Issue 520 Selling organs Post-mortem February 4, 2015

So at current most countries in the world make it illegal to sell organs (with Iran being the only exception with Kidneys).  But what if you yourself could not profit off of said organs?  What if the money went to your family instead?  Let us discuss.

Concept:  While many people are squeamish about selling organs, our bodies’ parts are worth a lot of money.  The reason why many people are against the profit motivation is because they think it hurts the idea that people voluntarily give organs away to the sick, and that to profit off selling your body in this way is just in poor taste.  So what if we lose the profit for the seller, and instead make it a beneficiary that profits instead?  Basically the person who volunteers to be an organ donor can check a box which would allow his/her organs to be sold at market value after death with a beneficiary(s) being able to reap in the money.  The beneficiary(s) of course would not know they would get money upon the individual's death from selling the body parts until the after the death of that individual.  Obviously the purpose of this is to protect the post mortem seller, and to enable the dead person to give at least one last financial gift to their family or other individuals.

Purpose:  Basically, many families struggle after the death of a loved one, and that may include financial struggle as well.  By allowing the organs to be sold to hospitals, charities or even to universities for either study or donation, the family of the individual benefits.  Also, recipients of the organs benefit as they can bypass waiting lists which would insure survival of many more people in need of an organ transplant.  Obviously, to protect from corruption and sale directly to individuals, only universities, hospitals and licensed charities could buy them and then trade them among themselves to insure the organ is used to benefit someone or science as a whole.  As such, less waste of both time and effort as organizations actively seek to buy and give organs to those who need them.

Conclusion:  While the premise of the idea is simple, in practice there are many obstacles.  For one, if an organ can be used for a transplant, can we guarantee it will not be used for science instead?  Will this increase the cost of organ transplants?  Is there a method in this that allows the transplants to pay for themselves? Also, does this method leave the poor without a chance of getting a transplant themselves?  And finally, the question of getting world governments to agree to this scheme.  There is much to be worked out, and yet no immediate answers.  So for now this is simply a thought experiment.

Issue 519 The Non-citizens should not be taxed!? February 3, 2015

Did you know that people who live here legally, but are not citizens pay taxes?  Yes, depending on the circumstances these people pay taxes even though cannot vote.  Let us discuss.

How they are taxed:  While resident and nonresident noncitizen individuals may not get deductions, they are in fact taxed on all revenue garnered in the United States.  So as long as you make money inside the United States, regardless if you are a citizen or not, you will be taxed.  Now the question is, does this make sense?

Why they should not be taxed on income/assets:  My logic is as follows, they are not citizens, and thus not able to vote for representation which would affect them financially.  So the fact that they cannot vote for a representative means they are being taxed without representation (which was one of the original reasons that the 13 colonies separated from England and became the United States).  While I do acknowledge sales taxes should be maintained regardless of citizenship, the fact is, these people are being forced to pay taxes to a country they have no allegiance to.  And thus I see it as unfair as it is to tax any individual who does not have the right to vote.  

Conclusion:  Some may think this unfair that non-citizens will not pay taxes while citizens do and vice versa.  However, our income tax code is fundamentally flawed and taxing people directly (if the 16th Amendment did not exist) should be illegal.  Personally, I feel that no noncitizen, or anyone unable to vote should be taxed via their income or assets in the United States whatsoever.  It would be better to just maintain a sales tax so that you get to decide how much money you want to give to the government every time you buy something.  I believe in fairness, and this to me in my opinion is not fair.

Issue 518 The Church as a bank? February 2, 2015

The concept here is simple.  Should the church take on some of the functions of a bank?  Let us discuss.

The idea:  What inspired me for this idea is the Knights Templar of the Crusades.  They actually acted as something similar to a bank and thus had vast sums of wealth to call on (this also made them a target and thus there overall extermination).  So in the modern concept, the Church would provide bank accounts to the people where there will be no fees imposed, no interest collected or earned, and provide loans that do not garner interest either.  Basically, it would act as a bank primarily to the poor, who lack the money or assets to open a traditional bank account at a normal bank (though people of higher incomes would be able to open accounts as well).  

Purpose:  The main goal is for the poor to finally have a safe place to deposit their money with little risk to that money being stolen (i.e. part of the reason banks were created in the first place).  Traditional banks charge fees just to take out money or put money in as a service charge, but a bank run through the church would not be able to do that.  Also, the church can provide loans that gain no interest and thus make it easier for poorer elements of society to pay back a loan and thus not go into debt (which exacerbates poverty).  Of course in return, no interest will be given to those with the accounts either as money in this case becomes a finite resource (there is no revenue earning opportunities which would allow such services).  Also, there is a possibility that because the account is run by the church, then the government would not be able to seize the money inside your account due to the separation between church and State.  Hence it becomes a form of tax haven as well which will in turn protect people’s assets.  

Goals:  For one, it provides another use for the church, in this case protecting people’s money.  It also allows them to use the funds in the same way regular banks use loans, but in this case to support the church and perform charity.  It will enable a form of protection for bank accounts as the church is not subject to market devaluation or influences like regular banks.  So they cannot shut down.  Also, with the church being everywhere they can mutually support one another if funds run low for any reason.  A final benefit and goal is to empower people's money.  In this case due to the vast amount of types of currencies that the church collects, they can exchange funds based on value at any given church location free of charge.  Not only that, if the value of say the Euro, or the dollar goes down, they can convert your money to the next strongest currency.  As such, the value of your money will always be maintained.

Conclusion:  Money is precious, but we put it into institutions that place the money at risk.  The church, while still risky in some capacities is still a safer bet than a regular bank and they will not charge you an arm and a leg to keep and take money out of your own account.  Heck, the church can even monitor your money for you and give you tips on places to find and buy your goods cheaper.  All in all, is this a good idea?  Possibly if handled correctly.  But if this idea is worthwhile, then let’s hope the church implements it soon.

Issue 517 The Church and studying diseases January 30, 2015

OK, I am here to advocate that the Church actively study diseases and report on them to the community at large.  Let's discuss my reasoning.

Reason 1:  First and foremost, having an additional body that studies diseases and shares information ensures that there is more diversity in the search for a cure.  In this, I mean that scientific institutions may focus on one or a dozen ways to find a cure for a specific disease.  As such, there could be numerous other methods and varieties of cures/treatments left untested due to lack of resources, funding or manpower.  So by turning over the more basic research, or even an entire avenue of research to another body ensures that another potential cure can be found, allows for a variety of research opportunities and also allows more information to be shared which could lead to other cures and treatments.

Reason 2:  The church also has a large sum of money to call upon to research a disease, or even act as a conduit to share information.  With the churches resources, even a village in Africa or other part of the globe with no access to the World Wide Web can provide information on a disease. 

Reason 3:  The church may be less political than some other government and private institutions funding and doing research.  Reason being is that the church does not seek to make a profit.  They seek to enlighten and empower individuals through the word of God.  So it is not a stretch to say they could add the fight against diseases to their resume for their own purposes of spreading the word of God and solving global issues for the sake of gathering new parishioners. 

Reason 4:  This also expands the capabilities of the Priesthood.  Now, not only will Priests bring forth the word of God, but they can advise their parishioners on how to stay healthy during flu season, or even how to avoid getting sick from all sorts of diseases.  This will bring new respect to the Priesthood, and allow it to be a viable career choice if applied correctly (basically more people may actually become priests as a result of the "selfless" nature of the research being done through the church).

Conclusion:  I do not know for sure if the church already cooperates on the search for cures, but they more than likely already cooperate in the prevention of diseases.  So my suggestions expand upon the status quo to transform the church into an organization bent on not just saving peoples souls but their health and general wellbeing as well.

Issue 516 Should the Church Preach Conservation? January 29, 2015

So we are asking if the principles of conservation are in line with the Principles the Church puts forth.  So should the Church preach conservation?

Possibly:  The ideas behind conservation is to use our resources more efficiently and to live in harmony with nature as much as possible.  Church's in general do not disagree with this sentiment as far as I understand for God created both mankind and all that exists in the universe.  As such, existing in harmony with nature so that we do not destroy ourselves by eroding and destroying our natural environment is a good thing.  On this angle, the Church agrees and thus the Church can promote things like clean energy, recycling, and the cleanup of toxic waste.  They can also preach safe and reliable food storage, limits to hunting, saving the environment for other plant and animal life and teach about how not to overuse a natural resource.  In addition the Church can promote things like community gardens, teach methods of conservation and overall good practices such as preserving water and other resources.

Where it gets sticky:  There is though some areas of conservation (the extremist section) that the Church would not agree with.  Mainly issues of population control and similar ideas that go against the Churches ideas on human birth and procreation.  As far as I know, the Church does not believe the same as those who want population control in order to save the planet from overpopulation and thus the overuse and destruction of our natural resources.  This is seen as an extremist view of the conservation groups and thus is not something the Church would support.

Conclusion:  So to a degree, we have a lot of commonality with respect to the basic tenets of preserving our planet.  However, the Church or the very least the faithful see overpopulation as a possible joke and the solutions for it (those solutions in the extremist camp) like sterilization, the choosing of marriage partners, and others to be against the foundations of the faith.  So yes the Church can and probably should preach about conservation, just for the sake of preserving our world and making it a little bit cleaner and more livable for the next generation.

Issue 515 Should the President Number 3 January 28, 2015

In the final leg of this series, we ask if the President should have the power to veto past laws that have been already been passed under previous administrations.  Let us begin.

Idea:  Like with the issue of too much government overlap, we have an issue of too many laws that over the course of time are rendered useless, or are usurped by current law, while the old laws are still being enforced for arbitrary reasons (some of which Congress simply passes when they are set to expire without actual review).  So the idea is to allow the President to again make a proposal to Congress on what laws to abolish, agencies/ departments to eliminate, and even programs to defund. And just like before, the Congress will have a veto power on each individual post Presidential veto.

How it works:  So the President would make a list of laws he/she wants to eliminate, and a list of agencies, departments, or programs (all passed into existence by law) to defund and thus eliminate. This list would be called the Post Presidential Veto due to it all being laws passed under past Presidential administrations.  From there the Congress like before would vote on the merit of each law if an objection to a laws termination was raised.  Of course again, the law could only be saved by a 50% plus one vote by congress.  However, the other laws will still be terminated.

Impact:  So this again gives the President greater power, but still at the behest of Congress to balance it out.  It would also allow the President to reduce government waste by not having to enforce or fund certain laws and their associated programs, agencies and departments.  However, there is still an issue of too much power, and the possible risk of necessary laws we have forgotten the purpose of being removed.  Also, with Congresses penchant for not actually reading laws before passing them, it poses an even greater risk to allow the President to have this power at this current time.

Conclusion:  Unfortunately, Congress would need to be responsible for this type of veto to actually take place.  The fact that Congress shirks its responsibility by not reading the bills it passes into law means such possible useful powers for the President and Congress become non-starters.  So for now, unless we give such power to the Supreme Court, we cannot have this type of tool be given to the President.

Issue 514 Should the President Number 2 January 27, 2015

Continuing with this series, in today's issue we ask if the President should be able to fire top level advisors without oversight.  Let's talk.

The idea:  So the President has many advisors following him/her, and generally seeking attention.  But there are times the President no longer has need for said advisor and they thus take up space and taxpayer money.  As such, an advisor becomes dead weight.  However, the President cannot fire these advisors or even high level staff because of corruption that occurred in the Presidency.  I cannot remember which administration it was, just that it was a President from before World War II who sought to fire members of their staff when they did not agree with what the President wanted.  It got so ridiculous that Congress actually took power from the President and claimed power to review any firing of any high level official.  As such, the President cannot fire whomever he/she wants, but instead isolates that individual and denies them access to the White House or to the President him/herself.

Is changing it back worth it:  In this case, turning back the clock is not worth it.  The fact that a President would fire an advisor over a disagreement on policy is stupid and would demonstrate the Presidents arrogance and foolishness.  Sure the Congress has oversight which is good, but the whole denying access to the President is also really dumb as well.  Hence why many of these advisors and staff usually stay until they find a better job or are able to curry favor with the President once again. A fairly idiotic situation is it not?

Conclusion:  So for right now, there is no viable solution to this idiocy that I can see for the foreseeable future.  Making a slimmed down government, or implementing any libertarian or conservative reforms will not stop this issue what so ever because this is a problem the President has, the disease known as arrogance, and so long as there is no cure for this, we will simply have to deal with this problem with each and every President we elect.