Responses to the Movement for a People’s Party’s Endorsement Questionnaire

 

Preface

     The following is my response to the Movement for a People’s Party’s endorsement questionnaire, in regard to my candidacy for Illinois State Assemblyman from the 60^th District in 2022.

     I wish to note a few things about the three biggest potential sticking points between the People’s Party’s platform and views held by libertarians and supporters of the Constitution; namely, basic income, the Green New Deal, and Medicare for All.

     I support basic income, but only as a temporary solution to poverty and the broken social safety net. But basic income should also last long enough for people to be able to rely on it. I support the maintenance of a universal basic income program, without a work requirement, for ten years. But severe taxation and budgetary reform must happen concurrently, for the U.B.I. to be able to end without causing people to become impoverished for lack of alternative solutions regarding how to obtain resources.

     I support a Green New Deal, as long as it is implemented as locally as possible, and in a way that brings about more Land Value Taxation in the localities, and results in the replacement of states with bioregions.

     I support Medicare for All, but only if it is implemented constitutionally; i.e., after a proper constitutional amendment has been passed, which would authorize exclusive federal and public involvement in health insurance, and enable a floor vote on Medicare for All.

     I support an Economic Bill of Rights, and recognizing health and/or health care as a human right. But these rights should be understood as already existing, and flowing from our negative liberty to keep our health information private (and between ourselves and our doctors), rather than from a positive right to government involvement in our health. Amendment IX implies that the absence of the word health in the Constitution does not necessarily mean that it is not among our many rights, so any recognition of health as a human right, in American law, should be predicated upon that notion.

 

 

 

Questions

(aside from questions about basic contact information)

 

     Q1. Would you refuse all corporate PAC dollars and contributions?

     A1. Yes


     Q2. Would you refuse to accept all money and favors from corporate lobbyists?

     A2. Yes


     Q3. Are you already running for office?

     A3. No


     Q4. Would you like to run for federal office?

     A4. Not running for federal office


     Q5. Or would you like to run for a State or Local office?

     A5. State (State House, State Senate, or elected Administrative position)


     Q6. What office would you like to run for?

     A6. Illinois State Assembly, 60^th District


     Q7: Would you support an Economic Bill of Rights?

     A7: Yes


     Q8: Would you fight to get corporate money out of politics?

     A8: Yes


     Q9: Would you work to pass healthcare as a human right?

     A9: Yes


     Q10: Do you support the People’s Party’s racial and social justice policies?

     A10: Yes


     Q11: Do you support a basic income?

     A11: Yes


     Q12: Do you support tuition-free college, quality education and student loan debt forgiveness?

     A12: Yes


     Q13: Please tell us about your work and educational background.

     A13: I graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, with a Bachelor of Arts in political science, in 2009. I have been involved in self-directed study since then, publishing my research on my blog www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com. I have worked as a janitor, and in restaurants and a law office, and am currently a private security guard.


     Q14: What are your connections to your community?

     A14: I have lived in Waukegan for four years. I grew up in Lake Bluff and Lake Forest, and have lived in Lake County for most of my life. I ran for U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 10th district in 2016 and 2020.

 

     Q15: Are there any community projects or initiatives that you have been involved in?

     A15:

- Various spontaneous anti- Iraq War protests, 2005-2009, in Madison WI

- One month of campaign work for Ben Manski's Liberty Tree Foundation, 2014

- Volunteer work for Kash Jackson's 2018 Illinois gubernatorial campaign

- Four of my own independent write-in campaigns for U.S. House (2012, 2014, 2016, 2020)

     Q16: Have you ever ran [sic] for office before in a previous election/s?

     A16: Yes


     Q17: What seat/s did you run for?

     A17: U.S. Representative


     Q18: Tell us about your previous run/s. What party did you run under? What were your lessons learned?

     A18: 2012: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Wisconsin's 2nd district. Received 6 votes. Learned that campaigning as an independent is an uphill battle to get noticed.

2014: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Oregon's 3rd district. Dropped out before election. Learned not to run while I am busy moving to a new state.

2016: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Illinois's 10th district. Received 26 votes. Learned that I needed to take time off from campaigning to do more writing and research, to be better prepared for my next run.

2020: Ran for U.S. House as an independent write-in, from Illinois's 10th district. Sought Libertarian and Green nominations but did not receive either. Received 21 votes. Learned to plan campaign calendar better, and that I need to work harder meeting people, finding volunteers, and distributing literature early.


     Q19: Have you ever held office?

     A19: No


     Q19: How long have you lived in the state/district/community?

     A19: 10 or more years


     Q19: Why would you like to run for office?

     A19: I want to help solve the financial struggles and moral decay that are plaguing Americans, which paradoxically never seem to be solved through increasing the central government's power to do something about it. Making taxes more efficient at the local level, will allow local governments to balance their budgets and be more effective at alleviating poverty; this will allow state and federal governments to gradually exercise less and less external authority over people's lives and productivity. Peace, decentralization, and maximizing respect for the consent of the governed in all policy areas, will guide disaffected voters towards the right electoral choices.


     Q20: Why do you wan [sic] to run with the People’s Party[?]

     A20: I want to advance the party's goals, and achieve change rapidly. The Democratic Party is not remotely anti-war, anti-imperialism, or against corporate influence on politics, enough, to be effective in the fight against economic and political domination. Minor parties are needed, to fight for ballot access, to raise new issues, and to galvanize support against the major parties that have had a chokehold on American politics for 180 years.


     Q21: What do you know about the People’s Party and have you been involved in any way with the movement?

     A21: have not been involved with the movement yet, but I became aware of the party, and Nick Brana, from watching the Jimmy Dore show. I know that the People's Party is trying to form an alternative to the two major parties, which is a goal I've shared for at least 13 years.


     Q22: Tell us why you are driven to unseat the incumbent you will be challenging?

     A22: Assemblywoman Rita Mayfield is a dedicated public servant, who indisputably has the district's interests at heart. But Illinois is experiencing severe budgetary problems; it consistently suffers from a lack of sustainable revenue sources. I would like to use my past research, writing, and policy proposals regarding tax revenue sourcing and environmental taxation, to help solve this problem. I firmly believe that legislators whom have not ever heard of Georgism / Land Value Taxation, are insufficiently equipped to address Illinois's biggest problem. Nothing personal against Rep. Mayfield, but I feel that I would be effective in achieving change for the district, and in representing the 60th district in the state legislature, because of my studies on revenue, and because of my attention to detail. I also feel that I am qualified for the position, due to my particular education in political science (which Rep. Mayfield lacks, having studied science, organization, and information systems). It's time that we were governed by someone whom has heard of more than just the two most famous economic systems.


     Q23: Are there any stories that you’ve heard about life in your district that have motivated you to run?

     A23: District 60 is like a lot of places in America; densely populated, poor, and filled with polluted and abandoned construction projects and vacant lots. I spent the early 2010s traveling across the country, and saw that there is very little variation in terms of these problems, and in terms of drug addiction. I have experienced temporary homelessness (despite growing up in a modestly wealthy suburban home), and met others who have struggled with the same problem, and with perpetually losing wallets and phones. Child abuse, child neglect, and parental neglect of children's needs to acquire worthwhile marketable skills while in school, have led to a hollowing-out of the middle class, and increased the financial disparity and social alienation between the employing/lending class, and the working poor and the unemployed. Despite living indoors, I and my neighbors who rent apartments struggle to get consistent heat, due to not fully owning our homes and having little access to attorneys. Sometimes not owning a home still feels like being homeless. Nobody should have to work overtime just to maintain the cheapest apartment they can find. I want to free the economy from monopoly controls, to create a fairer economy that respects everyone's opportunity to participate, and which recognizes that everyone has something to contribute (even if they don't do what's traditionally considered socially valuable work that deserves monetary pay). I would also like to advance an in-depth proposal which would reform the laws governing the behavior of Illinois state police, in order to prevent unjustifiable police shootings like that of Justus Howell, who was shot to death in Zion (which is near the 60th district).


     Q24: What are some of the most critical issues that you can change by being a representative in the seat you are seeking?

     A24:

- Health: As long as the federal government refrains from passing Medicare for All -type legislation, advocate for the creation of a truly optional public option to insure Illinoisans. Support reforms to enable access to low-cost health services, such as by 1) reforming medical workers' contracts, 2) urging non-profits and charities and health cooperatives to work with clinics offering direct primary care, and 3) relieving taxes on medical goods and services.

- Environment and taxation: Advocate for differential property taxation, split-rate taxation, or Land Value Taxation, in order to reform property taxes, and replace self-depleting and unsustainable taxes on production, with taxes on waste and destruction of public resources. This will help fully fund government at the local level, allowing many other budgetary problems to be solved, including the public pensions funding problem.

- Immigration: Support any and all attempts by Illinois and Waukegan to be a sanctuary state and a sanctuary city. Urge the governor to interpose I.C.E. agents attempting to act within Illinois, and to nullify the federal law which unconstitutionally authorized I.C.E..

- Policing: Support reforms which will bring about increased surveillance of, and transparency into the actions of, the police, while on duty (including more body cameras, and increased penalties for turning off or interfering with cameras). I plan to use my experience as a security guard, to help establish a set of principles by which to delineate the different responsibilities which should be either split-up among, or shared by, private security guards and police officers. Replace beat cops with peace officers. Establish a strict use-of-force continuum, which includes a protocol requiring police to identify the person who called police, before arriving at the scene, and then finding that person and ensuring that they're safe, as soon as police arrive on the scene.

- Education: Support bringing auto and wood shops (and modernizing shop through other trades courses, such as CAD and 3-D printing) back to high schools. Avoid the risk of lawsuits against schools arising due to shop injuries, by implementing lawsuit waiver systems for students wishing to participate, and by splitting-up high school campuses so that only juniors and seniors attend school at campuses that have shop (and parking).


     Q25: Facebook link

     A25: http://www.facebook.com/groups/2908918519377509

     Q26: Twitter link

     A26: http://twitter.com/JoeKopsick


     Q27: Website link/s (personal, campaign, or other websites that you are associated with)

     A27: www.joekopsick.com

 

     Q28: Are you involved in any People’s Party hubs or in any volunteer capacity? If so please describe.

     A28: Not yet

 

 

 

Responses written on May 13^th, 2021

Preface written on May 13^th, 2021, and edited on May 14^th, 2021

Published on May 15^th, 2021

 

Trump and Biden vs. Bernie Sanders vs. Joe Kopsick on the Issues

This image has been augmented;

the original image showed only Biden and Trump vs. Sanders.

Click to enlarge

On Progressives and Libertarians, and Why "Property is Impossible"

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Blending of the Public and Private Sectors
3. Responsibly Reducing Businesses' Burdens
4. “Property is Impossible” (-P.J. Proudhon)
5. Boycotts and Discrimination

Content

1. Introduction

     I am glad to see progressive Democrats increasingly consider radical and even libertarian ideas, as well as systems like socialism and democratic socialism, in the last several years.

     While I may not always agree with them, I welcome the representation of these views, because that representation widens the range of acceptable debate, which is necessary to create a safe environment for free speech to flourish, and for people to become aware of many different ways of living.

     I am glad to see that more Democrats are getting fed up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her refusal to consider impeaching George W. Bush, and then Donald Trump, have made her someone I could never support. Her refusal to impeach Bush in 2006 is probably what made me stop supporting the Democratic Party. I had supported for Kerry in 2004, but also admired Nader more at the time, but I wasn't eligible to vote, so that's beside the point.

     I appreciate that more and more progressive and left-leaning media sources are calling attention to the neoliberal establishment of the Democratic Party's support of crony capitalism. I especially admire Jimmy Dore, a Chicago-born, L.A.-based comedian turned political commentator and podcaster, who has been putting out progressive content with a lot of potential crossover appeal to libertarians. Dore has admitted on his show to admiring Senator Rand Paul's foreign policy, but not so much his domestic policy.

     I wrote the following article as an email to Mr. Dore about what progressives and libertarians have in common, but also about what they both get wrong about private property. Namely, how private property is protected, what happens when property owners invite the state to help protect their property, and whether most “private property” in America today is truly as private as people think it is.

     Another goal of this piece was to explain how to criticize right-libertarians (that is, staunchly pro- private property libertarians; or propertarians), but also what to criticize them about, and what arguments they are right about. I intend this advice as a way to potentially moderate right-libertarians, and encourage them to consider aligning, even if only temporarily, with radical progressives and socialists, in order to create a united front against the fascists in charge.

     This piece also contains advice about how radical progressives can successfully caution other progressives about the risks associated with having the federal government – or any government – have too much power; to be too large in size and scope, that it interferes with the economy, and with people's personal lives (especially in regard to property, enterprise, and income).

     The above has been a summary of my introduction to that email.

     What follows – in Sections #2 through #5 of this article – is the main body of the email, which concerns itself with libertarian and progressive views on property, as well as my own views, which are guided by the principles of radical libertarianism, market-anarchism, and mutualist-anarchism.

I have expanded on some points, where necessary to further clarify my points,

2. The Blending of the Public and Private Sectors

     I think Libertarians are correct to point out (although they don't do it nearly often enough) that the billionaires and large corporations that are lobbying for favorable legislation, got all of their privileges and protections from the government in the first place. Amazon and Facebook, for example, both have CIA contracts. It might even be fair to argue, also, that high taxes drive the desire for high profits (to offset the cost of taxes).

     However, that doesn't mean the government is the source of all things evil about the business world. After all, our government was bought-out by private business interests a whole century ago; the same interests that promote wars, and whose propaganda is taught in "public" schools. We don't have a government that's subservient to the people; they're subservient to "private" banks.

     But remember, a bank – or any company, for that matter – isn't really "private" unless it receives zero taxpayer subsidies, zero government assistance of any kind. No patents, no trade subsidies, no tariffs or professional licensing regulation that hurts competitors, no discounts on public utilities, no police protection of physical property, no bank account insurance, no L.L.C. status to confer legal and financial protections, zero. Glass-Steagall is OK, but why bring back Glass-Steagall, when we could simply stop insuring deposits at taxpayer expense altogether?

     For that matter, if "public" schools are supposed to be truly public, then they should obviously stop teaching propaganda that was written by for-profit private companies.

     "Public sector vs. private sector" is all we talk about these days. Few people ever mention non-profits (and the "non-profit third sector", or "voluntary sector"), or cooperatives, or club goods, or "the commons" as economic sectors, or forms of ownership, unto themselves. That's why I think all the focus is on the "public" government (which masquerades as, and steals from, the commons) or the "private" corporations (which receive public assistance, but pretend to care about privacy, personal ownership, and individual rights).

3. Responsibly Reducing Businesses' Burdens

     If Libertarians want a company to be truly "private" – that is, to have a lower taxation and regulatory burden as a result of that privacy, and that lower degree of association with the government – then the company should simply give up all of those cronyist privileges. Private owners and for-profit firms must realize that a sizeable segment of the public will simply refuse to do business with minimally-regulated firms, because they believe them to be irresponsible.

     But then again, the government also needs to give companies the chance to survive without those privileges. Like by leaving them to pave their own roads leading to their properties (instead of getting the taxpayers to pay for the roads, and then getting some of those taxpayers build them as well). And by allowing businesses to develop their own alternative energy sources, or collect solar power on-site, so that they don't have to depend on the public energy grid – nor on discounts therefore, nor on discounts for internet service – in order to balance their budgets.

     Therefore, fortunately, there is a way to allow private owners and for-profit firms to take risks, without it risking harm to the public, or to non-consenting people, and without destroying the free market: Don't let the state protect property, don't let the state protect rights to profit nor to trade, and don't let the state make taxpayers responsible for insuring the deposits of any firms whatsoever!

     If a business wants to pay lower taxes, then there are already ways to do that: stop using a for-profit model that yields the kind of gains that the government would want to tax in the first place. Businesses should be given a choice between 1) giving up their profits, 2) re-investing them into their company (such that there are no profits, after all is said and done), and/or 3) operating as a non-profit or not-for-profit, or a cooperative, or a mutual firm.

     If we can eliminate all forms of privilege for businesses – and take steps to recoup our legally stolen losses from the Wall Street bailouts (and all the other bailouts over the years) and give them back to the people – then we can let individuals develop non-profit, de-politicized alternatives to politicized public institutions, through voluntary association and voluntary exchange, rather than through government direction.

     And that will bring development, and growth of businesses, in a way that helps employees and consumers, rather than simply doing whatever a corrupt government agrees with a set of corrupt businessmen they should do, while taxpayers foot the bill.

     As a Libertarian, and as an admirer of the Constitution and the ideals of a free market and voluntary exchange, I think that if government simply didn't have the power to bail companies out (and to offer them other forms of government assistance) in the first place, then we would not have nearly as many people sucking up to the cults of money and big business.

     Most importantly (at least as far as the topic of property is concerned), we would not have as many people sucking up to the existing set of enforced property claims, which embodies a massive disparity in ownership of physical wealth.

     In a stateless market system, or if the government's authority to intervene in matters of economy and property were much more strictly limited, we would have a market that is truly based on meritocracy. We are told that our current system does reward merit, but the number of people incarcerated for victimless crimes, and the number of people arrested for intellectual property theft, show that government often has nonsensical rules about what forms of economic activity are legal and respectable.

4. “Property is Impossible” (-P.J. Proudhon)

     Right-libertarians often need to be reminded that when "private" businesses expect police assistance, or favorable legislation (as in Jim Crow Laws) to help them "protect their property" – i.e., enforce their right to discriminate against whomever they please – they are really relying on a form of public assistance, and that fact renders the company not “private” at all. Which renders moot any claim that the companies are independent, or self-sustaining, or should be allowed to do whatever they want on "their own" property.

     Also, taking public assistance renders companies subject to the law. Most importantly, federal laws regarding keeping interstate commerce "regulated" or "regular"; that is, free from obstructions and interferences, like states protecting and favoring their own domestic products and labor over those of other states.

     Maybe if Libertarians understood that very little property is actually private, then it would become clear to them that property ownership is enforced, determined, limited, and conditioned by the approval of society. Unanimous societal approval is the only thing, besides the state, which will ever be effective when it comes to acknowledging and respecting a person's property claim.

     In a free society, even one or two people challenging the value or validity of someone's property claim, would have to be heard. Just as in a free market, each market actor has some say in influencing prices, only unanimity, or near unanimity, would guarantee the protection of property claims, without necessitating a domineering state to, well... frankly, get rid of those one or two dissenters, and scare everyone into forgetting about their disappearance.

     No homestead, and no piece of property bought from the government and registered by one of its agencies, can ever be said to be truly private, unless the government (if it exists) agrees to be neutral on property, and agrees to place the burden of protecting the claim on the claimant himself (who might try to outsource this responsibility to others, through employing security guards, mercenaries, etc.). And that outsourcing of responsibility is a negative externality, which free market supporters ought to be against.

     If right-libertarians can be made to understand these things, then there is a chance that they will stop demanding that struggling poor individuals lose their government assistance as a precondition of businesses losing theirs. I agree with Rand Paul that we should not cut one dime from the social safety net until we get rid of corporate welfare, and I think that if the Libertarian Party cannot get on board with that, then it is positioning itself to the right of the Republican Party, which I think sends a message to voters that we are unsympathetic and unelectable.

     Republicans are already trying to limit what S.N.A.P. (Food Stamps) recipients can buy – from subsidized food companies, mind you – so why elect Libertarians when they might do the very same thing? Do you want the government to coerce you into a state of dependence by stealing your money and giving it to its friends, and then deciding what you can and can't buy with the Food Stamps card they bought for you with your own stolen money? That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

     If Libertarians cannot recognize that most recipients of government assistance were pressured into accepting assistance – through having to conform to the law, and the monetary and hourly wage labor systems established through that law – then they might as well admit that they have fallen for the idea that the state can legalize its own coercion, and that coercion by businesses (including lobbying) is harmless. One simply cannot believe that and call oneself a libertarian.

5. Boycotts and Discrimination

     If a business takes assistance (like L.L.C. status, S.B.A. loans, F.D.I.C. insurance, trademarks, etc.), and stays open to customers from other states, then it should rightfully be subject to federal laws against discrimination in interstate commerce and public accommodations.

     If this idea became formally codified in law – instead of just sloppily inferred from the outcome of the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. decision – then it would become clear to Libertarians and Republicans that if a company accepts public assistance and is involved in interstate commerce, then it is undeniably in the business of "public accommodations", and therefore should not be allowed to discriminate against the public.

     Radical progressives will probably not like what I am about to suggest, because it gives so much wiggle room to the pro-property idea. But perhaps it's time to give property owners an ultimatum.

     If they want to discriminate, or reserve the full right to kick anybody off of their property that they want for any reason (and without giving a reason), then they should have to give up all of the benefits that they're getting from the government.

     No business should be free to discriminate against – or boycott (depending on how you look at it) – a customer, who is unable to discriminate against, and boycott, that business.

     Granted, no particular recipient of government assistance is specifically coerced into depending on any one particular subsidized firm, but the only firms that exist are subsidized or protected in one way or another, so welfare recipients are coerced into dependence upon one subsidized business or another.

     Moreover, businesses that sell to welfare recipients have the option to give up subsidies and monopoly privileges, and cease reaping profit, as a way to avoid submitting to so much regulation and taxation. So businesses cannot rightfully argue that they are in any way obligated to serve people who are on government assistance. And certainly not any more than the people on assistance are being obligated to serve some set of those subsidized firms (from among which they have a limited ability to choose, because of coercive state intervention in business and in property protection).

     Additionally, individuals are simply not eligible for anywhere near as many government contracts, favors, protections, subsidies, loans, titles, tax credits, and monopoly privileges as businesses are. The idea that a person considering requesting government assistance, has as much ability to oppress a business as a business does to oppress him, is ludicrous.

     Libertarians can say all they want that both the social safety net and corporate welfare need to be eliminated, and they're correct. But now is not the time to pretend that, if we were faced with a choice between abolishing the military-industrial complex or abolishing the Food Stamps program, we should simply flip a coin.

     Libertarians who are ambivalent in this manner look insane to the average voter, and to the average progressive. And they don't look too intelligent to myself as a Libertarian Party member.

Introduction Written on January 26^th, 2019

Original Email Written on January 24^th, 2019

Originally Published on January 26^th, 2019




Originally Published Under the Title
"What Neither Radical Progressives Nor Right-Libertarians

Understand About Legal Recognition of Property Rights"

Title Changed on February 7th, 2019

Meme created in January 2018
and added on September 7th, 2021

Progressivism is Not Leftism, It's Statism

     Say what you will about the supposed devolution of progressivism into neo-liberalism, it has always been that way. Progressives trusted government from Day 1.

     In 1924, the radical faction of the U.S. labor movement stopped pursuing political reform. The faction of that movement that wanted to continue political progress, became the Progressive Party, and supported people like Robert M. LaFollette.

     Progressives, and the neo-liberals who brainwash them into doing Republicans' bidding, are not leftists. You can't assume they're leftists just because they're left of the American center. The American center is pretty far right. You can be left of American political center and still be right-of-center in the big scheme of things.

     Most American progressives (at least the ones with a modicum of political power) do not claim to be socialists; instead, they say that they support capitalism (or else a market system) but with reform. Given that neo-liberals Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton do exactly that, what is to differentiate them from progressives? None; it is the difference between a dog and its tail.

     Most people who conservatives call communists, socialists, and leftists are not really leftists; they're just liberals. Liberals who are complacent with big government, the military-industrial complex, domestic surveillance, illegal and unconstitutional government programs, unfounded limitations on majority voting, and fiscal austerity.

     Additionally, whom are OK with "limited" government regulation (that really just limits our ability to compete against the multinational companies that are screwing us over). Also, with what I call Nazi-Sympathizing Rape-Enablers (N.S.R.E.s; that is, the Republicans) being in control of our government 50% of the time.

     After the American Revolution, there were liberals and conservatives. Conservatives wanted to conserve the gains of the Revolution, while the (classical) liberals wanted to push that revolution even further, in order to achieve further liberation, and to impose more limitations on the government's ability to control our lives.

     Democratic republicanism and liberal-conservatism are what govern the U.S.. Democrats and Republicans are much closer than politicians and the media would have us believe. Obamacare was based on Romneycare and Pawlentycare (two proposals pioneered and implemented by Republican governors).

     Obama supporters: stop. You are trying to impose Republican legislation on all your Democrat friends, you have effectively become a Republican mouthpiece (nevermind that the bill imposes an infinite tax on a zero-dollar item, its unconstitutionality, or that the only thing arguably redeeming about it from a freedom-loving standpoint is that it restrains the activities of insurance companies that were created with public approval but which should never should have been tied to the public in the first place).

     Progressives: stop. Your cynicism of government is healthy, but it doesn't go far enough. All states draw their legitimacy from the normalization of political violence (a/k/a terrorism). Read the anarchists.

     Progressivism has thus far only succeeded in "solving" market failures by replacing them with government failures. Most progressives are good and conscientious people, but in my opinion many of them are prone to be too trusting of a system that they want to believe is good and can change.

     One needs only look at the 40 [or more] unconstitutional wars we've waged over the years, and the history of moral hazard and regulatory capture (short version: government failure and mismanagement, caused by blind trust in the government that it is doing its job) which have accompanied nearly every attempt at progressive reform, to see that appealing to our oppressors and begging them for more scraps has not been working.

     For my explanation of what Democrats and Republicans both misunderstand about leftist ideas, please click this link to read my September 2018 article "What Liberals and Conservatives Both Get Wrong About Socialism and Communism":
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/09/what-liberals-and-conservatives-both.html

Originally Written on October 26th, 2018

Edited on December 1st, 2018

Published on December 1st, 2018

Proposal of a Geo-Painean-Friedmanite Caucus of the Libertarian Party

            The following four paragraphs contain the description of a political study group which I created and administer on Facebook in November 2016, entitled “Basic Income & Tax Reform”.:

            Basic Income & Tax Reform (formerly Give Me My Money) is a study group promoting radical tax reform alongside cash payments to the poor.

This is a group to bring together proponents of:
(1) Land Value Taxation and Split-Rate Taxation,

(2) the Negative Income Tax,

(3) the FairTax,

(4) Citizens' and Residents' Dividends,

(5) Sovereign Wealth Funds and Permanent Funds,

(6) Universal / Unconditional Basic Income Guarantees,

(7) extensions of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and

(8) expansions of ordinary people's tax deductions for expenses of care.

We believe that serious discussion of taxation reform, environmental policy reform, and welfare reform must take into consideration the need to take an integrated and comprehensive approach to these three issues. Reforms which must take place alongside our proposals include reforms to property rights, natural resource extraction, homesteading, and the budget.

We look forward to building coalitions with libertarian-leaning and progressive Democrats, moderate and libertarian-leaning Republicans, third parties and independents, Georgists, anarchist and direct action groups, and others.

Basic Income & Tax Reform desires to help lift the poor out of poverty (and remove poverty traps in the welfare system) while creating an economic environment more conducive to investment and savings (whether domestic or international) through less government intervention, not more; with redistributive taxation and involuntary taxation used only as last resorts. The types of tax proposals which we deem most necessary and proper, as well as urgent, are proposals which provide tax relief to the poor, while refraining from hindering productive behavior.

Proposals in include 1) extensions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (E.I.T.C.); 2) repeals of non-luxury sales taxes; 3) curbing inflation – through balancing the budget and paying off the debt – in order to lower what effectively amounts to the taxation of savings, which discourages savings; 4) expansions of homesteading tax credits so as to allow credits to apply to apartments, and tiny houses (alongside homesteading reform); and 5) permissive tax deductions for expenses from child care, elder care, and health care and insurance.

After those first five short-term proposals are achieved, our medium-term goals include 6) Cut-Cap-and-Balance measures; 7) reverting to zero-based budgeting; 8) passing across-the-board tax cuts; and 9) supporting measures which make taxes flatter. Our long-term goals are 10) formally repealing the 16^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 11) passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution); and 12) reforming the structure and philosophy of taxation into one that embraces geo-libertarian principles.

We would like to see all taxes imposed by the most local level of government possible (without sacrificing efficiency), and we desire that government be funded wholly through taxation proposals permissible under the umbrella of Land Value Taxation / the “Single” Tax (including carbon taxes), in addition to receipts from user fees, and revenues collected through voluntary contributions.

In the event that Georgist and geo-libertarian tax proposals were to fail, Basic Income & Tax Reform regards neither the FairTax nor the Negative Income Tax (N.I.T.) preferable to the other. This is because there are several things at issue; namely, that of progressive vs. regressive taxation, as well as problems associated with precisely which types of behavior are being taxed and which are not.

In one sense, the Negative Income Tax is preferable to the FairTax, because the N.I.T. is more progressive than the FairTax is. The FairTax has a reputation of being regressive, and in one sense it is, because it penalizes the purchases of ordinary people. On the other hand, the FairTax comes with a “prebate” that compensates people for the expenses they incur in paying those sales taxes (up to a certain point). But the prebate aside, the Negative Income Tax is a flat tax which has a reputation of being effectively progressive; this is because the poor would receive money overall instead of paying taxes. This is why the N.I.T. has been described as a flat tax which is effectively progressive; the poor would “pay” a “negative tax rate”; i.e., receive money.

On the other hand, the FairTax is preferable to the N.I.T. – especially as far as Georgists are concerned, and to some extent as far as many conservatives are concerned – because the FairTax penalizes consumption and the purchase of luxury and ordinary goods, while the Negative Income Tax penalizes the earning of income. Since some conspicuous consumption is wasteful, this means waste is more similar to consumption than it is to productive labor and the earning of income. Hence, the FairTax is less detrimental to productive behavior than is the Negative Income Tax.

Basic Income & Tax Reform is interested in ascertaining the beneficial aspects of, and principles behind, each of these two tax proposals (the FairTax and the Negative Income Tax) into a new philosophy of taxation.

As a way to avoid taxing either sales or income – and lessons from the FairTax and the Negative Income Tax having not yet being ascertained for the purposes of improving the rest of Basic Income & Tax Reform’s platform – taxation proposals permissible under the principles of Land Value Taxation (L.V.T.) should be the only taxes levied which are involuntary. Of course, convincing others that these taxes are appropriate, and winning elections, is how L.V.T. becomes voluntary.

The environmental objective of enacting Georgist taxation to its fullest extent, involves establishing Community Land Trusts (C.L.T.s), Community Water Trusts (C.W.T.s), and, if governments please, Community Air Trusts (C.A.T.s). These agencies could choose to unite these three functions into a single office; perhaps an “Office of Taxation, Environment, and Welfare” (O.T.E.W.).

Municipal and county governments would be encouraged to offer fewer services and shrink spending and taxes, while at the same time establishing these agencies. Additionally, unincorporated communities – and autonomous, independent, unincorporated local voluntary associations – would be encouraged to refrain from applying for recognition as official incorporated municipalities, and instead to build these agencies as the act establishing their legitimacy.

Communities would be encouraged – either that, or required, as a condition of participation in a coordinated effort across communities to build the same agencies and implement similar-enough policies – to set up Sovereign Wealth Funds. The concept of Sovereign Wealth Funds, Permanent Funds, Citizens’ Dividends, Residents’ Dividends, the Universal or Unconditional Basic Income Guarantee, the prebate from the FairTax, and the bonus given through the Negative Income Tax’s “payment of a negative tax rate”, all amount in the same thing: cash payments to people; either to all of the people, or only to those earning below a certain level of income (often set as the poverty rate).

The Sovereign Wealth Fund (or whatever name it has, given that so many names apply to such similar ideas) would be funded and backed by the chief export or exports of the community and / or region. It would also be funded by receipts and revenues originating from the imposition and collection of user fees, voluntary contributions, and taxes admissible under an extended Land Value Taxation system.

O.T.E.W.s (or their components, working independently of one-another) would be free to choose whether to establish currencies backed by the value of natural resources, and / or by the fees imposed for the privilege of extracting said natural resources, and / or backed by export sales. Such currencies could originate in local, state, or regional government; or they could be outgrowths of electronic currencies, or other types of alternative currencies.

O.T.E.W.s would operate as not-for-profit (or non-profit) consumer-cooperatives. They could be either quasi-governmental, non-governmental, or entities which are non-incorporated altogether. Any purchasing by these entities should be performed as a consumer-cooperative purchasing society.

These agencies would be free to become corporations, but not through official recognition by government. They would be independent corporations – really, consumer credit unions – which would sell stock. The value of the stock would rest upon the degree of success of each of those agencies in preserving its respective sphere of the environment (that is; land, water, and air).

The value of the optional natural resource –backed currencies would derive from both the degree of success of O.T.E.W. agencies in preserving the environment, and also from chief export sales, as well as general faith and credit in the government; and in the solvency of its taxation, banking, and financial systems.

Basic Income & Tax Reform feels that the above set of policies is the platform most likely to unite members of the Libertarian Party with members of the Green Party; through creating a convergence upon geo-libertarianism as a philosophy that lies between the two. We encourage Greens and progressives to come towards the positions of the Libertarian Party.

We additionally encourage Libertarian Party members, ideological libertarians, and libertarian-leaning conservatives, to embrace Georgism, or at least to support Thomas Paine’s basic income proposal, which in my opinion is compatible with Henry George’s ideas. In Paine’s proposal, a citizen’s dividend would give a basic income for all adult citizens, as a form of compensation for government takings from the full bundle of freedoms and rights which come with private landed property ownership in full allodial title (rights such as freedom from taxation of that land, the freedom to deny even government agents access to the property, and the freedom to explore one’s own property for natural resources without compensating the community).

The author of this article, himself, feels that the best avenue and vehicle for embodiment and presentation of this platform, would be as a Thomas Paine Caucus; revived from its late-1990s form as a voluntary association comprised of libertarian Georgists, but as a caucus of the Libertarian Party. The caucus should make sure to bring followers of Henry George and Milton Friedman into the mix; so I propose a Geo-Painean-Friedmanite Caucus of the Libertarian Party of the United States; to consider radical tax reform and cash payouts, in addition to increasing tax deductions and low-income tax credits.

In light of what the Constitution has to say about the environment (which is nothing), and welfare (which is that government spending should benefit everybody), it is important to consider at what level these reforms are to be implemented.

It seems appropriate to recommend (and highlight) that this system works best as a decentralized or diffused federation of communities – or as multiple, geographically overlapping confederations – rather than as a centralized system or a polycentric system. Polycentric agencies may be helpful to prevent disproportionate favoritism of productive firms based in urban areas; but political power paradigms that are as diffused as possible are what are generally desirable. Encouraging jurisdictions to expand and overlap would help maximize this diffusion of power.

But if a centralized or oligocentric government ought to exist in any form; it should primarily be in the businesses of 1) allocating land in a macroscopic way; 2) ensuring mutuality of exchanges and transactions; and 3) registering individuals’ political membership. These functions reflect the main functions of legitimate governance as regarded by the schools of 1) Georgism; 2) Mutualism; and 3) Panarchism.
It might additionally prove appropriate for a centralized government to guarantee certain basic civil rights and civil liberties; such as equal protections under the law, like the right to defend oneself in court, and the equal right to sue.
However, it could very well turn out that those are simply the last functions of government which would dissolve, while a Geo-Mutualist Panarchist system emerges out of the unentangling last vestiges of a constitutional republic. And that goes whether it's a minarchistic one that's decided to embrace true liberty, or whether it's a corrupt democratic republic that ceases functioning or collapses (in any given imaginable scenario).

Written between Mid-November and December 5^th, 2016

Edited on January 19th and 29th, 2017, and December 1st, 2018