What Does the Survey Show?

   We hear of a survey saying Americans hold that some religions deserve more religious freedom than others. Eighty-two percent believe religious freedoms are important to Christians, 70 percent believe they are important for Jews, 67 percent for Mormons, and 61 percent for Muslims.
   The survey comes from The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
   I'm sure many, like me, see an oxymoron here, as freedom of religion is not freedom of religion unless it is extended to all religions. Would you have a law that says you cannot kill unless it is a Jew?  That might be an example that seems to go too far, but I wonder. Without getting more into what Americans feel, with a deeper survey, we are left to wonder what the AP survey really shows.
   Does, though, the survey simply unveil the bigotry existent in America? If 82 percent believe Christians deserve the freedoms, and only 61 percent believe Muslims do, does that mean 21 percent of those in our society are bigots?
 

Are there Ways to Hold Marketing Prices Down?

   Have about decided there is no way to put the altruistic members of the economy in charge of price setting and still have a competitive, capitalistic, free market. Rather, perhaps the efforts should be to have as few of constraints as possible on top of the product's initial provider -- as few middle men, as few managers, and perhaps even as few marketers as possible. I am thinking on that one right now. Are there ways of marketing the product without adding significantly to the price of the product?
   Note: It is 1/1/16 as I add this note to this blog. The way to hold down advertising cost, is the same as the way to hold down the cost of the product, period, and that is to provide an altruism at the at the point of marketing. If the marketer has the interest at heart of the person with the product, he will not charge too much.

How to Implement Altruism into a Competitive Economy Eluding Me

   The altruistic economy, placing those who seeking service as the price-makers. I have no more thoughts tonight on how to implement it into the free market economy. But will go to bed thinking about it.

Encourage an Altruistic Economy, and the Economy will be a Better one

   Once wrote, saying I "could have been a contender" in economics. That was mostly joking, but I do think some of my ideas on economics are worthy.
   Tonight, I arrived at another theory, a new principle.
   Generally, do not place those seeking to profit off the product in position to set the price for it. Instead, the price should be set by those who have more altruistic objectives. If they are looking to serve the world, or if they are wanting just to see their product benefit someone, they are the ones you want setting the price.
   Often, the person who creates the product is the one most likely to be in the service mode. Setting him ahead of the profit-seekers, keeps the price down, as he will be more inclined to set a low price.
   How to implement this principle? It occurs to me that seeking small businessmen is one key way.
   The benefits? Distribution of wealth is one.

Free the Doctor

   The doctor and his bill. If we are to reduce our medical bills, one thing should be to place the doctor at the head of his organization. Instead of working for someone, make him the man in charge.
   And, the person who sets the price.
   Don't let the insurance companies dictate the cost. Don't let a corporation. Let each doctor set his own rates. I wonder if perhaps the free market system sometimes works best when individuals set their own prices, instead of having someone dictate to them what those prices will be.

Don't Just Negotiate Peace, Negotiate Goodwill

   I  like the house editorial in the Deseret News today. The writer takes the Christmastime phrase, "Peace on Earth, goodwill towards men,"and suggests it is goodwill that brings peace on earth.
   That strikes a chord with me. I like it and I agree. And, if it is a true principle, then I wonder why we shouldn't use it more in peace negotiations. I wonder if part of the process shouldn't be to get the two parties to thinking well of each other. Maybe before you even negotiate who will give up what and which party will do what, you get them to saying and meaning nice things about each other.
   It might sound a little much, but how about the old game, where you have to say 10 or so nice things about the other person? I'd say, try it in international negotiations. Pull the Palestinians and the Israelis up to the table, and tell them that before negotiations get under way, first of all there must be an acceptance and new-found love of each other. So, list 10 nice things about the other. If you can't, then negotiations will go no further.
   I'm sure some would ridicule my suggestion, but I'm still thinking it worthy.
   And, in negotiating peace, in addition to asking what it will take for them to quit shooting at each other, ask them what it will take for them to feel good about each other, to like each other, to be friends. Make that a goal of the negotiations.

In the Name of Humanity, let the Children in

   It seems it would be news if just one such child migrated on his own. Jon Smith Figueroa Acosta, age 6, traversed 2,000 miles from Honduras without his parents.

  "Estoy solo" (meaning, "I'm alone"), he told Seth Robbins, reporter for the Associated Press. 

   As a new wave of child immigrants flood the borders, we again reflect on the marvel of children braving the elements and hardships on their own in order to reach America. They come not with parents, but often to join parents.

   Should we reject them, or throw our arms around them? I think of Luis Arias Dubon, 15, who said he left Honduras because he was threatened by the 18th Street gang. Do we question that story, wondering if he just made it up to gain our sympathy? Or, do we say, "Whatever your reason, you are welcome."

   I am with those who suggest we should let the children in. I am with those who marvel at their coming on their own. If there is any law that prohibits them, or deports them back, why should we not remove it? To me, you care for the children. You let them in. And, you invite them to come accompanied by adults in your new law, lest you encourage them to travel alone.

   You rush to make this law, in my view. If you are a member of Congress, you plead with your fellow Congress members to show mercy for the children. If you have opposed loosening immigration laws, you cry, "Uncle" and say you cannot bear to see the children suffer this way.

   A civilized society, a humane people, a Christian nation must surely see that it must accept these children. It must be embarrassed if any law stands in their way.
   I pause, and consider the situation in Israel, where children have attacked the Israelis. Yes, I wonder but what they were put up to doing such acts, knowing that there would be a cry out if they were arrested. I wonder, then, if the children coming from Central America are also being put up to the act. I do not know. I say let them in, anyway. If they commit a crime of harm, punish them for it. But, if the only harm is that they arrive without our invitation, without our permission, let them in.
   Paul McCartney sang a song, saying, "Someone's knocking at the door. Someone's ringing the bell. Do me a favor, and let 'em in." I've never thought of it as a children's song, but maybe it is. Until now, I've never supposed he was talking about children, but maybe he was.