Private Markets: America Should Stick to Paris Deal

Alex Molinaroli
Alex Molinaroli walking down a hallway of his company’s headquarter.

Donald Trump gets opposition from private markets to his quitting of the Paris Deal

Okay, so first I tried to close this site for being a money burden on me. But then when I was not able to I found this story. Frankly, I have been hearing plenty of jibber jabber about the Paris Deal. Apparently, Donald Trump took America out of this climate deal without the consent of any of the free societies America needs as friends. However, I am not here to glorify or vilify Trump for this action. Instead, I am here to analyze this action from my own perspective, with only one intention. Bringing clarity to this news about American talks with France.

Before we begin…

…I owe anyone who actually reads this magazine an answer of why I wanted to close this site down. Frankly, I am sparingly patient about anything that is not related to my grocery store job. Therefore, I looked at the monthly billing I get for this site and looked at how I’ve never made even a penny off it. I almost closed this magazine down because I felt that no-one was ever reading it! Thus I make a plea to you, please share this article every time Paris Deal comes up for any reason! Especially if this is your first time reading a Pro-Defense News article! This magazine is heavily in its infancy at 4 months old and has a heavy bent towards journalistic integrity!

Okay, back to the actual topic.

So, I will come clean about my awareness of the situation and of my ideological perspective. But let’s start with my situational awareness. I have seen friends of mine speaking harshly about this Paris deal cancelation. However, this reminded me why CNBC is my most trusted news source, because of their reporting. They are basically to sensible libertarians like me as NPR is to actual liberals like on the Center-left. But other than ideological difference, CNBC has a streak of journalistic integrity. One that makes it the only news channel who ever gives NPR any run for its money.

Thus, I went to CNBC and read the story to try to get a basic knowing of the Paris Deal. And frankly it is a climate deal about agreeing to make private markets want to focus on clean energy. However, we live in the Digital Age wherein every mindful consumer including me wants to make the private market move away from fossil fuel and into renewable energies!

What does this say about Trump pulling America from the Paris Deal?

Well, from what I read today, he wants us to fixate on fossil fuel. Frankly, to see private market CEOs objecting to fossil fuel is a breath of fresh air. Not because of any stereotypes or hysteria touted about markets by the far left. Instead, it’s a breath of fresh air because it serves as evidence that business leaders and their worker-bases share incentive to constantly cater to customer desires in a better way every day. So, after reading this CNBC article about private markets wanting America to stay in the Paris renewable energy deal, I can now take a stance. I oppose Trump’s cancelation of American loyalty to the renewable energy deal of Paris. If private market CEOs, consumers and workers can mostly if not entirely agree to oppose this cancellation, so can I!


Taxation, Healthcare, and the Donald

Paul Ryan & Donald Trump way doesn't count as reform!
I saw this lovely cartoon on Instagram a few times!

Donald Trump says he’s in no rush to reform healthcare or taxes? Why?

Frankly, President Donald Trump has decided that health and tax reform are less important than executive orders. Basically, he is flip flopping on whether it matters at all to fix the broken tax and health status quo America. However, before I go into the the need for major reforms, Let’s dig into the platform he ran on.

Clearly, Donald Trump ran on a tax code that brings the number of different rates down to four. Specifically, the rates were pledged to be 0% for those making between nothing and $25k annually. Next, for people making $25k and $50k annually he promised 12%. Then, for people making between $50k and $150k he promised 25%. Lastly, for anyone making more than $150k annually he wanted to tax income 33%. Also, he ran on the idea that Obama Care is a joke of a health care law. As for me, I took time on Wikipedia to read Obama Care and a lot of aspects of it do make it a joke. But how are Donald Trump and Paul Ryan and the GOP establishment any different?

Here’s why I am open to any tax reform proposal that cuts taxes.

In essence, I am open-minded and reasonable to any kind of tax reform at this point in American current events. Specifically, I am open to any tax reform that cuts taxes down to only applying to one kind of human activity. Frankly this is because we tax way too many different activities right now. We tax dying via estate tax, we tax working to earn via income tax, we tax buying items and services via sales tax, we tax interstate and global imports via import tax. And that’s only a minority of the different kinds of taxes in America! Please, allow me to give examples.

Rand Paul wanted to put up a flat tax of 15% for all incomes and have it not apply to payrolls. And he wanted to raise the Standard Deduction from $6,300 to $15,000. Gary Johnson wanted to replace all federal taxes and the IRS with a federal sales tax, and in an interview he suggested Googling ‘FairTax’ for some idea of what he means by this. Austin Petersen ran on the idea of a flat tax of 15% in place of our entire current tax code. However, Austin was never really clear whether this would be on income or on sales or on trade. But on the other hand he does oppose taxing income and taxing trade, out of these three.

Lastly, I think we ought to get rid of both the IRS and our entire current tax code federally and only tax foreign imports by half%.

Rationalizing my Tax Reform idea

Firstly, we as a nation import about $2.2 trillion annually as Earth’s leader in terms of one nation importing independently. Refusing to tax anything but imports, and even then only by about half%, would cut taxes enormously. At a resulting revenue of $1.1 trillion instead of $4 trillion, this’d cut taxes from 22% of our $18 trillion nominal GDP down to 6% of nominal GDP. Grant you, we should purely deregulate trade, while adopting a policy of broken windows enforcement of the golden rule.

However, deregulation is exactly the topic here. But also, by this logic we would need to cut spending down to a maximum of about $880 billion. And limit spending arenas to Military defense, Protection, General Government and social Welfare (not corporate welfare). Basically out of these four, I’d cut the welfare arena 43%, or whatever percentage is necessary to abolishing corporate welfare.

Moving on to the healthcare part…

As far as the healthcare reform as a topic goes, I’d like to cut healthcare spending the best way I know how. Plagiarizing Chile’s healthcare system, as to replace Obama Care. Looking at this table, if Donald Trump would ask Congress for legislation replacing Obama Care with copy/paste Chilean healthcare policy, he would not just be honoring the Constitution. Frankly honoring Constitutional guide to law reforms would only be the start of the Good done there. He’d also be working with Congress to make conditions for average American lifespan to grow from 78 to 82.

Unless you have Asperger’s Syndrome like I have, then reportedly that’d be a jump from 68 to 72. Also, healthcare spending would be cut from $9500 per capita to $1100 per capita, an 88% cut! Meaning we’d bring healthcare spending down from $1.2 trillion to $144 billion, basically. Oh, and there is something about jumping our healthcare quality dramatically, too. Right….

SodaStream Owns Up To Moral Accountability

This is what SodaStream produce looks like.

SodaStream Owns Up To Moral Responsibility For Product Flaws via Recall!

As an owner and user  of these products myself, this is huge news for me. Basically it’s the news about recall over potential future explosions. In other words, this was a preventive recall over a latent threat of carbon explosions. As such, I am mainly doing commentary now on this news to teach something. Mainly, this post is a lesson on how individual freedom comes with individual responsibility. However, this is not just the truth culturally or in regular society. Equally, it is the truth of the matter fiscally and within economy as well.

Firstly, which SodaStream products do I use?

Basically, I use the purely crystal clear bottles with no tint. As for what I use for the carbonation, I always use the maker of the 130 Liter maximum. Why is any of this relevant to this post? Because the specific filler bottles being recalled all have blue tints. However, despite this recall, there is a need to talk about how this is evidence of how easy it is for retailers to self-regulate.

They Key to Self-Regulation is Acceptance…

…of Individual Accountability. Sometimes this concept is called Individual responsibility, personal responsibility, and moral responsibility. Basically, it is two ideas under one name. Firstly it is the idea that someone who does good always deserves credit & reward for that good. Secondly is the idea that someone who does evil inherently deserves blame & punishment for that evil.

Basically, this is the prerequisite to individual freedom, both economically and culturally. Perhaps the best example I can give without getting off topic is what economic freedom SodaStream has. And how they are accepting individual accountability by doing this recall. Everyone has (or needs) the freedom to sell items for home made sodas. But also to sell servings of home made sodas for $x per serving. However, this is where individual accountability comes in. People also have moral duty to do what they gotta do to comply with the golden rule. Economically there is both this and the laws of supply and demand to take it on oneself to comply with.

Using SodaStream as an example

Moral accountability for SodaStream means recalling products over them posing latent threats of chemical explosion. Basically SodaStream has demonstrated that whether free markets work depends entirely on one factor. That factor is the level of moral accountability accepted culturally.

Japan Losing Itself Fiscally to Sleep Problems!

President of Japan
The highly respectable president of Japan

Japan May Need to Simplify its Economic Structure? Because it is facing Sleep Problems.

Japan. In the Digital Age, to be totally exact. Basically their economy I hear is lately facing sleep deficits. Generally speaking this sleep deficit is costing them gravely at $138 billion annually. And this is quite the trouble for quite the legion of valid reasons. Mainly, according to this newspaper, valid reasons for US Libertarians to worry for the Japanese. However, one must not lose optimism because there are solutions to be at least offered to them.

Firstly, what is the Japanese economy like?

Generally, their economy is a market lead economy that Cato finds to be a Mostly Free Market. Also, the culturally centrist fiscal conservatives of Heritage find these to be the fine details over there. Over there, 127 million people work in a somewhat futuristic economy that has indeed enough Rule of Law to go round. Basically, the problems facing their economy are some trade blocks, and as I recently learned sleep loss. Okay, but how must one solve this kind of problem?

Broadly, Japan needs to go pure Laissez-faire

Wait up! What do I mean by ‘pure laissez-faire’? Basically what I am calling on Japan to do for themselves independently is a few things. Certainly they need to replace their regulations with the golden rule on its own. As in a single paper that says ‘You cannot do anything to people you don’t want done to you’. However, every economy needs to do this, including America’s but ours is not the economy we’re talking about.

Secondly, I also refer to a policy of revenue reform. And by this if you know anything about me or about neolibertarians in general, we are Non-Tax Revenue people. Meaning, in this topic, we advise Japan to rely on sources like Lotteries, Royalty deals, Rental deals, User Fees, and other sources that Make Taxation Theft Again.

Lastly, and here is the relevant one to this discussion. I’d say the Japanese people need to be allowed to rework their contracts with their employers. Basically a bilateral kind of thing where worker and employer agree to a standard of reasonable sized shift. This way, contractors and workers can learn together how to work up some medically decent & healthy sleep agendas!

Top Fed Reserve member Quits, Excellent news for banks!

whats wrong with central banking
Federal Reserve member quits banking!

Banking on its way to freedom due to federal reserve shrinking over bank deregulation!

Gorgeous news, other people! Recently, the federal reserve just lost one of its top workers due to much needed bank deregulation! Frankly, this is ultimate beauty for human progress toward ultimate individual freedom! However, this is only the start of a walk up the right path. Basically one may be reading this and asking ‘what happened?’, and the answer is easy. Daniel Tarullo, an obstructionist of individual sovereignty over one’s own finances, resigned after 7 years of central planning. From 2007 to 2009 he was one of the many culprits of the giant crash that happened then. Thankfully, there is a case to be made now better than ever for Ending the Fed!

In Defense of Free Banking

Basically, the most stable system of banks in all of human history was done in Scotland. Specifically, this system was between 1715 and 1845. Twas three central banks with small accountability, and legions of private banks with huge accountability. Therefore, banks were mutually accepting each others’ currencies, and banking on planet Earth had never been more sane than elsewhere on Earth or in history. However, there is the question of how this can be applied to American banking in the Digital Age. Basically we need to analyze what banking is like in the Digital Age before we can answer that.

Banking of the Digital Age in the United States

Overall, the amount of banks and currencies, even payment methods, that spawned after the birth of the Internet… are legion. Here is a simple list of Digital Age contributions to banking.

  1. PayPal and its Bill Me Later credit cards
  2. BitCoin
  3. Stripe
  4. Google Wallet
  5. Apple Pay
  6. Crypto Currency
  7. Virtual Currency
  8. Amazon’s Rewards credit cards

Okay, now let’s look at who’s allowed to make governmental currency. The Constitution makes it pretty clear that only Congress can issue American Dollars, not a federal reserve.

What concrete policy is there to enact then?

Firstly, make it a Bill to be voted in favor of by 60% or more of Congress. Then the president must sign it to go into effect shortly after signing. Okay, but what about the contents of the Bill? Well, call it the ‘Scottish Banking Lessons for America Act‘. Frankly my advise for such an act is to write it to declare that “The Federal Reserve shall be shut down during or before the 2020 national election”, for starters.

Then have the next sentences be “All private banks and banking sectors of internet servers, from now on, have the freedom to issue their own currencies. However, banks are utterly not free to break the laws of supply and demand or to break the golden rule or else those that do will lose this freedom”. And have how many years a bank who breaks these easiest rules ever goes without this freedom match the number of different ways in which they broke these no-brainer rules. Long story short, no other legislation needed here!

12 Keys to Government Revenue in a Neolibertarian society

Benrie Snaders speaking truth to revenue??
Thank you fellow Lovers of Liberty for this meme!

Revenue cannot be raised by taxation, at least not anymore.

After getting out of my work load of today, I browsed around for some news reports to reply to. Luckily, I was able to find this one about 3 different ways a poor dude like me can reduce one’s own taxes. Yeah, I have a dose of reality for Forbes about to occur. Raising revenue by taxation is to raise it by theft, which is a property crime. However, there are legit arguments to make about taxation being extortion instead of theft. Unless you factor in the IRS and how sometimes they arrest folks for ‘tax evasion’, then taxation is extortion. If we look at private markets, then we note that they’re only allowed to raise revenue by voluntary payments. Time to explain 12 ways to build government finances in a neolibertarian society.

Before We Begin; what’s a ‘neolibertarian’?

In essence, a neolibertarian like me is a fiscal libertarian who supports a strong military capability. But it also means I support using that military to passionately defend and promote laissez faire capitalism. It is quite a contrast to mainstream libertarian opinion. Frankly, that’s because (I’d say) about 3/5 of the Libertarian Party & movement are what I call Anti-Defense. Plus the reasons they give appear to be all about denying painful realities. Therefore, neolibertarianism is what drove me to start this analysis hub.

1. Lotteries

Gamblers! Ever wonder what those lotteries you always go to are, almost entirely? Yeah, those are basically non-tax revenue tools of Connecticut and other State level regimes. Please, allow me to use my own state’s lottery as an example. Connecticut, as my state, uses the ‘CT Lottery’ to fund services I see right in my town. These include Cheshire Public Library, Cheshire Public Schools, other Cheshire public services and other CT towns’ equivalents too!

2. Fundraisers

You know how sometimes you’ll drive around in the summer and you’ll see people offering car wash service? And how most of the time it is to raise money for a certain humane cause? Lovably, that makes fundraisers the best way ever to attract voluntary donations! Meaning… gleefully paid tributary dollars to the government.

3. User Fees

Question! Are you, reader(s), planning on traveling interstate for any reason? If so, then get ready to pay toll booths as those are user fees. Basically, user fees are also prices charged by the government for things like airports.

4. Permit Fees

Ethically, charging money for passports and for work visas makes far more sense then laying and collecting taxes. This is moral revenue as it stems from people wanting to do all it takes to travel into foreign lands. Not to mention, there is a consistent reliability with Work Visas as they need to be renewed every so often.

5. Criminal Fines

On one hand, the only crimes that do, or should, count as crimes are ones that constitute fraud, force or theft. However, that does not mean government shouldn’t fine perps very expensively for such crimes. Instead fining perps callously high prices for fraud, force or theft is actually a human rights-enforcing way to raise revenue!

6. Royalty Deals

I’m an aspiring novelist, with Medieval-like Dark Fantasy being my chosen genre. Therefore I’d love to make a deal with the US military where I agree to give them 12% royalties from my mythology’s revenue if they agree to have their employers, the feds, not tax me! And that’s a personalized example of how government can do good off of royalties.

7. Concession Deals

PEOPLE! Ever wonder what kind of revenue water supply is for government? Specifically, it is a type of a ‘concession’ deal. Therefore it is a deal wherein the government grants assets or other property to one or more specific individuals. However, the granting of concessions does not happen all that often outside of the European Union, as far as this neolibertarian (me) can tell.

8. Rental Deals

Honestly I am aspiring to begin college by the first day of 2017’s Autumn season. Which is why I do not believe in using taxation to pay for public education. Rather, I see public education as something to be funded by rental deals. However, there is the question of who the government ought to make rental deals with. If it were up to me, I’d say they have to make rental deals with the parents, and at college level with the students.

9. Asset Sales

But wait! What is an asset in economics? Okay, an asset is basically a resource that can be sold for revenue and in this case a government can raise it by selling various assets. However, I do need to give an example of an asset! Let’s say civil servants were selling raw lumber, of all assets. Likely, they’d be selling plenty of legit supply of a raw material to make plenty of valid revenue.

10. Endowments

Basically endowments are donations of any property, monetary or otherwise, to a nonprofit to sustain it. For example, if I had flawless emeralds I wanted to donate to the US military for free, they’d be able to sell it to someone who’s into emeralds to raise revenue!

11. State Owned Enterprises

Okay, if the private sector has to play by the rules of supply and demand paired with the golden rule, government should have to as well. Which is why my advise for Connecticut’s next governor is this. Open a state owned enterprise to fund CT state universities and such instead of taxing anything! I say the same to the feds and the other 49 states, too.

12. War Reparations

Perhaps the most relevant way to a military to fund that military, and fund vets, without taxation. In this sense, war reparations are compensation funds paid by a defeated tyranny to a neolibertarian society. Basically, these funds are to pay for damages done by the tyranny to the neolibertarian society. Both monetary and human damages, that is.

Trump Cuts Economic Regulation 75%, A Step in a proper path

Trump vs regulation
The Donald is greeting someone before cutting regulation…

Regulation has been slashed 75% recently!

Amazingly, Donald Trump has been doing exactly what he pledged to do, for this time he has reduced regulation to 25% of its former self! Initially, the Donald has decided he wants to remove two old regulations for every new one added. So what exactly makes this decision by President Trump one of his good decisions? And has he pulled off this heroic outcome by rule of law based means? Or should he have done it differently? Time to dig in!

What Makes This Action Heroic?

Basically, there has been study after study done on this topic. Reason Magazine finds that larger regulatory burden means less prosperity for all. Shockingly, small business suffer worse than big corporations do, which is why Trump is singling out small business for loss of regulations. Nearly $11,000 per worker is paid by small business for annual compliance cost. Bombastically this is in contrast to the $8,000 per worker paid by big corporations in annual compliance cost. As for the ordinary workers like myself, regulation costs the average dude or chick 23% of one’s income. For me, this means I have to fork over $2415 annually, no wonder my net pay is smaller than I often predict it will be week by week!

Should Trump have addressed regulation differently?

According to the US Constitution, he absolutely should have cut regulation differently than he did. Specifically, Article 1 Section 7 declares an official legislative process for the president to follow. Easily, one can summarize the constitutional way to address regulation like this.

  1. Senator or Houseman proposes bill to amend the constitution to make the rules of supply and demand the only regulations of economy
  2. Majority of Senators and of Housemen vote Yes on such a 28th Amendment bill
  3. Unconditional Economic Freedom amendment bill goes to White House
  4. President Trump signs the voted-for bill to amend the constitution to ban economic regulation
  5. Merchants and workers like me proser better than ever before in US history


Bill Gates hinting at support for Green capitalism?

Bill Gates
Bill Gates, founder & owner of Microsoft

Bill Gates gave a speech indicating he might be… a Green capitalist?

The multi billionaire behind Microsoft, Xbox 360 and Windows 7; Bill Gates; has recently discussed climate change at a college. The deeply charitable human has made remarks against climate change denial that sound a little, at least to me, like Green Capitalism. But what exactly is green capitalism? Frankly, it is a point of view whose official name is Eco-Capitalism, but what does it say? Okay, Eco-Capitalism is a free market claim that profit depends ecological stability to exist. Also, this claim asserts that the only regime tools that can help the environment are market tools.

Giving Examples of such Market Tools

Easily the best example to give of these tools is Cap and Trade. Basically cap and trade is a policy of imposing a carbon emissions allowance that includes a right to do ’emissions trading’. The whole intention is to provide incentives to voluntarily move on to green energies. Bill Gates though notes that computer science and biology these days could lead to “profound innovation”, despite making no mention of government involvement.

What do I make of all of this?

Honestly, I agree with Gates on this issue of acting market based pushes to cleaning the atmosphere. But on the other hand, I do not know if he is exactly a ‘green capitalist’ per se. Not to mention, my proposal about sensible energy policy differs from green capitalism itself.

Something I would rather our nearly perfect nation do is a sort of multi step process. For starters, I’d rather we get rid of all subsidies and create a total Separation of Economy and State. Next, I’d like to see the Environmental Protection Agency made so small that all they can ever do is class pollution and littering as property crimes. Why am I such a minimalist on desirable government power? Because, in total honesty, the only categories that behaviors worth punishing fall into is Fraud, Forceful Crime & Property Crime.

20% Tariff on Trade with Mexico to Kill American Jobs!

The Tariff will only cancel lovely scenes like this!
Cinco de Mayo parties like above might be things of the distant past.

The 20% Tariff Trump wants will slay American economic freedom!

Well! It actually happened, the Donald has actually come up with the fiscally worst idea ever for building his much Unneeded border wall. Specifically, he wants to force a 20% tariff on trade with Mexico. On part of him and all of his fan base there is a giant lack of knowledge of trade. Also, there is a giant lack of knowledge of economics in general. In order to analyze this news objectively, I need to break down a few things. Firstly the trade between us and Mexico, and secondly the ease of starting business here versus there. Next, I will have to carefully explain how tariffs inherently do nothing but destroy job creating potential. Finally, I will have to propose a proper trade policy for America to preach and practice.

Monetary Benefit of Trade

Amazingly, the Census bureau, of all clubs, records data on US trade overseas, including with Mexico. And every time we import from them, they create jobs for Mexicans. Meanwhile, every time they import from us, we create jobs for Americans.

For example, just last year, we earned $212 billion exporting to them while they earned $271 exporting from us.

Ease of Creating Jobs here vs there

In the United States, starting a business means 6 procedures that take 4 days and in total cost $750. However, in Mexico, starting a business means 8 procedures that take 8.5 days and once finished cost $1855.

Going back to the Census data above, this means trade with Mexico opened potential for nearly 283 million American businesses. Ah, but this also opened potential last year for 146 million Mexican businesses! Who benefitted more from Mexican-American trade and why? We did because more economic liberty! And if a business starts off with 15 people normally, that means 4.25 billion American jobs. But, it also means 2 billion Mexican jobs.

How tariff is a synonym for cancer

Just as income tax reduces incentive to be locally useful, so too does the tariff reduce incentive to be globally useful. Simply, I will use Trump’s 20% tariff idea as my example in these equations.

If this 20% tariff toxin passes then in 2017 we will have much fewer new jobs than in 2016. America for one will have 750 million fewer new jobs than in 2017. Meanwhile, Mexico will have 400 million fewer new jobs than last year. So who will suffer more monetarily from this tariff idea: the US or the US?

What is healthy US trade policy?

A grand intellectual influence of mine, Yaron Brook, summed it up masterfully on Twitter one time. He said ‘free trade is not making deals. Free trade is unilaterally lowering foreign governments’ tariffs, regulations and migration limits to absolute zero’. Even though these are in no way his exact words, I cannot possibly disagree with Brook on this!

And that is what I want to see be the first pillar of four in US foreign policy, and in a better world Austin Petersen would be POTUS and he’d be making that Pillar #1 of an aptly named “Petersen Doctrine”.