The Aquarian Agrarian

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Is It Comparable to Slavery?

Friday, June 20, 2014

Categories of Goods: Rivalry and Excludability

Image created in June 2014.

Comments written in August 2014.

Edited in December 2014.

ENSURE COMMON CONTROL OF RIVALROUS, NON-EXCLUDABLE GOODS.

In order to ensure the widest possible distribution of the basic elements of nature and of life to all, we must revive the Commons. We must ensure common, shared, and fair and equal access to the basic elements of nature (land, water, and air) and the creatures and environmental processes which fuel and are fueled by them (wild game, fishing, irrigation, agriculture and pastures, forestry and timber, and mineral resources). The Commons and the people must not exclude anyone from accessing these resources, and the Commons should be free to punish those who attempt to exclude others from them.

ENSURE PRIVATE CONTROL OF RIVALROUS, EXCLUDABLE GOODS.

In order to ensure the widest possible distribution of personally possessed tradeable goods, we must perfect the Private Sector. We must perfect and complete the Private system of market-oriented distribution, in order to leave markets for finished capital goods which are possessed personally (food, clothing, cars, gasoline, newspapers, and electronics). We must ensure that these goods are treated as personal possessions, and never re-appropriated or confiscated on the false premise that they are private property in the means of production.

ENSURE CLUB CONTROL OF NON-RIVALROUS, EXCLUDABLE GOODS.

In order to ensure the widest possible distribution of goods obtained by groups through compensated access, we must perfect the Club Sector. We must ensure that pay websites exist alongside the open internet, and that pay-per-view cable and satellite television exist alongside broadcast networks. Cinemas are to be treated as club goods. Social services and parks are to be treated as Club goods, rather than Public goods. Clubs must be free to set reasonable membership and use fees, and free to exclude and penalize attempts to free-ride.

ENSURE PURE PUBLIC CONTROL OF NON-RIVALROUS, NON-EXCLUDABLE GOODS.

In order to ensure the widest possible distribution of goods obtained by groups, we must perfect and purify the Public Sector. We must ensure that the open-access, peer-to-peer internet does not become subsumed by for-pay websites, and likewise that pay-per-view television does not take over all television broadcasting. Radio, broadcast television, and the open internet should be regulated in an open and transparent manner - by a government of, by, and for the people. - and provided voluntarily through charitable giving and labor. The same goes for national defense, and operation of lighthouses and street lights. The Public Sector must not attempt to exclude anyone from accessing these resources, and remain free to punish anyone who attempts to exclude others from them.

Thanks to Peter Bjorn Hansen for his assistance.

The Flat Negative Income Tax

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

On Reviving the International Brotherhood Welfare Association

The International Brotherhood Welfare Association (I.B.W.A.) was a mutual aid society for traveling workers (commonly referred to as “hoboes”) which existed from 1905 to the early- to mid- 1920s.

It was less radical and less numerous than the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.; the Wobblies), the largest union in America before the rise of the American Federation of Labor (later the A.F.L.-C.I.O.). Although the I.B.W.A. was supportive of the I.W.W., they remained separate, and the I.B.W.A. survived multiple failed attempts by the I.W.W. to take it over.

In 1907, founder James Eads How, the “Millionaire Hobo”, told the New York Times that he wanted to make hoboes “not only better citizens, but better 'hoboes', and I want the public to appreciate what the 'beat' is, what his rights are, and how he should be looked upon.”

Centered in the Midwest United States, the I.B.W.A. had a presence in about twenty cities. I.B.W.A. centers, called “hobo colleges”, were meeting places that offered hot meals, shelter, and education. These centers "graduated" hoboes.

Subjects covered at these “colleges” ranged from philosophy to literature to religion, with lectures given by street orators and academics alike; as well as social science, industrial law, vagrancy laws, public speaking, job searching, the eight-hour work-day, pensions, unemployment, and disease awareness.

According to sociologist Nels Anderson, the goals of the I.B.W.A. were to “bring together the unorganized workers … co-operate with persons and organizations who desire to better social conditions … utilize unused land and machinery in order to provide work for the unemployed … furnish medical, legal, and other aid to its members … organize the unorganized and assist them in obtaining work at remunerative wages and transportation when required … educate the public mind to the right of collective ownership in production and distribution … [and] bring about the scientific, industrial, intellectual, moral and spiritual development of the masses”.

In the interest of raising awareness of (and promoting solutions to) homelessness – and in the interest of ameliorating the problems of temporary homelessness, unemployment, income disparity, lack of education, lack of marketable skills, and lack of knowledge about legal rights on the job site – I would urge Portland Rescue Mission, Transition Projects Inc., Right 2 Dream Too, and other homeless charities to look into continuing to expand the variety of the services which they provide, or at least to consult with other local homeless charities which could be better equipped to provide the space necessary to hold large events.

Imagine homeless people gathered under one roof – not just to eat, sleep, find housing and work opportunities, and to receive religious ministry (as they do at the Portland Rescue Mission), and not only to do laundry and to get lockers and IDs (as they do at Transition Projects, Inc.) – but in order to do all of the above, in addition to learning about how to survive in Portland, the local job scene, and local social services.

Imagine professors of labor law, representatives from unions such as the I.W.W. and the S.E.I.U. (Service Employees International Union), labor rights advocacy organizations such as Portland Solidarity Network and local affiliates of O.S.H.A. (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and staffing and consulting agencies and members of green and sustainable business alliances, teaching homeless people about workers' rights and how to get jobs in the area, and teaching them marketable skills. Imagine professors of philosophy, literature, theology, and law at Portland State University or Portland Community College teaching homeless people such advanced knowledge.

Imagine Food Not Bombs coordinating with local food banks to help homeless people find donated food around the city more easily. Imagine an issue of Street Roots that contains a map and time schedule of free meals, that anyone can go to simply by looking up the day of the week and the time.

Lastly, imagine putting the able-bodied homeless and unemployed back to work restoring and beautifying the urban environment, by coordinating activity between landscaping companies, staffing agencies, homeless charities, green and sustainable business alliances, community land trusts, community gardening groups, college urban farming apprenticeship programs, the Master Recycler Program, and groups for the elderly and veterans (such as retirement communities; fraternal orders and lodges; and local affiliates of A.A.R.P., the Veterans' Administration, and Veterans for Peace).

A revived mutual aid society like the one I am proposing should promote the idea of a “hobo” as a traveling worker, and remind people that all working people travel; hence the need for services like The Portland Loo downtown, accessible to all people, regardless of whether they're experiencing homelessness.

It is essential to get people to realize that homelessness can happen to them. Anyone can become homeless overnight, and from a distance it is difficult to even tell the difference between the working poor and the non-working poor. It is time for charity organizations in Portland to set the national standard for helping the poor; reviving the I.B.W.A., and improving coordination across agencies that provide different types of services to the homeless and poor.

The various homeless charities in Portland should give homeless people the same opportunities that people in prison have: the opportunity to learn marketable job skills, and even to earn a degree. Billboards around the city urging an end to “petlessness” and “plant homelessness” only contribute to distraction from (and commercialization of) the homelessness issue, and to the public perception of the homeless as animals and non-native invasive species (which is apparent in the way pets and plants are advertised around the city).

For more information, please visit the following link and go to Section VI.:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

See also the following links on the history of the I.B.W.A.:

Video about history of Reitman, How, I.B.W.A., hobo colleges, College of Complexes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyeYMGXZPUw

Ben Reitman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Reitman
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goldman-ben-reitman-1879-1942/
http://jwa.org/womenofvalor/goldman/love-sexuality/ben-reitman

James Eads How, "the millionaire hobo":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eads_How
http://www.flickr.com/photos/puzzlemaster/6989585889
http://www.silogic.com/peden/James%20Eads%20How.html
http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/589223
http://www.thevalueofarchitecture.com/blog/history-james-eads-rudolph-schindler-house/

I.B.W.A.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brotherhood_Welfare_Association#Hobo_colleges

College of Complexes founder Slim Brundage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slim_Brundage

Written and Published on June 10th, 2014

Links Added on June 11th, 2019

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Minimum Wage Recommendations for Each State

Statistics estimated, estimates based on

statistics from the H.U.D. and the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(number of minimum wage hours worked per week

necessary to afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment

and spending 30% of monthly income on rent)

More information available here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/03/24/minimum-wage-rent-affordable-housing/6817639/

Joe Kopsick for Congress in 2014 (OR-3) Campaign Flyers

The Political Spectrum of Symbols: The Piano Model

1-A. Monarchism

1-B. Christian Communism

1-C. ?

1-D. Hitlerist National Socialism

1-E. ?

1-F. Progressive Corporat(iv)ism

1-G. American National Socialism

1-H. U.S. Tea Party Caucus

1-J. U.S. Constitution Party

2-A. Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism

2-B. National Communism

2-C. ?

2-D. Mussolinian Fascism

2-E. ?

2-F. (T.) Rooseveltian Bull Moose Progressivism

2-G. U.S. Republican Party

2-H. U.S. Libertarian Conservatism

2-J. American Freedom Party (formerly American Third Position Party)

3-A. Marxism-Leninism

3-B. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

3-C. Strasserist National Socialism (and Black Front)

3-D. Authoritarian Social Democracy

3-E. ?

3-F. U.S. Democratic Party

3-G. U.S. Reform Party

3-H. Voluntaryism

3-J. ?

4-A. Communist Party U.S.A.

4-B. Socialism

4-C. Nationalist Social Democracy

4-D. Social Democracy

4-E. Libertarian Social Democracy

4-F. ?

4-G. U.S. Democratic Freedom Caucus

4-H. Rothbardianism (and Thick Libertarianism)

4-J. Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

5-A. Trotskyism (and Fourth International)

5-B. (International) Socialist Party

5-C. ?

5-D. Market Socialism

5-E. Center

5-F. U.K. Liberal Democrats

5-G. U.S. Justice Party

5-H. U.S. Libertarian Party

5-J. Minarchist Libertarianism (Jan Helfeld)

6-A. (International) Communist Party

6-B. U.S. Socialist Equality Party

6-C. U.S. Freedom Socialist Party

6-D. ?

6-E. U.S. Green Party

6-F. ?

6-G. U.S. Green Tea Coalition

6-H. Free State Project (New Hampshire, U.S.)

6-J. Emer de Vattel (Social-Contractarian Nationalist Voluntaryism)

7-A. Makhnovism (National-Autonomist Anarcho-Communism)

7-B. U.S. Socialist Party

7-C. Bakuninism

7-D. Minarchist Mutualism (Anarchist Federation)

7-E. U.S. Peace and Freedom Party

7-F. U.S.A. Parliament

7-G. (International) Pirate Party

7-H. Voluntaryism (Lysander Spooner)

7-J. Right-Libertarianism (Walter Block)

8-A. Anarchist Communism

8-B. Minarchist Syndicalism (I.W.W.)

8-C. Voluntary Collectivism (Kropotkin)

8-D. Federative (Proudhonian) Mutualism

8-E. Georgism, Geolibertarianism

8-F. ?

8-G. Left-Wing Libertarianism (Kevin Carson)

8-H. Market Anarchism

8-J. Panarchism

9-A. Collectivist Anarchism

9-B. Anarcho-Syndicalism

9-C. Mutualist Anarcho-Syndicalism

9-D. Confederative Mutualist Anarchism

9-E. Green Anarchism, Geo-Anarchism

9-F. Direct Democracy

9-G. Egoist Unionism (Max Stirner)

9-H. Agorism

9-J. National-Anarchism

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Notes on National Anarchism

Ethnic nationalism has its place; it should not be forced upon anyone, but nations have the right to determine themselves. Anyone who sides with Ukrainians against U.S., E.U., and Russian economic and military imperialism should see that.

I would not associate with any group whose primary requirement for membership is race or ethnicity, but if things like black men's business alliances and the Congressional Black Caucus can and should exist, then you've got to admit that exclusion on the basis of race is valuable, but discrimination by whites against non-whites in a white-dominated culture (or replace "white" with "majority" in all cases), not so much.

I don't support natives kicking out the descendants of colonizers. Colonizers themselves, yes, especially if they've broken treaties. I don't think it's necessary for Palestinians to kick out all Jews, nor Native Americans and Mexicans to kick out all non-native inhabitants of the United States, but I think there's little reason why some communities should be required to be open to outsiders.

Local autonomy with nationality as a factor is a viable solution for native peoples, especially those who have fought and died for the land they live on. And I think they should have the right to determine who can become a member or not, whether that's based on someone's blood quantum, or their adherence to the local culture, or both.

I think that, insofar as Native Americans and Mexicans are peoples who are native to the U.S. - and insofar as African-Americans are a displaced people - they have shared a common struggle. Their development and success is conditioned and potentially limited by that common struggle, so I think they should retain the right to discriminate.
But we should also realize that young Israelis and young Americans who did not immigrate but were born in their home nation-States, are also "displaced peoples" in that they might otherwise wish to live somewhere else. However, that entitles them neither to the land itself, nor the right to discriminate against other displaced and/or native peoples as they please. That right comes from somewhere else.

Not long ago, businesses has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Considering some New York blacks' (including Muslims') perception that Jewish merchants are trying to destroy their communities with liquor, that African-Americans in Portland, Oregon risk getting displaced by white yuppies' Whole Foods, and that Koreans feared black criminals robbing them during the L.A. riots, it would make sense that native and displaced minorities should have the right to protect themselves, whether against the majority culture (i.e., whites) or against one another.

Consider the possibility of a Klansman or a neo-Nazi going to a supermarket and asking a Jew or a black person to decorate a pro-Klan or pro-Nazi birthday cake for them. If you think that's only unacceptable because the Klansman or neo-Nazi is white, then take for example a Jewish Nazi, or a Catholic Klansman. They've existed. Do you see now how "freedom from discrimination" only forces us to serve one another involuntarily?
Does an all-white business have the right to exist in a predominantly black neighborhood? If not, then suppose that the business has only one employee, whom is white. What now?

Does a family-owned "all-Chinese business" have the right to hire a security guard and keep people out based on their ethnicity? If not, then what if the business is situated in an area with extraordinarily high violent racial and ethnic hate-crime rates, and there are many ethnicity-based gangs that hate Chinese people?

Most importantly, how is hiring a security guard anything but "discrimination"? I was told in college that discrimination no longer exists in the private sector. How can that be true if there are security guards and bouncers who are allowed to refuse service to people without having to explain why?

If a security guard keeps a Japanese person out of a Chinese business because of Japanese gang activity in the area, are we to automatically assume that a "hate crime" has occurred? Or should we simply respect the right of all businesses to discriminate on the basis of any criteria they please, because then we wouldn't potentially force a business owner to put his whole family at risk simply because someone who might be racist and violent demands "freedom from discrimination" and asks to be served?

"Being able to live a free life without facing discrimination" is not how I view nor define freedom. None of us has the right not to face discrimination, nor can we avoid discriminating in our everyday choices. We discriminate when we decide who to date, have sex with, and marry, and we discriminate when we choose our friends.

If I believed that I have the right not to be discriminated against, then I'd believe that I have no right not to be denied requests for sex and dating from women, and I'd be like the guy in L.A. who shot three women because he was angry that no woman would have sex with him. The freedom from discrimination is the right to order people to serve you by assenting to associate with you.

Lastly, national autonomy and communal autonomy require neither territorial integrity, nor well-defined international borders, nor the prevention of immigration. In the view of the panarchists, legal communities can exist side-by-side, within one another, and even on the same territory.
Imagine two people, each in his own apartment, one living above the other. Imagine that each one subscribes to, pays for, and receives goods and services from some company providing justice, security, and protection. Such a company could have ethnicity, race, culture - or things like hobbies, interests, personality type, etc. - as the determining factor, or as one of many determining factors (regarding membership, or rates, or conditions of membership, etc.).
We should keep in mind that what is desired by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 100 Black Businessmen of Madison - as well as by proponents of affirmative action - is precisely the kind of practice which is embraced by the national-anarchists; namely, the practice of using race or ethnicity as a condition influencing membership, whether in the public or private sector, and whether heritage is the sole criterion or but one of several criteria.
One of the arguments made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus in favor of the group is that it does not discriminate on solely one basis but rather on two bases. They do not allow non-blacks to become members, but they also do not allow non-congressmen to become members. This fact and their de facto exclusion of Republican blacks beg the following question: How does the act of tacking additional reasons to discriminate onto currently existing discrimination make that discrimination less discriminatory?
It is not that discrimination is universally harmful to minorities; it can be beneficial, but this is a controversial viewpoint. It's not difficult to understand why the topic of discrimination and segregation on the part of non-whites in the U.S. has not been fully explored nor discussed.
Ethnic, racial, religious, etc., separatism (and, more broadly, the freedom from association and from involuntary servitude) are valuable and acceptable as long as they are not forced. Understanding this - and that discrimination is all around us - could allow ethnic, cultural, racial, religious nationalism to exist in independent, autonomous, self-determining manners; without bringing territorial integrity into the mix, and without building border fences and checkpoints in order to prevent the flow of immigrants into an area.
I agree with everyone who points out that no "national anarchism" should occur if it actually depends on a State (i.e., local/territorial monopoly on violence, implying territorial integrity) to prop-up forced segregation, discrimination, or separatism based on ethnicity, race, culture, religion or any other characteristic or attribute (especially along the lines of borders drawn without respect to the rights of native peoples or the boundaries of local watersheds).

Monday, May 26, 2014

My Self-Chosen Most Important Blog Entries

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-self-designed-political-spectrum.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/political-compound.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/pareto-optimality-in-political-economy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/10/us-political-spectrum-2008-2013.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/political-spectrum-for-2016-us.html

MISCELLANEOUS

Intellectual Property
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/07/intellectual-property-adam-kokesh-et-al.html

Criminal Justice
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/12/is-it-time-to-legalize-murder.html

The Bush Bailouts / Obama Restructuring:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/spencer-stuart-recruited-executives-for.html

Millennial Generation Politics
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/07/millennial-political-hub.html

Summary of My Political Views
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/summary-of-my-political-views.html

Economic Philosophy: Geo-Panarchism, Nonapartism, and Mutualism

I would like to see all anarchists and partisans - whether collectivist, communist, socialist, cooperativist, mutualist, voluntaryist, individualist anarchist, left-wing market-anarchist, or Agorist - support the perfection of competition and the completion of the system of markets, and engage in amicable trade with one another, and with their customers, and in amicable competition to provide better services to their customers; free to buy, sell, gift, trade, barter, and share as they all assent to, and within perfected, completed, and freed markets."

I would like to develop a form of synthesis-anarchism which requires all anarchists to embrace Geo-Panarchism as a condition of a fair market for personal and property protection and social and civil justice and law. That is; all anarchist firms protecting the landed property of people and firms must agree to allow all members of the economic/industrial and civic/legal community (whether territorial or not) to participate in the assessment of the unimproved value of land, as a condition for permission of anarchist landed property protection firms to participate in the market freely.

I am interested in finding common ground between the political and economic philosophies of Henry George, David Ricardo, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, the Agorists, the Austrians, the neo-classical economists, the New Institutional economists, the Panarchists, and the synthesis-anarchists.

I want to combine the ideas of mixed government and mixed economy under a collaborative participation in governance by many sectors of the economy and of industrial relations, which I call Nonapartism or Unincorporatism (a development upon Tripartism, which I regard as inadequate because the range of agencies it represents lacks diversity).

"all resources [should] be allocated to the people by freely, fairly, and amicably competing anarchist individuals, Agorists, freelancers, entrepreneurs [including social purpose enterprises], mutuals, co-operatives, communes, autonomous unions and guilds, and cooperative corporations [and egalitarian labor-managed and employee-owned firms] which would be encouraged to stay autonomous but join confederations."

"... consumers [should] voluntary cooperate (direct action; boycott; counter-economics; radical redistribution, homesteading, and reclamation) in their purchase habits – pooling their money, productive assets, and force of consumer demand – in order to lower prices on goods through the establishment of price-ceilings (or cartels) on the markets." [this idea comes from my reading of David Ricardo and cooperative wholesale societies]

The contents of the below article have the potential to be used in governmental structure design and/or anarchist organization based on association with economic theories.

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html

As Rudolf Rocker put it, the various anarchist schools of thought are "only different methods of economy".

In the aftermath of Occupy Wall Street and the movement to get away from private multinational banking and privatization, I desire to wake people up to mutualization (the opposite of privatization) and the mutuals all around them;

whether it's mutual and cooperative and credit union banking, consumer-driven health care cooperatives, social-purpose enterprises, employee-owned and labor-managed firms that use customer feedback, consumer-cooperative corporations, freelancers' unions and New Mutualist organizations, or independent horizontally-organized workspaces and meetups.

Now, more than ever, we need new modes of organizing firms, new types of companies to fund political campaigns, bureaucracies, welfare programs, charities, and the distribution of goods, whether for-profit or not.