I speak as a small business owner who has considered hiring employees in the past, but has found it too unprofitable to go down that road because of state regulations and minimum wages.

My thoughts:

1. If employees got paid in the amount they deserve there would be no incentive for business owners to employ them. The point is to make a profit off of their labor. There are benefits of stability and security with this arrangement but clear limitations. Once an employee becomes skilled enough and more profitable to the employer, they have more chips to bargain with. Raises or even working independently as a contractor become options. Unskilled or less profitable workers do not have these bargaining chips.

2. The only companies that are able to pay $15/hour for low skilled workers, as well as keep up with the slew of regulations that come with having employees, without raising prices substantially are the mega corporations with billions of $ and government employers who have access to tax revenue and $ printing presses. Small local businesses will get smaller and big corps will become stronger. We are already seeing this trend in the economy, mandating a raise in the minimum wage will make it worse.  

3. $15/hour is an attractive amount for a higher class of worker. The poor, unskilled labor will find themselves out of work permanently as clean-cut collage graduates swoop in and gobble of these base level jobs.

4. A businesswoman (or man) will NEVER take a cut from her profits weather by regulation or tax increase. She will only see them as production costs and roll them into the prices for the service or product. The end results WILL BE higher prices for everything and for everyone. 

I'm not saying these are fair outcomes -I believe there is clearly an economic imbalance that needs to be addressed*, but from my perspective as a small business owner, higher prices, less jobs, poorer poor seem to be the direct consequences of a universal minimum wage. On the surface it seems it would set things right, but as I've pointed out it will make these problems worse. 

I do have a few ideas for solutions. If we want the opposite result: lower prices, more jobs, wealthier poor, I suggest we do the opposite. No minimum wage, less burdensome regulation, lower corporate taxes...Sounds like conservative rhetoric, so I'm going to take it to another place...

What I propose is a MAXIMUM living wage for politicians, government employees and employees of large corporations and banks who directly benefit from government benefits, contracts, subsidies or participate in lobbying for special advantages (that's most of them). These organizations should be under stringent regulations. Because of these regulations, people who seek government work and public money would be motivated by higher causes at the sacrifice of higher wages.  All other businesses (like mine) dealing in the dangerous open market, unprotected from special government protections and privileges, should be free to do business without government interference and mandates.

-------------------------------------------------

*The profit motive of business fed by the public funds and legislative favors from government (economic fascism) are a disastrous duo that leads to massive market distortions and political corruption. This combo is very common in modern America and I feel is at the core of the extreme imbalance of wealth distribution.

The world is on the verge of a financial and political meltdown. People are rightfully worried and upset that the systems that were designed to maintain consistency and order seem to be failing at every level. This has forced people to look for solutions and to gravitate toward ideological radicalism. There is an all out war of ideas. The biggest ideas. The ones that form our basic understanding of civilization, individuality, rights, freedom, government, nationalism, family and religion. In my opinion these debates are long overdue.

Whatever the outcome that this war of ideas brings, it's safe to say we are living in a revolutionary time. It's also a fascinating time but what I am becoming more and more annoyed with is the increase of rhetoric. This, i think, is due to the corralling of politicians and parties as they try to drum up a "base" for the elections. This type of thing always waters down the conversation to a point of bumper sticker phrases and dogmatic jib-jab that brings us nowhere new. But isn't that "new place" where we want to go? That's what this debate is all about right, a revolution? I even find myself debating points I agree with from an opposite perspective just because I'm certain we've entered a phase of regurgitation.

I just want to feel that there is an honest idea behind the words, one that has taken a trip around the brain a few times and developed into something that is one's own. Just because a founder said something or it's in the constitution or martyrs died for it doesn't mean you have to automatically agree with it. Don't be lazy. Chew on it. Sure there is wisdom to be found in history and in studying the words of thinkers, scientists and philosophers of the past (I'm going to quote one later) but we've got to eventually come up with something fresh that will get us out of the funk of old rhetoric. Logically we should have a better perspective than those in the past because we can look and see where they failed and where they advanced.

You have a brain. Don't you have ideas? Take your idea and elaborate on it. How did you come up with this idea? How does it apply to reality? How does it harmonize with a principle? Is there a problem that needs to be solved? Can the solution be scaled to solve similar problems? Maybe your idea will be the one that will catch fire, bring people together, start or end a revolution. You might be the Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King of our day.  

It's a sad thought to think that THIS is as far as humanity can go. I believe we're not even close to realizing our collective potential but we can't get there if we don't let go of some of the things we may currently cherish. Unions yes, unions no. Gay marriage yes, gay marriage no. Abortion yes/no, Gold standard yes/no, Amnesty yes/no...DON'T BOX ME IN MAN! Let's not hit our heads on the same walls that have been built in the past. Maybe there is a way around the wall where everyone can move along. I believe particularly that today's young "progressives" and "libertarians" have an excellent opportunity to work together against common enemies, advance causes they agree on and hack out some really cool solutions to problems they disagree on. Developing a system that respects the individual and property while checking inequality and social injustice seems like a worthy and very attractive goal. 

Ludwig von Mises puts it clearly, "Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping toward destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."

So in summary, We are in a time of radicalism (Latin radix, meaning "root.") and I welcome it. It's not surprising that those sitting pretty in the current establishment are the ones calling for moderation. Although I think it's a time for reason, open minds and respectful debate I DON'T think heeding to this call for moderation will help us discover that gem that is sitting at the bottom of these debates. That gem is going to change everything.

We should continue to debate about how marijuana and other drugs should be regulated in our society, but as I've researched the topic and formed my own opinions about prohibition, I have come across some amazing information about the plant called cannabis or hemp. Please don't stop reading! I'm not a pot-head and have never consumed any illegal drugs or alcohol as it is against my religious beliefs...hear me out.

It turns out that the cannabis is the only plant in nature that grows as male and female. The male plant (industrial hemp) is not usable as a drug. The female plant, we now call marijuana, is only potent for drug use as long as it remains un-pollinated by the male plants. That is one reason growers tend to quarantine their crop from the outside air, as pollen from the male hemp will ruin the crop. Yet hemp, of either gender, has become so rare in our environment, due to prohibition laws, that illegal growers have begun planting their marijuana crops in open air and even IN OUR NATIONAL FORESTS! This has become a real issue as hikers and vacationing families have unintentionally encountered these secret crops. This is a dangerous situation to be put in, not because the plants are dangerous to walk through, but because the black market community attracts the worst of people. These illegal, open air, crops are sometimes protected by armed guards with military grade weapons. These facts immediately brings up a question in my mind; Why not decriminalize the male plant as it will potentially ruin the crop of illegal growers of marijuana?

Take a look at some of these historical facts about hemp:*
1) All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s. (Jack Frazier. Hemp Paper Reconsidered. 1974.)

2) It was legal to pay taxes with hemp in America from 1631 until the early 1800s. (LA Times. Aug. 12, 1981.)

3) Refusing to grow hemp in America during the 17th and 18th centuries was against the law! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769 (G. M. Herdon. Hemp in Colonial Virginia).

4) George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers grew hemp. (Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.)

5) Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America, and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow’s export to England. (Jack Herer. Emperor Wears No Clothes.)

6) For thousands of years, 90% of all ships’ sails and rope were made from hemp. The word ‘canvas’ is Dutch for cannabis. (Webster’s New World Dictionary.)

7) 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc., were made from hemp until the 1820s, with the introduction of the cotton gin.

8) The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross’s flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp. (U.S. Government Archives.)

9) The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th century. (State Archives.)

10) In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs. (U.S. Department of Agriculture Archives.)

11) Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935. (Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before the U.S.Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.)

12) Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel. (Popular Mechanics, 1941.)

13) In 1938, hemp was called ‘Billion-Dollar Crop.’ It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars. (Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938.)

14) Mechanical Engineering Magazine (Feb. 1938) published an article entitled ‘The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.’ It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

15) In the production of ethanol, hemp is seven times more effective than corn.

Here are some quotes from great Americans in support of industrial grade hemp:
"We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption." (John Adams, U.S. President)

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country." (Thomas Jefferson)

"An acre of the best ground for hemp, is to be selected and sewn in hemp and be kept for a permanent hemp patch."  (Thomas Jefferson's Garden book 1849)

"Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" (George Washington, The Writings of George Washington Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress), 1794) 

"Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?" (Henry Ford)

Why was industrial hemp made illegal?
William Randolph Hearst and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst’s grandfather, stood to lose billions because of hemp.

In 1937, DuPont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. DuPont’s Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil. Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of DuPont’s business.

Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and DuPont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law, Harry J.Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion-dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: ‘marijuana’ and pushed it into the consciousness of America.


What would the decriminalization of Industrial grade hemp mean for Washington State today?
Even with the stigmas and misinformation perpetuated by the agriculture, petroleum, chemical and lumber industries, we as a nation import about $400 million of industrial hemp into this country. Due to economic pressures, state governments are now in a race to decriminalize industrial hemp in order to grab a piece of this market. The potential market for industrial hemp is incalculable due to its many possible uses. Struggling industries in Washington State (farmers, paper mills in Wallula, bio fuel research) would be revolutionized with this new local product available. This means new jobs, a thriving economy and more revenue to pay off our terminal debt. 
The issue of Industrial Hemp is a separate issue from our drug laws concerning medical and/or recreational marijuana, as I have explained, and would, in fact, discourage the illegal growing of marijuana. Now that this information has come to light about industrial hemp, I would encourage our representatives Delvin, Klippert and Hailer to look into this issue further, with haste, and present a bill to decriminalize Industrial hemp in our state.  

* historical facts referenced from an article by Doug Yurchey

In November I hope Mitt Romney loses big! I will actually breath a sign of relief when the results come in with Obama as the winner. My conservative friends think this is blasphemy. Why would I wish another four years of Obama? 

Romney = Obama
When I say that there is no significant difference between the two candidates I really mean it. The issues that I really care about are not even being addressed; The Bill of Rights, a non-aggressive foreign policy, the fraudulent monetary system and bank bailouts. These issues carry tremendous support across the entire political spectrum. The majority of the people are done with the wars in the middle-east, against the wall-street bailouts, and cherish the bill of rights. Even the smallest gesture in support of this majority, by either candidate, would almost ensure their win. But we're not seeing it, because they are the same on these issues. I actually think, as bad as Obama has been on all of these issues, Mitt might be worse. He didn't even talk about the wars in his nomination speech! They both have convinced the people that the greatest issue facing the nation and world is "job" creation. The whole circus is pathetic and very sad.
  
Romney Rejects Libertarian Alliance
Over the last few decades libertarians have hung around with the republicans for strategic reasons. Sometimes the rhetoric on limited government, low taxes and spending seem to match up enough that they have been able to benefit politically from the alliance. But in case you missed it, Mitt Romney and the GOP masters did some amazingly horrible, unforgivable, dastardly things during the presidential primary and the National convention. Romney showed no gestures of fellowship or any invitation to work together, in fact just the opposite; blatant cheating and abuse. Now conservatives are calling out the libertarians for throwing tantrums and refusing to vote for Romney. Typical.

If Romney wins, all it will prove is that the GOP can stomp out their own grass roots, in the most atrocious fashion, and STILL the sheep will follow. The dog can bite the master and still get the treat. It encourages bad behavior and being submissive to abuse will not earn respect. March and protest all you want after the fact, if you're not willing to withhold your vote, then you have power to hold anybody's feet to the fire. They will call your bluff every time. 

It's a Set Up
The most common reason I hear in support of Mitt Romney is that if Obama gets another four years he will forever destroy the economy. Firstly a financial catastrophe is inevitable. It's going to happen. The cards are already stacked and the people lose. What I see happening, if Romney is elected, is that when the poo hits the fan, "Romney's radical free market policies" will be to blame. Of course this will be an infuriatingly inaccurate accusation because Romney is a total economic fascist (as is Obama), not a free marketeer, but the left is already painting Romney and Ryan as dangerous tax cutting villains and ruthless budget slashers. Mark my words, real free market principles will take the blame in this scenario. Free Market believers (Peter Schiff, Rand Paul) should run far, far away from this as to not leave finger prints at the crime scene.
  Secondly, The economy is not, or should not, be based off of government intervention. It actually would work wonderfully on its own. So anything that Obama or Romney claim they will do to make it better is pretty much a lie. All they can really do is dump fresh, borrowed or stolen money into the system, lube it up and give handouts to their choice banks and corporations. That is an unsustainable solution.
  The culprit is the banking and monetary system itself. It is dying because it is a bad system not because the managers didn't do a good job. In my opinion, they all have done a great job of ripping off the American people, which is what the system was designed to do. I will be glad to see it die. When the American people finally see what a scam it all is they will change it and try something new. I compare the situation to the Soviet Union circa 1990. Don't be the Soviet Patriot trying to save the system. The system is bad, let it collapse and we'll have a shot at something different on the other side. 

No Faith in Politics
Every four to eight years I hear the same thing. "If so-and-so is president, it will be the end of America." (I have a suspicion that this has been going on since the birth of democratic elections.) If you think America is defined by what happens in Washington DC and the state capitols than I don't want your America anyway. The America I think about is one of community, family, innovation, and industry, all rooted in a respect for individualism and freedom. This vision of America does not require government intervention. The intent of the constitution was to protect this natural order, not to manage it. 
  My reasoning for being involved in politics and elections is to frame the debate, spread a message and take an account of where people's minds are. "Winning" elections and changing legislation will happen naturally as society evolves or devolves. In general the people will get the government they want and deserve. Inserting a different brand of bully into government to tell others how to live is not effective for long term change or desirable; Yet this is how people treat elections, as an opportunity to impose their will on others.
  For me, the ideas that are shared during these times are what really cause change. Whoever wins the election is just a measurement of where we are as a society. 
  So voting for a candidate like Mitt Romney does nothing to accomplish my personal goals of promoting individual rights and peace in the short or long term. This is why I hope Romney Loses because I reject his ideas. I want his ideas to lose. I want the republicans to lose because they stifle new ideas. It will be a wonderful thing to have all of these things lose...and lose and lose some more. Don't put your faith in politicians. Romney cannot "save America" and Obama can't "destroy America" because America is what the People make it.

Dear Revolution,
   With 24 hours to ponder what has happened with the ending of the RP campaign and with his son's endorsement of M!#t R*%^@y, I think my head is clear enough to share an encouraging perspective on the situation.     Ron Paul woke me up, like many of you, from a deep sleep of childish negligence and apathy. He taught me about the principles of law and liberty, the fraudulent monetary system, the immorality of empire, and he showed me how one person could change the world. Most importantly he has taught me how to look at the world through the lens of justice and discover principled solutions all on my own.
   At the beginning I looked to him as a god among men (like a son to his father) because he seemed incorruptible, he had the voting record to prove it and he was saying things that were new and exciting to me. Of course it was silly to hold him to godlike status but I think we can agree that he has to be the most principled political figure in modern history and I personally have had a great time being a part of his campaign and our revolution.
   Now that his campaign is over I look to the future of the Revolution. It's time for every one of his followers to become independent, to find their own way, fulfill their own callings and become leaders in their own spheres of influence. For some it might be being active in the R party. Some might teach neighbors how to garden, some might start a business or teach at church, write a book, or be a good mom. There's a million different ways to promote freedom and only you can know your part. Don't wait for a leader to give you "marching orders".
  But still we are not left without new heros. Alex Jones, Peter Schiff, Scott Horton and Jerry Doyle have popular radio shows. Penn Jillett has a stage. The Judge is in the MSM almost everyday. TMOT, Stefan Molyneux, Liberty Ann and Ben Swann have popular internet videos. Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell and other fellows of the Mises institute will become even more successful in developing educational resources. Gigi Bowman is helping identify and promote liberty candidates like RJ Harris and Justin Amash with fundraising and networking. Anthony Gregory, Will Grigg, Sheldon Richmand, Jack Hunter, Robin Koerner, Connor Boyack and hundreds of other columnists and writers are teaching people how to consider liberty on a variety of subjects to different audiences. Gary Franchi, John Papola, Jason Rink and Chris Rye are engaged in creating videos and media. The revolution is all grown up now. We can fly on our own.
   Rand seems to have chosen his path and I can only hope he has a strategy to make it work for the right causes but this is where we part ways...and that's okay! We're all about decentralized unity and natural order, right? We spontaneously found each other through the message of the campaign and It's been a BLAST. I know that there will be other circumstance where all of our paths will meet again. Until then, believe in the message and in yourself. 

-Elijah Stanfield

Maybe the most defining principle of the Republican Party is that of limited government. We generally believe that a government is instituted among men to secure the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (aka property) and that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The embodiment of these ideas, explained in the Declaration of Independence, is the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Federalism is a political concept in which sovereign states are bound together by contract. The people themselves, through their sovereign state governments, delegated only a few enumerated powers (listed in Article 1, section 8) to this federal government by a contract, the Constitution. The contractual limitations where restated in the Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's pretty clear what this means. Any "law", passed by congress, that advances beyond the enumerated powers is VOID. To even greater lengths, the founders incorporated a separation of powers, splitting the federal government in to three branches in an attempt to create a series of checks against unwarranted legislation. 

As soon as the constitution was ratified, attempts to invent new powers for the federal government began. In 1798 James Madison, commonly referred to as the father of the constitution, and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, later becoming known as the "Principles of '98", which restated the limitations of the federal government and proposed a check of last resort for the states called Nullification. Jefferson asserted that "the government created by this compact [the Constitution] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." 

In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 26, places hope in "the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent." 

If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.

Today, Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states, including Idaho, Alabama, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texans and Wyoming are re-introducing the idea of nullification to fight President Obama's health care overhaul.

Larry Summers, former director of President Obama’s economic council and a former head of the World Bank, thinks Japan's economy will benefit from its destruction (Interview Here). 

There are three types of people that accept this idea of destruction-as-stimulus: the insane, evil doers, and the publicly educated/indoctrinated. Most of us fall into this last group as we were probably taught the greatest example of this fallacy, that World War II ended the great depression. This is not the case. If you are shocked by that statement, a few minutes in a Google search will show that the depression ended after WW2, when federal spending was cut, regulations and price controls were lifted, resources were allocated into producing consumer goods, and people were allowed to keep more of their money. It only takes an application of common sense to understand that wealth is not being created in wars or natural disasters but destroyed...OBVIOUSLY!  (More on WW2 economy (Podcast) 

On a side note to the statistically minded, GDP only shows new growth, but does not account for what was lost. In Japan's case, the whole country could be completely destroyed, but if they manage to produce a simple crop, GDP will show a positive gain. GDP also includes government spending, which is not growth at all, just a redistribution of wealth that was taxed out of the private sector.  

These ideas are best illustrated in Frederick Bastiat's paper, "That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen" in the parable of the Broken Window. (See Video)
An even simpler illustration: Imagine you are stranded in an extreme environment indefinitely. Even though you are hungry, you understand that exposure will kill you faster than your lack of food. Most of your time and energy is spent building a permanent shelter, only gathering enough food to keep you alive. After weeks of hard work your shelter is finished, you now begin to focus on gathering more substantial food and plan to eventually move on to developing more complex machines to improve your life. One day you return to your home after a successful day of hunting and you find your shelter has been destroyed by a mudslide (or by congress). Would you think to yourself, "Oh yeah, job security!"? Of course not, because the purpose of working is to improve your life and to acquire more useful products so you don't have to work as hard.

So with this myth busted, why do "expert economists" like Larry Summers and Paul Krugman of the New York Times continue to propagate this delusional fallacy? These individuals fall into the second category of "evil doers". When economic or natural disasters occur or when wars are rocking, government has an excuse to redistribute wealth (resources not money) to their corporate/union friends under the guise of public services. Many times conservatives inaccurately describe this type of redistribution as "socialism", while liberals and progressives inaccurately describe it as "capitalism". (hmm...interesting how these supposed opposites are so similar in outcome). While left and right argue over the details of what to call it, everyone is ripped off on a massive scale. On a similar note, our monetary policy is designed to support this scam. (See Video on scam)
This is not socialism or capitalism. The most accurate description of this economic policy is, "Interventionism", which is by design, beneficial to the power elite at the expense of the industrious.

From now on, when you watch destruction like this, 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-A0NDsPcZY&feature=player_embedded
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1605260179420

Pay attention to the talking heads. You'll be surprised and sickened by what is said by the so called experts.