From Cam Mosher

I have an audacious vision with this blog.  HowToSolveTheProblemsOfTheWorld.com is pretty audacious!  Actually I think there are great ideas out there.  I have a few ideas myself.  By putting out there some problem topics and tossing around some ideas, with comments and responses from involved sources, we might create some buzz, and who knows, someone with the ability to enact a solution to a real problem might actually be motivated to do it!  It takes one person with connections/ability to marshal the resources and actually solve a world problem.  It is being done right now with world organizations started by one person with a vision and commitment.  Why not spark some solutions right here?

To get your idea or topic posted, send me an email with your post.  Three have already done it and the responses and comments are beginning to flow.  Click on Contact Us in the menu on the left and use the form.

Cam Mosher

From Cam Mosher

Every time I read or see another “politically correct” media report, I frustrate at how dis-empowering and dis-empowered we have become in our modern world!  We must measure our words, constrict our behaviors, and hold back our opinions, all because we “might offend someone.”  If my words, actions, or opinions offend you, you are a pretty weak human being!

I can only behave.  You decide how you will respond to my behavior.  I can only speak my words.  You decide how you will interpret them and how you will respond.  I can only share my opinion on any subject.  You decide how you feel or think about it.  If you choose to be offended by any of my behaviors, words, or opinions, that is your choice, among many other options you have!  It is not my responsibility to decide your choice.  It IS my responsibility to be authentic.

Among your choices to respond to me, you are as free as I am, with one exception: if you choose to live in community with us as human beings, your choice to be violent in your response or to inflict physical harm on me or anyone else is inhuman and intolerable.  If, among your many choices, you limit your choice to being offended, then be offended, just restrict your response to discussion, and be prepared to receive my reasons for my behaviors, words, and opinions in return.  That is the community of Freedom and Free Speech guaranteed by our system of law.

I refuse to be concerned with “political correctness!”  I do believe thoughtfulness and kindness ought to be the rule in our society, but not to the exclusion of normal, even passionate words, behaviors, and opinions.  I will accept complete responsibility to be kind and thoughtful in my authenticity, and you accept complete responsibility for your choice as to how you perceive it, holding your response within the bounds of free communication within a free community.

Let’s get off of this ridiculous “political correctness” nonsense!

Cam Mosher

From John Cooper, Pennsylvania

ToSolveTheProblemsOfTheWorld it seems to me requires more than making things easier politically for small businessmen in America.

The real problems of the world now are three:

1. This planet cannot support 6+ billion human beings, much less the 9 billion plus we seem headed for!

2. Humanity has raped the irreplaceable resources of this planet, consuming in less than two centuries what it took millions of years to create and put in place.  And we have NO viable plans for other sources of, or replacements for, those resources when what little that is left is gone.  The oceans and the atmosphere appear to have suffered irreversible changes and the climate will necessarily follow suit.  Inevitably there will be major changes in life-style.  But our band keeps playing on.

3. The most affluent life-styles of humanity are grossly disproportionately allocated to descendants of western Europe.  The vast majority of humanity bitterly envies the comparatively opulent life-styles of present and former west Europeans.  That enmity is the source of most of the violence experienced between descendants of west European and other cultures.  The ‘haves’ and ‘have-mores’ desperately try to maintain their ascendancy over the ‘have-lesses’ and ‘have-nots’.  It’s not just ‘resource wars’ we have been experiencing since the 1940s, but abundance allocation conflicts.

As to (re-)solving these problems, I really haven’t a clue.  Building a fair, just and equitable society on this planet just doesn’t seem to be in the cards, given the political and economic structures now in control of the way things are done.  Politicians always pander to their constituencies, telling them what they want to hear and trying to appear as though they are getting them what they want.  And economic hegemonies struggle to hold their place in line.  I don’t see anyone in effective power speaking, or striving, for the good of humanity and the planet as a whole.  Anything less just feeds and fosters the conflicts and animosity that seem to grow daily.  Constructive suggestions might be appropriate at this point.

John Cooper

From Cam Mosher

Thank you, David Cameron and Bob Williams!

Comments should now be working.

You can submit posts and new topics to me via email at cam@cammosher.com.

Cam Mosher

From Bob Williams, M.D., Connecticutt

Cam, you called for comments, so here goes! Not a formal proposal, but just thoughts. Edit as desired.

Liberal and Conservative:
It seems to me they reflect on differences in application of the basic concepts of  RULES,  RESULTS, and. ENFORCEMENT. If one outlines the purpose or desired RESULTS, sets the basic RULES of fairness, and assign the implementation and enforcement be done at the most regional and local levels possible, this would be  a CONSERVATIVE approach. Conversely, if one sets down the DESIRED RESULTS, the related set of RULES, and also builds in the necessary ENFORCEMENT provisions and details to be carried out at the highest possible central government level to ensure top down complete control and equality of outcomes, this would be a LIBERAL approach.

It seems more simply described as those preferring LEAST CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL versus MAXIMUM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL. I also don’t see where the word liberal applies to those of us in the general population; the term LIBERAL really only applies to those persons in Congress who are LIBERALLY applying as much central government based control on the country as possible.

In this regard, I believe there is a provision in our federal amendments that specifically addresses the idea that unless something is specifically singled out to be a federal matter, it shall remain a matter to be decided at the state level. Seems like our congress is largely forgetting this issue

Government (really population) SIZE:
There may be something intrinsic qualitatively to the concept of size – historically there develops a breakdown in governance in relation to very large size countries or populations. At some point a subgroup of people appear to come to desire self government, and wish to break off from the rest of the whole country.  Come to think of it, isn’t that pretty much how our country began? Kinda like an individual State wanting to run its own system of checking out doctors and insurance problems, workmans compensation injury problems, etc.

TRAINING:
Is there any actual data showing that graduates from say Harvard MBA program are more successful at managing the very largest corporations, or an entire State government, than people lacking higher business degrees? I am strongly persuaded that they Think they are, but, sadly, anecdotal evidence is insufficient for us Caltech trained scientists, and as Dr. Feynman remarked,we tend to remain “schleptical”.

Enough for now  –  enjoyed seeing you at the reunion, and thanks for your book. I bought 2 copies to send to friends (Glen is a doctorate in psychology teaching in Pensacola Junior College and into Lacota Native American traditions, and my daughter Brett who is a special education teacher developing a program to help troubled teenagers (many are Inuits)  in Homer, Alaska.)

By way of explanation, the quote below expresses my view at the treatment of clinical physicians over the last 20 years by the members of Congress in regard to Medicare.  We are now no longer referred to as physicians or doctors; the term now used is “providers”, lumping all service givers together, including aids, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, phlebotomists, even code book experts, called coders! From 1974 through 1994, I collected 92 percent on my bills for care of patients. From 1996 through 2006 I collected 37 percent on my bills, and saved exactly zero for retirement.  My fees remained constant over the whole 30 year time period, and as a spine surgeon my patients were largely the Medicare group. That was the reward I got for trying to work with the establishment.
Every physician I know is concerned about the future quality of medical care for our childrens’ children.

Robert C. Williams, M.D.

“It could probably be shown by facts and figures
that there is no distinctly native American criminal
class except Congress.”    1897  Mark Twain

From David Cameron, Nova Scotia

Interesting for me, a dual citizen, to read your definitions & opinions. Canada has a little different political setup, three parties & almost a fourth (Greens), but still very much a capitalist democracy with somewhat socialist overtones. Far as I can see the socialist influence has been the humanizing factor in Canadian culture. The Greens will naturalize it. The multi-party situation means an ass like Harper can’t always get his way (prevents the dictatorship tendency you mention in 2 party systems). Canada is slowly moving towards acceptance of the concept of proportional representation, but at least it is moving. And we have a multi-cultural agenda rather than an english-speaking melting-pot agenda. Native languages and Gaelic are our cultural hot-spots just now. Quebec does not generally even offer english in its public schools.

From where I sit, size matters. A given system seems to work best at a regional level and not so well smeared across the board. Since we live with national and provincial levels simultaneously here, our political people often end up with divided attention and loyalty. The municipal level has been subsumed into the provincial level here, which is really hurting our educational and medical systems. When municipalities and even towns looked after their schools and hospitals, people had real choices, just as they still do with fire departments for instance. Want a top notch force with the latest equipment? Do the breakfasts & bake-sales, pick a charismatic chief, and away you go! Same with schools & hospitals in the old days before centralization and regional management took hold. If an individual or family put a higher value on top schooling than their district peers, they always had the option of moving to satisfy that value. With the current policy of trying to give the same levels of service in all sectors to everyone, we’ve ended up with regional schools & hospitals, which means less personalized service and huge transportation costs in $ & time (born by the individual in the case of hospital care), and often a more mediocre service by many measures.

Municipalities continue to shoot themselves in the foot by adopting national building codes, health codes, etc, depriving themselves of the ability to leverage local advantages or innovation. Meanwhile the provinces collect the taxes and tax redistribution from the feds and decide how much if any will go to the municipalities for services while also deciding what services the municipalities must shoulder. People need localized control stemming from a local context if they are to have a real say about the quality of their lives and what fruits their hard work will bear.

On the capitalist side of things size is everything! Bigger boats & fleets caught all the fish. Bigger trucks and bigger fleets paved over the land and ruined local farming and local production of almost everything. Bigger cities sucked the life and vitality out of rural towns. Bigger stores ruined the mainstreets of countless towns. Big farms took away the soil and a way of life for hundreds of thousands of people. Big mills took the forests. Economies of scale are euphemisms for funnels that pour the money into fewer and fewer hands. Most recently we see this in the renewable energy sector. The newest wind turbines here dwarf the landscape and are meant to generate power to sell out of the country. When I first started watching the global renewable industry ten years ago the news was all about innovation. Now the news is all about mergers as the big fish gobble up the little fish. Which is partially how our provincial electrical power distribution system ended up being owned by a company in California! Do I think the investors in that company have my interest in lowest-cost locally generated renewable power at heart? Probably not! A Spanish company and a Korean company are the biggest investors in our wind.

Back to broader political philosophy. Where do the concepts of the greater good and the greatest good for the most people fit, or is it only socialists that care about those things? Also missing seems to be a concept of “enough” and limits to greed. Without those the environment and our grandchildren’s futures take one hell of a hit and hard working thieves get their unjust rewards. Humans and the environment need balance in the affairs of mankind. Conservatism and liberalism can only address part of the balance issue. A greed-oriented small government isn’t any better for the constituency or the environment than a greed-oriented large government. A healthy economy is one that engenders healthy land, healthy water, healthy air, healthy bio-diversity and healthy people.

I think we must keep in mind that our respective founding fathers had a very limited view of what was at stake or how fast the pace of change would become. You know, back in the days when women and children and people of color and poor people and everything else were chattels. Back when there were frontiers (if one overlooked those already on the land) that stretched in all directions. Back when prairies were endless and buffalo made the earth tremble by their numbers and passenger pigeons blotted the sun and whales outnumbered ships in the sea. Back when the human world population was less than a sixth of its present number. Back when wind and sail was the fastest means of travel or communication, when people (including slaves) and oxen, horses and mules did most of the labor. Back when people knew where their food came from, in fact grew or hunted or fished a large part of it themselves. Back when people could drink from the streams and lakes. Back when a few really smart people believed their right to as much a they could grab and hold was ordained by God. Their God. Who spoke English. Or Latin.

Neither conservatism nor liberalism has been up to the job of balancing our act.

David Cameron

Windsor, Nova Scotia

From Cam Mosher

Now get involved and comment, or submit your own solutions, or go after other problems for which YOU have thoughts.  Let’s get our minds together and address HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD!

Remember, your submitted comments and solutions are moderated, not for content, but for appropriateness.  I just want to keep this blog high class, AND constructive.  Let the good times roll!

Cam Mosher

From Cam Mosher

Much as the “right wingers” hate the thought of amnesty, let’s be pragmatic.  We aren’t going to “round them all up and send them home.”  We have several million undocumented people here mostly because they want better jobs and income than they can get in their home countries, and there are employers here who are willing to hire them.  And some of their children were born here and are therefore citizens.

It appears to me that members of Congress are avoiding the issue.  The Democrats seem to not want to limit the influx of the undocumenteds because they believe they represent a large future voting bloc.  The Republicans seem to not want to limit them because they are a cheap source of labor.  The right wingers are committed to unreality in opposing amnesty.  The bleeding hearts are committed to unreality in wanting to provide tax supported benefits to everyone.  And everybody seems committed to narrow and inflexible points of view.  We are stuck in gridlock.

Solving the immigration problem is simple, not necessarily easy.  It just takes fortitude and commitment on the part of the lawmakers, the immigrants, and the rest of us, to deal with a situation that is not going to go away just because everyone wishes it would on their specific terms.  With this fortitude and commitment, the immigration issue can be resolved NOW!

Here are the Necessary Steps to resolve the immigration issue.  They must be done COMPREHENSIVELY!  This issue cannot be resolved piece meal!

1. Recognize that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to solve this issue COMPREHENSIVELY, and both the Federal Government and all other entities step up to this responsibility NOW.
2. Do whatever it takes to gain control of the borders and close them to all persons and goods that do not have the required documents to cross.
3. Grant some sort of “amnesty” to those undocumenteds already here, with suitable recompense for being here illegally, and provide a reasonable path to a suitable legal status.  This is the only practical way.
4. Round up and prosecute all undocumenteds who are committing serious crimes, in accordance with our criminal laws, with especially onerous penalties for those who have been previously deported as criminals and have returned.
5. Set up tough requirements with substantial and enforced penalties on all businesses and employers who employ anyone but legally documented workers, and set up adequate means to identify such.
6. Change the Constitution to allow birth citizenship only to children born of parents who are here legally, to eliminate bearing citizen babies as an incentive for crossing the border illegally.
7. Do what it takes to enact comprehensive reform of the immigration law to make it fair both to all who want to come here for opportunity and to those who want to hire them.
8. Immigrants must recognize that this is the United States of America, with its established language and laws, and do three things: make the effort to learn English and become a participating part of our society, abide by the laws regarding their status, and follow the proscribed path to citizenship if that is what they choose
9. Americans must recognize that legal immigrants are an important part of our economy and society and do three things: provide adequate means to support their learning English and our laws and culture, support their integration among us, and welcome them as new Americans entitled to a place here and participation in our society.

Avoiding the issue or getting stuck in some particular ideology regarding it won’t change it or make it go away.  Resolving the issue will require compromise, fortitude, and statesmanlike performance on the part of Congress.  Let’s GET IT DONE!  NOW!

Cam Mosher

From Cam Mosher

Ideology, Lust for Power, and Money seem to be at the root of most of the current problems of government.  Of these three, I believe that money is the greatest source of trouble in government, and dealing with the influence of money will make the greatest difference in achieving true “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  Here are six important steps:

1. Eliminate ALL gifts of money or anything of value between lobbyists and government officials/legislators.  Absolutely nothing!  All lobbied issues should be argued on their merits alone, period!  Any transfer of money or special services should be treated as a bribe under the law.
2. Require that all personal or business profits that accrue to any government official or legislator, or to a bureaucrat within any department or agency that receives taxpayer funds as a regular part of its operations, both during and after the term of service of such official, and that result from any decisions or actions made by or contributed to by such official while in office, be returned to the general funds of the government entity served by the official or agency.  No exceptions!
3. Reform campaign contributions and ads:
   1. Eliminate all campaign contributions from anything but an individual citizen of the government entity in which a candidate for office may serve, and limit all such contributions to $1000 or less, with full and readily accessible public disclosure of all contributors.  This will not only clean up campaigns but also return them to the citizens, and reduce the size and cost of campaigns!
   2. Restrict all campaign ads to individuals and organizations within the boundaries of the entity of the candidate and political contest, with full and readily accessible public disclosure of all such individuals, organizations and their officers.  This will focus the race within the entity, to citizens and organizations affected by it.
   3. Restrict all new campaign ads to at least five days before the election to give reasonable time for rebuttals and discussion of information presented.  This reduces the impact of last minute unfounded negative ads.  While all opinions are welcome in our society, “Free Speech” should not be interpreted in a way that interferes with a fair and open electoral system and free discussion of the issues involved.
   4. A voluntary checkbox on individual tax returns should be available to maintain a General Campaign Fund to supplement individual contributions to the candidates.  All candidates shall have access to these funds in proportion to the registered voters in their respective parties within the entity in which they may serve, with funds derived from the proportion of registered independent voters to be distributed equally among all independent candidates, or lacking those, proportionally among all the candidates.
   5. All campaign funds received by any candidate not actually expended on campaign expenses during the campaign shall be placed in the General Campaign Fund to be available to the candidates in the next election in that government entity in accordance with “4” above.
   6. No government official may serve as a lobbyist or consultant to any individual or organization that may benefit from insider contacts or influence that resulted from that government official’s office, service, or connections while in office, for a period of five years following the last service of that person in office.
   7. All salary, benefits and perks granted to any elected official while in office shall cease upon leaving office; any private benefits and perks held prior to entering office shall be resumed upon leaving office with no enhancements not otherwise available to any private citizen.  This applies to health care, retirement, Social Security, etc.  An exception shall be made for Secret Service protection of appropriate persons.
   8. No salary increase or increase in any benefit or perk shall be given to anyone in a government office who has the power to vote on such an increase until after that person shall have faced an election by the public.

The Founders had in mind true citizen service by citizens of integrity and honesty.  The existence of professional politicians and the powerful influence of individual and corporate wealth on government would have been abhorrent to them.  So should they be to us.  Government officials, both elected and in the bureaurocracy, should serve the people, and be compensated by the people appropriately for their service, not to feed their greed or make them wealthy.  After a suitable term of service all politicians should return to private pursuits.

By removing money incentives from government service, we remove the temptation for corruption and reduce the ability of wealth to control.  Government is returned to the people!

While these reforms might be virtually impossible to get through our Legislatures and Congress in normal times, in this period of citizen unrest and with sufficient citizen interest and pressure, it might actually be possible now to make some progress on this critical problem.  Let’s put some serious pressure on our elected officials and candidates to enact these reforms!

Cam Mosher

From Cam Mosher

The problem is unemployment. It is a vicious cycle that keeps the economy sluggish and companies afraid to expand and hire.  People have less money to spend, either because they are out of work, or fear for their own economic welfare in an uncertain environment.  The Keynesian ideology underlying the current attempts of the government to spur recovery through massive Stimulus Payments is destined to fail because it adds nothing to the economy, and creates large government deficits.  It did not really work to bring us out of the Great Depression (in spite of attempts to say it did!).  I don’t question that government deficits will result in any process of resolution, but the real solution is very simple: get people back to work in the private sector!

Here is how to do it quick and simple.

1. Cut taxes on business.  The simplest and quickest way to do this is to eliminate the nearly 7% employer matching wage tax on earnings for a period of, say, five years.  This puts 7% of wages immediately back into the business.  Much of that will encourage business to keep employees or rehire them.  Other of it will be invested in growth and production.
2. Cut taxes on wage earners.  The simplest and quickest way to do this is to also eliminate the nearly 7% tax on wages that goes to Social Security and Medicare, for the same period.  This puts 7% of wages back into every paycheck immediately.  Most of that will be spent on goods and services which will immediately spur more investment in growth and production.
3. The result will be a massive government deficit as Social Security and Medicare benefits continue to be paid, again to the private sector, which continues to spur spending, hiring, and growth.  But the resulting deficit can then be truly seen as an investment, as spending, hiring, and growth build the economy back, and increasing taxes serve to reduce the deficit.

Come on, folks, our Free Market System does work, if largely left to itself.

So what is the true role of government in a true Free Market System?  Government must serve as the Rule Maker (through an effective and statesmanlike Congress), and Referee (through an effective and impartial regulatory bureaucracy).  This is conservatism at its best.

Cam Mosher