Showing posts with label antitrust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antitrust. Show all posts

Monday, August 31, 2020

Forty Legislative Reforms Which I Think Most Minor Parties and Independents Would Support

     1. End the wars and bring the troops home: Dismantle at least 800 overseas U.S. military bases, and drastically reduce the number of countries in which at least one U.S. troop is deployed (which is currently about 160).

     2. Repeal the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, repeal any and all A.U.M.F.s (Authorizations for the Use of Military Force) against Afghanistan and Iraq, and end the national state of emergency over the Korean conflict.

     3. Repeal or amend the War Powers Act, strictly requiring congressional declaration of war before troops can be deployed to a new country.

     4. End torturous “enhanced interrogation” and extraordinary rendition (illegal torture abroad).

     5. End warrantless wiretaps, and stop spying on American civilians and our allies abroad.

     6. End entangling alliances, end all foreign aid, and exit N.A.T.O. (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

     7. Prohibit the use of drone warfare, and the deployment of drones in foreign countries, without a congressional declaration of war (and, if possible, the host nation's permission).


     8. Abolish active registration for the Selective Service (i.e., military draft).
9. Repeal the “Clinton omnibus crime bill” (a/k/a the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) in its entirety.


     10. Ensure equal protection under the law: Stop denying due process and fair trials to terror suspects and suspected undocumented immigrants. If they're not made subject to our protections, then they shouldn't be held subject to our laws.

     11. Amend the 13th Amendment to prohibit involuntary servitude in all cases of punishment for committing victimless crimes.

     12. End police brutality by taking away police officers' rights to kill during unlawful arrest and “have sex with people in their custody” (i.e., raping people).

     13. Protect children by amending child trafficking laws, and making age of consent laws more uniform.

     14. Respect the principle that the just powers of government derive from the consent of the governed, by making participation in all government programs voluntary, and by repealing taxes on all harmless productive economic activities.

     15. Require that constitutional justification for all new bills and departments, must be included within the bill.

     16. Require sunset clauses for all new legislation, strictly adhering to the Constitution's two-year limitation for all military-related expenditures.

     17. Achieve free, fair, and open elections, by improving ballot access for minor parties and independents.

     18. Annually audit, and eventually end, the Federal Reserve System, sending its powers back to Congress. Additionally, ban Fractional Reserve Banking and prosecute it under anti-usury laws.

     19. Balance budgets, achieve fiscal solvency, and produce surplus budgets A.S.A.P. to pay down the debt.

     20. Let states experiment with Universal Basic Income, the Negative Income Tax, and state public banks.

     21. Let states and communities experiment with Land Value Taxation and Community Land Trusts.

     22. De-politicize issues related to science, medicine, the environment, technology, budgets, finance, banking, the judiciary, election fairness, governmental ethics, redistricting, the arts, etc..

     23. Protect the planet and the people over profits by creating a blueprint for ecologically sustainable production.

     24. Shorten medical patents, to allow generics to come onto the market sooner, to reduce medical prices.

     25. Reduce medical prices by eliminating unnecessary taxes on health goods and services.

     26. Legalize alternative medicine and make vaccines optional.

     27. Reduce medical costs by allowing non-profit medical organizations to operate tax-free.

     28. Let non-profits operate tax-free, because they cannot be taxed without being forced to operate at a loss.

     29. Clarify Roe v. Wade: Craft a nationwide amendment on abortion which clarifies the meaning of a “reasonable state restriction to abortion access”.

     30. De-politicize the issue of abortion by ending all involuntary taxpayer funding of abortion services.

     31. Legalize growing cannabis at home; in order to 1) lower marijuana prices, 2) eliminate all excuses for federal intervention in marijuana on interstate commerce grounds, and 3) eliminate the need for state licensing and permits for growing.

     32. Take cannabis / marijuana off of Schedule I, as it is not a drug that lacks legitimate medical uses.

     33. Fight for a free, fair, and open economy by eliminating all unfair subsidies to business, and by prohibiting government from contracting with monopolies.

     34. Increase the use of the federal government's antitrust power to break up monopolies.

     35. Amend the 1935 Wagner Act (N.L.R.A.) to make it easier to form a second union in a workplace or collective bargaining unit.

     36. Restore the full right to boycott, and engage in secondary labor actions, by repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.

     37. End the trade war, and re-negotiate N.A.F.T.A. so that importers and exporters are not unfairly targeted for taxation.

     38. Fix our nation's crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.), as long as areas other than the Bos-Wash corridor on the East Coast receive a fair share of transportation spending.

     39. Make the Postmaster General a cabinet-level position again, and allow the U.S. Postal Service to receive taxpayer funds.

     40. Help the poor, homeless, and refugees, by legalizing mutual aid. Remove barriers to providing humanitarian aid; by legalizing squatting and camping, lowering residency duration requirements in order to claim homesteading rights, etc.. Additionally, prohibit housing subsidies whenever and wherever the number of empty residences exceeds the number of people in need of permanent shelter.





     The set of proposals listed above were developed in connection with the policies I called for in my earlier outline of a platform for a yet-to-be-founded hypothetical Humanitarian Party. That platform can be viewed at the following link: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/towards-free-united-populism-proposal.html








Written on August 30th and September 1st, 2020

Published on September 1st, 2020

Thursday, August 9, 2018

Critique of Antitrust Laws


     The idea of having antitrust laws, and using them to abolish monopolies, is flawed.
     In my opinion, it would be foolish to trust a government monopoly to abolish a business monopoly, for the simple fact that monopolies enable each other. Businesses desirous of monopolies lobby the government for favors, and the same monopolistic state grants the businesses exclusive and exclusionary titles, properties, privileges, and licenses.
     However, the goal of abolishing monopolies should not be abandoned solely due to that fact. It is possible to abolish monopolies without growing the size and scope of government, and without spending more money, and even by doing nothing.
     To allow monopolies to be abolished passively rather than actively, government could simply allow people to go into competition with whatever monopolies are unnatural and problematic. As soon as someone becomes free to compete against a monopoly, the monopoly becomes de facto no longer a monopoly.
     This is because someone else is now trying to sell the same good or service; whereas the privilege (not the right) to compete against the monopolist was previously regulated and licensed-out by government. And the government, by the way, gets away with charging practically any price it pleases, on the permits and licenses which it grants, and which it grants itself the exclusive right to create, and from which, the exclusive right to profit.
     In an absence of monopolistic competition, subsidies and bailouts, and other taxpayer-funded privileges and protections that benefit business, the problem of monopoly would be on its way to being solved by consumers. That's because consumers would retain the absolute freedom to refuse to transact with firms they dislike; whether through face-to-face buying and selling, or through being taxed to support those businesses.
     No society which steals from productive workers, to balance the bills of those who house and employ them, can be called a society which values voluntary association (which includes freedom from association). Additionally, no society is voluntary which does not recognize that we have innumerable unalienable rights, which are enshrined in the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, among them the right to perform and exchange labor in order to survive.
     Although the Ninth Amendment was written on a piece of paper, it strongly suggests that our rights do not come from a piece of paper. And when a government can restrict our freedoms to travel, marry, work, trade, etc. - and demand that we pay them, and identify ourselves with government-issued identification papers whenever asked – that government does not respect the Ninth Amendment. It does not respect the notion that we have so many rights, it would be impossible to try to write all of them down, lest someone start suspecting that writing them down means that they are things that a majority can vote away.
     The way to establish free competition, and allow for easy and peaceful abolition of monopolies, is to respect our Ninth Amendment rights to work without a license, and to go into competition with powerful monopolies without paying the government for a permit. Such licenses and permits amount to unjustifiable entry fees; barriers to entry into the markets and into the labor force. These measures suppress not only competition, but also cooperation, which can be equally damaging to monopoly (as long as it does not succumb to “cooperation with authority”).
     What we have now is neither a wholly free-market system, nor capitalism, nor voluntary association, nor true competition. We have a rigged, regulated simulation of monopoly, which also attempts to include features of the free-market system – like enterprise – in that simulation. But this is neither true monopoly nor true competition; it is “monopolistic competition”, in which firms compete for the reward of having all the other players knocked off the board. Firms may try to compete all they want, but it's still rigged (so it's not a free market); and nonetheless, they're not disqualified for trying ( so it's not a full monopoly either).
     The result of the failure of antitrust is the same result as all government failure; moral hazard. This is the blind faith in government, and the unproven assumption that government oversight or intervention is actually making goods safer and more healthy. Think of it as sort of the “argument from benevolence” about the existence of God, but applied to the state instead; it's the assumption that if we can conceive of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent government, then one must exist! But of course, this is a joke.
     The negative consequences of antitrust failure do not stop at moral hazard; they continue on, to regulatory capture; the success of businesses which have the legal and financial resources to avoid being burdened by new regulations (which has the effect of shutting their competitors out of business). If these negative consequences are allowed to continue, the results can include the overspecialization of tasks, the enforcement of professional regulations which is favorable to only those jobs and industries which are already well-established, and the hoarding of skills by older workers (to prevent new workers from “threatening their livelihoods” by competing against them for wages in the job market).
     All of this, of course, means higher prices for us; for any and all types of goods and services we could possibly want or imagine. The risks of antitrust should not be taken lightly.





Written and Published on August 9th, 2018

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Obamacare's Constitutionality and Employer Provided Health Insurance

     I will support legislation that will repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (ObamaCare), including the End the Mandate Act (H.R. 1101) and legislation similar to it.
     There are many reasons why the individual mandate to purchase insurance is not constitutional. It is not a tax on an activity; it is a penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. If the individual mandate were a tax, it would be an infinite percent tax on a zero-dollar item or transaction (i.e., the “act” of refraining from purchasing health insurance). Additionally, the exemptions that have been granted render this “mandate” not a mandate but rather a bundle of special favors; that they have been granted conflicts with the legal principle of equal protection under the law.
     Not only is the act of issuing a health insurance policy not commerce (as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869), refraining from purchasing health insurance does not even constitute trade. Without a constitutional amendment authorizing the federal government to be involved in the health care industry (except within the District of Columbia and the overseas territories), the federal government should have no role in regulating it.
     However, in 1944 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate insurance (i.e., keep it regular and uninhibited) in pursuance of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in order to prevent unnatural monopolies in insurance sales.
     Given this authority, and the Obama Administration's admitted desire to work with Republicans to pass legislation that effectively drives down costs but doesn't resort to mandating purchases, I believe that there are many good reasons why the federal government should end the mandate and legalize the interstate purchase of health insurance (thus allowing insurers based in states with low average insurance costs to compete in states with high average costs).
     States might also wish to further cut insurance costs for patients by passing legislation providing for their health departments and bureaus – and health insurance cooperatives within them – to evolve into worker-consumer wholesale purchasing cooperatives (providing for a closer and more direct negotiation on prices and other issues between health workers and patients). Organizing bulk purchasing can, should, and must be done in order to cut costs and to create economies of scale powerful enough to balance the power of sellers, but when the State is more trusted and empowered to do so than the people and their enterprises through the markets, the results tend to be the exact opposite of what was intended.
     In order to improve the delivery of health insurance to people who need it (whether they are citizens or not), I will urge states to allow people to purchase real health insurance in the open marketplace, including affordable basic catastrophic accident and illness policies, and change of health status insurance.
     I will additionally urge states to refrain from implementing single-payer systems. Although it is not the federal government's business to order states to enact this or that policy on health insurance (besides requiring them to allow trade and competition across state lines), the monopsony which government single-payer systems wield derives from a special privilege to monopolistically compete in purchasing. Such states' purchase mandates act as regulatory barriers to interstate insurance purchase and sales, thereby driving costs up. I will support the augmentation of antitrust laws in order to apply to single-payer systems requiring universal coverage.
     Single-payer is also undesirable because it would require public taxpayer funds to subsidize the insurance of each and every health customer, including individuals who want expensive, dangerous, and/or medically unnecessary procedures. This would undoubtedly create nothing but more protracted budget battles and ideological in-fighting.
     I do not support any level of government taking steps towards prohibiting purchase of health insurance by agencies other than governmental entities; non-governmental alternatives must always exist, and government must not show preferences for any alternative through differential taxation.
     The federal government can and should close a tax loophole, by ceasing to exempt employees from paying taxes on employer-provided health insurance. This special favor has created financial incentives for leaving people without health insurance once they lose their jobs and become unemployed, because it is a benefit for people who stay employed, and a way to encourage them to refrain from purchasing outside plans. Although the federal government should eventually stop taxing earnings altogether, for the time being it should tax all compensation equally.




For more entries on commerce, please visit:

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Using Profit Incentive to Promote Protection of the Poor

Written on June 5th, 2012



   In an Agorist, Panarchist, or Polyarchist society, everyone would be expected to submit their disputes to some - not necessarily the same - independent third party arbitrator, so nobody could choose not to be governed, but we'd all have more choices in regards to who governs us, as well as in what respects.

   Given that most people in America today think that the rich should pay more in taxes than the middle-class and poor, I think it is very likely that such an outcome would arise simply through the eventual acceptance of a social / economic custom, whereby people urge one another to only choose who governs them from among a set of governments that tax the rich more than the poor. The governments that don't would be picketed, boycotted, have negative information spread about them. Their managements could be confronted by any combination of their workers, outside protesters, disgruntled former citizens, or potentially even sued for fraud by agencies of fair, neutral, and independent court systems (see "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy for a more detailed description of how courts could work absent compulsory government).

   In an Agorist, Panarchist, or Polyarchist society, property protection / insurance would be a function of "governments", and the problem of wealth disparity would be addressed - to the extent to which people with property want to keep it safe from those who would take it (and keep themselves safe from those who would kill them in order to take their property - and so they would be willing to pay more in order to do so. This would be on top of the fact that they would already be paying more to protect their property because they have more of it than most other people, so this system could even function like an accelerating (exponential) progressive tax.


   The wealthy who don't pay to have their property protected / insured would have no reason to expect people not to steal it (this is a proposition which could even be construed to suggest that uninsured property claims are illegitimate). Any "government" protecting the wealthy's property for a reduced premium would - essentially - be doing a charity service, which risks their bottom line, so there would be less of a financial / business incentive to allow for the vast accumulation of wealth in private hands.




For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/tax-cuts.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...