Before unveiling my general platform for the 2014 Wisconsin gubernatorial race - and before delving into the
complicated world of secession, nullification, interposition, and expatriation
- it will be necessary to succinctly explain the most important similarities
and differences between myself and Republican-turned-Progressive Wisconsin
Governor and U.S. Senator Robert M. LaFollette, one of the most influential
senators - and most successful third-party presidential candidates - in
American history.
This is especially appropriate in light of the praise of LaFollette which
was recently voiced by self-described progressive Republican Arthur Louis
"Art for Gov" Kohl-Riggs, the young man who ran against Governor
Scott Walker in the Republican gubernatorial primary earlier this year (2012).
FOREIGN POLICY, DEFENSE, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
I stand with LaFollette in his support of freedom of speech during wartime,
his opposition to the prosecution of admitted socialists, and his opposition to
needless American military interventionism and involvement in foreign
conflicts.
As LaFollette opposed the League of Nations, I view the modern United
Nations as a potential threat to the self-determination of the
country of the United States of America, and - more importantly - of the nation
and the people of Wisconsin. I believe that international legal bodies of any
kind pose a risk that human rights standards may deteriorate - and / or become
irrational, by imposing unwarranted responsibilities upon others - due to
failed leadership and corruption of wealthy and powerful nations, and due to
complacency of weaker and poorer nations. This is especially risky given the
veto power which the United States currently wields in the U.N. Security Council, which I see as
nothing more than a form of tyranny, albeit shared with the governments of four
other nations.
As LaFollette opposed the open arming of American merchant vessels during
wartime, I would do the same. However, I would take a "laissez-faire"
- or (for lack of a better phrase) a "don't-ask-don't-tell" -
approach on this issue; that is, I would not support open admission that such
ships be armed, nor would I demand that such ships be unarmed. I believe that
such a position would prevent needless casualties of crew members, which could
seem feasible and excusable in the eyes of our rivals, were it to become known
that the crews of such ships would have insufficient means to defend themselves
against initiatory aggression.
POLITICAL LIBERALISM, AND GOVERNMENTAL AND ELECTION REFORM
I praise LaFollette's efforts to make government more accessible to citizens
and tolerant of alternative political viewpoints. Not only this, but I would call
for an augmentation of many of LaFollette's projects.
These projects include - but are not limited to - voting rights for women
and minorities (naturally), open and transparent government with a direct role
for citizens in proposing and passing legislation, non-partisan elections and a
direct and open primary system, and collegiate research on - and development of
- public policy.
Additionally, I join LaFollette in his support of the home rule of
municipalities, as well as of the state of Wisconsin as a "laboratory for
democracy". However - being that I support municipal home rule as part of
my wider support of political subsidiarity (the notion that decision-making
should take place at the maximally-locally-oriented level which would not risk
undermining competence), I would criticize LaFollette's support of the direct
election of U.S. Senators, which became federal law in the form of the 17th
Amendment to the Constitution.
To mix the language of LaFollette and former New Mexico Governor and 2012 Libertarian
Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson, if Wisconsin is to become a
laboratory for the innovation of democracy and public policy - and if we are to
support "home rule" and subsidiarity in general - then we should urge
our representatives at the state and federal levels alike to allow the
legislatures of the states to re-assert their influence on the country at
large, by pursuing a repeal of the 17th Amendment, thereby restoring the
principles of republicanism and dual-federalism as envisioned by our Founders.
CORRUPTION, COMMERCE, AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
As LaFollette was outspoken in his opposition to political and economic
corruption, so too would I oppose the hierarchical decision-making and power
structure in the two dominant political parties, the very existence of which
undermine political speech, and drown out important voices and viewpoints.
I also share LaFollette’s concerns about corruption, corporate welfare, and the
dominance of corporate special interests over the interests of the public,
which in LaFollette’s time were known as “patronage” and “vast corporate
combinations”.
Like LaFollette, I would resolve to make decisions which are in the
interests of consumers and workers. Additionally – as LaFollette was outspoken
in his opposition to railroad trusts – I would be vocal in my opposition to
trusts in general, and in my support of anti-trust laws, as I would apply them
to commerce and governmental structure alike.
However, I differ with LaFollette in his support of a protective tariff on
domestic goods, being that I believe they impose an unnecessary and artificial
barrier to international trade, and due to the potential that such tariffs
could stand to inappropriately benefit domestic industry. I believe that the
idea of “the invisible hand” is an assertion that consumers naturally act to
protect and favor domestic industry through their economic choices.
They would especially do so in an environment of diminished corporate
influence on public affairs, and consumers would have sufficient influence on
trade such that attempts by the government to ensure that domestic production
persevere would be superfluous, egregious, self-serving, and inclined towards
the very sort of business corruption which has been a scourge to political
freedom, and to diverse and competitive markets.
SOCIAL PROGRAMS, WELFARE, AND LABOR POLICY
I side with LaFollette in his championing of the workers’ compensation
system, the enactment of child labor laws, and social security and old age
benefits, although I would take the sustainability of the ratio of revenues to
disbursements of the latter program into serious consideration, with an
emphasis on means-testing for recipients.
So too would I join LaFollette in his support of progressive taxation; I
would support the closing of any loopholes which deviate from a graduated,
accelerating (exponential) tax on income and wealth in property, especially on
such wealth which is the product of the inappropriate perpetuation of unearned
privilege bestowed upon special individual and business interests through means
of government coercion.
While I would praise LaFollette for his efforts fighting for an eight-hour
work-day and for collective bargaining in general, my support of the labor
movement would be based on principles such as freedom and diversity of
competition, diversity of ideology and goals within the labor movement, the
right of consumers to influence trade and the labor markets, respect for the
rights of minorities of all varieties, and rational and humane wage policies
towards the poor and disadvantaged.
I believe that Wisconsin and the organized labor movement should not submit
to the authority of the National Labor Relations Board to permit nor deny the
right to strike; this undermines the freedom of union members to pursue
negotiation goals which are more moderate or more radical than the goals of
their leadership. There should be no such thing as wildcat strikes; in other words,
no strikes should be illegal, being that the future of the labor movement
relies on its independence and self-sufficiency in affecting its ends.
Were government favors and privileges for large and multinational business
to be removed - and their lasting ill effects to be compensated for – I do not
believe that government power would be necessary to uphold the gains of
organized labor. If labor standards were to significantly deteriorate, I would
call for a general strike, and for workers across the state to adopt similar
standards on wages, additional compensation, and safety and health in the
workplace, so that companies failing to uphold such standards remain neither
fully-staffed nor profitable.
Unlike LaFollette, I would pursue the nullification of federal minimum wage
laws, and the repeal of state minimum wage laws. Although laborers and the
organizations which represent them will always pursue increased wages,
benefits, and conditions, there would be no need for government to uphold these
gains (given adequate compensation for the lasting ill effects of corporate
welfare and domination of public policy by private interests).
Additionally, I would adopt the position of scholars such as Milton
Friedman; that legally-enforced minimum wage laws constitute undue barriers to
entry into the labor market, especially for the youth, the elderly, the
disabled; and the economically disadvantaged, the under-educated, and the
under-skilled; as well as the racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and linguistic
minorities which are disproportionately affected by the aforementioned deficits
in skills, education, and job experience.
I also believe that the endorsement of minimum wage laws by unions – as well
as of the politicians who support them (and increases in minimum wage rates),
and even, sometimes, the standards themselves – contributes to a lack of
solidarity in the labor movement, and to unnecessary animosity between
demographic groups of laborers.
While I believe that the right to strike exists independently – and
regardless of – government might and fiat, I believe that the power of public
employees to engage in collective bargaining undermines political and economic
liberty whenever and wherever they attempt to do so in an environment of
monopoly government (Statism). As such, I would support the independence and
self-sufficiency of organized labor, while opposing monopolistic governmental
jurisdiction on anti-trust grounds – and in the interests of diversity of
political association and consent of the governed – as well as first examining
how fraud and abuse may be eliminated from the state government, and
sustainable government finance and balanced budgets may be restored.
CONCLUSION
I wholeheartedly support Robert LaFollette’s dedication to peace, a humble
foreign policy, non-interventionism, opposition to belligerence, support of
American national sovereignty, civil liberties such as the freedom of speech
and ideology, voting rights, election reform, open government with direct
citizen involvement, political subsidiarity, opposition to corruption and to
the control of public policy by private and business special interests,
opposition to trusts in industry, support of consumer’s rights and interests,
social programs and individual welfare, and the struggles of organized labor.
However, LaFollette’s views on local governance and progressive economic
issues (such as minimum wage laws) leave something to be desired. Luckily,
after nearly a hundred years, developments in the economic and political
sciences – especially in the fields of free-market economics and
market-anarchist political theory – enable us to learn from the history of successes and
failures of the progressive and liberal movements how LaFollette’s shortcomings
may be corrected, and how his ideas may be supplemented and completed.
In truth, there is little daylight between the progressivism of Bob
LaFollette and the left-libertarianism of the Agorists, the market-anarchists,
the individualist-anarchists, and the classical liberals. As a candidate for
governor, I hope to – as much as possible – unite and reconcile the ideologies
subscribed to by the likes of the modern American socialist, Green,
Libertarian, Constitution, and other political parties; not just on issues like
military interventionism and civil liberties (on which they already - for the
most part - agree), but also on issues which seem to be the greatest
impediments to a solidified front against the domination of the political
ideological landscape by the two-party duopoly, especially the most fundamental
principles of such groups’ economic theories, and theories of what makes
governance and authority legitimate.
Please support me - former U.S. congressional candidate Joe Kopsick – in my campaign
for governor of Wisconsin in 2014. Putting a true political and economic
independent – neither affiliated with nor supportive of the Democrats or the
Republicans – in the Governor's Mansion will send a strong message to the
nation at large that the two-party duopoly’s days are numbered.
For
more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit: