Speech to the Illinois State Line Rifle Association on April 27th, 2016

            The following piece was written as an introduction to my 2014 piece “Altering the Second Amendment to Protect Conscientious Objection”.
     At the Illinois State Line Rifle Association (S.L.R.A.)’s April 27^th meeting in Round Lake Park, Illinois, I read the following piece to an audience of about fifteen people, followed by that article on the relationship between gun control and draft registration.

            Thank you very much for having me. My name is Joseph W. Kopsick, and I’m a candidate in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives, representing my home town of Lake Bluff, as well as Round Lake Park, and much of the North Shore, including most of Lake County, and parts of northern Cook County.

            Illinois state “sore loser laws” prevent me from running as an independent, so I’m running as a New Party candidate, and seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party. I am the only candidate in the race besides incumbent Republican Bob Dold; and challenger and former congressman, Democrat Brad Schneider.

            A little bit of background on me: I was born in Lake Forest, grew up in Wildwood, went to preschool right around the corner in Grayslake, and when I was five, my family moved to Lake Bluff. I attended Lake Bluff public schools, and graduated from Lake Forest High School in 2005. In 2009, I graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, having majored in political science.

            Growing up in an upper-middle-class suburban household, I was never around guns; I never went hunting. In fact, before the age of eighteen, the closest thing I ever saw to a hunting rifle was a potato gun. For part of my idealistic, naïve liberal youth, I even thought that it was immoral to defend yourself… and then I turned fourteen. Since then, I’ve handled a few guns, but I’ve still never fired one.

            I started showing some conservative inclinations during high school, and throughout the Bush era, I grew to value the Bill of Rights and civil liberties. I was especially concerned that I’d be drafted, since I was upset about being required to register for the draft at the age of seventeen, with a $125,000 fine threatened against myself and my parents for failing to ensure that I registered. It was only recently that I noticed the connection between the Second Amendment and draft registration.

            In 2007, I discovered Ron Paul and libertarianism; my interest in civil liberties; individual rights; and personal, social, and economic freedom only grew from there. I went on to run for Congress from Wisconsin’s 2^nd District in 2012, and Oregon’s 3^rd in 2014.

            In early 2011, after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, I saw the demand for increased gun control grow exponentially. Since that, the massacres in Aurora, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, and other places, have only added fuel to that fire.

            Calls for quote-unquote “common-sense” gun legislation abound; especially at the federal level, despite the contents of the Second Amendment. Bans on so-called “military-purpose assault rifles”, high-capacity magazines, stronger background checks, elimination of gun-sale background check loopholes that arguably don’t exist, safety precautions – like safety locks, requirements that guns be stored in locked places, and even requirements that guns only be able to be fired by their owners, perhaps through the use of a fingerprint scanner – these regulations are based on purely cosmetic differences, they are unenforceable, they are written and defended by gun-illiterate people, and they have disastrous unintended consequences.

            Some say “guns don’t kill people; people kill people”; others say guns do kill. But accidentally shooting yourself or someone else does not mean guns kill by themselves. Many defenders of gun control are peaceful, well-meaning people, but their rhetoric is flawed, and they fail to see the connection between guns and our freedom.

            I’ll get to that in a minute, but first I want to say that if I am elected, I will not support any gun control legislation at the federal level. Since I believe in the Tenth Amendment as much as the Second, I would not cast a vote that interferes with the states’ rights to legislate on matters of guns.

            However, any such laws can only, rightfully, be applied to the intrastate manufacture of guns; not interstate manufacture, and certainly not to commerce and trade of guns across state borders, due to the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, while I would not vote to interfere with the states’ rights to craft constitutional gun control legislation, I would also support the resistance to overbearing state gun laws, by supporting communities’ rights, counties’ rights, jury nullification, and civil disobedience of such unjust laws.

            The only (arguably) “pro-gun-control” position I would take, is that I would oppose protections for gun sellers and manufacturers, from being sued by victims of gun violence and their families. But I take this position because, as it says in 42 U.S. Code Section 1981, “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue”, among other things.

            Don’t get me wrong, I believe that after a gun is manufactured and sold to you, it becomes your property, and what you do with it is your responsibility. And the seller – and especially not the manufacturer – ought have any positive obligation (outside of direct contract with you) to do background checks on you, nor take any other measures to ensure that you will be responsible with it.

            I believe such lawsuits are frivolous, and I believe that they should be settled out of court, and laughed out of court. If Ben Carson hits his mother in the head with a hammer, it wouldn’t make sense for her to sue Ace Hardware, but I’d welcome her to try. I oppose these protections, also, to take a stand against corporate privilege.

            To those who would argue that this position puts me to the left of Bernie Sanders on the issue of lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers, I’d respond that while Sanders voted for such protections, he was glad that Sandy Hook victims’ families won in a preliminary judgment concerning their right to sue, so Sanders has not been consistent on this issue.

            But on to my main point: I’d like to read a piece that I wrote several years ago, which is entitled “Altering the Second Amendment to Protect Conscientious Objection”. I think this information is crucial, especially now, a time when seasoned liberals – from Carl Bernstein, to Robert Reich, to Charlie Rangel, to Rahm Emanuel – are openly calling for some form or another of mandatory national civil service; even calls to require women to register for the draft.







Please click on the following link to read the remainder of this speech:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/altering-2nd-amendment-to-protect.html

"Speech to the Illinois State Line Rifle Association":
Written on April 27^th, 2016Edited on May 28^th, 2016

"Altering the 2nd Amendment to Protect the Right of Conscientious Objection":

Originally Written in May 2014

Edited on January 9^th, February 18^th, and May 28^th, 2016

Health Care and Health Insurance: Where Libertarians and Progressives Can Agree

Originally Written on March 30^th and 31^st, 2016

Edited on April 23^rd, 2016

Written in Coordination with Annie Dean

Table of Contents

1. Constitutionality of Federal Involvement in Health

2. Health Care vs. Health Insurance, and the Individual Mandate

3. Single-Payer Universal Plans, and Employers and the States

4. Taxes, Medical Device Sales, and Lawsuits

5. Taxes and Profits

Content

1. Constitutionality of Federal Involvement in Health

It is unnecessary to pass a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing the existence of the Department of Health and Human Services (H.H.S.). The department is constitutional, and so is federal involvement in health policy in general, despite the fact that health is not a specifically enumerated duty of the federal government among the eighteen powers outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

The predecessor of the H.H.S. – the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (H.E.W.; which existed from 1953 to 1980) – is therefore constitutional. This is because President Eisenhower’s “Reorganization Plan Number 1 of 1953” – which established the H.E.W. (which was the only department to be created through presidential reorganization authority) – was not unconstitutional.

The reasons for this are that: 1) nothing in the Constitution specifically allows, nor forbids, presidential executive orders; 2) the congressional Reorganization Act of 1939 gave the president the authority to reorganize the executive branch; 3) legislative vetoes which would have prevented Eisenhower’s reorganization plan were not attempted at the time, and such vetoes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1983; and 4) federal departments may not be abolished without an Act of Congress, so any executive orders attempting to abolish the H.H.S. would be unconstitutional. Reason #3 is likely the strongest argument supporting the H.H.S.’s constitutionality.

2. Health Care vs. Health Insurance, and the Individual Mandate

In order to ensure that doctors continue to abide by the Hippocratic Oath they took – requiring them to provide care to patients regardless of their ability to pay for such services – hospitals should hold doctors accountable to their oaths. Any doctor refusing to provide free-of-cost care to patients should be put on unpaid leave for several months, and the offense should be noted in their permanent record.

The federal government does, and shall, have the authority to enforce these obligations, if and when states impair the obligation of such contractual oaths into which doctors enter. To ensure such obligations would help ensure universal care, thus rendering the health insurance industry obsolete. This is because health insurance coverage would not be necessary in order to receive care. This is one of the reasons why the individual insurance purchase mandate (established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; i.e., Obamacare) is unnecessary.

Additional reasons why the individual mandate is harmful, include: 1) concerns relating to premium costs, 2) objections to involuntary servitude through coerced purchase, and the differences between 3) a tax and a penalty, and between 4) the commercial activity of purchase, versus the non-commercial inaction of refraining from purchasing. For all the foregoing reasons, the individual insurance mandate portion of Obamacare should be repealed by the Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court.

3. Single-Payer Universal Plans, and Employers and the States

            Although ownership of a health insurance policy ought not be necessary in order to ensure treatment, health insurance coverage should be expanded through two reforms. In order to help ensure that people can keep their insurance policies – or, at least, be able to afford similarly priced policies – when they 1) lose their jobs, and / or 2) relocate or move to different states, 1) the tax credit for employer provided health insurance ought to be repealed, and 2) the purchase of health insurance policies across state lines ought to be made legal. Reform #2 would be especially beneficial to people living near state borders, and in geographically small states.

            Neither 1) legal interstate purchase of health insurance policies, 2) employer provided health care plans, nor 3) individual purchase of health insurance on the private market; can co-exist with universal single-payer health insurance systems.

A federal universal single-payer plan would turn the federal government into the sole purchaser (i.e., the monopsonist) of health insurance policies, thus precluding individuals and employers from purchasing policies. Also, requiring all states to establish state-wide single-payer systems, would turn each state into the sole purchaser of health insurance within its borders, encountering the same problem.

Additionally, while legalizing interstate purchase of insurance policies would technically be possible if as many as 48 states were to establish such single-payer systems, this would almost completely defeat the purpose of the establishment of the United States as a free-trade zone. Moreover, the risks of such a plan would include states writing favorable legislation for health insurance companies within their jurisdictions, as well as states giving undue corporate welfare and numerous other protections to such companies within their borders.

4. Taxes, Medical Device Sales, and Lawsuits

            There are numerous additional reasons why the costs of health care and insurance are so high. These reasons include: 1) the high costs of medical devices, 2) the taxation of hospitals and their employees, and 3) medical malpractice lawsuits.

            Regarding 1) the high costs of medical devices: medical devices are expensive because profits on medical device sales are taxed, and also because sales of medical devices are taxed before profits can be calculated. Sale is productive behavior, which should not be taxed, in order to avoid discouraging such productive behavior so that the seller may avoid the tax. The reaping of profits on medical device sales could be argued as the same type of productive behavior, although this is more difficult to argue. Either way, taxes on the sales of medical devices should certainly not be taxed, as this is likely to decrease the sale and purchase of medical devices.

            Regarding 2) the taxation of hospitals and their employees: the corporate income of hospitals, and the income deriving from hospitals’ sales, should not be taxed. Nor should the personal income of the employees of hospitals, such as doctors, nurses, and other staff. This is because working to earn income is a productive behavior, and so is the sale of health care, and so are corporate investments made by hospitals. The income, sales, and investment of hospitals and their staff should not be taxed, so as not to effectually discourage workers from working to earn income, nor discourage hospitals from selling and making investments in order to earn income. Otherwise, such taxation is likely to cause decreases in employment and hospital profitability, thus decreasing the availability of care.

            Regarding 3) medical malpractice lawsuits: tort reform legislation that limits the awards which doctors and hospitals may be required to pay to patients who become victims of medical malpractice in civil suits, should not be passed, and where it exists, it should be repealed. This is because tort reform limits the powers of juries, which are supposed to have the ability to decide both the facts of the case and the appropriateness of the law, and make judgments regarding what compensation is appropriate. Although passing tort reform would cause hospitals to incur increased costs, thus reducing their capacity to provide treatment, these costs would be off-set through the reduction in taxes on hospitals’ sales, investments, and staff income.

            Additionally, other negative effects of refraining from passing tort reform would be off-set because of the following reasons. The fact that eliminating taxes on profits from medical device sales, and eliminating taxes on the sale of medical devices itself, would have the effect of lowering the costs incurred by hospitals in acquiring such devices. Additional effects of this include decreases in the costs of using such devices which are incurred by patients, and increased access to medical devices.

Thus, since medical devices would be more easily affordable, doctors and hospitals would be less likely to neglect to purchase such devices. This would diminish the chances that patients would file medical malpractice lawsuits against doctors or hospitals, charging them with failing to use the most up-to-date and technologically advanced medical devices, in order to make correct diagnoses of their illnesses. Thus, hospitals would lose less money in lawsuits, and have more money and resources to invest in treating patients, and additionally the costs of health insurance would decrease as a result of the decreased cost of treatment.

5. Taxes and Profits

            Each hospital should be allowed to decide for itself whether to operate as a for-profit, not-for-profit, or non-profit institution. Currently, about 60% of hospitals are tax-exempt not-for-profit institutions, and as such, they are supposed to treat low- and moderate- income individuals and families, and patients lacking coverage.

            The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires hospitals to operate on for-profit bases, which causes them to lose their status as not-for-profit institutions. This makes them subject to taxation, and thus, subject to federal regulations, while also becoming eligible for subsidies and tax credits.

            All hospitals ought to be free to operate on tax-exempt, not-for-profit, charity bases; and all hospitals should be free to allow doctors to provide free treatment and care, as well as discounted treatment and care, and pay in installations, for low- and moderate- income individual patients and families. Again, decreased cost of care will help achieve reduced cost of health insurance premiums.

            While it may result in increased profitability for a hospital to receive government subsidies and tax credits, providing tax credits to not-for-profit, non-profit, and charity based hospitals would be impossible. Tax credits would therefore seem less necessary to hospitals, if they have the choice to avoid taxation by operating as non-profit institutions.

            Additionally, subsidies would seem less necessary, due to the cost reductions which all the aforementioned reforms would bring about. Namely, 1) the elimination of taxation of the personal income of hospital staff, and 2) the elimination of taxation of profits on sales of medical devices; in addition to 3) the cost reductions which hospitals would see by avoiding having to pay for medical devices whose sellers raise their prices in order to offset the burden of taxes on device sales and profits.

Government is the Source of Corporate Privilege

Originally Designed on April 12th, 2016

Edited on April 22nd, 2016

Independent Candidate Enters Race for U.S. House

Originally Written on March 27^th, 2016

Edited on March 29^th and 30^th, and April 22nd, 2016


Thanks to Annie Dean for her helpful input

            Joseph Kopsick, a 29-year-old resident of Lake Bluff, is running as a New Party candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. He will be fighting to represent Illinois’s 10^th District, along with some other recognizable names. An Illinois native, Kopsick was born at Lake Forest Hospital in 1987, attended area public schools in Lake Bluff throughout his childhood, and graduated from Lake Forest High School in 2005. He majored in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, graduating with a bachelor’s in 2009. While living in Madison, Kopsick ran for the U.S. House from Wisconsin’s 2^nd District in 2012, and also ran for Oregon’s 3^rd in 2014.

Kopsick decided to move back home to Illinois after traveling around the country getting to know different kinds of people, and understanding their struggles and what they need most from their government. In a country so divided, Kopsick now feels that the battle for the House is just as important in Illinois’s 10^th as anywhere else. Kopsick declared his candidacy in November, citing a lack of diversity of opinion among the other candidates on numerous key issues. He believes that his opponents’ records do not sufficiently reflect an interest in reducing federal power, practicing a non-interventionist foreign policy, and supporting personal freedom.

            Kopsick desires to reduce the size of the federal workforce, cap spending at lower levels, and help pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. He opposes income taxes, but would accept a Negative Income Tax. He considers taxes on sales, gifts, estates, and investments as discouraging productive behavior. Kopsick favors an integrated approach to taxes and the environment, desiring to reform property taxes so as to fund government solely through fees on natural resource extraction, and fines on pollution and blight and disuse of land. He opposes privatizing Lake Michigan’s water rights, favoring the establishment of community land and water trusts.

            Kopsick opposes federal gun control legislation, and supports strengthening the Second Amendment by restoring it to its original intent of protecting the right of conscientious objection to military conscription. Concerning immigration, Kopsick opposes building a border wall, and would support legislative deferred action for childhood arrivals and their parents, rather than executive orders or memoranda effecting the same. On health, Kopsick will work to expand insurance coverage by legalizing interstate insurance purchase and eliminating the tax credit for employer provided insurance. He opposes federal restrictions on abortion, and considers mandated ultrasounds intrusive, costly, and medically unnecessary.

            On labor issues, Kopsick has criticized both Right to Work laws and compulsory union voting, and prefers allowing workers to personalize their retirements and opt-out of Social Security rather than privatizing the program. As alternatives to increasing the federal minimum wage, Kopsick hopes to increase the dollar’s purchasing power by reining-in the Federal Reserve, eliminating tariffs and sales taxes, and improving the balance of trade. Kopsick’s political writing is available on his blog www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com, and you can join the conversation about his campaign on Facebook at “Joe Kopsick for Congress 2016 (IL-10)”, and on Twitter @JoeK4Congress.