which demand that a person obtain a license or some type of government certification before participating in certain activities.

For example, in order to be a public accountant, to practice law, to sell real estate, to sell stocks, to become a teacher or a counselor, to open up a small proprietorship and in many other types of businesses and services, one must have a license from the government or be certified by the government before participating in such activities.

This is alright for air traffic controllers, doctors, dentists and other occupations where people’s lives are at risk. But in many areas such is nothing more than excessive governmental interference and excessive government control. If left unchecked eventually the only occupations that will not be licensed and controlled will be common laborers, just as it was in the Middle Ages.

If the government can force a business to pay taxes then the government can tax an unpopular business to death. That is why the government does not tax churches, because no one wants their church to be taxed to death if those in government or those with governmental influence decide that it is an unpopular church.

A similar precept prevails with licenses and certifications. If the government can force one to get a license or certification of some kind before doing something then the government can make requirements to get that license so demanding that “undesirables” are prevented from getting the license.

Thus, forcing someone to get a license or certification in a certain field in order to do something is no different than the literacy laws which prevented many African Americans from voting prior to the 1960s.

The government should not have any right to prevent anyone from participating in any activity as long as what one is doing is not endangering the lives or property of other people. That is to say, that the government should not have the authority to demand that one get a license or certification before participating in any activity that is non-life threatening.

Just because someone has a license or is certified to do something does not necessarily mean that he or she knows what they are doing. Conversely, just because someone does not have a license or is not certified to do something does not necessarily mean that he or she cannot do the task.

A classic example of this is in the area of law. There many “licensed” lawyers who clearly do not know the law, yet they can legally litigate in court of law. Conversely, there are many paralegals who know more about the law than some lawyers, yet because they do not have a license, they cannot legally litigate in court of law.

This is ludicrous! If someone has the ability to do something and can demonstrate this, then there should be no reason why he or she cannot be allowed to do it. He or she should not be forced to get a license or certification of any kind.

What the government ought to do is to pass laws that make licenses and certifications optional but at the same time these laws also need to demand that one inform their PROSPECTIVE client whether or not they are licensed or certified to perform the service which they are doing.

Those who are licensed or certified could charge higher fees for their services. This way the client could have a choice of who he or she wished to hire. This would keep the cost of such services down to affordable levels for the poor and less affluent.

The government could do two things to help to protect the consumer from big business. First, the government could help by setting fixed minimum and maximum prices on a few basic commodities and services. The government does not have to set prices on every product or every service available, just a few basic products and services.

For example, the government could set minimum and maximum prices on such items as the cost of a standardized amount of natural gas, oil, coal, iron (steel), aluminum, gold, silver, wheat, corn, rice, oats, potatoes, sugar and salt to name just a few items.

It could set minimum and maximum pay grades for interstate and intrastate transportation, a standardized amount of electrical service, cable service, phone service, professional service (various services would have different set prices) and a minimum and maximum prime interest rate to name just a few services.

The government should also set a minimum wage a person would earn and a maximum income – regardless of the source – which a person or a family could receive each year through investments and/or salary or wages. A person or family should also include in the maximum income any gifts or tangible assets they receive, such as the use of a company auto, vacation resort, professional or private service.

Those who earned below the minimum amount would receive a tax free subsidy from the government. Those who earned above the maximum income per year would have to pay the amount above the maximum to the government or it could be donated to charity or the local public schools.

The government should also set a maximum wealth obtainable, which should be different for a single person, a single person with children, a married couple, a married couple with children or a head of household. The maximum wealth obtainable should be set slightly above that which the average person, couple, family or head of household needs to live comfortably.

Prices, income and wealth could still fluctuate, only there would be a fixed minimum and a fixed maximum range within which they could do so. This would prevent someone (or a family) from becoming so rich and financially powerful that such a person or persons could influence legislation. It would also help stabilize the economy and prevent it from creating grossly rich individuals as well as the abject poor.

The second thing the government could do to help protect the citizen from mega-corporations is by having the ownership of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services rest with the people. That is, the major methods of production and distribution of goods and services ought to be owned by the government. They should not be privately owned.

This way the government would produce the goods and then ship the goods around the country to local warehouses from which businesses could buy their wholesale goods. Every corporation, partnership and proprietor would have to buy their wholesale goods from local warehouses. (Profits from such sales could be used to lower or even do away with taxes.)

Services could be treated similarly. Those services which required the travel of great distances or were used over great distances, (for example, across state lines) would be owned by the national government. Those which traveled over intermediate distances or were used over intermediate distances would be owned by state governments. Finally, those that only traveled a short distance or were used over a short distance (for example, a local cab service or local delivery service) would be privately owned.

Many will disagree with this but it is not my philosophy; it is the philosophy of Aristotle. In his Ethics he says that it is wrong to have too much courage and too little courage; one must have just the right amount of courage.

The same philosophy of following the Doctrine of the Mean may be applied to wealth. If one does not have enough wealth then such could easily be a drag on the economy. This is because without enough wealth a person may not be able to provide some essentials to their family. This could cause problems for the family’s well-being or even the education of the children.

Other individuals who fall below a certain wealth might tend to gravitate toward those life styles and activities that are often associated with the criminal element.

Conversely, many of those with too much wealth frequently tend to gravitate toward those life styles and activities that corrupt our government leaders. While other excessively wealthy individuals live in extravagance.

In order to help prevent these types of extreme life styles and activities the government should set a fixed minimum wage and a fixed maximum income and wealth.

To help keep the income levels between these two extremes, (the minimum and maximum income and wealth) the government needs to set fixed minimum and fixed maximum prices of a few basic commodities. The government does not have to set prices on all goods and every service, just a few basic commodities. Setting such prices will indirectly control the prices of other items.

For example, setting the minimum and maximum price on a standardized amount of wheat will indirectly set the minimum and maximum price on a loaf of bread, a dozen donuts, a box of cake mix, a box of cereal, a box of flour and any other product that is made from wheat.

Setting a minimum and maximum price on basic goods and services and setting a minimum wage and maximum income and wealth would prevent the economy from falling below too low of a level and from rising above too high of a level. It would raise the poverty level and in fact do away with it. Finally, it would prevent anyone from becoming too rich and powerful.

I am not advocating a godless form of Communism. It is a modified or controlled Capitalism that I propose. Some may call it Socialism. But as I stated elsewhere: It does not matter what form of governmental system one has in control as long as it is a governmental system that is something akin to Jeffersonian democracy and an economic system that works for the people.

The economic reform I believe in and propose here is modeled after that which the apostles developed soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The early Christians still had private ownership of goods and services, which is Capitalism. But they also had things in common and distribution was made to everyone according to his need, which is Communism.

It is my belief that in order to establish peace on earth and obtain economic stability we need to model our economic system after that which the apostles had soon after the resurrection of our Lord. The economic system that I have described above is the one that I believe will help obtain that goal. This type of economic system would take from each according to their means and give to each according to their need. Yet it would still allow private ownership of goods and services.