Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts

Monday, August 17, 2020

Response to the Green Party Youth Caucus's Candidate Survey


Q1: Name?

A1: Joseph W. Kopsick.







Q2: Email?

A2: jwkopsick@gmail.com





Q3: Phone?

A3: 608-417-9395



Q4: Position Sought?

A4: U.S. Representative (10th District).




Q5: State?

A5: Illinois.






Q6: Are you running as a Green? If not, why not?

A6: No, I'm running as a write-in candidate, and trying to form a Mutualist Party in Illinois. The Green Party declined to nominate me by one vote.






Q7: Have you sought and have you been endorsed by your local party and your state party? If not, why not?

A7: I tried to get nominated by the Green Party but approval failed by one vote. I tried to get nominated by the Libertarian Party before that, and David Rych was nominated instead. I was the only person whom the state Libertarian Party ran somebody against, although I was told that it was in error and I would have been nominated if I had contacted the right person in time. But the way I lost the nomination at the state convention makes me doubt that; electronic voting failed, and then in the paper ballot round I was handed a ballot filled out with the name of my opponent instead of a blank ballot. Ideologically I am right between the Libertarian and Green parties, so I probably failed both parties' tests because I am not strongly aligned enough with one party or the other. But I believe that candidates in the middle will get more votes, while still promoting a large number of Green Party interests, because I believe that the radical middle is closer to where the average undecided and independent voter is. I want radical, swift change, but I also want lasting, constitutional reform, so I tend to mention the Constitution and the need for balanced budgets more than the average Green seems to appreciate. But the need to protect the environment, anti-war issues, and small parties' need for election reform, are progressive values that will always be important to me.





Q8: What other groups have endorsed your campaign?

A8: None so far, although I am in contact with Black Lives Matter, Stepping Stones (a sexual abuse recovery organization), and the local Green and Libertarian party chapters, concerning legislative matters related to issues they care about. My campaign manager and I are working on reaching out to more groups, including on social media.





Q9: How does your campaign help build the Green Party?

A9: Growing the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the number of independents in elected office are major goals of mine. I like to remind Libertarians that the party's co-founder David Nolan was a "Geo-Libertarian". This means that in terms of economics and tax policy, Nolan believed that Land Value Taxation is the most efficient, and least harmful, form of taxation. Milton Friedman praised L.V.T. as well. This means that Greens and Libertarians are much more compatible on environmental and tax issues than they think they are. I will promote things Greens and Libertarians agree on: decentralization, anti-war issues, civil liberties and police brutality reforms, and re-orienting tax policies across the nation in a manner which focuses on preserving the environment and the quality of land. I will advocate replacing all or most current forms of taxation - except for mineral resource exploration fees - with a tax on the unimproved value of land, and on the disuse and abuse of land in a way which makes it unusable by other potential human owners and by native species.





Q10: How does your campaign help empower youth?



A10: One of my top three issues is protecting children, together with reforming education. My proposed constitutional amendment, SKA (the Safe Kids Amendment), would reform education and child trafficking laws in a manner which protects children from kidnapping while also providing them with the skills and education they need to have middle class careers. I support bringing wood and auto shops, and other trade skills courses, back to high schools, but only for upperclassmen, and only with waiver systems, and on campuses separate from freshmen and sophomores. Additionally, as part of SKA, all states should be prohibited from allowing people under 17 to get married. I will also push for a full congressional investigation into the crimes of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.









Q11:
How do you foresee your campaign advancing liberation for frontline communities?

[Author's Note: “Frontline communities” refers to communities on the front line of potential ocean level rise due to sea ice melting which results from less and less ice melting each year due to harsher summers between those melting seasons.]


A11: Tax policy should be re-oriented so as to focus on using punitive taxation to disincentivize the degradation of land, water, and air. Sourcing all of government's taxes from the misuse and abuse of land, will help prevent environmental degradation, while improving our economy. It will help production occur with the minimum amount of pollution necessary, and for each community to set up Community Land Trusts would help ensure that no pollution and mineral extraction occur without fully compensating the community (through paying taxes and compensating the community's health costs). Refocusing a huge portion of our political economy on environmental issues and land use, will help ensure that the land is responsibly developed, without either sacrificing the environment, or sacrificing too many jobs too quickly. I additionally support a tax on land hoarding, and I support ending all subsidies to all forms of energy, to end the rigging of the energy markets.





Q12:
How do your foresee you campaign advancing anticapitalism and ecosocialism?

A12: If the question is "How do you foresee your campaign advancing ecosocialism?", then my answer is that I hope to promote Georgist (land-oriented), Mutualist, and socialist values and policy proposals, by discouraging the collection of rent, interest, and profit, but without prohibiting them. I will make it clear that these things are symptoms of the problems of monopoly; government grants the monopoly right to collect rent, interest, and/or profit to a given bank or business or certified lender. This rigs the economy; therefore rent, interest, and profit should decrease. They will only go away completely, when monopolies are broken up and defunded. I support removing all taxpayer supports of monopolies and oligopolies, to give socialists (and people wishing to build voluntary communes) the opportunity to participate in the economy with everybody else.





Q13:
How many doors do you think your campaign can knock on? How many calls can it make?

A13: My campaign currently has only a small number of volunteers, but we are in the process of finding more volunteers. We will be spreading awareness about mail-in voting, as well as the push to make mail-in voting more difficult.



Q14:
What kind of events and community involvement will your campaign have?

A14: My campaign will attempt to hold meet-and-greets, including candidate question-and-answer sessions, at local libraries, and possibly private events. We have held one meet-and-greet so far; in March in Lake Bluff.





Q15:
How much money does your campaign anticipate fundraising? And how?

A15: We are not actively fundraising. My campaign manager has donated some gifts to the campaign, in the form of paying for campaign literature and signs and advertisements to be printed. But I want to set a good example for other congressional campaigns, by not accepting corporate contributions, and having my campaign be funded (thus far) by myself and my campaign manager. I hope that other candidates follow my example, and I hope that this helps get money out of politics.



Q16:
What other groups will you seek support from?

A16: I will seek support from any and all parties, clubs, interest groups, and organizations that support civil liberties, peace, environmental justice, racial justice, equal protection of minorities, individual rights, increased ballot access for third parties and independents, decentralization of powers not specifically delegated to the federal government, and serious fiscal reform.






Q17:
What parts of the district do you think you are strongest in and why?

A17: I'm not sure. Due to my message of promoting economic reforms that would make the markets more free and more fair, I suspect that I will do the best in areas with large numbers of young people, low-income voters, and people who do not identify strongly with either the Democratic Party or Republican Party. I also believe that making environmental issues a top priority will help appeal to people across my district, because many people in Lake County live near places where industrial pollution has recently taken place.





Q18:
What forms of support would you ideally like from the Youth Caucus?

A18: I would like your endorsement, but what really matters to me are the individual write-in votes on Election Day (as well as your members' trust in me as an independent citizen-legislator). And if your members and supporters could share links about my campaign, I would appreciate it.






Q19:
What is your current online and social media presence?

A19: I am active on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and other sites.





Q20: Website?

A20: www.joekopsick.com (under construction).




Q21: Facebook?

A21:
- Personal: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012735515034
- Campaign Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/586988188625917/
- Mutualist Party of IL page: http://www.facebook.com/MutualistPartyIL/?modal=admin_todo_tour





Q22: Twitter?

A22: http://twitter.com/JoeKopsick





Q23: Other?

A23:
- My blog: www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/
- My platform: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/08/expanded-platform-for-us-house-of.html
- YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/JoeKopsick4Congress





Q24:
What is your media plan for your campaign?

A24: I believe that it will not be necessary to attempt to garner media coverage during the second half of August, because I suspect that the fact that I have made it into the League of Women Voters' debates throughout the month of September, will gain me some media coverage, without any effort on my own behalf. But I am interested in reaching out to independent media, freelance journalists, and reporters who are used to covering independent and third party runs.









Responses Written and Published on August 17th, 2020

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Abolishing the Federal Government and the Presidency in Seventeen Easy Steps

     Given the recent scandals in Washington, D.C. regarding Russian and Ukrainian spying and business deals, election sabotage and interference, and association of presidents with known child sex traffickers, it is becoming obvious to more and more Americans that the current federal government with which we are currently burdened, has become unbearably corrupt, as well as financially and morally bankrupt.
     The solution to these problems, in my opinion, must be to abolish the federal government, the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Additionally - possibly - to call for a new national government, if reassurances can be made that such a government would be tolerable). But most importantly, to incarcerate (and, if necessary, charge with treason and/or sedition) any politicians or federal officials whom have engaged in unlawful or immoral actions involving representatives of foreign governments.

     If I were asked what federal officials, and/or the president, could and should do, to abolish the federal government as soon as possible, then my advice would be what follows below.
     I would recommend that the president take as many of these sixteen steps as possible - and as quickly as possible, and in the order shown below - in order to achieve abolition of the United States federal Government as swiftly, successfully, and peaceably as possible.

     This list should be viewed as a set of stages.
     The purpose of the first two steps (Phase One) is to communicate clearly to the people why the federal government needs to be abolished. This will help ensure that the president who promises to abolish the government, has the people's trust and support when inaugurated.
     The remainder of the steps should be taken by the president as soon as possible following inauguration. Those steps include the first phase following inauguration (Phase Two). In Phase Two, the president makes sure that foreign nations recognize that the president was elected lawfully, in order to avoid an international incident, and ensure the stability of the new administration while it attempts to abolish the federal government (as the people will want it to do).
     In Phase Three, the president gives Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch officials under the president's control, one last chance (each) to cease cooperating with the continued creation and enforcement of widely unpopular and unconstitutional laws. Many of these cannot even rightfully be called laws, because most unconstitutional acts of Congress, are unconstitutional because they disregard limitations which were put in the Constitution with the specific intent of ensuring that the states and the people retained a significant and meaningful measure of the right to govern themselves (as opposed to being governed by a central authority).
     In Phase Four, the president takes all steps necessary to abolish the entire federal government (with the exception of the offices of the president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation), and issues declarations and public statements explaining and confirming these moves.
     In Phase Five (providing that most or all of steps 7 through 10 were successful), the president declares that efforts to abolish the federal government were successful, and makes statements and invitations which recognize the sovereignty and independence of the fifty states as separate countries, each with their own diplomatic authorities.
     In Phase Six (after the world has recognized the freedom of each state), the president calls for the consideration of a new national or federal government and a new constitutional convention, weighs in on this matter, fires all diplomats still employed federally, and vacates the office of the presidency (leaving nobody to succeed).



     The Seventeen Steps:

Phase One (Before Inauguration):
     Step 1: Communicate, and Campaign on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government
     Step 2: Communicate the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):
     
Step 3: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):
     Step 4: Urge Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session
     Step 5: File Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority
     Step 6: Nullify Executive Orders

Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):
     
Step 7: Revoke the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws
     Step 8: Order the Congress to Disband
     Step 9: Charge Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason
     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members
     Step 11: Order the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):
     Step 12: Declare the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People
     Step 13: Invite Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States
     Step 14: Insist Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):
     Step 15: Call for a Constitutional Convention
     Step 16: Fire All Federal Diplomats
     Step 17: Vacate the Presidency




Phase One (Before Inauguration):

     Step 1: Communicating, and Campaigning on, the Need to Abolish the Federal Government

     Make it clear that the presidential candidate, and the congressional and senatorial candidates, are running with the intent to abolish the positions for which they're running.
     It should be emphasized that various notable figures in pop culture have suggested doing without government (such as Kid Rock, who said something to the effect of "What if we decided to have no government, but everybody promised to be cool?"; and Alec Baldwin, who said, while portraying Donald Trump on N.B.C.'s Saturday Night Live, "Maybe it's time we take a break from having a president for about a year."). Forces in favor of abolishing the federal government should make it clear that they could not agree more.
     Attempt to make abolishing he federal government; incarceration of dozens of high ranking federal officials; and full investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, everyone listed in Epstein's black book of contacts, Ghislaine Maxwell, Joe and Hunter Biden, John Podesta and James Alefantis (etc.); into mainstream policies and platform planks (if possible, resulting in multiple parties adopting such positions).
    Additionally, for any officials running for federal positions having promised to work to abolish the federal government, it should be clear that they intend to return the power of attorney back to the people from which they have been borrowing it (through political representation).
     Moreover, campaigns to abolish the federal government should explain that repealing laws, and dismantling and abolishing entire departments, will drastically reduce not only government costs, but also the number of armed government law enforcement officials, as well as the number of violent attacks committed by government agents against civilians.


     Step 2: Communicating the Legal Rationale for Abolishing the Federal Government

     In order to justify, and provide legal context and rationale for the legality of, abolishing the U.S. federal Government, campaigns to abolish the federal government should cite the fact that the Declaration of Independence recognized the people's pre-existing right to alter or abolish our government if it becomes destructive of the liberties which it declared an intent to preserve.
     Additionally, at least six state constitutions recognize a right to reform, alter, or abolish government; -and many nations acknowledge the right to revolution and/or the right to rebel - so those facts should not go ignored in the president's statements.
     [Note: The Supreme Court, historically, has not considered the Declaration of Independence to be organic law, and thus the court does not consider the Declaration to be part of the U.S. Code. However, Congress traditionally has recognized the Declaration of Independence as organic law. This information may be relevant in order to pursue a successful legal defense for the case in favor of abolishing the government.]




Phase Two (Immediately After Inauguration):

     Step 3: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Legitimacy of the President's Election

     [Note: Step 3, and subsequent steps, should all be taken on January 20th, in the afternoon and evening immediately after the inauguration of the president, and within the first 24 or 48 hours of the inauguration.]
     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts whether they will affirm that the election of the president was carried out duly and legally.
     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that a presidential candidate has been elected who promised to abolish the position of president as well as the national government of the United States. This step will also help ensure that foreign nations will interact with the states in good faith, following the next several steps which the president should take to abolish the government.






Phase Three (After Achieving Recognition of the Election Results):


     Step 4: Urging Congress and the States to Convene for an Emergency Amendment Session

     The president should strongly urge Congress to convene for a brief, one-time, emergency legislative session, to give Congress one last chance to amend the Constitution in a meaningful way.
     While doing this, the president should cite the need to review the existing set of national emergencies (of which there are dozens and dozens, and probably too many); and the need to declare national emergencies regarding civil liberties, due process, government transparency, and corruption.
     The president should do this, while specifically demanding that the members of Congress authorize their own arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies, and also demanding that Congress refrain from interfering with any efforts by the states to hold a constitutional convention.
     The president should accomplish this by insisting that Congress and the states work together to immediately pass an amendment which would amend (and repeal a portion of) Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. That amendment should replacing that clause with the following language: "The Senators and Representatives shall not be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance of the Session of their respective Houses, nor in going to nor returning from the same, and in addition to any Speech or Debate in either House, they may be questioned in any other Place."
     The president should additionally insist that the convention of states consider amendments which would repeal the U.S. Constitution in its entirety and revert to a confederation, and/or abolish the office of the presidency (by striking Article II, Section 1).
     In the (extremely likely) event that Congress were to refuse to accept the president's insistence that this emergency legislation be considered (i.e., proposals to allow the arrest of congressmen for misdemeanors, revert to a confederation, and abolish the presidency), then the president should proceed with any and all plans to order the Congress to disband, since it will have signaled that it is not willing to acknowledge the right to hold a constitutional convention as acknowledged in Article V of the Constitution.



     Step 5:  Filing Lawsuits Which Could Severely Limit Federal Authority

     The president and the new administration should file lawsuits intended to make it impossible for the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid promptly weighing in on three key constitutional issues, the outcome of which rulings could have major impacts, potentially including the abolition of the federal government as we know it.
     These lawsuits include suits which will pressure the Supreme Court to issue rulings:
     1) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that Amendment XVI (income tax) was passed unlawfully;
     2) whether there is any constitutional merit to the claims that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was passed as Amendment XIII, but has been disregarded despite having been lawfully passed by Congress but not signed by the president; and
     3) whether there is a difference between "the Constitution of the United States" and "the Constitution for the United States", and additionally, within that controversy, whether the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 violates the provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 that the federal government exercise exclusive jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia itself, and limited to 100 square miles ("ten miles, squared").
     A ruling on the first issue could have the result of repealing and abolishing the income tax, which would defund the federal government by depriving the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) from collecting approximately half of the total amount of receipts from which the federal government derives its revenue. With its funding halved, the federal government will struggle to fund its enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.
     A ruling on the second issue could help prohibit federal officials - especially judges and congressmen - from receiving any form of foreign honors, titles, or privileges whatsoever. If the language in the Titles of Nobility Amendment becomes law, then federal judges will likely lose much or all of their power to issue orders which affect the states and localities.
     A ruling on the third issue will help determine whether the federal government is, in a strict legal sense, exercising exclusive jurisdiction anywhere besides the District of Columbia (for example, on federally managed and owned lands, and on U.S. military bases overseas, and in our various overseas territories and possessions, etc.).
     The president should additionally insist that the Supreme Court issue a ruling regarding whether Congress's refusal to allow an emergency convention to amend the Constitution (as described in Step 4).
     If the Supreme Court refuses to take any of these cases, then the president should call for the court to be abolished. If the justices of the Supreme Court refuse to accept their dismissal and the court's abolition, then the president should call for their arrest. These arrests could be performed by branches of the national guard, officials representing the states or community governments, and/or volunteer citizen militia wishing to assist in a citizens' arrests.



     Step 6: Nullifying Executive Orders

     The president should undertake all efforts possible to nullify all past executive orders, presidential signing statements, and line-item vetoes which remain active and have no constitutional merit. These may include executive orders which the president believes to be destructive of civil liberties, or destructive to the rights of the people to be governed in a decentralized fashion.
     The president may need to use both active and passive methods in order to accomplish this. Likely, some executive orders (etc.) can be ignored through the president refusing to issue orders to enforce them, while others may have to be accomplished through presidential actions. These may include new executive orders which invalidate old executive orders.
     Whatever the case, the presidential candidate who intends to abolish the federal government should be prepared to undertake whatever legal means necessary to rescind, or otherwise invalidate, the executive orders which still exist and have been  destructive to freedom or empowering of tyranny.
     These include, but are not limited to, executive orders which: 1) deprive accused people of the right to a trial; 2) establish and maintain secret prisons; 3) instruct officials to deprive detainees and incarcerated migrants of their right to a basic standard of health and safety while in custody; and 4) provide for "continuity of government" programs and exercises which make it difficult to abolish the federal government.






Phase Four: (If Steps 4 Through 6 Have Little to No Effect):


     Step 7: Revoking the Authority to Enforce Federal Laws

     On the president's first day in office, the president and/or the new administration should insist upon the president's right to tell all armed bureaucrats working for the federal government to surrender their badges and to return or lay down any and all arms issued to them by the federal government.
     The rationale for this should be that the president has the right, as the chief executive of the nation's armed forces, to issue orders requiring the firing and disarmament of any and all law enforcement officials continuing to claim to work for the federal government, and attempting to enforce federal laws (which will, as provided in Step 4, have been repealed en masse just prior to Step 5).



     Step 8: Ordering the Congress to Disband

     The president should make an appeal to the people, explaining that the president would not be in the White House unless the people who elected that candidate truly wanted the candidate to abolish the federal government, and truly believed that the candidate would do so if given the opportunity.
     The president should use these facts to justify and explain the president's next step: an order for the United States Congress - i.e., the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives - to disband. If the Senators and Representatives just elected, refuse their dismissal, then state or community officials (or private citizens) should remove them from the chambers of Congress, and take them into custody.



     Step 9: Charging Corrupt Officials with Sedition and Treason

     On January 20th, the president should be prepared with orders to indict all federal officials (justices, elected officials, law enforcement officers, etc.) who continue to serve under the guise and authority of the federal government, and who continue to attempt to enforce federal law.
     The list of this set of federal officials should be made up primarily of the following: 1) elected and appointed officials who abused their oaths of office by engaging in corrupt foreign business deals and/or election collusion; 2) justices, senators, and congresspersons who refused to vacate their offices; and 3) potentially dangerous federal law enforcement officials, intent on continuing to enforce federal law after the authority to do so is rescinded, whom are not likely to give up their arms without a fight.
     Most importantly, the president should be prepared to charge the first set of officials enumerated above, with sedition and/or treason (whichever is appropriate).



     Step 10: Firing the Vice President and Refusing to Nominate Cabinet Members

     The president should ask for the resignation of the running mate who was elected along with the president, and/or undertake any and all peaceable measures possible which could prevent the vice-president-elect from taking an oath of office.
     The president should also refuse to cooperate with any demands to hire a chief of staff, and also with demands to nominate cabinet members. The president should explain that at least half of those cabinet members would only end up heading federal departments which lack proper constitutional authorization (so most of what they do is unlawful).
     The president should dismiss the vice-president-elect, and refuse to hire a chief of staff and nominate a cabinet, in order to prevent those persons from being arrested for cooperating with the federal government (which they would not deserve, having been elected specifically in order to abolish the federal government).




     Step 11: Ordering the Arrest of All Persons Cooperating with the Federal Government

     The president should issue an order which will prohibit, and provide punishment of, all state and local officials, and all citizens of the states, who continue to cooperate with officials claiming to work under the auspices of anything described as a federal or national government of or for the United States.
     If circumstances merit and necessitate it, then the president should be prepared to charge any such "federal officials" - or persons aiding and abetting them - with treason (and/or sedition) against the people and the states.
     The president should issue just under two hundred exemptions, however. The president, and one diplomat for each foreign nation, should be retained, until such time as the president would be prepared to relinquish them from the federal employment rolls. This will be necessary in order to ensure that the president completes the mission to abolish the federal government, and in order to ensure that foreign nations will accept the sovereignty of each American state after that mission is over.






Phase Five (After the Federal Government is Abolished):


     Step 12: Declaring the Federal Government Legally Foreign to the States and the People

     The president should declare intent to re-affirm the only provision of the 1789 Treaty of Paris which is left standing; i.e., the provision which recognizes that the states are, and of right should be free to behave as, "free, sovereign, and independent" states.
     While issuing this declaration, the president should explain that: 1) without recognizing the freedom and sovereignty and independence of each U.S. state, they cannot rightfully be called "states"; and 2) the federal government is, legally speaking, foreign to the states, and to the people.
     The president should predicate the validity of the second point, on the facts that the federal government has alienated the people, the federal government has treated the people as strangers and aliens in their own lands (as if they had no rights), and the federal government has transported accused people to far-off secret prisons for indeterminate lengths of time and without trial (which was one of the main reasons, if not the biggest reason, the Declaration of Independence was drafted in the first place). The president should cite Grievance 8 and Grievance 9, of the Declaration, in order to explain and justify the decision to declare the states' and the people's independence from federal and national government.
     This declaration by the president should be made publicly, and should be billed as "the Second Declaration of Independence" of the United - and fully sovereign - States of America.



     Step 13: Inviting Ambassadors to Recognize the Sovereignty and Independence of the States

     The president should instruct all sitting United States ambassadors to foreign countries, to meet with their counterparts in those foreign nations, and ask those counterparts to affirm that they will not undertake any actions resisting or challenging the president's orders to dissolve and abolish national government for the United States.
     This step will help reduce the risk that an international incident (whether diplomatic or military) could flare up, at the news that the national government is unstable or could soon disappear (because the federal government's abolition is likely to have far-reaching and grave effects on the state of world peace and world finance, as well as on the state of society and the freedom revolution at home).
     Diplomats from the United Kingdom, in particular, should be invited to re-affirm what it affirmed in 1789 when that nation recognized that America was no longer under British control. Namely, that - as provided in the 1789 Treaty of Paris - the American states remain free, independent, and sovereign. 
     This step may, and hopefully will, have the effect of insuring against attempts from within the remnants of the federal government, to either: 1) engage in collusion with foreign governments abroad; 2) challenge or depose the president, or to create another national government; or 3) invade with a foreign army, thus occupying the states with a national government (albeit a foreign one).



     Step 14: Insisting Upon the States' Freedom to Conduct Diplomacy and Join the United Nations

     Immediately upon completing the tasks of ordering the abolition of the federal government, the president should point to the fact of widespread approval of that move, to make it clear that the authority to engage in diplomacy and trade, is now vested in the states themselves, or in the people.
     Next, the president should communicate with all fifty state governors, and insist that those states have the right to join the United Nations, to participate in its programs independently, and to participate in international diplomatic and trade deals without consulting any other governmental body. The president should also insist that each governor extend invitations for foreign diplomats to meet in their states' capitals, to acknowledge the sovereignty of each state, separately and in person.
     If necessary, the president should defend this insistence upon full state sovereignty, by citing the fact that even the Soviet Union (with its storied reputation for repression of both civil liberties and democracy) allowed the Ukraine and Belarus to be members of the United Nations long before the Soviet Union was finished being dismantled.







Phase Six (After the World Has Recognized the Independence of the States):


     Step 15: Calling for a Constitutional Convention

     [Note: This step should only be taken if, and after, it has become abundantly clear that there no longer remain any realistic challenges to the new administration's authority, nor to the federal government's abolition, nor to the states' total sovereignty and independence.]
     The president should call for a second constitutional convention of states. As provided in Article V, no amendment shall be considered which could potentially violate the provisions of Article I, Section 9 as amended.
     In defending the move to call for a constitutional convention, without citing the Constitution's authority, the president should cite the fact that Article V of the U.S. Constitution (which authorized constitutional convention) remained law before the president's inauguration, but was never taken seriously by Congress or enough state governors to make such a convention happen. This made reforming the federal government all but impossible, and made revolution or abolition inevitable.
     The president should call for a constitutional convention of states, to determine whether to create a new national or federal government. However, the president should insist that, if such a government is created, then it should only happen on the condition that the Bill of Rights is strengthened and clarified (or, at the very least, left alone).
     [Note: In my opinion, Amendments II, V, IX, and X could benefit the most from clarifying and modernizing language, through better encapsulating the spirit of liberty which informed the original intentions and original meanings of those amendments.]
     If a new national or federal government is formed as the result of these proceedings, then the most important matters which should be considered in the creation of new amendments, should revolve around: 1) what the structure of the new government should be, and in that issue, how to safeguard civil liberties and severely and explicitly limit the government's powers (which would hopefully include language resembling the suggested amendment outlined in Step 4); 2) how to have free, fair, and open elections; and 3) which measures to adopt in order to ensure the financial security of the new government (and the national economy in general).



     Step 16. Firing All Federal Diplomats

     The president should fire all diplomats still employed by the federal government (which shall have been retained this long solely for the purposes of ensuring international recognition of the legitimacy of the new administration).



     Step 17: Resigning the Presidency and Vacating the Oval Office

     Before the states and the people decide whether to convene for a constitutional convention, the president should announce resignation from the office of the President of the United States - and announce an intent that the office of the presidency be vacated forever, from this day forward (hopefully January 21st) - in a public address which explains the reasons for doing so.
     That address should include the president's thoughts regarding whether a constitutional convention should take place, and whether there is a justification for any national or federal government to exist again in the territory once occupied by the United States federal Government.
     The president should also communicate an opinion about whether positions like the presidency, the chief executive, and the unitary executive, ought to exist or be trusted ever again. This will help make it clear to the people that the president truly is about to become the last president (or, at least, the last president under this current constitution) upon the resignation that follows this address.
     If this public address is not televised live, then it should be either pre-recorded and broadcasted, or else a statement to the same effect should be sent to members of the press and officials representing the fifty states.
     If this public address is broadcast live, then the president should be shown signing a letter of resignation live on television, and then, the president should insist that everyone present in the Oval Office, leave the room immediately (i.e., the president and any remaining members of the president's retinue, members of the press, and/or any state governors or foreign diplomats invited and present for the resignation).





     Those interested in these topics may additionally wish to read my 2011 article "The Spooner Amendment", a suggested list of reforms to the U.S. Constitution. That article is available at the following address:




Based on Notes Taken on October 17th, 2019
Written on October 25th and 31st, 2019

Published on October 31st, 2019
Originally Published Under the Title
"Fourteen Recommendations Regarding How to Abolish
the Federal Government and the Presidency"

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Local Man Enters Race for U.S. House: Congressional Press Release (Extended Version)

Table of Contents

1. Local Man Seeks U.S. House Seat
2. Kopsick's Theory of Government and Legislative Priorities
3. Restoring Transparency to Government
4. Reducing Military Spending and Paying Off the National Debt
5. Taxation
6. Poverty, Work, Boycotts, Welfare, and Licenses
7. Reforming Education in a Manner Which Protects Children
8. Reforming Ages of Consent
9. Health Policy and Abortion
10. Conclusion



Content



1. Local Man Seeks U.S. House Seat

     On Monday, August 19th, 2019, at the monthly meeting of the Libertarian Party of Lake County, local essayist and frequent candidate Joseph W. Kopsick announced his intention to run for the U.S. House of Representatives.
     Mr. Kopsick, 32, seeks the seat representing Illinois's 10th Congressional District. Kopsick, a native of Lake Bluff and a current resident of Waukegan, will run as an independent write-in candidate, but is also considering seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party and other parties. Kopsick is an advocate of limited constitutional government, supports dealing with most issues on a local basis, and would aim to reduce the number of federal departments by between five and seven.
     Kopsick pledges to operate as a home style politician, focusing his campaign and office resources on Illinois's 10th District. He would also support legislative efforts to impose term limits upon of the office of U.S. Representative, as well as to reduce the salary and benefits of that position. Kopsick intends these reforms as steps towards establishing a government in which all public service is done on a volunteer basis, and he hopes to author legislation which would allow recall elections for all officials in all jurisdictions.
     Joseph W. Kopsick attended Lake Bluff and Lake Forest public schools, and has lived in Lake County, Illinois his whole life, aside from a few years spent in Wisconsin and Oregon during his twenties. In 2009, Kopsick graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, where he studied U.S. government, legal philosophy, political science, political theory, and other related topics. Kopsick lived in Portland, Oregon briefly from 2013 to 2015, where he conducted independent research on homelessness and independent business alliances affecting the area. Mr. Kopsick ran for U.S. House of Representatives three times previously; from Wisconsin's 2nd District in 2012, Oregon's 3rd District in 2014, and Illinois's 10th District in 2016.
     Kopsick hopes to use his education in political theory and legal ethics – as well as his subsequent independent studies of alternative proposals for economic systems - to bring a fresh perspective to legislation. Kopsick hopes that this perspective will guide voters and legislators to support and author new legislative proposals which will help to achieve both freedom and equality for all those who reside in the United States.


2. Kopsick's Theory of Government and Legislative Priorities

     Kopsick describes himself as a political independent, an “open borders libertarian” who supports “minimal vetting” at the border, and a supporter of “markets, not capitalism”. He supports restoring freedom through reviving the 9th Amendment (thus ending the government's monopoly to issue licenses and permits), and revoking the government's powers to create and insure corporations, and revoking its powers to subsidize businesses and pass legislation which favors them and insulates them from competition and legal responsibility.
     Kopsick supports the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and would consider replacing it with what he calls a “truly optional public option” such as “Medicare for All Who Want It” or “Medicare for All, but Opt Out”. Kopsick believes that the Republicans do have a viable health plan, but he would not support the “state lines plan” unless accompanied with additional reforms providing for tax relief and price relief.
     Kopsick is pro-choice - and supports keeping abortion legal, free, and safe – but he opposes funding abortion with taxpayer funds. Kopsick additionally supports prohibiting infanticide and third-term abortions, and hopes to reduce the number of abortions without resorting to any legislative means, besides those prohibitions, to do so. Kopsick opposes federal gun control; and supports strengthening the 2nd Amendment, in a manner which empowers Americans to stay armed, while also taking steps toward abolishing draft registration and the Selective Service.

     Kopsick's top five most urgent legislative priorities are: 1) limiting and re-negotiating the power and scope of the federal government; 2) enacting serious budget solvency reforms while paying off the national debt; 3) reforming markets which Kopsick considers “rigged”, “unfree”, and plagued with monopolies and taxpayer-funded special privileges; 4) reforming schools, and child protection and custody laws, in a manner which keeps children safe while preparing them with the education and skills they will need for a technologically advanced economy; and 5) advocating for the increased taxation of unimproved land value (Land Value Taxation) by the most local agencies possible, while reducing taxes upon sources of revenue other than unimproved land value. Kopsick additionally supports replacing the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) with "Community Land Trusts" in every community or county, in order to keep environmental issues as local as possible.
     Kopsick hopes to avoid having to overturn Citizens United, but supports numerous reforms to ballot access and the Electoral College which will give independents and third parties the assistance they need to compete fairly with established parties. Kopsick hopes that, by reducing the set of issues in which the federal government is involved, it will be unnecessary to overturn Citizens United, because money will leave politics as soon as lobbyists realize that elected officials are strictly prohibited from regulating industries which the lobbyists wish them to regulate in favor of the interests they represent.
     Kopsick believes he can reduce political strife and social conflict by focusing on “objectively desirable, popular reforms” which he says include limiting government, balancing budgets and restoring fiscal sanity, and ending business privileges which rig markets and stop customers from being able to make choices. Kopsick also considers election reform, infrastructure, and veterans' issues to be among the least divisive issues, which could potentially help unite the nation behind a clear set of principles regarding what the government is supposed to do for us.


3. Restoring Transparency to Government

     Kopsick supports making government more transparent, and more responsive to residents' demands of their various government agencies and contractors; but he also believes that government shouldn't do too much, and that the federal government has overstepped its bounds. Kopsick hopes to reconcile these opposing viewpoints by using the amendment process outlined in the Constitution, to “amend the Constitution constitutionally”.
     Kopsick's plan is to scale-back federal authorities widely considered legitimate (even though they aren't) while empowering the states or the people to take up as many of those same authorities as they wish. Kopsick believes that this framework will avoid growing government, and avoid growing it too quickly, as long as budgets are balanced, budget balancing measures and debt limits are strictly enforced, and federal vs. state powers are strictly delineated and separated. Kopsick supports numerous amendments which would limit the legislative and punitive powers, privileges from arrest, debt contracting powers, term limits, and judicial privileges, of government officials.
     Kopsick opposes numerous congressional procedural tricks which bypass traditional separation of powers, because they leave many modern programs without proper constitutional authorization. These procedural tricks, Kopsick says, include oversteps of presidential reorganizational authority to create new cabinet positions and departments and czars, line-item vetos, congress handing its powers over to the president, fast-track programs, and supercommittees.
     Kopsick warns that these procedural tricks and bypasses have been the cause of the vast majority of improper expansion of government over the past century, which is why he supports changing federal legislation through taking the 6 months to 7 years necessary to pass constitutional amendments instead.


4. Reducing Military Spending and Paying Off the National Debt

     On the national debt: Kopsick supports enacting serious and comprehensive budgetary and taxation reforms which will commit the government to pay off the national debt within 23 years, thereby restoring faith in our creditors, and increasing the value of our bonds and our currency.
     Kopsick hopes that putting America on a path to fiscal solvency, and keeping the value of the dollar high, will help avoid the need to increase the federal minimum wage. Kopsick cautions voters that the minimum wage affects less people than we are often told it does, and believes that employees earning minimum wage should receive assistance through price relief and a decreased burden of taxation on ordinary earned income, rather than through government assistance. Kopsick supports reducing social safety net and welfare spending, but not before cutting military, energy, and other commercial and corporate subsidies.
     Kopsick observes that America outspends the next 19 countries combined on military, and so he believes that we cannot justify continuing such high rates of military spending as we are seeing now. Kopsick supports making as much military spending discretionary as possible, strictly prohibiting bills providing for military expenditures from lasting for more than two years. He also supports withdrawing all troops, American military contractors, and military bases from as many countries as possible – some 800 to 1000 military bases, and troops in roughly 150 countries – while restricting the distance from U.S. shores from which troops can stray during peacetime. In addition to these reforms to the military, Kopsick supports reforms which would “end Big Brother programs” (like domestic and foreign surveillance, use of drones without permission of the host country) and limit the use of military equipment by local police departments.
     Kopsick believes that these reforms – as well as devolving the entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) to the states – will help reduce the federal budget to $2 trillion. Kopsick aims to reduce overall federal spending from $4 trillion to $2 trillion as soon as possible, while continuing to collect $3 trillion in tax revenues annually, as the federal government is doing now. Kopsick says that the national debt can be paid off by requiring a trillion-dollar budget surplus as soon as the government's total budget and scope can be halved; and by “spending a trillion less than we take in each year, instead of spending a trillion more than we take in each year”, and doing it for 23 years in a row, while paying off our debtors with 100% of those funds.


5. Taxation

     On tariffs: Although Kopsick admits that tariffs are easy to justify constitutionally, he does not think they are economically productive, nor wise, because he observes that American domestic importers pay those tariffs, not foreign sellers (as we think they do). The costs of tariffs are absorbed by importers, but some costs are passed onto foreign sellers, as well as to domestic manufacturers who use imported products, and customers who buy finished products made from materials that originated in foreign countries. Kopsick believes that tariffs only help us “shoot ourselves in the foot”, increasing the costs of all goods in all countries affected. That's why Kopsick supports reducing tariffs to zero “without bullying other nations into lowering their tariffs first”.
     On other forms of taxes: Kopsick believes in taxing monopolies, corporate income, capital gains, inheritance, and sales of luxury items, before resorting to taxing ordinary items with sales taxes and tariffs, and before resorting to taxing income from wages. Kopsick believes that if local governments instituted Land Value Taxation (taxing unimproved land value, while refraining from taxing improvements upon land, such as buildings and labor), then more income tax and sales tax revenues would be available for progressively less local levels of government. Kopsick asserts that all government could potentially be funded through Land Value Taxation, observing that the total cost of all government in the United States is the same amount which modern students of Henry George (who originated Land Value Taxation) estimate could be collected by taxing “kept economic rents”.


6. Poverty, Work, Boycotts, Welfare, and Licenses

     Kopsick believes that a U.S. representative should understand how the Constitution and free market systems are supposed to work, even if they aren't working properly anymore. Kopsick plans to support all measures which end the redistribution of revenues from the working poor to wealthy companies, while advocating for increased economic education in schools and among elected officials.
     Kopsick hopes to see more libertarians, and more students of economics, studying how diverse sets of economists and politicians predict technology will change the economy over the coming decades, and hopes to see more libertarians studying economic proposals such as Georgism and Mutualism.
     Kopsick has proposed numerous suggestions – related to land, housing, money, credit, markets, and automation – which he believes will result in drastically reduced prices for most items. This, coupled with tax relief, he says, will help the working poor, struggling families, and perpetually out-of-work people, afford their daily needs much more easily. Kopsick says this framework will help avoid the need to resort to untenable unconstitutional proposals and anti-free-market or anti-competitive legislation in order to solve the problem of people struggling to pay for their daily needs.

     Kopsick opposes increasing the minimum wage, but concern for the employability of the poor at high wages is one of the reasons why he takes that position. Instead of raising the minimum wage, Kopsick would help the poorest Americans by enacting proposals aiming to reduce the mistreatment of the poor and homeless by government agencies, businesses, and charity organizations; and by passing legislation prohibiting governments and border agents from interfering with mutual aid organizations, charities, and religious organizations providing food relief, medical treatment, or shelter to people in need (regardless of their citizenship status).
     Kopsick opposes taxpayer funding for immigrant welfare, except as necessary to keep detainees alive, healthy, and well-rested while in government custody. Kopsick says that establishing and providing a basic minimum of care will help reduce immigrants' need for government medical assistance. Kopsick hopes to limit government by allowing residents to opt-out of most or all government services, including immigrant welfare and abortion; so he would not seek to prohibit the provision of relief to immigrants (nor citizens) when the revenues in question are acquired through voluntary, consensual cooperative pooling of funds by willing participants. Kopsick says that one way to achieve this is to allow taxpayers to check-off government programs they wish to pay for, on their tax forms (or else by experimenting with such a system, until it can be determined whether citizens could responsibly control 100% of government spending).
     Kopsick additionally wishes to author a congressional resolution which would acknowledge that the 9th Amendment implicitly recognizes certain freedoms which are necessary in order to survive (among them, the rights to work, eat, hunt, forage, and travel), and he hopes to see hitchhiking become legal in all U.S. states and territories. Kopsick believes that, by increasing our understanding of, and respect for, the 9th Amendment, we can diminish the need for government monopolies on the issuing of licenses and permits.

     Kopsick hopes to repeal some of the federal laws which he feels unfairly turns our rights to work, form unions, prompt negotiation with management, and go on strike – and our right to “vote with our wallet” (that is, to practice ethical consumerism by boycotting companies we don't like) – into privileges which government can take away. If elected, Kopsick would author and propose legislation to “make boycotts fully legal”; Kopsick says this will require repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, as well as abolishing all bailouts and subsidies, revoking government's ability to create new L.L.C.s, drastically reducing the duration of patent protections, and revoking other forms of taxpayer-funded supports and privileges for businesses which give them an unfair advantage in the market.
     Kopsick says these reforms will lead to a truly free market, wherein companies have to compete by providing better products and/or better prices, instead of relying on taxpayer funds to keep their businesses afloat. Kopsick hopes these reforms will lead to increased price competition, which he says allows supply and demand to meet naturally at an equilibrium price, allowing markets to clear. This is how, as Kopsick says, “free markets lead to free stuff”.


7. Reforming Education in a Manner Which Protects Children

     Kopsick has released a comprehensive plan to reform public school policies, as well as other areas of law, in a manner which protects children's safety, while also preparing them with the skills and education they will need for the future. On higher education, Kopsick supports ending F.A.F.S.A. and Sallie Mae – while, if necessary, supporting a boycott of public universities and colleges, in order to reduce costs of tuition – alongside forgiveness of 100% of public university debt.
     Kopsick supports an “original intent” interpretation of the Constitution which precludes the federal government from intervening in matters related to education, health, welfare, labor, sponsorship of commerce, energy, land outside of the District of Columbia, and other policy areas not mentioned in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution, without proper authorization via a constitutional amendment. As such, Kopsick supports ending the federal government's involvement in education, barring a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing it to exercise such authority, and barring the adoption of a set of reforms which Kopsick has recommended be immediately implemented in as many school districts as possible. He has said that he will comment on national issues upon which the federal government is not properly authorized to legislate, but only until the federal government is no longer involved in the issue at hand.

     On primary education, Kopsick opposes setting national education standards, and would urge states to set their own standards. Kopsick wants school tests to rely less on rote memorization and multiple-choice tests, and more on tests containing questions that require students to actually know the answer and understand the subject matter. Kopsick additionally supports increased civics and life skills education, and wants economics classes to teach about “post-scarcity economics” and economists' critiques of economies based on competition and currency. If elected to Congress, Kopsick hopes to propose and support legislative efforts to allow and encourage states to experiment with alternative economic proposals such as state public banks, universal basic income guarantees, social credit systems, local currencies and currencies backed by labor and natural resources, natural resource dividends, Land Value Taxation and split-rate taxation, and other proposals.
     Kopsick supports bringing auto shop classes, wood shop classes, and gun training courses to high schools, but only with waiver systems (signed by student and parents) protecting the school from liability, and only for juniors and seniors. Kopsick believes that public schools would work best if more high schools taught freshmen and sophomores on a campus separate from juniors and seniors. Kopsick says the benefits of such reforms include: 1) facilitating different sets of needs in regards to the parking of vehicles, 2) keeping children under 16 away from dangerous equipment in auto and wood shop classes, and 3) reducing the age range of students attending high school campuses from 6 (if you include skipped-forward and held-back students) to 3.


8. Reforming Ages of Consent

     Kopsick has published numerous proposals which would protect children, but do not pertain to education; such as proposals to investigate child trafficking by agencies of government, and in other industries such as sports and entertainment. Kopsick shares the Libertarian Party of Illinois's concern – and the concern of its last nominee for governor – that divorce laws, family court laws, and Social Security Title IV-D (child support) must be reformed, in order to prevent the unjust taking of children into government custody in divorce proceedings when no physical or sexual abuse has been alleged, and in order to prevent the unjust taking of biological children into custody on legal grounds which only intended to allow the taking into custody of adopted children.
     Kopsick would also aim to reduce the separation of families at the border, and thus reduce the chance for physical and sexual abuse of children while in government custody, by requiring border patrol officials to conduct minimally invasive visual assessments to determine whether migrants are kidnapping the children they're with. Kopsick also supports abolishing I.C.E., which has only existed for 16 years, and which Kopsick says should be considered legally inadmissible because it was “rushed through Congress under duress” during the wave of post-9/11 hysteria.

     Kopsick subscribes to the “Non-Aggression Principle”, the idea that disputes and conflicts ought to be resolved without violence if at all possible. A libertarian, Kopsick believes that not only does government resort to violence all too often to enforce its order, but also that the very concept of the state is intrinsically predicated upon the idea that legalized violence, violent enforcement, territorialism, and monopolizing resources. Kopsick believes that government, society, and the economy should run on the concepts of voluntary participation in contracts and government programs, reciprocity, mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, and assurances that people will follow through on their promises and contracts.
     Kopsick says that, although the Enumerated Powers don't formally authorize the federal government to set ages of consent, such laws can and should be implemented properly via the amendment process, because a more or less uniform set of ages of consent is necessary; not only to establish a vague age required for marriage and contracts, etc., but also to reduce the likelihood that children will be trafficked across state lines for various purposes related to those limitations.
     As such, Kopsick would author legislation providing for formal constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in such policy areas – if necessary, calling for a constitutional convention, calling the states together to establish a uniform set of laws on these issues (but only as long as such a convention can be held without risking civil liberties being negotiated away).
     Kopsick hopes to offer guidance to help the federal and state governments establish more uniform sets of laws pertaining to ages of consent for various activities (including a ban, in all states, on child marriage for minors under 16). Kopsick wants to increase the federal age of consent from 12 to 15 or 16, while narrowing the age differences prescribed in state “Romeo and Juliet” laws to within two years, in a manner which will stop the fact of federal jurisdiction from preventing states from prosecuting interstate child trafficking when the federal government will not do so.
     According to Kopsick, all of these reforms - to ages of consent, schools, and other issues – will result in significantly increased rates of prosecution for child trafficking, and for molestation while in school and government custody.
     Kopsick notes that, while the State of Illinois is increasing the age of tobacco purchase, it is lowering the age a child has to be in order to be left at home unsupervised. Kopsick says this doesn't make sense, and supports authorizing the federal government – through a proper constitutional amendment - to prohibit states from setting most ages of consent (for voting, contracts, marriage, sex, tobacco, etc.) lower than 16 or higher than 18, while prohibiting states from setting the age of alcohol purchase lower than 18 or higher than 21. Kopsick supports allowing minors as young as 14 to drive, provided that they learn to drive outside of public school. Kopsick wants to see twenty-five more states legalize voting by 17-year-olds in primaries, as long as they will turn 18 by Election Day.

     On other electoral issues: Observing that many states allow 18-year-olds to serve as mayors and governors, Kopsick would urge states to lower the age at which officials can be elected or appointed, to 18. Kopsick has proposed numerous other reforms to elections, including allowing states to continue to have radically different laws concerning how their Electoral College votes will be allocated (or, if that is untenable, then reforming the Electoral College and the Congress by getting rid of the Senate and electing the president through the popular vote). Kopsick also supports increased ballot access for third parties; including equal signature collection requirements for all parties, “jungle primaries”, and ranked-choice voting.


9. Health Policy and Abortion

     Although Kopsick opposes federal involvement in health care and health insurance policy without a constitutional amendment, Kopsick believes that a “Medicare for All” -type program could be maximally economically efficient (as long as no money is lost to bureaucracies and politicians), while a “Medicare for All Who Want It”, “Medicare for All, But Opt Out” or “public option” type system would help preserve choice better than Medicare for All would.
     Instead of authorizing the federal government to negotiate on drug prices, Kopsick would strike at the root of the problem; by ending medical companies' monopolies, subsidies, and special privileges. Kopsick supports applying his “free markets lead to free stuff” idea to health care, achieving price relief on health items by reducing the lifespan of pharmaceutical patents and medical devices, while giving non-profit health organizations tax-free status, and giving medical professionals tax write-offs to provide free care.
     Kopsick believes that a low-tax, non-profit environment – along with voluntary participation in government health programs, in a free interstate market for health insurance – will help reduce the prices of health goods and services, while unleashing a torrent of innovation in regards to new research and development into new medical technologies. Kopsick supports using free enterprise and strictly limited intellectual property protections to encourage innovation, rather than investing taxpayer funds into R&D.

     On abortion, Kopsick is pro-choice, but with exceptions; his platform includes a proposal reading “Allow abortion, but don't subsidize it”. Kopsick opposes the expenditure of taxpayer funds on abortion and organizations providing abortion, whenever those funds are collected without the consent of the individual taxpayer. Kopsick would author legislation providing for the punishment of medical professionals who allow babies to die after being born alive as the result of failed abortions, and who commit infanticide while calling it late-term abortion.
     Kopsick believes that Roe v. Wade has been as destructive as it has been helpful, in regards to ensuring access to abortion. Kopsick supports prohibiting abortion in the third trimester, but requiring all states to allow people to pay for abortions as they please, without the help of involuntary taxpayer funding, and allowing free legal access to abortion services in the first and second trimester so as to avoid any need for late-term abortion.
     Kopsick believes that keeping abortion free, but unsupported by taxpayer funds, will help reduce a lot of the moral and social differences in our society. Kopsick says that by aiming to reduce abortions – without supporting prohibitions on abortions before the third trimester – and believes that, by keeping access to contraception, adoption services, and surrogacy (as well as allowing research into womb transplants), the demand for abortion can be drastically reduced, without the need for government intervention.


10. Conclusion

     Kopsick currently works as a private security officer at various locations throughout Lake County. In his spare time, he enjoys playing guitar and piano, making mashup music, and drawing.

     Kopsick manages a blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, which can be found at www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. Kopsick plans to launch an official personal website, featuring a section on campaigns. Voters can read his platform by visiting that blog, and reading Kopsick's August 2019 articles “Reform or Abolition: Thirty-Point Basic Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020” and “Expanded Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020”.

     The election for U.S. Representative from Illinois's 10th District will be held on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, the same day as the election for president and vice president of the United States.
     In addition to Mr. Kopsick, who filed as an independent, three other candidates have filed to run for the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10th District; the incumbent Democrat, another Democrat, and a Republican.



Written on August 25th, 2019
Published on August 25th, 2019

Edited on August 27th and 28th, 2019


Links to Documentaries About Covid-19, Vaccine Hesitancy, A.Z.T., and Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory

      Below is a list of links to documentaries regarding various topics related to Covid-19.      Topics addressed in these documentaries i...