PROPOSED LIBERTARIAN PARTY (LP) PROGRAM

This program provides the courses of action needed to achieve economic freedom, free markets, and free trade in the U.S., as demanded by LP principles.  It uses past LP platforms to provide the solutions and transitions for achieving free markets. The platforms included planks calling for the elimination of specific government policies favoring private- and public-sector monopolies and other special interests. The platform also called for the elimination of some government agencies and programs. Special interests have an incentive to buy and/or influence (“capture”) politicians and regulators, and free markets are the only way to stop them, and favor competition and consumers. The platforms are used to help define the nation’s major economic problems by industry. The program adds some economics, especially involving the law of supply and demand, to help explain the nation’s major economic problems by industry, and the creation and benefits of free markets. The solutions require pure free markets, while the transitions require strategy and more explanation for extracting government interventions. The program focuses on transitioning from policies favoring special interests first, because they can absorb the effects better than others, for example, the effects of eliminating Medicare and Medicaid on the elderly and poor.

                                                    EDUCATION

PROBLEM. Free markets would generally involve families paying for the education of their children offered by private schools. Since the U.S has never had a free market economy, many if not most families have been unable to afford the costs of education for their children. Because families weren’t trusted with government subsidy (e.g., even vouchers), the government took the extreme step of establishing public schools. Since the 1960s, the costs of both K-12 and higher education have been skyrocketing, while quality has deteriorated. Government has been restricting the supply of education services while demand has been increasing from increased needs and opportunities for educated students, and government subsidies and loans. Public and non-profit schools lack the profit motive and competitive pressures to expand supply to educate enough students well, compete on price and quality, customize education according to student needs and abilities, and innovate with new educational technology. Public and non-profit schools, who are supposed to serve society to justify receiving special benefits, have used the subsidy advantages to restrict competition from for-profit companies.

The local K-12 public school monopolies continue to get more money each year from government. Teacher pay is about 60 percent of total K-12 education costs. While teacher salaries have increased only slightly, schools have been increasing the number of teachers per student, allegedly to meet the growing numbers of special needs students. Meanwhile, government-supported schools are indoctrinating children and threatening personal freedoms, including free speech and privacy. Higher education, which operates as a subsidized oligopoly (i.e., limited numbers of sellers), gouges students with unreasonable prices. The government is giving taxpayer-funded grants and especially loans to higher education students that are driving them into debt.

SOLUTIONS. Education should operate as free markets in a free market economy. The growing numbers of students with special needs is likely due to failing schools and also a failing economy, which has caused high child poverty rates. We will eliminate government interventions that limit supply and/or increase demand, as well as increase regulatory costs. We will abolish the Department of Education. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges must be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions. We will eliminate teacher certification and licensing laws. We will eliminate the use of taxpayer money for public schools and tax advantages for non-profit private schools. We will eliminate government support of students, including grants, tax credits and government-backed loans. We will also eliminate any other government interventions, including compulsory education laws, forced busing and corporal punishment. We will eliminate the threats on freedom by eliminating government policies favoring monopolies in education (and tech), so they can be driven from the marketplace. Free markets are needed in all industries to increase real family incomes and the numbers of parents able to afford their children’s education.

TRANSITION. We concede that education is still inherently too expensive for most families. We recognize the potential need for alternative financing for students if contributions from families and charity prove insufficient. Some higher level of spending may be necessary for special needs students. We oppose state K-12 competition programs that produce higher test scores from students attending public schools by regulating and providing less funding to non-profit and especially for-profit schools. We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit. We oppose the removal of tax-exempt status to schools based on hiring, admissions and student deportment. All forced busing and corporal punishment must be eliminated immediately. All direct taxpayer funding of schools should be eliminated immediately and any government funding must follow the students, such as vouchers. As increased competition from free markets reduces prices in education and increases real family incomes throughout the economy, we support the reduction of tax support for schools, and removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children. In addition, we will phase out government support of students.

                                                    HEALTH CARE

PROBLEM. Free markets would generally involve consumers paying private providers, including doctors, hospitals and insurers, for their health care. A perceived market imperfection is that a lack of consumer knowledge about the cost and quality of health care results in “supply creates its own demand.” Because there were once concerns about unqualified practitioners, states have required the occupational licensing of doctors and later the accreditation of medical schools, which were both used by the health professions to restrict supply, increase their incomes and circumvent competition. Because many consumers have been unable to afford the growing costs and couldn’t be trusted with government subsidy, the government took the extreme step of establishing and subsidizing government programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the health care of the elderly and those with low incomes, respectively. The U.S. health care cost “crises” started in 1965 when the government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, while also restricting the supply of practitioners and hospitals. Monopolies block competition and have little incentive to provide consumers with low prices, quality and innovation. Quality deteriorated as evidenced by physician malpractice costs. Government has also been an irresponsible purchaser of health care, even though Medicare has had deductibles and co-payments. Since the 1990s, the regulation of medical providers by government programs and insurance buyers has also restricted competition between doctors and hospitals, and caused the rationing of health care. The cost of prescription drugs has been increasing with development costs, most of which are from clinical trials whose costs are increasing with the cost of the health care system. So that the pharmaceutical companies can recover development costs, the government grants protections from competition that have limited supply and increased prices. Health care is the largest component of deficit spending at $1.7 trillion, roughly equal to the national deficit.

SOLUTION. Health care should be free markets. We will eliminate government interventions that limit supply and/or increase demand, as well as unnecessarily increase regulatory costs. Competitive free markets would allow consumers to choose providers based on reputation. We will eliminate subsidies to, or restrictions of, medical education. We will eliminate state regulation, controlled by the health profession special interests, that accredits and limits enrollments at schools and training programs. We will eliminate state subsidies to accredited schools. We will eliminate medical occupational licensing laws, which have raised medical costs while creating a government-imposed monopoly of doctors and hospitals. Instead, we encourage certifications by voluntary associations of professionals. We oppose any state or federal area planning boards whose stated purpose is to consolidate health services or avoid their duplication. We will eliminate state certificate-of-need and similar laws that restrict the supply of medical facilities. We will eliminate monopoly protections on drugs, including long patent lifetimes and extensions, the discriminatory awarding of patents favoring synthetic drugs, non-patent protections, research grants, and preferential enforcement of regulations by the Food and Drug Administration. We oppose FDA restrictions that make it difficult for individuals to secure treatment.

We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care. We favor abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs. We oppose any form of compulsory National Health Insurance, including mandatory health insurance benefits required of employers by the government. We will eliminate tax-supported insurance plans. We will eliminate the regulation of insurance, including compulsory plans that force the healthy to subsidize the sick like the Affordable Care Act and restrictions on pre-existing conditions. Government's role in any kind of insurance should only be to enforce contracts, when necessary, and not to dictate to insurance companies and consumers which kinds of insurance contracts they may voluntarily agree upon.

We will also eliminate seemingly less significant government interventions that may or may not be eliminated by the major solutions, including laws or policies that infringe upon the practitioner-patient relationship and contracts, restrictions on the right of individuals to pursue alternative forms of health care including home births, privately funded women's clinics and lay midwifery, requirements for prescriptions to obtain medicines, limits on the use of genetic and other screening and testing methods, policies allowing violations of private medical records, forced medical testing, policies blocking the distribution of education materials, criminalization of hypodermic syringes, government restrictions and funding medical and scientific research, the compelling of individuals to submit to medical experiments, treatment, and testing, compulsory hospitalization, vaccination and fluoridation, limits on medical advertising, malpractice insurance subsidies, anti-trust laws, laws requiring doctors to render medical services in emergencies, and laws prohibiting the commercial sale and purchase of body parts.

TRANSITION. We concede that health care is still inherently too expensive for the elderly and those with low incomes. We seek to first remove barriers to supply and since businesses and consumers are better able to trust medical schools than individual doctors, we seek to increase the supply of doctors through the immediate elimination of medical school accreditation and subsidization. Any government funding must follow the students, such as vouchers. We seek to increase the supply of medical facilities through the immediate elimination of certificate-of-need. We will immediately eliminate drug patent extensions, non-patent protections, and research grants.  We will phase out medical licensing in states, including lifting more restrictions on nurses and other mid-level practitioners. As competition from increased supply reduces prices, we will phase out Medicare, Medicaid and tax support for private insurance plans. As increased competition from decreased demand and increased supply decreases the cost of health care and clinical trials, we will phase out the remaining monopoly protections on drugs.

                                                                ENERGY

PROBLEM. Free markets would generally involve consumers paying private providers for their energy for transportation (e.g., gasoline), heating (e.g., natural gas), and electricity (e.g., largely generated from natural gas). Government has intervened to remedy perceived market imperfections including energy security especially threatened by OPEC, land and duplication costs for distribution facilities, and environmental externalities. Government regulation of the energy industry has resulted in a lack of competition, high prices, shortages, limited development and availability of state of the art services, stunted exploration and development of alternative energy sources, and displaced responsibility for wrongdoing in the energy markets, while granting advantage in existing markets to those with political access. Energy crises have been caused by government favoritism for oil and by-product natural gas over other energy sources and the restriction of supply while global demand has been increasing. OPEC, which has the world’s lowest-cost oil reserves, destabilizes global oil markets by not allowing their citizens to produce oil and manipulating supply. Volatile oil prices have led to 10 of last 12 recessions. The U.S. government has responded by regulating the energy industry, and has recently favored domestic Big Oil & Gas companies holding patents for fracking, especially exemptions from environmental regulation. Even those claiming to favor wind and solar are actually favoring oil and gas, since a recent Norway study has determined that wind and solar reduce natural gas used for backup by only 10 to 20 percent. Governments have also allowed utility monopolies to control electricity and natural gas distribution markets, and decide who can provide the fuels and energy through rigged competitive bidding and wholesale markets. The government has failed to protect the environment from pollution, especially that produced by the oil and gas industry. By preventing fuel competition, diversification and innovation, the government is risking economic and environmental crises, and even war.

SOLUTION. Energy should be free markets. We will eliminate all government interventions, including those that limit supply, increase demand, increase regulatory costs, create monopolies, and pick winners and losers. We will eliminate all preferential government policies, including all government subsidies for energy research, development and operation, and the use of eminent domain for energy facilities. We favor the creation of a global free market in oil by requiring trade policies that forbid OPEC cartel governments from nationalizing oil companies, especially for the purpose of manipulating global oil prices. We favor the creation of a domestic free market in oil and natural gas by instituting full property rights in underground oil and by the repeal of all government controls over output in the petroleum industry. We will eliminate policies favoring Big Oil & Gas, including below-market government land leases, laws allowing pumping from under other people’s land, the use of eminent domain for oil and gas pipelines, numerous tax breaks, and environmental exemptions (especially compared to coal). We will eliminate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), laws compelling national oil self-sufficiency, the cargo preference law, and oil tariffs and import quotas. We oppose all government conservation schemes through the use of taxes, subsidies and regulation. We support abolition of the Department of Energy, without transfer elsewhere in the government.  We oppose the creation of any emergency mobilization agency in the energy field, which would wield dictatorial powers in order to override normal legal processes.

The alternative energy industries should also operate within the free markets for energy. We will eliminate policies favoring wind and solar energy including mandates, subsidies, and regulations that don’t account for, and thus overvalue, intermittent and unreliable generation. such as competitive bidding and wholesale markets. We will eliminate non-refundable tax credits that allow subsidization to those with high incomes, especially the banks. The U.S. government is more involved with nuclear power than any other industry, even though the government doesn’t usually own commercial plants. We oppose all direct and indirect government participation in the nuclear energy industry, including financing through either debt or equity, subsidies, research and development funds, guaranteed loans, waste disposal subsidies, and federal uranium enrichment facilities. Full liability not government agencies should regulate nuclear power. The Price-Anderson Act, through which the government limits liability for nuclear accidents and furnishes partial payment at taxpayer expense, should be repealed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates commercial nuclear power plants through licensing, should be abolished. 

The electricity and natural gas utility industries should operate within the free markets for energy. We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges and governmental monopolies for electricity and natural gas. We will eliminate laws allowing the use of eminent domain for building new electricity transmission, and pipelines for the distribution of natural gas. The right to offer, on the market, such services as electricity, natural gas, garbage collection, fire protection, cable television, telephone, and water supplies, should not be curtailed by law. We will eliminate laws that block the use of alternative distribution networks, such as microgrids. All rate regulation in industries providing these services should be abolished.

We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency and all state environmental agencies. The problems caused by environmental exemptions and other favoritism is compounded by the states that make it difficult to sue polluters. We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation.

TRANSITION. We concede that the nation and world must continue some current government policies favoring oil and gas to avoid another energy crisis. While regulations restricting the use of oil and natural gas, and especially coal and nuclear are lifted, liability laws in the courts must be progressively strengthened. The development of alternative energy sources must be extended beyond wind and solar. Although mandates and grants must be eliminated, all alternative energy sources should receive equivalent government benefits so they can enter and compete in the marketplace. Current subsidies for renewable energy should be acceptable if refundable tax credits were extended to everyone. Alternative distribution networks and especially microgrids should be legalized. We demand that OPEC cartel governments repeal nationalization of oil companies as conditions for trade deals. Otherwise, we will allow domestic free markets to achieve national energy self-sufficiency.

                                                    HOMES

PROBLEM. Free markets would generally involve consumers borrowing money from banks to purchase homes from builders or owners. Government has intervened to remedy perceived market imperfections, including homeowner requirements of their neighbors, especially as land constraints concentrate populations in cities, environmental problems while extracting building materials, and credit problems of many consumers. Government has caused rising home prices by restricting supply, increasing demand and manipulating interest rates. Local government regulations and programs have blocked the building of new homes, violated property rights, discriminated against minorities, created housing shortages, and caused higher rents, while granting advantage to developers with political access. Government control of natural resources and environmental regulations have increased the cost of building materials, such as wood and sand. Recently, government spending on infrastructure and manufacturing has increased labor costs. Government financing of homes has artificially increased the purchase of more expensive homes and often by those that cannot afford them. The Fed’s cycling of interest rates has alternatively raised interest rates to make home mortgages less affordable, and then decreased interest rates to make home prices less affordable. Home builders have been unable to increase new supply rapidly at lower interest rates, because they knew the Fed would raise interest rates again. By stimulating the economy with deficit spending while the Fed has raised interest rates, Biden has prevented the lowering of both home mortgage rates and home prices at the same time!

SOLUTION. Housing should be free markets. We will eliminate all government interventions. We oppose local government regulation and control of resource use through eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, urban renewal, purchase of development rights with tax money, or infrastructure improvements that preferentially limit the supply of new construction and increase rents and home prices. We call for the homesteading or other just transfer to private ownership of federally held lands. We will eliminate the mismanagement of forest lands and preferential sales of trees to wood product companies by the U.S. Forest Service and state forestry agencies. We will eliminate preferential environmental regulations that favor incumbents producing building materials, such as grandfather exemptions. A free-market economy is needed to decentralize populations from cities and incomes to reduce credit problems.

All national, state and local government agencies whose primary function is to guarantee loans, including the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), must be abolished or privatized. Furthermore, the loans of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even when not guaranteed by the government, constitute another form of subsidy.  All such enterprises the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Farm Credit Administration must either be abolished or completely privatized. The Fannie and Freddie mortgage duopoly must be privatized or eliminated. They and the banks will no longer receive government support for providing home financing. Taxpayers must never bear the cost of default upon government-guaranteed loans. We will eliminate the Fed’s manipulation of interest rates.

TRANSITION. We will eliminate zoning and routinely grant permits and infrastructure improvements based on demand, except when opposed by community election. The government should privatize forest land used for wood products and tax the extraction of natural resources. We will eliminate preferential environmental regulations and replace them with better liability laws. We will eliminate the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and privatize Fannie and Freddie. Until a relatively free market economy can be established, we will transparently control the Fed’s cycling of interest rates.

                                                     AGRICULTURE

PROBLEM. Free markets would generally involve consumers and businesses buying food, feed, fuel, and fiber produced from agricultural land by farmers, often processed by agricultural companies including cooperatives and distributed by retailers like grocery stores. Government has intervened to try to remedy perceived market imperfections, especially income lost by farmers when crop prices are low. Government subsidies, regulation and taxes have encouraged a standardization and concentration of the agriculture and food industries. Most agricultural sales are produced from traditional crops, especially corn, soybeans, and wheat, and grown on farms of over 1000 acres.

The U.S. government subsidizes farmers and insurance companies for the difference between a target price determined by the program for traditional crops and the market price at which they can sell the crops. The subsidies, which provide much of the total farm income, allow the country to maintain higher production and lower price levels for expanding markets, including export. This keeps some marginal farmers in business and benefits international traders, but drives up land prices and costs, sends taxpayer subsidies overseas, and damages trade relationships by driving foreign farmers out of business. Insurance companies are more likely to service larger farms because higher premiums allow them to reap more subsidies for their significant administrative expenses. The paperwork wastes time, especially for small farmers, and government handouts bring fraud and government dysfunction.

The need to maximize subsidy revenue incentivizes monoculture cropping, high-water-use crops, soil tillage and depletion, and harmful synthetic inputs including fertilizers and herbicides. Subsidies tend to induce cropland expansion on highly erodible grounds, wetlands that are prone to flooding, and areas with endangered wildlife. Soil degradation requires the use of more fertilizer, which goes down road ditches to pollute streams, rivers, and lakes. The crops subsidized by government are used for making unhealthy junk foods, satisfying uneconomic biofuel mandates, and the application of cancer-causing herbicides (after the crops have been genetically-engineered).

In addition, Federal, state and local governments are subsidizing the use of agricultural water through water development projects and irrigation schemes.  Even though most crops are not irrigated, agriculture uses most of the water consumed in the U.S. Most of this water is wasted due to cultivation of water-intensive crops and inefficient irrigation systems. This wasteful use of water is drying out rivers, lakes, and underground aquifers, and creating a national water crisis. The government is aggravating the misallocation of water by restricting the private use of water, the voluntary transfer of water rights, and similar controls.

SOLUTION. Agriculture and food should be free markets. Farmers, ranchers and all other purveyors of goods and services in the agricultural market must operate unhindered by government subsidies, regulation, and taxes. They should be policed by private sector consumer protection agencies for quality, and held strictly liable by government only against fraud and deception. We will hold private individuals or corporations liable for damages caused by poisonous foods in the courts. Farmers can purchase crop insurance without subsidies, store the crop as long as necessary, and collect higher prices as crop production declines. Marginal farmers can explore new markets, such as healthy foods, cheaper fuels and fiber, and new crops and applications for genetic engineering.

We will eliminate all government interventions. We will terminate all farm programs, including production quotas, direct subsidies, price supports, import tariffs, levies and quotas, export subsidies, trade war subsidies, low-income food subsidies, and all regulation on agricultural production. The three major programs under which commodity crops are currently subsidized should be eliminated: Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage, and Marketing Assistance Loans. We will eliminate the Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit Administration. We will eliminate the regulation of agricultural pest control while holding private individuals or corporations fully liable for damages in the courts. We will eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission and regulations that drive up transportation costs including electric vehicle mandates. We will eliminate federal inheritance taxes that can make it expensive to keep farms in the family.

The allocation of water should be governed by unrestricted competition and unregulated prices. Resource management should be the responsibility and right of the legitimate owners of land, water, and other natural resources. The construction of government dams and other water projects should cease. Government and quasi-government water supply systems should be privatized. The Bureau of Reclamation, the civilian functions of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service should be eliminated.  All local water districts and their power to tax should be eliminated. We call for the homesteading or other just transfer to private ownership of federally held lands.

TRANSITION. The U.S. should phase-out crop and water subsidies while opening new markets including for healthy foods, clean fuels and bio-chemicals, and building materials like composite board. To avoid the loss of markets for American farmers and possible global food shortages, we will set dates for the phase out of poisonous foods. The government should not repeat the problems created by the Freedom to Farm Act by failing to open markets as subsidies are phased out. The Farm Credit Administration should be privatized. We advocate the establishment of an efficient and just system of private water rights applied to both surface and underground water. Such a system should be built upon a doctrine of first claim and use.

                                                     TRANSPORTATION

PROBLEM Free markets would generally involve consumers and businesses purchasing transportation vehicles and services offered by manufacturers and other providers. Government has intervened to remedy perceived market imperfections, including land constraints and duplication costs for roads and railways, exploitative human nature, and environmental problems. The government controls transportation with nationalization, regulation, restriction, subsidization, favoritism, and corruption; and the results are state ownership and monopolization with limited opportunity and competition, technological stagnation, gross inefficiency, high costs and prices, and poor quality and safety. U.S. transportation spending by federal, state, and local governments totals over $400 billion annually, in addition to about 15% of their incomes spent by American consumers.

The government, which started building, owning, and maintaining the public road system during the early 1800s and the national highway system in the mid-1900s, has favored construction contractors, and caused traffic congestion and delays, maintenance failures, and massive human and animal death tolls. Roads are subsidized since consumers don’t have to pay much of the costs through fuel or other user taxes. The Securities and Exchange Commission monopolized auto manufacturing by blocking startups during the mid-1900s, and the government continues to favor the Big Three Automakers with subsidies and import restrictions. Government favors expensive electric vehicles over other zero emission technologies like fuel cells. The government monopolized the railroads with preferential land grants during the mid-1800s, and continues to favor the Big Four Railroads with subsidies and tight regulation on both the federal and state levels. The government has built public light rail even though it does not respond to the travel needs of modern decentralized cities, and revenues are generally unable to cover operating costs, much less capital costs. Government has favored mega trucking carriers over independent truck drivers with excessive regulation. Government has granted taxicab and bus monopolies, and prohibited private jitney services, while not regulating tech companies like Uber. Government has nationalized airports and air traffic control systems, while favoring the Big Four Airlines, especially at hub terminals. The Federal Aviation Administration caused the re-cartelization of commercial aviation via rationing of take-off and landing rights and controlling scheduling in the name of unrealized safety. Government military spending has corrupted transportation manufacturing. The government preferentially licenses Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs) in the supposed name of character and financial responsibility. The government has nationalized seaports while favoring labor unions. The Jones Act prevents foreign-flagged ships from carrying cargo between the contiguous U.S. and certain noncontiguous parts of the U.S., such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam. The government has nationalized ocean shipping services, such as lighting, marking, and dredging, that are required for safe passage, especially in coastal areas and in the vicinity of ports.

SOLUTION The transportation industry should be governed by competitive free markets with complete privatization, deregulation, and strict liability. Free markets have already been mostly proven throughout transportation industries at different times and in different countries. Roads and railroads should have been continued to be built and owned by the private sector long ago. Auto manufacturing should be a level playing field without mandates, subsidies, and bailouts, and import tariffs and quotas. The railroads should not continue to receive subsidies. Public light rail should not be built by government. Trucking should be completely deregulated. Private transit organizations, like taxicab, bus and jitney services, should not be burdened with laws restricting competition, including licensing. Airports and air traffic control systems should be privatized and deregulated on both the federal and state levels. Commercial shipping should be deregulated on both the federal and state levels, and the Jones Act repealed. All government agencies concerned with transportation should be eliminated; including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission. Legitimate functions now handled by government, such as licensing and liability insurance, should be allowed to transfer to competitive private firms. The government could continue to provide ocean shipping services including policing the roads and protecting water trade routes against pirates.

TRANSITION Free markets should be instituted immediately for auto manufacturing, and transportation services including trucking, taxicab, bus, and jitney. Airports and seaports should be privatized as soon as possible through transparent sales in parts or whole to the highest bidders. Airlines and ocean shipping should be deregulated to free markets soon thereafter. We concede the opportunity to achieve competitive free markets for land transportation infrastructure, namely roadways and railways, may have been missed long ago, since it is unclear whether enough competition could now develop, especially given land constraints and exploitative human nature. We support the development of competitive alternatives to land transportation, especially the current movement toward flying cars and other air transport, through the elimination of all subsidies throughout the transportation industry. Government agencies concerned with transportation should be eliminated as markets become competitive and legitimate functions now handled by government are transferred to private firms. 

                                                    TECH

PROBLEM. Free markets would generally involve tech companies developing software and hardware and providing goods and services bought by consumers and businesses. Government has intervened to remedy perceived market imperfections, especially the need to recoup the cost of development investments. Government has awarded the tech industry with grants and intellectual property (IP) protections. Tech has dominated patents and copyright compared to other industries. Throughout the history of the U.S. technology industry, tech giants from AT&T to IBM to Microsoft and later the rest of the Magnificent Seven have used intellectual property rights to create monopolies and squash competitors. Antitrust actions against AT&T, IBM and Microsoft just led to the next round of monopolies. Excessive IP protections were granted even when basic and some practical technologies were developed using grants provided by the U.S. government, including the CIA and NSA. Patents, granted for 20 years, are often general and trivial, and block even largely unrelated inventions. Copyright, which is awarded for the life of the author plus 70 years, blocks even obvious solutions by others. Big Tech hires large legal staffs to accumulate broad IP protections and sue competitors for violating them. They also take technology from smaller businesses that can’t afford to defend patents by invalidating them in court and administrative hearings, pressuring sale of their company or technology, and copying them if they won’t sell. Obama promised patent reform, but he just made it worse by creating an administrative patent review process that employs politically-appointed judges who favor Big Tech. Tech giants often use monopoly power and profits to expand into related markets. Tech giants violate privacy, censor information, computerize discrimination, favor political interests, facilitate authoritarianism and cause other societal problems.

Companies providing telephone, cable, and internet are granted public utility monopolies. Internet utility monopolies have failed to build broadband for many rural areas while others have required government support to do it. Moreover, TV and radio channels are awarded preferential use of the airwaves.

SOLUTION. Tech should be free markets. We will eliminate the monopoly power of tech giants to provide economic and technological benefits, and increased competition to reduce the ability of abuse the rights of customers. We will eliminate all government interventions. Intellectual property (IP) protections from competition that government awards to the tech industry are excessive, especially considering the technology is advancing rapidly. Since tech IP has proved too political to regulate, the obvious solution is to eliminate patents and copyright. We will eliminate government grants. Competition is needed to incentivize tech companies to produce what consumers want at a reasonable price. We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges and governmental monopolies for tech services, including telephone, cable, and internet.

TRANSITION. We will phase out government grants. The lifetimes of patents and copyright will be progressively shortened, including within trade agreements, unless the benefits of competition are outweighed by problems that may develop, such as inadequate investment. All companies will be allowed to immediately start building competing distribution networks, including using existing rights of way and utility poles, for the elimination of telephone, cable and internet monopolies.

                                                     BANKING

PROBLEM. Free markets would involve banks paying interest rates to people for depositing money with them, using the deposits to make a larger base (and thereby create money), and loan the increased money supply to consumers and businesses at a higher interest rate. Free banking would allow the banks to issue paper and digital currency, and credible rating agencies and private deposit insurance would develop to protect savings. But there has never been anything close to a free market in banking, even though it has worked in other countries. The federal and state governments have always intervened with regulation to remedy the perceived market imperfection that the markets are unable to judge risky investments by the bank that would threaten savings and bank solvency. The government has also used the banks to implement monetary policy. Both policies have led to largely shielding the banks from the disciplining effects of free market competition. The government has used regulation to gain advantage for themselves and those that they favor and favor them, especially the big banks. The government has created a banking oligopoly consisting of large banks that control significant market shares and lead the nation’s most profitable industry.

Federal and state regulators have required banks to obtain charters that have been used to restrict entry and competition in the industry in favor of cartels of privately-owned banks. Some have been considered “too big to fail,” which reduces their cost of capital. Monopoly power allows banks to treat savers and borrowers unfairly including imposing a spread between loan and deposit rates that reduces individual savings and increases investment costs for businesses. Banks also conduct illegal practices, including misapplied payments, wrongful foreclosures, and incorrect fees and interest charges. Fixed federal deposit insurance allows state regulators to permit local banks to engage in excess risk taking and impose the costs on banks in other jurisdictions. The promise of bailouts has allowed national banks to continue making risky investments, including loaning to unregulated banking firms that are buying up homes, creating a housing bubble and setting up the country for more bailouts. After a crisis occurs, regulators claim they are stabilizing the financial system with emergency mergers and acquisitions and other measures, such as relaxing the rules to fit the business needs of the banks, that increase the level of concentration even more. The government commits to accommodating banks’ private deposit liabilities and guarantees their full convertibility into currency at par, on demand. The federal government bailed out failing financial institutions and banks in 2008 after they made risky investments to achieve higher profits.

Government monetary and fiscal expansionary policies (i.e., printing money, lowering interest rates, deficit spending, etc.), often made in response to economic stagnation and unemployment caused by government policies favoring special interests, is the primary cause of asset and often consumer price inflation, and government monetary and fiscal contractionary policies, made in response to this inflation, is the primary cause of recession and depression. Deficit spending is unsustainable, because the debt keeps growing and compounding by the interest payments, especially when higher interest rates are needed to fight inflation.

The government also regulates securities, which are financial assets often used to raise capital in public and private markets, such as stocks, bonds, notes, and debentures, and can be traded. The regulation of securities at the federal and state levels began after Congress falsely blamed the Wall Street Crash of 1929 largely on the lack of relevant information given to investors. The federal securities laws require disclosure, but also dictate certain issues of corporate governance. State “blue sky” laws governing the issuance and trading of securities mostly deal with fraud and investigation, and the registration of securities and broker-dealers. Securities regulation represses small and risky capital ventures. Government regulation of capital markets inhibits investment, and creates marketplace advantage for those with political access, through exemptions to laws against fraud and breach of contract. The courts have not adequately protected against fraud.

The government has regulated the trading of future contacts in commodities, including metals, fuels, and agricultural products. Recently, bitcoin was declared a commodity. The mission of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is to protect the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices in the sale of commodity futures and options. But the regulation of commodity trading manipulation has been found to be ineffective, confused and not sufficiently based on economics. The jurisprudence has proved no better.

Insurance could also operate as free markets with people purchasing protection against unexpected financial losses from companies that invest the money and pay them if something bad happens. State governments have intervened with regulation to remedy the perceived market imperfection that the insured and markets are unable to judge risky investments by insurance companies that would threaten their solvency. Insurance companies have been hampered by the inconsistency of the dissimilar rules and requirements among the states, as well as favoritism for local and other preferred companies by state regulators.

SOLUTION. Banking, monetary, securities, commodities and insurance should be free markets. We will eliminate all government interventions, including all banking, monetary (and fiscal), securities, commodity, and insurance regulations, except the general protection against fraud and breach of contract. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. To achieve rapid and sustainable economic growth with competitive and stable prices, we will institute a free-market economy.

We will eliminate restrictions on competition among banks and depository institutions of all types, including commercial and retail banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, investment banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies and mortgage companies. We will eliminate federal and state regulations requiring privately-owned banks to secure charters. We call for the abolition of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit. We also call for the abolition of the National Credit Union Administration, the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility, and all similar national and state interventions affecting savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other depository institutions. We favor the Jacksonian independent treasury system, in which all government funds are held by the government itself and not deposited in any private banks. 

We seek market discipline and elimination of all government regulation of banking including: (a) all controls on the rate of interest, (b) the lifting of all federal and state restrictions on branch banking, (b) the repeal of all state usury laws (c) the removal of all remaining restrictions on the interest paid for deposits, (d) the elimination of laws setting margin requirements on purchases and sales of securities, (e) the revocation of all other selective credit controls, (f) the abolition of Federal Reserve control over the reserves of non-member banks and other depository institutions, and (g) the lifting of the prohibition of domestic deposits denominated in foreign currencies.

We will institute free banking where banks and associations of banks are free to issue their own paper and digital currency. Market forces should control the total quantity of banknotes and deposits that can be supported by any given stock of cash reserves, and where such reserves consist of a scarce commodity (such as gold). We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins.  All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market. The government should do nothing to either encourage or discourage the use of currencies like gold and bitcoin. We will not allow crypto-currency to be used to circumvent government collection of revenues.

We call for the abolition of the Securities and Exchange Commission, state "Blue Sky" laws, and all federal regulation of securities and commodity markets, and all state regulation of insurance.  We oppose all laws restricting the right of third parties to make stock purchase tender offers to stockholders over the opposition of entrenched management. We call for more vigorous prosecution in the courts of fraud, manipulation and political payoffs in banking, monetary policy, securities, commodities, and insurance.

TRANSITION. We would require the Fed to immediately operate transparently to prevent the clandestine manipulation of interest rates. We seek the formulation of a specific transition plan for eliminating banking, monetary, securities, commodity, and insurance regulations. We also seek tort reform to replace regulation with a court system that more vigorously prosecutes fraud and manipulation in the financial markets. The transition plan should establish more competitive conditions among banks before eliminating regulations preventing risky investments, and among companies in all industries before eliminating interest rate manipulation. Unfortunately, the current monopolized economy must be rescued from recession by stimulating economic growth with the printing of money. These interventions greatly affect the profitability and solvency of the banks. As a free-market economy becomes more established in all industries, we will phase out monetary and fiscal manipulations, the resulting boom and bust cycles, the buildup of excessive debt, and banking regulations (e.g., charters), before eventually eliminating the Fed.