Monday, September 22, 2008

My party

Would you join my political party? I haven't worked out all the details, but here are a few of the important concepts:

I support a woman's right to abortion until the moment of live birth, as a matter of self defense. To the extent that there is tax-paid health care of any other kind, I support using taxes to pay for abortions like any other medical procedure.

I support tax-paid mandatory public education, because school can be your only haven if your parents suck. However, there should be only minimal requirements for choosing to withdraw from the mandatory public system for home or private schooling.

I support tax-paid welfare for minors (through age 18), including food, medical care, and incidental cost of school (paper, pencils, gym clothes, etc.) with only minimal income tests (family income under 50th percentile).

I support replacing the paperwork of the current welfare system as applied to able-bodied persons with a minimum income to all adults; the dollar amount would be barely enough to survive (e.g., a rental room in a boarding house plus food).

I support the individual right to own, carry, and use fire arms for self defense, pleasure, food hunting, and to rebel against an oppressive government, without license or registration, but with restrictions on ownership and penalties for use in the mental health and violent felon categories.

I support free speech with historic restrictions (no shouting fire in a crowded theater).

Among changes to the tax system I'd take away the home mortgage deduction and the practice of using different tax tables for people depending on their marital state.

I'm toying with the idea of giving the vote to children but allowing their parents to cast their vote.

There's lots more but this is the stuff I think about most often.

12 comments:

Mark Jones said...

Yes, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I'm a libertarian at heart, but I have no interest in tilting at windmills. Your approach strikes me as considerably better than how things work now, if not as laissez-faire as I'd like in an ideal world. So...yeah, sign me up.

Kai Jones said...

LOL Thanks, honey.

epi-lj said...

How would giving the vote to children but allowing their parents to cast it not just work out, in practice, to giving people with children more votes (to the tune of however many children they have) than people who choose not to have children? That seems pretty unfair to me (and I think it would even if I had children).

Kai Jones said...

It's meant to address the problem existing right now, where citizens under age 18 have *no* vote, no representation, and no pull with politicians. I think it's more fair to give the parents the ability to vote on behalf of the child than to disenfranchise future taxpayers all together. But I admit I haven't thought about all possible unintended consequences.

Stef said...

I like a lot about your party platform, as far as it goes and depending on implementation details.

For example: given that more women than men are on psychiatric drugs, and given that women are more likely to find firearms useful in self-defense, how would you implement the firearms restrictions based on mental illness?

Would the government run the minimum-income boarding houses? If not then how would it be guaranteed there would be enough of them?

Are you eliminating the home mortgage deduction to increase tax revenues, or because you are against the deduction per se; if so, why are you against it? Would increasing the renter's credit address your objection? (Hm, I think the renter's credit is a California tax law. I don't know if other states have it.)

I also don't understand the bit about parents voting on behalf of their children. It seems designed to give parents more political influence than non-parents, but from your response to epi-lj it sounds like that is not your goal. I think an unintended consequence would be to give more political influence to religious groups who don't believe in birth control. Also, would the parents be casting a vote even on behalf of a teenage child? (I had already diverged from my parents' political views by the age of 15-17.)

Before I gave money to your party I would want to know how the party would approach environmental issues, military funding, foreign aid, and corporate oversight.

Kai Jones said...

how would you implement the firearms restrictions based on mental illness?

The same way my doctor tells me to treat my hypertension: it's controlled with meds, so I don't really have hypertension. A person under the care of a doctor and successfully managing a mental health condition with meds (or other treatment) shall be treated as if they don't have the condition.

Would the government run the minimum-income boarding houses? If not then how would it be guaranteed there would be enough of them?

There might not be enough of them, and people might choose to use their stipend for something other than shelter (say, art supplies). My intent is to allow a minimum standard of living, but not to impose my idea of how their lives should be lived.

Are you eliminating the home mortgage deduction to increase tax revenues, or because you are against the deduction per se; if so, why are you against it?

Both. I think privileging home ownership with a tax deduction masks the real economic decision involved.

More anon.

Kai Jones said...

It would be an intended consequence that parents would have more voting power than non-parents; however, I'm open to other solutions to the problem, including lowering the voting age (perhaps to 14) instead.

environmental issues, military funding, foreign aid, and corporate oversight.

Areas I haven't given much thought yet, while recognizing their importance.

jaylake said...

Except for the gun thing, I'm pretty much with you.

Kai Jones said...

Jay--well, at least so far. As Stef pointed out, there are still many areas I haven't explored. Because I know I don't know enough to make informed decisions, my party welcomes information from people who are informed on those issues, and to whom those issues are important.

Stef said...

Good answers!

Steve Perry said...

So, which candidate or party comes closest to your philosophy, then? When you balance the pros and cons, how does the scale tilt?

Kai Jones said...

Steve: I think the Democratic Party is closest, but my votes are determined by which of my core issues are most at risk in any particular year.