Half of the Federal Laws Do Not Apply to All Americans: Explaining Positive vs. Non-Positive Law

Table of Contents

Part I: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and Dual Federalism

Part II: Positive Law vs. Non-Positive Law

Part III: Additional Resources

Content

Part I: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and Dual Federalism

     It would seem absurd, at first, to suggest that about half of the federal laws do not apply to all Americans. But considering the text of the Tenth Amendment, it should come as no surprise.

     Amendment X to the Constitution for the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

     Many Democrats, and people on the left, will argue this is a “states' rights” perspective - and that this perspective is outdated, useless, and not favored by the current Democratic administration- and use this line of reasoning to conclude that Congress and the national government must reign supreme over nearly every issue. This argument is incorrect, however, and the Tenth Amendment remains the law.

     Furthermore, this is not necessarily a “states' rights” perspective, or at least it is not solely a “states' rights” perspective. The Tenth Amendment guarantees that powers are reserved to the states “or to the people”. “States' righters” and populists both benefit from the Tenth Amendment.

     This populist view is perfectly valid in and of itself, as well, since the Ninth Amendment appears to suggest that our rights don't come from the Constitution, and don't even come from the law. The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

     Basically, the fact that not every right is listed in the Constitution, doesn't necessarily mean that that right doesn't exist. Your rights are so numerous that the Constitution couldn't possibly name all of them.

     The Ninth Amendment also suggests that the people's freedoms supersede the needs of our states, if the people wish to refrain from making state-level statutes on all possible policy issues. If our rights don't come from the Constitution, nor from the law, then doesn't our right to thrive necessitate that we have a trade or engage in some sort of work?

     If the state licenses every profession, then those of us who wish to distance ourselves from the state, or boycott it, are reduced to hunting, foraging, and fishing in order to survive. We can survive, but not thrive, if every single profession is regulated by a state-level professional regulation. That is why it is necessary to nullify the states', and the federal governments', supposed authorities to regulate our lives and the way we make a living.

     This is why it is necessary to discuss the Tenth Amendment. I'm not the person who decided to start calling that “the states' rights amendment”, and I wish that it had never been called that. Before and during the Civil War, the State of Wisconsin, and other abolitionists, cited the Tenth Amendment, Jeffersonian nullification, and jury nullification, to oppose the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. The Tenth Amendment can be used as a tool of states to enforce their order, and it can be used to free large numbers of people from slavery and from control of the federal government at the same time.

     The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution specifically to prevent the federal government's size and scope from expanding too much. Critics of the amendment may argue that limiting the federal government's power breeds corruption, but term limits are a form of limitations upon government, and many opponents of the Tenth Amendment agree with term limits.

     Limited government, and the Tenth Amendment, are useful, because they help separate national affairs from state and local affairs, and separate national affairs from the people's own business. At least that is what the Tenth Amendment was intended to achieve.

     The concept of dual federalism is that, as it pertains to regulation, the spheres of influence over certain policy topics are split between the federal government and the states. The federal government's powers are specifically enumerated in Articles I through III of the U.S. Constitution – with Congress's powers listed in Article I – while all those powers not mentioned therein, are reserved to the states or to the people.

     Ignorance of the contents of Article I Section 8 – the "Enumerated Powers"; that is, the specifically authorized powers of Congress – has led us to believe that Congress has powers that it simply does not have. These include the supposed powers to regulate the following policy topics at a national level:

- health / Medicare & Medicaid
- energy
- the environment (E.P.A.)
- retirement / Social Security
- welfare
- child support
- federal income taxes
- housing and urban development
- banking (aside from bankruptcies)
- immigration (aside from establishing a uniform rule of naturalization)
- building interstate highways
- building Post Offices
- management of lands outside the District of Columbia
- protecting patents whose durations are routinely increased
- the wages and union negotiations of people not employed by the federal government

     None of these things are authorized by the Constitution, if you read Clauses 1 through 17 of Article I Section 8 as what it is, a list of all powers which have been specifically granted to Congress.

     The following list is a summary of the powers which Congress has:

 - the power to regulate the military
- the power to coin money and regulate its value
- the power to establish post roads
- the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
- the power to lay and collect taxes (within certain limits) and borrow money
- the power to regulate interstate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the tribes
- the power to establish tribunals and courts
- the power to protect patents for a limited time
- the power to punish piracy and felonies committed on the high seas
- authority over lands purchased by the government (mostly for reasons essential to national defense)

     This is not an exhaustive list. Please see the original text of Article I Section 8 for the full list of Congress's powers.

     The president and the Supreme Court also have their own powers which I have not mentioned here.

     When the Tenth Amendment says all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people, it means that all powers not specifically mentioned in Article I (Legislative Branch), Article II (Executive Branch) and Article III (Judicial Branch) are just that: reserved to the states or to the people.

     This means that the first list that you see above, is a list of policy topics, and problems, which are supposed to be regulated, and solved, by the people or their state governments; not the federal government. Also, it means that the second list consists of what the federal government is allowed to do and the states are not allowed to do (except for the power to lay and collect taxes, which both are allowed to do).

     What this all means is that, whenever the federal government is attempting to enforce a law on health, environment, education, retirement, welfare, etc., it is actually breaking the law (the law I'm referring to, being, of course, the Constitution, and specifically Amendment X). The federal government is in violation of the Tenth Amendment – which is both a law and a limitation upon the federal government's ability to create law – whenever it tries to enforce acts of Congress which pertain to that first list of policy topics.

     But the point of this article is not to focus primarily on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, nor on the delineation that is supposed to exist between the national government and our state governments. I have included this information only for its use as a review of the background for the point of view that approximately half of federal laws are not binding upon all Americans.

     It is necessary to review the Ninth and Tenth Amendment – and dual federalism, and how they limit Congress and the rest of the national government – to illuminate us as to why this radical view should be acceptable in the first place.

     It is one thing to assert that the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and dual federalism still hold meaning and value in today's society; in 2021, nearly 250 years after the Constitution was ratified. But it is another thing to prove that these laws on health, environment, welfare, and retirement were never constitutional, and never binding law upon all Americans, in the first place.

     But we can prove that that is the case, through the study of the difference between positive law and non-positive law; and then, by understanding which sections of U.S. Code are positive law, and which sections are non-positive law.

Part II: Positive Law vs. Non-Positive Law

     Positive law is called positive law because it posits something. That is, it takes a position that somebody is obligated to perform a positive action. Positive law is law that obligates people to do something.

     Positive law is binding upon all Americans, and the set of sections of U.S. Code which are positive law, include those which outline how the military is supposed to behave, and how the flag is supposed to look, and other things related to basic official duties of the government, as a government.

     Non-positive law, on the other hand, is law which does not obligate people to do anything, unless they are part of a certain class of people. Unless you elect to engage in certain behaviors – such as committing federal crimes like piracy or treason, or earning income which is legally taxable by the federal government – then the law in question does not apply to you.

     If you belong to a federally protected group of people, or a certain class of people which is obviously under the national government's regulatory purview and protection (such as the military, and all federal workers), then sections of the U.S. Code which are non-positive law, may apply to you.

     The reason why all American workers didn't get their wages increased to $10.10 an hour, after President Obama appeared to call for that, is because the federal government can't raise the wages of people it doesn't employ, except for those employees whom are covered under the federal government's minimum wage law protections as outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (F.L.S.A.).
     State governments decide whether state employees get raises, and private entities decide whether their employees get raises. Additionally, state governments are free to set their minimum wage rates higher or lower than the federal government's, and this is completely legal and constitutional.

     A new federal minimum wage raise has been projected to affect only 0.2% of non-tipped workers, which is less than 1 in 500 workers considering that tipped workers exist as well. So why, if far less than one percent of American workers will be affected, are people jumping up and down at the thought that they're going to get a raise?
     Could it be because they're reading articles such as the one below? Author David Cooper claims that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would "lift wages for 33 million workers". That is probably true; if the federal minimum wage were to apply to all American workers, which it doesn't. Mr. Cooper evidently made his projection based solely on mathematics and his own hopes, without allowing the issue of which workers the federal minimum wage pertains to, to enter into the equation.
     http://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-15-by-2025/
     The Wikipedia entry for "Minimum wage in the United States" says, "Employers generally have to pay workers the highest minimum wage prescribed by federal, state or local laws." However, that sentence does not have its own source. Furthermore, not only are states free to set lower minimum wages than the federal government's minimum wage; two states are still doing it (Georgia and Wyoming). Additionally, five states have not even adopted a state minimum wage: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

     This is happening because not all American workers are subject to the wage protections to which the federal minimum wage laws pertain. Only the lowest-paid federal workers, and the lowest paid workers covered under the F.L.S.A. will see their wages increase, if the federal minimum wage increases.

     Read this table about minimum wage laws in the United States. Under "jurisdiction", next to "federal", you will see that it says "Fair Labor Standards Act". This is because only the workers covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act are the ones who are subject to the federal minimum wage law protections.
     http://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped

     When Obama called for a $10.10 minimum wage, he was referring to the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which Tom Harkin proposed and co-sponsored in 2013. Harkin was the sole co-sponsor, so it's likely that Obama's support - and maybe even Harkin's as well - were intended solely as symbolic moves. The Minimum Wage Fairness Act never passed. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, the same as it has been since July 2009 (Obama's first year in office). Obama subsequently supported an increase of the federal wage to $9 per hour.
     The Minimum Wage Fairness Act would have amended the 1938 F.L.S.A. if it had been passed and signed into law. The entry for the Minimum Wage Fairness Act on www.congress.gov is available at the following link:
     http://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1737

     The article "Who is Covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act?" is available at the following link: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter2-2.html#:~:text=Employers%20Who%20Are%20Covered,law%20covers%20nearly%20all%20workplaces.
     In that article, author Barbara Kate Repa explains that there are two classes of workers, as it pertains to the F.L.S.A.: 1) workers whom are exempt from the F.L.S.A.; and 2) workers whom are not exempt from that law.
     Repa writes, "The FLSA applies only to employers whose annual sales total $500,000 or more or who are engaged in interstate commerce. You might think that this would restrict the FLSA to covering only employees in large companies, but in reality, the law covers nearly all workplaces. This is because the courts have interpreted the term interstate commerce very broadly"
     Repa's observation should come as no shock to anyone who has read my previous essays about the overly broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause (which I have written about the most in reference to national health insurance policy). Repa continues: "courts have ruled that companies that regularly use the U.S. mail to send or receive letters to and from other states are engaged in interstate commerce. Even the fact that employees use company telephones or computers to place or accept interstate business calls or take orders has subjected an employer to the FLSA."
     Repa continues, "A few employers, including small farms--those that use relatively little outside paid labor--are explicitly exempt from the FLSA."
     The preceding facts should establish the following: 1) some employees are explicitly exempt from the F.L.S.A., and hence, the federal minimum wage protections; and 2) there are some employees who are currently being covered by the F.L.S.A. and its wage protections, who wouldn't be subject to those protections if the interstate commerce clause were not interpreted in the overly broad way that it is now.
     These facts affirm that it is only due to the misinterpretation of the Constitution that certain federal laws on domestic policies are thought, and are being held, to do things they are not explicitly authorized to do, and which they arguably never had the appropriately delegated authority to do in the first place.

     The preceding facts should make it clear that the claims that the federal minimum wage law still applies in these seven states, hinge on two flawed notions: 1) that all workers are covered by the federal law which outlines the federal minimum wage; and 2) that the federal government can make its own minimum wage laws applicable upon workers only tangentially engaged in interstate commerce (and not even physically) in states which are exercising their Tenth Amendment recognized authority to set wages as they please.
     The federal minimum wage law does not apply to all workers. Thinking that it does, lulls us into a false sense of security about our corrupt government. It only buys our corrupt government more credit, and a little more time to keep fooling around behind the scenes, before we realize it is not working in our interests.

     The F.L.S.A. amended Section 29 of the U.S. Code, which pertains to "Labor". Section 29 is non-positive law. It only applies to certain groups of people, based on their industry, profession, location, or federally protected status. Just like the federal laws on hospitals (found in Section 24), environmental conservation (Section 16), agriculture (Section 7), education (Section 20), retirement (Section 42), and other titles of non-positive law which also "happen to be" topics that aren't specifically mentioned in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

     Our ignorance on the law has led us to assume that the federal government has powers that it simply doesn't have. We have allowed the federal government to promise to do things for us which it is incapable of doing, and which it is literally illegal for the federal government to do (because it's not explicitly authorized by the Constitution).

     This is happening because we don't understand the Constitution, and don't read it anymore; and because most of us have never heard of positive law and non-positive law.

     Acts of Congress are not automatically law just because they are passed by both houses. The president needs to sign it into law, or else Congress has to override the president with a supermajority. Additionally, the Supreme Court has to refrain from declaring it unconstitutional.

     But another step has to occur before that act of Congress can become part of the positive law. It has to be enacted.

     According to us.code.house.gov, every title in the U.S. Code, which is in a section of the code that is positive law, is a federal statute. Each one of those titles has been enacted, as a whole, by Congress, because, in a way, Congress regards it as complete. This is to say that a statutory text which appears in a positive law title, is regarded as having Congress's “authoritative imprimatur”(seal of approval) with respect to the wording of the statute.

     When Congress enacts positive law titles, the original enactments are repealed. One reason for this is that it is not necessary to include things like enabling clauses in the actual set of applicable laws; this would make the U.S. Code even longer than it already is.

     It is not the act of Congress which is being enforced; what is being enforced is a federal statute based on the original act of Congress that changed the law. Each new act of Congress which doesn't create a new section of federal statutes in the U.S. Code, must necessarily amend some certain previously existing section of the code. This means that turning a section of the code from non-positive law into positive law, is probably a very detailed and time-consuming process.

     It has been said about the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, that it is a law which it would take weeks and weeks to read, because you have to have the entire U.S. Code in front of you in order to understand it. The Patriot Act includes numerous references to very specific parts of the code, and details the changes which are to be made to that code.

     In July 2018, legal blogger Sam Wice explained positive vs. non-positive law for a blog called Notice & Comment, which is billed as “A blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and ABA [American Bar Association] Section of Administration Law & Regulatory Practice.”. In his July 25^th, 2018 article “When to Refer to the U.S. Code Versus the Underlying Statute”, Sam Wice wrote, “This year, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel has prepared for Congress a bill to enact Title 6 of the U.S. Code as positive law.”

     Well, what is Title 6 of the U.S. Code? That happens to be the section on “Domestic Security”! It seems clear, based on these facts, that the Patriot Act was a massive reorganization of domestic security laws, which paved the way for the transformation of Title 6 on Domestic Security from non-positive law into positive law.

     The following 26 sections of U.S. Code are positive law:

- Section 1. General Provisions
- Section 3. The President
- Section 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
- Section 5. Government Organization and Employees (incl. Federal Advisory Committee Act)
- Section 9. Arbitration
- Section 11. Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy Rules
- Section 13. Census
- Section 14. Coast Guard
- Section 17. Copyrights
- Section 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure, incl. Unlawful Possession or Receipt of Firearms
- Section 23. Highways
- Section 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
- Section 31. Money and Finance
- Section 32. National Guard
- Section 35. Patents
- Section 36. Patriotic and National Observances
- Section 37. Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
- Section 38. Veterans' Benefits
- Section 39. Postal Service
- Section 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works
- Section 41. Public Contracts
- Section 44. Public Printing and Documents
- Section 46. Shipping
- Section 49. Transportation
- Section 51. National and Commercial Space Programs
- Section 54. National Park Service

     It is plain to see, from a comparison between this list, and the first list in this article (the list of powers specifically delegated to Congress), that the positive law titles consist of powers specifically authorized in Article I Section 8 (such as the various military powers, the monetary powers, copyrights, bankruptcy) and in the rest of the Constitution (such as the Census).

     The other topics mentioned, are there because they have been inferred as Congress's powers based on the Necessary and Proper Clause (such as the Postal Service section). Section 51 on National and Commercial Space Programs is probably justified based on the defense-related implications of the space program.

     This all seems to check out, with the exception of Highways and the National Park Service. Section 23 on Highways is likely justified based on the need to establish post roads, which arguably can be done without actually building those roads. The National Park Service is probably justified based on the need for the government to own lands essential to national defense.

     But aside from those two exceptions, it's easy to see how the vast majority of positive law titles derive from the set of powers specifically mentioned in Article I Section 8.

     It's also easy to see how the non-positive law titles do not derive from Article I Section 8, when you compare the names of the sections of non-positive titles of the U.S. Code against the first list in this article. When you compare it to the second list in this article - the list of policy topics which the federal government is not authorized to regulate, but does anyway as it pertains to certain classes of eligible people – it becomes apparent what is going on here.

     The federal government is attempting to enforce laws that were never authorized by the Constitution, and which the people don't want badly enough to bother enshrining it into the U.S. Code permanently (by either turning it from non-positive law into positive law, or passing a constitutional amendment which would authorize the Congress to have exclusive jurisdiction over a policy topic which the states previously had the authority to regulate).

     The following is a list of non-positive titles in the U.S. Code:

- Section 2. The Congress
- Section 6. Domestic Security
- Section 7. Agriculture
- Section 8. Aliens and Nationality
- Section 12. Banks and Banking
- Section 15. Commerce and Trade
- Section 16. Conservation
- Section 19. Customs Duties
- Section 20. Education
- Section 21. Food and Drugs
- Section 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
- Section 24. Hospitals and Asylums
- Section 25. Indians
- Section 26. Internal Revenue Code
- Section 27. Intoxicating Liquors
- Section 29. Labor
- Section 30. Mineral Lands and Mining
- Section 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters
- Section 34. Crime Control and Law Enforcement
- Section 42. The Public Health and Welfare (including Social Security, which includes child support titles)
- Section 43. Public Lands
- Section 45. Railroads
- Section 47. Telecommunications
- Section 48. Territories and Insular Possessions
- Section 50. War and National Defense
- Section 52. Voting and Elections

     [Note: There is not currently a Section 53 of the U.S. Code.]

     Given this list, it makes sense that non-positive laws only pertain to certain classes of people. Section 25 on Indians only pertains to Native Americans. Section 8 on Aliens and Nationality only pertains to immigrants. Section 2 on The Congress only pertains to the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

     It's easy to see how sections 7, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 34, 45, 47, and 48 could pertain solely to certain classes of people and workers as well, and people in certain locations and industries. It's likely that a lot of the New Deal -era legislation ended up in Section 7 on Agriculture, Section 12 on Banks and Banking, Section 15 on Commerce and Trade.

     In all federal and state courts, positive law titles constitute legal evidence of the law. Non-positive law titles, on the other hand, have only “prima facie” evidence of existing. This is to say that the evidence only exists on the face of the law. These laws exist in name, or on paper, only. Prima facie evidence is evidence which would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact, unless that evidence is rebutted.

     According to the U.S. Code website, “A non-positive law title of the Code is prima facie evidence of the statutes it contains”. This means that a non-positive law title of the U.S. Code is not exactly permanent and enacted law, but more accurately it is evidence of a law. On its face, it is evidence that a law has been passed; i.e., an act of Congress. But acts of Congress are sometimes declared unconstitutional. And just because an act of Congress hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet, that doesn't mean that it won't.

     Non-positive law titles are the law, but they are only the law until it is proven otherwise. Again, the Tenth Amendment is a law, but it is also a limitation upon the federal government's ability to create new laws. Proving that certain federal laws are unconstitutional, will prove that it was never legal for those to exist in the first place. Once an unconstitutional law is proven unconstitutional, it's as if it never existed in the first place. That's certainly how it feels when the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional. The people simply stop observing the law, and it ceases being enforced. Nobody has to suffer through that unpopular, unconstitutional law any more.

     The American people have every right to demand that all federal laws which are unconstitutional, be recognized as such by all courts from now on. And the American people have a right to fight to transformation of non-positive law into positive law, because that means making more laws obligatory upon all Americans, and it risks permanently expanding the size and scope of the national government.

     They have been passed by Congress, but they pertain to only a certain group of people, such as those who are specifically protected, or those who elect to be affiliated with the federal government for purposes outside those listed in Articles I through III.

     For all other people, the federal law should not apply. Yet here we are, still having income taxes levied against us, using currency that's backed by neither gold nor silver, and allowing the federal government to trample upon our states' authorities to regulate their own domestic affairs.

     In effect, federal laws on health, retirement, education, welfare, etc. are encroaching upon the limited sovereignty which the states are supposed to be exercising. The states are supposed to be sovereign in those policy spheres, while the federal government is sovereign on money, mail, military, and other things. The federal and state governments are supposed to be “co-equal sovereigns”. Yet they cannot be so, if the federal government is “stepping on the toes” of the state governments, and making it impossible for states to regulate their own domestic affairs without being pressured to accept federal funds and federal laws.

     These laws should therefore be considered null and void. They should be considered “waiting to be declared unconstitutional”. Not all Americans are obligated to obey federal laws pertaining to policy topics not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

     Here are some more facts about what, specifically, it means, for something to be a non-positive titles of the U.S. Code:

     - Non-positive law titles of the Code are compilations of statutes.

     - The Supreme Court may deem – or has deemed – provisions of non-positive titles, to be inaccurate descriptions of the law (which is why the original enactments are repealed when non-positive law becomes positive law).

     - Non-positive law titles might not constitute legal evidence of the law in all federal and state courts, but only in some courts. If a court deems Congress's seal approval with respect to the wording of the statute in question, to be either nonsensical, unenforceable, or not authoritative, then that court should be able to declare that the prima facie evidence that the law exists, is not sufficient or important enough that it should be considered a law. [Note: This is basically a description of Jeffersonian nullification, the process by which a state nullifies a federal law.]

     - A non-positive title of the U.S. Code is comprised of many federal statutes, which have been enacted individually, and have been compiled and organized into the title.

     - A non-positive title of the U.S. Code has not yet been enacted.

     If a non-positive title of the U.S. Code hasn't been enacted yet, then it is not the law yet. Courts are still free to deem it as unconstitutional, and treat it as if it were not the law.

     The American people have every right to allow unconstitutional federal laws to lapse into non-enforcement and desuetude (i.e., obsolescence and “unenforceability”). Non-enforcement of these laws is more desirable then their continued enforcement, but repealing them is the best outcome.

    For those federal laws which are clearly unconstitutional, and are unquestionably still being enforced, whomever has standing to sue, should file a lawsuit, and resist the continued application of laws which vast swaths of the country have long considered to have never been authorized in the first place.

     Such lawsuits must occur before the federal government's defenders begin to argue that “these laws don't need to be repealed, because they aren't being enforced anymore, and therefore they don't affect us anymore”. That is not good enough for us, and it is not good enough for our children to turn the federal government into a mousetrap that snaps their neck in two the moment their parents die.

     We must treat unenforced laws as if they could come back at any moment. Just as we should remember that registration for the Selective Service has not ended, and that therefore the military draft could come back at any time.

Part III: Additional Resources

     Please see the following articles, which I wrote, to learn more about how I believe that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution should be interpreted, and other background information which will help explain why I think many federal laws do not apply to all Americans:

- "How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of Congress" (February 2020)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to-easily-and-permanently-memorize.html

- "What is Congress Allowed to Do and What is it Not Allowed to Do (Without an Amendment)?" (January 2021)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html

- “Letter to Political Science Professor David T. Canon on Constitutional Law” (January 2021)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/letter-to-political-science-professor.html

     Please read the U.S. Code, and articles about it and positive and non-positive law, at the following links:

- http://www.yalejreg.com/nc/when-to-refer-to-the-u-s-code-versus-the-underlying-statute/

- uscode.house.gov

- http://libguides.stonehill.edu

- http://libguides.stonehill.edu/c.php?g=16657&p=92624

- http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml

- http://uscode.house.gov/codification/term_positive_law.htm#:~:text=The%20bill%20repeals%20existing%20laws,Code%20are%20compilations%20of%20statutes.

- http://cmlawlibraryblog.classcaster.net/2017/07/05/what-is-positive-law-and-why-should-you-care/

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude

- Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp-48d_jSb4

Written on January 31st and February 1st, 2021

Edited and expanded on February 1st, 2021

Published on February 1st, 2021

Self-Interview on Libertarian Politics, Private Law, Georgism, Mutualism, Labor Policy, Basic Income, and More

     The following is my response to fourteen questions regarding some of the topics about which I write and speak the most. Those topics include Libertarian politics, radical libertarian theory (including Agorism and private law), Georgism and Mutualism, labor policy (in particular, boycotts and Right to Work laws), differences between various basic income programs, and Venezuela.

     I, myself, wrote these questions, but they were selected by reporter Joe Monack. A link to a video interview of myself, by Mr. Monack - containing many of the same questions, but with more concise answers - is available at the following link:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ0Py3JSPVE



Topics discussed include:
1. Libertarian policy on the structure of the federal government
2. Free trade and free markets
3. Agorism and black markets
4. Anarchist vs. Libertarian views on private property ownership
5. Agorism, private law, and stateless legal frameworks
6. Ethical consumerism and effective boycotts
7. Right to Work laws, and other labor policies
8. Mutualism and market socialism
9. Georgism and Geo-Libertarianism
10. The 2020 U.S. presidential race

11. Universal Basic Income, and similar programs
12. The right to bear arms, and the military draft
13. U.S. policy towards Venezuela
14. Where to access more of Joe Kopsick's writing

      1Q. Since 2010, you've been writing on your blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, about libertarian politics, and radical and anarchist ideas that relate to them. What do you think the federal government would look like under a Libertarian administration?

     1A. I agree with Ron Paul's recommendation (which Rick Perry and Ted Cruz tried to plagiarize), to abolish five federal departments as soon as possible: Commerce, Energy, Education, Interior, and H.U.D.. This will make a huge dent in restoring the federal government to the size and scope delineated in the Enumerated Powers (in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution).

     Here's why we can afford to get rid of those five departments. Commerce and Energy: because they are repositories of corporate welfare. Education: because it holds funds hostage to coerce local schools to adopt federal standards, which result in students being propagandized rather than taught valuable skills. Interior: because the federal government is not supposed to own as much land as it does. The Department of Housing and Urban Development: because we cannot always trust government to develop inner cities without distorting the housing market and creating perverse incentives in the process.

     If we followed Gary Johnson's suggestion, and the suggestion of the New Federalists, we could block-grant the entitlements - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - to the states (and with them, most of the functions of the Department of Health and Human Services). Or we could have the states collect funds for those programs on their own, without federal help, and run the programs as they see fit.

     The Department of Homeland Security should be de-funded, and anything that remains of it should be reorganized under the Department of Justice, and/or the Department of Defense. Although there is arguably not much constitutional authority for the Department of Veterans' Affairs, I would keep it for now, but if there are not real signs of progress on reform, and alternatives to the V.A. in the private market, then the department should probably be abolished before it can do any more harm.

     After that, it's simply a matter of abolishing the Department of Labor and the Department of Agriculture, getting money creation back under the control of Congress, and then - aside from Transportation, which I'll address shortly - you're pretty close to the original set of functions that the executive cabinet performed when this country was founded. Until 1849 - with the exception of the Postmaster General's office, which existed from 1829 to 1870 - only four different federal functions were ever represented by a cabinet member: War (now called Defense), State, Treasury, and Justice.

     Also, taking any or all of the following steps, will help drastically reduce the size and scope of government: 1) fully privatizing the Postal Service by ending its legal monopoly on letter delivery, 2) legalizing competing currencies, 3) getting rid of the Patent Office and the F.D.I.C.; and 4) allowing people to defend themselves, by protecting the right to bear arms, to help reduce dependence on the police and military.

     Additionally; 5) reducing federal involvement in highway management wherever possible. If the federal government's role in planning and maintaining highways can be reduced, and those functions transitioned to state and local – maybe even non-governmental, non-politicized agencies – then the de-funding and abolition of the Department of Transportation will become easier to justify.

     These steps will make it much easier to have a market system which can be rightfully described as minimally-regulated and mostly free of the influence of monopolies; specifically, the government's monopolies and near-monopolies on mail delivery, currency, intellectual property protection, deposit insurance, physical defense and security, and road construction.

     We should also remember that if we have a libertarian society, and government exists by consent of the governed, then the relationship between federal responsibilities and state responsibilities is negotiable. We could use the amendment process to change the Constitution, such that the federal government performs a set of core functions, which is totally different from the set it performs today, or which it performed for the first 60 years of its history.

     2Q. You believe that free trade is compatible with free markets. Why do you think so many libertarians reject "free trade"? Is what we call "free trade" really as free as we think it is? Also, why do you say that you support globalization, but not globalism; and what is "alter-globalization"?

     2A. I believe that most Libertarians reject “free trade” because of its reputation. If “free trade” means N.A.F.T.A., then that's problematic, because N.A.F.T.A. was a multilateral trade deal written by several national governments. It's pretty different from what Gary Johnson described as free trade, when he said something to the effect of “Free trade doesn't require a deal” or “Free trade doesn't need legislation”.

     I believe that free trade is something that happens naturally. It's not only something that happens without government involvement or interference; it works best without government involvement or interference. Real free trade is the free movement of labor and capital; that is to say, the free movement of workers, physical capital like machines and tools, and financial capital.

     I support economic globalization, in that economic globalization means free trade, and open, interconnected trade across the world, without governments obstructing it with protectionist trade measures and border walls, etc.. I support globalization in an economic sense, but not in a political sense; I support interconnected markets all over the globe, but I don't support global governance or any plans for a one world government. I oppose all compulsory participation in the United Nations, because I think that participation in any U.N. programs, on anything other than a totally voluntary basis, risk undermining a country's national sovereignty.

      I think that free trade, economic globalization, free and open markets, and voluntary exchange, all do much more to promote peaceful exchange between cultures, than any government ever could, either with its military or its trade representatives. While I agree with the goals of government supervision of trade negotiations when those goals include lowering or eliminating tariffs, having too much government supervision of trade negotiations only results in a politicization of that negotiation process.

     3Q. What is Agorism, and what is the Agorist view on black markets? Also, what are red, gray, and white markets; and how are they different from black markets?

     3A. It can be difficult to explain Agorism to someone who is new to libertarian thought, because while Agorism literally refers to an open marketplace (agora), Agorism is also associated with the black market, which is not known for its openness.

      Agorism, at its core, is about counter-economics. Counter-economic activity consists of all economic activities which are illegal, but voluntary. That is, they are technically against the law, but they are not wrong, because these activities do not result in a person being harmed, or their rightful property being stolen or damaged.

     Agorism and counter-economics are about using voluntary exchanges to improve your circumstances, based on whether those exchanges are right or wrong, not based on whether they're legal or illegal. For libertarians, these exchanges include “victimless crimes” such as the use and trade of drugs, sex work, and evading most or all kinds of taxes.

     For libertarians, victimless crimes also include things that are not economic exchanges, like obeying unnecessary regulations, breaking traffic laws without damaging property or running anyone over, being drunk in public without threatening anyone, etc.. Doing legal work - but ignoring unnecessary regulations, evading taxes, and/or getting paid under the table – is referred to as “gray market” activity in Agorist circles.

     While black markets consist of voluntary but illegal activity, white markets consist of voluntary activity that is legal. Red markets consist of activities which are rightfully illegal; that is, economic exchanges that are obviously wrong, like murder for hire and sex trafficking.
     The aspect of Agorism that interests me most, its its potential to provide alternatives to monopolies and the state, when it comes to monopolies over legal services; such as the arbitration and resolution of disputes, contract enforcement, personal and property protection, and various other services. I like to write about the intersection of Agorism, anarchism, and private law; especially because of its potential to diminish the state's monopolies on services which are thought only capable of being done by the state.

     4Q. “Father of anarchism” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon famously said "property is impossible". What does that mean? Also, why does the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party reject "private property" and capitalism? Isn’t libertarianism supposed to be about capitalism and private property?

     4A. “Property is impossible”, as I understand it, means that it would be impossible to support the institution of private property ownership, without either 100% unanimous approval by all elements of society, or else using state violence to make people be OK with somebody else owning the things they need to survive.

     Mutualists and anarchists believe that it would require either violence or brainwashing to get people to agree with the institution of private property, which for them is basically synonymous with the right to use one's property in order to deprive, manipulate, humiliate, and extort others. Respecting property is essential to libertarianism, but not if it means protecting property and profits over people.

An anarchic society would respect personal possessions, and our right to keep things we earn through work, and justly acquire through our own efforts. But if there is not universal (or nearly universal) agreement that it's OK to practice capitalism, then it will be difficult to protect the property claims of people who use their property for capitalist purposes. This is to say that they use their capital as a way to avoid work; while getting other people to make use of that capital for the exclusive benefit of the other.

      Expecting others to work the land, or keep the machines productive, for the benefit of the owner, is not only irresponsible from a social perspective, it's irresponsible from an economic perspective. Private property owners should not expect the state to protect their property claims, just because they refuse to do so themselves.

      If a person who claims a parcel of property, had some personal responsibility to physically protect that claim, and/or to make it sustainable and habitable (or at least a responsibility to prevent it from falling into disuse and disrepair), then it would be easier to justify exclusive ownership of that property. That's because the private property ownership would, then, more closely resemble personal use. Mutualists believe in property possession based on frequent and active use and occupancy; the only time a private property becomes a personal possession is when you're actively using and occupying it.

      I think it's strange that many Libertarians are not only OK with using “limited government” to protect (and register) private property and enforce contracts, but also to protect property claims that are

not being used, and on which nothing is being produced. This does nothing but waste government revenue, and incentivize the abandonment and non-use of property, and the blight of land, at taxpayer expense. This contributes to the high costs of government.

      By empowering people to protect themselves and their justly acquired possessions, and by teaching people to respect property more if it's being actively and frequently used (and if it's not being used to coerce someone into a state of dependence upon that property), we can reduce our dependence on outside actors to protect the things we claim as our own. Ceasing to protect private property claims will drastically reduce the costs, size, scope, and reach of government.

     5Q. You believe that private law and anarchism are compatible, and that private actors could replace all state functions. Could you please explain what private law is, and tell us whether you think "privatizing everything" is the way to go? Which authors should we read if we want to know more about private law and so-called "stateless legal frameworks"?

     5A. Private law refers to all creation of law – including contract and precedent – outside of federal courts, and outside of other statist government courts that don't respect the basic premises of legitimate courts (that is, neutral judge, impartial jury, defense represents the defendant, prosecution represents the aggrieved).

     Common law courts, private arbitration firms, private investigators; these are all examples of “private law”, and examples of alternatives to the state investigating our crimes and resolving our disputes. Other practices that pose challenges to the state's monopoly on the provision of legal services, include citizens' arrest, bounty hunters, and Shari'a Law as a form of private arbitration (as well as other forms of private adjudication by religious entities).

     Another is the Agorist idea of D.R.O.s (Dispute Resolution Organizations). Imagine a private arbitration firm, but it's run like an insurance company. In a stateless libertarian society, many people would likely purchase “crime insurance”, in a similar way to how we now buy renter's insurance. Except the premiums would go towards not only insuring us against theft and harm, but ensuring others in the insurance pool against the risk that we might harm or steal from them. D.R.O.s might also perform a sort of credit rating function, in order to help determine how much of a risk each of us is, to steal from others, commit acts of violence, miss out on a crime insurance payment, refuse to turn ourselves in when suspected of a serious crime, etc..

     Challenging the state's monopolies on the legitimate provision of legal services - and developing our own ways of protecting ourselves and our property claims, ensuring that our contracts are not violated, and resolving our disputes without resorting to violence – is the only way we can hold the state accountable for its crimes, and the only way we can prove that we can solve our problems without inviting the state (and its courts, and its violence) into our affairs.

     If you would like to know more about private law and stateless legal frameworks, some of the most important people to read are Agorists Samuel E. Konkin III and Wally Conger, and also Roderick T. Long and Gary Chartier. Additionally, David D. Friedman's essay “Saga Period Iceland” and Robert P. Murphy's book Chaos Theory, each contain many specific, realistic, and thought-provoking ideas about alternatives to the state.

     6Q. You have said that ethical consumerism is impossible because boycotts are illegal. What do you mean by that, and why do you believe that repealing the Taft-Hartley Act is the best way to solve that problem?

     6A. Ethical consumerism means buying from, and working for, only those companies that we feel are not doing anything morally objectionable. As such, it requires us to boycott companies that we believe are doing objectionable things. We can try to boycott these companies, and there's even a mobile app called Buycott that can help us plan our purchases efficiently, based on what we've decided to boycott.

     But it is impossible to fully boycott a company, as long as that company receives any form of taxpayer money; such as through subsidies or bailouts (or even more subtle forms of redistribution from taxpayers to companies, such as F.D.I.C. insurance, intellectual property protections, and discounts on utilities). As long as a firm receives money from taxpayers, taxpayers are not able to fully boycott the firm, except by hiring a lobbyist and changing the law.

     But even if we get rid of all government subsidies, and require businesses to make all their money solely on their own merits in a free market and without government help, we will still have to contend with the Taft-Hartley Act. That federal law, enacted in 1947, outlawed solidarity actions, a class of perfectly voluntary activities which are illegal for no reason, other than that businesses don't like them. Solidarity actions include sympathy strikes, and – most importantly for the purposes of this discussion – secondary boycotts.

      A sympathy strike is carried out by workers in one workplace (or trade, or industry) in order to show sympathy for, and assist the cause of, workers who are already striking in another workplace (or trade, or industry). The secondary strikers' trade is usually at least somewhat related to, and affected by, the original strikers' trade.

      A secondary boycott is sort of a “sympathy boycott”. In a secondary boycott, a boycott affecting one industry or trade, spreads to another, as strikers at different workplaces resolve to join an existing boycott that began in some particular industry.

     In criminalizing solidarity actions, the Taft-Hartley Act has effectively criminalized the general strike, the widest possible strike which could occur. Criminalization of the general strike, and of labor action in general, does not make them go away; it only makes the official use of state-sanctioned violence against otherwise peaceful strikers and boycotters inevitable. Criminalization will only make it necessary to resist law enforcement officers, sheerly in order to organize such strikes and boycotts in the first place.

      As long as the redistribution of our tax money for business subsidies, and the Taft-Hartley Act, still exist, then boycotts will remain ineffective and meaningless. Only legalization of all forms of voluntary labor action in the private sector – including these solidarity actions – will allow boycotts to occur in a coordinated manner which is widespread enough to get significant attention and have real consequences, and free from government inhibitions.

     7Q. Do you support Right to Work laws? Why or why not? Also, what other union reforms would you support, and what is "minority unionism"?

     7A. I don't support Right to Work laws. It's not that I want people to be forced to join a union, nor compelled to pay union dues. Nor is it that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate the negotiation of labor disputes. I don't, and it doesn't. The problem with Right to Work laws, arises out of the fact that they are laws, which inhibit human behavior. As a libertarian, I have to be cautious about what the unintended consequences could be, of any and all state laws and actions, before I decide whether to support them.

     I oppose Right to Work laws because of something Friedrich Hayek once pointed out. Right to Work laws are not libertarian, because libertarians are against using government power to ban things that cause direct harm to nobody. And those things include Union Security Agreements, which include closed-shop agreements (in which employees must join the union) and union-shop agreements (in which employees must join a union).

     By banning closed-shop and union-shop agreements, Right to Work laws insert state governments between unions and management, whom are trying to freely exercise their right to make a contract with each other bilaterally. This impairs the obligation of contracts, which the government should never do, because if anything, it's supposed to enforce contracts (or at least not interfere in them).

     Right to Work laws don't solve any problem; they are just Band-Aids over a bigger problem. Right to Work laws don't fix the free-rider problem, they make it worse. It was the Wagner Act - the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 – which required unions in most private-sector firms to participate in government-supervised elections, and to conduct those elections based on majority rule.

     The Wagner Act created the free-rider problem; by compelling the union receiving majority support in each workplace, to represent and negotiate on behalf of all workers, even those who would rather not pay dues and would rather opt not to receive the supposed benefits of that negotiation. Right to Work laws don't change that; they just absolve free-riders of the responsibility to pay for the benefits they receive from negotiation. Some workers might not consider them benefits at all, and they may resent how the union has spent their money on political activity with which they disagree, but there are arguably safety and health standards which affect the whole workplace, from which free riders benefit. And if the benefits to the worker outweigh the costs, then arguably, a union would not be doing something appropriate by attempting to recoup those costs. But that does not mean that unions are always right when they try to do that.

     I cannot help but feel like we could bypass this whole mess with a couple of simple steps. First off, don't solve the after-effects of the problem with Band-Aid legislation; nip the problem in the bud. Inform people during the job interview if, according to state law, they'll be required to join a union as a condition of continuing employment. If the interviewee doesn't like that fact, then he can leave the interview before he's hired, and before any union dues are collected. If someone doesn't want to join a union, then with enough notice up-front, he can avoid wasting time interviewing for jobs that will require him to do something he is not willing to do in order to obtain employment.

     Don't get me wrong; Right to Work at least intends to solve a problem. And that problem is the fact that union contracts can last for decades, resulting in wage stagnation. That's because some contracts last a long time, even several decades. And if a contract was negotiated according to old economic numbers, and short-sighted expectations, then wages and benefits will not increase as quickly as they could have; say, for example, if contracts were negotiated and re-negotiated more often (with attention to new economic statistics), or if there were more competition to get that contract.

     And competition among unions to get a contract, is exactly what Right to Work laws are intended to make possible. If union with a majority of your workplace's support is legally required to represent you, then that sounds great; the only problem is that you have no alternative to that union if it decides that it wants to represent you by misrepresenting you. Having alternatives to the majority union – such as a second or third union in the workplace, or a sure way to protect the right of any two employees to engage in concerted activity to raise concerns to management – not only helps keep the majority union accountable to workers, it also helps keep management accountable to labor, and the National Labor Relations Board accountable to the people. So do wildcat strikes.

     Supporters of Right to Work laws might not like the fact that if they get hired, they will have to essentially “work for the union” by paying dues, when the employing firm is really the one that they want to work for in the first place. But what about people who want to choose to work for a union and a business that have made an exclusive agreement with each other, so as to give a particular union security? It may resemble exclusion, or even a monopoly; it may even, arguably, affect unaware (and thus non-consenting) possible future employees of the given company (maybe even diminishing those employees' opportunities to obtain good enough wages and benefits). But the simple fact that somebody with no relation to either the union or the company, might wish to work for that company some day, should not be construed to deprive the union and the company of their right to engage in bilateral negotiation over contracts. You may have worked a long time to hone your craft, develop your skills, and learn the professional regulations applicable to your trade in your state, but none of that gives you the right to lobby and recruit government agents to use legitimate violence to help back-up your demand that at least a few pencil factory in Arizona, or taco restaurants in New Hampshire, stay open to non-union labor.

     Minority unionism is the answer to majority unionism. While union-shop Union Security Agreements allow only one union in a workplace, dual unionism allows two, and minority unionism allows three or more. In minority unionism, unions called M.O.N.M.U.s (Members-Only Non-Majority Unions) compete in the same workplace for members and dues. Japan has this system, and in Japan, if workers don't like what their union is doing, they can move easily from one union to another.

     Most importantly, minority unionism allows groups of workers to initiate action to negotiate with management for redress of grievances, even if that group of workers does not have the endorsement of a majority of workers in the given bargaining unit to negotiate on behalf of everyone in that workplace. Dual unionism and minority unionism – and members-only collective bargaining – are all collective bargaining structures, which empower workers, without depriving them of rights solely based on the fact that they are in the minority.

     I think it would be interesting, also, if safety and health benefits that affect the whole workplace, were to be negotiated independently from compensation. The organization of multiple different types of labor into the same union, purely due to the fact that they share a workplace, only makes sense if you consider that they are exposed to the same safety and health risks on the job. So it makes sense if safety and health are negotiated for the benefit of everyone who works at a particular workplace in person. But does that mean a doctor and a hospital janitor should receive the same compensation, just because they work at the same workplace? I'm sure that even many janitors would say no. So why not allow compensation to be negotiated independently of workplace conditions, while negotiating pay based on the difficulty of the tasks, and the skill of the individual(s) performing them?

     There is simply no telling how much it would benefit the state of the labor movement, to spread the practices of members-only collective bargaining, and of dual and minority unionism. Popularizing these practices can only result in more labor activities in the private sector becoming every bit as legal and voluntary as they were before 1947 (although this is not to say, by any means, that union organizing was fully legal before this date; it wasn't).

     8Q. What are mutualism and market socialism, and why do you believe that they are preferable to capitalism and socialism? What does "cost the limit of price" mean?

     8A. Mutualism and market socialism are economic systems; they are market systems which, despite the fact that they are market systems, compatible with socialism and collectivism.

     This is not to say that capitalism is compatible with socialism; I do not believe that a free-market system would be a capitalist one. That is why I do not use the phrase “free-market capitalism”; any system called capitalism favors capitalism, and cannot be considered free, because it is not open to other economic systems.

     Mutualism and market socialism are preferable to capitalism and socialism, because they are reconciliations of, and compromises between, a market system, and a system based on the social ownership of the means of production. Mutualism balances the needs of the individual with that of collectives, the needs of labor with capital, and the needs of consumers with those of workers.
     Mutualism and market socialism are very similar, but I think one of the key differences would be that, while market socialism would feature a market system with ownership mostly by collectives; Mutualism would involve a more equal balance of collective and individual ownership than market socialism. Additionally, I believe that Mutualism would feature not only market-based systems of allocation and distribution, but also allocation and distribution planned on the basis of voluntary cooperation, and also direct democracy (which would hopefully prioritize the need for unanimity, or at least consensus).

     While Libertarians and free market advocates focus on making sure that all exchanges are voluntary, mutualists additionally want to make sure that all exchanges are reciprocal (that is, mutually beneficial). The purpose of this is to facilitate voluntary exchange, by ensuring that no party to a transaction is defrauded into footing unwarranted costs, and that no costs are transferred onto unwilling or unaware third parties.

     This is similar to the goal of what's referred to in economics as a “Pareto improvement”; the idea that a transaction only improves the general state of the world, if all parties involved benefit, or at the very least, nobody loses anything in the transaction. Be cautious of anyone advocating sacrifice, thrift, austerity, and needless reductions in consumption, as solutions to economic problems; we have been living in a world in which abundance is the chief economic problem, not scarcity, for at least 150 years. “The cycle of production and consumption” is not a problem; destruction, waste, non-use, and abuse are the problems.

     The principle “cost the limit of price”, also simply called “the cost principle”, holds that the price of something should not exceed the costs necessary to produce it. It's kind of like the Marxian Labor Theory of Value, but you can accept the cost principle without believing that all labor is worth the same. Mutualists, especially those who follow Kevin Carson, subscribe to a “subjective labor theory of value”, wherein one's labor is only considered to be worth whatever the laborer agrees it is worth.

     The cost principle holds that only labor costs, production costs, and justifiable costs of administration, should contribute to price; but that unnecessary taxes on sales etc., fees to enter and exit markets, usury, and costs originating in the misappropriation of economic rents, should not contribute to price.

      One key advantage that mutualism has over capitalism, is that - while consumer capitalism does pretty well at producing lots of things, at prices that eventually get lower and lower – mutualism achieves that effect not only with consumer prices, but with the prices of money, currency, credit, and loans. The “price” of those things, is, of course, interest.

     Mutualism would feature low interest rates on money and credit, because there would be such full and free competition and cooperation, that firms could charge as high a price as they want, or as low a price as they want. Of course, lenders that charge unjustifiable interest rates could not afford to stay in business, provided that there is enough worker and consumer oversight, and enough public awareness of what kind of costs are justifiable, to hold lenders accountable for predatory and usurous lending practices.

     While some lenders may take advantage of their freedom to compete by practicing usury, many lenders would take advantage of their freedom to cooperate. Some lenders would decide (whether they decide independently or in coordination with other lenders) to cooperate with borrowers, while competing against high-interest lenders, in order to help low-income borrowers afford the loans they need to make ends meet. And the ideal way to accomplish that is for lenders to offer zero-interest loans, and inflation and debt free money. It might not get them a lot of money to offer free products, but it will get them a lot of business and repeat customers.

      As Libertarians, we are supposed to believe that free markets and voluntary exchange, price competition (that is, competition to provide a lower price), balanced budgets, and technological development, are supposed to lead to prosperity, and to gradually decreasing prices. As I like to say, “free markets are supposed to result in free stuff”; there's no reason Libertarians should hate on socialists for thinking some things could be free.

     I'm not demanding anyone's free labor; I'm only demanding free goods. Automation and mass production will result in reduced dependence on human labor for the sake of production, which means the demand for free stuff will gradually require less and less of a demand for human labor. Without government intervention - in the form of subsidization to prop up its favored firms, and unjustifiable taxes on the sale and/or purchase of goods and services - developments and streamlining of production processes will result in a decrease in prices. That's because those developments include cost-efficient developments that reduce the need for human labor, by replacing a human worker with a machine, and as long as those savings aren't pocketed by managers and C.E.O.s, then they can allow those savings to be passed on to the people who buy their products.

      As we transition into a state of full price competition - not only in consumer goods, but in the financial sector – the costs of borrowing money, saving money, and spending money, will all plummet, and race towards zero.

     As worker cooperatives, credit unions, and bulk purchasing (like through purchasing cooperatives and cooperative wholesale societies), become more popular, more and more resources will come to be owned by groups of people (including entire workplaces and communities), rather than by individuals and limited-liability corporations. Harnessing the economic power of entire communities - as well as letting individuals act autonomously in markets (although without owning private property) - will be essential to establishing a counter-balance against the significant economic power of large producers and sellers, as well as against the economic power of malignant government agencies.

     If large numbers of people combine and share their property, so as to wield their purchasing power collectively, then they can leverage that power against big sellers (who are leveraging their selling power, by only offering high prices that are largely unaffordable). Through leveraging their buying power, intensifying their cooperation so as to increase the scale of their operations, and getting rid of unnecessary capitalists acting as middlemen between actual workers; the costs of operating a firm can be drastically reduced, and cooperation and worker autonomy can be increased, leading to more self-management on both a collective and an individual basis.

     Mutualism and market socialism allow cooperative ownership to increase, without destroying traditional market systems (that is, without dismantling systems of allocation and distribution which are based on voluntary exchange and price signals). Like libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism, and other stateless theories of socialism, mutualism and market socialism do not advocate for seizure of property by the state. While conservatives believe that all state seizure of property is socialism, anarchists understand that state seizure of property is nationalism, and that state seizure interferes with the collectivization of property more often than it helps it to occur.

      These economic systems would bring the forces of free, voluntary competition, together with the forces of free, voluntary cooperation. Individuals, groups, and communities, would all be free to go into competition against anyone they wish, and also to cooperate with anybody else (as long as they don't steal from, defraud, manipulate, extort, or coerce anyone in the process).

      When combined, cooperative and competitive strategies unite as something called “co-opetition”, which can be used as an effective strategy to drive monopolies and oligopolies out of business. Choosing voluntary co-opetition as a market strategy, helps avoid the problems associated with having a solely competitive or solely cooperative strategy; namely, the risk that some market actor might use competition for the sake of domination, or cooperate with despotic authorities, in order to win as much as possible for himself, forgetting his responsibility to help other actors put the monopolist out of business.

      Another thing that may help us to understand mutualism, is to understand how for-profit firms in capitalism, could transition into worker cooperatives. Elected officials such as Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have all endorsed a proposal to enact federal tax incentives to transition the ownership and control of companies from their owners to their employees. Economist Richard Wolff is a good source on this topic; he writes about W.S.D.E.s, which is one of the several “alphabet soup” terms with which any astute student of worker cooperatives should be familiar. These include E.S.O.P. (Employee Stock Ownership Plan), E.L.M.F. (Egalitarian Labor-Managed Firm), and W.S.D.E. (Worker Self-Directed Enterprise).

      Real mutualism is not about cooperatives in capitalism, however. Real mutualism is about creating voluntary associations of free, independent producers, who transact with one another on an independent basis. They would also own their own labor and capital, and behave as “producer-consumers”, using their own personal means of production to produce what they need to consume in order to live, without having to rent, lease, borrow, or pay anyone for those means of production.

      One interesting topic in mutualism include mutuum cheques, which could be described as a promissory note or currency, a check, and a contract or I.O.U., all in one. Jeremy Thaxter is a good authority on that topic. But the most important people to read, if you want to learn more about mutualism in general, are Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Willie Greene, Dyer Lum, Benjamin Tucker, and Kevin A. Carson. Additionally, anarchist bloggers Jock Coats and Will Schnack have described themselves as “Geo-Mutualists”, combining mutualism with the philosophy of Henry George.

     9Q. Who was Henry George, and what are Georgism and Geolibertarianism? What goals do Georgists and libertarians share? What sets them apart? Why is Geolibertarianism important to you?

     9A. Henry George was a late 19^th century American economist, the author of Progress and Poverty, and, towards the end of his life, a candidate for mayor of New York City. Upon visiting California, George, born in New York, noticed the vast difference between East Coast and West Coast land prices. He set out to understand why extreme wealth and extreme poverty are always found side by side, why that price difference exists, and what supply and demand have to do with it.

      Georgism is the term applied to the school of economic thought into which George's ideas developed. The key idea in Georgism is the “Single Tax” on land, now referred to as Land Value Taxation. In Land Value Taxation, people would pay Land Value Dues for the privilege of renting land from the community.

      Just like mutualism, Georgism keeps the market system, it just makes it more fair. A serious problem of capitalism and private property rights is that they respect a first-come-first-serve system of land allocation. This results in what's called in economics, the law of diminishing returns to land; which is to say, the law of diminishing rents (i.e., economic rents). These economic rents include excess rent kept by the owner of a property, usury and excessive interest, and superprofit.

      The result of continuing to protect the existing set of land claims, is that land prices are manipulated nearly everywhere. Land speculation is not only rampant, but a matter of routine public policy. The manipulation of land prices, through politicians and government contractors choosing to build in one area or another based on the flow of campaign donations, is what allows the unjustifiable charging of economic rents of all varieties, to continue. If the state did not exist, then nobody could legitimately use force to prevent us from ignoring the property rights claims of people who earn their money through lobbying the government for monopoly rights and economic rents. This leads to regulatory capture, which diminishes our ability to trust the government when it tries to regulate economic behavior.

      If we abolish the state, like the Libertarians say they want to, then why would you expect the set of protected property claims to be the same, both before and after the abolition of the state? The whole point of abolishing the state is that it owns too much stuff, which would seem to imply that many property claims are unjust. Specifically, the property claims of the government, and the companies to which it gives our tax money.

      What Georgists and Libertarians have in common, is that they both want to simplify taxes, make taxes voluntary if possible, decentralize government, and stop taxing labor and capital (aside from land sales).

     While Libertarians might not like the fact that Georgism would feature no ownership of private property in land, Georgists want to tax only land. This means that Georgists and Libertarians agree on abolishing income taxes, and taxes on financial and physical capital (as long as those activities are not state-subsidized).

     While income taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, etc., tax improvements upon the land (i.e., labor and capital), Land Value Taxation taxes only the land, and taxes only the lack of improvement to the land. This is to say that the unimproved value of the land is what is being taxed; the loss of value to the community which it incurs while letting you waste a parcel of land which was once part of the community's commons.

     Work which occurs on the land, and the construction of buildings upon the land, would not be taxed; we would not be taxed simply for the crime of being productive. Only the non-use and abuse of land would be taxed, in a manner that's intentionally punitive. The crime is wasting, using, and abandoning a unique, finite space, which other people might want, which the community allowed you to occupy because its members thought you were going to use it in a productive way that benefited the community. Or at least in a way that didn't hurt it. So if you can't use a parcel of land productively, you should at least not let it fall into a worse condition. And that is part of the problem that Georgism is intended to address.

     Contrary to what you might expect, Georgism does not mean an increase in property taxes; it means the exclusion of home values, and the value of all improvements upon that property, from the taxes levied upon the property. During the course of adopting Georgism as a guide for our tax policies, landlords who own the land underneath their buildings, would not be free to pass-on to their tenants, any of the costs they incur from allowing their landed property to go unused, apartments to go vacant, etc..

     Without the state to prop up land and home values, all land and housing that's available for sale on the market would have to find a clearing price (i.e., the prices would have to go down, or else owners and sellers would lose all of their business, and all opportunities to monetize their assets). Georgism might not seem like a staunchly pro- free market system at first glance, but I really believe that Georgists and Mutualists understand free markets better than capitalists do; real free markets are fair, because they clear, and give us low prices.

     Although Georgism is against private land ownership, it is otherwise a very pro-market and market-oriented idea. Georgists understand perfectly well the conservative or libertarian notion that if you tax productive behavior that harms nobody, you get less of it. Not only are we inadvertently penalizing productive economic behavior by taxing it; we are also using taxpayer money to protect and defend abandoned properties that are going unused, on which no production is occurring. That is unsustainable, because it makes the economy improve when things are wasted and destroyed more efficiently, rather than when things are produced more efficiently and used responsibly.

      Ceasing to protect unused, abandoned, and legally stolen property claims, will drastically reduce both the costs of government, and the reliance on government. Georgism and Mutualism both recognize this problem, and are both full of valid critiques against it. That is why English anarchist blogger Jock Coats united the two systems in “Geo-Mutualism”, a term that was later adopted by Texas anarchist and author Will Schnack in his anarchic system “Geo-Mutualist Panarchism” (later renamed Ambiarchy).

     Between the 1970s and 2000s, about a dozen suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, experimented with split-rate taxation. Split-rate taxation is a semi-Georgist experiment, in which property taxes are determined by taxing both land and buildings, but by taxing buildings at a lower rate than the tax rate on land. The difference is that in full Georgism, buildings would have been taxed not at all, instead of just at a lower rate than land. But despite the fact that they didn't try full Georgism, most of those towns had a lot of success with split-rate taxation. Rent, unemployment, and the number of abandoned properties, all decreased.

      Without Georgist and Geo-Libertarian principles to guide our tax policy, we will continue to face the problem of not being able to improve our property value without incurring higher property taxes. Having to pay taxes on productivity, is burdening us all with high costs, both financial and in terms of lost opportunities.

      Georgist economists estimate that transitioning to Land Value Taxation would allow communities in the U.S. to tax as much as $5 trillion, in the form of kept land rents. The chief “owners” (legal thieves) of these land rents, are primarily government land management agencies, and banks and financial firms (whether foreign or domestic) which have bought up land. They usually buy this land at reduced, clearing-house prices, often because the owner was irresponsible, started a project he couldn't finish, and abandoned the property, leaving the problem to the community to solve.

     We can only wonder how much wealth could be taxed if we were to tax all economic rent (by which I mean not just rent from land and rent from housing, but surplus profit and usury, and unjustifiable costs arising from the existence of unnatural monopolies).

      Economic rent does not belong in people's savings accounts, or government accounting computers. Economic rent should not be stolen and kept. It belongs in the market, and whether that means it's spent by consumers or by government, at least it's not in the bank accounts of people who derive their income and career from the fact that government and banks conspire to use their immense power to enforce so many undeserved property claims that land becomes artificially scarce.

      Land Value Taxation ensures that those wrongly kept economic rents are confiscated, and redistributed to the community, so as to provide criminal restitution to the consumers, taxpayers, and stakeholders whom were tricked into paying excess rent for housing, and excess interest on loans, and tricked into giving up most of their paycheck to their bosses and the criminal government.

     Libertarian heroes Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, both economists, both acknowledged that pollution is an externalization; that is to say it imposes an unwanted cost on other people. Polluting air that other people have to breathe, is a tort and a N.A.P. violation, and it is a corpus delicti crime that has medical physical evidence. Someone who doesn't want to breathe polluted air, and doesn't know about it, and/or doesn't consent to it, should not be made to breathe that air. But since that can't be prevented, we can do the next best thing: make sure polluters compensate their victims.

     One could argue that this justifies a carbon tax. That would certainly not fly in an environment rife with cronyism and corruption; a carbon tax could rig things for corporate benefit, by allowing them to buy as many offsets as they want, while polluting all they want, while other people bear the costs of planting trees to offset that pollution. It's irresponsible, and it's antithetical to free market values, if free market values have anything to do with independence and responsibility.

     Taxation of carbon emissions is not what Georgists want. Georgists, like Libertarians, want decentralization; I would surmise that most Georgists would help Libertarians abolish the E.P.A., if they could be sure that every community can have a Community Land Trust. Trusts, in each community, would manage the quality of land, air, and water. This would be a way to sort of invest the community's wealth into improving environmental quality in the areas in which they live.

     Although I don't plan on voting for Adam Kokesh, I agree with his recent pitch that the Libertarian Party should promote a broad message of decentralization, so as to be inclusive. I hope that Libertarians will get on board with that message, and come to see Geo-Libertarianism and Georgism as constructive critiques of the Libertarian Party's staunch support of capitalism and private property rights. Learning from Georgism will not only help us distance ourselves from, and reduce our dependence on cross-over votes from, right-wingers and conservatives; it will also help us develop our policies on taxation, welfare, and the environment. And the possibility that the L.P. lacks such policies entirely, is one of the most long-lasting and potentially damaging points of concern, which is coming from the party's critics.

     You can learn more about Georgism by reading the Georgist blog progress.org, and looking up the in-person meeting group for Georgists called Common Ground, which is active in at least 15 metropolitan areas. Also, by visiting the Georgist Institute of Chicago, or learning about the Congress of Georgist Organizations. You can also check out articles on Georgism by Jock Coats, Will Schnack (at evolutionofconsent.com), Adam Jon Monroe (at taxlandnotman.org) ; and read books by Geo-Anarchists Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov.
     But some of the most important documents that explain the Georgist idea are Progress and Poverty and The Irish Land Question by Henry George himself, and the 1890 "Platform of the Single Tax League of the United States".

     10Q. What are your thoughts on the current presidential race? Which candidates do you favor?

     10A. There's not really anyone running for president right now, who's both viable, and also someone I'm excited about.

     I'd like to vote for a Libertarian Party, but who are the top contenders? John McAfee, Adam Kokesh, and Arvin Vohra. But are these people trustworthy? Not at all. McAfee probably killed his former neighbor, as revenge for killing McAfee's dog. According to Adam Kokesh's ex-girlfriend, he manipulated her into packaging copies of his book for him, and there is a rumor going around that he even mailed part of an Iraqi corpse to one of his exes. Arvin Vohra insults military families, and has argued that adults should be allowed to marry 14-year-olds under certain circumstances.

     None of these people are remotely electable, due to their pasts, character flaws, and controversial and insulting statements. I'll be interested to see Kokesh's plan to abolish the federal government on Day 1 of his presidency, but I don't think I'll be voting for him. Candidates close to the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party – like Vermin Supreme and Benjamin Dryke – are people I'm considering.

     When it comes to the Republicans, I would like to see a challenger to Trump. I would imagine that almost anybody would be less harmful to the nation than a second term for Donald Trump. I'm glad that Bill Weld jumped into the race, and I think that if he can convince Libertarians that he's more pro-gun than he's been characterized as being, then he might have a shot at getting L.P. voters, and admirers of Rand Paul, etc., behind him.

     I don't think Rand Paul will run, but I think that Ted Cruz might. I wouldn't want Cruz to be president, but if he were, it would at least be public knowledge that Republicans have a plan on health insurance policy (which is to create a free interstate market in insurance, with low prices).

     I suspect that Jeb Bush may run; however, I wouldn't be interested in voting for him. A large part of it is the problem of political dynasties and nepotism. John Kasich and John Hickenlooper have hinted at a possible split-ticket run together for the presidency and vice-presidency, and I think that could potentially appeal to members of both major parties who want to see their parties under new leadership.

     When it comes to the Democrats, there have been only four candidates that I've found interesting: Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang. I like Gillibrand for her support of a proposal to offer tax incentives to companies to transition to worker co-ops, Sherrod Brown for standing up for workers' rights, Marianne Williamson for saying that we need to restore moral leadership to the presidency, and Andrew Yang for his understanding of the technological shift that is going to occur over the next several decades.

     Unfortunately, however, Sherrod Brown recently dropped out of the race. I have heard that Senator Gillibrand's statements about Venezuela may indicate that she mistakenly believed that Juan Guaidó lost an election to Nicolas Maduro (rather than being elected interim president by the upper legislative house in Venezuela). And Andrew Yang supports gun control entirely too much, in my opinion.

     To go into more detail about Andrew Yang's campaign: Although a Universal Basic Income would arguably be better than the government assistance systems we have now, I'm worried that the “selling points” of U.B.I. programs (Yang's “Freedom Dividend” included) which their promoters offer as concessions to capitalists, reveal that the programs are flawed, and will backfire.

     I know that a lot of people will be supporting Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris on the Democratic side. But Biden and Harris are neo-liberals who have sex scandals (vulnerabilities which Trump could easily expose). Furthermore, the progressive and anti-war credentials of Sanders and Warren (especially Sanders) need to be questioned; the notion that they are real threats to the neo-liberal establishment of the Democratic Party is not certain by any means; they know that they can't win without enough help from those so-called “moderate” Democrats.

     I hope that Tulsi Gabbard qualifies for the debates. I agree with what she's saying about war, and few other candidates speak so directly about the dominance of the “neoliberals and neoconservatives”. However, I don't feel that she genuinely means what she's saying, in a way that reminds me a lot of my first impressions of Barack Obama. Like Obama, Trump and Bush also said they'd stop nation-building, but they didn't; and that's why I suspect that Gabbard wouldn't either. I'm concerned about the alliances which her positions on the regimes headed by Assad of Syria, and Modi of India, suggest she might lead us into.

     If Marianne Williamson doesn't gain enough name recognition and donations soon, I don't see myself voting for a Democrat for president in 2020 (unless someone unexpected enters the race). I'll certainly consider Green and Socialist candidates if no good Democrats or Libertarians are viable enough to win.

     11Q. Do you think that a Universal Basic Income (U.B.I.) would help Americans? Also, what are the major differences between a U.B.I., a Negative Income Tax, and a citizens' dividend? Would Georgism involve cash payments to citizens, or not?

     11A. A Universal Basic Income program could help Americans – and maybe even appeal to a broad segment of Americans, across political divides - but only under certain conditions.

     Andrew Yang's particular Universal Basic Income proposal – called the “Freedom Dividend” - would pay $1,000 per month ($12,000 annually) to every American who wants it, at an estimated cost of $1.8 trillion (according to most reports). That's nearly half of the federal budget. However, it has also been reported that the price tag of the Freedom Dividend would be closer to $2.4 trillion, which is more than half of the federal budget. But if all 248 million adults in America were to opt into receiving the dividend, then that would work out to a cost of $2.976 trillion annually.

     Whatever the cost ultimately ends up being, Yang is counting on paying for the Freedom Dividend, through: 1) stimulating spending of that dividend, 2) cutting the costs of existing social programs  to the tune of $600 billion (while replacing them with the dividend), and 3) generating additional revenues through enacting a 10% V.A.T. (Value-Added Tax) which would raise $800 billion annually. While I'm not yet convinced that the V.A.T. is wise, I appreciate that Yang's proposal would replace $600 billion in welfare programs, because that is exactly what Milton Friedman intended to happen with the Negative Income Tax.

     I would also like to note that the cost of the Freedom Dividend will decrease, if few people decide to opt into receiving it. So if you like the idea of a citizens' dividend or basic income guarantee, but you're concerned about the cost, just remember: you can save those costs by declining to receive the money!

     From a libertarian perspective, the fact that receiving the Freedom Dividend would be optional, is a good thing.
     Of course, not being able to opt out of paying taxes, is a sticking point for Libertarians. But Libertarians could also be convinced that the Freedom Dividend would be helpful, by explaining that everyone is eligible to receive it. That arguably satisfies the "General Welfare" requirement of the Constitution, in the eyes of Libertarians who agree that a just constitution should require any government programs to benefit all people. And it could be argued that the Freedom Dividend benefits all people in the nation equally; the fact that the rich will not be means-tested out of eligibility for receiving it, could be explained as a consolation to Libertarians and conservatives.

     Yang has cited the Freedom Dividend's similarity to the Negative Income Tax proposal (as explained by Milton Friedman), and Thomas Paine's proposal of an annual stipend for all adult citizens. Due to the potential cross-party appeal of the U.B.I., it could potentially unite left-leaning Libertarians and Chicago School types, progressive conservatives, and those farther to the left who have not yet disavowed markets.

     However, I think that these programs would only work well if they coincided with real budgetary and monetary responsibility and restraint, and only if people understand – and know how to utilize -the vast purchasing power which $2.4 trillion a year would collectively give them. If that $2.4 trillion could be spent strategically, so as to form large purchasing cooperatives (or, but not necessarily, monopsonies; i.e., single-buyer or single-payer systems), then the economic power of large sellers could be counter-balanced, for the benefit of people struggling to afford the things they need.

     A U.B.I. would be a good opportunity to solve the large-scale economic problems of low-income people, but without enough cooperation as to how to plan that spending, it might not work out like we think it will.

     But then again, at least a U.B.I. would, on some level, achieve what some people have been demanding for the past few decades; that we have some more oversight and transparency into how our tax money is being spent, and how much, and on what.

     In France, the government gives people receipts for their taxes, which list exactly that information. Some anti-war Americans, meanwhile, have dreamed about having the right to choose which government programs they would like to fund, and which programs they wouldn't, by filling it out on a postcard that you can mail to the I.R.S..

     A U.B.I. at least allows citizens to have some control over how their taxes are spent. Remember: the U.B.I., the Negative Income Tax, and the citizens' dividend, are not predicated upon the idea that they are handouts. They're based on the idea of letting people keep their own money, and spend it how they want; that is, without the government telling them that they must spend X dollars on housing, Y dollars on food, and Z dollars on health insurance, etc.). And letting citizens spend that money themselves, would absolve government officials of the responsibility of having to figure out how they would manage that spending. Milton Friedman saw that aspect as one of the key benefits of the Negative Income Tax.

     It might appear that these cash payments are handouts, but don't forget about the auto, mortgage, and bank bailouts, and the legal granting of monopolies by government. If it's illegal to compete against these monopolies, and many businesses are subsidized, then where is this “free market” I keep hearing about? People are effectively legally stolen from when they're arbitrarily free to access certain resources and opportunities. Basic income programs are arguably a form of restitution; an apology from the government for depriving us of certain economic rights and forms of property ownership.

     And indeed; that is what Thomas Paine's proposal of an annual stipend for each citizen, was based on. If government has to be established - in order to register and protect property, and to have basic zoning laws - then the government takings of the full rights to own, inherit, and homestead property, should not occur unless and until the citizen either consents, or receives compensation for those takings. Yang's proposal reflects Paine's intentions in a second way, too; they would both be paid to every American citizen over 18 years of age.

     I have heard tell that Yang's proposal would be paid to people who seek asylum in the U.S., and who possess green cards. But the fact that immigrants - even undocumented immigrants - might qualify for these benefits, does not concern me. Alaska admits that it uses the Alaska Permanent Fund to pay people to move to the state, and Norway and several other European countries offer free services to foreigners to move there (including students). I think there's no reason why we couldn't have a "residents' dividend" instead of a "citizens' dividend".
     I see the insistence on a citizens' dividend that excludes non-citizens, as an endorsement of discrimination on the basis of national origin and/or citizenship status. I know that the freedom from discrimination on the basis of national origin does not exist in every sector of society, and I know that many people who reject the authority of the U.N. and reject international law, do not recognize any such right to be free from discrimination on the basis of citizenship status. But I do not believe that citizenship should exist, much less confer certain rights to access government services; I consider that to be "National Socialism" (although not real socialism). Government authority to recognize or deny citizenship, is a creation of a first and second class of "citizens" (or would-be citizens); and this forces most of undocumented immigrants' social and economic activity into the shadows, usually without any good reason.
     As long as we expand economic opportunity (including access to land, credit, and capital), and pursue real free trade (without a treaty), while allowing free immigration to the U.S.; government assistance to non-citizens could be economically sustainable. But the obstacles to immigrants and citizens providing for themselves - which are largely erected through the collusion of government with business - must be removed, if we are to expect citizens or immigrants to support themselves without government assistance.

     Unless government budgets can be brought under control, subsidies and taxpayer funded business supports of all kinds can be abolished, and competing currencies are introduced, then I don't predict that a Universal Basic Income program will be successful. Until government budgets are more solvent, it is unlikely that a U.B.I. proposal would result in anything other than deficit spending.

     As long as subsidies exist, then if we receive $1,000 a month from the federal government, most of the beneficiaries of that spending will just be whichever the existing set of sellers are (that is, of housing, of consumer goods, etc.). Only people who accept U.S. dollars would benefit from the introduction of a basic income. On the other hand, it's a consolation that legal as well as illegal sellers would benefit from that spending, but the red market (that is, the crime-for-hire sector) would probably also see growth.
     Another concern is that a U.B.I. is extremely unlikely to not result in price inflation. As anarchist Will Schnack has pointed out, if landlords know that everyone is about to start receiving a thousand dollars a month, there's very little reason to suspect that they would not raise the amount of rent they charge, by a similar or comparable amount.
     If the great idea of the basic income program is supposedly that "the money goes right back into the economy, to businesses, to sellers", then that helps sellers, whom are also eligible to receive the Freedom Dividend. But what about everybody else? In a way, most of us are sellers, because we sell our labor; however, many laborers would rather not work (or at least not as hard or as many hours a week as they do), and large-scale sellers of goods, and employers of labor, receive more than laborers do, so they would ultimately benefit the most from the Freedom Dividend.

     One way that a U.B.I. could be made more friendly to libertarians, by offering to make payments in gold, silver, palladium, Bitcoin, and other currencies, and accompanying the introduction of the basic income program with the legalization of competing currencies. A U.B.I. paid only in U.S. dollars, will inordinately favors firms and workers who accept payment in U.S. dollars, while hurting those who would rather deal in other currencies.
     Aside from the need for monetary reform, if people understand how much purchasing power a U.B.I. would give them collectively, and if we had serious budgetary reform – as well as an abolition of all subsidies and favors to businesses – to accompany the introduction of a U.B.I. program, then I think it's possible that it could be successful. But people must have total freedom to cooperate voluntarily to pool funds in order to make large strategic purchases, for the purpose of providing savings to low-income people who need to buy things,
     Abolishing all subsidies is no easy task. Especially if the abolition of business subsidies, led to demands to reduce subsidies of the poor too soon, and thus causes politicians to cancel the program or alter it beyond recognition. Additionally, it will do no good to end subsidies by ending the protection of business, but then turning around and keeping a basic income program going, which just gives the people's money to existing businesses, which just replaces the money they lose when they lose business subsidies.
     When looking at basic income and citizens' dividend programs, we need to think about who stands to benefit the least from programs that are sold on the basis of "putting money right back into the economy"; and that is people who sell the least and buy the most. But also, people under 18, whom are not eligible; neither in Paine's proposal, nor in Yang's. As I understand it, minors would not be free to opt into the program on any basis; they would not even be capable of receiving funds in an account that could be sequestered for when they turn 18.
    Does it really benefit society to give adults money, but not children? Does it help society if children are even more dependent on adults than they are now? While it helps that Yang's proposal will offer people the chance to opt into the system when they turn 18, it could be argued that the government could at least offer them anywhere between one and eighteen years of back pay.
     Take a moment to think about this, logically: What is the result of a system in which you are eligible to receive $1,000, each month, forever? Wouldn't that remove nearly any and all possibility of the economic power of the young, to counter-balance the economic power of the old? I suspect that any sort of basic income or citizens' dividend, could potentially result in effectively conferring fully legal social and economic privileges which are attached to age. It could well be argued that 

     To answer the second question, about differences between the programs:

     The set of programs we're talking about are 1) a universal basic income guarantee, 2) a citizens' dividend (or my proposal of a residents' dividend), 3) the Negative Income Tax, and 4) sovereign wealth funds that include dividends funded by profits and/or sales of natural resources.

     Alaska implemented its Alaska Permanent Fund, and Norway enacted its Sovereign Wealth Fund, without much resistance. At least not compared to the resistance with which Libya and Venezuela were met after introducing their wealth funds. As their natural resources, Chavez chose oil, while Qadhafi chose gold. They were met with opposition from the U.S. military and C.I.A., as well as European powers. We should never assume that these programs are "socialist", much less that socialism collapses on its own. Basic income programs are attempts to retain capitalism while improving the welfare system; they are not socialist.

     The key difference between a universal basic income (including Yang's Freedom Dividend) and a Negative Income Tax, is that while basic income programs assure that nobody falls below a certain level of income, by giving them that income; the Negative Income Tax brings people halfway from the income they're at, to some predetermined level of income. That level could be set to be equal to the poverty level, and I would recommend that it would, but I would also recommend raising the poverty level at the same time, because I do not think it is high enough.

     The purpose of lifting people halfway out of poverty, as the Negative Income Tax does, is to help ensure that nobody is deterred from working. Yang concedes that $12,000 a year is not enough to live on, so his program anticipates the need to prevent work deterrence. On the other hand, this might be a bad thing, because the impulse to ensure that people are not deterred from working, could be motivated by suspicions that basic income programs fail because they deter people from working. They don't.

     Many opponents of basic income programs like to claim that the U.B.I. program in Finland failed. It did not fail; it was abandoned by a new party that took control, and added a work requirement to it.  Finland required people to either be working, or provide proof that they've been looking for work, in order to continue to be eligible for funds.

     You might not consider that "abandoning" the program, but the key aspect of a U.B.I. is that it is unconditional and universal. That means everyone should be eligible to receive it; no exceptions nor means-testing based on age, nor on the ability to work. Therefore, to impose a work condition, or any condition - upon a U.B.I. program, is to alter it beyond recognition. It would be a conditional basic income, rather than a universal, unconditional one, and it would render a "Basic Income Guarantee" in effect no longer a guarantee.

     Additionally, Finland has numerous problems in the employment department; including half a million people who are working in unpaid internships for one or even two years (in hopes that they'll eventually be offered a job). Most jobs there don't pay much, so in Finland, it really doesn't pay to accept a job; especially because Finland has the same "poverty trap in welfare" problem with which many American government assistance programs are still riddled.

     Therefore, the "failure" of Finland's basic income program should be chalked up to alteration of the program beyond recognition, rather than failure due to work deterrence. If the jobs were desirable, people would take them. People are not taking many of these jobs precisely because they do not offer enough money. Hirers should not complain that people are not motivated to work, yet refuse to offer them enough money to offset their costs of living. Their pay should offset those costs, and more, or mutual benefit of worker and hirer is not occurring.

     As skeptical and cautious as I am about these various basic income programs, I still hope that more Libertarians look into them, and understand the differences between them, so that they can carefully evaluate them in cost-benefit analyses. I hope that Libertarians remain open to alterations to our various government assistance programs, especially those which aim to reduce popular dependence upon government for management of the expenditure of the funds, and those which aim to provide restitution for wrongs perpetrated by the government, and aim to return opportunity and economic power to citizens.

     I think Ron Paul was correct when he said that voluntary socialism would be more desirable than a large welfare state, and I think that basic income programs could provide a potential opportunity to achieve large-scale worker ownership of means of production for public benefit, if utilized consciously, cooperatively, and frugally.

     It is possible that the implementation of a Georgist "Single Tax" or "Land Value Taxation" would involve cash payments; it is a matter of contention among Georgists whether and how this would be done.

     I support Georgism for reasons of its concern for the land issue, and for the tangential beneficial effects which Georgist land allocation policy would have upon environmental conservation. That's why I would argue that it would make plenty of sense for Land Value Taxation to fund a basic income, a citizens' dividend, or a sovereign wealth fund; especially if a natural resource dividend is included.

     However, it's possible that tethering citizens' economic security to the value of a key natural resource or chief export, might result in vast fluctuations of the value of their currency, and eventual economic collapse (as we saw in Venezuela, when the price of oil collapsed, triggering a collapse of the value of the Venezuelan Bolivar). And these are realistic concerns.

     But on the other hand, taxing the extraction of finite natural resources - such as oil, coal, gold, and minerals - is an important aspect of Georgism, from the perspective of most Georgists. Georgists want to tax only land, but the full economic definition of land is considered to include natural resources within the land. Therefore, the taxation of profits and/or sale from wealth acquired in the course of mining - and in the course of extracting finite natural resources, especially if they are locally scarce - should logically fund a natural resource dividend, from the perspective of most Georgists.

     Finally, as usual, I would recommend that budgetary reform should accompany any implementation of natural resource dividends.

     I also want to stress that Libertarians - at least Libertarian Party members who voted for Gary Johnson - should not be concerned that a basic income will bankrupt the country or bring about socialism. Gary Johnson's federal tax policy was the FairTax, a 23% value added tax on consumption; on all goods sold nationally. A key provision of this program was the "FairTax prebate", a "preliminary rebate" which would be disbursed to citizens - at the beginning of the year - in order to offset the costs they would incur in the course of paying consumption taxes on purchases throughout the coming year. The effects of that policy are similar to basic income. To say someone is not a Libertarian for supporting basic income proposals, is to deny the similarity of basic income to the most recent Libertarian Party presidential nominee's tax policy.

     Similarly, Libertarians interested in the Negative Income Tax, but not basic income proposals, should keep in mind that one purpose of the Negative Income Tax is to create a flat tax which is effectively progressive, by taxing the rich at a flat rate, in order to fund disbursements to the poor on the basis of their distance from a flat but negative rate extending below the zero-tax, "break even" point.

     Other tax reforms that I think would be both popular, and acceptable to Libertarians, include: 1) extending child care tax credits (which Trump did, but we could do it more), and 2) extending tax credits for expenditures incurred in caring for seniors. We could also 3) extend health tax credits, and let states choose whether to make them refundable. Additionally, we could 4) extend the Earned Income Tax Credit even further; and 5) enact homesteading tax credits in 49 states so as to include all apartments, trailers, and tiny houses.
     You can learn more about all these types of proposed changes to our taxation and welfare programs, by logging into Facebook, and requesting to join my group "Basic Income & Tax Reform".

     

     12Q. A few years ago, while in a cafe in Portland, you discovered something very interesting about the right to bear arms. What was it?

      12A. About five years ago, I went to the Bipartisan Cafe in Southeast Portland, Oregon. It is a politically themed cafe, and it has old campaign posters and historical documents on the wall. One of those documents was the Bill of Rights.

     By a lucky coincidence, this was a draft of the Bill of Rights some three to six months before it was edited, and formally adopted. And what was edited out of the version of the Second Amendment that I saw on this early draft of the Bill of Rights, amounted to half of the amendment.
     The content which was removed, pertained to whether people would be required to render military service in person; essentially, whether people could be drafted. As I explained in my 2014 article "Altering the 2nd Amendment to Protect Conscientious Objection", the early draft of the Second Amendment promised that "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be required to render military service in person".
     The term "religiously scrupulous (of bearing arms)" means both, or either, of the following: 1) having religious or moral scruples (principles) against serving in the military, and/or 2) being so scrupulously well-trained (including self-trained) so as to be able to defend oneself and one's homestead, without needing to participate in collective or national training of militia, or to participate in taking up and bearing arms against invaders as a collective.
     This is to say that, when the amendment was drafted, the standard pro-gun / anti-draft view was that if an adult male had a moral objection to being drafted into the army, and/or could shoot straight and defend himself without any help from the government, then he should be exempt from the draft. Additionally, he should be recognized as U.S. Code -specified "unorganized militia", and be allowed to defend himself - and organize with and among his peers - free from government interference and "assistance".
     In my mind, this affirms beyond any doubt that the original intention of the Second Amendment was to protect our right to resist illegitimate authority, government destructive of freedoms, and any and all armies that try to draft us. And that should go, whether that's armies of the U.S., the U.K., other foreign nations, or even terrorist groups or private armies. Furthermore, the U.S. Code section on the "composition and classes of the militia", and quotations from George Mason about the composition of the militia, affirm the exact opposite of the notion that only government officials and people with licenses should be allowed to have weapons.
     There is no doubt in my mind that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect ourselves  against tyrants, not to secure the right to hunt. The fact that the Second Amendment was altered, does not show that individuals never had the absolute right to defend themselves; it shows the opposite. It shows that we had that right, but most of our founders chose to give it up to the government. This abandonment of our right to bear arms occurred first through removing the "religiously scrupulous" provision, and later through the suppression of the Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, whose legitimacy were predicated upon the federal government's authority to repel insurrections.
     Fortunately, however, if two-thirds of the states felt that we should replace the current Second Amendment with the text of the Second Amendment several months before it was edited and adopted, then that could be done constitutionally via the amendment process (which could take anywhere from six months to seven years).
     Restoring our freedom to keep arms and resist the draft, would not only reduce the costs of government by diminishing our reliance upon the police and military; it would also keep lawmakers on their toes, and afraid to pass laws and start wars that the people don't like. But reducing reliance on police and military for defense, will also reduce the feeling that we are surrounded by the occupying presence of an increasingly militarized police force (for which we have Bill Clinton to thank).
     And let's not forget what this means for the draft: total abolition of it. Not adding women and transgender people to it; not requiring everybody to participate in it to make it more "fair". Subjecting people to equal deprivations of freedom, is not freedom; just as the selective service is just slavery with a gun. Government programs are not supposed to be selective and discriminatory; the public sector is supposed to impart equal rights and protections under the law. Legislation affecting particular groups of people on the basis of demographics, characteristics, and classes - rather than on whether they engage in behaviors that harm others - should not be, and I believe is not, permissible in the American tradition of constitutional law.
     Restoring that original draft of the Second Amendment will help us protect our own lives, but also the lives of our children, when the government sends us a threatening letter telling us to register them for the draft or else pay $125,000 (as they sent to my parents in 2004). I don't know why it's commonplace to just accept that, but as far as I'm concerned, if you extort a man into giving up his son for your army, you deserve to get shot to death, and there's no two ways about it. I don't care who's coming; if it's a genuine threat, then enough people will rise up to defend against it. No person in his right mind would stand down against a legitimate threat, so why would you need a draft? The purpose of the draft is to provide cheap or free labor to the government. Even "mandatory civilian national service", which concedes that "you don't have to fight, you can just serve in a support role", risks reducing non-combatant "civilian servants" to the level of second-class servants to military personnel and officers.
     And there is a very real threat of the draft coming back; both because of efforts to include women in compulsory draft registration, and because of the president's threats to start an unpopular war with (or intervention in) Venezuela. Whether that will require military occupation or a draft, of course, remains to be seen, but the possibility of the draft coming back should remain a very real concern, even if American military activities around the world decrease, because the fact that people are proposing changes to Selective Service registration requirements, indicates that they're thinking about changing policy concerning the draft in general.
     Based on statements by Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and others, I suspect that "mandatory civilian national service" is exactly what some of our lawmakers have in mind. I believe that the government will exaggerate how much it pays enlistees and helps veterans, in order to keep up appearances that military service is the best career opportunity in many places in America. Even if that is true, it is not necessarily attributable to the totally disproportionate allocation of labor power, capital, patents, and other resources, privileges, and favors, to the military, rather than for non-military domestic purposes, such as public infrastructure.

     13Q. Speaking of military policy, what are your thoughts about the current situation in Venezuela?

     13A: Obviously Venezuela is in a bad situation economically. But that does not necessarily mean that the U.S. should get involved. And it especially doesn't necessarily mean that U.S. might and military power will solve the problem.

     Of course, Trump and Pence have no intention of using U.S. troops to fight poverty; their plan is to install Juan Guaidó as president, so that oil fields will be opened to the U.S. and other Western nations for oil exploration. Trump has even said “to the victor go the spoils”, admitting that his military policy concerning I.S.I.S. and Venezuela would involve taking oil as payment for military assistance (i.e., installing the new regime).

     This is another war for oil. Just like what the U.S.'s actions in that country in 2002 were intended to achieve. Venezuela has the highest amount of proven oil reserves of any country in the world, including Saudi Arabia. That fact made Venezuela a prime target for “war for oil” and “regime change” towards the beginning of the “peak oil” pushing Bush administration. And so, in 2002, the C.I.A. and international elements conspired to abduct Hugo Chavez, who returned to power two days later, after then ExxonMobil C.E.O. Rafael Carmona was sworn in as president.

     At the risk of over-generalizing, and of trivializing the suffering of the Venezuelan people, I will say that I don't think it goes too far to suggest that the only Venezuelans who welcome foreign intervention for the purposes of regime change, are the wealthier and whiter among them.

     The “opposition” who support Guaidó, are for the most part lighter-skinned than are the supporters of Maduro. Many of these light-skinned Venezuelans even describe themselves as “Spaniards”, to distinguish themselves from the “Afro and Mestizo” heritage claimed by the majority of Venezuelans.

     It's true that extreme poverty is a problem in Venezuela. People are collecting water from sewage drains, selling their hair for money, and eating animals they wouldn't eat in normal circumstances. But that is not the fault of Nicolas Maduro, nor was it the fault of Hugo Chavez. One Venezuelan, interviewed earlier this year, said that things are bad, but the people have been through worse. They want things to get better, but not if it means U.S. troops in the country.

     Furthermore, Hugo Chavez actually reduced the extreme poverty that existed in Venezuela before he took office. In particular, by building millions of new houses, to replace old cardboard ones which barely protected people from the elements. Chavez tied his country's financial future to oil profits, which was working out well until the price of oil collapsed in 2008.

     That's what caused the collapse of Venezuela; not socialism. Venezuela doesn't even have socialism; it features much more state ownership of capital, than it does worker (or collective) ownership of capital. Chavez and Maduro “appropriated” people's businesses for the state, based on the idea that the state will hand the business over to the people. When “socialist” states fail or refuse to do so, then they are arguably more “state capitalist” than socialist.

     Despite the evidence suggesting that Venezuelan socialism doesn't even exist – much less that it could have caused all of the country's problems - many Western media claim that socialism, or the dictatorship of Maduro, are the only causes of those problems.

     It's not that Maduro hasn't used force against indigenous people, or against his political opponents; he has. But that does not necessarily merit U.S. involvement, nor does it ensure that whomever replaces Maduro will be any less ruthless against those who oppose him. It also doesn't necessarily prove that the opposition didn't deserve it; some candidates – pro and anti Maduro alike – were found to have won fraudulently in the most recent election. Additionally, Guaido's coalition urged people to boycott the 2017 special election, because they knew they wouldn't win; which later resulted in that opposition and its international supporters to wrongly conclude that that election was illegitimate.

     Moreover, Western media blame socialism for Venezuela's problems, and pitch the overthrow of Maduro as the solution; meanwhile a U.S. blockade is preventing Venezuelan oil shipments from unloading, and the exchequer of the United Kingdom has refused to return over a half billion dollars in gold. The U.S. and U.K. are blaming socialism for Venezuela's poverty, while refusing to let the country acquire wealth by unloading their oil shipments or getting their gold reserves back.

     While the refusal of the British exchequer to relinquish Venezuela's gold to the Maduro regime, could arguably be justified based on the idea that Maduro is not the legitimate president of Venezuela, that argument would not hold water. Juan Guaidó never ran against Maduro in a presidential election; he was never defrauded of his chance to win the presidency because he never ran for president. He swore himself in as interim acting president, based on the provisions of the 1999 Venezuelan constitution.

     Britain's keeping of Venezuela's gold reserves, is a causeless suspension of faith in the legitimacy of the Maduro regime. It may even be motivated by resentment of the fact that Venezuela refused to sell oil fields to British Petroleum after French oil firms left the country.

     In becoming interim president, what Guaidó has done, would be the equivalent of if the U.S. Senate were to elect one of their own to be president, according to an outdated and unpopular Constitution. It would be like if the Senate elected Chuck Schumer to be the acting president, and expected him to take office without resistance, amid strong suspicion that he wanted to abolish or replace the lower legislative house.

     On the other hand, it's not like Maduro never tried to de-legitimize an entire branch of government; in March 2017 the Maduro loyalist Supreme Court stripped the National Assembly of its powers. We might call that “oppressing his opposition”, but we might also call it “doing what is necessary to prevent a coup”. We can hardly criticize Maduro for trying to prevent a coup; unless we criticize our own leaders for doing the same.

     Those who advocate U.S. assistance of a coup in Venezuela, are for the most part well-off. Western media exaggerate the extent of food shortages, and have no incentive to air reports about well stocked grocery stores. Several journalists and web personalities have testified to having seen more cases of extreme poverty in the United States today, than during their recent visits to Venezuela. The only people who want U.S. intervention in Venezuela for the sake of poverty relief, are people who care more about Venezuelans' right to purchase a variety of brand name foods made in Western capitalist countries, than they care about their right to eat food in general.

     Additionally, there is no evidence that the Maduro regime has destroyed aid shipments without cause. Trucks shown on a bridge were not blocking aid shipments; the bridge is not operational. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that video evidence proved that it was Guaido's supporters who burned a shipment of U.S. aid. I have heard that the Times had to retract their initial story, in which it was reported that the fires were set by Maduro's supporters. Additionally, Venezuela is not rejecting all aid; it rejects U.S. aid – but not aid from Russia, nor China – out of a concern that the U.S. may be attempting to smuggle weapons into the country (to Guaido's supporters) through that aid.

     Venezuelans have every right to be suspicious of what American “support” stand to bring Venezuela.

     While politicians in America are suggesting that we abolish the Electoral College, in order to restore popular control and reduce the influence of the upper house; the supporters of Juan Guaido are conspiring to reduce the power of Venezuela's lower house, under the name of the “Popular Will” party. Moreover, Venezuelans have every right to be suspicious of Juan Guaido, a graduate of Washington, D.C.'s George Washington University, which is one of the top five most militarized colleges in the United States, as well as a known recruiting ground for the C.I.A..

     This is an ongoing coup attempt, plain and simple. The longer the Trump Administration goes without toppling Maduro and installing Guaido, the more humiliated they will feel, and the less competent they will look. Maduro has a price tag on his head, and Trump and Pence – together with the leaders of Canada, Europe, and other nations – have put it there. The suffering of the Venezuelan people, and the American people alike, is the only possible outcome of U.S. intervention in Venezuela.

     Venezuela is the backyard of the Venezuelan people, not the people of the United States of America. The only reason Venezuela seems so close to the United States, is because we have spent so long in Afghanistan, and other places near the opposite side of the world. If you can occupy a country on the other side of the world for a whole generation, then you can justify deposing leaders anywhere on the premise that “they're practically in our backyard”.

     We must not allow Trump to continue the charade that he is reducing our military presence around the world. If the U.S. goes into Venezuela, then he will be simply moving troops around, not reducing them (quite like the manner in which a child moves food he doesn't like around his plate with his fork, instead of eating it).

     14Q. Where can our viewers go to see your blog, buy your books, and watch your YouTube videos?

     14A. My blog is the Aquarian Agrarian on Blogspot.com. Since its founding in October 2010, the url has been www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. You can go to the white search bar on the top-left of the screen, and type any term to find articles I've written about the subject you entered. You can read the blog's description (under the title, at the top) to get some hints about the types of issues I write about.

     On the right side of the blog, there's a column that shows all 450 articles I've published on it, arranged according to date. Click on 2017, then go into May 2017, and then click on the last article published that month, entitled “Two Collections of Essays, and Another Book, Now Available on TheBookPatch”.

     You can also visit my YouTube channel JoeKopsick4Congress, to see my videos. These include videos of me weighing in on political topics, reading some of my essays aloud, interviews I've been part of, and video research projects that I've produced.

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/05/two-collections-of-essays-now-available.html

http://www.youtube.com/user/JoeKopsick4Congress

Check out these links to learn more about the topics discussed above:

1. Libertarian policy on the structure of the federal government

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44942719

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h723.html

2. Free trade and free markets

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/02/why-trump-shouldnt-declare-national.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-case-for-clear-market-capitalism.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter-globalization

3. Agorism and black markets

http://me.me/i/the-five-markets-banned-unless-done-in-state-defined-manner-ce59eb48f97c4cc4901b56a1c0745319

4. Anarchist vs. Libertarian views on private property ownership

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-neither-radical-progressives-nor.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrIknmzJsI&feature=youtu.be

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/twenty-five-reasons-why-political.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/09/what-liberals-and-conservatives-both.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/08/markets-and-socialism-can-both-lead-to.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/08/capitalism-is-incompatible-with-free.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-part-right.html

5. Agorism, private law, and stateless legal frameworks

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/03/privatization-or-anarchism-providing.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-libertarian-theory-of-government-or.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-gulags-were-less-harsh-than.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-road-to-panarchy.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/10/map-of-contiguous-united-states-in.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/11/panarchist-securitization-and-taxation.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/08/panarchist-welfare-economics.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/agorism-summary.html

6. Ethical consumerism and effective boycotts

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/12/supporters-of-free-markets-should.html

7. Right to Work laws, and other labor policies

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/wisconsin-and-collective-bargaining-my.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/11/compulsory-and-majority-unionism-hurt.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/07/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/06/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html

8. Mutualism and market socialism

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/02/agorism-and-mutualism-summaries-and.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/08/anarcho-communists-vs-anarcho.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/09/links-about-cooperatives-and-nonprofit.html

http://mutualeconomynetwork.blogspot.com/

http://geomutualist.review/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a92qeVc6hw4&feature=youtu.be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-who-owns-the-benefit-the-free-market-as-full-communism

9. Georgism and Geo-Libertarianism

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/01/what-is-geolibertarianism-abbreviated.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/01/what-is-geolibertarianism.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAW8QuMSUgA

http://www.cgocouncil.org/

http://www.lclp.org/articles/geolibertarianism/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Georgism

http://www.progress.org/

http://www.commongroundnyc.org/cgnyc.htm

http://hgchicago.org/

http://www.progress.org/articles/the-1890-georgist-constitution

http://evolutionofconsent.com/

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3EmrqPfsJQ

10. The 2020 U.S. presidential race

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-labor-offering-tax-incentives-to.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v509wNIaCc0

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2016/02/sanderss-foreign-policy-silence-hides.html

11. Universal Basic Income, and similar programs

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2016/12/proposal-of-geo-painean-friedmanite.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/taxpayer-funded-benefits-for.html

http://fee.org/articles/andrew-yang-s-math-doesn-t-add-up-on-universal-basic-income/?fbclid=IwAR18dzIzgt9fNyy9OQw9mwn9IRFRKOVxGT2vuodrkVcBJcyUPCB3a7c0rdc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLt2X8Zybds&fbclid=IwAR0GuwZG4GJo2rzP5PlzHdUEVnPHk2j0oOpuw4rUNnhWBgLkiZxBwfnRCU8





12. The right to bear arms, and the military draft

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/altering-2nd-amendment-to-protect.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/11/why-far-left-should-value-right-to-keep.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4WWnNo2QaI

13. U.S. policy towards Venezuela

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/03/thirty-six-links-that-cast-doubt-on-uss.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/12/self-interview-on-venezuela-and.html
14. Where to access more of Joe Kopsick's writing

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/05/two-collections-of-essays-now-available.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/09/links-to-videos-not-mirrored-on-this.html

Originally Written on March 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, and 19th, 2019

Originally Published on March 14th, 2019
Expanded on March 15th, 16th, and 19th, 2019