Fiscal views

Fiscal

I am a Social Democrat (Luxemburgism), Left Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist: (Anarcho Libertarian, [anarchist-anarchistic socialist, Market-oriented left libertarian-Left Wing Free market Anarchist], Mutualist,Agorist/. Social Anarchist [Mutual Aide], Anarcho Syndicalist) and Anti Neoliberal (ie Post Neoliberal). 

I support Marxism-Leninism/Mythological Socialism (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism and meme Stalinism) and Inclusive Democracy

I also support Anarcho Fourth FauxLibetariaCom (which is an Anarchism version of a fusion of the Fourth Political Theory with ‘Libertarian Communism’) and Anarcho Collective Liberalism in rare or specific situations

I support the Labour Party UK  (current Labour Party UK Social Democracy/some aspects of 2017-2019 Labour Party UK Social Democracy/Momentum/Third Way)

Expanded 

I want us to either transition to an Inclusive Democracy (with elements of Anarcho Fourth FauxLibetariaCom [which is an Anarchism version of a fusion of the Fourth Political Theory with ‘Libertarian Communism’]) by using a ), Left Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist: (Anarcho Libertarian, [anarchist-anarchistic socialist,Market-oriented left libertarian-Left Wing Free market Anarchist], Mutualist,Agorist) path to it

OR

I want us to transition to an Anarcho Collective Liberal society by first using some combination of Marxism Leninism , Leninism, Luxemburgism, with help from Anarcho Syndicalists , to establish a Mythological Socialism (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism and meme Stalinism) society which would then accelerate us into our Anarcho Collective Liberal society

Left Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist: (Anarcho Libertarian, [anarchist-anarchistic socialist,Market-oriented left libertarian-Left Wing Free market Anarchist], Mutualist,Agorist) transitional path to an Inclusive Democracy 

To get to this eventual libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy),  we would need to have revolutionary ultra zealousness using a brand of subsidies and anarchy (as seen below in each paragraph in this socioeconomic section) . 

In this Left Wing Free market Anarchist], Mutualist transition to our libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) , there will be a strict application of natural rights, self-ownership, and totally unregulated Austrian economics in a stateless society in order to "eat the rich"

Left Wing Free market Anarchist,  Mutualist would retain the classical liberal ideas of self ownership and free markets.There would be a Gary Chartier type of property system, this type of property system and Benjamin Tucker’s type of property systems in this society

Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist, markets in this transition, taken to their logical conclusions would yield anti capitalist, anti corporatist, anti hierarchical and pro-labor society (i.e libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy). This is because in a truly laissez faire free market, the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible.  

In this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist, transition, to avoid private appropriation and accumulation and free competition causing unequal wealth distribution, the state would be stopped from transferring wealth to the wealthy (which they do by subsidizing organizational centralization in the form of transportation and communication subsidies) by focusing on organizational issues, decentralized manufacturing and the informal and household economies

Black markets and counter economics would be one of the methods used to help threaten the state authority and state capitalist class This is because Capitalism is an exploitative system based on privilege backed by the State

There would be alternate institutions built , piece by piece replacing the statist, capitalist, society. This would be a gradualist approach to dismantling and replacing the state with new forms of social organization.

Somewhere in this transition stage, all 6 monopolies would need to be abolished to go along with this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition , as outlined here. These monopolies include the Agribusiness monopoly, the infrastructure monopoly, the utility monopoly, the security monopoly, regulatory protectionism, and the healthcare monopoly 

 Using the existing market, producer and consumer cooperatives, small enterprises, mutual aid institutions, do-it-yourself collectives, community gardens, credit unions, etc would be initiated. These wouldn’t tend to directly conflict with Capitalist institutions. The state would also be influenced through pressure groups and lobbying. The main effort would be the creation of alternate institutions. At some point these would become strong enough to challenge the state.

During this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition , the Capitalist and Statist privileges would be removed from the free markets. There would eventually be voluntary cooperation and exchange. These freed markets would have no corporations or a social hierarchy. The lower class would thus be liberated and all exploitative hierarchies would thus be abolished to create this freed market .These will thus be freed markets (eventually liberating the lower class).

You can have free markets without Capitalism because Capitalism originally never referred to a free market but to a statist class in which capitalists controlled the state with the state intervening on their behalf

The entrepreneur would be the driver of this new freed market instead of the Capitalist and state benefited Capitalist (typically one in the same) .

These elements below also maybe might be part of this Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist stage but if they don’t mesh with the above system, they would serve as an alternative transition method to get to our libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy)  . 

They are based specifically on Benjamin Tucker’s version of Mutualism which Left Wing Free market Anarchism and Carson-Long Mutualism is based on. We can use the label anarchist-anarchistic socialism to describe Benjamin Tucker’s version of Mutualism interchangeably as to distinguish them from the Kevin Carson-Roderick Long variety above but they basically the same thing and same methods

As per this, monopolies (like the patent monopoly, land monopoly etc) would need to be abolished

In this anarchist-anarchistic socialism and maybe Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition, wealth would initially be distributed equally (freed markets naturally equalize wealth).  People would be paid in proportion to how much work they do and that exploitation or usury was taking place if they weren’t working.

Employers would still be able to own companies or workplaces in several different areas as long as the employer pays their employees the full value of their labor. 

In this anarchist-anarchistic socialism and maybe Left Wing Free market Anarchist, Mutualist transition people would get paid in proportion to how much labor they did and that exploitation or usury would take place if they were not doing that labor 

Land titles would not be granted to unused land since an individual should use land continually in order to retain exclusive right to it, as to avoid land monopolies

There would be no state protection of the banking monopoly, i.e. the requirement that one must obtain a charter to engage in the business of banking. 

Wages would be raided by deregulating the banking industry, so that competition in banking would drive down interest rates and stimulate enterprise. This would decrease the proportion of individuals seeking employment and wages would be driven up by competing employees. Tthe same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up

In this market, unregulated banking would cause more money to be available and this would allow proliferation of new businesses that in turn would raise labor demand for labor. People would receive equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay and interests, profits, rents and usury would disappear

So these freed markets would cause more money to be available and in turn this would allow proliferation of new businesses which would then raise demand for labor. Thus this would vindicate the labor theory of value due to equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay. If this didn’t work, it would still accomplish what Left Acceleration accomplishes

The government would not be overthrown by violence. To get rid of the government, widespread education and passive resistance in forms such as refusal to pay taxes, the evasion of jury duty and military service and the non-observance of compulsion etc would be used. Once society reached this state, individual liberty for all would prevail as a matter of course

Each person would reap the fruits of their own labor and no person would be able to live in idleness on an income from capital. This would a great hive to workers who would be prosperous and free individuals to carry on their production and distribution on the cost principle rather than a bureaucratic organization of workers organized into rank and file unions. As an aside, I am pro union . I see unions as intelligent and self-governing socialists because they promise the coming substitution of industrial socialism for usurping legislative mobism

Governments would exist consisting of any belief and in any shape, or form, but the governments would be supported by voluntary taxation and those people who chose not to pay the taxes wouldn’t get the benefits or protection of the voluntary government. Economically, there would be a socialist free-market system where employers would pay their employees the full value of their labor due to the abolition of legally-protected money and land monopolies.

Wage labor and the boss-worker relationship very well might be eliminated or nearly eliminated

These articles expands on what would happen in the Left Wing Free market Anarchist,Mutualist/anarchist -anarchistic socialism part of our transition before we become a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy)

Eventually as we shift from Left Wing Free market Anarchist,Mutualist/anarchist-anarchistic socialism closer and closer to a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) we may need a decentralized planned economy to coordinate the means of production and distribution to supply and deliver goods and services that are vital throughout our society and the national economy along with shifting from money to labor vouchers and personal credit since as noted below that is what Inclusive Democracy is about.  

This helps secure real freedom of choice without incurring the adverse effects associated with real markets. Inclusive Democracy uses Artificial Markets and something similar to the labor theory of value so this transition will be smooth

The state adjacent or state would serve as a safeguard for the ownership and as the coordinator of production through a universal economic plan. 

In this libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society (Inclusive Democracy) we should reject Nationalism and through force abolish all hierarchy (thus superiority and inferiority will not exist) creating a centralized system where virtually all are the same in power, wealth, and status. An Inclusive Democracy is a democracy that id responsible for the the needs of the people

This would be a society where differences would be accepted and affirmed without any bigoted sentiments or consideration. Bigotry would not be acceptable in this libertarian-egalitarian anarchist (inclusive) society. 

I want equal distribution of economic power and we would get that in this Inclusive Democracy. 

In an Inclusive Democracy all macro economic decisions, like, decisions on running the whole economy would be made by the citizen body , collectively and without representation. At the same time, the micro economic decisions at work or at home would be made by the individual production or consumption unit via a proposed system of vouchers.

In this Inclusive Democracy there would be an artificial market that uses personal vouchers (an outgrowth of labor vouchers and personal credit used in the Left Wing Laissez faire path to this Inclusive Democracy), which would ensure freedom of choice but would also avoid the adverse effects of real markets. It would be a form of ‘money’ based on the labor theory of value (labor theory of value was part of the Left Libertarian/Left Wing free (freed) Market Anarchist/Left Wing Laissez faire path to this Inclusive Democracy)

This would be an eventual economic democracy that is the authority of the community in the economic sphere

In the Inclusive Democracy I support, the economic democracy today would only viable at the level of the confederated demoi. This involves the ownership and control of the means of production by the demos. 

This would be radically different from the capitalist and 'socialist' growth economy. This would be different from various types of collectivist capitalism, like workers' control and the milder versions which are suggested by post-Keynesian social democrats. Therefore, the demos, becomes the authentic unit of economic life.

To get to this ideal system, demotic self reliance, demotic ownership of the means of production, and confederal allocation of resources are prerequisites to achieve this

Demotic self reliance means radical decentralization and collective self sufficiency, in the sense of relying on the resources of other demos' instead of via autarky.

Demotic ownership of productive resources leads to the politicization of the economy (the real synthesis of economy and polity).  This is like this because economic decision making is carried out by the entire community in a human centered way, via demotic assemblies, where the people make the fundamental macro economic decisions which affect the whole community (as citizens, instead of as vocationally oriented groups like workers). They basically create jobs by writing rules

Workers, apart from their participatory work in the demotic decisions regarding the overall planning targets, would also participate in this (in the above broad sense of groups who are vocationally oriented) in their respective workplace assemblies. This process would be of modifying and implementing the Democratic Plan and also in running their own workplace.

The resource allocation of Confederal is a must because, although self reliance does allow many decisions to be made at the community level, there is a lot to be decided at the regional, national and supra-national level. 

However, the delegates (other than than representatives) are the ones with specific the mandates (including mandating a defense for marginalized individuals against any loss of social standing they might get by using motivating reflection [looking back to move forward],  global rehabilitation, sacredness, progressive religion, and every postmodern thing we reject and need to rework) from the demotic assemblies whom are involved in a confederal demotic planning process that, in conjunction with the proposed system of vouchers, would effect the resource allocation in a confederal inclusive democracy.

A model of economic democracy, would be an important cog of an inclusive democracy. 

The main characteristic of this proposed model, which also differentiates this from the socialist planning models, is that it explicitly presupposes a stateless, moneyless and market less economy which have precluded private wealth accumulation and privilege institutionalisation for some sections of society, while not relying on a ‘mythical’ post scarcity state of abundance, or sacrificing our freedom of choice. Basically it would be socialism that is free of its materialist, atheistic and postmodernist features

The proposed system will do the following: meet the real needs of all citizens, which requires basic macro economic decisions must be made democratically, securing freedom of choice, this requires that the individual make important decisions affecting their own life (like what work to do, what to consume etc.)

This would meet our needs of democratic planning, as it would involve a process with feedback between workplace, demotic and confederal assemblies.

Inclusive Democracy would meet basic needs as it recognizes fundamental human rights that should be guaranteed to all who are in a physical condition to offer a minimal amount of work (satisfaction according to need) as opposed to having health care or public parks be free for all (consumption need model) and people being able to make particular need requests that are based on consumption,  addressed case by case by others in the economy

Remuneration according to the ‘need’ of each person' would only be applied in exceptional cases of basic needs and not to all of the needs that are defined as needs by the citizens' assemblies (as the Inclusive Democracy project declares). This would go beyond economic justice, and would be applied through norm four in appropriate situations such as in cases of illness, catastrophe, incapacity etc 

In this Inclusive Democracy, the equal distribution of power in institutions (like workplaces, households, educational institutions, economic institutions, cultural institutions etc) and self management would be secured by creating people assemblies to be involved in each workplace or education place  (i.e workers', student and teachers' assemblies respectively) that, within the framework of citizens' demotic decisions that are taken by assemblies in regards to the general aims of production, education and culture respectively , make all vital decisions about the functioning aspects of these places.

These assemblies would be federated at the regional and confederal levels in order for the confederal assemblies of workers, teachers, students etc can get involved with a constant interaction process with the citizens' confederal assemblies to define the general interest of society

There would be a removal of the divide between the household and the public realm. Maybe the oikos and its values can be a substitute for the polis and its politics

This may involve via Anarchism ,dissolving the public into the private or we can go the other way, and at least try to remove the public/private divide by dissolving all of our private space into a singular public, a socialized or fraternal state sphere but in a Leninist New Economics way which allows some privatization 

Another idea would be to recognize that the household belongs to the private realm,  but to  'democratise' the household in the sense that its relationships should take on democratic characteristics and that the household should take a form which is consistent with the freedom of all its members.

However the bigger issue is sustaining and enhancing the autonomy of the public snd private realms, such institutional arrangements should generally be adopted to introduce democracy at the household level and the social realm level  (i.e in the workplace, educational establishment and so on) while at the same time enhancing the institutional arrangements of political and economic democracy

So I feel that effective democracy is only doable if free time is distributed equally among all citizens, and that requires ending the present hierarchical relations within the household, the workplace and other places. 

Moreover, social realm democracy (like in the household), should and would in this system require institutional arrangements that recognize the household’s character as a need satisfier and thus integrate the care and services that the household provides into the general scheme of needs satisfaction

This Platonic ideal state will also have elements of JK Tolkien like Anarcho Monarchism, along with a religious, naturalistic (green, ecological etc) and steampunk (Tradition and to pre-modern sources of inspiration) tilt to it. 

This Inclusive Democracy would be National Alter Globalized (with some indirect UN input , especially on things like human rights). 

It would have a strong collective element at home, while seeking to change or destabilization countries that do not have this Inclusive Democracy-National Alter Globalism model by using a combination of "free" trade and militarism to create separate "unions" of countries that are deemed to be part of the same civilization, joining said countries together united by same Inclusive Democracy market.  This will force other countries to have the same Democracy-National Alter Globalism model that the US will have 

In an Inclusive Democracy, it should be alter individualist, anti postmodern , anti liberal/neoliberal. It should have social solidarity , social justice, national sovereignty and timeless values 

OR

Marxism Leninism , Leninism, Luxemburgism (with help from Anarcho Syndicalists), Mythological Socialism (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism and meme Stalinism) acceleration path to an Anarcho Collective Liberal society

To get to our future Anarcho Collective Liberalism society we need to use a combination of Luxemburgian, Marxism Leninism, Leninism and Anarcho Syndicalism 

To begin this transition to an eventual Anarcho Collective Liberal society, we would need the type of rage that was done by Left Wing Democratic Revolution protestors in Chile in the late 2010s to enforce revolution and to solidify the creation of a vanguard party. 

This vanguard party would also be partly composed of Anarchist type organizations and collectives or affinity groups (like Black Army, CNT-FAI etc),  that include Anarcho syndicalists who would use these methods in addition to traditional vanguard party methods. 

This revolution would lead to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat that would either have Democratic worker councils and unions or would have a People’s Democracy  (a multi-class and multi-party democracy) the latter of which would also include low class, petite bourgeoisie and progressive bourgeoisie within it. 

Though there might be a real Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but if it is used it would be strong, hold society together, and root out perps and similar forms of counter revolutionaries using Stasi methods 

This coalition would have include diverse forces from a huge part of the political spectrum (unite both sides and the world’s traditional religions in a common struggle/strategy against the common enemy via a concrete instance) . It would basically be a pact of cooperation people may differ between each other, but they are always present

The Democratic worker councils and unions would have legal protections and resist and fight against divisive counter revolutionaries that are influenced by the global liberal elite.

Eventually the state would control the means of production,  promote collectivism, and pave the way for a Mythological Socialist society and then Anarcho Collective Liberal society

So now we would be in our Mythological Socialist society (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism). 

In this Mythological Socialist society (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism) system literally everyone is paid the same exact wages regardless of what job they do (like American pro athletes and CEOs having the same exact income as janitors and deputy dog catchers. No need to tax the rich when the rich wouldn’t exist under this system).  

There would be a system where income would be redistributed so that everyone always had the same amount of money as every other person

There would be elements of meme Stalinism.

Under this Mythological Socialist society (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism) , people themselves would be united . Donated hair would be exported. 

There would be a more identifying National Id created for citizens. There would be less excessive high technology  (between moderate Neo Luddism and Anti Consumerism) since high technology is capitalistic

There would be voluntary rent in this system that would be made payable to single private corporations that would provide for all public services out of that revenue. Thus, this single private landlord would own all the land and housing in a single given geographical area, similar to a city-state from medieval Greece

There would be mutualist obligations between landlords and tenants on the land

These emerging communities would be competing with central governments etc. In addition, they would be responsible for protecting their tenants from both criminality and statist ‘taxation’ 

There would be such voluntarist possibilities in this system in the development of multi tenant properties like hotels, holiday camps, business parks, apartments ,malls etc (assuming they could be made to function like templates for entrepreneurial opportunity, individual autonomy , quality of community life, eventual spiritual realization etc). 

Basically this and this.    (Heathen Anarchism)

In situations where people didn’t want to use the above Heathen Anarchist system of Mythological Socialist society (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism) there would be voluntary Collectivized personal property system for them (housing , ride shares) which is basically or essentially the EXACT type of Communal system that the wandering Jews in the (Old Testament/Torah) lived in during their 40 years in the desert with G-d. There would also be elements to this in this system

Hopefully this would lead the point where this Mythological Socialist society (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism) collapses after living in this Mythological Socialist society (with elements of Free Market Libertarianism based on a model of proprietary communitarianism) society for long enough and then R/Acc would then kick in and take us to Anarcho Collective Liberalism

In this Anarcho Collective Liberalism society, the state (and by extension equal distrubutation of wealth) would be abolished/dismantled (and there would be effectively no real taxes implemented ;the most anti tax fringe of the Tea Party idealized low taxes would be the only ones really implemented, this is because taxes are like theft and stock of present goods of the individuals affected and makes investment less rewarding)  There would be a reserve government adjacent that would be used only to step in ever so slightly to make sure society functions

In this Anarcho Collective Liberalism society, there would be a capitalist socialization of production, but only in a way that would be distorted. It would rely on cooperation, but ignore that the means of production are private. The means of production belongs to corporations.

This would place an emphasis on cooperative long term relationships, that would result in an economy that would be directed by "relational markets". 

This would include interlocking share ownership, where companies would own shares in other companies; which would result in a spirit of cooperation between the involved companies, due to each of them having an interest in the other's performance. This would result in stable ownership, which would lessen the potential for hostile takeovers and also "friendly" competition; companies would be encouraged to excel but for others’ benefit as well as themselves

These things would be market based and privatized: Security and national defense, education, healthcare, banking and currency (a GONGO established by the reserve government adjacent would uses make make sure the privatized control the money is fair) and somewhat some or most roads than we have in the US now 

Law enforcement would be publicly-privately owned (in a modern China type way), but the people would have the option to give law enforcement charity and treat it as if it's really private)

Workers would traditionally expect more from their employers than they do now in western countries, including job security (often for life) , pensions and social protection. This system would be like peoplism

The use of force, when not employed in self-defense, would be unjustified

Coercion in this set up would be as any initiation force, or threat thereof, over the property of another individual (which includes their body).

There would be a natural right to own oneself and the appropriate natural resources that one employs before anyone else (i.e one's private property). It’s impossible to establish universal ethical norms if one is to deny this fact,

In this system, any form of theft is illegitimate (though, depending on the case, some may argue not necessarily immoral) and in the same vein any regulation on individuals' behavior or control over their property which doesn't result from a contractually-binding, voluntary relationship would be illegitimate

Since in this system, majority rule wouldn’t be seen as a legitimate form of electing representatives (since voluntary contracts must be unanimous) since there is no legitimate contract that binds the government and citizens together, let alone one that everyone has signed

The Commons Dividend fused with an UBI model (the system used in Alaska being the ‘closest’ approximation of this)  would be used as social safety nets along with a quasi private charity workfarist method. Quasi private charities would be set up to help struggling Americans. These charities would rely on private donations from Americans to help other Americans (Americans would be heavily motivated to do so) but in a workfarist sort of way. It would provide food, shelter and utilities for people in times of need (like winter, or hot summers).  

Big corp gov etc

There are predictable winners and losers in society and that being sorted into the those two categories isn’t really a matter of luck or skill. 

But this is not due to market exchange but a reflection of state committed, threatened and tolerated aggression. As long as the state apparatus exists, it is there for the taking by the wealthy allowing them to further enrich and empower themselves and the politically powerful to acquire more wealth and power. So opposing these ruling classes is to oppose the state and thus takes on a double meaning

We need to radically change the role of the state in countries where the Washington Consensus once was prevalent including in the US.  This is why I support the nationalization of various industries like the mining, gas, and oil industries.

Sometimes over regulation that is literally like a well oiled machine might have some benefits or at worst some salvageable fringe ideas

I am against corporate privilege. To end corporate privilege we must eliminate bailouts, subsides, cartelizing regulations along with similar state driven legal, political and fiscal features that enable corporate power

I hate monopolies (i.e Big Tech, Nike, Walmart etc)

Antis

I am generally , pretty much Anti Capitalist . We need to reject and rebel against Capitalism because Capitalism is patriarchal and liberal white supremacist (especially National Capitalism for the latter). 

In general Capitalism is based off of human greed while my combined fiscal views in this blog are based off of need. We need to destroy the Capitalist state.  To quote Rosa L “Capitalism, as a result of its own inner contradictions, moves toward a point when it will be unbalanced, when it will simply become impossible

At minimum, as long as Capitalism exists in its current form it should be beholden to various types of rules, regulations, laws, affirmative action, and taxes — at various levels within this system, along with special fees and registrations that meshes with my views in this blog.

I need to be more lenient of the idea of creating anti capitalist propaganda and slogans to inspire the proletariat, be more open to embracing views that call for ‘neutering’ private property (like prohibiting the private initiative in a Broad Front paternalistic way , see Inclusive Democracy below), and anti individualistic collectivism (Inclusive Democracy methods below)

I am against types of Third Way Social Democracy (or what I call ‘ Succdem’) that tries to be toxically socialistic since that goes against the whole point of Third Way economics (which is to reform Capitalism better than regular  Social Democracy does)

How can Third Way make Capitalism less bad when it is basically being socialist in all but a name (which effectively makes it Anti Capitalist since Socialism is Anti Capitalist)? That type of Third Way Social Democracy should just drop the Third Way Social Democracy label and become Socialist. 

I need to be more lenient of the idea that make being chauvinist for crony Capitalism, most forms of Keynesian Capitalism , Social Liberal Capitalism, most forms of non Anarcho Left Wing Capitalism etc or some anti Communism ideologies should be a thoughtcrime (since that would be an attack on the proselytes which make up the bulk of the workforce)

I disapprove of the job that Joe Biden has done with the economy as President. Joe Biden has made the economy worse as President

Socioeconomic

I am ok with greater governmental investment in poverty reduction along with an increased role of state intervention in the economy in ways that mesh with my views in this blog

I am concerned for and fight for the vulnerable

I recognize that vulnerable people can’t be left to fend for themselves and that shared responsibility for meeting their needs is morally and practically essential.

However, I feel that mutual aid arrangements should be used to deal with economic vulnerability as that has been a successful approach in the past

Such arrangements would be more successful without taxation (people can and will spend their own money on poverty relief, but they’re likely to do so much more efficiently and intelligently than state officials deploying tax revenues), poverty-producing state regulations, and limitations on choice in areas like medical care.

I am all for undermining structural poverty. Poverty is not created or perpetuated by the freed market. It is created and perpetuated by large scaled theft and privileges and constraints. This includes punitive licensing requirements, intellectual property rules (which is extremely petty), land use controls,  building codes etc .These things stop or hamper people from applying their skills and assets effectively. We must stop those things to stop structural poverty.

I support Nationalized (state) Healthcare being implemented in the US like they have in the UK (until we abolish the government) but it would be ideal if people had to earn it Starship Troopers style i.e by doing something for the community or through mutual aide (but certainly not a deal breaker as long as the nationalized healthcare is innovative) 

I support and take on Five Star Movement’s views of welfare (including welfare expansion of public social/socialist style services/entitlement programs even if we have to break barriers by expending three quarters of the budget) which excludes education, environmental protection meant policies in favor of preserving/conserving the environment (which meshes with my left libertarian views).    

I support expansion of welfare benefits for education and environmental naturally, which will happen via an Inclusive Democracy that I outlined in this blog. Until that happens,  I support a fusion of Bull Moose progressive social insurance (with this part of this welfare fusion being removed only if it means abolishing government Capitalism), Mutual aide and a TANF emergency funds co op (which would be different than the current TANF emergency funds model) for welfare benefits for education and the environment 

In our current static capitalistic society, I am ok with free schooling only if it can be done without any government involvement and where students have to have a job like selling lemonade at a lemonade stand , selling cookies door to door or similar light ‘kids jobs’ a few hours a week to make up for their free education. 

Regardless, I don’t think I would be willing much taxes if any at all to fund free schooling unless I got some compensation for doing so. I am against compulsory schooling OR if it could be provided by the state free but where parents had to warn it for their children Starship Troopers style i.e by doing something for the community

In our current static capitalistic society, I am ok with Universal Basic Income either if it has privatized elements to it like Oakland California’s Universal Basic Income AND the UBI recipients are required to give mutual aide (or has some mutual aide element to it). Otherwise I do not support Universal Basic Income. Even if UBI met my conditions above to be ok with it, I would not pay more than 75 dollars a month to fund UBI (could be more if I got financially lucky or less if I became poorer)

I conditionally and syncreticly support certain aspects of green economics . But I am against the Green New Deal because the Green New Deal would cause immediate harm to millions of workers and their family members (which would cause their standard of living go unanswered)

I support reducing weekly working hours by c 4 hours

I support simple and fair taxes

I do not support 30 dollar an hour or more minimum wage , or really even 25 dollars an hour or more minimum wage (at least not until we are in a non capitalist economy)

I am against the federal government giving money to cities and states for Halloween events, Halloween merchandise, Valentine’s Day events and Valentine’s Day merchandise. That is evil communism and I won’t let those states and cities use that money for Halloween or Valentines Day .I won’t even allow those states and cities to get that money from the federal government for those purposes.  Ronald Reagan and Freddie Hayek would fully agree with me on this 

I want all money that states and cities have allocated for Halloween and Valentines Day to be reallocated to non holiday related things.

We need to emancipate men and women from the dehumanization that is caused by mechanistic work which is psychologically draining.  Without work–life balance that’s performed in exchange for wages giving limited financial access to the material necessities of life, such as food and shelter.

This personal and societal emancipation from poverty (i.e material necessity) would maximize individual liberty by enabling men and women to pursue their interests and innate talents (which include artistic, industrial and intellectual etc) while they work by choice, and without economic coercion of poverty

I support humanizing work life. Workplace hierarchies are dispowering and often morally objectionable. Hierarchical workplaces are more likely given state action. Hierarchies limit the workers’ ability to use their knowledge and skills to respond in a flexible and effective way to production and distribution challenges and to meet customer needs

The ineffectiveness of hierarchies make them less common aspects of worklife, and increase the odds that people would be able to choose better alternatives offering more freedom and dignity (self employment or work partnerships or work co ops), in the absence of privileges that lowered the costs of maintaining said hierarchies and raised the costs of opting out of them (like by making self employment more costly, and thus more risky). State action also redirects wealth to those interested in seeing that they and the people like them rule the workplace; and the state’s union regulations limit the ways unions can challenge workplace hierarchies.

I support  transferable unemployment compensation where a worker accumulates funds throughout their career which they access upon job loss or retirement

My views on personal property match Ciudadanos’s views on personal property

I agree with what Chris Christie said here

Values

I support individual rights . I feel that individuals are entitled to freedom so they can unique in their own way

I am against subordination and I support using force against physical, economical and psychological threats (within reason). Once we get rid of subordination, all our issues as a society will be fixed

I believe that Anarchists should be morally upright and relatively strong. I especially like retro Anarcho Libertarianism

I am against deprivation. Ignoring deprivation is morally objectionable. Is is fine NOT to identify any particular solution for deprivation as morally required or permitted since that’s a separate question. It is fine to defend a wide range of responses to said deprivation consistent with justice/prudence (as long as those responses are effective)

I am ok with intuitive class struggle and class analysis

This