If I Run for House of Reps in 2020

nick-offerman

One can expect me to be the kind of Ron Swanson of the House of Reps. Except for I’ll be 26.

Firstly, let me get the facts about the House of Reps out of the way.

Basically the House of Representatives, or as I call it House of Reps, is the majority of the Congress (100 Senators, and 435 what I deem ‘Housemen’). What the House of Reps does for America, or is supposed to do, is explained here. In other words, if I do run, all of my ‘rules for rulers’ will be in Article One Section Two of the Constitution. Powers which I could share with like 534 other people, president excluded, are in Article One Section Eight. And I could be one of five people representing Connecticut, in my case I’d be vocalizing the 5th congressional district since my town of Cheshire is part of CT-5.

But this is all assuming I do choose to run for Houseman for CT-5. Which I am extremely unlikely to do because I just don’t like the idea of me running for office.

The strategy I would run on.

Basically, all you need to know for now is I would be hybridizing the 2016 POTUS campaign strategies of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

The principles I would run on.

Basically, I’d run on a platform of free markets, civil rights, and Empire of Liberty in foreign policy. Here is what the first ten of my pledges would be. Pledges numbered, benefits bulleted.

  1. To sign the FairTax into law after rewriting its monthly refund aspect to be $8,400 per year for all Americans regardless of age and of income, still billing the feds for it monthly.
    • This will give the feds a Net revenue of $2.8 trillion annually (average American spends $56k annually x 325 million Americans = $5.4 trillion Gross annual, – $2.6 trillion on tax returns = $2.8 trillion)
    • It will also end the income and payroll taxes, endings that are highly desired by every American economist from almost every political ideology!
  2. To amend the constitution to not allow any regulation of business beyond the phrase “Treat your customers and underlings as you yourself wish to be treated.” Also to not allow any regulation of labor beyond the phrase “Treat your customers and your superiors as you wish to be treated.” Lastly to not allow any regulation of consumption beyond “Treat those you buy from as you wish to be treated.”
    • This would repeal regulations which do nothing to benefit either one of civil rights or the digital economy; in the simplest, most anti-loophole and anti-corporatism way possible.
    • This amendment would save small businesses with 1 to 20 workers each roughly $11,000 per worker in annual compliance cost.
  3. To amend the constitution to only allow environmental regulation by classifying pollution and littering as very severe property crimes, and even then only to be addressed by state and local polices.
    • This would reduce the EPA to its founding role: to use environmental sciences to make non-ideological cases for items like renewable energy, reusable grocery bags, & other items like those.
  4. To invoke the first amendment right to freedom of expression to change every public school in America into a charter school, meaning one that is free from any regulations that are not matters of strictly enforced accountability for academic merit, and whose teaching material is set multilaterally by scientists, historians, and parents.
    • This would allow parents some scrutiny over teachers as to invoke the would-be stringent accountability, the other share of scrutiny over teachers going to people who are scholars on the subjects.
    • Also this would make public schools incentivized to try to excel in truly being the best schools in America!
  5. To reclassify the drug epidemic as a medical ill and not a criminal offense in one year, then make the next year about legalizing birth control where medicines are sold, and the third year about legalizing cannabis oil where medicines are sold, and the fourth year about making it a civil right to make cannabis juices for vaping.
    • This would put countless non-violent, golden-rule-abiding innocents out of jail!
    • It would also stamp out drug cartels as mentioned in the NPR article I linked the phrase ‘highly desired’ to above.
  6. To invoke the 1st and 14th amendment rights to freedom of association and equal treatment under law (respectively) to kick the government out of marriage and instead have each marriage be a privately owned nonprofit contract between genuinely romancing adults.
    • This would benefit marriages of every consenting adult nature possible, and would make forced marriages and child marriages the only marriages left to make and enforce laws against!
    • It would also allow police to pay more attention to clamping down on forced and child marriages as they would no longer be distracted by any genuinely romancing adult marriages!
  7. To amend the constitution to only allow Congress to negotiate and compromise with other free societies, and even then only proportional to how free they are according to averages of numeric scores found here and here.
    • This would send a reminder to the world around America of what America’s founding roots are that would raise American integrity overseas to off the chart highs!
    • Also, this’d make every tyranny on Earth either try to regime change themselves or provoke us into rage against them, this way tyrannies are exposed as what they are in front of the entire species!
  8. To reshape the United Nations to only be inclusive to Western cultured Free Societies. And to have abolition in mind for the UN if they fail to comply with this reshaping plan.
    • This would remind the world that America stands for human freedom and human dignity
    • It would also allow for greater American Independence and also to allow independence for other western-cultured free societies besides America, too!
  9. To draft and pass a bill to allow banks to print and compute their own currencies for as long as they play by the golden rule reiterations outlined in pledge 2, above.
    • This would give Americans freedom of choice in currency and allow them to trade dollars for bitcoins and/or competitors to bitcoin.
    • This freedom of choice would also make Americans want to take personal responsibility for learning currency exchange rates, so that they dodge the potential for confusion (which I admit is very real) independently.
  10. To enact something I’d call the ‘Half It Plan’, which would cut two quarters from every federal dollar of foreign aid, of veteran’s pension, and of all non-defense budgets too. Cutting two quarters a year, every year for four years, and then amending the constitution to mandate a balanced budget on year five.
    • This would reverse the breakdown of families caused by Lyndon B. Johnson by his ‘war on poverty’, thus restoring the access of poor kids to their fathers from birth.
    • Also this’d create conditions for a surplus to grow to a level where it would only take 11 years, no more & no less, to pay off our entire national debt.
    • Lastly this’d create liberation of the people from fiscal dependence on government without debarring from them from finding work or from starting businesses of their own.

Closing

Sorry for making this so long everyone! But thanks for the read, everyone!

~KSP Perkins

Let’s Reform all Public Schools into Charter Schools! With Merit-based pay.

(FILE PHOTO) School-Voucher Program Supporters

Yep. This post calling for charter schools and merit-based pay is about Freedom of Choice in Academics and in schools.

Whenever I say I am Pro-Choice…

…I am almost never talking about how I think abortion should be allowed in only the first half of pregnancy. Instead, I am almost always talking about freedom of choice in self-defense tools, in clothing, in food, in housing, and as you can clearly tell by the subject matter here… in academic schools.

Basically, I believe our public schools are failing because they are not charter schools. In other words, they are not subject to any kind of student performance accountability. This also means most public schools currently have to play by a library’s worth of regulations. And as for the merit pay aspect, I emphasize that because normally charter schools don’t receive merit pay and instead get tax funding. So what I mean by merit pay is that parents can pay teachers according to teaching merit, instead of tax dollars being the funding source. Now, let’s talk more of the accountability matter.

Accountability replaces Regulation if a Public School goes full Charter school

Basically, from what I understand, charter schools are independent public schools who are exempt from the regulations that govern normal public schools. This exemption gives charter schools flexibility with decisions in hiring, teaching, and also contracts. However, this flexibility does not come without a price that is paid by public schools themselves, not by any of their student bodies, not even by students’ parents. Frankly that price is charter schools are under very strongly strict moral responsibility regarding spending habits and academic performances. And if you need to know what moral responsibility is.

  • Moral responsibility is the moral deserving of praise and reward for every good deed and also of chastising and punishment for every evil deed, based on the ‘treat others like you want to be treated’ cosmic norm (aka the golden rule).

I think this is all I have to say about school reform and charter schools. Thank you my readers!

~KSP Perkins

Interrogating neolibertarianism as a neolibertarian myself

democrat-republican-1

As I want nothing to do with the idiocy summed up here, I am going to interrogate my own political ideology.

First off, what is neolibertarianism?

Basically, it is perhaps the most poorly understood sector in the entire doctrine of free will. In other words, it is the least understood line of thinking within the ‘free enterprise & civil rights first’ line of thinking. I am trying to avoid referencing any other labels besides neolibertarian in this post for the same reason I am doing this post in the first place. To question my own beliefs, and to reveal to everyone at the end of this post that even my own political ideology ~ neolibertarianism ~ does not agree with me on everything!

What is it though!?

Okay, okay. A neolibertarian like me is basically a libertarian who advocates the assertive promotion of capitalism and individual liberty in world affairs by both diplomatic means and military means alike. This basically makes us similar to but different from the neoconservatives due to the difference between democratic peace theory vs capitalist peace theory. Plus our contrast to neocons is due to the difference between democracy and liberty, and also the difference between defending interests and defending individual rights.

Okay, now I can get into the meaning of this post

Select Smart. This post I would like to deem tribute to them as they are the folks to credit for my awareness of this label. I learned this label in 2010 and had no idea that it was the exact word for who I am politically as of 2008 when I saw the history of dictatorship barbarism across human history. Learning this history made me doubt the idea that human nature is in any way totally good! But yes, I had no idea this label existed until 2010 when Select Smart filled me in on it.

However, are there other differences between myself vs what I can learn from select smart about my ideology? Yes! There just so happen to be!

Firstly, I have found that my support for replacing our current national tax system with just a national sales tax is not the norm in my ideology. Instead the tax policy norm of neolibertarianism is a flat tax wherein all citizens are taxed equally.

Secondly, I apparently conflict with my own ideology on unilateralism. Basically, I believe that every free society should only be duty-bound to its own citizens. For example I think America has a duty to defend me, no matter who’s soil I’m on, but Britain and Israel only have rights to defend me this globally but not duties. And also because I find it immoral to promote respect for the laws or the sovereignties of nations who flagrantly use terrorism, genocide, torture and slavery as means of exerting dominance over any human being.

Thirdly, there is the minimum wage thing. Personally, as a working class person in terms of gross income, I look at proposals for Living Wage like this. If we are going to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, then that I deem will require these six economic policies to be enacted first.

End of Post

Thanks for reading, but I suspect I will find more to disagree with everything and everyone but me on, my own ideology included!

~KSP Perkins

How to Fix Failing Schools? It’s a Multi Step Process, But Here Is How!

tumblr_static_tumblr_static__640

All this cosmic beauty. And kids are not learning about it. This’s only one problem schools in general tend to have these days.

Why I am Posting this

Basically, I am someone who believes bigger education spending does not inherently mean higher quality education. I also refuse to believe that education spending cuts do any harm to educational institutions. Instead I think the reality is that all government can do to education without damaging the national average IQ is make K-12 mandatory for all children. Yes, there is a stark difference between this mandate versus directing curriculums and budgets.

Socialists Censor the Nuance between Government and Culture

I will get this right out of the way right off the bat. Just because I want government role in education limited to just mandating K-12 for all does NOT pit me against the very idea of education! You see, socialists and statists and various other sorts of Far Left Anti-liberalism activists censor all they can about the nuance between government and society. They will make the argument that “Oh, you don’t want kids to be smart” or “You would rather kids go to church than school” or “You think only rich people should be allowed an education”. Notice how none of these mainstream arguments by the Far Left have anything to do with facts and instead are venomously fixated on emotion.

The other day I saw this video on someone’s Facebook wall about Trump’s education budget plan. Now, the arguments they make in this video I suspect are mostly lies. It was a video by a mostly lying activist club called The Other 98%. So, of course I doubted all of their emotional, put-words-in-our-dissenter’s-mouth arguments they make about why Trump’s secretary of whatever is cutting budgets and emphasizing private schools.

And that is exactly the favorite way of socialists to censor their opposition. Putting words in their dissenters’ mouths.

On to the actual topic at hand!

Frankly, there is broad consensus on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that bigger education budget does not inherently mean better performance. Using my great country America as the example, America has done better in the PISA when its government spendings on education were at their lowest. For example, in 2000 when government spending on ed was $54 billion, Science score was 15th highest in the world. Then in 2003 when government spending on ed jumped to $83 billion, the Science score for our country plummeted to 22nd in the world. Next, raising education spending to $89 billion in 2006 lowered our Science score in PISA to 29th on Earth. In 2009, Education Spending by Government lowered to $45 billion, therefore education quality (the science score) jumped to 23rd. Lastly in 2012 when government spending on education hiked to $106 billion the PISA score for the USA in Science lowered to 28th on Earth.

So basically the more involvement government has in education besides mandating K-12 for all, the worse students perform. Now what’s so great about mandating K-12? If that’s the only power in education government has, then it cannot set the curriculum for teachers, instead parents set it. Plus, given this, parents will voluntarily pay the teachers and the smarter students get, the higher teachers are paid. This is known as freedom of education, a system where for the K-12 part parents can choose to have their students educated in accordance with their secular or religious moralities. What about college?

So far as I can tell, college age is when it can be and should be entirely up to the student to choose what specific classes they want to pay for. And as someone looking to go to a community college, I can assure you I want to be able to choose which courses to go to. I would love to be able to pay for classes in Geology, Geography, Biology and Environment. As you can tell by this external link, I wish to take those classes and become a paleontologist.

Why it matters to be able to pay according to quality of teaching

Basically, if government is able to steal money from a worker’s paycheck and dump it onto teachers then teachers will have no incentive to care how their students perform. Therefore students will have no incentive to care about their grades!

Meanwhile, if education funding is a matter of parents buying for their students the courses the students themselves want, then teachers are under the best scrutiny for students to see their teachers under: parental scrutiny.

That means if the teachers do not teach well then the student’s performance will reflect that, and the parent will demand and get refund and pick a different teacher for her kid to learn the same course material from.

Does there need to be an Education industry equal to Yelp, Meta Critic, IMDB etc?

Why, I do think this idea will be a requirement for full freedom of education! Frankly this is because the right to make honest reviews of products and services is not a niche feature. Meaning it is not a non-universal feature, instead the ability to make reviews is (or should be) around for every consumer for every industry.

And if you think no-one will punish bad service under total freedom of education, then that’s how I know the concept of customer feedback is unconditionally foreign to you! Because if I go to buy a school book from Amazon, for example, and the most up-voted review is a one or two star review that says things like these;

  • It’s heavily biased to far left or far right politics
  • It’s brazenly blurring religion and science
  • It’s filled cover to cover with basic scientific errors

Then I do not buy that school book! Simple as that. Thanks!

~KSP Perkins

What Do I Mean By ‘Neighborhood Owned Roads’ When I Call For It?

500px-evacuated_highway_401_color

This road looks kinda dead to me. Was this pic taken in my state of Connecticut? The buildings kinda look like ones I saw in person…😐

The Origin of my desire for neighborhood ownership of roads

Hm… I honestly was not aware of this controversy over road building until I encountered memes made by my POTUS pick for last year, Austin Petersen, satirizing this controversy. And thus my reading about free market roads is totally new to me. Basically, from what I know, free market roads is the principle that roads should either be privatized or decentralized. However, in most other public policy fields, ‘decentralization’ is most associated with federalism, and not with capitalism. Additionally, I can see some problems emerging with market ownership of roads. The biggest problem I see with privatizing roads is my understanding of how roads get built.

What I hear is that the federal government uses federal tax revenue to pay the market to build roads to connect neighborhoods. I have also heard that historically federal government was still able to pay for the best roads for the different phases of US history even in the days between 1776 to 1916 when the feds used nothing but tariffs, aka taxes on global trade, for federal revenue.

Why I’d like to see neighborhoods in charge of roads instead of federal politicians in charge

From how well I get along with my own neighbors, and observing as easily as I do in my walks to other neighborhoods in Cheshire, but also in my cycling trips to Wallingford and Southington, I see next door neighbors far better able to settle disagreement politely and classily than say… Congress people can, for example.

If you live in a neighborhood in America or any other deeply Americanized nation of the world around it, let me ask you. Which kinds of people do you see finding more solutions more often with less eagerness to be rude and/or trashy? Your next door neighbors? Or your national government? Without any kind of ideological filter, please answer in the comment box.

But as for me I see my neighbors are easily able to get along and come together on neighborhood needs. Meanwhile, centralized planning via enforced monopoly by a National government (keyword there being National) inherently leads, in this topic, a lack of any kind of incentive to be ‘keepin’ it real’ with the quality highness and price lowness of roads.

What happens if a road is home to multiple neighborhoods?

Honestly, this is the most severe of questions I need to bother answering from potential future critics of this post as my neighborhood shares a road with at least four other neighborhoods I can either name or describe. Honestly, I think this is where the biggest flaw I see in my own plan comes in. Basically there is something one can whine and complain about within any public policy plan!

For under a policy of neighborhoods owning roads, those of America’s roads which are not home to neighborhoods or are home to many neighborhoods would perhaps lead to disputes over which neighborhood gets ownership of that road.

However, as far as I am concerned, that would be a trivial travesty caused by policies of infinite freedom. And anyone who knows my politics knows I prefer the trivial travesties of infinite freedom over the severe travesties of no freedom. And that’s all I got on who will build the roads! Thanks for reading this people!

~KSP Perkins

Who Would I Vote For (As of 2017)?

awake

I do not buy into false dichotomies. Or anything that comes off as one.

As of Late January to Early February 2017, and including now, this is the official ‘who I would vote for’ portfolio of Kyle Stoddard ‘Perkino’ Perkins.

Okay, so I have done this at least once a year every year since 2014, when I started this blog. Back then, I was someone who was electorally a Center-right (meaning barely Republican enough to qualify as GOP material) and religiously a Secular-morality Deist.

These days, I am a secular morality atheist with a purist commitment electorally to make to forging the Libertarian Party of America into the dominant party of American elections. Including and primarily by means of making it the dominant party in Cheshire, my town in Connecticut. However, I must also do this by forging it into a party that promotes Fiscal conservatism from within the Digital Economy, endorses Cultural liberalism from within the Constitution, and adopts a foreign policy of the following principles.

  1. Superpower US Military
  2. American Exceptionalism
  3. Unilateral Free Trade
  4. Anticipatory Self Defense
  5. Capitalist Peace Theory

Anyway, time for me to go into the fine details.

In America from 2017 until I am dead because elderly (which I predict will be in the 2060’s), I’ll vote for.

  1. Libertarian Party

Why? Re-read the introductory content for the first reasons why. But allow me to be more clear on the leadership role to add more reasons why.

I am the founder and director of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee. And if anything is true about my electoral needs, I am going to need to stop splitting tickets. I am going to need to hurry up and run Cheshire citizens for public offices. After educating them about a properly effective libertarianism at dominating Cheshire CT town level politics.

But the reason I chose the Libertarian Party over either of the main two is because it is very obvious that the two main parties are one in the same. The only difference is that they disagree over whether to make America another Soviet Russia (what SJW Democrats want) or another Nazi Germany (what ‘Trumpkin’ Republicans want).

In Ireland from 2017 to present, I would vote for.

  1. Fine Gael

Why? Because, from what historic factoids I can learn about them, these guys domestically combined a longtime commitment to fiscally libertarian policies with, so far, an 85 year evolution on culture for them to be slowly but surely more into Civil libertarianism.

From what I know about Fine Gael thanks to Mark Humphrys, one of my top political influencers, they are Pro-Defense, Pro-America and Pro-Israel all in one foreign policy package.

And this part is only here because I am ethnically about half or more Irish.

In Britain, based on recent events, who’d I vote for.

  1. Tory Party (aka Conservative Unionist Party)

Why? Even though I am an adamant supporter of federalism, it is clear to me that of all British parties the Tories come closest to my beliefs on a core values and principles level.

Not much else to say about Britain at the moment.

In France, based on recent events, who I’d vote for.

  1. Les Republicans (no, not the GOP. Just their own party in the French electorate)

Why? Because from what policy ideas I can attribute to them, they come off to me as the leading party in standing for the principles listed numerically below.

  1. Free Enterprise
  2. Personal Freedom
  3. Equal Opportunity (no, not equal outcome!)
  4. Rule of Law
  5. Free Expression
  6. Freedom of Association
  7. Freedom of the Media
  8. Religious Liberty

And on foreign policy, from what I can gather from their defeated 2017 presidential candidate, is about destroying the Islamic Totalitarian threat to humanity at its source. Specifically by destroying State Sponsors of Jihadi Terrorism. However, their candidate lost the election by selling out, from what I have heard about him, hence I do not mention his name. Please ask someone else for his name.

Conclusion

Basically, I am a center-right, culturally liberal guy with strong support for free markets, small government, and humanist culture. With a foreign policy mindset of unilateral free trade, anticipatory self defense, and capitalist regime change; here is my rationale for the third principle. And that decides how I would vote. And how I plan to make the Libertarian Party electable. Thanks everyone!

~KSP Perkins

The Non-Aggression Principle’s Biggest Flaw Is Purely A Terminological Error.

fight-1

I look at this and then I look at the LP pledge… and I’m all like… what?

I see this Terminological Error as mostly on the Libertarian Party’s War Doves

Hello again other humans. I am your Cheshire CT neighborhood fiscally conservative and socially humanist independent thinker, Perkino. Basically I have been reflecting for quite some time on what I make of the Non-Aggression Principle. I don’t think I need to type the definition by words that WordPress will deem as part of the word count. And frankly my rationale is… well, look at my image choice above please and thank you.

Aggression as defined by the English Language vs Aggression as defined by Antiwar Activists

Eh… here goes something that might cost me custody of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee 😂 which I built online by my own Facebook account. I hope this case I am going to make will not but I suspect that it will. Anyhow, time for utmost intellectual honesty.

So basically the only thing stopping me from signing the aptly named ‘Libertarian Pledge’ is that it plays by a purely pacifistic definition of ‘aggression’. Here is their made-up definition;

  • Any use of force to achieve any political or social goal

Whereas…. if you look at the mainstay definition that currently all of Western Civilization, the only systemically libertarian and morally civilized culture in humanity, you see (or at least I see) an intrinsically different definition.

  • Unprovoked use of forceful action to dominate or to destroy another

Unlike the LP War-dove definition of aggression; the Western Cultural definition of aggression accounts not just for reality itself but also for a few other Western Cultural definitions. Two of them relevant to the focus of this online diary of mine.

  1. Right of Self-Defense: The right of the individual or the nation to use force to defend the lives of self and of other individuals or foreign societies, including the use of deadly force.
  2. Intervention: The behavior of using hinderance, obstruction and/or modification to change a process and/or a future.

What Does the NAP Allow & Forbid by Western Cultural Definition of the word ‘aggression’?

Okay, let’s start with what’s allowed.

Basically every lifestyle that does not involve unprovoked actions of intentional violence is allowed. No matter how revealing the attire, no matter how risky the form of athleticism, no matter how little known the morality.

What’s also allowed under this meaning of the NAP is buying raw bits for crafting and for resale of them as artsy crafts. Another economic behavior allowed under this dialect of the NAP is organized religions and secular moralities peacefully competing with each other for subscribers in accordance with the laws of supply and demand. Well, peacefully until someone does unprovoked acts of force with the intent of dominating and/or destroying.

Which leads into what’s not allowed.

Sexual violence against people for dressing revealingly for their free time is existentially not allowed. Another thing that’s not allowed is medically damaging actions against one’s own kids and/or against one’s own pets. And yes, my membership of the Austin Petersen freedom ninja army opens my eyes to legions of stories about pet abuse that do sicken me, greatly.

Now; time for puzzle games!

Puzzle games? Yeah, allow me to make up names for the purposes of these puzzle games, without care for if the names are real or not.

  1. Derpy decides he is going to hijack a construction worker’s bulldozer to tear down the office of a computer game modding club because he cannot understand how PC game mods can possibly qualify as a legit hobby. Has Derpy been provoked into needing to use force? No. Has Derpy used force? Yes. Was Derpy using force to pull off a political goal? No. Was Derpy using force to pull off a social goal? Yes. Was the social goal to dominate and destroy another? Yes.
  2. Jorgon is walking down the sidewalk on her way home from her town’s local coffee shop. She is right about to hit the button to be allowed by the traffic lights to safely cross the street when some sporty dude attacks her. His goal regarding Jorgon is to sexually assault her so hard as to literally kill her, and Jorgon’s defense against this is to whip out a huge pocket knife and decapitate her attacker with it. Now, has Jorgon been provoked into needing to use force? Yes. Has Jorgon used force? Yes. Was Jorgon using force to pull off a political goal? No. Was Jorgon trying to pull off a social goal? Yes. Was that social goal to dominate or destroy another? No!

No more puzzle games. Time for wrap up

Basically I am someone you can expect to tell the Libertarian Pledge to go f— itself in its current wording. Primarily when you’re talking about a tyrannical nation whose regime has totally nothing (or almost nothing) to do with free market capitalism. And when you’re talking about a nation of this nature posing even a latent threat of future attack on American civilians, so too do I keep telling the LP pledge’s current wording to lick a d—. However, that’s not to say that the wording can’t be changed. In fact, based on the terminological content about Western Cultural definitions, I say the LP pledge can and must be re-worded. Into something like this.

  • I certify that I oppose the unprovoked use of force to dominate or destroy any behaviorally harmless entity.

That’s all I got on the NAP. Byyyee!

~KSP Perkins