Fiscal issues

I am a Social Democrat (Third Way and by extension Liberal Socialist), Left Libertarian: Anarcho Individualist (Left Wing Laissez faire, Free market Anarchist-Mutualist [with Austrian economics],Agorist) Democratic (Left Rothbardian Paternalistic Conservative) Cap

I support the Labour Party UK (Blue Labour/New Labour/Third Way/Third Way Social Democracy)

Besides me supporting Labour Party UK Social Democracy, I also support Danish Social Democracy and some fringe forms of Social Democracy from the early mid 1920s through mid 1930s, especially from the mid late 1920s through the early 1930s which can be seen throughout this blog

I support Anarcho Monarchism (like Bane from Batman) and Libertarian Municipalism in specific situations. I am generally against Monarchism as a whole

I supported the Southern Tea Party years back and would do so today if they came back

I agree with a few of Barack Obama's economic recession reforms including Demand supply economics. When our economy is that like it was in the late 2000s it needs a boost from the government like that to fix it

I want to use either Democratic Socialism with free markets, minimal regulations and very few if any planning with some form of market socialism (some of which would be based on self-management and or non-market participatory economy based on decentralized economic planning) OR Liberal Democracy with a Market Socialist economy to lead to us an eventual State Socialist (i.e State Socialism) society with Supply Side reform (like in China)

OR

I want to use Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire, Mutualist, Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) ,Agorist) to lead to a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society

Path to a State Socialist (i.e State Socialism) society with Supply Side reform (like in China) 

The Democratic Socialist transition path 

The Democratic Socialist transition path to a State Socialist society would have Democratic Socialism but with free markets, minimal regulations and very few if any planning and or with some form of market socialism, some of which would be based on self-management and or non-market participatory economy based on decentralized economic planning

In this phase there would seriously be less government regulation of business and trade. There would be deregulation to increase economic growth and to cut back unneeded funding

In this Democratic Socialist transition phase there would be no occupational licensing for jobs like dog walkers and barbers .Spending would be cut. These things should be done in a Democratic Socialist economy with free markets and minimal regulations that we transition to as we further transition to a State Socialist government (with Supply Side reform) who will then reverse course on this by allowing the state to step in

The Liberal Democracy with a Market Socialist economy transition path   

In this Liberal Democracy with a Market Socialist economy transition path, workers would have widespread self management within the framework of a Liberal Democratic market economy. They would vote to elect their managers and even directly own their workplace . 

Early on, in this Liberal Democracy with Market Socialist economy, limits would be placed on the government to protect it from degenerating into an autocracy or aristocracy. Direct Democracy would be established within the workplace and within the government. The transitional government would then exist as an institution to protect the rights of the individual from predatory corporations, authoritarian leaders, and corruption. All of this would be to make the transition to a State Socialist government more smooth and natural

Corporate donations (including donations from worker-managed collectives) would be banned. There would also be limits placed on the amount of money that private individuals could contribute to their electoral candidates. Competition between self managed corporations would be encouraged in order to prevent technological stagnation.

Eventually as we transition further to a State Socialist economy, there would be use of a local government to further social and public ownership of utilities before the state steps in truly socializing the Means of Production but in a all hands on deck sort of way that ideally makes everyone at least somewhat happy (public ownership is rightfully or wrongfully seen by a significant amount of people to be inefficient or undesirable). 

Thus this would lead to lead to a liberalization of a centralized State Socialist government

I support China’s Supply Side Reform like Alex Keaton supported Supply Side Economics on Family Ties, which I would want implemented in our future State Socialist government.

This State Socialist government that I want would use Supply side reform to forcibly extracting surplus from the working class and peasantry for the purpose of modernizing and green industrializing . Through Side Side reform and similar measures, the state acts as a public entity by re investing the accumulated capital into the society

Supply Side reform would allow the government to maintain prudent, neutral monetary policy and proactive fiscal policy.  They would do this to ensure housing supply through multiple channels, including renting.  This would focus on improving productive efficiency and promoting advanced industries and innovation, in the pursuit of high-quality development.

Supply Side reform would mean in depth institutional planning and long term adjustment. It would be necessary whether or not the economy is good but very necessary in a future State Socialist government. However, the supply side also has short term issues like eliminating the supply surplus. 

Eliminating the supply surplus along with releasing the excessive resources that are trapped inside it will improve the efficiency of resource that are used while promoting economic growth, which is the essence of supply side structural reform. “Zombie companies” in some regions rely on subsidies from local governments, which result in the decline of the whole industry's supply capacity. In this sense, supply side reform is a long term issue.  Supply side structural reform would focus on the “elimination of excess capacity”. In a broader sense, this would mean de stocking, de leveraging and cost reduction. 

The capacity would not be released while the next round of growth wouldn’t occur if such measures were not taken. Eventually, the economy would escape its slow performance, abnormal state and deflation, and we would then see the results of supply side reform

The adjustment has an active meaning. When the economy is very hot, all enterprises have their orders. However, when the economy is in a downward turn, enterprises that have focused on product innovation and technologies in recent years are presented with greater advantages. Those enterprises that aren’t very professional and whom always think about speculations find themselves in the position of maybe being eliminated, merged or regrouped. 

When good resources are allocated to good enterprises, direct financing will cause better benefits will be while direct will play a bigger role.

Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire, Mutualist, Agorist) path to a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society 

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

In this Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) 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 Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) 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. In this Anarcho Individualist-Left Libertarian society we would use this type of property system, this type of property system and Benjamin Tucker’s type of property systems

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. The same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up

In this Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition , 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.

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

Inyhis Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition 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 elements below also might be part of this Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) stage but if they don’t mesh with the above system, they would serve as an alternative transition method. They are based specifically on Kevin Carson-Roderick Long , and we can use the label Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) interchangeably for them , as to distinguish them from the Benjamin Tucker variety above but they basically the same thing and same methods

In this Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) and maybe Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition there will be a strict application of natural rights, self-ownership, and totally unregulated radical free markets based on Austrian economics in a stateless society in order to "eat the rich"

Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) and maybe Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition would retain the classical liberal ideas of self ownership and free markets. 

Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) and maybe Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition free markets in this transition, taken to their logical conclusions would yield anti capitalist, anti corporatist, anti hierarchical and pro-labor society . 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 Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) and maybe Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition 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. The culture of this society would be anti imperialist and thoroughly radically left wing on cultural issues as gender, sexuality and race-ethnicity

Somewhere in this Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) and maybe Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition stage, all 6 monopolies would need to be abolished to go along with this Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) and maybe Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) transition 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 Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) and maybe Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire)  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). Basically economic nationalism with the subordination of market mechanisms to the national economy concerns

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 articles expands on what would happen in this Anarcho Individualist/Left Libertarian (Left Wing Laissez faire) Free market Anarchist-Mutualist (with Austrian economics) transition to our libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society 

If we aren’t ready to transition to either a libertarian-egalitarian anarchist society or eventual State Socialist economy like I mentioned above (and must endure a capitalistic economy) , then we must enact policies which make our current capitalistic system more left, charitable and compassionate.

For this to happen we would need to create a system within our capitalistic government with an autonomous but neither supportive of the individual or the state in principle) democratic state enactment of policies with greater state intervention when necessary which in effect create a compromise between upper and lower classes (with a balance between the two depending on what is most practical), while remaining compatible with free market capitalism. 

This would mediating social class conflict and cater to the demands of work with principles such as duty, structure and organicism.  Top-down policies and bottom up initiatives (i.e goal setting) implemented by democratic governments (as benevolent paternal figures) to cultivate a good life for all citizens. There would be state intervention as seen below but not really a command economy 

Under this system, with moderately regulated (government intervention when necessary) and populist market capitalism it would establish cooperative economic institutions. 

These cooperative economic institutions would include institutions that facilitate bargaining between government bodies (to set goals and ensure fair play and equal opportunity) and business and labour organizations such as unions, and those entities that regulate the relationships between employees and management within private firms.

The development of institutions to promote this cooperation among public and private economic entities would acknowledge the benefits of market competition, while it attempts to address the social problems of unrestrained capitalism often with government regulation of markets in the interests of both consumers and producers.

Economic security concerns of citizens under this system are addressed through redistributive/distrubitist policies. These policies would include income transfers like welfare payment programs and pensions, to support the elderly and poor’s financial needs.

Other policies involved in this system to promote economic security would be social insurance, and the fiscal financing of education and job training programs to stimulate employment . These would have more emphasized safety nets to deal with poverty

Under this system, a right to private ownership of productive property would be a central tenet, and would be recognized as a basic liberty of all citizens, as in a regular free-market capitalist economy (i.e Democratic Capitalist private property system). But it would also have elements of a Left Rothbardian private property system 

This would address the social entitlement and justice concerns through the preserving like I wrote above the private property rights of citizens, allowing citizens to be free, equal, and self-governing

Then after enough time in this society we can shift toward a Pan Secessionist, Bioregional and maybe Libertarian Municipal society to finally reach our libertarian-egalitarian anarchist utopia, albeit not in the ideal way or using the ideal methods

Expanded

This article reflects some of my thoughts on free markets in a static capitalistic society 

I lukewarmly condone Lee Atwater's fiscal-welfare views but ONLY for left acceleration reasons and ONLY when his fiscal-welfare views are fused with Humanistic Capitalism/B Sanderism, Free Market Proto-CapCom and Welfare Chauvinism, otherwise I am against his fiscal-welfare views even if they lead to left acceleration

Antis

I am against Socialism without adjectives(since its vanilla, and has bad connotations) , Liberation Socialism , what Republicans falsely label as Socialism, and a few other forms of Socialism.  

I am Anti Crony Capitalism , Anti Social Liberal Capitalism, Anti Keynesian Capitalism  (except when it was used early in Barack Obama’s tenure as noted above), I am strongly non supportive of most to the vast majority of other forms of Capitalism . Capitalism is bad in part because it is so modern

Under Capitalism ESPECIALLY Neoliberalism, crony Capitalism Social Liberal Capitalism and Keynesian Capitalism (except when it was used early in Barack Obama’s tenure as noted above), private property is under attack due to the homeless epidemic it creates with millions of people losing their homes through the foreclosures that it creates. 

Cuba doesn’t have a homelessness problem due to them having in some ways, less bad fiscal policies than the US along with their unique private property model (where they have a mirage of having no private property when they do in fact have private property but in a way that Mark Twain would accept)

I am against Neoliberalism

I am against Cultural Marxism and we need to aggressively (but peacefully) and constitently fight against Cultural Marxism everywhere it exists.

I am Anti Woke Communism and against the vast majority of Communism variants (only really being ok with spreading salvageable specific fringe Communism)

I am against Freemasonry

Socioeconomic

If I am too socialistic for you, here me out. In a truly Socialist society or Communist society, there are no need for social welfare, re-distributive taxation and regulatory measure. This is because in a Socialist society or Communist society, workers have greater control of the means of production and in the workplace, and eliminate exploitation by directing the surplus value to employees. 

In a Socialist society or Communist society , free access to the means of subsistence is a requisite for liberty because it ensures that all work is voluntary and no class or individual has the power to coerce others into performing alienating work. 

Socialists and Communists are also less class reduction and class essentialist than Social Democrats and Social Liberals, seeking to eliminate inequality through eliminating classes as opposed to diversifying the ‘oppressor and bourgeois’ classes. No classes, no class reduction or class essentialism

Socialists generally want to achieve greater equality in decision making and economic affairs, while granting workers greater control of the means of production and their workplace and to eliminate exploitation by directing the surplus value to employees.

While Social Democrats and Social Liberals aim to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies, and social welfare programs, Market Socialists aim to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.

So if we want to get rid of the welfare state , taxes, and government regulation , we need to get rid of Capitalism. Because those things only can exist within a society with a Capitalist economy as unlike Socialism and Communism , those safety nets are needed for Capitalism. 

Socialism was ruined by the USSR and similar countries, if the USSR and those Socialist countries were run like Mikhail Gorb ran the USSR with his brand of Socialism (which is closer to real Socialism) there would never have been a red scare 

I support the ForcetheVote since we were in a health crisis and needed better access to healthcare. I would support Medicare for All in the future but only in a non capitalist economy (and non State Socialist economy) or in a capitalist economy if there is another health crisis

It is hard and complicated to find true healthcare solutions. We need to dig deep to examines policies and offer impactful solutions. Health is a human right, while we also need more of a nuanced and individualistic mindset that sets the US apart from Western Europe.

I am ok with the Australia inspired public option model but with a twist. 

If you are one of those people (like a worker, and or young and or healthy etc) who doesn’t need expensive private insurance you can receive quality , health care (via a free trial model) using a healthcare version of the bad bank model and a semi private charity model fused with a peer to peer model, the latter has Americans helping Americans who can’t afford healthcare get healthcare via private donations from Americans to other Americans to be able to get healthcare (Americans would be incentivized to do so) but in a peer to peer way.

However, if you like your private insurance, you’re financially secure, you have specific needs that aren’t covered by the plan above, or you simply don’t trust the healthcare plan above, then you have every right to keep your private insurance. 

This plan would disassociate health from employment which is good because healthcare should not be a factor in picking the right job, (my dad was forced to keep his job to get us quality healthcare and that should not be the case for workers), and incentivize regulators to negotiate transparent and affordable drug and treatment prices, prioritizing people over big Pharma. 

I believe the “Medicare for All Who Want It with a twist” model reflects where Americans are and if our country does a better job delivering healthcare than the private providers deliver, we could ultimately shift to the single payer system that Donald Trump favors . I eventually want our healthcare industry to be nationalized under a future State Socialist government (like the NHS in the UK), but down the line

I tolerate Universal Basic Income ONLY if it would replace (or heavily limit) welfare and similar big gov bureaucratic programs. It also should streamline assistance to needy people without needing to check eligibility and makes it easier for unemployed people and even people on welfare to find work since having more money allows flexibility in finding the right job .But it is too generous and supported by too many people for me to officially support 

In our current static capitalistic society, I support the rights of private property owners to the extent that I write below. Property rights as evidenced in this blog are important to me

Property rights are as a contingent yet very constrained social strategy, that is reflective of the importance of multiple, overlapping rationales that call for separate ownership and of natural law principles of practical reasonableness, defending robust yet non-absolute protections for these rights in a manner

These are ground in a clear statement of the natural law basis for the view that solidaristic wealth redistribution by individuals is at times morally required. However,  as a response by individuals and grass roots networks to particular circumstances instead of a state driven attempt to achieve a particular distributive pattern.

We should advance detailed arguments for workplace democracy rooted in such natural law principles as subsidiarity, which we defend as morally desirable and as a probable outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something that is mandated by the state.

Natural law approaches to land reform and factory occupation by workers. Rejecting natural law that grounds to intellectual property protections, while building on property rights more general and developing a general natural law account of boycotts.

Rudolf Rocker echoes my views on the relation between Anarchism and Liberal Socialism : “Modern anarchism is the confluence of the two great currents which during and since the French revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism. The classical liberal ideals were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economic forms. Anarchism is necessarily anti-p capitalist in that it opposes the exploitation of man by man. But anarchism also opposes the dominion of man over man. It insists that socialism will be free or it will not be at all. In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism. From this point of view, anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism. It is in this spirit that Daniel Guérin has approached the study of anarchism in Anarchism and other works.” This is also touched upon by Noam Chomsky here

I agree with what Vaush said here  “When (Karl) Marx and following theorists wrote on capitalism they weren't writing 'capitalism and liberalism are worst things to ever happen to humanity, they are the greatest oppression of workers'. No. Marxism is supposed to be an extension of liberalism not a rejection of it, a true promotion of unity, fraternity, and freedom, and liberty, and shit. That's what Marxism and that's what leftism is about, it's about bringing the messaging of the liberal movement forward, to make it better, to make it get stronger, to make it true to its principles.”

Raising the Minimum wage would force full time workers into part time jobs and hurt their access to health care benefits. It has to be rolled out in a way to prevent this

I support the Welfare state (Nanny state) that is funded by taxes that use a taxation model based on all of my socioeconomic views in this blog combined but with regular Social Democracy given the majority of the weight (since its natural to have ‘Nannys’ help down and out people since that is what real Nannys do, just pretend that all people on Welfare are being aided by ‘Nannys’, no one bats a lash shen real Nannys aide children and teens, why should this be different?)  

This should help transition us to an upgraded welfare state that is a fusion of universal welfare, Third Way SocDem workfarist policies like Working Families Tax Credit, National Childcare Strategy, National Minimum Wage, expanded America Works program (with GONGO added to America Works existing structure to make America Works be sort of pseudo Nationalized), TANF emergency funds and a more moderate to strong (i.e Nordic model type) expansion of a welfare state 

Once we get more and more socialistic in our economy more and more people will be taken care of 

I am against student debt forgiveness ideas. Students should work to pay off their student debts instead of relying on the government to do so. I do support the Responsible Education Assistant through Reforms Act

I don’t care for Build Back Better though I do like the name of the policy

My views on taxing the rich are based on one or more of my economic views/views on hypothetical economic systems mentioned above were

My view on Obamacare are based on one or more of my economic views/views on hypothetical economic systems mentioned above

I support the right to privacy

Society should replace social ‘fetters’ with social bonds and have labor be freely undertaken

I support greater egalitarianism in our society but in our current capitalistic society, I support actions to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments instead of using redistribution as the means to achieve this (until we begin our transition to a State Socialist economy as mentioned above). This is the Third Way SocDem way

I support making sure social institutions are working sufficiently to the benefit all people. We should focus on the interests on the poor ,marginalized and down and out. Hence why I support my views in this blog

Banking/Government/trade

Personally in our current static capitalistic society, I support public-private partnerships along with private finance initiatives in order to raise funds and to mitigate the fears of a tax and spend policy or excessive borrowing. 

Society in our socioeconomic world is governed by consistent and precise laws. No individual or religious faction or political force should interfere with those laws

I support people having off shore bank accounts

I condone autarchy of the great spaces

I am ok with maintaining Conservative spending plans for either acceleration reasons, or in areas or times when my economic policies can’t be implemented or practically implemented

I am generally against bank bailouts in most situations

More often than not, bank bailouts showed the banks rule over the government while the government rules over us. Banks used the bailouts to enrich themselves and their corrupt shareholders. The banks should be seized and turned over to worker committees and community reps that serve the public, which as mentioned above will happen under future socialistic type economies

I support the Gold Standard and I believe that the US should bring it back as a safety net 

I reject more than a few to some aspects of international free trade. The benefits that intranational free trade provides, is not evident of international free trade benefits

I support raising the raising of the budget ceiling and debt limit in our current capitalistic economy

I support Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and deregulations as President since at the time they were needed

I support FDR’s New Deal (I am on SSI for years, thanks New Deal) since it was mixed-syncretic but I really support the Fair Deal which was an upgrade over the New Deal

I support the Dodd Frank Act but I also support increased congressional scrutiny of the Federal Reserve (including auditing it) and easing of some regulatory laws on multiple small banks and loosening oversight to banks like SunTrust Banks which was enacted under the Dodd Frank Act. This would make it easier to seize and turn over the banks to worker committees and community reps that serve the public . Under the Dodd Frank act people are lulled into a false sense of security with banks, and at best the Dodd Frank Act is just a bandaid on this huge issue we have with our banking industry

I distrust large financial institutions as corrupt.

I am against the Great Reset

I am against moratorium on earmark funding

This echos my views on voluntary exchange

The government should not increase the tax of people who profit from the sale of stocks ,bonds or real estate.

I am against Joe Biden's IRS bank snooping plan and bank account plan and I want to help people circumvent it

I support and encourage people to use bonds and to save their money in savings accounts. If war bonds come back, I would also support people using war bonds. I believe people should go to tax seminars and learn how to save their money and invest

If the state is eliminated we would have true spontaneous order. I do believe we have some forms of economic spontaneous order which is evident by my fiscal views

I am anti statist

We need leaders who are rich and intelligent

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.

Business

I want Amazon and Big Tech to be broken up.  It's time we end the monopoly that Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon etc have over the market . It sucks that I agree with AOC and Liz Warren on something

I support what I consider free trade and free enterprise (ie commerce).  

We must gradually dissociate work from income due to increased buying power and allure of goods.

I am pro labor union , mostly because I champion the rights of workers and I don't want to see workers' rights trampled on by those liberal HR Departments who try to force those workers to be far left. So labor unions are a much better alternative . Plus labor unions are also anti globalist which is another huge plus. 

We need more worker marches to show appreciation to our country's workers. Maybe when workers of all race-ethnicities are united in their jobs and there is no more class conflict, this can happen

However, bargained reductions of the work week and the concomitant increase of new workers to share their work is something we need to encourage along with flexible changes (sabbaticals, leaves, training etc) for all heteronomous type of job (within reason). This means less work for better work and more time for better life. Norilsk Russia has a good way of giving workers vacation comps that could be a model for us. This should be done no matter what economic system we are living in

Nearly all small businesses are NOT tax cheats and Justin Trudeau was wrong to lie and say that

I support the blue collar, rust belt , working class (even though they aren’t as diverse as I’d like them to be but I digress) and my combined fiscal views reflect that support 

Values

I am a Neoclassical Libertarian-Paleolibertarian

I believe in Self Determination, self reliance and not making excuses. No one has it easy, life is hard. It's human nature that some people (of all identities) have it easier than other people (of all identities) 

I am a Survivalist and I think it is a good concept to live by

I am a Pacifist

I am against inherited aristocracy

I am against people having a sense of entitlement

I support voluntary social cooperation

I support Anarcho rugged individual liberty. I am very NON  supportive of most other types of Individualism 

I feel that individuals are entitled to freedom

I am open to tolerating Dasein

I am not against people admiring self made rich people. I generally wouldn't do that personally, but I can understand why some people would admire them

I between tongue and cheek pity and pretty much sort of sympathize with people who champion the rich of the 19th century like the Newport class 

I look at certain rare rich people today being rich like Barack Obama looked at Donald Trump https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333358-obama-equated-trumps-success-to-the-goal-of-the-american-dream-as-law/