Responses to the Illinois Green Party's 2020 Federal Candidate Questionnaire

     The following article consists of my responses to the Illinois Green Party's Federal Candidate Questionnaire for 2020, which the party administers in order to vet applicants for the party's nomination for federal office.

     I submitted my responses to this survey on June 14th, 2020, the same day that I became a member of the Illinois Green Party.

     The portions in [brackets] indicate portions which I have added after submitting the survey, in order to make my position more clear. Those portions were added in the hour after sending the survey; the whole document was composed on June 14th, 2020, and no edits to the substance have been edited nor redacted.

     The Green Party's response regarding my nomination, will determine whether I run as an independent, a Mutualist, a Green, or something else. Whatever my affiliation, voters will be able to write my name in the write-in space, beneath the names of my opponents, in the election for the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10th congressional district. That election will be held on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020.

1Q: Name:

1A: Joseph W. Kopsick


2Q: Complete Address:

2A: 548 Archer Ave., #3, Waukegan, IL 60085


3Q: Phone and Email:

3A: jwkopsick@gmail.com, 608-417-9395


4Q: Office you wish to seek:

4A: U.S. House of Representatives, Illinois's 10th Congressional District


5Q: Are you a member of the ILGP?

5A: Yes [Became a member on June 14th, 2020]


6Q: Do you support each of the Ten Key Values—Ecological Wisdom, Social Justice, Grassroots Democracy, Nonviolence, Decentralization, Community-Based Economics, Feminism, Respect for Diversity, Personal and Global Responsibility, and Future Focus?

6A: Yes


7Q: Do you meet all of the legal qualifications for this office?

7A: Yes


8Q: What primary ballot (if any) did you pull in the last general primary?

8A: Democratic (for Yang)


9Q: Why do you wish to hold this office?

9A: I want to be a U.S. Representative because it will be impossible to teach our children how the government works, if it doesn’t work, and doesn’t work the way it was intended. That’s why voter education will be one of the most important priorities of my campaign, because voters cannot effectively participate in the political system until they understand how, and through which avenues, legislative change should be pursued, in order to be maximally effective. If elected, I will forge a new alliance in politics, by promoting ecologically sustainable policies which are also economically sustainable as well as constitutional. I believe this will be instrumental to developing the Green Party’s future outreach efforts to voters slightly to the right o[f the Green Party.]


10Q: Why do you feel you are qualified to run?

10A: I have previously run for the U.S. House three times, crafting a platform covering dozens of issues each of those times. Also, I have a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Wisconsin, with a major in political science. After graduating in 2009, I started the Aquarian Agrarian blog, and published my college essays. Since then, I have added about 500 articles, covering health insurance policy, constitutional law, ecologically sound taxation, and many other topics, knowledge of which will be of the utmost necessity to effectively promote constitutional green legislation.


11Q: What are the most important issues you feel need to be addressed?

11A: The three most important issues in my campaign are 1) make steps towards paying off the national debt; 2) achieve medical price relief, and 3) reform child trafficking laws to keep kids safe. An additional priority which is important to my campaign is to raise awareness of the economic systems of Georgism and Mutualism. Synthesizing these two schools of thought will be essential to achieving a balancing act between capitalism and socialism, and to making markets both free and fair at the same time. It will also help decrease conflict over economic issues and decrease competition over newly created wealth. We must have more cooperative ownership, and make it easier for propertyless people to acquire property, if the market system is to survive in any form. I believe that Geo-Mutualist reforms will help improve taxation, social services, land use, housing, and fiscal and monetary policy.


12Q: How many hours per week can you contribute to campaigning?

12A: 40 hours


13Q: Does your partner/family support your run for office?

13A: Yes


14Q: Will you agree not to accept contributions from corporations or corporate PACs?

14A: Yes


15Q: Will you agree to share your donor and volunteer information with the ILGP?

15A: Yes


16Q: Do you have, or will you open a campaign bank account and set up an online donation method?

16A: Yes, I will set up a new PayPal for that purpose as soon as possible.


17Q: Do you have, or will you have, a campaign manager? If you have one now, please provide name and contact information.

17A: Yes. Ethan Windmillsky, ethan.winnett@gmail.com, 224-500-2416


18Q: Do you have, or will you have, a campaign treasurer? If you have one now, please provide name and contact information.

18A: Yes. I am currently my own campaign committee treasurer. The name of the committee is Committee to Elect Joe Kopsick.


19Q: Do you have, or will you have, a campaign fundraiser? If you have one now, please provide name and contact information.

19A: No. I do not currently have a campaign fundraiser. I am currently self-funded. I hope to prove, that a successful campaign can be waged using only $5 of form printing and postage, plus the optional cost of pamphlets and business cards. Sameera Hussain (51^st) has already expressed interest in doing a joint event (such as a forum or a meet and greet) with myself and the 52^nd State Representative candidate. This event could easily include a fundraising component. I am open to having a campaign fundraiser in the future, but I will make it clear that politics should not be about money, and that a campaign can be operated on solely the costs of printing and filing forms. I will explain that while I accept funds, I discourage them, because I would rather have volunteers do things that are free (like send e-mails) than contribute financially. I believe this is the best way to set a good example and get money out of politics.


20Q: How would you describe your current base of support?

20A: I received 26 write-in votes in the 10^th District in 2016, and I have received at least 30-40 valid signatures in this current campaign cycle. I also have friends, family members, and co-workers (many of whom are familiar with my views and have read some of my political essays) whom are living in Lake Bluff, Lake Forest, Waukegan, Gurnee, Mundelein, Highwood, and other towns throughout the district. I believe that I would get the most support from young people, and disaffected and independent and first-time voters.


21Q: Please describe any volunteer experience you have with the Green Party.

21A:  I’ve attended Lake County IL Green Party meetings with Ethan W, Aaron G, Arlene H, Latoya H, Adam B, David H, et al, since soon after the chapter’s founding in 2017. I’ve attended multiple anti-Trump events in Chicago, and seven pro- Black Lives Matter / George Floyd memorial events in the past three weeks. I also attended at least one or two Green Party meetings during my time in college in Madison. Additionally, I was a supporter of the Green Party during Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign; although I was only 13 at the time and could not vote, Nader’s campaign piqued my interest in politics, and I was inspired to create a political survey for my classmates which was based on an article from Time Magazine, which told them how much they agree with each candidate. I promoted Nader and Green policies during this time.


22Q: Please briefly describe any other relevant experience you have had, including employment, working on other political campaigns, or other volunteer efforts.

22A: I worked for Ben Manski’s Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution for one month in 2013 in Madison, Wisconsin; this work included raising awareness about independent business alliances, and the corruption of the Wisconsin Manufacturer’s Association [i.e., the Wisconsin Manufacturer's and Commerce], and promoting a general strike. I also volunteered for the Illinois Libertarian Party in 2018, for Kash Jackson’s campaign for governor; that work included researching and reporting the views of the candidate and his opponents, and gathering information about businesses and organizations which could be called upon to host the party’s events. After Jackson qualified for the four-person debate for governor, Aaron Goldberg and I hosted a debate at Warren-Newport Library in Gurnee; between Socialist Dan Fein and independent Jo 753, two of the other ten candidates in the 2018 gubernatorial race. I also co-hosted (with Aaron Goldberg, again) a local candidates’ forum in that same library several years ago, which featured a Democrat, a Green, a Libertarian, and an independent conservative, each vying for a different office in the north Chicago suburbs.


23Q: Have you previously run for and/or held a public elected office?  If so, please describe.

23A: I ran for the U.S. House of Representatives three times; in 2012 (Wisconsin’s 2^nd), 2014 (Oregon’s 3^rd), and 2016 (Illinois’s 10^th). I received six votes as a write-in independent in 2012, dropped out in 2014 before the general election while running as an independent, and received 26 votes as a write-in independent in 2016.



24Q: Please provide any other general information you feel may be appropriate.

24A: My blog is available at www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. The article from August 23^rd, 2019 contains my developing platform. I have also presented several times, on various political topics, at the Chicago chapter of the College of Complexes.








Please briefly describe your position on the following issues: 25Q: Campaign Finance and/or Election Reform?

25A: I have pledged not to accept corporate funds, and I do not plan to accept taxpayer funds in the event that I qualify for public matching funds. I would rather see congressional candidates lead by good example in such a fashion, than place limits on campaign donations, but I would support such limits as long as they take place through either a proper constitutional amendment or through a federal lawsuit overturning Citizens United. If elected, I will support legislation which limits the size and scope of the federal government, which I believe will make the federal government less vulnerable to being swayed by big-money donors.



26Q: Energy Policy?

26A: I would like to see local communities regulate energy policy, rather than the states or the federal government. But I would be willing to support nationalization of the energy sector as long as it takes place through a proper constitutional amendment (which would have to authorize Congress to legislate upon energy matters aside from energy patents and energy copyrights).



27Q: Climate Change and other Environmental Policy?

27A: I do believe that human activity is a major contributing cause to climate change and harsher winters and summers. I would like to see environmental policy legislated upon at a maximally local level. I believe that as long as the E.P.A. exists, it will be subject to abuse and influence-peddling (unless the president is personally a hardcore environmentalist). I plan to use the limited “bully pulpit” power of a congressman, to urge each of the 3,000+ counties in America to enact Land Value Taxation and establish Community Land Trusts. These policies will be essential to tying each county’s economic future to its ability to preserve and improve its ecology, and to guarding against the risk that the E.P.A. will continue to be in the hands of people who put profits before planet.



28Q: Economic Policy (including fiscal and monetary policy)?

28A: The market system cannot survive with so much oligopoly and corporate influence-peddling going on; we must increase both cooperative ownership and consumer power if the market system is to survive. Radical measures, beyond mere taxation, should be considered, to reduce the power of the oligarchy; these should include revoking the charters of corporations, and removing secretary of states’ powers to create new corporations and to limit liability. America’s economy needs more non-profits and cooperative enterprises; the dichotomy of “big businesses vs. small businesses” is outdated. I believe that reducing the military budget, and localizing health and Social Security (if necessary), will result in enough federal budget savings, that paying off the debt in 25 years will become a realistic possibility.



29Q: Crimes and Criminal Justice (including drug policy and gun violence)?

29A: My campaign will treat non-violent possession of drugs and weapons as the victimless crimes they are. I will raise awareness of the fact that those accused of victimless crimes have virtually no chance to defend themselves, because each their public defender, the prosecutor, the judge, and the police witness all work for the same agency, the state. I would support federal legislation to restore voting rights to felons who have served their time. For any issue possible, I will explain to voters which states have violated people’s rights most egregiously; for instance, Virginia and Kentucky honor felons’ voting rights the least, and New Jersey was the first state to start eroding at the right to resist unlawful arrest.



30Q: Health Care?

30A: I would like to see health care regulated as locally as possible, but I would support a Medicare for All or Medicare for All but Opt Out (or In) type proposal as long as there would be a constitutional amendment authorizing federal involvement in health care. Until then, the only health issues that should be regulated by the federal government should be medical patents and the health care of federal workers (esp. DoD, V.A., postal, Treasury, Patent Office). I believe that the best way to reduce medical prices – whether there would be a federal universal health care program or not – is to drastically reduce the “lifespans” of medical device patents and pharmaceutical patents (as well as reduce or eliminate taxes on such items which make them unnecessarily expensive). Pharmaceutical patents last 14 years; I will support legislation to shorten them. My plan to achieve what I term “medical price relief” is called E.M.P.A.T.H.I.C. (Eliminating Medical Patents to Achieve Human Immortality Cheaply).


31Q: Human Rights and Social Justice/Equal Rights and Opportunities?

31A: America is not the meritocracy it pretends to be, and it won’t be until the propertyless (whom are effectively permanent trespassers wherever they go) can acquire property more easily. All clubs which practice discrimination on the basis of race, should not be allowed to continue those policies, unless they forsake all taxpayer funds and taxpayer assistance. The public sector should absolutely not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, orientation, and gender identity. I will raise awareness about the 9^th Amendment, explaining that it means that just because a right is not listed in the Constitution (such as the rights to work, marry, and travel), it doesn’t necessarily mean that that right doesn’t exist. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution should be a bill enumerating not only natural liberties but also human rights.


32Q: Immigration Policy?

32A: American citizens cannot be free until undocumented immigrants are afforded the same right to a fair trial as citizens are. [If an undocumented immigrant is not afforded due process just because he is not a citizen and is supposedly not entitled to the same rights, then he shouldn't be able to be prosecuted for exactly the same reasons.] That is why reforming immigration is essential to dismantling the class system; the most pernicious form of which is the domination of non-citizens by citizens. I will raise awareness of the fact that it was legal for undocumented immigrants to vote in Illinois from 1818 to 1830, and I will publish an article explaining how that decision can be overturned. I will support the right of undocumented immigrants to vote in any American election, provided that 1) they have no violent criminal history, and 2) they have not recently voted in any foreign election, or are not eligible to vote in their country of birth. I will raise awareness of the fact that the only area of immigration policy which Congress may regulate upon, is to create a uniform rule of naturalization. This will be essential to allowing state and local governments exercise authority on all immigration issues besides the rule of naturalization (which could potentially include settlement, social services, housing, education grants, etc.).

33Q: Civil Liberties, including Domestic Surveillance and Privacy, Police Violence
Foreign and Military Policy, including Globalization and Trade?

33A: America has ruined its reputation by spying on its allies and its own citizens. The National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security must be abolished. Only the constitutionally legitimate functions of the F.B.I., C.I.A., D.I.A., and America’s other defense and intelligence agencies, should be allowed to continue to exist; however, their authorities should be exercised by the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and/or the Department of Justice; not by an unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security. We must honor the 4^th Amendment by protecting our right to be safe and secure in our persons, homes, papers, and effects, unless upon the presentation of a specific warrant. I will sponsor or pen legislation which would end general warrants and restore sanity to the criminal justice system. The severity of the crime of which a person is accused, should never be used as an excuse to take away a person’s right to a fair trial. If you don’t fill out the forms correctly, call the judge for a warrant, and give the perp a fair trial, then you lose the perp. If you spy on the perp, torture the perp, or obtain information on the perp illegally, then you lose the perp. I would only support military involvement abroad in the event of an official congressional declaration of war. The War Powers Act should be repealed and the president’s war powers limited. [On the issues of globalization and trade, I will educate voters about alter-globalization, while promoting reforms which will make markets and trade free and fair at the same time.]


34Q: Education Policy?

34A: I would like to see education regulated on a maximally local level, but I would accept federal involvement in education as long as a constitutional amendment authorizes such a thing, and as long as sufficient efforts are made to protect students and educate them properly. My plan to reform education is called S.K.A. (the Safe Kids Act or Safe Kids Amendment); it would authorize federal involvement in schools only on the conditions that: 1) high school juniors and seniors have more access to trades; 2) all high schools accepting public funds split in two (with freshmen and sophomores together, separated from juniors and seniors); and 3) age of consent and marriage laws become uniform across states, to reduce child trafficking, as well as other reforms.

Please provide short answers, and any elaboration you think is needed, on these issues:

35Q: Equal Rights and Opportunities for All, Regardless of Racial or National Identity, Color, Sex, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression?

35A: Yes


36Q: Legal Right to Choose Abortion?

36A: Yes


37Q: Maintaining federal funding for Planned Parenthood?

37A: Other. On abortion funding, I support letting states decide, until there is an amendment authorizing Congress to legislate on abortion. I think that as long as Planned Parenthood is federally funded, there will always be pro-life people trying to get control of the federal government in a way that allows them to make abortion access conditional, and pro-life people trying to get right-wing reforms passed as a condition for allowing abortion to be federally funded.


38Q: Repealing the Federal Death Penalty?

38A: Support.


39Q: Ending U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, Africa and the Ukraine?

39A: Support.


40Q: Ending U.S. Support for NATO, rapprochement with Russia and China; nuclear disarmament?

40A: Support.


41Q: Impeaching the president if he/she orders military actions in violation of international law?

41A: Support.


42Q: Reducing U.S. military spending and improving spending on education, health, social programs and modernizing our infrastructure?

42A: Other. I support reducing U.S. military spending. I would rather pay off the national debt with the savings from military cuts, but I would accept spending on education, health, and social programs as long as they are properly constitutionally authorized and can be accessed by everyone. I will support federal infrastructure projects as long as they benefit all parts of the country equally, rather than one area in particular (namely, the Bos-Wash corridor).


43Q: A “Green New Deal” or similar major federal initiative to support clean energy, sustainable transportation, and other strategies to combat global climate change?

43A: Other: I would rather see each community implement similar policies locally (land value taxation and Community Land Trusts), but this position is only necessary to guard against the risk that the federal E.P.A. could come under corrupt influence. I would support clean energy, environmental, and sustainable transportation reforms as long as they are properly authorized through constitutional methods. We cannot go on pretending that the E.P.A. “has teeth” when it doesn’t; if we want the environment to be regulated by the federal Congress, then we should change the Constitution so that it says that. During my campaign, while discussing environmental issues, I will spread awareness about the Democratic Party’s ongoing attempts to plagiarize Howie Hawkins’s Green New Deal.


44Q: A ban on fracking and new oil pipelines; eliminating fossil fuel subsidies?

44A: Support.


45Q: Phasing out of nuclear power?

45A: Support.


46Q: A moratorium on the introduction of new genetically modified organisms until their effects have been adequately studied and safe use demonstrated; informing consumers about GMOs in food products?

46A: Support. Also, I will increase awareness that consumers’ need to be fully informed, is absolutely essential to creating a system in which free choice can be exercised (i.e., a free market). I think this argument/strategy will be helpful in promoting antitrust-type measures, excusing federal involvement in consumer products for the sake of safety and health, and winning health-minded conservatives over to the side of the Green Party.


47Q: Legalization of cannabis and industrial hemp and immediate suspension of enforcement of federal cannabis laws in those states where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized.

47A: Support.


48Q: Decriminalization of most drug offenses; treating drug abuse as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. 

49A: Support.


50Q: Reforming the criminal justice system to focus on rehabilitation, restorative justice, education and teaching living and job skills, not punishment and “incapacitation”?

50A: Support.


51Q: Cancellation or retiring of student debt?

51A: Other. By any school receiving F.A.F.S.A. funds or any form of federal taxpayer support, yes.

52Q: Tuition-free higher education at public colleges and universities?

52A: Support.


53Q: “Improved Medicare for All” Single-Payer or Publicly Funded Universal Health Care System?

53A: Other. Support, as long as it’s administered on a local basis, or else administered on a federal basis with an amendment. Also, measures must be taken to make sure that the system does not become captured by corporate interests or a permanent political or bureaucratic class which could run it.


54Q: A Constitutional Amendment providing that corporations do not enjoy the same rights as people
and that money is not protected “speech”?

54A: Other. A constitutional amendment is the appropriate way to approach this issue. However, instead of a constitutional amendment, I believe that a more effective strategy would be to either: 1) overturn Citizens United through a lawsuit, without an amendment; or 2) to amend the 14^th Amendment in a manner which sufficiently differentiates the rights, responsibilities, and legal and economic status of corporations, individual persons, and government agencies. I believe that a smaller and more limited government, will be effectively less able to do the types of things that lobbyists want it to do.



55Q: Making the minimum wage a living wage ($15/hour or greater)

55A: Other. I would support a minimum wage increase as long as it’s implemented on a state or local level, or there’s a constitutional amendment; and as long as either 1) a basic income guarantee is also enacted; and/or 2) people earning below $30,000 per year can choose to opt out of federal income taxes completely.








Author's Note (Written June 15th, 2020):

     I did not receive the nomination during the Illinois Green Party's June 15th teleconference, as there was not a great enough ratio of "Yes" votes to "No" votes to pass my nomination with a supermajority.

     I will continue to run as an independent write-in candidate trying to establish a Mutualist Party in Illinois, unless I am nominated by another party (aside from the Libertarian Party and Green Party, both of which have rejected my nomination for the 2020 campaign cycle).

Written and Published on June 14th, 2020
Author's Note Added on June 15th, 2020

Critique of the Idea That We Have a Free Market, and That Government is Socialism

Table of Contents

1. Redistribution of Grades is Not “Socialism in Education”
2. Fascism is Not a Form of Socialism
3. The Definition of Socialism Does Not Necessarily Imply a Government or State
4. Rigged Markets: Not All Free Market Proponents Support Capitalism
5. Free-Market Anti-Capitalism, Georgism, and Mutualism Are All Valid Critiques of Anarcho-Capitalist and Political Libertarian Thought
6. Mixed Economies and China
7. Achieving Socialism Without the State
8. Unequal Distribution of Wealth, and Corporate Taxation
9. Minimum Wage Laws Are Bad, But Enslaving Children to Mammon is Worse
10. Stalin Didn't Kill Sixty Million People, You're Thinking of Hitler
11. Conclusion





Content
1. Redistribution of Grades is Not “Socialism in Education”

     Defenders of capitalism often cite the fact that school classes often grade on a curve, as an example of socialism, because it's a “redistribution of grades”. I wouldn't call this socialism, however; because what's being redistributed is grades, not resources. Socialism aims to redistribute resources. Second, it's certainly not full socialism because it doesn't involve all of society, it only involves select classrooms, or one aspect of society (education).

     Additionally, limitations on how many people are allowed to fail, are motivated by the fact that there's supposed to be a fair and mutually beneficial relationship and negotiation between students and teachers. If teachers are free to fail everyone who doesn't learn enough, then teachers are also free to refuse to teach them, to justify flunking them and making them come back (and pay) again next year.

     Too many students failing, is not necessarily a sign of low achievement; it could be a sign of unskilled or uncaring teaching staff, or unreasonable grading standards. Just like when an employee is fired, it's not always his performance; it's that firing a trainee halfway through his training period is a way to get cheap labor that maximizes short-term profits (but also turnover).

     Also, nobody is demanding more socialized grading in American schools. But there are people who describe free federal lunches for students as “socialism”. That is what I'm concerned about; that the desire to fully rid the educational system of “socialism” could lead to more reports about public school students being denied school lunches because their parents forgot to put enough money on their lunch cards.

     Federal school lunches may be unconstitutional and fiscally improper (and they are), but a society that only feeds hungry children if they have the ability to pay, is a morally depraved society. Children can't learn well at school if they aren't properly fed and don't know where their next meal is coming from. People need enough shelter and sleep, and work and food security, to be able to contribute enough at work.

     Europe is arguably more “socialist” than America, but America's education arguably does more “grade redistribution” than the Europeans do. That's because Americans give their students a “handout” by asking them multiple-choice questions (in which the answer is already written somewhere on the page), while the Europeans actually teach the kid until he remembers the answer without it being laid out in front of him like he's an idiot. I wouldn't call that socialism. I wouldn't call it fair either; especially not to European students, who work harder to learn the material, as they should.

2. Fascism is Not a Form of Socialism

     I walked in ten minutes late to see on the screen “Examples of socialism: socialism, communism, and fascism”. I don't agree with the notion that fascism is an example of socialism, or a variety of socialism, simply because the Nazis called themselves National Socialists. The Nazis were not true socialists, and there have been other fascist regimes besides the Nazis, which had varying degrees of both ultra-nationalism, and nationalism in the name of collectivism.

     One could argue that fascism and Nazism are collectivist, but not socialist, and I would argue that that is true. Like communism and socialism, Nazism and fascism are collectivist because they put “the nation” (and the people in charge of it) ahead of the interests of individuals and free markets. Fascists are certainly not Marxist, anyway, because the Nazis banned Marxism in 1933.

     Granted, there are varieties of socialism besides Marxism, and earlier visions of German collectivism did influence the Nazis, but the Nazis were in favor of German capitalist industry, and the “privatization” it did was actually a government takeover of business. That government takeover of business, however, was not socialistic, because 1) although German capitalists were taken over, they were also rewarded with business protections and privileges; and 2) those privileges included privileges from competition against the Jews, who were being murdered, which means that Nazism certainly wasn't full socialism because it didn't include all of society.

     True socialism would not involve murdering 20% of society, but rather, re-educating people to abolish intrinsically exploitative industries so that nobody can be employed in those industries ever again.

     The only thing “socialist” or “Marxist” about the Nazis and fascists, are that they all promoted the idea of economic parasitism. The idea that the least productive people should be liquidated, was used by Marx (and, later, Mao) against capitalists, but Nazi propagandists used the idea against Jews too, to dehumanize them. Many conservatives call socialists and welfare recipients “parasites” today, which I think is shameful.

     It's a shame that Marx, Lenin, and Mao used language like this, considering how dehumanizing it is. But they did it to back up their argument that sole owners and traders tend to take advantage of shortages, exploit natural resources, and exploit the local need for work, to gain profit off of workers, who often have to work hard to support themselves even before becoming employed. And that was certainly a valid point.

     The communists' concern is that if a society produces too much (i.e., more than it needs), and sells it to the outside world, then foreign markets will expect and demand that much production the next year, and the next, and thereby grow dependent on a country (like Ukraine and its farms) to produce an excess from which outside markets can profit. It's kind of like how having a lot of natural resources which could be exploited, is called a “resource curse”. So capitalists can behave parasitically too, even without conscripting the government to steal taxpayers' money and give it to them.

3. The Definition of Socialism Does Not Necessarily Imply a Government or State

     I feel that defenders of capitalism often define socialism incorrectly, and take liberties with their definition of socialism while explaining it. Most importantly, they tend to assume that socialism is a form of government (and government management of resources), rather than solely an economic system (like capitalism, free market systems, or mutualism).

     Socialism does not necessarily have to involve the management of resources by government; we could have equal control of resource management be performed by communities, communes, cooperatives, charities, non-profits, and consumer organizations; anything that's non-profit and not subsidized by the government. That's how we can achieve a more real, and permanent, “privatization” (i.e., separation of resource management from government) without succumbing to either for-profit privatization, or privatization in the form of selling government assets to the lowest (or highest) bidder. The bid should go to the bidder whom is most likely to be able to function as an adequate caretaker of the assets they acquire.

     Socialism is the worker ownership, or societal management, of the means of production. To me, that means it is an economic system, not necessarily a political one. Defenders of capitalism say that socialism requires a government, but social anarchist Emma Goldman and anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker would tell you that socialism doesn't require a government (and their lives and writing attest to that).

     In fact, Marx and Engels never promoted “the state” as we know it today. When pressed, they always clarified that they intended communities – not the state (especially not this current bourgeois capitalist state, and the 192 others, which have been common over the last 250 years) – to make most of the decisions in society.

     This, in my opinion, means that socialism compatible with capitalism, as long as there is no state to perform redistribution or force people to use one economic system or another. Communities should have the full right to interact with other communities on the principles of local autonomy, as long as they do not physically obstruct the flow of commerce, labor, capital, and travel/locomotion. This is possible through making the now rigged market system into an actually free one (with no subsidies, business privileges, or protections), and then increasing the percentage of assets which are cooperatively owned (and also, increasing the number of companies which are cooperatively owned).

It is not necessary to create a government or state, in order to consult all of society in decisions about how to manage resources. If communities and cities and counties are allowed to freely associate, they will find freer and more equal ways of managing interstate trade for mutual benefit, than the federal government (and their fiefdom, the hundred million people who live near the Bos-Wash corridor) has thus far given us.

     To read more about my views on why socialism is not a political theory, please read the following article: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/08/socialism-is-compatible-with-capitalism.html

4. Rigged Markets: Not All Free Market Proponents Support Capitalism

     The following is a link to my article about which government programs create which form of public assistance for business. http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2016/04/government-is-source-of-corporate.html

     It was inspired by Andy Craig, who ran for Wisconsin Secretary of State as a Libertarian. Andy's idea was to run to abolish the position, which was then occupied by progressive hero Robert M. LaFollette's grandson Doug. Andy had a “nuclear option” plan to stop the creation of new corporations, by abolishing the position of state secretary of state, in order to prevent the state government from extending new grants of Limited Liability Corporation designation.

     I have since taken that idea and ran with it. I now oppose the complete abolition of all forms of taxpayer-funded privileges for business, which in my opinion include subsidies, bailouts, intellectual property protections, physical property protections from the military and police, F.D.I.C. insurance, trade protections and promotions, and other favors.

     Government contracts could be another one too. After all - even though it's not taxpayer money, and the government's just guaranteeing a line of credit - that line of credit is backed up by easy-credit loans and low interest rates set up by the Federal Reserve, with the F.D.I.C. to insure investments with public money if anything goes wrong.

     Defenders of capitalism sometimes say that “If we had rigged markets, then we would know, because if markets were rigged, then they would not allow people to form companies and become billionaires in just twenty years”. But think about it: most of those billionaires in the top 10 made their money with the help of government contracts, in addition to their own innovation and hard work. Microsoft and Amazon have been competing for a $10 billion Pentagon contract. Facebook was started with the help of a C.I.A.-funded startup called In-Q-Tel, when the C.I.A. was looking for a way to get millions of people to voluntarily surrender personal information like their photos and locations. So it isn't just inheritance (and protection of inherited assets) that makes many of the top billionaires' “earnings” questionable, it's exclusive government contracts too (or nearly exclusive, with the bare minimum amount of competition required to create the illusion of real robust competition; i.e., oligarchy and oligopoly).

     For those reasons and others, I believe that the markets are much less fair, and much more rigged, than defenders of capitalism tend to suspect and admit that they are. While defenders of capitalism do admit that there could and should be much more competition, and also freedom of opportunity – and probably believe that the markets are “free enough” compared to other countries – promoting more competition than necessary is a chief problem that I feel defenders of capitalism often overlook.

     If we promote more competition necessary – especially if the rewards of that competition are permanent, and government protected (think “minimal government, to protect life, liberty, and property”) - then too much competition and property, could undermine freedom of opportunity to acquire assets and property, leading to an overall decrease in freedom. At least for everyone “who's just now coming into the system” (i.e., the younger half of humanity now finding itself in about ten different slavery systems).

     My concern about libertarian minarchism (minimal government advocates), and pragmatic Libertarian Party politics, is that political Libertarians and defenders of capitalism tend to argue that a “minimal government” is necessary to protect “life, liberty, and property”. They also usually say that such a “minimal government” would likely include “military, courts, and police”. However, that that is only true of “minarchists”. “Anarcho-capitalism” is feasible, but only if people who participate in it are free to participate in socialistic economic activity as well.

     The first “market-anarchist”, Gustave de Molinari, asked more than 150 years ago why defense and security are so often monopolized, instead of subject to market forces like other commodities are. Not only defense, but also justice, would have to become “free markets” in a free economy. That's why “free enough” simply isn't enough; total freedom and statelessness is possible.

     However, it would require, often, trusting foreign nationals to do things like manufacture domestic defense and surveillance equipment. In a more peaceful world, that will be possible; but to some degree it has already begun (to varying degrees of success for various countries). Of course, the risks which unsuccessful strategies regarding to whom to award the contracts to manufacture such equipment, risks such things as foreign spying scandals, and arms races (which have both occurred). Therefore, it seems that more trust of foreigners is needed before fully free markets (so free that there are no defense contracts) can flourish.

     In the opinions of myself, and radical libertarians who study Agorism and private law (theorists such as Robert P. Murphy, Samuel E. Konkin III, Wally Conger, and others), the anarchists and minarchists should not be debating, because the debate has already been settled, and the minimum amount of government possible is zero.

     “Capitalism”, to me, connotes not free markets, but an institutional or governmental preference for the interests of private owners of capital, over the interests of labor (that is, workers). Just like "socialism" could be described as an official preference for the interests of labor over capital.

     I believe that we could have enough social ownership, and enough private ownership, to claim rightfully that we've achieved both capitalism and socialism, yet neither; because while both systems would be allowed to exist, neither system would be given preferential treatment, nor the ability to use the state and its violence to force people to participate in one system or the other. We should have "a free market in economic systems", and a free market in who provides us with security and justice.

     That's why I subscribe to a stateless economic theory which some call “free-market anti-capitalism”.

5. Free-Market Anti-Capitalism, Georgism, and Mutualism Are All Valid Critiques of Anarcho-Capitalist and Political Libertarian Thought

     I would like to make my readers aware of several economic systems and schools of thought, from which I think libertarian and free market theories could benefit. They are “free-market anti-capitalism”, Georgism and Geo-Libertarianism, and Mutualism and market socialism.

Free-Market Anti-Capitalism

     “Free-market anti-capitalism” is a phrase associated with Roderick T. Long. Long and others have been criticizing mainstream American libertarian thought, with individualist-anarchist and libertarian-socialist critiques. Gary E. Chartier and Charles W. Johnson are left-libertarian theorists whom are associated with the phrases “bleeding-heart libertarians” and “markets, not capitalism”. “Left-wing market-anarchism” is an associated school of thought.

     Wally Conger is an “Agorist” (a radical anti-state, pro-free-market theory), and explained in his book Agorist Class Theory that free-marketers and Marxists have a lot more of their goals in common than they realize; they just have very different plans about how to get there.

     Kevin Carson, a Mutualist theorist, has attempted to reconcile the Labor Theory of Value with the subjective theory, by offering a “subjective labor theory of value” wherein the value of a good is influenced both by the subjective valuation of the producer's own labor, and also the subjective preferences of the buyer. Carson has also explained that Marxists, Mutualists, and supporters of free enterprise all value open-source collaboration, as well as the freedom to do any task, and many tasks, without those tasks being considered to require licensing, professionalization, nor rigid regulation.

     I believe that the “Progressive-Libertarian Alliance” of Ron and Rand Paul, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich will lead the way to common ground on economic issues in politics, while Georgist and Mutualist developments of anarchism and libertarianism will lead the way to common ground on economic issues in a stateless society.

     These are just some of the people who have found common ground between libertarians and socialists. I've spent the last 5 to 10 years writing about where this common ground is, and urging my fellow libertarians to learn more about Henry George and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Georgism

     Henry George was a 19^th century American economist who developed the idea of “the Single Tax”, now known as Land Value Taxation.

     Some libertarians and capitalists admit that pollution - including of other people's air - is a property rights violation. I agree, and so did Murray Rothbard. But Henry George took it a step further; by prioritizing people's needs for land, over the concerns about the squabbles between representatives of labor and of capital.

     This means that Georgism (and also Mutualism) are situated between socialism and capitalism. These two economic systems play very important roles in how capitalism and socialism might be reconciled with one another. These economic systems would form a basis through which negotiation could be made between the socialism of workers' interests and the capitalism of private owners' interest.

     I wrote the following article about reconciling the ideas of Henry George with the ideas expressed in modern American political libertarianism (with specific regard to the land needs in Lake County, Illinois): http://www.lclp.org/articles/geolibertarianism/

     I explain in the article that Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan was a Geo-Libertarian (a Libertarian who subscribes to the economic and land reform ideas of Henry George), and Milton Friedman said George's tax ideas were “the least bad tax [ever] proposed”.

     I think that Reagan economic adviser Art Laffer would be pleased by the fact that George's proposals completely avoid taxing both production and earned income. Georgist slogans include “tax land, not man”, “tax land, not buildings”, and “tax bads, not goods”.

     I myself explain it as “tax destruction (and waste, especially of land), not production”. The waste and destruction of land is a serious problem – and so is the misuse, disuse, abuse, and blight of land, and allowing it to fall into disrepair – because we don't want land to be rendered unuseable in case the owner dies and someone wants to buy the land. The more land area that is destroyed, rendered unuseable, and fenced-off and protected with the help of taxpayer funding, the less land is available for families to build homes on, and that means less property ownership and less production on that land.

     I think the Lockean proviso shows that that is true; the idea that a person must homestead land and make it habitable to earn it, but also leave enough land, and in as good quality, for other people, given the number of people and the demand and need for land in the area. The Lockean proviso, with its high standards, is thus very different from many mainstream capitalists' ideas about how easy it is to acquire and “earn” land (sometimes even justifying conquest and winning lands in war, and then transferring lands which were legally stolen through those means and through ceasing to honor treaties with native tribes, etc.).

     Milton Friedman said that a deregulated economic environment will lead to economic prosperity and high productivity, but only if the lowest-income people are assisted by some sort of basic income -type program, to prevent the poor from falling through the cracks. Not as a welfare system, but instead of a welfare system. And with personal spending replacing bureaucratic micromanagement, saving costs in the process.

     Some libertarians are looking into U.B.I. and citizens' dividend programs as ways to achieve a “capitalism, but with a robust social safety net” sort of arrangement. One such type of citizens' dividend program is a dividend funded by the taxation of oil companies' profits, and/or by imposing fees on their extraction of natural resources from the ground.

     I cannot help but notice that, of the four best-known places which have tried this system – Alaska, Norway, Libya, and Venezuela – two were mostly white and didn't get bombed for it, while the other two are mostly non-white and had their countries destroyed as a result. That could just be a coincidence. But there's nothing wrong with trying to tie your country's economic future to the success of its businesses and to protections against rapid exploitation of its natural resources.

Mutualism

     Aside from the “free-market anti-capitalism” and “Geo-Libertarianism” critiques, I think libertarianism could be improved through emphasizing that the voluntary exchange we want must be mutually beneficial. That means all economic transactions must be reciprocal, and should not take place if unaware or unconsenting people are directly affected by it (especially if negatively).

     Mutualist theorists include Kevin Carson (living today), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (19^th century France) and Josiah Warren (19^th century Ohio). Warren's reforms centered on money and free enterprise, while Proudhon's centered on free credit, and an anarchist critique of private property ownership.

      Another proposal like Mutualism is market socialism, in which most ownership would be done collectively, but the allocation and distribution would still be done through free trading in markets by individuals. I imagine that Mutualism would feature balanced individual vs. collective roles in both ownership and allocation.

Geo-Mutualism

     I think it is important to teach about other economic systems which have been proposed, besides socialism and capitalism, to help students understand that this is not as much of a binary choice as we have been led to assume it is.

     The following link leads to a poster I designed about Georgism and Mutualism. I believe that price competition, and taking full advantage of automation, will lead to low prices (and eventually to “free stuff through free markets”. Look up anarchist theorists such as Jock Coats and Will Schnack to learn more about how Georgism and Mutualism unite (as Geo-Mutualism).

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/04/georgism-and-mutualism-poster.html

6. Mixed Economies and China

     Defenders of capitalism tend to seem confused as to which economic system China currently has. I cannot fault them for this, however; I am not sure which system it has myself. Perhaps dirigism best describes it; essentially, government-directed economic fascism, featuring heavy state ownership of enterprises.

     Capitalists seem to perceive, often, that China's economy boomed in the early 1980s because it adopted capitalism, or some degree of it. But I disagree; I think it was the mixture of socialism and capitalism which helped China, and helped it much more than it would have benefited China to switch to a strictly capitalist system. It was the mixing of increased private ownership and increased family business ownership, into the system of largely state-owned cooperatives, which created a sustainable, and sufficiently free and fair, balance, between several diverse sectors of the economy. It was a balance between state ownership, and other forms of ownership, which helped China's productivity increase. That's because encouraging a wide range of forms of ownership, helps societal cohesion by allowing sufficient freedom within society, through those forms of ownership, that allow different families and communities to have shares in society. But then, of course, I am describing only my own interpretation of what Deng Xiaopeng's and the Company Law's intentions could have been; and certainly not the current Chinese government.

     I would characterize China as a mixed economy; similar to, but not exactly the same as, other mixed economies like “democratic socialism”, “the Nordic model”, “Rhine capitalism”, and German "ordoliberalism”, etc..

     China's system is similar to Germany's, especially considering that they have similar laws regarding what percentage of members of a corporate board should be made up of workers. However, I would describe that as not a socialist law, but a mutualist one. That's because it doesn't outright award workers the property of the people employing them. Instead, it aims to balance and align the needs of workers with the needs of owners, affecting earnings going forward, such that no contracts are overturned, no ex-post-facto laws are created, and workers can earn income and stock value quickly through hard (but fair) work. If we make sure that, going forward, we do not award charters, contracts, or special privileges to companies whom are likely to exploit workers and natural resources, then we can ensure free and fair markets, with voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange, without violating ex-post-facto laws, and without needing to abandon having a system of property rights altogether.

     Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said during one of his campaigns, that it helps in business to “tie people to profits”, such that workers earn more when profits are up. That's not socialism, that's just good business practices.

     Besides, what economic system does Germany currently have? Nevermind that; if Germany has ten times as high a percentage of people learning the skilled trades than America does, who cares what system they have? Young Americans are dying for an easy, debt-free way to access education in the way of the skilled trades (and also I.T., while H.V.A.C. and agriculture will need millions of workers soon). In my opinion, there is no reason why what Germany and China are currently doing about large employers should not be emulated.

     Germany's economy, by the way, is influenced by the traditions of mixed economies like “Rhine capitalism” and “ordoliberalism” (German for “new liberalism”), which feature capitalist market economies with robust social safety nets.

7. Achieving Socialism Without the State
     Contrary to what the current Chinese regime may argue, state ownership is certainly not the only way to achieve socialism.

     As I explained, socialism is an economic system which doesn't necessarily imply either statism or anarchism. Many socialists want to achieve socialism without political action, by having workers own businesses and turn them into cooperatives, rather than having the state own them. However, only about one tenth of one percent of American businesses are currently cooperatives. Granted, the number of non-profits and the like, added to that, would make the number of non-for-profit enterprises higher. But that does not ensure cooperative ownership or cooperative management.

     What we need to talk about is E.L.M.F.s (Egalitarian Labor-Managed Firms) and W.S.D.E.s (Workers Self-Directed Enterprise). These would be worker-owned companies that set up stock ownership plans (like E.S.O.P.s; Employee Stock Ownership Plans). Bernie Sanders and Kristin Gillibrand have supported laws which would require large companies to establish such stock ownership plans. However, a true anarchist could not rightfully support political means to achieve the same.

     The idea behind employee stock ownership plans is called “funds socialism”. Examples of “funds socialism” include the following: 1) the Meidner Plan in Sweden, calling for the establishment of "wage-earner funds"; 2) the American Solidarity Fund, proposed by the People's Policy Project; 3) the Norwegian G.P.F.G. (Government Pension Fund Global); 4) the U.K. Labour Party's proposed "Inclusive Ownership Funds"; and 5) the NSW Generation Fund in New South Wales, Australia.

     But again, these are all laws and legal proposals, rather than plans regarding how anarchists should seek to achieve the maximum number of cooperativized businesses, without relying on violence or the assistance or the state. If truly voluntary socialism is actually possible, then only peaceful actions are permissible in order to achieve this; like persuasion, argumentation, conversation, and instruction. Additionally, market pressures (like boycotts) when fairly applied against owners and sellers (but that only works if refusal to purchase can actually be achieved, both logistically and legally).

     Basically, in a free society, the workers would have to convince managers and bosses and C.E.O.s that they deserve better pay (and benefits, conditions, etc.), instead of going through legal and political avenues to secure those conditions for themselves. Bosses who refuse to reward their workers sufficiently when it is fiscally responsible to do so, are only making it more likely that their workers will resort to political action and violence to achieve their goals, and less likely that their workers will appreciate capitalism and the supposed benefits it offers.

     As John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make political reform impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

8. Unequal Distribution of Wealth, and Corporate Taxation

     In my opinion, it is completely unjustifiable that one person can have as much money as 300 million or even a billion people.

     Primarily because it would be impossible to make frequent and efficient enough use of all that wealth, to justify owning it. And additionally, due to the high economic power and leverage which ownership affords a person. This is dangerous because it allows a person to acquire currency while doing little actual work and risking little (if any) capital in the process; through lending and renting their property out to (usually propertyless) people who have none of their own.

     That may seem “equal enough” or "fair enough", or seem like “the result of different levels of effort by different people”, but it is not fair because it suppresses economic opportunity and competition. Land owned by one person, cannot be developed by another, without consent and payment. Similarly, an invention owned by one person (through a patent), cannot be developed by another, without consent and payment.

     We cannot compete against those who monopolize their land and their inventions, because it is literally illegal to compete against an entity protected by a monopoly privilege granted by the state. And that is the nature of land title registration and the granting of patents. The “minimum government” crowd may consider physical and intellectual property protections as necessary to create a free society which is sufficiently ordered, secure, and fair; but the need to protect dead property and intangible ideas, often distracts from the need to protect actual people's physical human bodies.

     Defenders of capitalism tend admit that it is morally wrong to redistribute wealth, especially earned income, and I agree with them, as there are ways to achieve socialism and more cooperative ownership without political action. However, defenders of capitalism are nearly always against the taxation of corporations, which receive special protections, and insulation from lawsuits and market competition, through Limited Liability Corporation status protections issued by the state. Thus, corporations are a creation of the state.

     I don't object to the existence of “companies” or “corporations”, if that means enterprises which are funded voluntarily by whomever wants to, and enterprises in which employees can be held accountable for their actions. But I take issue with leaving corporations untaxed, because corporations are creations of the state (at least corporations with L.L.C. status are). I consider corporate income “unearned income” which is gained with the assistance of the state (and the legitimized violence upon which it relies to enforce its order and acquire its revenues). It's not that I want to see corporations taxed; it's that I want to see corporations not created by the state in the first place, so that we don't have to tax them (because they wouldn't exist).

     If businesses don't want to follow regulations and pay taxes, then they shouldn't lobby for privileges and accept subsidies and bailouts. I would like to see less companies accepting subsidies, but I would also to see the federal government stop tempting the states and businesses into accepting them (because there are strings attached that allow the federal government to control how they spend it, which tend to undermine the liberties of the states and the localities).

     I would like to see more supporters of free enterprise, distance themselves from capitalism, and fully oppose all forms of business assistance. It's one thing to say “don't accept subsidies if you don't want to be regulated”, but it's another thing to say “we need to abolish all subsidies and artificial business privileges, or there won't be any truly private companies in this country anymore.”

     I feel like capitalism and minarchism, with their “minimum regulation” idea, tends to excuse and even invite government involvement. If the state didn't exist, regulation of companies' activities would still happen; it would just occur through self-responsibility, voluntary association, and mutually beneficial negotiation and decision-making.

     “Regulation of business”, in a stateless society, could easily be performed by each business's employees and clients, negotiating as directly with one another as possible (without the state to guide or direct them), while retaining the full right to boycott. The Taft-Hartley Act (with its prohibition on boycotts spanning multiple industries), and the facts of subsidies and redistribution, now make full boycott – and, thus, “ethical consumerism” and “voting with our wallets” - impossible.

That's why the system is much more rigged than defenders of capitalism suspect it is.

     Redistribution of earned income is wrong, and should not be done. But the redistribution of opportunity to compete – from the rich to the poor – should also be a concern. The poor pay little taxes, but it's because they have little opportunity in the first place to acquire enough skills and education to be a viable competitor in the market. And again, it's literally illegal and impossible to compete against – or boycott - monopolists and entrenched business interests (including companies which hold patents and trademarks).

     It is impossible to calculate the value which the working poor lose, from having their money taken away to fund agencies that profit off of turning work from a right into a licensed privilege, and from being unable to adequately compete in some of the most highly oligopolized industries.

9. Minimum Wage Laws Are Bad, But Enslaving Children to Mammon is Worse

     I don't support minimum wage increases. But I also disagree with the idea that a high minimum wage “deprives teenagers of their first jobs”. I understand that high minimum wages tend to result in low teen employment levels, but that is not the fault of teenagers. I know that because teenagers can't vote and have no political power, and therefore couldn't possibly cause such a state of affairs to arise.

     Here's the thing: nobody said to pay teenagers less than older workers. Some teens are more skilled than some adults. There is no reason to assume that, just because someone is younger, they haven't justified or earned that kind of pay yet.

     Teens don't get paid less because they deserve less or don't work as hard as older people; they get paid less because they're younger, and have had fewer opportunities than older people to acquire skills and work experience and money.

     As a result, teens are coerced into a state of dependence upon the old, and the entrenched business interests, and the existing set of jobs, in order to survive. Which gives the old free rein to prey on the young, insisting that they must help the old, because they (with their stronger bodies) are the only ones capable of helping the helpless old decrepit people who have all the money and property. Society already looks at young people as a cheap source of labor and a free source of favors.

     Saying high minimum wages “deprive teenagers of their first jobs” is just saying that high minimum wages “prevent child labor”. I thought we wanted to prevent child labor! Maybe we can prevent child labor by simply paying workers enough money to give their children gifts of cash. That way, we will not hear about phenomena such as teenage girls being tempted into whoring themselves out to fifty-year-old men on yachts, nor teenagers whoring themselves out for employment by corrupt and polluting companies, or by police departments or the military, which will expect them to shoot at innocent people.

     Which is more important: The need to protect the right to compete in the market? Or the need to protect workers' "freedom of opportunity" to sell themselves our and sign away their rights to compete?
     Which is more important: The need to protect children's innocence, or the need to make sure they have a stable flow of money into their pockets? It does matter if that flow of money comes through Jeffrey Epstein's penis. Actually existing capitalism has given our children U.S. Dollars covered with toxic ink and stripper sweat and cocaine, which we should be ashamed that we're encouraging our children to handle, and it has given us the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

     Every parent should understand that Epstein's handler, Ghislaine Maxwell, was able to persuade teenage girls into becoming masseuses (and then prostitutes and sex slaves) by promising nothing more than a little extra money to spend on themselves and on their families at the holidays. To some degree, we cannot blame desperate parents for allowing their children to fall into the hands of people like that, but to some degree we can blame them for exploiting their children. But I contend that the real problem is the artificial, manufactured need for currency and money, which is achieved by inserting currency between the buyer and everything they need to survive and feed their families.

     Additionally, some teenagers (i.e., teen parents as old as 19) have more dependent minors to support than some adult workers do (i.e., single workers without children). So why should a person be paid more for having more skills, when a less skilled person might have more mouths to feed? Of course effort and skills should affect pay, but so should a person's level of need. At one job I had, I needed a lot less money as a temporary janitor with no dependents, than a unionized janitor with a family, needed. I did not need $30,000 per year, and I did not have the skills to justify earning that much. The fact that unionized employees sometimes get sick, does not justify forcibly unionizing all people who might temporarily replace them.

     We shouldn't have minimum wage laws, nor should we endorse the Labor Theory of Value. But nor should we allow children to be pressured into signing employment contracts before they're capable of fully understanding all the consequences. Some of those employment contracts include anti-competition clauses, which could limit teenage workers' freedom to compete until years after their employment with that company ends. Consumers and workers must be sufficiently informed, and never defrauded nor swindled, in order for markets to be fully free. And a truly voluntary market can only be participated in by people who are old and mature enough to be able to give fully informed consent to do the work they do, and they need to not be pushed into it by adults.

     On the matter of wages in general: I disagree with the frequent claim, made by defenders of capitalism, that bosses don't make profits by stealing from their employees. I believe that many bosses make money by coercing and depriving employees into parting with their opportunities to compete, and into parting with a huge degree of self-determination and autonomy while on the job. Wage theft is a real thing, of which companies have actually been found guilty, and forced to provide compensation.

     I explain a few forms of wage theft in Section 5 of the following article, why I believe that bosses' collection of wages on state-secured “private” property, is a form of monopoly privilege, and therefore an unfair violation of free market principles:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/05/rent-profit-interest-and-usury.html.

10. Stalin Didn't Kill Sixty Million People, You're Thinking of Hitler

     Stalin tends to get a bad rap in the capitalist, C.I.A.-influenced American mainstream media and academia. However, he helped defeat the Nazi menace, and he understood that people need enough shelter and sleep, and enough food security and job security, to be able to contribute and produce adequately while on the job. And, since a well-rested worker is a productive worker, that arguably makes Stalin more capitalistic than the capitalists.

     I, personally, would rather be driving next to a truck driver who's worked 40 hours a week and slept for 56; instead of a driver who's worked 56 and slept for 40. People have the right to work hard and work long hours, but as a security guard, I can tell you that the more hours I work during the week, the higher the chance that I'll fall asleep while on duty.

     At some point, working harder doesn't pay off any more than it does to take a little time off to rest and recuperate. And of course, people should have to be healthy enough to work, instead of expected to work for their health needs, and instead of coerced into keeping a bad job because of the health insurance it offers.

     A wise man once said the following: “It is difficult for me to imagine what 'personal liberty' is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society, personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” That man's name was Joseph Stalin. Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang has been saying similar things in his campaign. But whomever says it – Yang, Stalin, or anyone else – I think it's correct.

     Furthermore, capitalists tend to blame Stalin for a lot more deaths than the number for which he was actually responsible. I think that is one of the key factors contributing to socialism's bad reputation, and also a key factor causing people to suspect that Hitler killed less than Stalin (when my research shows that the opposite is true).

     Stalin's actions in the Ukraine were somewhat justified. First, because he waited three years before doing anything to address food shortages, and thus cannot be accused of using too much political action to solve problems. Second, what Stalin did was punish people who resisted collectivization. Kulak farmers made the food shortages worse; by slaughtering their livestock, and refusing to turn food over to the authorities. They chose, instead, to attempt to profit off of the desperation of starving people in their own country, by selling to foreign buyers, during a time when most of those foreign buying nations were aligned against the U.S.S.R.. Stalin tried to relieve the suffering of the famine; by collectivizing farms, confiscating grain, and redistributing it. Only a well fed Russian people, and a well fed army, could have survived the rapid agricultural and industrial expansion that the U.S.S.R. was undergoing, or could have created a defense against the Nazi menace which was coming (and which they all knew would eventually come, unless it underwent revolution). The alternative to refraining from punishing farmers, was to allow them to sell food to foreign countries, feeding the enemies of the U.S.S.R. in the process.

     The idea that Stalin killed more than Hitler, is an extremely destructive (and untrue) idea. I believe that people who regret America's alliance with the U.S.S.R. during World War II – especially those who admit that America should have allied with the Nazis to defeat “the true enemy” communism” - are Nazi sympathizers. That idea is also invalid because America did try to work with the Nazis at the beginning of World War II; Americans were trading with the Nazis at a higher volume than the U.S.S.R. was in 1940, and America allowed Nazis to march in Grafton, Wisconsin, and Madison Square Garden, before America joined the Allies.

     Please see the following links to learn more about my views on Josef Stalin:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/04/stalin-killed-fewer-people-than-hitler.html

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/02/60-links-that-will-change-way-you-think.html
11. Conclusion

     I think it's important that "libertarian capitalists" and "libertarian socialists" have conversations such as the debate between libertarian capitalism and free-market anti-capitalism. I also think that more public debates on these topics would really benefit liberty lovers' education to understand socialism, whether for the purposes of criticizing it or not.

     That's why I will be participating in a “Voluntaryism vs. Libertarian Socialism” debate – on Saturday, November 9^th, 2019, in West Lafayette, Indiana – with Marcus Pulis (of Aquarian Anarchy). Follow Aquarian Anarchy and JoeKopsick4Congress on YouTube for updates about that debate.

Written on September 2^nd and November 3^rd, 2019

Published on November 3^rd, 2019