Privatized Socialism

I was discussing our treatment of prisoners in the U.S. with some friends when I got what I think is an ingenious idea.

Part of the Left wants the government to socialize a bunch of things, most notably medicine.  Socialized medicine has some very great benefits.  It is based on the idea that healthcare is a universal need that is often too expensive for a significant portion of the population to afford.  In the U.S., medical debt is not uncommon, but more importantly, many of the lower class don't seek medical care when they need it, because it is too expensive.  A majority of medical care is not related to dangerous or self destructive behavior.  It is the result of disease, genetic disorders, living conditions, working conditions, or accidents that are not easily avoidable.  In short, most harm requiring medical care is not the fault of the person needing it.  Withholding that care for financial reasons is completely unreasonable, especially in such a wealthy society.  At the same time though, who is going to pay for it?  How do we keep things fair by providing necessary medical care without the apparent unfairness of taking wealth from others to pay for it?

This is not the only case where fairness demands both that something expensive be provided to those who cannot afford it and that rights of ownership are respected.  I have said before that death by starvation is not an acceptable punishment for laziness.  We also have mentally ill prisoners who are not entirely responsible for their actions but cannot be allowed their freedom without treatment, so they will no longer be a threat to society.  We have a political movement for abolishing the death penalty, but we also have prisoners who are too dangerous to let out but who's upkeep burden should not be thrust on the public against its will.  These are all very expensive problems.  Some we already charge to the people, even though a significant number see it as completely unfair.  Some we ignore, allowing some people to suffer for the fairness of others.

So, the other day I told a friend that the problem with abolishing the death penalty, aside from the rare prisoner that can still cause significant harm even in prison (for example mob bosses, who can orchestrate murders from their cells), is the cost.  Charging the public for the upkeep of prisoners who are too dangerous to ever release causes economic harm, violating the purpose of the justice system (which is to protect the people).  I suggested, instead of spending millions of dollars lobbying the government to abolish the death penalty, these groups should pay for the upkeep of these prisoners, thereby justifying keeping them alive.  This would retain the death penalty as a means of dealing with people who are literally too dangerous to keep alive, and it would alleviate the economic burden of keeping less dangerous people alive, who cannot be released, by allowing those who can and are willing to afford it to foot the bill.

This idea can, and in my option should, be extended to many other things, it if can be done successfully.  It would require one essential thing: The government would need to be willing to work with non-profits.

If enough people were willing to donate, a non-profit could be created that would provide a basic income to everyone in the U.S.  The best, and probably the only reasonable, distribution system for the money would be the IRS.  So, the IRS would have to work with the NPO, where the NPO provides the money and the IRS distributes it.  This could be done fairly efficiently through the IRS.  Even better though, no one would have to worry above government overreach.  The non-profit and the donors could decide controversial things, such as whether or not the funding should be distributed only to U.S. citizens or to all U.S. residents.  The actual amount distributed would be decided based on available funding.  The only government overhead would be the marginal extra work for the IRS, working the additional funds into its existing distribution.

Perhaps the best part about all of this is that it completely transcends politics.  Congress does not get to vote on whether or not to have a basic income, if it is being provided by a non-profit.  A Republican controlled Congress cannot cut the basic income to balance the budget, and a Democrat controlled Congress cannot increase government spending to raise the basic income.  The government would not have to foot the bill at all, and the only control it would have over it would be the cooperation of the IRS.  If a similar non-profit was created for a single payer medical system, it would get even better though: Medicaid would become entirely obsolete.  The government could easily cut the program (or cut it down to merely a distribution system for the funds raised by the NPO), balance the budget better, and maybe even start reducing its debt, and we would still get a decent medical system!  Add to this the prisoner related things, and our criminal justice system would cost far less.  In the long run, we could expect to see significant tax reductions, at the same time as expanding social programs and improving the fairness and living conditions of our country.

Crowdfunding is supposedly some big new thing invented in the 21st century, but in reality, it has existed for all of recorded human history.  Taxation is the involuntary crowd funding of government.  Charities facilitate the voluntary crowd funding of welfare.  I believe we can bring these things together.  Obviously the core of government and of our justice system needs to be funded, whether people are willing to donate voluntarily or not, but many, perhaps even a majority, of government programs can be crowd funded, and if they can, they should be.

The costs of crowd funding peripheral  government programs include potentially reduced efficiency and less government control over those programs.  The potential benefits include greater overall funding, especially for more popular programs, better distribution channels for charities (the IRS can distribute funds far better than any charity), more direct ability to influence programs for the general public (which means improved democratic process), the ability for people to choose whether or not to support a given program, and a much leaner government, all at the same time as providing the same or better services.

Yes, one potential problem is that some programs just won't get funded.  Not only is that already a problem (do you see a basic income), it is also not a problem with crowdfunding.  The U.S. is supposed to be a democratic nation.  What is more democratic than voting with your wallet?  There are exceptions, but in general it is accurate to say that if the people will not voluntarily fund a program, then the people don't want that program, and in a truly democratic nation, that justifies allowing the program to collapse and disappear.  There are a few programs that need funding regardless, like the military, the FDA, and the FCC.  Critical defensive and regulatory agencies should at least get minimal funding to continue sufficient operation.  Programs for social welfare, highly controversial agencies, scientific research (NASA, perhaps), and broadly socialized services (e.g. a single payer medical system), however, can and should be crowdfunded.

By crowdfunding these things, they become depoliticized.  Crowdfunding basic income and a single payer medical system eliminates the ability of Democratic candidates to essentially buy the votes of the poor by promising these things.  It also eliminates the ability of Republican candidates to buy the votes of the rich by promising to cut taxes by eliminating these programs.  The government can (and again, should) still be involved, as it is uniquely positioned to aid in distribution.  Adding a basic income to tax returns is something trivial for the IRS, because it already has a distribution system in place.  The Medicaid program already has a massive support network throughout the U.S., allowing it to provide coverage nearly everywhere.  Replacing Medicaid's underlying funding and qualification system with a universal single payer system funded by one or more NPOs would be a little more difficult than the basic income, but it would still be significantly easier than one or multiple NPOs trying to cut new deals with a wide enough network of health care providers to actually function as a single payer system.  For death row prisoners, having their support be crowdfunded to indefinitely delay execution, the criminal justice system is an essential element, but again, allowing one or more NPOs to provide that funding would be trivial.  The same applies for prisoners who need treatment for mental illness.  In all cases, the government is an essential element, but it can run leaner and avoid the distraction of controversial issues if the funding and management of these programs are outsourced to NPOs that are funded through voluntary donations.

We do not need the government to initiate this either.  We can do it ourselves.  The movement for abolishing the death penalty has enough money and influence that it could immediately start lobbying state governments to allow them to pay prisoner upkeep to delay execution, and most state governments would be far more amenable to this offer than the demand that the death penalty be abolished entirely.  There are also lobbying groups for medical reform and welfare that could easily shift their focus from trying to convince the government to provide more services to trying to provide those services themselves through a donation model.  Environmentalist groups could work with the EPA to offer better return on carbon credits.  They could work with state governments to offer credits for logging companies to avoid important habitats and replant wherever they go.  In fact, U.S. environmentalist groups could even work with other governments to provide incentives for companies to act more responsibly.  (For example, instead of spending tons of money on boats, helicopters, and other equipment to terrorize Japanese whaling boats, they could work with the Japanese government to offer incentives to whalers to reduce their quotas.)  Of course, I think we need to get things in our own country under control first, but this could eventually expand to the entire world, with international NPOs that help shape policy and behavior by offering to help instead of arguing and fighting.  The government does not have to buy into this before we can start trying to drive change.  All we need is reasonable government cooperation, and we can do the rest ourselves, and we can start now!

I believe crowdfunded peripheral programs is the next evolution of government.  It can reduce government overreach, reduce necessary size of government, reduce government corruption, increase overall freedom and liberty, and produce a better society that better fits the desires and expectations of the people.  I don't know if we are ready enough for it to ensure that it will always be sufficiently funded, but I think now is the time to start moving in that direction.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

A landlord sues a tenant for not paying rent four months in a row.  The tenant says the rent was paid on time each of those months.  The landlord's lawyer asks the tenant for some proof that the rent was paid.  The tenant, who is representing herself, says she was not given receipts when she paid the rent, and it was paid in cash, so there are no bank records of the transaction aside from withdrawals for amounts that represent rent as well as some bills.  Because there is no proof the rent was paid, the judge rules that the tenant has to pay the landlord the value of four months rent.

An employee blows the whistle on an OSHA violation where he works.  A week later, he is fired without cause.  He knows that there are anti-retribution laws specifically intended to protect whistle blowers, but he cannot afford a lawyer, so he walks away.  He ends up unemployed for over 6 months, because his previous employer lies about his character when called for references.  He knows he could sue for slander, but again, he cannot afford legal representation, so he just deals with it.

A small video game company comes up with an awesome new game idea.  Partway through public beta testing, a major game company files a lawsuit against them for patent infringement.  The lead designer knows the element in question has been used before, and that it was in a game much older than the large company's patent, but he cannot recall what that game was.  Settling out of court would destroy the company, essentially turning it into a slave of the larger company, so they opt to hire a lawyer.  When the lead designer still cannot remember the name of the game that used the element in question, the judge rules that the small company infringed on the larger company's patent.  Ultimately, the legal costs cause the small company to go bankrupt.


These three stories have several things in common.  The first is that the rich prey on the poor.  In the first story, the landlord uses the legal system to rob the tenant.  In the second, the employer sends a message to its employees, that retribution will be served for reporting labor law violations.  In the third, the big company destroys potential competition using a patent that is not technically valid.  The second thing they have in common is that none of the defending parties have adequate legal representation.  The first two have no representation, and the third does not have sufficient legal representation to do the necessary research to find the prior art that would invalidate the patent.  The third thing they have in common is that the defending parties are all assumed to be guilty unless they can prove their own innocence.  In short, justice is not met, fair legal representation is not available, and the principle of innocence until guilt is proven is violated.

In criminal trials, the U.S. Constitution mandates a legal right to legal council for the defendant.  U.S. criminal courts provide court appointed lawyers for defendants that cannot afford to pay for their own.  This is protected as a legal right.  This right is not extended to civil law though.  This is a problem.  In the above three situations, sufficient legal council was a necessary part of a just outcome, and without that, justice was not served.  In the first, a lawyer might have been able to gain access to the landlords financial records to search for evidence that the rent was paid.  In the second, the lack of legal council was the pivotal factor that ultimately prevented the victim from even pursuing the issue.  In the third, better legal council might have been able to find the prior art that the lead designer could not.  Even in civil cases, fair legal representation is necessary to ensure justice, but in the U.S., only criminal defendants are provided with legal representation.

U.S. law does not actually mandate the idea of innocence until guilt is proven.  Taken together, several Constitutional amendments are interpreted to mean that this principle should be followed, but this really comes down to ambiguous phrases like "fair trial."  Further, these amendments apply only to criminal cases, not to civil cases.  This is also a problem.  Many civil cases place the burden of proof on the defendant.  In other words, the defendant is assumed guilty unless she can prove innocence.  Typically this is a matter of convenience, and it has nothing to do with justice.  It is more convenient for a defendant to produce proof of payment than it is for a prosecutor to prove that payment was not rendered.  It is more convenient to ask the defendant to provide proof of prior art or proof that an idea is common knowledge or otherwise not novel or unique than it is for the prosecutor to prove that no one has ever had the idea before or that the idea is particularly ingenious.  The fact, however, is that doing these things places the burden of proof on the defendant, making the defendant legally guilty unless she can provide proof that she is not.  Not only is this common in civil cases, it is a problem in a majority of civil cases involving wealthy prosecutors suing poor defendants, who cannot afford legal representation.

In the recent past, these two things have been established all over the world as fundamental human rights.  It is widely recognized that trying someone without adequate representation is unfair and morally wrong.  Likewise, it is also widely recognized that the accuser bears the burden of proof, not the accused.  In fact, this was well understood even in some ancient cultures, where an accuser could be put to death, if proof of the accusation could not be established.


The fact is that there is little difference between criminal and civil law.  Both are intended to prevent or mitigate harm.  The only difference is classification and penalty.  In criminal law, the state acts against the suspect.  The suspect is judged by a jury based on codified legal standards.  If the suspect is found guilty, a penalty is selected based on a set of codified standards.  The punishments all restrict the freedom of the convict.  In civil law, an individual or organization acts against the suspect.  The suspect is judged by a judge based on personal opinion and legal precedent.  If the suspect is found guilty, the judge determines a penalty based on the request of the prosecutor and the cost of the damage.  The penalties typically take the form of fines paid to the state and remunerations given to the prosecutor.  The actions prompting a lawsuit can be nearly identical in many cases, with only minor differences.  For example, if you accuse me of stealing money from your pocket, I will go to criminal court.  If I live in your apartment building, and you accuse me of not paying my rent, I will go to civil court, despite the fact that the harm caused may be identical.  Both cases amount to theft.  The circumstances of the theft are different, and this is used as justification to provide counsel for one and not the other and to assume initial innocence in one and initial guilt in the other.  The differences between criminal and civil cases do not justify refusing to provide fair counsel or assuming initial guilt.

Civil law needs two things desperately: Fair representation and innocence until guilt is proven.  These two things are essential parts of a fair justice system, and without them, justice cannot be served, regardless of whether it is criminal or civil court.

Not a Free Country

Disclaimer: This is a rant.  It will probably be long, and it will definitely cover multiple subjects.  They will all have a common theme: Why the US is no longer a free country.


First let's talk about children.  Specifically, let's discuss "free range children."  Evidently some parents let their children roam further without supervision than other parents are comfortable with.  And, those other parents take offense at this!  Now, I totally understand throwing people in jail and taking their kids away, when they are starving their kids, beating them, or otherwise actively abusing or neglecting them.  There are some things all children are entitled to.  One of them is learning to do things on their own.  No one has any business criticizing a parent for how they choose to do this, unless there is a very high probability of serious harm.  Here is a news flash for anyone reading this who just said, "But without supervision, the child could be kidnapped."  This happens only extremely rarely!  For comparison, 22% of children in the US live in poverty.  Poverty has repeatedly proven to cause serious harm to children.  Letting your kids go a mile to park and back several times a week has an extremely low incident of harm (fractions of a percent), and most of the time, the harm done is very far from serious.  All laws and social media attacks on these parents do is take away their freedom to teach their children responsibility in the best way they know how.

So, here is all of my advice to all of those entitled idiots who get involved in Twitter and Facebook attacks of any parent who let's their kid stray more than a few feet from the house without constant supervision: If you really care about the well being of kids that much, get off of Twitter and Facebook, and spend some of your time and money helping the 22% that are definitely being harmed by being in poverty.  If you cannot bother to do that much, then please, shut up!


Now let's talk about putting kids in jail.  In fact, let's talk about putting kids in jail for breaking school rules and some non-criminal legal violations.  Evidently (I did not know this), while it is a crime for a non-minor to provide a minor with alcohol, it is not a crime for a minor to drink alcohol.  It is illegal, but it is not a criminal offense.  Naturally, this explains why so many minors in the US end up getting put in jail with actual criminals for drinking.  Recently, a Virginia youth who happens to be autistic was charged with assaulting a police officer.  What was the officer doing?  He was detaining the boy illegally, for breaking a school rule.  Further, the rule broken was an unofficial rule that applied only to the boy.  The school made a rule that this boy was not allowed to leave his classroom until all other students had exited.  When he chose not to follow this rule, the school administrators asked the police officer to step in.  The police officer did so (despite the fact that no laws had been broken and there was no reasonable suspicion that a law had or would be broken) by attempting to force the boy to go to the principal's office.  The boy attempted to escape, and the officer tackled him (wait, who is getting charged with assault here) and arrested him.  By all counts, the officer was illegally detaining the boy, and then the officer assaulted the boy when he attempted to escape the illegal detention.  Now, let me ask you one question: Since when do schools get to legislate laws?  Is this how it works in a free country?  We put people in jail for doing things that are not strictly crimes, and we allow schools to legislate highly specific laws without even documenting them.  Right, and then we protect the police officers that enforce these "laws" and press charges against the victims.  This does not sound like a free country to me!


Now I want to discuss one that is not related to children (at least, not directly).  Did you know that if a well dressed man in a business suit decides to take a quick nap on a bench in the park during his lunch break, nobody cares!  If that one does not surprise you, maybe this one will: If a man wearing dirty clothing that is not quite his size tries to do the same thing, he will be fined or even arrested!  Since when do police in a free country treat people differently based on how they are dressed?  I mean, think about it.  The guy with the nice suit is doing the exact same thing, but because he has nicer clothing, he does not get in trouble.  The fact is that in most cities where this happens, taking a nap on a park bench is not illegal.  Homeless people don't get charged with "sleeping on a park bench illegally."  They get charged with "disorderly conduct," which happens to be disorderly only because they are homeless and cannot afford clean, well fitted clothing.

Now, I understand the concern.  No one wants their beautiful park to be tainted with a bunch of dirty, poorly dressed bums (if you just nodded your head to that sentence, shame on you, you horrible unfeeling bigot).  If that is the case, then fix it.  No, I don't mean fix it by discriminating even more against American citizens with the same legal rights as you that happen to have fallen upon hard times.  I mean, buy them nicer clothes, help them find jobs, help them rent an apartment, or at least write your appropriate government representative a letter explaining how they have a moral responsibility to make sure that poor American citizens are not starving on the streets.  If you want your park and your city streets to be beautiful, without people wearing old, dirty clothes, do something real about it.  If all of the bums have nice clothes (which are not that expensive, you miserly scrooge), then you won't have to look at old, dirty clothes every time you walk by them.  If all of the homeless people have homes, then you won't have to see them sleeping on the park benches.  If everyone has sufficient food, then you won't have to see the lines outside the soup kitchens or the people handing out food to all of the bums in the park.  You can fix it!  Even if you don't have much money (who am kidding: if you have the time to complain and worry about this, you have enough money to help), you can still write letters to your mayor, your city council (heck, attend the meetings in person), you state legislature, your state governor, your Congressmen, and even the President.  Instead of trying to push all of the homeless people out of your city (which, just for the record, will make you a murderer in my eyes, because they will probably starve or die of exposure out there), doing something real about it.  Freedom is not just for the rich.  The US is supposed to be a free country for everyone.  As long as we are discriminating against the poor, the US is not a free country.


Alright, that is about it for now.  I could discuss a lot more topics, but I am tired, and I have run out of steam.  Maybe another day I will read a bunch of articles that remind me of how entitled and deliberately blind the middle and upper classes in the US are, and then maybe I will rant again.  Thanks for listening, and please take my advice.  Instead of buying that new yacht, think about all of the homeless people making your city ugly, and go out and buy them all a new set of clothes (and, it will be way cheaper than the yacht).