-3 votes

Why Don't Kucinich, Nader and Paul Want To Win?

It's obvious to anyone who has studied anarcho capitalism how Kucinich, Nader and Paul can unite under an anarcho capitalist reform of government:

Replace ALL taxes with a single use fee for property rights.


Take it easy and listen. The concept isn't at all threatening to your belief system.

In the absence of government, people will still want their property rights protected. The anarcho capitalist answer to this is something along the lines of a property insurance company.

Taking a step, that unites progressives and anarcho capitalists in the near term, toward converting the government into a force-wielding property insurance company is then simple:

All citizens are share holders in a mutual insurance corporation that is limited to the protection of property rights. Shareholders receive monthly dividend payouts and are called upon by their insurance company from time to time to enforce property rights which includes, of course, the land rights of the shareholders. Think of these well-armed shareholders as the equivalent of the Swiss militia.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't believe the label

I don't believe the label "anarcho" anything could be successfully used since far too many people would not understand. The majority of sheeple voters would think anarcho = anarchy = chaos & they would immediately not support the effort. The media would perpetuate 'chaos,' especially if RP was involved.


Replace all money with a surety pledge to protect on another

Replace all money with a surety pledge to protect one another, much like the Anglo Saxons tithes and hundreds.

Except here the pledge is put on a script of paper and passed like money. Decentralized currency which is tied into protecting everyone's rights.

The worth of the currency is based on people protecting one another. Worthless to an outsider, and being outlawed would be equivelent to losing your money - so you probably don't even need prisons for the most part, just outlawery (look that up as a legal concept).

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

1879: Henry George and the Single Tax

Why do we tax property according to value? This punishes improvements. Why not tax property according to area? This would reward efficiency and lead to less sprawl, denser towns and more wilderness. It would discourage foreign ownership of resources and encourage small-scale clean industry. This tax would involve little paperwork or invasions of privacy because the amount is easily known. A lesser fee would be charged per square foot per year for theft protection (farms) and a greater fee for trespass protection (homes). Land itself is arguably a common inheritance. This tax would counteract the impoverishing effects of land hoarding. If the tax is not paid, squatting would NOT be prohibited but property rights would simply not be enforced at taxpayer expense.

My Thoughts

One major flaw in your argument for Anarcho-Capitalism is that you assume all property owners are rich; they are not. Also, the large majority of people who do not own land do so of their own choosing; therefore why should somebody who chooses to own land have to pay for those who do not? Your idea would cause a 'death-spiral' on multiple fronts.

The property owners who are not wealthy enough to constantly pay the taxes, you are willing to impose on them, would loose their land; meaning that the remaining property owners would now have to pay that share as well, which will cause more people to lose their properties until their are no property owners left but the extremely wealthy and the corporations. This is not Libertarian in the least nor does it do much to increase the living standard of the middle-class or the poor.

The other cause of a 'death-spiral' would be putting economy before liberty as the main purpose of the society. In this situation, like with progressives, the economy needs to constantly expand/grow, or the people would have to save very little, if any, money to keep the system working. If the people saved too much money then the velocity of money would decrease requiring the growth of the economy to be larger. Continuous growth of economy is impossible even at a low fixed rate, it is even more so impossible if the growth rate constantly needs to increase. As the rate of economic growth falls shorter and shorter of what is required the velocity of money decreases more and more, and an ever increasing number of people become unemployed. This creates a 'death-spiral,' and the economy collapses. This helps nobody but those who hold the majority of capital, which is not the individuals in the middle-class or the poor; it does, however, make it easier for the wealthy to acquire more resources.

If one looks hard enough at Anarcho-Capitalism one sees that they desire to replace Government with Corporations. This is replacing one annoyance with another; it does nothing to increase liberty to all inhabitants. The Anarcho-Capitalist require me to work, but not necessarily for my own ends, but for the purpose of keeping the economy alive by paying for everything which the Anarcho-Capitalists mandate that I purchase. This has very little if anything to do with individual liberty, and therefore is not a libertarian idea.

I find it quite interesting that those who want no government, the anarchists, are so willing to put the same - if not more - power over them in the hands of corporations; I find that funny. Real anti-authoritarian.

To make myself clear: I am not anti-Capitalism, but I do not think that capital is what frees us. I believe that in a free society capitalism will naturally take place with no requirements as to how it must necessarily increase. If the majority of people in a particular area desire to be mainly independent then the economy in that area would be small and the velocity of money there would be low; while in an area where people want others to do the work for them, the economy would be larger and the velocity of money would be greater. Lest we not forget that a large economy and/or high velocity money supply is indicative of a dependent society. I for one desire to be more independent then to be more dependent; how about yourself? I prefer that the work I do be for my own ends then for the gain of some corporation.

I can't speak for jabowery but...

I think that his property tax would not operate as you have described it. The poor landowner would not be taxed. He would be responsible for defending his own property, but he would have a Homestead entitlement to the necessities of life without taxation.
("Taxing" someone who has just enough to survive is not only cruel, it is pointless and doomed to failure.)

I have tried to follow debates about various forms of funding for government and have come away with the conclusion that there is no way to avoid having those with more pay more for the "government" that enables their disproportionate wealth.

Anything else is not only unjust, it inevitably devolves into lawless savagery.

The Virtual Conspiracy

Your KEY statement: "All

Your KEY statement:

"All citizens are share holders in a mutual insurance corporation that is limited to the protection of property rights."


So what happens if property rights go the way of the US constitution? It is ignored, in so many ways.

You are putting the trust of the protection of property rights into the hands of a corporation?

Are you a lawyer? Do you hold a title of nobility?


Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

reedr3v's picture

Even if they could personally make the leap

from authoritarianism to consistent advocacy of liberty/peace, they would instantly lose their base of support. Few public figures have that courage. I count only Ron Paul and, uh...

Ask them...

The next time you come up to a so-called "progressive", ask them if they think it would be ok to replace all current taxes and entitlement programs with a single monthly entitlement equally granted to all citizens simply because they are citizens -- funded by (be sure to call it this) a "tax on property rights".

I've found there are fewer pseudo-progressives than there are pseudo-libertarians. Most rank and file "progressives" are not against letting people decide what to do with that to which they are entitled -- they are genuine progressives at heart. Most rank and file "libertarians" are against replacement of all taxes with a use fee for property rights directed toward the protection of property rights -- they are pseudo-libertarians.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

reedr3v's picture

If that is your test for libertarians, it is no

surprise that you find so few. You surely understand that a government allowed to tax property is a society in which there are no property "rights," only rental rights subject to the discretion of the landlord, the owning class, our overlords.

Many if not most libertarians would not trust governments to limit themselves to a modest little fee that people could pay and plan on it not increasing exponentially in the future. Many libertarians don't even accept the institution of government. Minarchists do.

The key criterion for libertarians is acceptance of the Nonaggression Principle, period.

neolibertarians vs libertarians

Libertarians don't believe in the nonaggression principle. They believe in free will.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Libertarian \Lib`er*ta"ri*an\ (-t[=a]"r[i^]*an), a. [See
Pertaining to liberty, or to the doctrine of free will, as
opposed to the doctrine of necessity.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Libertarian \Lib`er*ta"ri*an\, n.
One who holds to the doctrine of free will.

An example even you might be able to comprehend:

Joe notices Fred is walking among trees where Joe has buried members of his family. Joe says to Fred, "Don't walk around here. It is a sacred grove to me." Fred says, "Where is your title in fee simple to this grove?" Joe says, "I have not pledged myself to any fighting force that claims to hold this grove by force of arms so I have no title in fee simple to it." Fred says, "Get lost." Joe bodily subdues Fred and ejects him from the grove. Fred walks back defiantly, saying, "You had better not do that again or I'll tell my Lord that you, who have no title in fee simple to this grove, are acting as though you do!" Joe, again, subdues and ejects Fred from the grove. Fred goes and notifies his Lord, who sends some vassals who then offer Joe the opportunity to pledge fealty to their fighting group, or they will take him prisoner for violating the title in fee simple of someone in their group who claims the grove. Joe, understanding full well that there can be no such thing as a "fair fight" between an individual and a gang, turns the other cheek and submits.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

reedr3v's picture

Your earlier mistake apparently arises

from your "authoritative" source. Webster's is NOT a reliably informed, objective source except as in mainstream common usage. Libertarianism has evolved beyond its liberal roots. Free Will is doctrine accepted by other philosophies, many Christians as one example, yet obviously is not adequate to deduce political freedom.
I have yet to see any core principle that expresses the unique insights of libertarianism better than NAP. It allows no hedging, it is clear, precise.

reedr3v's picture

removed accidental double-post


Anarcho Capitlism is a bunch of bull

Anarcho Capitalism is a bunch of bull. I really think it is.

That corporation is no different from a government. There is no restrain on what it can do, just like in any society, the government, or the "corporation" will be a reflection of the people.

One could say the US already is a corporation, except it's breaking it's own rules, which a corporation could do as well.

To say that the affiliation with the AC corporation would be any more voluntary than affiliation to the government isn't really true either.

The USA government is just like a corporation that claimed monopoly over a certain area.

Not even close to a corporation

In the absence of an open frontier, very few men in a state of Nature with their debt-free homestead and tools would put their names to the US Constitution as a contract. The open frontier with virtually limitless agricultural land was the context in which the Constitution was drafted. No sane man, not a would-be tyrant, would sit down in this world as it stands and draft such a Constitution unless it contained within it provisions such as those I put forth for the synthesis between anarcho capitalism and progressivism. In the absence of land, provision must be made for the fact that a young man and young woman starting out may face a world in which they simply cannot have children. In such a world, the young man is likely to turn violent and the young woman is likely to turn to de facto prostitution -- which is the kind of society we see evolving before our eyes.

All of the pseudo-progressive noise about "entitlements" is merely cover for enslaving the population to the bureaucrats. All the pseudo-libertarian noise about "property rights" is merely cover for enslaving the population to protect the property rights of those enjoying said property rights.

A pox on both your houses.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans


I will listen to any ideas that minimize government intrusion and maximize individual liberty.

And you'll downvote people who

Points out the flaws in it?

Let's have a debate and stop being a childish...

Come back when you have an actual argument.

Maybe on the township or county level..

Keep money and promises(contracts) local, easier to keep an eye on your money and what it's doing.

I see no need for a wealthy nation. All they do with their wealth is cause trouble, at home or away.

Free includes debt-free!

Matt Gonzalez as VP

I know Ron should choose whoever he is most comfortable running with, but Matt was Nader's running mate, would solidify Progressive voters, and win a lot of Hispanics over. Ron and Matt have spoken together (in San Francisco with John Dennis, who Matt endorsed for Congress) to oppose the War. On the major issues Matt agrees 100% with Ron. He may differ on single-payer and abortion, but those issues shouldn't get in the way of keeping the progress of breaking down racial barriers, as well as ending the Wars, Fed, Patriot Act and Drug Wars (and death penalty). On those issues our guys agree completely.

All Matt would have to say in the debates/interviews is, "I can work with Dr. Paul's position on the lack of federal authority to provide Health-Care and ban/endorse Abortion. I encourage progressives to work on these positions at the state level. Letting this get in the way of ending the Wars, the Drug War, and the Patriot Act would be irresponsible of us as progressives."

Jack Wagner

This is a bad move on a

This is a bad move on a number of levels. So he wins the votes of a handful of progressives and hispanics, and in the process loses the support of massive numbers of conservatives who would go apes*it at the thought of a Green Party member as VP. The major issues include more than the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. The Fed, the economy in general, taxes, spending, health care, abortion, all are areas of major disagreement. That's like saying Ron Paul is in 100% agreement with a neocon who supports cutting taxes and spending, opposes bailouts, and is for auditing/ending the Fed. Ron Paul should pick a principled libertarian who does not hurt his election chances, should he win the nomination. That's not unreasonable.

Gonzalez who?

Its simply not true that "On the major issues Matt agrees 100% with Ron." The entire problem with the progressive libertarian alliance is about economic theory. I don't care what kind of racial pandering you think you'll accomplish, Ron can't afford a running mate that is wrong on economics in the current environment.

Now, admittedly, Ron has been misled by the Austrian School to the point that he can't even THINK of a use fee for property rights as the no-compromise position that will bring progressive thought leaders, such as Nader, around to radical libertarian principles. Without Nader's cover, Gonzalez simply will not pull the weight he needs to with progressives.

Nader and Kucinich have enough independence of thought AND the authoritative positions within the progressive movement to do a major course correction if offered something like the anarcho capitalist/progressive synthesis I've outlined.

The question is, does Ron Paul have the intellectual independence to recognize when his deepest principles can unite Nader and Kucinich with him in this election -- even though it would send a lot of the Mises crowd into conniption fits.

Guys like Gonzalez will come along for the ride -- maybe even to the Presidency -- if Ron Paul can have meaningful dialog with the progressives on economic issues.

One thing is for certain: He's not going to pull this off by diagnosing the problem as "corporatism". The Wall Street protesters have already been captured by the establishment with their "endorsement" of Obama. The whole thing reeks of the way the "Tea Party" ended up as neocons.

The establishment can NOT fight the synthesis I've outlined. They will lose.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Kucinich and Nader are not

Kucinich and Nader are not anarcho-capitalists in any sense of the word. They are big government liberals. There are some issues where we can work with them, but they are clueless on the economy.

So you're trying to tell me

So you're trying to tell me that Kucinich and Nader would turn their noses up at a plan that transfers money from the wealthy to the rest of the population?

I don't think so.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Well, for one, Ron Paul is

Well, for one, Ron Paul is against transferring money from the wealthy to the poor. He wants to stop the transfers all together. Also, what happens to the poor people who can't afford to pay the insurance? How does this help them. I can't see any of these men supporting this.

What would the wealthy do

What would the wealthy do without protection of their property rights? Preach Austrian School Economics?

Look, your kind of "libertarianism" is what gives liberty a bad name. You don't want taxes but you want property rights to be protected for free? You want "some" taxes but only to protect property rights? Which taxes are just as the source of revenue to pay for the protection of property rights?

You think it should all be private? Then what company is going to protect property rights for free?

Idiocy like yours is dooming the libertarian movement.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

I literally don't know what

I literally don't know what to say. You created about a dozen strawmen in that post, and attributed beliefs to me out of thin air. And I'm the idiot? Again, how does this transfer wealth from the wealthy to the poor? Furthermore, Kucinich and Nader do not really believe in property rights. They are all for taking money from people to fund health care, education, green energy, welfare, etc. Ron Paul simply does not agree with them on economics. They are not libertarians. Maybe we can agree on ending bailouts (though most progressives think they're necessary) but beyond that, I don't see what they have in common on economic and fiscal issues.

The monthly dividend to the shareholders...

Again, how does this transfer wealth from the wealthy to the poor?

The monthly dividend to the shareholders which are the citizens. One share per citizen. Yes, it does give meat to the idea of "citizenship" and would bring the immigration debate into much sharper focus -- as it should be. It is a wonderfully clarifying issue.

Kucinich and Nader do not really believe in property rights. They are all for taking money from people to fund health care, education, green energy, welfare, etc.

Do Kucinich and Nader really disagree with the idea of letting people choose their own health care, education and charities if those people are genuinely entitled to a monthly dividend check? Perhaps -- just as, perhaps, Paul disagrees with the idea that defense of property rights should be paid for by those enjoying said property rights.

These two forms of "perhaps" are the sacred cows of the pseudo-progressives and pseudo-libertarians respectively. Yes, there are many hypocrites out there that worship their sacred cows above all else -- to hell with their stated principles.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

In your example, the people

In your example, the people are both shareholders and customers. Doesn't their contribution have to be greater than their dividend (unless you're proposing different rates for different people)? If so, there is no wealth redistribution. Only people getting back part of what they paid in (I guess if there were enough non citizens who paid the premiums but didn't receive dividends, then this could change, but in that example it's redistribution from non citizens to citizens). To Kucinich and Nader, it's not about choice. They believe everyone is entitled to health care, education, etc. I don't see how changing the way government is funded will make them less likely to support any of the government expenditures they currently support.

Look up "mutual insurance"


A Mutual insurance company is an insurance company which has no shareholders but instead is owned entirely by its policyholders. The primary form of financial business set up as a mutual company in the United States has been mutual insurance. Under this idea, what would have been profits are instead rebated to the clients in the form of dividend distributions or reduced future premiums.

As one of the original libertarians says:

It is true that the THEORY of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.

So, a man who stands in debt-free control of his homestead and tools is approached by a sales agent for a force-weilding mutual insurance corporation. What is the policy he is offered that is not fraudulent, is not extortion and gets him to sign of his own FREE WILL?

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

This doesn't refute the fact

This doesn't refute the fact that overall, people are still contributing more than they get back (or else the company would go bankrupt). Kucinich and Nader aren't going to go for that.

That was a question, not a

That was a question, not a refutation.

Try answering it.

Here it is again:

So, a man who stands in debt-free control of his homestead and tools is approached by a sales agent for a force-weilding mutual insurance corporation. What is the policy he is offered that is not fraudulent, is not extortion and gets him to sign of his own FREE WILL?

This question is critical because without an answer, you can't claim consent of the governed.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans