What is America? By Mark Shubert America is not just a government institution in North America but more importantly a cosmopolitan concept; a concept for the cause of all of humanity where each individual is treated equally to any other individual, where rights are discovered and protected and an amending process makes sure that our governments do not infringe on those rights, where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the focus of the law of the land, where there are no hierarchies with titles of divinity nor nobility but instead a collection of fairly and freely elected representatives with limited power and scope and who are constantly being replaced, where the structure of governments have their powers separated, where those powers are checking and balancing each other constantly, where science is promoted freely to all, where innovation and the wealth produced by that innovation does not stifle equality but instead provides the means to it, where the betterment of the well being of everyone is sought after before the frivolous extravagance of selfishness and ambition, where patriotism is not the worship of symbols and names but the giving of hearts and minds to these principles, where the laws created by representatives are not made to spite the people but to increase their welfare so that the necessity of punishment is a rarity, where representation should not be determined by the similarity of life styles, class, race, sex, creed, or birth place, but by their devotion to their constituents in public servitude and that their probity include these ideals. “America is not just a government institution in North America but more importantly a cosmopolitan concept; a concept for the cause of all of humanity…” Over the course of the United State’s history, the word America has become nationalized to mean only the territories under the jurisdiction of the government that is called the United States of America. People wave Old Glory and proudly proclaim “God Bless America” as “Hail to the Chief” plays or some other song like my personal favorite “Hail to the Spirit of Liberty.” However, there is a lot of political disunity in these United States. Many Americans are questioning what it means to be “American” or to “believe in American values.” America, as stated before, is not just the government that governs a collection of states, but a cosmopolitan concept that hosts a variety of ideals that exists for the betterment of Mankind. “...where each individual is treated equally to any other individual…” Equality is a tricky topic because people do not make the distinction between the government treating people unequally to businesses or other individuals. People think that this value must be enforced on and by those three entities and this is partially true. It is the case that the government ought to enforce equality to its citizens as much as it could and to leave out any prejudice that can exist. But should a business and an individual be forced to live by this? Well if a business or an individual wants to consider themselves to be America who believes in American values, then yes, they ought to ignore prejudice and treat everyone as equally as possible. But these values themselves should not be forced onto people nor should they have to be absolutely enforced. What I mean is an individual can treat his or her family differently than they would to a stranger without violating this principle. Inequality of treatment becomes harder to justify between two strangers and even more so when a business does it. America, the nation, has had and still has an embarrassingly large number of areas today that includes businesses and individuals who discriminate against others on the basis of race, sex, gender, class, and even religion. Although these are Americans and American businesses, they are not living by American values. Individuals have the right to discriminate and show prejudice; businesses on the other hand should not be considered individuals, since they are made up of individuals and they themselves have no consciousness or person hood, and they should be forced to follow this principle. How we can enforce this is by taking away the state’s recognition of a certain business that does not promote or enforce equal treatment within that business. We can take away the business’ bailouts and block them from selling their stock on the market and by taxing them at a higher rate if they do not meet equality standards provided by local, state, and federal governments. “...where rights are discovered and protected and an amending process makes sure that our governments do not infringe on those rights…” Our “rights” are those that are included in the Amendments such as the Bill of Rights which are the first ten amendments but also six more amendments that include rights such as the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. These six amendments should be included when we talk about the Bill of Rights since they are about rights just like the first ten are. All of them needed to have been discovered, debated, supported, and enumerated into the constitution. There are many more rights out there some are being debated today and some have yet to be discovered. This process is arduous but careful; some suggest that it has been made this way to prevent more rights and there is a sad truth to that, however, the amending process is a tool that can also make it difficult to remove these rights once they are put in. The process also ensures that the people are sure about these rights and it gives a good diagnosis of the state of our union; if the vast majority of the people are disgruntled that a right is not protected by the constitution then that means that Congress and the state legislatures in opposition to the will of the people and at that point, it is the duty of the people to encourage or replace those representatives with those who will pass the amendment without issue. “...where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the focus of the law of the land…” This is intentionally vague in order to let the current population determine these terms and to amend the government to live by contemporary definitions. What are those three things? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are the standards of living that we decide. People today declare their penance to the Founding Fathers for creating such a wonderful and decent standard of living. However, the current standard of living is vastly different from the standard of living from 240+ years ago. Slavery is abolished, infrastructure has been developed multiple times, women and all races are protected of their suffrage, sanitation has increased multiple times, healthcare has increased multiple times, discrimination and for the most part, violent hatred is less common. All of these did not exist for the generation of women, enslaved, or poor that lived during the generation of our Founding Fathers. They did not appear all at once but had to have been fought for by the disenfranchised against those who were already privileged to be living in such a standard and by those fooled to believe that increasing the standard will harm them. “... where there are no hierarchies with titles of divinity nor nobility…” Our Constitution prohibits the use of religious tests and so religious assessments should not be common nor should judging someone on the basis of religion is practiced by people who claim to believe and follow American values. Given the first clause of the first amendment states that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, no religion should be preferred and no religious establishment should be endorsed. The Constitution also prohibits the recognition of any titles of nobility, essentially preventing legitimate or respected distinctions between classes of people such as lords nor should these higher classes be treated differently than the “common folk”... we need to work on this one a bit more given how the wealthy usually get more passes on infractions and lesser sentencing than the average American which is not consistent with equal treatment. “...a collection of fairly and freely elected representatives with limited power and scope and who are constantly being replaced…” Fairly means democratically and freely means without much cost to the people voting. The 26th amendment fixes this problem by getting rid of poll taxes which were a way of preventing the poor from voting. Limited power simply means that a single representative or senator should not have the power to enact too much change, at least not without a large caucus in congress to pass those reforms. Usually, there are a few representatives and senators who guide the rest of congress, these are the movers and shakers. The issue is that all congressmen should be movers and shakers instead of what we currently have which are mostly career politicians who just go with whomever they think could help them win re-election. What exactly they are changing should be up to their constituents. Constantly being replaced refers to enacting term-limits in congress; nine terms for representatives, eighteen years, and three terms for senators, another eighteen years, is what I propose. “...where the structure of governments have their powers separated, where those powers are checking and balancing each other constantly…” The separation of power has always been a political issue since the start of human civilization. Do the priests get the most power? What about the kings? Well, that particular question does not apply to Americans since we don’t have titles of divinity nor nobility but we still have to wonder about legislative, executive, and judicial power. These three powers were decided to be the most important and bare essentials of a government during the Age of Reason by a number of political theorists primarily in England, France, and the American colonies who were known as the Republic of Letters since they shared their ideas through letters. They were living in a time where there were two powers, a legislative and an executive, and these two powers were constantly at war with each other trying to seize more power all at the expense of the people. There was also a clergy “class” who acted as their own power but they weren’t part of the government and they usually sided with the executive power especially after the creation of legislative power. Those political theorists, some of whom were our Founding Fathers, realized that separating the government into two powers was not enough to create stability and provide security and welfare to the people so they decided to create a new division of power that would be judicial power. A new branch of government that would be semi-independent but not co-equal. In fact, our Founding Fathers made our government in a way so that no branch was equal to another; they had the legislative branch as the head of the government but today any American would think that the President, executive branch, was the head of the government and that is true today which we should restore Congressional authority since congress is more democratic and representative of the people. Some would argue that the branches should be or are equal because how can you balance two branches if they are not equal? The balance isn’t a comparison of two or more branches with each other but it is a balance between one branch and its enumerated power. What I mean is the balance is between a single branch and what they are supposed to do or not do; the ones doing the balancing are the other branches. “...where science is promoted freely to all…” Education is a right that needs more protection and recognition from our government and the public. Science in this usage simply means knowledge that is discovered or expected of the public. These include history, science such as chemistry, and astronomy, also language, math, and civics. These topics should not be owned by anyone nor should anyone be making profits from compulsory education. “...where innovation and the wealth produced by that innovation does not stifle equality but instead provides the means to it…” Innovation and the capitalization of that innovation are ways to provide better living standards for everyone. Innovation into technology, medicine, production, communication increase the standard of living directly while wealth and the distribution of that wealth, either from the market or the government, increase the number of people who get to live in that higher standard of living. It is self-evident that the current economic system has severe inefficiencies when it comes to innovation, particularly the distribution of that innovation in the market. The evidence of this is the fact that companies who do the innovating are selling with planned obsolescence in mind which means they are not selling the best of what they have but instead only distributing a portion of their actual innovation to be sold in parts in order to make more profits. Think of it as a video game designer launching a game that is not good and even unfinished than selling many DLCs. They could have sold the completed game but they decide to sell it in pieces and the sum cost of those pieces is greater than the whole game. This is an inefficiency in innovation because it limits the market’s response to new technology. Another inefficiency are patents, especially how patents exist today which is very different than even fifty years ago. Patents restrict the number of people who can innovate with a given technology. Since all innovation requires previous innovation, whoever owns that previous innovative technology has a lot of authority in who can use that technology to innovate even more. “...where the betterment of the well being of everyone is sought after before the frivolous extravagance of selfishness and ambition…” This is a continuation of the last paragraph since it is the bourgeoisie, the owners, who reap surplus value from the market at the expense of the market and are the ones to restrict innovation in order to have planned obsolescence in the first place. This statement also refers to a number of economic stimuli that a lobbied government seems to have no issue with a handout at the expense of the taxpayer. These stimuli include tax incentives and subsidies. The current economic philosophy of congress and of many economists is trickle-down economics which is essentially the idea that the bourgeoisie should be given more money, through tax incentives and subsidies, and that they know what to do with that money that will trickle down to the American worker. There are a ton of issues with this, the first being that the American people need more than a trickle to live a decent life, and what is trickling down isn’t actually wealth but instead debt. The rich don’t give money, they loan it. When they do “give” money, they received tax deductions and oftentimes subsidies which means they don’t actually give anything of their own but just move other people’s money around and they end up with the surplus-value along with fooling the people into thinking that they are philanthropists. Another issue is that the high class are usually the ones to crash the economy and yet they still get subsidies even when it is clear that they do not know how to handle money or the economy themselves. Under the current system it is encouraged for owners of especially large companies to tank the company, take subsidies and bailouts, buy back bonds, receive loads of money through compensation, and then abandon that company leaving thousands if not millions of Americans affected and paying the costs of the economic downturn. “...where patriotism is not the worship of symbols and names but the giving of hearts and minds to these principles…” Many Americans think that patriotism is just respecting a flag and some names of dead people. We see this in the apotheosis of Washington, the deification of our Founding Fathers, reverence to their “holy wisdom,” glorification and worship of statues, all while neglecting the suffering and discrimination of their fellow Americans. Our Founding Fathers were not wise men, nor were they good men especially in today’s use of the word good. They were not a monolith of ideas but instead fought each other, disagreed with each other, even killed each other, and all of them certainly used their position in the colonies and the newly born nation to pocket themselves wealth and admiration. As they wrote all men are created equal, they owned slaves, they were even aware of their hypocrisy and did very little about it. Our Constitution was not created out of genuine love for political theory but out of compromising with dozens of special interest groups including the interest of maintaining the institution of slavery. Patriotism is not the worship of those men or even the men and women who came before us. Patriotism is not for the past but the future. We do not live for the Founding Fathers but instead, they lived for us and we live for our posterity for in the preamble of our Constitution the second to the last clause is, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” These blessings are the principles that I have outlined so far, and so it is Patriotic to live by these principles because it is these principles and ideas that shape our behavior and treatment of one another, not a flag or a statue. Flags and statues mean whatever someone wants it to mean and so they can have preconceived notions of the meaning of the flag and then pledge loyalty to their interpretation of that flag even though their interpretation has no basis in reality and oftentimes are inconsistent with actual American values i.e. the values mentioned in this essay. “...where the laws created by representatives are not made to spite the people but to increase their welfare so that the necessity of punishment is a rarity…” One reason why the legislative branch should be the head branch instead of the executive is that the legislative branch is more responsible to the constituents of their state or district while the executive, which is mainly made up of appointed offices, is not dependent or even caring of the will of the people. Everyone desires what is good for them. This often includes their loved ones such as family and friends but also their community. How someone knows what is good for them is a consequence of their environment. Crime is not the source of what is wrong with the public but a reaction to what criminals believe to be best for them. The solution is not retribution but reconciliation through the improvement of the environment. Instead of more police, how about more schools, clinics, parks, rehabilitation, and the increase in the general welfare. When the conditions of labor, social life, and family, are improved there is a decrease in the desire to ruin those improved conditions. In essence, the happier people are the less they will be deviating from the public good. “...where representation should not be determined by the similarity of lifestyles, class, race, sex, creed, or birthplace, but by their devotion to their constituents in public servitude and that their probity include these ideals.” Oftentimes people want a sectarian government, a government where the representatives are chosen by demographics, I know sectarianism has more of a negative connotation but in this use of the word I do not necessarily mean discrimination however sectarian structure governments do lead to the majority party or sect to mistreat the other sects. What this means is that if the black community makes up 13% of the total US population then the government should be made up of 13% black representatives. This isn’t good since it divides this nation up by race and this can be applied with religion like how several sectarian governments are in the Middle East, or ethnic groups, or sex, or gender. Our nation should not be divided on those issues. This is also not good because the black community should not be limited by demographics. Under the current system, if racism in America did not exist, we could see 50% or 80% of congress be made up of black individuals, same with women who make up just over 50% of the population they could be 90% of congress just like how men who make up just less than 50% of the population make up 90% of congress. This way representatives are determined by the values and pragmatism that their constituents desire. The issue with this is what “values” some Americans have, such as sexism or racism, or homophobia... The solution to this isn’t sectarianism, but instead the removal of bigotry through proper education and cosmopolitan interaction. All of these principles can be put into two categories; the first being the structure of government and the second is the relation between the people and that government. The first includes ideals like separation of power, checks, and balances, no titles of divinity nor nobility, the amending process, no sectarianism; the second includes ideals like protected rights, equality, providing security and welfare. It is important to understand both categories to better understand our society and to contribute more to this discussion about politics.

Non Negotium which literally means “without business” is the idea that businesses and politics should be separated, at least as separated as they can get and certainly more separated than what they are now. This idea of creating a wall of separation between business and state is similar to the separation of Church and State that we have in the United States, or at least what we should have. Some of the issues that Non Negotium addresses directly are taxation and subsidies. Some of the indirect issues include lobbying, regulation, contracts, and patents. This policy will remove the governments ability to subsidize businesses hopefully entirely. This policy will also remove tax deductions and exemptions for businesses including religious establishments, which the separation of church and state should do anyway but isn’t, and including secular non-profits. If businesses want to decrease taxes then they should decrease them for everyone, not just for themselves. The point of taxation is that the more political influence is held by people who don't pay taxes then they and the government have the incentive to increase taxes on everyone else. Take the situation where you have ten people who make the same amount of money and are taxed ten dollars each in order to have a functioning government with a budget of 100 dollars. Each person also has a certain disposable income that can be used to support political campaigns. Then say one of these people makes the argument that since they are religious they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Now you still have a government with the necessary budget of 100 dollars to work, but you only have 9 people paying taxes which means the non religious people have to pay more in taxes. Now, that one person has the incentive to lobby the government with the extra money they have to increase the budget and taxes which they do not pay but do benefit from. In this situation the 9 people would simply out vote the one but sadly real life instead imagine this one person holds the majority of influence over the government and can choose to increase taxes that they do not pay on everyone else. This situation happened many times in the past in many different nations including France during the French Revolution where about ten percent of the population held 2/3rds of the political power in government, the first two estates which were the clergy and the aristocrats, who then used their position to levy higher taxes on the other 90% while decreasing taxes on themselves which was the number one cause of the French Revolution this also happened in Russia during the Communist Revolution, there seems to be a common trend of religious establishments and the wealthy participating in this unequal treatment and so religious establishments and the wealthy should not be able to get away with it in America. Instead, non negotium and other types of political separations, advocate that everyone and every business should pay taxes so that there is no political or economic advantage in favor of one group over the other. Imagine if churches and all non-profits which benefit the wealthy as tax havens and “charity” have to pay taxes just like everyone else equally, there would be more support in favor of decreasing taxes for everyone equally. This increase in the pool of taxpayers will also decrease the tax burden on the working class and would help alleviate any social or economic strife between people. Non negotium would work on most businesses in ending lobbying since the whole point of lobbying is to receive benefits from the government. Under non negotium the government would not have the authority to help those businesses and so the incentive to lobby in the first place would be removed. Now, I did say most, because there are certain industries that are not entirely economic but instead are also political such as planned parenthood or the NRA since abortion and gun ownership are also political issues. Subsidies and tax deductions would be removed from planned parenthood and the NRA and other political organizations as a part of non negotium, but these organizations would still want to lobby the government in order to keep their industries legal. We could make abortion, guns, etc. non political by ensuring their end or protection but since the country is divided on these issues they will remain politicized. This has happened before where a political issue is no longer political such as with the end of prohibition and ever since alcohol sales and consumption is for the most part no longer politicized. To reiterate, non negotium removes the power of the government to benefit any business or establishment through subsidies and tax deductions or exemptions. This idea could also go further in protecting industries or businesses from harsh and unfair regulation since regulation usually benefits the wealthiest businesses or establishments in a particular industry since they can afford the costs of regulations while their smaller competitors can't. And so there should be more of an effort to define the purposes of regulation to make sure that the only regulations that exist are those that directly help or protect consumers, workers, and the environment. All other regulations should be abolished. When it comes to regulations themselves the government should have public servants to make sure that the regulations are enforced and applied to all businesses but also that the inspections should be done in a timely manner so as to not interfere with businesses. One of the main reasons why many business owners, especially in the construction and manufacturing industries, don't like certain regulations is because of the amount of time it takes for inspectors to do their jobs and so the government should invest in more inspectors as public servants to inspect and enforce regulations in a manner that does not hinder economic development the way they do now. Non negotium would not end government contracts. Contracts are very different from subsidies since with a contract the business must provide a specific service or good for the government as opposed to subsidies which are just payments to businesses just to keep the business alive even if that business does no good for the government or people. Although supporters of Non Negotium can and should advocate for less government contracts especially when it comes to the military and specifically mercenaries. Lastly, there is the question of patents. Patents help inventors by giving them time to market their inventions to make money off of them and patent laws have changed dramatically over the centuries in the United States. Patents can, however, be used to restrict the market and owners, not necessarily the actual inventors, can abuse patents. It would be consistent under the idea of Non Negotium to limit patent protections. For example, any inventions made while using funds or equipment from the government should be made open source and not be patentable. Patent protections should also only last a maximum of 7 years. The original term of patents was 14 years, now it is 20 years and the reason why the term is so long is because that time would be used to market and get investors. However, it hardly makes sense that there would be extensions past the 14 year term since marketability is so much faster and easier than it was when everything was done on paper and delivered by horse. I suggest 7 years with no extensions given the advancements in communication and time for marketing. Non Negotium- the idea that business and state should be separated from each other as much as possible.

Clearer Definitions of Economic Theories: In public and even academic debates, everyone seems to be using different definitions of terms like capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, crony capitalism, communism, government intervention, etc. This confusion of terms makes any reasonable discussion frustrating and unproductive and it doesn’t help to know that these confusions when applied in the real world by governments and institutions can and does affect peoples lives so this isn’t a trivial matter but one of grave importance to the general welfare of nations and people. To start we should figure out how to best categorize these theories and systems of economics. I made two main categories, the first being systems that differ solely on the ownership of the means of production and the second being differences of government intervention. Solely Owning the Means of Production Socialism is the idea that the workers of a given means of production, means of production just means the company, should be given ownership of that company. So those who contribute labor should share ownership of the company. That’s all there is to socialism, nothing about government planned economies, or regulations, or taxation, or quotas, but just worker ownership. It is the case that many socialists also support government intervention which is why this term is associated with Big Government, but socialism is fundamentally just worker co-ops. Capitalism has also been affected by a miss association of ideas. Capitalism is simply ownership of the means of production belonging to those that contribute capital, either money or equipment, to the business. That’s all there is to capitalism, nothing about free market economies, or deregulation, or lower taxation, or consumerism, but just capitalist ownership. It is the case that many capitalists also support fewer government intervention which is why this term is associated with Small Government, but capitalism is fundamentally just those who have capital owning the means of production. The reason why it is important to separate socialism from big government and capitalism from free market is that it is more realistic. There are many modern examples of capitalists supporting government intervention like when businesses want subsidies from the government or when one capitalist business lobbies the government to put regulation or higher taxes on another capitalist business. Just look at the US government now, there is more government intervention now than there were 100 years ago but we are still a capitalist economy which shows that the two ideas are separate. Socialism, on the other hand, doesn’t need government intervention. In the early stages of the Soviet Union, Soviets were formed that were separate from the government and these Soviets were formed by the workers in a local area and not the government. One of the Soviets, the one in Saint Petersburg lead by Lenin actually became more powerful and influential than the actual provincial government. The provincial government tried to limit the Saint Petersburg Soviet with military force which sparked a conflict and the Petersburg Soviet won becoming the new government and united all Soviets creating the Soviet Union. It was later hijacked by the dictator Stalin and now whenever people think of socialism or communism they think of Stalin instead of actual socialism or actual communism. It would be like looking at the fall of the Roman republic and thinking all republics are just preludes to monarchy which simply is not true and ignores all of the history and reasons why the Roman republic fell while misrepresenting what republics are. Government Intervention Communism is when a democratic government manages the economy. Democracy is necessary for communism to exist which is why we should not refer to the Soviet Union or modern China as communist because they are not democratic, at least not democratic in any meaningful way. A dictatorial Economy is when a military dictator or aggressive political party organizes the economy. They usually do this in order to maintain power and are only looking after themselves or their party while trying to limit or wipe out any opposition. This is what the Soviet Union was under Stalin but the Soviet Union did maintain a Politburo for those under Stalin which is why some people would argue that the Soviet Union was democratic. This would be true if Stalin did not exist or at least did not control the country, it is Stalin that makes the Soviet Union undemocratic which is why there is lots of confusion about the nature of the country since the difference between two different systems is just one person. Feudalism is when the economy is managed by a caste system of lords and kings. Where land and the means of production and even people are owned by a system of heirs and social hierarchy. There is often a religious aspect to feudalism so theocracy can be lumped into feudalism. Each of these systems uses the government to control the economy and each of these systems is determined by what kind of government exists. If the government is democratic and manages the economy it is communism, if the government is dictatorial by a military leader or political party and manages the economy it is a dictatorial economy, if the government is monarchical and manages the economy it is feudalistic. Free-Market The free-market, conceptually, is no government intervention in the economy. There are people who believe in absolutely no government intervention and they are called ancaps (Anarcho Capitalists). However, many people consider the US economy to be a free-market, which is simply not true given how much government intervention there is. So free-market is an inappropriate term; I suggest we just use the term market-based instead of free-market since a market-based economy can have some government intervention but the economy as a whole has to be free in order for it to be market-based, if there is too much government intervention then it becomes one of the government economic systems described above. More Confusion Another issue arises when we consider the fact that all of these systems can and often do overlap with each other. An example would be the US economy. The US is undoubtedly capitalistic since those who own the capital of a business are those who own the business. But, we have a democratic government that often times interferes with or manages the economy and so at the same time the US is Capitalistic and Communistic. That’s right! banning weed is Communism (Kind of). However, it is important to find out the reason why specific actions are taken by the government. So if Americans want weed to be banned and the government bans weed that is communism. But if Americans don’t want to ban weed and the government bans it anyway then that specific action could be classified as dictatorial even though the overall system is democratic. The same can be said about how much government intervention there is on the whole; if the government only intervenes on the issue of weed and nothing else then the overall system is a “free-market” one just not when it comes to weed. If the people want weed to be banned but the government doesn’t ban it then that is a free-market action. If your head is hurting from all this then you are not alone. Reiteration There are systems that describe the different types of ownership of the means of production and there are systems that describe the different types of governments and how that affects intervention. There is also the variable of how much government intervention there is so if there is a monarchy with little intervention then that is both market-based and feudalistic.  There is also the fact that these systems can and often do overlap with each other. England is an example of almost all of these systems combined since it is a Theocratic-Monarchical-Democratic-Capitalistic-Market-Based system. They have a monarch that is the head of the national religion with a democraticish parliament that interferes with the market while the means of production is owned by those who own the capital of the business. But if the government interferes with the economy more than it is now then you can switch the market-based term with communistic which will look even more complicated. It helps to think of these different systems as blurry clouds of influence as opposed to distinct and separate entities. Conclusion The point of all this is to show the complexity of systems of economies and governments and how they can overlap with each other. I think it is important to separate these ideas into their appropriate definitions to get a better view of the system as a whole, even when that view seems to be blurry as shown by the example of England. It does show that there are fewer differences between economic systems and nations than what people tend to think.

I will be talking about why we should increase the number of house members to 888 which would more than double the current number of 435. First, I would like to share why I chose the arbitrary number of 888 and it is simply because it is doubling the current amount which i think should happen anyway but also because 888+888 is 1776 the year America declared independence and so I hope this can get the patriotic conservatives who have been the ones against increasing the number of house seats to agree with this change. And so Here is a hemicycle chart of the current number of house members and which party they belong to. This amounts to 435 with 222 belonging to the democrats and 213 belonging to the republicans. The current simple majority is 218 and a super majority, which is ⅔, is 290. Each representative represents over roughly 754,000 constituents. and here is what it would look like with 888 members of congress if the party lines dont change, with 453 democrats and 435 republicans. The new simple majority would be 445 and a super majority of 592. Each representative would represent over roughly 369,000 which is still more than the number of constituents per representative in 1929 when the limit of house members was set at 435. In 1929 the average representative represented roughly 280,000. Yes 888 is an even number so there could be a tie but by increasing the total number makes a perfect 50/50 split of 444 very unlikely but if it does occur The vice president could be the tie breaker since they already are the tiebreaker for the Senate. What Would This Do? Well it would do a number of things such as increase the number of people available to work in committees and subcommittees. Right now Members of house have to work in multiple committees and the workload per person has only increased meaning as the number of committees and subcommittees has increased that the work done is of lesser quality as members are known for leaving committee meetings early in order to go to another committee meeting. By increasing the number of representatives we can decrease the workload per representative and so they can specialise in only one or two committees instead of having to do more than they can handle. The expansion will also decrease the number of constituents per representative making the representatives more representative of their constituents. The increase of the number of people per representative makes the average person feel like they are not being represented especially as representatives put the work load on unelected bureaucrats, this won't be entirely fixed with the expansion but it will make individuals more represented. The expansion will increase the number of representatives who can propose laws, and so there will be more politicians who can make suggestions on what bills to pass. This would also decrease the cost of campaigning as less constituents means less people needed to campaign for. This will also increase competition as more house seats means more people can run and people who are on the margin of running or not now will be encouraged to do so. Increase internship opportunities as the increase in representatives will increase the need for aids and other helpers which will increase the number of Americans who participate in government. Lobbying would also be affected as it will become more expensive to lobby for double the representatives in order to achieve the same congressional power. Lobbying wont go away however, that would require separate legislation. Amend the 1929 Apportionment Act to increase the number of Representatives from 435 to 888 Have the number of representatives increase by 50 every ten years until 888 This would take 90 years and the last change would increase by 53 If we increase by 100 every ten years then it would take 40 years and the last change would be 153 Fun Fact: If the 1929 apportionment act was never put into place and the number of constituents per representative which was 280,000 did not change the current number of house members would be around 1172

American Military Personnel These numbers include active military personnel who are stationed in non-engagement operations. Combat areas are too difficult to get accurate numbers from since troops are moving in and out all the time. These numbers also only include official military personnel and do not include private contractors or mercenaries since those numbers are not disclosed and their movement is too frequent. What we do know for sure is that mercenaries are being used more as the military brings troops back so we could take these numbers and nearly double the personnel abroad to take mercenaries into consideration. Source: Click HERE to see the chart.

Federal/State Land Disputes Many Americans do not know or fully understand the complexity of American Federalism. The country is made up of States but within the States can reside Federally owned land. There are current discussions on how much land should be owned by the Federal government and whether or not the government should give the land to the state the land resides in. The Federal government owns the land through three Departments: the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense (DoD). In the two first Departments, there are four main bureaus: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Parks Service (NPS), and the Forest Service. The DoD is the smallest landowner of the departments but still owns over 26 million acres of land worldwide, with just over 11 million in the states. Native Reservations fall under the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. Acerage of Federal Land The list HERE shows the states that have more than 10% of their acerage owned by the Federal government. What to Do With Federal Land There is a discussion about whether or not the Federal government should own as much if any land within the States. I personally believe that the Federal government should give back as much land as possible to the States while having the States set up the appropriate agencies to deal with wildlife and forestation. The Federal government can and should continue to support this effort through aid and services but legal ownership should be held by the States. As for Indian Reservations, I believe the residential parts of the reservation should become locked Congressional Districts so that Natives have protected representation not only in Congress but also the local and state governments as well. This lock should only last for 50 to 100 years and after the lock, the district will be treated like any other district. All land that is not residential and that the natives want to be protected from development should become state-protected parks and treated like the National Parks are now but under the legal ownership of the State. As for the DoD, land that is not being actively used for necessary military purposes should be handed back to the States. With more land and more potential development States that have been stagnant can now invest in future growth for that State.

How to Prevent Nuclear War Preventing nuclear war is complicated since we are talking about a worldwide effort to curtail nuclear weapons from being used in war. There are a number of things that we need to do in order to achieve this goal which includes: preventing other nations from developing or obtaining nuclear weapons, preventing nations with nuclear weapons from making more, and decreasing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Preventing Development When it comes to preventing other nations from developing nuclear weapons the best thing that we can do is have all nations sign anti-nuclear weapons treaties and have nuclear scientists inspect nuclear energy reactors occasionally to make sure they are incapable of making nuclear weapons. These treaties would also prevent the export of certain nuclear materials. Preventing Stockpiling When it comes to preventing nations that already have nuclear weapons, the best we can do is to make sure they sign treaties and are open about their nuclear capacity. Dismantling When it comes to decreasing nuclear capacity we can start by dismantling some of our nuclear weapons as an example for other nuclear powers to do the same. Work Towards Peace There is another aspect to nuclear disarmament and that is to decrease the cause of needing nuclear weapons in the first place. Countries like Pakistan, Israel, India, and North Korea are countries that have border issues. If we can work towards encouraging a decrease in tension with these countries and their neighbors then there would be less of an incentive or necessity for these nations to develop nuclear weapons. Anti-Nuclear Defense Systems Another way to handle nuclear weapons, if all else fails, is to develop anti-nuclear defense systems of our own and make sure that the rest of the world has such defenses. This system is being developed by the US now with Anti-ICBM technology. Currently, the US is the only country that has a reliable anti-ICBM defense system but that is only if one or two missiles are launched at us from a far distance. This technology should continue to be developed to the point where an enemy nuclear submarine can launch a missile just off the coast and the US would still be able to defend itself. The Global Nuclear Environment List of Countries with Nuclear Capabilities: USA -1945 Russia -1949 UK -1952 France -1960 China -1964 Israel -1966 India -1974 Pakistan -1998 North Korea -2006 Countries that Share Nuclear Capabilities (NATO) Germany Netherlands Turkey Belgium Italy Counties that signed the NPT (Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) USA Russia UK France China Although refitting nuclear energy reactors to become nuclear weapons facilities is difficult it can still be done an so all nations with nuclear energy should also sign the same anti-nuclear treaties as those that have nuclear weapons. As you can see above there are nations that have nuclear weapons that haven’t signed the NPT. 61 Nations use nuclear energy reactors Nations that use Nuclear energy for a majority of energy use France (56 Reactors) Slovakia (4 Reactors) Ukraine (15 Reactors) Hungary (4 Reactors) Largest producers U.S.A. (95 Reactors) France (56 Reactors) Below is a list of treaties that all nations should sign that would deter the use of nuclear and in general devastating weapons. NPT- Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons BTWC- Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention CWC- Chemical Weapons Convention Extended Deterrence US-Russian New Start Treaty Export Control Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) US- Russian New Start Treaty The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran Nuclear Deal) No First Use

Why War? When a foreign nation attacks one of our own or even invades our home the appropriate response seems to be to fight back. When the Imperial Japanese attacked the US at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, the response was to fight back. When the North Vietnamese launched torpedoes at the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the response was to fight back. When Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait, the response was to fight back. When Al-Qaeda launched a coordinated attack on several US cities, the response was to fight back. When Iran launched skirmishing attacks on US soldiers in Iraq and Syria, the response was to fight back. This casus belli or cause of war, when listed in that way gives the impression that the US is defending as opposed to attacking. However, very few people stop and wonder why these nations would want to attack the US. These are the causes of war for the US but what were the causes of war for them? Japan In the case of Pearl Harbor, there were many factors in Japan’s decision to invade US territory and other nations. Some direct like the US putting an oil embargo on Japan and others were indirect and more methodical. The indirect cause was the sense of national pride which lead to colonialism. After the Meiji Restoration which modernized and industrialized Japan, the Japanese decided to redesign their military under the German standard. They invited a prominent German officer named Jakob Meckel to drill top Japanese officers on modern tactics and weaponry. Meckel was the one who told the Japanese that in order to secure their place in the world and to protect their nation they would need to invade Korea since Korea was a knife to the belly of Japan which could be used by foreign powers. European nations and America had expansive empires all over the world which surrounded Japan. The French held southeast Asia, the Russians held Siberia and were expanding southward into Manchuria, the newly formed Chinese republic was also expanding into Manchuria and into Korea, the Dutch held the indies and restricted foreign trade, and lastly, the Americans held islands to the east of Japan. Japan desired to become like the rest of the great powers at the time and all of those powers had colonies of their own. All that Japan did was mimicked what the US and other powers did. If we want to be disgusted by the actions of the Japanese, which we should, we must also be disgusted by the nations Japan was imitating. Vietnam Vietnam has a history of foreign powers oppressing their people from the Chinese to the French and briefly the Japanese. During World War II the Japanese invaded French Indo-China, modern-day Vietnam, and expelled the French only to surrender to allied forces shortly after. In the period after the Japanese left and before the French returned, Ho Chi Minh with the backing of the American OSS took back the country and quickly declared independence. American forces supported Ho Chi Minh and even saved his life several times. Ho third from the top left next to American OSS operatives In Ho’s speech declaring Vietnam’s independence, he started with the words, “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In case you missed American history, those are the same words in America’s declaration of independence which was also against a European power. Next to Ho during that speech was American OSS Major Archimedes Patti showing just how close the US and Vietnam relations were. This peace did not last long as the French demanded their colonies back and President Truman abandoned any support for the Vietnamese. This started the First Indochina War between the French backed monarchists in the south and the Viet Minh in the north. After several French defeats such as at Dien Bien Phu negotiations split the country into two a communist republic in the north called the DRV and a Monarchy in the south called the State of Vietnam. Shortly after, however, the Monarchy broke down as the Prime Minister, Ngo Dinh Diem, declared the south as a republic but had refused to hold a referendum on whether or not the south would be united with the north since he was corrupt and wanted to maintain power for himself. This caused many DRV insurgencies to rise in the south against Diem which were met with more force backed by the United States. Diem was not entirely cooperative with the United States and so the south Vietnamese military backed by the CIA had Diem assassinated in a coup d’etat. It was the American-backed forces suppressing any democratic process to reunify Vietnam that caused the DRV to attack the USS Maddox off the coast of their own country. In this instance, the United States was the foreign aggressor. Iraq The history of Iraq is similar to the history of Vietnam in many ways. For thousands of years there were foreign occupiers that exploited the people and land from the Persians to the Greeks to the Ottomans, and in more recent history the French and the English. During World War I the French and British promised independence for anyone in the Ottoman Empire who rebelled against the Ottomans. Secretly, however, the French, British, and Russians agreed to split the dying Ottoman Empire for themselves in the infamous Sykes-Picot Treaty. Due to instability in the region and the expense of World War II the European Empires lost most of the control in the region and decided to consolidate power. In the case of the Iraqi territory the British consolidated power into two specific areas, Kuwait and Palestine. Kuwait was historically an Iraqi territory and was originally founded by the ancient Iraqis known as the Mesopotamians in 2000 BCE. Kuwait belonged to Iraq, the British did not care and siphoned off the region from Iraq in order to maintain an important trading port and naval base along with the land near the island which was rich with oil. After World War II, Iraq was volatile and unstable until the late 1970s when Saddam Hussein rose to power through military and political force. Shortly after consolidating power within the country, he desired to expand Iraq by taking back its former territories starting with Kuwait. After his invasion and annexation, the UN sent a relief force led by the United States under the Bush Sr administration. Kuwait was liberated which is not an accurate statement; Kuwait was returned to the British-influenced government. In this incident, Iraq was trying to gain back the territories lost to colonial powers much like Vietnam. Was Hussein a good person, no, but his rise to power and asperations of expansion were caused by the instability from colonial powers. Those colonial powers only continued the cycle of war instead of ending it. The United States remained complicit and supported the status quo created by colonial powers much like what happened in Vietnam. Al-Qaeda Al-Qaeda is an organization that was founded during the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s. Most of its members are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE. The organization believes in Salafism which was the idea that Islam should return to its fundamental way a life, specifically to the way Islam was in the first three generations following the Prophet Muhammad. The name Al-Qaeda translates to the “fundamental” or the “base.” As mentioned before, Al-Qaeda became active during the 1980’s Soviet-Afghan War and fought along side the American backed Afghan government to remove the foreign invaders. After the war, however, American forces did not leave despite the people demanding that all foreign influence, including the US, must leave. This created instability and civil war including the creation of the Taliban in the early 1990s which was and still is the de facto government of non-US controlled parts of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda worked with the Taliban in its attempts to expel the United States along with all “western” influence. It was in this conflict that pinned Al-Qaeda directly against the United States and so in every nation that Al-Qaeda spread to, the United States would be there to fight them regardless if the local populations even wanted US support. Although Al-Qaeda declared itself against the whole world, it was the US insistence to not leave certain nations alone that created direct and unnecessary conflict, and ironically it was the civil wars in Afghanistan partly caused by the United States that gave local populations a reason to join organizations such as Al-Qaeda in order to expel foreign influence. 9/11 was not the start of the conflict, merely a single battle in a long drawn out conflict that only perpetuated war and reinvigorated the cycle of violence. Iran Iran, like Syria, and the aforementioned Iraq and Afghanistan was trying to get rid of foreign influence and in 1979 the country overthrew their King or Shah named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The US intervened and defended the King and eventually took him into the United States to provide safety and healthcare. The Iranians demanded the Shah back so that he could stand trial for crimes against Iranian citizens. This never happened and so the Iranian people took US hostages from an embassy. This act of US support of a brutal King and the retaliation from Iran taking hostages has pinned the US and Iran against each other ever since. The Obama administration attempted to end tension through the Iranian nuclear deal but that was undermined by further sanctions under the same administration. Relations became worse under the Trump administration as the US left the nuclear deal and began maximum pressure against Iran starting with the droning of Iran’s top general, Soleimani at the start of 2020. Here, much like the other nations discussed before, most of the violence was unnecessary, and furthering tension and conflict will do nothing to bring peace. In Conclusion: I do not know how to make or maintain peace, but I do know what causes war. What the United States has done and still does is not creating peace only a status quo of hegemony that can collapse at any moment just as the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian, Ottoman, Japanese, and many other empires had. We are already seeing American hegemony decline all over the world and the best thing that we can do is to give up that hegemony peacefully and willingly. Would this create peace in the rest of the world, probably not, but it will prevent the United States from being the reason why war is happening. This has been a brief history as to the causes of war in a few conflicts and I encourage my readers to go out on their own and study this intricate and fascinating history of US conflicts.

Prelude: Amicitia Americae means friend of America and it is the name of the proposed foreign policy below. This policy follows the principles and ideals of the previous blogs I have written on foreign policy. You should read Pacificus and How to Amend Foreign Policy to get a better understanding of Amicitia Americae. Amicitia Americae is a foreign policy that restructures the US’ foreign obligations and treaties both military and economic to nations that actively adopt our policies. The reasoning behind this policy is to separate the United States from nations that not only don’t share the same political values as the US but clearly violate human rights. Pacificus argues for neutrality and Amicitia Americae argues for a peaceful expansion of the United States. Below shows a list of what a foreign nation has to do to be called Amicitia Americae, what the US should do in response, and how that Amicitia Americae can transition into a state(s). This process below should be done slowly and not all at once. Once a nation starts then it should be called Amicitia Americae Amicitia Americae is a Title to Nations that: Adopts the US Constitution. Adopts US federal legal statutes. Ends any alliances they may have with other nations and enters an alliance with other Amicitia Americae. Ends any obligations they have with other nations that the US Senate does not approve of. Incorporates their military into the United States military. Free trade. Free travel. Adopts the US dollar as the main currency. Matches our educational curriculum and standards. Pays taxes as a territory. What the US gives in return: Full military support in defense. Federal aid like any other territory. Their debt adopted by the US federal government. Representation in Congress as a territory. Free trade. Free travel. National Citizenship as a territory. Building of any necessary infrastructure. Transitioning Process: That nation will be divided up into potential states (only if big enough to be divided) these potential states are called Consulships. The division process will include the foreign relations committees of the House and Senate and the government of the nation in question in order to draw the Consular (state) lines. Each Consulship of the nation (if divided) will be run by a Consul who is elected to a term of two years but cannot serve two consecutive terms. The Consulships will independently decide on whether or not they wish to become a full-fledged State. Each Consul will conduct a bi-yearly referendum (in the middle of each term) until a majority of support for statehood is reached. The Consuls of each Consulship of a nation will form a Committee of Consuls to make sure that both their nation and the US are keeping up with their agreements in order to continue the Amicitia Americae relationship Once a Consulship becomes a state the position of Consul will be absolved and the position of Governor will be instituted The Consul who ratifies statehood for their consulship will become the governor for the first term and serve the full gubernatorial term of four years Once a state, that Consul will no longer be in the Committee of Consuls of that nation. Conclusion: America should include other nations that adopt our politics into the Union in order to expand democracy and peace abroad. This process should not be done with force, especially military force, but through popular sovereignty and due processes. Few nations will actually become Amicitia Americae or friend of America and that is okay as long as we maintain neutrality and respect for all other nations.

Immigration Principles American rights are universal, however, America cannot universally defend these rights due to our respect for national sovereignty and the fact that we simply cannot protect everyone in different nations. Despite this, the best way to defend rights for all is to allow immigrants to enter the United States. The process below details how we can reform our immigration process in order to protect the rights of as many people as possible while maintaining order domestically through due process. Limitation Remove the limit of immigrants allowed into the country There will still be a physical limit to how many immigrants are able to enter the country, due to the amount of funding we give to the immigration offices, but there should not be an arbitrary number that someone makes up in their head. Simple Merit End the lottery base system and adopt a point or merit-based system The merit system includes a criminal record examination and a general knowledge examination. Assume innocent for criminal records not found The examination is a written test on basic (Fifth grade) English and American Civics. The examination is only for adults (18 and above) The English test will be based on basic communication, not on books and rhetoric. The civics test will be based on individual rights and privileges not on names and dates. Entry Via Visa If they pass the exam with over 65% grade then they will be handed a working visa while children will receive a student visa Working visa will have no expiration date A student visa automatically upgrades to a working visa when the student reaches the age of 18 Upgrades to a working visa still allowed to enroll in school. After six consecutive years working within the states with a working visa, they will be granted full citizenship. The working visa can be allowed for employment or receiving a driver’s license but cannot be used to purchase firearms or vote in federal elections. Once a full citizen then they can Naturalization Centers If adults fail and they still want to enter the country they will be sent to residential centers called Naturalization Centers. Parents who fail will be allowed to have their children stay with them or enter the country with a student visa if they have other family members already living in the states. Immigrants will be registered in different centers Family center; where parents and their children will be kept together Working center; where working-age men and women (18-65 years of age), couples with no children or single men and women will be in this center. Orphans center (Under 18); for children who are alone until we can find their parents or guardians. Elderly center (without working-age support) (over 65) Elderly people Each center will have adequate housing, food, water, clothes, electricity, and medical care and education for one year for everyone; then they will be allowed re-examination and then granted a working visa. Activities include mandatory education at residential centers. (For adults) Education will begin at 9 and end at 3 with one hour (12-1) for lunch and a general break. The first three hours will be English class, the latter two hours will be American civics (For children) education will be the same as the curriculum for children in the state the camp resides in. More activities include: (For adults) after the education schedule, there will be time for learning a skill or trade (3-7 pm) From the start of this program, the accepted skills include culinary, welding, farming, house-cleaning, trash collection and disposal, road and house construction, and plumbing. House Immigration Committee can approve of other skills and trades. Families that had one spouse pass the exam and the other fail can remain together in the appropriate center but the one who failed must follow the schedule for education for re-examination but the one who passed will still receive his or her working visa.

Pacificus Principles Foreign policy restraint: The United States currently does not have a codified set of foreign policy principles to guide policymakers which is why we see inconsistencies when it comes to alliances or treaties such as joining the Iran Deal, then the next administration leaves the Iran Deal, then the next administration promises to rejoin. Pacificus was the pen name of Hamilton in seven letters arguing for US neutrality in the war between France and England. The following set of principles can help guide foreign policy; The United States recognizes and respects the national sovereignty of all countries regardless of the differences in culture, government structure, geography, natural resources, and legal protections of its citizens. The US should not interfere with any of these national differences unless provoked into conflict by that nation. The United States should remain out of alliances and treaties that alienate other nations but work towards ending universal threats such as nuclear proliferation. The United States is interested in expanding American values and rights abroad through popular sovereignty of those foreign nations and not military or economic force. Foreign Obligations In accordance with these principles, the United States should end all military alliances and any other foreign obligation that is not universal in nature. Such obligations that we should maintain would be nuclear arms treaties since nuclear warfare is a universal threat and does not obligate us to favor one country over the other. US efforts to combating climate change should be maintained. Military Assets Given the expanse of the US military due to the treaties we currently have, ending those treaties would require a major overhaul of military assets and operations. In order to separate ourselves from foreign conflicts, the United States should sell all army bases abroad to the nations that they reside in. To encourage these purchases, the Army generals in charge of the bases, with the support of the President, will decide which weapons, ammo, ordinances, vehicles, and fuel that is currently stationed at each base would be included in the purchases. Military Operations With the end of most operations, this should include all mercenary contracts including the subsidies and tax deductions, and exemptions to mercenary companies. Mercenary armies degrade America’s image and prevent the US from being neutral. Along with decreasing military operations, we should decrease foreign aid and end subsidies and tax deductions/exemptions to corporations that send aid abroad. Allocating Funds The decrease of US involvement means that we can allocate military funds to domestic projects; I suggest the US decrease the Army’s budget by 70%, from around $200 billion to $60 billion, and allocate $40 billion of that amount to the Navy, $10 billion to the Air Force, and $90 to domestic infrastructure. The infrastructure projects should include a fully developed and connected high-speed rail system and the renovation of our waterways. Since the money is from the Army and since infrastructure has a military purpose to it, the Army should oversee construction, development, maintenance, and operations of the rail system. As an incentive for the Army to speed up development, we should return the Army’s budget back to the prior amount once the infrastructure projects are complete. The money sent to the other two branches for research and development of defensive technologies and tactics to update our military. Trade Relations Since equal treatment is a principle of our foreign policy, we should end all sanctions on other countries and adopt a progressive tariff system that is based on the GDP of a nation along with the total trade of that nation and the individual industries themselves. For example, a nation that has a high GDP and billions of dollars worth of trade with the US will have a higher tariff rate than a nation with a small GDP and only millions of dollars worth of trade with the US. Individual industries of a country will also have their own tariff rate. This way we are encouraging purchases to smaller countries to alleviate the economic dependence America has on larger and more prosperous nations while supporting smaller nations. This will also normalize America’s relations with foreign nations since we will not be arbitrarily putting tariffs on nations simply because we don’t like them. United Nations This restraint does not mean isolationism from the international community and we should still have an open dialogue with every nation, share our medical and scientific research, collaborate on climate issues, and work with every country to deter nuclear armament and use. The United States should remain the host for the UN and support open dialogues between nations to deter conflicts worldwide which can only be done with foreign policy restraint.

Amending US Foreign Policy As mentioned in the last post which you can read here, US foreign policy is flawed in several ways. The first is the lack of consistency in policy and interpretation of goals between administrations. The second is that the policies themselves are flawed and unproductive. How to fix the problems facing grand US strategy abroad include codifying principles, establishing consistent and achievable goals, passing pragmatic and realistic policy, and have a system of observation, analysis, and amendments to keep everything running. Codifying Foreign Policy Principles Currently, there are no principles guiding US foreign policy; there are vague goals that generally remain the same throughout differing administrations, but those are not principles. A principle is a reciprocation concept that guides international relations. For example, Americans don’t like the idea of foreign governments interfering in their elections or trying to persuade Americans into supporting one political ideology over another. Americans value foreign countries respecting their national sovereignty. If the US actually held this principle of respect mutually, most of our current foreign policy would disappear since it includes interfering with the domestic affairs of foreign nations. I propose the following set of principles. The United States recognizes and respects the national sovereignty of all countries regardless of differences in culture, government structure, geography, natural resources, and legal protections of its citizens. The US should not interfere with any of these national differences unless provoked into conflict by that nation. The United States should remain out of alliances and treaties that alienate other nations but work towards ending universal threats such as nuclear proliferation. The United States should be interested in expanding American values and rights abroad but should do so through popular sovereignty and not through military or economic force. Establishing Principled Goals Appropriate goals can be set after principles are agreed upon. National security, advancing human rights, nuclear non-proliferation, even advancing democracy are all goals that can and should remain with the given principles above. The issue is that specific policies passed turned out to be detrimental to US international relations. Policy Policy is always tricky because of unintended consequences, changing interest groups, and incomplete information. Current US policy isn’t taking us closer to the goals set by the Department of State. The source of these problems is US entanglement in overlapping foreign affairs. For example, the US is collaborating with Turkey and the Kurds; the Kurds are an unofficial nation split up between several nations including Turkey. If Turkey gets what they want then the Kurds will be harmed; if the Kurds get what they want then that will build animosity and violence between the two groups. The photo below from the BBC shows the land claimed by the Kurds which is in conflict with several nations we are working with and working against. This is the Thucydides trap where alliances don’t prevent conflict but only exacerbate them by dragging in nations that have nothing to do with the conflict itself. I will write in-depth about an appropriate foreign policy that would address these issues in future blogs. A prelude includes dividing foreign policy into two branches the first called Pacificus and the second called Amicitia Americae. Amendments No grand strategy is complete, accurate, or long-lasting and so as the world changes so should policy. The constant cycle of observation, analysis, and amendments is the cycle to maintain appropriate legislation. This will be successful with well-funded research institutions to gather information about those changing environments. The willingness to adapt to changing circumstances by lawmakers is also essential to maintaining a well-regulated foreign policy.