Libertarian Socialism

&
The Effectiveness of
Fair Market Capitalism
by
Charles David Allison

On Government (1)
The Nation-State as Private Institution of the Citizens:
Before we proceed to talk about government, the question arises What exactly is the
government and the nation-state?. And it seems apparent that the answer to that question is that the
state is a private institution of citizens where the citizens of that private institution collectively make a
claim of ownership on a volume of space within a frame of time. Any claims to space within the
boarders of the nation-state is actually a claim to space that is privately owned by the state as an
collectively managed institution of that space. Claims to ownership of space can be thought of as a
renting out of that space in exchange for participation in the nation's legal framework.
If currency is what is used as the method of exchange for this space-rent, the state then uses the
money from that rent to defend citizen claims to real estate owned within the spacial boarders of state.
Some people may try to contest the state's ownership of land and attempt to form a new nation with its
own laws and government. However, this is actually an act of war on the state since the state has the
original ownership claim. If a person or persons declare(s) war by claiming independence from the
state, the state then has a right to retaliate and reclaim their stolen space. In the case that the state loses
the war, it loses its governing rights over that space. However, when a sovereign nation is formed, it
must be considered that other nations may attack the newly formed nation. Without a private army or
militia, the new nation itself may lose its sovereignty and become labeled a rogue state or, in worse
cases, a terrorist group. As a rogue nation, the only rights the rogue nation has are those protected
under international laws. And so, if things are relatively free and fair in a nation-state, it is prudent to
avoid attempting independence.
Failures and Successes of the 20th century:
One of the major problems hindering progress in the 21st century is that society seems to be
stuck in 20th century characterizations of about communism, socialism, and capitalism. As individuals
in society, we need to learn to look beyond these systems. Like a horse with its blinders on, individuals
need to see past their prejudices against communism, socialism, and capitalism and to make an in depth
analysis of these dated systems. What needs to be considered about these economic and political
governing systems is what was successful and what was an utter failure. We should look to the ideals
of the social equality that Marxism strives for, and to the pragmatic approach of free market theories.
The ethical attitude of leaving no citizen behind is something from Marx that we need to carry with us
into the 21st century. And the pragmatic approach of maximized individual economic liberty, creating a
market of self-regulating individuals with a conservative consumption is something that market-based
capitalist theories need to be pulled into a modern 21st century system.
On the other hand, as individuals in society we need to think about where 20th century economic
ideologies have caused massive social failures. It is more than clear that some iterations of
communism and socialism have failed in their attempts to manage and micromanage aspects of the
lives of individuals. These systems have created states that presumed their social authority, rather than
letting individual citizens managing their own lives. In addition, capitalism has failed society in its
blatant promotion of greed in the face of poverty of hundreds of millions of less fortunate individuals.
This fact alone proves that capitalist system has promoted cruelty, heartlessness, and sociopathic
attitudes. Because of this, communist systems managed to gain limited success from the ethos that
responsibility for the gains and losses produced by the denizens of a particular society ought to be
shared by those denizens. The more successful capitalist system managed its success by focusing on
efficiency of resource management and drawing on personal liberty as a motivation for that efficiency.
What the Libertarian Socialist system being proposed and detailed will do is to draw on the strengths
and amputate the weaknesses of these two past systems and create a harmony of social justice and
economic freedom for the maximum number of individuals within the United States of America.

Libertarian Socialism is a Paradox:

In the context of this article, a libertarian is a person who advocates maximizing individual
freedom and rights for the maximum number of individuals while minimizing the role of the state.
Also in the context of this article, socialism refers to a way of organizing a society in such a manner
where some major industries or institutions are owned by a nation-state or government. An extreme
form of libertarianism is known as anarchism, which is a lack of government. Some anarchists claim
that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron because they believe that liberty is diametrically opposed to
authority. However this is not true because, in anarchism there are cases when individual liberty can
over-reach its influence and become a form of oppression of other people. And so, a Libertarian
Socialist is a person who advocates maximizing individual liberty and human rights for the maximum
number of individuals, while minimizing the role of the state, but simultaneously allowing the state to
compete on the market itself. This means that Libertarian Socialists support the concept of a fair set of
highly flexible regulations that protect any given individual's liberty or rights by putting that set of fair
and flexible regulations on any given group. These fair and flexible regulations would prevent any
given group from financial bullying or from using predatory business practices on other individuals
and, by doing so, restricting a given individual's personal freedom. Libertarian Socialists also
recognize the necessity of the state to have a minimum number of instances where that nation has
complete authority over a socially necessary institution.
The Role of Government in the Society:
What a government consists of is a body of individuals involved in conducting the policy,
actions and affairs of a nation, state, or community. It can be deduced from this that that when two or
more people are involved in trade, anarchism is an impossibility, because trade involves individuals
conducting the actions and affairs between the individuals themselves. And so, because of the
necessity of government itself, a government has several major social roles.
The first role is maintain justice for its citizens and depends on an individual's interpretation of
what is the highest ethical behavior. Generally speaking, justice includes a declaration of citizen rights
and equality in enforcement of those rights. The second role, which is of equal importance as the first,
is to maintain order. Without order, inefficiency, injustice, inequality, and general frustration all
become problems for the individuals living in a nation. This means that a justice system and a policing
system are a necessity for all governments. An agreed upon order for justice necessitates an institution
with total authority over justice. This means that nationalization of policing and courts is one
requirement of government. The third role of government is to protect the safety of its citizens. This
means that fire-departments, emergency services, and national-defense are all necessary institutions of
the government and it behooves the government to nationalize these institutions. The fourth role of
government is to maintain records of and enforce the property rights of the citizens of the nation. The
fifth role of government, which is of equal importance to the fourth role, is to create social stability by
reducing the poverty of its citizens, as much as possible. The sixth role of government is to issue a
national currency for the purpose of simplifying trade between citizens, individuals trading with
citizens, and trade with other nations. This will be discussed in detail in the section On Currency(4).
This role is also part of maintaining order and enforcing property rights. The final role of government
is to maintain the balance between human rights and social order.
The Necessity of Taxation to Maintain Governance:
Since government needs method of organizing individual citizens for its operation, taxation
becomes a necessity to fund government and use that funding to motivate citizens to organize and
maintain the government's various roles in society. It should also be noted that the credibility of the
government itself and the enforcement of property rights can only be done through a justice system.
The fact that taxation is necessary for government operation makes it a logical deduction that

ultimately it is taxation itself gives value to currency. Since it is known from psychology, sociology,
and economics that value itself is subjective, it is logical to say that the value of currency itself is
subjective. This is one major reason why anarcho-currencies will always fail in long term trends or
will only succeed in very small and tight-knit communities. This is because these anarcho-currencies
attempt to eliminate taxation from the currency, when it is the taxation itself that allows for currency to
have credibility as a socially accepted arbitration of trade. This means that anarcho-currencies are
designed for failure and it would be best for some people to not trade in them at all. The only place
where anarcho-currencies will ever see success is in very small communities of unsuccessful or failed
nations.
When an individual is a citizen of a nation-state or an individual uses the national currency,
especially within a nation's boarders, that individual is subject to the laws of the nation-state. And by
doing this, that individual is voluntarily subjecting them self to the rules surrounding that national
currency. These rules include the rules surrounding taxation, since funding the governing system is
what is used to service and maintain value of a national currency. Income taxation is one type of
taxation and money gathered from income taxation are partially used for funding the government
provided service of usage of that nation's justice system to defend individual claims to property rights
within that nation. Another type of valid taxation is land value and real estate value taxation, which can
also be thought of as a type of rent of space from the nation-state for the purpose of defending
individual's right's to live in that area and have the resources if that space at your disposal. Of course,
taxation is not the only method of funding government, but it is a guaranteed method of government
funding. Additional methods of funding government will be discussed in the next section On State
Privatization (2) and On Funding Government (5). Counter measures for preventing tax evasion will
be discussed in the section On Currency (4) and On Taxation Reform (6).

On State Privatization (2)

State Privatization versus Nationalization:
The difference between a nationalized service and a state privatized business is that a
nationalized business operates off of tax money and the amount of money received is predefined. The
service is then run as a not-for-profit service. However, a state privatized business would be funded by
the users of the service and it would be run as a for-profit institution owned by the nation-state. Since,
it is illogical to believe that businesses can succeed when individuals do not have money to spend on
the services that the business offers, it is apparent that those individuals would require some sort of
guaranteed income system to ensure the success of business in general.
State privatized businesses can lead to increased efficiency of a government service since the
goal is profit and inefficiency decreases profit. On the other hand, with a nationalized service
inefficiency can, in many cases, be built into the system. This is because many government agencies
sometimes lose funding when they do not spend their allotted yearly budget. However, state-privatized
businesses should be avoided for services of social necessity. These areas included policing, justice,
military, emergency services, fire fighting services, streets/sanitation, farming, any agency that sets
standards(EPA, FDA, BBB, FCC, etc,), and any area where equal treatment is a goal. Making a social
service operated as a for-profit institution is problematic because then the focus becomes profit instead
of equality. Privatization may, in some cases, cause an institution to give preferential treatment to highpaying customers. Some areas where state-privatization would be preferred to nationalization would be
schooling, transportation, housing, health care, because profits can be used for improvements.
In a state privatization, the key to success in promoting efficiency is in management. And so,
one of the focuses of state privatization would be creating monetary incentive for good management.
This can be accomplished simply by paying the managers a commission of the business profits based
on performance. State privatization does not imply that the state would have a monopoly on a given
service, but rather it means that the state would compete on the market with other private businesses for
contracts and/or users. One example of this would be that people could use their basic income money
to pay for education at Jesuit school or they could use their money to attend a state-privatized school.
Citizens will naturally strive for higher education because of a basic income meritocracy system in
place. With state privatized transportation, all public transportation budgets would be eliminated from
government budgets and citizens would have to pay the full cost of transportation instead of
subsidizing those costs as would happen in a nationalized paradigm. Since citizens would receive basic
income, this would not be problematic in terms of affording the service. Additional details concerning
the basic income system will be discussed in detail in the next section On Basic Income(3).
A Hybridized System of Federal/State/Local-County Privatized Banks:
Banking is one area where the government should have total authority over. The reason being is
that national authority over the banks will ensure that counterfeiting and tax evasion is brought to a
minimum. The difference between nationalizing the banking system and state-privatizing the banks is
that the latter would be run as a for-profit organization. This means that all banking fees, loans and
other profits of the banks would be put towards the government budget. Doing this would lighten the
load on taxpayers as much as possible. The first step in doing this would be to take all local-counties
and calculate the top 1/3rd of the wealthiest counties and give them their own local-government banks.
The next step would be to take the top of wealthiest states and give all those states their own local
state banks. Then the bottom of the poorest state would then be given a single federal bank. This
method is to ensure that if the small governments are financially strong that their wealth is, for the most
part, retained by the people of that local-county or local-state government. All bank accounts within
these banks will be biometrically secured to prevent identity theft and tax evasion. The accounts of
these banks will report their funds to the government and this will reduce the need for IRS oversight.

On Basic Income (3)

A Basic Income Guarantee for All(The B.I.G. Idea):
A major problem of removing nationalized services and privatizing those services is that when
businesses or services are privatized the majority of citizens will have little to no money to spend on
those services. So rather than using tax money to pay for services that individuals may or may not take
advantage of, the money used for those services should instead be put towards a Basic Income
Guarantee. For reasons that will be discussed in the section On funding the Government(5), it is
recommended that funding for a Basic Income Guarantee constitute of the total US budget.
The standard basic income rate should be equal for all citizens from adulthood(18) to fifteen
years less than the average life expectancy rounded up to the nearest year, which comes out to age 64 in
the US. All people who are aged from the federal abortion time limit, which is currently 20 weeks,
until the age of 12 will receive of the standard basic income amount. However, that money will be
deposited into the account(s) of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) of that individual. All people aged
13 to 18(age of adulthood) will receive the standard basic income amount. Operating the system in
this manner will introduce and familiarize individuals into understanding personal finance
management. All citizens who are aged 14 years less than the average life expectancy rounded to the
nearest year, which is presently age 65, will receive a 1% increase in the standard basic income
amount. Each consecutive year an additional 1% increase will be added on to the standard basic
income amount. This means the standard rate+1% at 65, standard rate+2% at 66, standard rate+3% at
67, etc. The reason for this is that increasing basic income with age would help replace the failing
social security system in place. All green card holders would receive 2/3rd of a basic income after 1
year of proven residency in the US and proving 1040 hours/year of holding a job or full time schooling
for the previous 12 months of residency. It should be clear that the amount received for a Basic Income
Guarantee would have to be recalculated every year. It should also be clear that the Basic Income
Guarantee system would require the electronic identity book keeping and biometric security measures
mentioned in the previous section On State Privatization(2) and the next section On Currency(4).
Lastly, the Basic Income Guarantee system would depend on several variables, those variables include
total citizen population plus total green card holder population, the ages of citizen plus green card
holders in the general population, and the average life expectancy of US citizens.
An Additional Basic Income Meritocracy Grounded in Education Attainment:
Another problem with the US educational paradigm is a lack of the guarantee for gainful
employment after graduation. This fact alone has discouraged many citizens from even attempting to
seek higher education. The method used to correct this problem is that a basic income meritocracy
should be devised for encouraging people to seek higher and attain higher education. The other major
benefit of having a Basic Income Meritocracy is that it empowers the intelligent members of society by
increasing their influence in the market.
A Basic Income Meritocracy would also entail some restructuring of the schooling system. The
first major change is that a school year would consist of ten months of education instead of nine months
of education. Of course, teacher salaries should be adjusted accordingly. The restructuring of the
educational system would retain the federal budget for the Department of Education. However, all
state and local budgets would be eliminated from governmental spending. This would not cause
problems for the citizens, because they would have money from the Basic Income Guarantee at their
disposal for the purpose of paying for state-privatized schooling or private schooling. What precisely is
meant by meritocracy is that for each level of higher education received, individuals would also
receive an increase in basic income. This increase would be in equal proportion for each level of
educational attainment and would be re-calculated dynamically from year to year. For reasons which
will be discussed in the section On Funding the Government(5) funding for a Basic Income

Meritocracy should constitute of the US budget.

The first level of meritocracy would be no educational attainment and individuals would
receive no money from the Basic Income Meritocracy funding pool. The second level of Basic Income
Meritocracy increase would be awarded to citizens or green card holders with a completed grade school
level education. This could also include home schooled children of citizens or of green card holders.
However, home schooled children would have to be tested for their comprehension of standard grade
school level concepts at a state testing facility. Testing for completion of the educational requirements
would include a standard test and a practical test. The grade school level of educational attainment
would be reduced to 7 years of education. The reason for reducing the amount of time spent in grade
school has to do with consistency with each consecutive level of educational attainment. This would
not mean lowering the standards to a 7th grade level, but rather truncating the first grade level and
adding it to the pre-school education. Green card holders who attained education from a country with
approved similar standards would receive 2/3rd the amount of a citizen's basic income meritocracy at
this level and would have to prove 12 previous months of residency and of full time schooling.
The third level of Basic Income Meritocracy would be for citizens or green card holders who
attained a high school level or GED education. The High School or GED level of educational
attainment would be increased to a minimum of 6 years of schooling and 1.5 of those school years
would consist of mandatory community service. Community service would be required even for home
schooled or self-taught students and would have to be verified and graded as pass/fail through a state
facility or a state social worker office within a private school or state-privatized school. The reason for
community service would be for reduction in government spending, the ensuring of proper work ethic
of citizens or green card holders, and proper socialization of home-schooled students. The types of
community service would be limited to state approved not-for-profit organizations or unpaid
internships at a state-privatized business which was detailed in the section On State Privatization(3).
Internships at state-privatized businesses would be beneficial to the community because it familiarize
students with the job world and open them up to potential job opportunities. Green card holders who
attained education from a country with approved similar standards would receive 2/3rd the amount of a
citizen at this level and would have to prove at least 1 year of residency and in the previous 12 months
have spent 1040 hours/year of holding a job or were a full-time student for 12 previous months. Green
card holders can not be home schooled and if they received an education abroad would also be required
to complete 1.5 years of community service to receive money from the basic income meritocracy.
The fourth level of Basic Income Meritocracy would be given to citizens who attained a
university level education. University level degrees would be increased to a minimum of 5 years of
time to complete the program and 1&1/4th of the school years would consist of mandatory community
service. University level education would require attendance at any government approved accredited
university. Community service on the university level would consist of either work at the university
itself, service at an approved not-for-profit, working on a state approved research or engineering
project, work on state beautification project(for art-orientated degrees), an unpaid internship at a stateprivatized business, or an unpaid internship at a nationalized service. Green card holders who attained
education from a country with approved similar standards would receive 2/3rd the amount of a citizen at
this level and would have to prove 1 year of residency plus 1040 hours/year of holding a job or full
time schooling for the previous 12 months. Green card holders would also be required to complete a
total of 2&3/4th years of community service if they received their education abroad. The fifth level of
Basic Income Meritocracy would be for post-graduate level educational attainment. Masters level
degrees would typically require a minimum of 4 years time for completion of the program and 1 school
year of that time would consist of mandatory community service. Community service on this level
would require help working on a PhD candidate's state-approved research project. The highest level of
Basic Income Meritocracy would be for PhD educational attainment. PhD and post-graduate work
would have to be disclosed to the state and approved by other doctorate holders.

On Currency (4)
The Importance of a Centrally Maintained Currency:
As a society grows beyond a small community, currency becomes a necessity in the
organization of individuals and maintenance of their property claims. Currency acts as a socially
agreed upon arbitration of value for the purpose of simplifying and objectifying trade value. Since
currency is a social necessity, it is apparent that a national or international currency is a requirement for
a nation's success. In order to have a national currency, a nation needs an institution for creation of that
currency. A problem occurs with anarcho-currencies is that since they are not centrally operated
happens portions of the money get lost, destroyed, or hoarded. The problem that this creates is that
without a central institution monitoring the amount of currency in flow, value of products within
society become volatile and this volatility causes social instability. Another problem with having
anarcho-currency is that some people may become prone to manipulating the currency's value or
counterfeiting the currency. And so, the solution is a centrally maintained currency by a nation or a
multinational currency.
A New Type of Digital Currency:
One of the major problems with paper currency is that it can be easily laundered, allowing
people to escape the income taxation. It is known that income tax evasion is a great social injustice and
unpatriotic action because it is unfair to all the people who cannot afford to illegally evade taxes
through use of foreign banking. It essentially forces honest tax payers to pick up the slack on
government budget. Another grave problem with paper or metal currency is that these currencies can
be counterfeited. Counterfeiting money is morally wrong because it steals value from the people who
use a monetary system and because of their moral character, refuse to break the law. These facts have
created a social necessity for a new type of currency that is completely digital.
The way in which a digital currency can be implement is to have federal, state, and local-county
level government banks run a computer database that is highly encrypted and has redundancy in
secured networks throughout all major US cities. Each of the smallest unit of trade(i.e. a cent) in a
digital currency system will be given a unique numerical value. This numerical value will be the way
in which the banks, the government, and the people of a nation will know that each cent is valid and not
being digitally counterfeited or hacked for stealing. Digitally numbering all currency units will also
ensure that if money is hacked and stolen from any individual's account within the system, the banks
will be able to trace who received the stolen money. Each individual will be given at least one
checking account at their federal, state, or local-county privatized bank. Those individuals would be
free to create other accounts at other competing federal, state, or local-county privatized banks but that
not be required. All of these accounts would be cross referenced through the usage of biometrics and
the secure network. Cross referencing these accounts would link all accounts owned by one person and
doing this would prevent tax evasion.
Currency Trading Outside of the Digital System:
Since digital currency has the limitation of only allowing trade between individuals with access
to the internet, some provisions must be made to allow for trade between individuals outside of the
access area. This method must be only able to be traded as little as possible since trading outside of the
system would evading taxation on income until until the moment of deposit. The way in which this
would work is that if an individual wanted to trade currency outside of the digital system, they could go
to an ATM or bank and request a money order for a fixed amount up to some predefined amounts of
money. This would mean that money orders would say something like up to $10 or up to $500 on
them. The money order would be printed on standardized official government slips. At the time when

the bank or ATM would print the money order, the amount that the money order would be made up to,
as in up to $10, would be put on hold by the bank. It should be noted that since each unit of currency
will be numbered, upon printing a money order will put on reserve all those digital units of currency.
The new type of money order would work similar to a check, except the money order would have an
expiration date on it(for example, 60 days after its being printed). This expiration date would prevent
money orders from being traded and re-traded thereby preventing the evasion of taxes. Before the
money order would be deposited, the actual amount would be filled in by the individual giving the
money order and the money order would be signed to verify that it was given. The amount signed in
the check would obviously have to be less than the predefined amount on the money order. Upon
deposit, the amount of money that was written in on the money order would be deducted from the
account and if it was less than the up to amount, that would be freed up and returned back into the
account holder's possession. For example, if an individual had to pay a person $3.63 for something and
wanted to use one of these new types of money orders, they would just print one that says good for up
to $10. When the individual wanted to use the money order to pay for something, they would sign it,
fill in $3.63 and it would be up to the receiver of the money order to deposit it before the expiration
date on the money order. Depositing the money order would withdraw $3.63 from the account holder
of the individual who printed the money order and the rest of the $6.37 would be freed up and returned
back into their account. However, if the money order was not deposited by the time of expiration, the
full amount of funds that were put on hold would be returned to the account holder who printed the
unused money order. This unused and re-deposited money would obviously not be considered as part
of their yearly income.
Inflation/Deflation and Deficit Spending:
There are both benefits and drawbacks to inflation and deflation alike. Inflation harms holders
of a currency by making their holdings have less purchasing power. Lowered purchasing power has the
unfortunate effect of making a country's minimum wage less and less effective at meeting the demands
of living requirements. Because of this, there are some people who are concerned about the effects of
inflation and this has prompted these people to take up a crusade against deficit spending. However,
deficit spending is not something that the users of a national currency should be overly concerned with.
This is because a national currency needs to be slowly and incrementally devalued over time in order to
keep up with that nation's trade deficit. One reason that this is important is because, if a nation does
not match their trade deficit with an equal amount of money created through deficit spending and a
foreign nation hoards the first nation's currency by not spending the currency back into the first nation,
inflation can become a major problem for all the citizens of that first nation when the foreign nation
finally does decide to spend the first nation's currency. If inflation happens too rapidly, the people
suffer economically and the nation will be forced into selling off parts of their country to other foreign
nations to reduce the effects of inflation. This means that if a nation does not devalue its currency, it
can have the long term effect of collapsing the nation itself. If a nation collapses, all holders of
currency from that nation essentially lose all of their money. In short, using deficit spending to balance
off trade deficits prevents deflation and stabilizes prices. This, in turn, helps lessen the impact of
inflation further down the road. Making it within the best interest of a government to use deficit
spending to balance a nation's trade deficits. This is something that can never be accomplished through
anarcho-currencies.
A government using deficit spending to balance a nation's trade deficits does not mean that, for
the purpose of controlling inflation that, the nation should destroy currency when it generates a yearly
trade surplus and currency circulated back into the nation's economy. While it it is true that controlling
inflation is a good thing for all holders of a currency and minimum wage earners in a nation, preventing
deflation is also beneficial for all real estate holders of that nation. This is because, if an individual
sells off their real estate during a time of deflation, that individual is at risk of losing large amounts of

money. This can happen if that real estate owner does not buy back new real estate before a period of
inflation kicks in. Also, deflation is problematic for a nation because if a foreign nation has large
holdings of a nation's currency, deflation will make the foreign nation's holdings have a larger
purchasing power. Increased purchasing power of a foreign nation's holdings of a national currency is
problematic because it makes it more difficult for the people of a nation keep up with trade with the
foreign nation.
Another drawback to inflation is that after many years prices start to get out of hand and require
more and more absurd labeling. As a currency is devalued, prices become inflated ten fold, then a
hundred fold, then a thousand fold, etcetra. This means that something that was priced at $1,000, is
then priced at $10,000, then $100,000, then $1,000,000 respectively. This may be merely a nuance for
business owners, but it can have a psychological impact on the users of a currency by highlighting the
absurdity of inflation without underlining the necessity of why inflation is being experienced. So to
deal with this, rather than destroying currency to control inflation which, for reasons discussed earlier,
is problematic, a preferable option would be to truncate the minimum trade amount of a given currency
experiencing inflation. What is meant by this is that, instead of using pennies, after the currency is
inflated to a sufficient degree, pennies would be disregarded and only dimes would be legally accepted
in trade. Using a digital currency would make the process of minimum trade value truncation a
relatively seamless one. In a digital currency system, accounts holding pennies would just round the
value up to the nearest dime. After several more decades of inflation, if the national debt reaches a
magnitude of another order of ten, then the banks can just truncate the minimum trade value again.
This means that instead of dimes as the minimum trade amount, dollars will become the new minimum
trade amount. This process of truncating the minimum trade value can be done indefinitely. In the case
of the United States, a good time to truncate the minimum trade value of pennies, to a minimum trade
value of dimes would be when the national debt reaches 20 trillion dollars. And if the national debt
reaches 200 trillion, which will happen in 50 years given that the currency will debased at the same
ratio over the next several presidencies, the minimum trade value can be again truncated from the dime
amount to the dollar amount. Scientific notation could be used if a currency was truncated several
magnitudes of ten higher. This means that if $100 was the minimum trade value, a currency would be
traded as $1E2 and if $1000 was the minimum trade value, a currency would be traded as $1E3.
The only other thing that should be noted is that although inflation is, over all, a bad thing for
the people of a nation, deficit spending is an effective way of shadow taxing the entire body of users of
a currency and using that money to benefit the residents of the nation more than the non-residents of a
nation. Deficit spending does this as a one time yearly effect by partially lowering the tax burden on
the citizens and shifting it to the entire body of users of a currency as a whole. However, since this
harms low-wage earners and anyone with savings, deficit spending should be continued as a means of
discouraging citizens and businesses from purchasing foreign products from nations that refuse to
recirculate that money back into our economy. These foreign nations that refuse to buying products
made in the U.S.A. need to be discouraging from refusing to help balance the trade deficit with the the
United States . So in short, inflation is an effective means of protecting fairness in international trade
and protecting the social and economic stability of given a nation involved in international trade.
Reduction of Deficit Spending:
Since it is known that deficit spending causes inflation and that inflation is ultimately bad for all
users of a currency and it is also known that trade deficits prompt a necessity for deficit spending, it can
be deduced that governments need to solve the problem of deficit spending by reducing trade deficits.
However, since nations cannot force other nations to buy their goods for reduction of a trade deficit,
more proactive methods must be considered for reduction of a national trade deficit. The lowest
hanging branch in trade deficit reduction is domestication of energy production. In the United States,
oil imports make up for roughly half of the entire US trade deficit. This means that opening up parts of

the country for oil drilling and using that oil for energy production is the easiest way of reducing the
trade deficit. Another thing that can be done to reduce the trade deficit is exporting energy, but it
should be noted that exportation of energy can cause problems in the future if sustainable energy is not
secured first. With long term sustainability in mind, it would be prudent to use the revenues from oil
sales to invest in clean and renewable energy. With careful investment in wind, solar, hydroelectric,
geothermal, wave power, and algae bio-reactors, and the adoption of more efficient technologies, the
US can eliminate dependency on oil before its oil completely runs out. In short, state privatization of
energy is the most readily available way of reducing deficit spending.
The next thing that a nation can do to reduce its trade deficit, is to reduce foreign imports from
nations that do not recirculate money back into the economy through buying the nation's trade
commodities. This can be done by imposing an heavy importation tax on all goods purchased by
citizens from foreign nations that hoard a nation's currency, which, as discussed in the previous part,
causes inflation. Another thing that can be done to quell the effects of foreign imports from nations
that hoard a currency is to import similar products from other foreign nations that will not hoard money
and will purchase commodities in equal amount in return for commodities purchased. In the United
States, this means a high tax on imports from China. It also means purchasing more products from, for
instance, Mexico and moving US owned factories from China to Mexico. This will not only have an
impact on US debt to China, but this will also have the effect of lowering the flow of illegal immigrants
from Mexico into the US, which is another area of concern for the United States job market.
The final thing that a nation can do to reduce deficit spending is to create an multinational
currency. This would entail an international trade agreement preventing the hoarding of currency by
any given member of that trade agreement. The reason this works is because it reduces trade deficits.
However, an international currency would require an international central bank with equal access to the
network and monitoring of trade deficits to prevent agreement breaches or counterfeiting of the
currency by nations involved. One potential agreement could include a union between several nations
with relatively healthy currencies. Making a multinational currency as vast as possible would be more
beneficial to absorbing the impact of trade deficits. And so, one such multinational monetary system
could include North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan to reduce their trade deficits and increase
overall economic stability.

On Government Funding(5)
The Impact of Basic Income on Dismantling Government Programs:
Society should treat a basic income system is a necessary anesthetic for the amputation of
government programs that serve a valued social purpose, but need to be cut due to the inherent
inefficiency those types of nationalized programs. With the implementation of a basic income system,
a lack of necessity for some nationalized services becomes apparent. Basic income also removes
special interest group lobbying and eliminates preferential treatment for those groups that is created by
government lobbying. This would mean that government could essentially eliminate payments to
special interest groups because basic income would treat everyone equally. And so, with basic income
there would be no need for special government programs designed to help disenfranchised people
because it allows for disenfranchised individuals to help themselves. And if those individuals felt that
they needed more social awareness for their cause or group, they could choose to do fund-raising for
their interest group and let other individuals decide on a person to person basis whether to offer their
financial support to a special interest group. And so, one result of a basic income system would be the
removal of the unfair and ineffective welfare and food stamp systems.
In the United States, since the basic income system being proposed is designed to increase with
age and education and to reduce government spending with some required community service, it makes
it possible to dismantle the government pension system and social security systems. This does not
mean that the program(s) would just be without payment for the earned pensions and social security
checks. Rather it means that the government would calculate the total amount of money earned by
workers, account for inflation, and use a deficit spending for a single year to cover the costs of owed
money. All the owed money would be mailed in the form of a single check which would be sent to a
location requested through a government website, or printed and collected at the local county clerks
office, or directly deposited into an account through the usage of a government website. The reason the
costs of funding this must be done with deficit spending is because it is unfair to tax individuals to pay
for other people's pensions or social security. Since the pension system is the largest part of U.S.
government spending, this will help create a huge impact on government spending reduction.
Locking in the Government Budget to Reduce Bureaucracy:
After the pension system is dismantled using the prescribed method mentioned above, the most
important thing that needs to done is to lock in the percentage of total funding needed(federal, state,
and local combined) for the government in proportion to the Gross Public Debt. The reason for locking
in the budget is because without a flat-budget amount, the focus of congress shifts from how to spend
the money efficiently and the content of laws to how much of their money and the money of their
campaign contributes is going to be used for taxes. This creates a plethora of choke issues and the
national discussion ignores the importance of the issue at hand and the issue becomes taxes alone. In
order to prevent the discussion from shifting to how much much money should be in the government
spending pool, the budget should be locked in at a flat percentage of 50% of the gross public debt.
In light of the inefficiency of some nationalized services, the question arises about the potential
collection of excessive amounts of money and the inefficient usage of that money. However, the reason
that collecting a flat percentage of the gross public debt will not spawn inefficient usage of that money
has to do with a reformed tax return system and using that system to create incentives for increased
efficiency of government services and incentives for increased overall government austerity. These
incentives and how they will work will be discussed in the next section On Tax Reform (6).
Another reason for locking in the budget spending at 50% of the gross public debt has to do
with ensuring that enough funding for basic income is present to allow for a fair amount of individual
representation within free market. However, going beyond 50% of gross public debt for the budget
would cross the line from a market based society to a more communist society. By locking in the

budget at 50% GPD, and taking a top-down approach to funding, it can be ensured that an equal
amount of the budget would be spent on the citizens and the government. This would entail spending
12.5% of GPD(i.e. 25% of the budget) on a Basic Income Guarantee, another 12.5%(i.e. 25% of the
budget) of GPD being spent on a Basic Income Meritocracy, and 25% of GPD(i.e. 50% of the budget)
being spent on governing itself. Using this method to ensure equal funding of the citizens and of the
government will guarantee that the citizens will maintain an equal economic influence as the
government or a majority of economic influence as the government in the country. This will ensure
that the nation always remains by the people, for the people.
Locking in the budget at 50% also allots extra funding for local-counties, states, or the federal
government, in case they need extra funding to accomplish their goals. For reasons discussed in the
next section On Taxation Reform(6), locking in the budget will not only minimize bureaucracy but will
also have potential to lower the budget to 33.33% of GPD through increased efficiency caused by
market competition. Market competition allows for work to be contracted by the government with with
the usage of their allotted budget money. It should be noted that the present percentage of GPD is
about 38.5%, which means that, for reasons discussed in the next section On Taxation Reform (6), there
is potential for over a 5% reduction in current government spending levels. However, it is expected
that until maximum efficiency is reached through usage of the tax return reform system being
proposing, that the level of government spending will likely stabilize off near the present spending
amount.
Methodology for Funding the Government:
The first step in calculating the amount of money needed to be raised through taxation is to
subtract the trade deficit from the target budget amount of 50% GPD. The second step will be to
subtract the amount of revenue collected from fines of violations of federal law. The next step will be
to subtract the amount of money raised from federal-level state privatized businesses. The fourth step
would be to subtract all revenue raised from federal level vice taxing, this would include a carbon tax.
The next step would be to subtract all revenue raised from the sale of land or natural resources to
private institutions or foreign nations. And finally, a source of income for the government budget could
be charging for advertising in public spaces, along public roads, or on public/state-privatized
transportation systems. After this other sources of revenue are subtracted from the target budget
amount, there will be a new number and this will be called the Government Funding Remainder
Number.
The Government Funding Remainder Number will be the amount of money that the
government needs to raise through a flat income tax and a flat percentage tax on land value and real
estate value. The Government Funding Remainder Number will be split evenly between these two
taxes and calculated dynamically on a yearly basis. Using these two taxes would eliminate the need for
sales tax, which is ineffective and can be easily avoided or manipulated. There are two main reasons
for using this taxation system, one is that using a simplified taxation method will make it impossible to
evade taxation and the second is that it ensure fairness for all citizens in the nation. Georgists like to
argue that land value tax is the only necessary tax, however one major problem with the using a single
land value tax is that a single tax on land will create an incentive for people who make their fortunes
without the usage of land to keep all their money in currency and avoid taxes by retaining that
currency. In short, a single tax on land only creates incentive to not own land. On the other hand, if
taxation is completely based on income, that creates incentive to trade or barter in barter land for the
purpose of evading taxes. In short, a single tax on income would create incentive to not use a currency.
The Federal, State, and Local-County Budgets:
With the total US government budget will be locked in at 25% of GPD and taxes simplified to
just two main taxes(land/real estate and income), a method for dividing that budget into the three main

tiers of government needs to be devised. The quickest way to ensure equal representation of these tiers
of government is to divide those 25% of GPD in the budget into equal 1/3rd amounts. This means that
first and foremost, the federal budget will consist of 1/3rd of the government half of total US budget(ie
25% of GPD). However, an exception should be made in the case that the US suffers a major
homeland attack(s). So in the case that the US suffers a major homeland attack within the previous 4
years, the federal government will be allowed access for to up to of the government of the
government half of the US budget. In other words, this means the federal government will be allowed
to use *25% of GPD, which is 12.5% of GPD. In addition, if the US is engaged in a war abroad and
and was not attacked within the previous 4 years, the federal government should be given access for up
to 5/12th of the government half of the US budget. In other words, this means that the federal
government will be allowed access to up to 5/12*25% of GPD, which is about 10.41667% of GPD. Of
course, the federal government will not be forced to use the amount allowed to them, but rather it
would be allowed to them for these emergency situations and they could opt to use less than the amount
allowed.
After the Basic Income Guarantee, Basic Income Meritocracy, and Federal Government have
taken their shares of total US budget funding, the remainder of the budget will be divided equally into
two halves. The first half will go to all the states. Of the half allotted to the states, 50% of the state
budget half will be distributed to the states proportional to their total land masses. Of the half allotted
to the states, the other 50% of the state budget half will be divided proportional to the populations of
those states. The second half will be given to the local counties and it will be divided proportional to
the population size of the counties. Using this method will allow for complete elimination of state tax
and local-county income and property taxes. However, if the states or local-counties want additional
funding they can opt for vice taxes, get funding from state or local-county level privatized businesses,
ticketing, fines, and advertizing in public spaces of their counties. Using this method will simplify the
tax code so that the only two major portions of taxes will consist of income taxes and land value and
real estate value taxes. Simplifying the tax code will make it easier for all citizens to understand the
taxation system, eliminate loopholes, and empower small local county governments and state
governments. However, it will also offer enough flexibility to empower the federal government in a
time of war and, if worse comes to worse, citizens can give addition funding to their local governments
by using their basic income money to donate to fund-raisers for their government. This system also
guarantees funding for poor counties with woes in raising funds for local governing. Meaning,
Libertarian Socialism empowers small government.

On Taxation Reform (6)

Eliminating Sales Tax, Removing Tax Breaks, and Supplemental Funding Options:
Sales Taxes and proposed consumption taxes are the most regressive taxes ever conceived and
both of them should be removed and made illegal. The reason that they should be made illegal is
because it requires too much oversight to enforce. In addition, they sales tax drives up prices on goods
and the poor are the ones who need to purchase the most goods in order to get ahead in life and better
their situation. Another reform that needs to be done with the taxation system is the elimination of tax
breaks based on family size. It makes no sense to create financial incentives for starting a family
because it indirectly punishes individuals who want to help out society in other ways. In addition to
this, the proposed basic income system would offer enough supplemental income to families, despite
their loss of tax breaks, to ensure that they would received extra income when their family size grew.
Other types of tax break that that need to be removed are any types of tax breaks for businesses.
It makes no sense to give preferential treatment to businesses over individuals, especially when
businesses are designed to increase consumption. If a consumption tax was designed for the purpose of
decreasing the consumption of new items, then simply eliminating all tax breaks for businesses can still
accomplish the same thing and in a much more fair manner. This is because resale market systems like
eBay and Amazon, have already managed to lower the price of new items enough where incentive to
buy used products already exist. The taxes that will be proposed later in this section should create an
equality between the individuals and businesses to allow for enough market fairness where the
businesses with the best models will be the most successful. Creating a fair market makes more
intuitive sense for promotion of the free market, rather than business incentives through tax breaks.
Tax breaks only distort the fairness of the market and creates incentives for individuals to manipulate
the system to their benefit while distorting the market for individuals who do not understand how to
take advantage of the tax breaks being offered. Another type of tax break that needs to be removed are
subsidies farming or banking. If an industry becomes so necessary to society that it needs to be
subsidized to prevent it from failing, then the conversation needs to shift from tax subsidization to a
conversation about nationalization or state-privatization of that business.
Vice taxes can be an effective method of decreasing consumption of unhealthy foods,
recreational drugs, gambling, pollution, and (in some areas) prostitution. So local vice taxes should be
implemented in any state or local-county that seeks to restrict behaviors offensive to them. In addition,
since all natural resources are privately owned by the federal government, and if the citizens agree
allow their resources to be sold for revenue, the federal government has a right to sell them to private
individuals, companies, or foreign nations for extra revenue. Yet another source of income for local,
state, and federal governments will be state privatized businesses. And finally, a source of income for
local-county, state, and federal budgets could be charging for advertising in public spaces, along public
roads, or on public/state-privatized transportation systems. These extra methods of funding could all be
done on the federal, state, or local-county level for supplementing their budgets or increasing the
money pool for the proposed tax return system which will be discussed in the last part of this section.
The Flat Income Tax versus The Sliding Scale Income Tax:
The major problem with imposing a flat income tax on everyone is that it ignores the issue of
income inequality and the negative impact that increasing wealth inequality has on the market. Simply
put, it is unfair to tax the poor at the same rate as people of privilege when there exists such a high level
of wealth disparity. It does not make sense to take money from the poor when they need their money to
survive, while the rich merely need their money to support an already extravagant lifestyle. Since it is
the masses who have the largest impact on the market as a whole, not addressing the issue of wealth
disparity has a major destabilizing effect on the market when social unrest from wealth disparity starts

to shake the foundations of society. Another problem with the flat income taxation system is that the
poor are forced to carry the burden for funding government services which they may or may not use. It
is illogical to force the poor to pay for services which they never take advantage of or never benefit
from, especially when they are in need of resources for survival. While it is true that basic income
partially repairs the negative impact of income tax on the poor, further methods must be employed to
decrease wealth disparity. The two opposing methods of correcting the problems caused by income tax
are to either to use sliding scale federal income taxation system or to implement an improved version of
the minimum wage system.
A sliding scale federal income tax system would calculate the amount each individual will pay
in federal income tax percentage by computing a number called the federal income percentage index
number. This number will be variable from year to year and will depend on two variables. The first
variable is the Government Funding Remainder Number discussed in the previous section On
Funding Government (5). The other variables in the sliding scale federal income tax system are
everyone's individual incomes. The sliding scale system will work by taking a person's individual
income, dividing it by the federal income percentage index number, and that will yield a new
number. That new number will be the federal income tax percentage that the individual has to pay.
This calculated percentage will be what is used for the majority of tax payers, but for the high earners,
their percentage will be capped at 50%. The best way to make the sliding scale system as fair as
possible is to make the "income percentage index number" be as high as possible while having the flat
tax percentage of 50% applied to the minimum number of the highest earners in the US while still have
a balanced budget. In other words, the income percentage index number will be whatever is needed
to balance the federal budget, while making the maximum number of people get tax breaks, and will be
calculated dynamically on a yearly basis. Under a sliding scale taxation system, every individuals
year-end income will be listed by a computer algorithm and half of the Government Funding
Remainder Number will be used to calculate for the goal of how much money needs to be raised. It
will be easy to manage this system under the proposed federal/state/local-county privatized banking
system. The goal of a fair sliding scale federal income tax system is to lower the taxes percentage for
the maximum number of low earning people and increase a person's federal income tax at a gradual
rate. It should also be noted that the percentage of a company that any individual owns will be
included as a part of yearly income in this income tax. If the reforms on minimum wage discussed in
the next section The Only Free Market(7) are not implemented, a sliding scale income tax is the
recommended income tax system. However, due to the variability in yearly income, a flat income tax
coupled with a reformed minimum wage system is preferable as a more fair way of correcting wealth
disparity.
A flat income tax system has the benefit of being a much simpler system. The tax rate of a flat
income tax would also slightly change from year to year and depend it would depend on the total
income of all individuals earning US Dollars. Half of the Government Funding Remainder Number
would be assessed, then half of the Government Funding Remainder Number would be divided by
the total amount of income for the year, and that would yield the flat income tax percentage needed for
that year. The reason that a flat income tax would be preferred to a sliding scale income tax is that the
variability caused by the sliding scale system makes for a potential unfairness. This unfairness is due
to the unpredictability in yearly income amounts. So a flat income tax method is preferred under the
condition that there is a basic income system coupled with a reform to the minimum wage system,
which will be discussed in the next section The Only Free Market (7).
A Flat Percentage Tax on Value of Land Prior to Improvement and on Real Estate Value:
The implementation of a flat percentage tax on real estate value and land value is the second tax
that can be used to fund the remainder of the US government budget. The first step in calculating the
flat tax percentage would be to assess the total real estate value and the value of all land prior to

improvement presently owned in the entire United States. This would not include land owned by
nationalized services and government approved not-for-profit organizations(NPOs), but would include
real estate and land owned by state privatized businesses. This value would be called the total land
value. The next step would be to take half the Government Funding Remainder Number and divide
it by the total land value, this would yield the flat tax percentage. Obviously, real estate value will
have to be re-assessed every year and, if a natural disaster harmed a piece of real estate or land, that
property could be requested for immediate re-assessment. The bill for the flat percentage tax on real
estate value or on the value of land prior to improvements would be given quarterly to spread the
burden of this out throughout the year. So for example, if the flat percentage tax on real estate value
ended up being 2% and an individual's home is valued at $100k on the market, their total real estate tax
for that year will be $2k. If an individual owned a total of 1 billion dollars worth of real estate and land
prior to improvements, their total tax for that year would be $20 million. This type of tax evenly
divides property tax among all real estate and land owners.
Creating Additional Basic Income Incentives Through Tax Return Reform:
The most effective way to guarantee that citizens are motivated to strive for market efficiency is
to reform the tax return system and couple it in with an additional basic income tax return system. The
reason for doing this is to create an incentive for both citizens who have contributed a lot through taxes
and citizens who are not heavy contributors through taxation to still be motivated to improve
government efficiency. One of the major problems of government is that a system has been created
where special interest groups constantly fight each-other for less taxes, improved social services, or
improved social justice. As a result of this, these constituents become less focused on making society
work efficiently. By using the money from the government half of the government budget that is not
spent at year end to give tax returns that benefit both tax payers and non-tax payers, the reformed tax
return system creates an environment where these two constituent groups are motivated to work
together to improve government efficiency and strive for efficient spending. Also, a reformed tax
return system would create a general interest of citizens to encourage private sector competition and
shift the entire nation's focus to austerity. The key to a successful reformed tax return system is locking
in the amount of tax money collected at 50% of the Gross Public Debt, and using any unspent money
from the government budgets be returned in a 1:1:2:2 ratio between the basic income receivers, the
basic income meritocracy receivers, the income tax payers, and the real estate value and value of land
prior to improvement tax payers.
The manner in which the reformed tax return system will work is that at year end, when proper
management has saved the government money and it is unspent, one sixth of the remainder of the
budget from all levels of government will be re-distributed among citizens in a year-end stipend in the
same proportions that the basic income guarantee system operates. The next proportion of the
reformed tax return system will be one sixth of the unspent government money and will be redistributed among the citizens in a year-end stipend in the same manner than the basic income
meritocracy system will work. The next proportion of the reformed tax return system will be one third
of the budget remainders and it will be redistributed in the same proportions to amount paid on income
tax. The last proportion of the reformed tax return system would return one third of the total budget
remainders to the individuals who paid a flat percentage tax on the value of land prior to improvement
and real estate value in the same proportions that they paid those taxes. Obviously, these returns would
have to be re-calculated dynamically every year. This method of reformed tax returns has a potential
for a large cut in total government spending and makes a general interest for efficiency in all levels of
government, including state governments and local-county governments that citizens are not living in.

The Only Free Market (7)

A Fair Minimum Wage System:
The biggest hindrance to a hiring employees in a start-up business is having a high minimum
wage requirement. This actually hurts both potential job growth and anyone attempting to start a small
business. The reason that minimum wage hurts job growth is that, in order to any amount of
employees, a small business owner is required to charge a minimum price for a product on the market
in order to meet the costs of production. This means that job-wise it is impossible to compete on the
international market with foreign production of products produced in low-minimum wage nations.
This issue is partially addressed by an importation tax of on commodities made by nations who hoard
US Dollars. On the other hand, minimum wage is very useful for keeping people out of poverty and
ensuring that businesses are not profiting entirely at the expense of their employees.
Since the issue of a fair minimum wage is a pressing one that affects the market as a whole, a
new type of minimum wage requirement needs to be implemented. The first step in remedying the
problems of minimum wage is to have a very low initial minimum wage for all business employees,
and a high minimum wage for all contracted non-employees. The low initial minimum wage for full
and part time employees would be $2.50/hour and would be automatically adjusted for inflation every
year. The high minimum wage for all independent contract non-employees would be $15.00/hour and
would also be automatically adjusted for inflation every year. Of course, the high minimum wage
requirement for non-contracted employees would only apply to businesses and work done in favor of
businesses. The high minimum wage requirement would not be for independent contracts between
individuals because this would be unreasonable to attempt to oversight on. However, in addition to the
new minimum wage requirement, there would also be a required profit-sharing/loss minimum salary
for all full-time and part-time employees. Since the banks would be privatized by the federal, state, and
local-county government, and the government would have access to employee records for any given
business, calculating the profit-sharing requirement would be easy. Free-access for businesses to the
software or algorithms that computed these profit-sharing computations would be available online.
The way the profit-sharing minimum salary requirement would work is that at first, throughout
the year employees would receive their wages from a previously agreed upon wage that they received
upon being hired. A business would pay their yearly cost of operation, this would includes raw
materials cost, value of land prior to improvements and real estate value tax, and utility
cost(gas/electricity). However, the yearly cost of operation would exclude expansion of the businesses.
And so, after a business pays for the cost of operation, there would be a total profit which would
include the cost of paying the minimum wage requirements of the employees. This total profit number
would be used to calculate and guarantee that the employees, excluding the owner, would receive a
minimum of 90% of the total profits. An exception would be made where, if the owner(s) wanted to
use up to 10% of the total profits for expansion of the business itself, then the business could match in
equal amount the amount of money put in for expansion. The amount of money used for paying the
employees would be called the employee profit pool number. And so, this would mean that the
employee profit pool number would, in some cases, be a minimum of 85% of the total profits. The
employee profit pool number would require that, in terms of hourly wage, 85% of the profit pool(or
68% to 76.5% of total profits) be split evenly between all employees of a business. This evenly split
money would be given at the fiscal year's end and be given as a stipend. The other 15% of the
employee profit pool would be used to cover the cost of overtime for workers and would also be used
for paying the management workers. An owner would also be allowed to be self-hired as a manager or
regular employee if they wanted to obtain additional money from the business. However, any given
employee being paid with money from the employee profit pool would not be allowed more than 5x the
hourly wage of the minimum earning employes. If the previously agreed upon minimum wage
exceeded 5x the company's minimum wage, that employee would have to pay that money back. In

addition, any independent contract made to hire non-employees would have to be paid using funds half
from the employee profit pool and half from the owner(s)'s profit pool. These independent contractors
would also not be allowed to exceed 20x the company's minimum wage. The independent contracting
reforms would benefit a business with a single owner, who is the only employee, and also protect the
individual being contracted from predatory business practices. Since, in this case, there would be a
single owner who is the only employee, the owner would only be required to pay $15.00/hour(adjusted
yearly for inflation) for any extra helping hands. This method ensures that an owner with a high
returns business, has a guarantee on the majority of their deserved profit, while still protecting any
extra helpers from worker exploitation. And if the single owner had a low returns business, but still
required help, they could opt to hire the employee as a worker and share the profits more equally.
Lastly, the overtime system should require time and a half payments after 30 hours of work per week.
Using this prescribed method of profit sharing/loss in minimum salary would make employees
invested in the success of their company. It is expected that a market based system of wages will create
an initial confusion in the job market, but as companies adjust to the fair wage system, overall
productivity within the company will increase. A fair wage system removes preferential treatment for
some employees because hard working employees will have no problem with the removal of workers
who do not strive to carry their fair share of the work load and also ensures the removal of unnecessary
jobs. A market based system of wages also guarantees the weeding out of ineffective employees,
allows for near unlimited hiring by minimizing the initial minimum wage, and makes any given
company more self-regulating with the pricing of the product or service.
Fair Market Capitalism is the Only Free Market:
The concept of freedom is a complex topic for most individuals. This is because freedom is
talked about in terms of its allowance for individual control over something or someone else. Meaning
that freedom is talked about in terms of its diametric opposite, which is control and authority. Because
of the concept of liberty itself, can only be discussed in terms of its diametric opposite, freedom itself is
an inherently paradoxical concept. And since freedom can only be discussed in terms of the allowance
of control, and one person's freedom in the market is another person's loss of freedom, the only way to
maximize freedom of a market for the maximum number of individuals is to maximize fairness of that
market for the maximum number of individuals participating in that market. This is why the paradox
of Libertarian Socialism is such an effective approach to tackling the concept of truly maximized
freedom in the market.
With liberty in mind, there have been some objections to the concept of a basic income system
made by some who claim that paying for this system through taxation is contrary to freedom.
However, when these objections are examined in depth, they are exposed as shallow in their resistance
to the proposal because they attempt to further take away market purchasing power from individuals
who are already disenfranchised. Another reason that these objections are trite is that any monetary
system that is proposed for mass social acceptance requires a psychological and sociological
acceptance of that system as an abstraction of trade value. With this in mind, it should be considered
that there are only a handful of ways to attain social acceptance of any given currency. It is arguable
that a Basic Income Guarantee is the only way of doing so in an inherently non-aggressive manner. To
go into more depth with this concept, suppose that a government-less non-centralized digital currency
gained some popularity in some circles. Without a government, any claims of ownership to any given
thing can be contested by any person. Because of this, essentially every one loses social authority of
ownership of any given item and when people have no authority over the ownership of property, people
tend to not care about their property. When property is uncared for it undergoes decay, this is typically
referred to as the tragedy of the commons. A reversal of this concept is the notion that, as an act of
market competition, if someone attempts a claim of ownership of something that a market competitor
owns, sabotage of that property becomes a reasonable market strategy. In addition, if one owner

restricts access to natural resources, such as fresh water, and claims it as privately owned resource, then
forcing other people to trade in an anarcho-currency of their choosing is an act of violence and
oppression that becomes tantamount to slavery. With consideration of these factors, a situation is
created where violence becomes almost inevitable. So the only way to preserve a sense of social
responsibility is to have some property that is collectively owned, privately managed, and distributed
through a fair and partially equal system. This fair market system should allow for equal market access
to that resource based on the laws of supply and demand for that resource. When access is restricted to
a natural resource, such as life-necessary clean water, what happens is something that is sometimes
referred to as commodity fascism. What is meant by this is a policing of people through restricted
access to a commodity that is claimed as private but is biologically necessary for life or, through
overbearing mass advertising, becomes psychologically necessary for the relief of anxiety.
Crowd Funded Projects:
A potentially important aspect of fair market capitalism is the impact on crowd funding projects
with the basic income system rather than having individuals campaigning for change, or lobbying to the
government for funding and having people counter-lobby against budget changes. The crowd funding
paradigm bypasses the majority of the bureaucracy of government and creates a environment where
individuals can invest their own money and, in some cases, receive a return on investment. A potential
example of this would be crowd-funding a high-speed rail transportation system in the United States.
One way that this can work is, a website for crowd funding projects would be made, and the citizens
can invest their unused income for support of the project. In turn, the project website could offer a type
investment return. For example, the website could offer three times the amount of money invested in
the project returned in travel amounts on the high speed rail or offer them a one and a half times
monetary return within an allotted time frame.
Crowd funding also allows the potential for individuals to invest and have a type of direct
democracy through which monetary funding for a favored version of competing proposals for projects,
such as mass transportation or clean energy, will win the funding of the opposing proposal. What is
meant by this is suppose there are two competing proposals, such as a proposal for a mag-lev train or
for a hyperloop transportation, and there will be a projected budget on the crowd funding website. One
thing that can happen is a competition can be set up where the proposal that receives the most funding
in a given time frame will absorb the funds from the competing project. In addition, the system would
be designed where if individuals changed their minds, they could have the option of transferring funds
from one proposal to another. In conclusion, crowd funded projects are a relatively new phenomenon
that, with the use of a basic income system, reformed tax, and reformed fair wage system, have the
potential to side-step bureaucracy and allow the swift implementation of projects beneficial to society.
The Impact of Fair Market Capitalism:
The single largest impact of a fair market system will be the elimination of poverty altogether
and a massive decrease in wealth disparity. However, secondary impacts will include: a more accurate
market representation of demand and value, due to the profit and loss sharing mechanism of the
minimum wage system; a decrease in thievery, due to access to a guaranteed income; the inevitable
automation of all government, due to the desire of both citizens and tax payers to minimize their losses
and maximize their gains; empowerment of disenfranchised people, due to the basic income guarantee;
a highly educated society, due to the incentives of the basic income meritocracy; efficient use of land,
due to a tax on the value of land and of real estate; a decrease in entitlement thinking, due to the state
privatization of some nationalized things and implementation tax on the value of land and of real estate;
the reduction of bureaucracy, due to the locking in of the government budget; more accurate amounts
of pay for work, due to profit and loss sharing caused by a fair minimum wage system; and ultimately a
political and economic system that orchestrates a symphony of liberty and justice for all.

Addendum: Actual Numbers of the Theory

The Math Behind the Numbers:
Overall Breakdown of the Budget:
Estimated Federal Gross Public Debt(GPD):
Present Budget Estimates without Libertarian Socialism:

$17,011.4 billion
$6,358.1 billion

With No Tax Returns and Total Budget Spent:

Basic Income Guarantee: 17,011.4*0.125=
Basic Income Meritocracy: 17,011.4*0.125=
Total Government Funding: 17,011.4*0.25=
Total:
Difference:

$2,126.425 billion
$2,126.425 billion
$4,252.85 billion
$8,505.7 billion
$2,147.6 billion

In the Case Total Tax Returns and Perfect Government Efficiency:

Basic Income Guarantee: 17,011.4*0.125+17,011.4*0.25*1/6=
Basic Income Meritocracy: 17,011.4*0.125+17,011.4*0.25*1/6=
Total Government Funding: 17,011.4*0.00=
Total:
Difference:

$2,835.2333 billion
$2,835.2333 billion
$0
$5,670.4666 billion
$-687.6334 billion

Possible Breakdowns of Government Funding:

Total Government Funding: 17,011.4*0.25= 4,252.85 billion
Peace-time budget:
Federal Budget:
Total of State Budgets:
Total of Local-County Budgets:

4,252.85 billion*1/3=1,417.6167 billion

4,252.85 billion*1/3=1,417.6167 billion
4,252.85 billion*1/3=1,417.6167 billion

Emergency-time budget:
Federal Budget:
Total of State Budgets:
Total of Local-County Budgets:

4,252.85 billion*1/2=2,126.425 billion

4,252.85 billion*1/4=1,063.2125 billion
4,252.85 billion*1/4=1,063.2125 billion

War-time budget:
Federal Budget:
Total of State Budgets:
Total of Local-County Budgets:

4,252.85 billion*10/24=1,772.02083 billion

4,252.85 billion*7/24=1,240.414583 billion
4,252.85 billion*7/24=1,240.414583 billion

Basic Income Guarantee:

Basic Income Guarantee Budget: 17,011.4*0.125= 2,126.425 billion
Census Estimates:
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
308745538 308747508 309326225 311587816
Growth
1.00000638 1.00187440 1.00731134

2012
313,914,040
1.00746570

2008-2010 were outlier years because of market crash, so their data is unreliable.
Average growth from 2010-2012: 1.0073885275%

2012
actual
Total 313,914,040
0
3,943,077
1
3,981,523
2
3,979,957
3
3,982,440
4
4,112,347
5
4,132,747
6
4,098,714
7
4,085,964
8
4,094,174
9
4,063,937
10
4,045,719
11
4,145,034
12
4,206,939
13
4,136,252
14
4,135,274
15
4,144,014
16
4,174,274
17
4,265,702
18
4,354,017
19
4,422,695
20
4,543,774
21
4,627,509
22
4,623,739
23
4,443,539
24
4,344,642
25
4,275,138
26
4,298,788
27
4,339,574
28
4,206,614
29
4,278,212
30
4,283,410
31
4,242,178
32
4,332,058
33
4,065,562
34
3,987,787
35
3,950,567
36
3,836,469
37
3,959,492
38
3,839,004
39
3,902,667
40
4,084,481
41
4,324,963
42
4,384,022
43
4,158,551
44
4,076,204

2013
projection
316,233,403
3,972,211
4,010,941
4,009,363
4,011,864
4,142,731
4,163,282
4,128,997
4,116,153
4,124,424
4,093,964
4,075,611
4,175,660
4,238,022
4,166,813
4,165,828
4,174,632
4,205,116
4,297,219
4,386,187
4,455,372
4,577,346
4,661,699
4,657,902
4,476,370
4,376,743
4,306,725
4,330,550
4,371,637
4,237,695
4,309,822
4,315,058
4,273,521
4,364,066
4,095,601
4,017,251
3,979,756
3,864,815
3,988,747
3,867,369
3,931,502
4,114,659
4,356,918
4,416,413
4,189,277
4,106,321

2014
projection
318,569,902
4,001,559
4,040,576
4,038,986
4,041,506
4,173,340
4,194,042
4,159,505
4,146,566
4,154,897
4,124,212
4,105,724
4,206,512
4,269,335
4,197,599
4,196,607
4,205,477
4,236,185
4,328,969
4,418,594
4,488,291
4,611,166
4,696,143
4,692,317
4,509,444
4,409,080
4,338,545
4,362,546
4,403,937
4,269,005
4,341,665
4,346,940
4,305,096
4,396,310
4,125,861
4,046,932
4,009,160
3,893,370
4,018,218
3,895,943
3,960,550
4,145,061
4,389,109
4,449,044
4,220,229
4,136,661

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

4,084,512
4,165,735
4,421,347
4,508,318
4,509,567
4,505,608
4,566,251
4,609,523
4,459,925
4,437,952
4,393,250
4,240,395
4,207,605
4,040,118
3,891,149
3,745,489
3,635,456
3,554,439
3,454,687
3,423,614
3,570,839
2,640,984
2,609,069
2,546,946
2,609,515
2,279,580
2,088,076
1,979,898
1,867,571
1,792,914
1,657,855
1,588,005
1,527,795
1,377,972
1,337,956
1,283,660
1,228,420
1,184,179
1,074,693
1,012,099
929,852
833,169
757,103
664,978
569,751
488,454
407,389
324,006

4,114,691
4,196,514
4,454,014
4,541,628
4,542,886
4,538,898
4,599,989
4,643,581
4,492,877
4,470,742
4,425,710
4,271,725
4,238,693
4,069,969
3,919,899
3,773,163
3,662,317
3,580,701
3,480,212
3,448,909
3,597,222
2,660,497
2,628,346
2,565,764
2,628,795
2,296,423
2,103,504
1,994,527
1,881,370
1,806,161
1,670,104
1,599,738
1,539,083
1,388,153
1,347,842
1,293,144
1,237,496
1,192,928
1,082,633
1,019,577
936,722
839,325
762,697
669,891
573,961
492,063
410,399
326,400

4,145,092
4,227,520
4,486,923
4,575,184
4,576,451
4,572,434
4,633,976
4,677,890
4,526,073
4,503,774
4,458,409
4,303,287
4,270,011
4,100,040
3,948,861
3,801,041
3,689,376
3,607,157
3,505,926
3,474,392
3,623,800
2,680,154
2,647,766
2,584,721
2,648,218
2,313,390
2,119,046
2,009,263
1,895,270
1,819,506
1,682,444
1,611,558
1,550,455
1,398,410
1,357,800
1,302,699
1,246,639
1,201,742
1,090,632
1,027,110
943,643
845,526
768,332
674,841
578,201
495,699
413,431
328,812

93
94
95
96

240,652
194,134
141,181
105,771

Basic Income 0-12

Basic Income 13-17
Basic Income 18-64
Basic Income 65
Basic Income 66
Basic Income 67
Basic Income 68
Basic Income 69
Basic Income 70
Basic Income 71
Basic Income 72
Basic Income 73
Basic Income 74
Basic Income 75
Basic Income 76
Basic Income 77
Basic Income 78
Basic Income 79
Basic Income 80
Basic Income 81
Basic Income 82
Basic Income 83
Basic Income 84
Basic Income 85
Basic Income 86
Basic Income 87
Basic Income 88
Basic Income 89
Basic Income 90
Basic Income 91
Basic Income 92
Basic Income 93
Basic Income 94
Basic Income 95
Basic Income 96
Basic Income 97
Basic Income 98
Basic Income 99
Basic Income 100+

242,430
195,568
142,224
106,552

244,221
197,013
143,275
107,340

97
98
99
100+

Standard
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.34
1.35
~1.45

$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$20.20
$20.40
$20.60
$20.80
$21.00
$21.20
$21.40
$21.60
$21.80
$22.00
$22.20
$22.40
$22.60
$22.80
$23.00
$23.20
$23.40
$23.60
$23.80
$24.00
$24.20
$24.40
$24.60
$24.80
$25.00
$25.20
$25.40
$25.60
$25.80
$26.00
$26.20
$26.40
$26.60
$26.80
$27.00
~$29.00

$195,847,171,192.12
$115,877,485,939.74
$1,459,730,135,186.53
$26,718,280,476.38
$19,956,427,709.81
$19,908,550,943.50
$19,623,204,865.10
$20,298,594,041.54
$17,901,011,215.29
$16,551,865,200.83
$15,841,030,633.16
$15,080,664,587.76
$14,610,632,091.05
$13,632,841,440.60
$13,176,095,974.28
$12,789,700,931.14
$11,637,564,623.39
$11,398,731,744.94
$11,031,253,351.40
$10,647,547,881.04
$10,351,808,368.82
$9,474,324,226.20
$8,997,484,417.43
$8,335,200,694.65
$7,530,256,934.18
$6,898,853,774.20
$6,108,658,177.41
$5,276,087,270.44
$4,559,435,506.12
$3,832,921,110.61
$3,072,415,048.89
$2,299,831,653.35
$1,869,656,469.59
$1,370,138,313.44
$1,034,325,907.59
$762,671,499.34
$542,584,583.93
$368,472,953.92
~$665,842,433.93

Allotted Budget for Basic Income Guarantee:

Actual Budget Usage:
Year End Remainder:

77,405
54,657
36,843
61,985

77,977
55,061
37,115
62,443

78,553
55,468
37,389
62,904
$3,650.00
$5,475.00
$7,300.00
$7,373.00
$7,446.00
$7,519.00
$7,592.00
$7,665.00
$7,738.00
$7,811.00
$7,884.00
$7,957.00
$8,030.00
$8,103.00
$8,176.00
$8,249.00
$8,322.00
$8,395.00
$8,468.00
$8,541.00
$8,614.00
$8,687.00
$8,760.00
$8,833.00
$8,906.00
$8,979.00
$9,052.00
$9,125.00
$9,198.00
$9,271.00
$9,344.00
$9,417.00
$9,490.00
$9,563.00
$9,636.00
$9,709.00
$9,782.00
$9,855.00
~$10,585.00

$2,125,609,759,373.62
$2,126,425,000,000.00
$815,240,626.38

Basic Income Meritocracy:

Basic Income Meritocracy: 17,011.4*0.125= 2,126.425 billion
There are 316,829,000 people. Of those people 72.7% are under 20.
This means that there are 230,334,683 people over 20.
Of people over 25....
Doctorate or professional degree
3.07%
Master's degree
8.05%-3.07%=4.98%
Bachelor's degree
30.94%-8.05%=22.89%
High school graduate
87.65%-30.94%=56.71%*273,581,842
Grade School graduate
100%-87.65%=12.35%*273,581,842
No education:
316,829,000-260,201,173(subtotal)

=7,071,275
=11,470,667
=52,723,609
=155,148,265
=33,787,357
=56,627,827

*NB*: For the number of people with a high school degree, the number used to calculate the number of
people was estimated as the average off total people and people over 20.
No education
Grade School
HS/GED
BS/BA
MS/MA
PhD

+9.98
+9.98
+9.98
+9.98
+9.98

$0.00
$9.98
$19.96
$29.94
$39.92
$49.90

Actual Budget Usage :

Year End Remainder:

$0.0
$3,642.70
$7,285.40
$10,928.10
$14,570.80
$18,213.50

56627827
33787357
155148265
52723609
11470667
7071275

$2,125,492,708,623.90
$932,291,376.10

$0.00
$123,077,205,343.90
$1,130,317,169,831.00
$576,168,871,512.90
$167,136,794,723.60
$128,792,667,212.50

References
For data concerning life expectancy in the US:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
For data concerning population estimates by age in the US:
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2012/index.html
For information concerning educational attainment in the US check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
For more information concerning the national debt and trade deficit:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
For more information on total budget funding:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/numbers

I would like to thank my mom for always helping me through the roughest times of my life.
Jesus and I love you, Mom.
This book is being distributed freely online.
However, if you are feeling generous and want to donate to me through paypal, my paypal is
ihaveabighead@hotmail.com(not to be confused with my communication email).
Main Communication Email:
ihaveabighead@gmail.com
Skype:
SchicagoS
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/infiniteprimecryptology

A.M.D.G.