Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. 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

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

The Political Spectrum, According to the Average American Voter

     The following image is a representation of how the average American voter must think politics works, if the way Americans vote is any indication of what they believe about politics.

     When a politician is anything but an establishment Democrat, an establishment Republican, or something in between, it seems almost as if that politician will be likely to be described and criticized as members of the far-left (socialists, Russians, etc.), the far-right (fascist, Nazi, etc), anarchists, or even all of the above at the same time.

     Although there are ideologies which could be described as far-left, far-right, and anarchist at the same time (such as Anarcho-NazBol, certain fascistic developments upon Mutualism, and others), these only represent only a very small portion of the political ideologies which exist in addition to partisan democracy and partisan republicanism.

     A person is not necessarily an Anarcho-Commie-Nazi just because they are not a traditional Democrat or a traditional Republican.

     This post was inspired by the criticism which has been leveled at the likes of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders over the past 13 years; with each being described, at various times, as a racist, a communist, and an anarchist. This post is also a commentary on how some people seem to act almost as if voting for third parties and independents were somehow illegal.






Image Created on January 22nd, 2020
Originally Published, and Introduction Written, on May 6th, 2020

Sunday, August 25, 2019

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

Table of Contents

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



Content



1. Local Man Seeks U.S. House Seat

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


2. Kopsick's Theory of Government and Legislative Priorities

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

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


3. Restoring Transparency to Government

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


4. Reducing Military Spending and Paying Off the National Debt

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


5. Taxation

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


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

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

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

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


7. Reforming Education in a Manner Which Protects Children

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

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


8. Reforming Ages of Consent

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

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

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


9. Health Policy and Abortion

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

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


10. Conclusion

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

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

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



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

Edited on August 27th and 28th, 2019


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

*** MEDIA ALERT ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                  Contact: JOSEPH W. KOPSICK
August 28th, 2019                                           608-417-9395 / jwkopsick@gmail.com



Local Man Enters Race for U.S. House

Lake Bluff Native Joe Kopsick Seeks 10th District Office



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

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

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


     Kopsick currently works as a private security officer at various locations throughout Lake County. In his spare time, he enjoys playing guitar and piano, making mashup music, and drawing.
     Kopsick manages a blog, the Aquarian Agrarian, which can be found at www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. Kopsick plans to launch an official personal website, featuring a section on campaigns. Voters can read his platform by visiting that blog, and reading Kopsick's August 2019 articles “Reform or Abolition: Thirty-Point Basic Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020” and “Expanded Platform for U.S. House of Representatives in 2020”.

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


Written on August 25th, 2019
Published on August 25th, 2019
Edited on August 27th and 28th, 2019

Saturday, July 27, 2019

When the Law Does the Opposite of What it Intends to Do: One Hundred Twelve Theses on Government Failure (Incomplete)

When the Law Does the Opposite of What it Intends to Do:
One Hundred Twelve Theses on Government Failure



First Table of Contents

Part 1: Introduction (Including Eighteen Bad Basic Laws of Government)

I.
First Introduction: Government Failure
II. Second Introduction: Five Reasons Why We Shouldn't Trust the Government
III. Three Clauses That Enable Legislative Action, But Are Used to Excuse Government Overreach
IV. Six Laws with Deceptive Names
V. Eight Self-Defeating Amendments (Plus the Draft)


Part 2: The Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty (Including Seventy Bad Laws)

VI. The War on Terror: Fourteen Laws That Fail to Protect People from War, Terrorism, and Violent Crime
VII. The Wars on Drugs and Our Health: Twenty-One Laws That Failed to Achieve Affordable Health Care, Failed to Ensure the Legal Sale of Safe Drugs, or Failed to Protect the Environment
VIII. The War on Poverty, Part 1: Eleven Laws That Fail to Protect Workers' Rights and the Interests of Labor Unions
IX. The War on Poverty, Part 2: Seven Laws That Intended to Protect Minorities and/or Property, But Failed
X. The War on Poverty, Part 3: Six Budgetary and Monetary Policies That Have Led to Economic Ruin
XI. The War on Poverty, Part 4: Ten Laws That Intended to Make the Markets Free, But Rigged Them Instead


Part 3: Other Topics (Including Twenty-Five Bad Laws, and a Conclusion)

XII. Five Failed Laws and Policies Related to Insurance
XIII. Four Laws That Tried to Prevent Frivolous Lawsuits, But Go Too Far
XIV. Five Laws That Tried to Protect the Rights or Safety of Women and Homosexuals, But Failed
XV. Eight Laws and Programs That Fail to Protect Children
XVI. Three More Terrible Laws
XVII. Conclusion: New Laws Don't Work





Second Table of Contents





Part 1: Introduction (Including Eighteen Bad Basic Laws of Government)



I. 
First Introduction: Government Failure

II. Second Introduction: Five Reasons Why We Shouldn't Trust the Government

III. Three Clauses That Enable Legislative Action, But Are Used to Excuse Government Overreach
     1. The General Welfare Clause
     2. The Necessary and Proper Clause
     3. The interstate Commerce Clause

IV. Six Laws with Deceptive Names
     4. The Citizens United decision
     5. N.A.F.T.A. (The North American Free Trade Agreement)
     6. The 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (E.E.S.A)
     7. The Protect Life Act
     8. The Restoring Internet Freedom Act
     9. The Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.)

V. Eight Self-Defeating Amendments (Plus the Draft)
     10. Amendment I
     11. Amendment II
     12. The military draft
     13. Amendment III
     14. Amendment V
     15. Amendment VIII
     16. Amendment X
     17. Amendment XIII
     18. Amendment XIV



Part 2: The Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Poverty (Including Seventy Bad Laws)


VI. The War on Terror: Fourteen Laws That Fail to Protect People from War, Terrorism, and Violent Crime
     19. Incarceration in jails and prisons
     20. The death penalty
     21. Life sentences

     22. Gun-free zones
     23. Laws requiring publication of gun owners' home addresses
     24. Gun personalization requirements

     25. Gun buyback programs
     26. The War Powers Act of 1973
     27. The state's monopoly on violence
     28. The War on Terror
     29. The 2001 A.U.M.F.
     30. The U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act
     31. Laws allowing warrantless searches and wiretaps
     32. The Whistleblowers Protection Act



VII. The Wars on Drugs and Our Health: Twenty Laws That Failed to Achieve Affordable Health Care, Failed to Ensure the Legal Sale of Safe Drugs, or Failed to Protect the Environment
     33. The taxation of health goods and services
     34. Federal negotiation of drug prices
     35. Subsidization of pharmaceutical companies
     36. The ban on denying emergency room treatment
     37. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

     38. Ecstasy prohibition
     39. Heroin prohibition

     40. Marijuana prohibition
     41. Marijuana legalization
     42. Alcohol prohibition
     43. Corn subsidies
     44. The criminalization of purchasing alcohol for minors
     45. The criminalization of purchasing tobacco for minors
     46. Laws authorizing the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) to approve or deny pharmaceutical drugs
     47. Laws authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.)
     48. Federal vehicle emissions standards
     48. The Clean Air Act
     50. The Clean Water Act
     51. Bans on tree-line thinning
     52. The "Roadless Rule"
     53. Superfund sites

VIII. The War on Poverty, Part 1: Eleven Laws That Fail to Protect Workers' Rights and the Interests of Labor Unions
     54. The law that established Labor Day
     55. The Department of Labor and Commerce
     56. The McCarran-Ferguson Act
     57. The Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act of 1935)
     58. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947
     59. State Right-to-Work laws
     60. Overtime pay laws
     61. The Federal Reserve's "dual mandate" on interest rates and unemployment
     62. Laws that established the U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 unemployment measurements
     63. The Employee Free Choice Act, and the Card Check bill

     64. Disability and Medicaid provisions which limit people's ability to be employed and receive benefits at the same time

IX. The War on Poverty, Part 2: Seven Laws That Intended to Protect Minorities and/or Property, But Failed
     65. The federal minimum wage law
     66. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
     67. Redistricting laws
     68. Laws against sagging pants
     69. The Clinton omnibus crime bill
     70. Laws establishing racial quotas for police
     71. The Homestead Act


X. The War on Poverty, Part 3: Six Budgetary and Monetary Policies That Have Led to Economic Ruin
     72. The Agricultural Adjustment Act
     73. Laws establishing natural resource extraction permits
     74. Property tax laws
     75. Sales tax laws
     76. Income tax laws
     77. Laws providing for Unconditional Basic Income programs


XI. The War on Poverty, Part 4: Ten Laws That Intended to Make the Markets Free, But Rigged Them Instead
     78. The Enumerated Power which authorizes Congress to coin and regulate money
     79. Laws limiting usury
     80. The Sherman Antitrust Act
     81. Laws enabling the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
     82. Executive Order 6102 (which enabled gold confiscations)
     83. The Emergency Banking Act of 1933
     84. Laws authorizing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (F.D.I.C.)
     85. Laws enabling the Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.)
     86. The Glass-Steagall Act
     87. Laws authorizing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B.)


Part 3: Other Topics (Including Twenty-Five Bad Laws, and a Conclusion)


XII. Five Failed Laws and Policies Related to Insurance
     88. Insurance regulations
     89. Home insurance regulations, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.)

     90. Laws establishing public firefighting forces
     91. Insurance regulations regarding emergency medical care
     92. Insurance regulations regarding public school students' medications

XIII. Four Laws That Tried to Prevent Frivolous Lawsuits, But Go Too Far

     93. Legal immunity for gun manufacturers
     94. Legal immunity for the military and police
     95. Laws enabling the granting of L.L.C. designation
     96. Statutes of limitations on reporting rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment
XIV. Five Laws That Tried to Protect the Rights or Safety of Women and Homosexuals, But Failed
     97. Laws requiring fees and licenses to get married

     98. The Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision
     99. Legal limitations and prohibitions on abortion
     100. The Violence Against Women Act (V.A.W.A.) of 1994
     101. Legislative proposals to require women to register for the draft

XV. Eight Laws and Programs That Fail to Protect Children
     102. Laws establishing minimum ages for consent to sex

     103. Laws establishing minimum ages for consent to marriage
     104. The federal law establishing a minimum age for consent to sex
     105. Laws requiring registration as a sex offender
     106. Laws establishing Child Protective Services -type agencies
     107. The federal law which established the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
     108. Policies against establishing laws requiring minimum ages for tattooing and piercing
     109. Social Security Title IV-D (child support)


XVI. Three More Terrible Laws
     110. The Enumerated Power which authorizes Congress to "fix the standard of weights and measurements"
     111. Laws which regulate identity theft, in regards to banks' and credit agencies' customer information
     112. Laws which regulate identity theft, in regards to immigrants' Social Security

XVII. Conclusion: New Laws Don't Work
 






Content


Part 1: Introduction (Including Seventeen Bad Basic Laws of Government)


I. First Introduction: Government Failure

     Can you name a law that has ever worked? A law that has worked the way it was intended?
     In our society, we're used to talking about market failures; high prices, high profits, price manipulation, monopolies, etc.. But I submit that we're not talking enough about government failures. Things like regulatory capture, and the erection of corporate privilege. Those things are every bit as important to talk about as market failures, because they cause most of those market failures in the first place (giving businesses power by handing them taxpayer money and/or writing special privileges for them into the law).
     In this essay, I will name ninety-five laws (or types of laws) in the United States – most of them federal laws – and explain how they achieve the exact opposite of their desired or intended effect. In explaining this, I will defend the idea that most attempts by the voting American public, to secure some equal liberty or new positive right – in many different policy arenas – have historically resulted in surrendering more decision-making power to the government regarding those policy issues, instead of resulting in more freedom or equality for the people.
     I will focus on two basic sets of policy areas:
     1) general constitutional powers which enable or limit government; and
     2) the failures of the “War on Terror”, the “War on Drugs”, and the “War on Poverty”.
In discussing the failures of those “wars”, I will explain how putting too much trust in the government to solve problems, has led to disastrous declines in the quality of policy regarding the military, policing, health care, legal and illegal drugs, and various economic issues pertaining to relations between workers and employers (and the government).
     And all of these issues are interrelated, I might add. Our police and military enforce not only the “War on Terror”, but they also defend (or decline to defend) ourselves and our property, enforce the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Poverty”, they enforce the financial and business and labor regulations.
     Whether it is constitutional that those agents enforce those laws – that is, whether the enforcement of these laws, is itself “legal” in the first place – should be considered an issue of extreme importance. So should the issues of whether the police, or other government officials, publicly-protected companies, should do what they're told; as well as the matter of whether the policy works in the first place; and, at that, works they way it was intended to work.
     [Note: The fact that I have included a specific law, or types of law, below, should not necessarily be construed to mean that I believe that such laws, or types of laws, could never work, nor that I believe they do never work. In many cases, I do doubt whether such laws could ever work; but in some of the cases listed below, I am merely criticizing the manner in which those laws have been historically implemented, and saying that the laws did not work as they were intended to work.]


II. Second Introduction: Five Reasons Why We Shouldn't Trust the Government

     There is a popular libertarian saying whose author is unknown. It was popularized by Barry Goldwater, often mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, and began circulating in 1950s American newspapers. It goes like this: “A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take it all away.” Whomever said it, it certainly seems true.
     We should not trust the government to solve our problems, for five main reasons; because of:
     1) the government's power to regulate ­ or not regulate – corporations (and to break up, or not break up, monopolies);
     2) the government's power to create monopolies and to create corporations;
     3) the corruptibility of the licensing and permit systems;
     4) the moral hazard involved in trusting the government and only government to solve our problems; and
     5) regulatory capture (the process whereby an industry comes to be “regulated” by the same people who work in that industry).

     If we trust the government to regulate corrupt companies, and tax owners who profit off of the public dime, then the government will do exactly that. I'm not doubting the government's ability, nor its will, to do those things. But shouldn't corrupt C.E.O.s, and people who embezzle taxpayer money, go to jail, instead of just having their taxes raised, and new “restraints” placed on them?
     But the issue isn't just that we're not jailing criminals if they happen to be wealthy; it's also that the government usually incentivizes wealthy criminals to commit their crimes. It does this through giving them special legal and financial protections, and devoting more money and police resources towards protecting the rich and their investments than the poor and their homes.
     Why should we trust the government to break up or regulate companies, or tax them adequately, or decline to abuse their privileges? For two simple reasons: 1) Government cannot be trusted to regulate nor break-up monopolies, because government (that is, state government) is a monopoly. 2) Why would government want to limit the power of corporations, when it's the government that's creating all of these corporations in the first place?
     Another endemic problem with our government is political; the manner in which large companies manage to secure taxpayer money and privileges for themselves, having asked for those things as a consolation for being taxed and regulated. Those companies and their lobbyists make it impossible to pass meaningful economic reforms that help the poor, because wealthy companies get away with insisting to legislators that all laws designed to help the poor, help them less than they help the rich.
     For all of these reasons, and the following, trusting government is a terrible idea, and here are ninety-two reasons why.


III. Three Clauses That Enable Legislative Action, But Are Used to Excuse Government Overreach

     The first three laws I will discuss, enable government but intend to severely limit it. They do the opposite of what they intend to do, because their language is abused by legislators, so as to excuse more government overreach and more distortion of the meaning of the law, instead of abiding by the limitation originally intended.

     These three laws are the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Interstate Commerce Clause.

     1. The General Welfare Clause.
     The General Welfare Clause is a part of the Taxing and Spending Clause (found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution). It is the first clause of the “Enumerated Powers”; the eighteen specifically authorized powers of Congress.

     The General Welfare Clause empowers Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”.
The General Welfare Clause does the opposite of what it intends to do, because the meanings of “general” and “welfare” in “General Welfare” Clause are being distorted.

     “General” means that duties, imposts, and excise taxes shall be uniform throughout the country. Basically, it means that the burden of taxation must be equal (at least in regards to those types of taxes). However, even if the burden of income taxation fell on states equally (which it doesn't), there is no proof that income taxation is good policy even when it can be done constitutionally.
     Additionally, “welfare” meant “well-being” when the Constitution was written, so it is arguable as to whether something like a “Department of Health, Education, and Welfare”, or modern welfare programs, are permissible under this clause of the Constitution.
     Thus, distortion of the terms “general” and “welfare” has permitted an uneven income tax burden across the states, in order to spend that money on - not the general welfare (which really just means the equal benefit of all people across the country), but – the vague or specific welfare. Any and every type of spending is allowed, to benefit any and every particular social safety net project or corporate welfare giveaway. And so, with no rationale as to why we're spending this money on these particular people and causes, we justify taxing people with no rationale as to whether we're taxing them equally.
     The General Welfare Clause enables government overreach, although its intent was to limit government. But I say “its intent”; the law doesn't have any intent. I mean to refer to the intent of the legislators who wrote it. And they, of course, worked for the government. We should expect no less, for as Thrasymachus explained, justice always serves “the advantage of the stronger”. This is to say that any government we can elect, will always rule in its own benefit; in favor of incumbents, and in favor of continuing the same style and structure of government.
     The General Welfare Clause would better be called the “Specific Welfare Clause”, the “Vague Welfare Clause”, or the “General Harm Clause”.

     2. The Necessary and Proper Clause
     The final clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, empowers the Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States...”.
     The Necessary and Proper Clause is often used to excuse doing whatever people think is necessary and proper for the government to do. But the term, as used in the Constitution, does not mean that at all. What is “necessary and proper” here, is not for the government to do whatever it wants, nor whatever the people wants; the intent here is to limit government's ability to do anything other than what is necessary and proper to execute “the foregoing Powers”.
     And what are “the foregoing Powers”? The Enumerated Powers. The preceding seventeen powers of Congress which are named before that sentence in the Constitution. The powers to create military and diplomatic policy, and monetary and treasury policy, and to punish piracy and regulate slavery, protect scientific discoveries, designate post roads, and little else.
     Congress was never intended to have the authority to do anything other than the seventeen things listed in Article I, Section 8, and the eighteenth congressional power enables Congress to do what is necessary to do those other seventeen things, and nothing else.
     The Necessary and Proper Clause would better be called the “Unnecessary and Improper Clause”, or the “Do What You Feel Clause”.

     3. The Interstate Commerce Clause
     The third clause in Article I, Section 8, empowers the Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
     Today, this clause is used to justify regulating not only business activity which substantially affects interstate commerce, but also anything that could remotely be described as economic activity, which could theoretically be construed as subtly affecting interstate commerce in any small way.
     The power to regulate interstate Commerce Clause is not even used; much less as intended. The clause intended to restrict economic regulation to what is necessary to prevent states from passing preferential laws that unduly favor the domestic commerce occurring within those states, over commerce from other states. Today, states are allowed to propose laws like this – for example, a law proposed in Minnesota that would have imposed a tax on craft beers from out-of-state - without anyone noticing that they violate the interstate Commerce Clause.
     The Commerce Clause thus enables Congress to regulate any and all economic activity, and enables states to consider laws that violate the Constitution and destroy the fairness of the American free trade zone, when the clause originally intended to strictly limit the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and to limit the power of the state governments to pass laws that protect local state business interests over the interests of other states.
     The interstate Commerce Clause would more appropriately be called the “Let the States Unfairly Protect Their Own Companies Clause” or the "Let the Federal Government Regulate Whatever it Wants Clause".



IV. Six Laws with Deceptive Names

     There are many laws in America – the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, for example (which I'll get to later) – which have deceptive names. These deceptive names reveal precisely how the law does the opposite of what it states it is trying to do.


     4. Citizens United
     The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision allows unlimited campaign donations; on the basis of the idea that donations to political campaigns are a form of free expression which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The ruling has divided the country.
     “Citizens United” would better be called “Citizens Divided”.

     5. N.A.F.T.A. (The North American Free Trade Agreement)
     The 1993/1994 North American Free Trade Agreement was a multilateral trade compact (or treaty) between several national governments. Its intention was to promote free trade, but it only worked towards a zero-tariff scenario and real free trade.
     Furthermore, N.A.F.T.A. went backwards on protecting property, the environment, and the sovereignty of foreign countries. It did this by allowing the Mexican Constitution to be amended so as to allow the exploitation of native land in Mexico by international property developers (among other negative consequences of the deal).
     Moreover, trade deals can be negotiated without governments, and they are probably even best negotiated without governments. Thus, N.A.F.T.A. achieved the opposite of free trade; it was a government-managed trade deal.
     Some criticize N.A.F.T.A. for creating a “North American free trade zone” that threatens to flood America with cheap products, cheap labor, or both. But that is to criticize the deal for making trade “too free”. I criticize it because it makes trade too unfree.
     The North American Free Trade Agreement would more appropriately be called “the North American Unfree Trade Agreement” or the “Make North America Submit Economically to the United States Agreement”.

     6. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
     The 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (E.E.S.A) was a congressional bailout measure intended to mitigate the damage of the 2007-08 financial crisis. While its stated intention was to “stabilize the economy”, what it actually did was authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to buy up to $700 billion in troubled assets.
     The E.E.S.A. was just the first in a series of bailouts, which affected nine major companies. Financial analysts have argued as to whether the total cost of the bailouts and restructuring ended up amounting to $10, $12, or even $29.6 trillion dollars, as opposed to the initial $700 billion troubled asset purchase authorization which made the Troubled Asset Relief Program “necessary” to create.
     Thus, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act would better be called the “Emergency Economic Destabilization Act”, because it was a risky piece of legislation that put the economy in further peril.

     7. The Protect Life Act
The Protect Life Act, which was passed by Congress in 2011 but not signed into law, would have prohibited Obamacare funding from being spent on abortion. Its express purpose would have been to protect the life of the unborn fetus.
     However, that proposed law also would have made it legal for hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women even if they have life-threatening conditions.
     Thus, the Protect Life Act would more appropriately be called the “Protect Fetus' Lives Only Act” or the “Let Women Die in Childbirth Act”.

     8. The Restoring Internet Freedom Act
     The Restoring Internet Freedom Act, enacted in 2018, destroys the freedom of the internet - its open-source, collaborative commons, peer-to-peer nature - because it prohibits the F.C.C. (Federal Communication Corporation) from classifying I.S.P.s (internet service providers) as common carriers. The law also prohibits the F.C.C. from “imposing certain regulations on providers of such service”.
     Thus, the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, would more appropriately be called “the Destroying Internet Freedom Act”.

     9. The Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.)
     The Defense of Marriage Act, which was federal law from 1996 to 2015, prohibited married same-sex couples from collecting federal benefits.
     Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act defended solely the marriages of heterosexuals, in treating same-sex couples in a discriminatory manner. So it doesn't defend marriages; if it did, then it would defend all marriages (between consenting adults), and it would want there to be more marriages. But the people who wrote and approved D.O.M.A. didn't want that.
     That's why the Defense of Marriage Act would better be termed the “Defend Straight Marriages Only Act”, the “Destruction of Marriage Act”, the “Preferential Treatment for Straight Couples Act”, or the “Offend Gay Marriages Act”.



[Explanations for examples of government failure #10-#110 will appear on this page at a later date.]






Written on July 27th, 2019
Based on Notes Taken in June and July 2019

Written for the Bughouse Square Debates, held in Chicago, Illinois on July 27th, 2019
and delivered in part at the debates

Edited on August 13th, 2019


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...