DRP Platform

The proposal calls taxes evil, and it calls them unnecessary.

He calls taxation theft under threat of force. Government, in his view, has no special permission to take money that way. It should pay for roads, courts, police, and the military the way anyone else pays bills: by earning. He does not prescribe the method, only the limit. Do not assault or rob people to get the money.

Ideally, he says, government would take care of people’s needs and desires by selling goods and services that citizens already demand.

The proposal calls inflation bad, and it calls deflation good when that deflation comes from abundance.

He treats credit as inherently valuable. Money becoming more valuable makes credit more precious, not less. He rejects the idea that abundance-driven deflation must spiral through debt. On a fixed mortgage, the dollar payments and the interest stay what was agreed. He also says goods and services have inherent value, so demand can be pushed down only so far. With enough abundance, he says, lenders can still profit at negative interest rates.

The proposal says money should not be the hegemonic unit of value in society.

He does not mean that money must stop being widely used, or even that it cannot sit on top. He means it must not be the only yardstick, and that too few things count as money. Exchanges become unfair, he says, when objective value in things other than money is barely recognized.

He wants more kinds of money, provided fraud can be investigated. Other value systems should be formalized at least enough to judge fairness after a transaction, and at a certain level they must be financially unregulated. Barter has to remain valid. That does not make it legal to barter illegal goods, such as slaves.

The proposal says free speech must be absolute, short of explicitly wishing for or celebrating death or bodily harm upon a person or a people.

He also describes the forbidden speech as wishing for, calling for, or celebrating murder or other permanent physical injury. He says the two wordings do not necessarily contradict, and that either is likely to be enough.

The rule applies in state, corporate, private, and other settings. Dangerous speech is to be punished. Every other kind of speech is to be defended. Punishment itself must stay moral.

The proposal prohibits abortion, including contraceptives and every form of pregnancy prevention or negation, except to prevent the death of the mother.

He treats eggs, sperm, and fetuses as living persons, and he ranks human life first. He opposes contraception both because some methods act after conception and because prevention as a whole is wrong. Natural losses are blameless. Deliberate prevention is not, and so is negligent prevention: you can be wrong without intending the harm.

He calls abortion murder. The exception is likely death, not mere risk. The parents decide. If they disagree, the doctors use their best judgment. He calls abstinence immoral, but he would leave it legal, because outlawing it would require forcing sex.

The proposal calls for unlimited legal immigration, with immigrants controlled in a strong, authoritarian way.

He means immigrants would be second-class citizens under total surveillance and policing, largely told how to live good lives. It is voluntary. No one is forced to come. The measures are for their protection and for the existing fabric of society. They may leave whenever they want.

Citizenship comes after a person proves himself over a sufficient period, if he wants it. A citizen is no longer second class. Children born here would pass through the same probation, and he expects they would find it easier. Birthright citizenship, in his view, could come with that probation. Everyone has a right to watch the watchers.

The proposal calls for an American monarchy, and for a great restriction of the vote and of democratic mechanisms.

He says monarchy is superior because people fear the truth and to some degree cannot handle it, while a king can pursue truth more courageously. The people’s power to select a new king cannot, in his view, be fully suppressed, and the people are generally a larger threat to the king than he is to them, so the system sustains and cleans itself in a way democracy does not. Tragic as a king’s personal fate may be, he says monarchy makes a superior society.

The form he names is an elective monarchy through a witenagemot, a basileia, not a president and a senate. Crowning a king takes a unanimous decision, and so does deposing one. If no king is agreed, the best available man is appointed Lord Protector and Highest Steward of the Realm by a simple majority. He called the arrangement a golden triad of light. The search for new prospects never stops. Civil conflict, he says, need not be to the death, and replacing the present government should happen without getting anyone killed.

People would still vote on what the executives allow, at local, state, and federal level. They would not have a formal power to depose, only the power to make their voices heard. Only the witenagemot can formally depose. He remembers a council of about twenty-seven, nine from each of three categories, sitting for life, expelled only by unanimous decision of the other members and the king or steward. An expelled member has a sacred right to a speech, public or private, of any length, recorded for posterity. A Lord Protector does not veto the council. He has one vote.

The proposal says the climate and the environment should be protected using a reasonable level of coercion.

Nothing is completely off the table. What keeps coercion reasonable is using the minimum necessary amount. A tool his government otherwise prohibits, a tax for example, is allowed only with an objective moral justification that it is effective and the least coercive effective option. Without that, he says the government has committed a violent crime.

He thinks warming is real and might justify some marginal coercion. He does not treat it as a reason to long for colder weather. He agreed that the serious force of the policy is for direct pollution, such as sewage in rivers and smog.

The proposal says science and logic have proved a deistic God.

His proof, in his own order, is this. Energy defines consciousness. Mass and energy are convertible. Boundaries are inherently imperfect and to a great degree imaginary. Therefore the universe is one living entity, and we are a very small part of it. If those steps hold, he can think of no better definition of God than the universe. He also says nothing lacks consciousness, because everything is energy.

He does not claim a separate creator. He claims the universe is eternal and calls it God. He keeps the word deistic, and he rejects the idea that deism forbids intervention or requires a split between God and the world. Miracles and what he calls magic are real, and God can intervene, but not as a cartoon that breaks the laws of physics. Those laws are never broken. He says energy and light are substances, corporeal and tangible.

This is his argument, not the kalam cosmological argument. He rejects other names that collapse the view into a doctrine he does not accept.

The proposal calls for a foreign policy of hyper-agressive, nonlethal interventionism. That is the spelling in the text.

He says you intervene because you cannot trust people to work together or to refrain from killing one another. The means he names are standard warfare, heavy research into nonlethal warfare, and extremely strong defense. He is calling for a unifying conquest of the earth. He says it can be done if we want it done, and he grants that interventionism bleeds you.

Favorites among nations are allowed, and he says they exist for a reason, but everyone is welcome on the winning side. He does not care which country carries the policy out. Doing it peacefully is how a country earns it. He agrees with many criticisms of America. Both sides in a conflict, he says, are almost always terrible, and it still matters which is worse.

The proposal says we should challenge and debunk what it calls the anti-scientific lie that people are equal to one another.

He says there is no sense in which people are equal, including ability, worth, and rights. He says many people do claim literal equality, in public and in private, while behavior and law contradict the claim. He calls that pandering, posturing, and hallucination.

Equality as a goal, he says, is immoral, even though that sentence is outside the written claim. Mutual dignity does not require it. Diversity and equality are zero-sum in his view. Diversity is good, and equality is bad. He rejects the softer line that diversity only means something because people are unequal.

The proposal calls tariffs a moral good when their purpose is stimulating an abundance of production.

He says the tariff exists first to push overproduction and to create positive, abundance-driven deflation. It fails if it is not truly prohibitive, or if it is not enforced. If a tariff is prohibitive as intended, and overproduction and deflation relative to global demand still do not follow, he says that would be strong evidence that he is wrong.

He treats it as a tool for a world of rival nations. After unification, he says, there is no need for it, because the correct fiscal policy can then be set directly. Gains from trade, he says, should not stop at a border, but national security requires that they do until unification. The state, in his account, insures the financial survival of affected essential businesses for a reasonable period and legally requires sufficient production in every sector.

The proposal says prisoners should be free to work a normal job at a normal competitive wage, to purchase and use land and property normally, and to spend unlimited time with anyone who wishes to spend it with them.

He wants punishment to be psychological, not physical. Psychic misery, he says, hurts more efficiently and is humane, and corrective pain for habilitation is easy to inflict that way. Making a prisoner suffer beyond that reveals criminality in the punisher. A murderer is eternally damned for what he did. To make him suffer for reasons other than regret at his actions does a disservice to that goal.

Restitution would occur, and from the prisoner’s side it would look the way taxes look now. The prison would take the form of a city or town. A gang goes in with its boss, and crime-fighting continues as normal.

The proposal abolishes standards of evidence below beyond a reasonable doubt, and it abolishes non-jury trials, both in criminal cases and in civil ones.

He includes small civil cases. A case is a case. He agrees that jurors can fail, and he answers that any twelve jurors are likely to be at least as fair as an average judge, because there are a lot of bad judges.

If that is not enough, judges must meet a drastically higher standard, and the accused chooses the format. The choice is an addition, not a substitute: the higher standard for judges, and the accused’s choice between a jury and a judge whose identity is disclosed first. He said that with the higher standard, juries could even be dispensed with.

The proposal says hire many more police, pay them much better, and abolish lethal force in law enforcement.

More police, because we do not deter enough crime. Better pay, because the work is extremely hard and dangerous, and it will be more dangerous still when it is nonlethal only.

Abolition is not immediate. It follows the same timeline as the regulation of lethal weapons generally: lethal force goes once nonlethal weapons are comparably effective and available. Until then, lethal weapons are overwhelmingly more effective, and he holds that there is a sacred right to use them to defend loved ones and to enforce law and order. Killing is wrong in principle, and the lack of a comparable nonlethal option is the excuse. Police are held to the same standard as anyone else.

The proposal resolves that humans are naturally wicked.

He means we are born into sin and live in it, because staying alive takes from the rest of the world: food, shelter, and a mother’s body, before any choice is possible. That is not a reason to hate yourself. It is easier to be good, he says, once you realize you are not good inherently.

Babies are not a blank start. Good and evil are about living morally or immorally. Nature is good, because life is a blessing, and nothing is neutral. Life is divine, and survival requires sin. The conscience exists to make that necessary sin more efficient, and being more efficient largely means being a better person.

The proposal says globalism is superior to nationalism.

For him, that means unifying the earth under one government, by weapons and strategies designed to be nonlethal, not guaranteed never to kill. The end he names is inventing immortality and resurrection, and seeing humanity become what he calls angelic superbeings over millennia. Unification, he says, is the logical way to maximize the chance of that success. He finds it deeply offensive that humanity is not yet a single planetary civilization in the scale he uses.

He will create a monarchy, not a democracy. The first step in each country is still to persuade a majority of its citizens. He also says he uses the will of the people because he understands that appeal, not because it is his creed. Taking power by the most peaceful available path, he says, makes it hard for a more violent deposition to claim the moral high ground. He does not intend to hide his intentions.

He is proud to be white, he loves diversity, and he does not want any race to go extinct, including his own. As a global minority, he says, the choice is to rule or be ruled. Ruling, he will protect his own race and every other race. Unification, as he approved it said, does not require dissolving cultures. A world government has reason to protect them. No one may secede. Local governance may vary, but only to a degree.

The proposal says that, except for slavery, the right to own and control physical property shall not be infringed.

He grounds that claim in natural philosophy first, and in the Constitution sometimes, as support. The party’s abolition of taxes is a separate issue, and he invokes it here. Government may not force a sale unless it can show a clear and present danger that national security requires the taking.

Property can be forfeited after a conviction, if there is a real reason. Zoning and homeowners’ associations are mixed: mostly illegitimate, with real safety interests still in view. Someone who refuses to leave in breach of contract should be jailed.

The proposal says slavery shall forever be illegal and condemned.

Asked how far the condemnation goes, he said both: as a moral absolute, and so that slavery cannot return under a new name. He does not count low-wage work as slavery. He does not think the constitutional exception that allows involuntary servitude as punishment for crime should be removed. He gave no further reason for that last answer.

Officials who protect trafficking, or who ignore it, are accomplices in his view, and they should also be charged for betraying their oath. Reparations are a separate topic. He does not think they are all bad. He thinks they should not be paid with tax dollars.

The proposal says Socialism and Communism are evil to the extent that they are funded coercively, or usurp the authority of the state. The platform text spells that word coersively.

On taxing the rich for social programs, his answer is that the party stands for abolishing taxes. On a socialism that rejects the state, he says “reject” is a slippery word: rejection can be peaceful or violent, and either can be justified or not. Cultural socialism, he says, is fine and good. Subversion of institutions is not.

If banks will not lend to a cooperative, his answer is that those people should find funding elsewhere, or they are likely not responsible enough to borrow.

The proposal says all drugs should be legalized and regulated.

He largely accepts that adults decide what goes into their bodies, that the law targets harm to others, that sellers must label honestly and answer for what they sell, and that a store is better than a street dealer. There are limits. He first said a drug that kills in one dose would stay banned, then revised that: lethal drugs would be legal, and regulated as a lethal bioweapon.

He sorts the rest by danger. Everyday drugs are ordinary, under a maturity test. Dangerous drugs that have safe doses need a license that is extremely hard for a casual user to get. Fentanyl, he says, has safe quantities and a legitimate use for the acutely injured. Maturity is psychological and physical. He would abolish a hard age line for a reasonable-person test of the whole situation, and he insists that a maturity test is still an age test, only a scalpel rather than a buzz saw. Sellers who fail start with fines, and prison is an option if they persist. Medical-only legalization, he says, can be useful and is still bad faith, because it is closed to the need he says everyone has for effective recreation.

The proposal says suicide should be illegal.

It is wrong, he says, because all good is possible only through life. A life does not belong only to the person living it. Identity includes other people. In many ways a person should be free, but the life belongs to God, or the universe, which he calls the same thing, and there is no right to destroy it on purpose.

For constant, unmanageable, debilitating pain, he prescribes a medically induced coma. Someone who tries to die, and who committed no further crime, goes into medical custody. Someone who assists goes into ordinary custody. He applies the same reasoning to pets: euthanasia is not acceptable there either.

The proposal says immortality and resurrection are the highest, most noble aspirations of humanity.

In the account of this discussion, death does not give life meaning. What is precious in a rare thing, on his comparison with gold, is quality, not scarcity, and scarcity never fully disappears: one place, one person, one act at a time. “Eventually” is worth almost nothing beside now, so urgency does not depend on death. Immortality and resurrection do not outrank justice or love. They are the only way, in this account, to honor justice and love.

He has called himself a temporarily embarrassed immortal. He has also said that unifying the world is the logical way to improve the chance of success at immortality and resurrection.

The proposal says all weapons should be legal and reasonably regulated.

All means all, including the most destructive weapons. Regulation can still be written so that even a state would struggle to meet it. For lethal weapons, the heavy regulation waits until nonlethal weapons are comparably effective and available. After that, a person would have to convince the state that he does not intend to kill anyone, even in self-defense. Until then, lethal weapons are overwhelmingly more effective, very little regulation can be justified, and he says men have a sacred right to use them to defend their loved ones and to enforce law and order.

The proposal says society should embrace polygyny, spelled that way in the text, and all other means of maximizing birthrates.

He wants the word polygyny said outright. His argument, against a man who will not have children while prices are high, is that children are an investment that pays out hugely, not a financial loss, before morality is even counted. Polygyny helps, he says, only after a man masters one woman: earn her, provide for her, and the resources to master many follow. A household of several wives, he says, saves time and money by economy of scale. Failure to master even one woman, in today’s societies, is a failure of skill and of bravery.

He rejected a softer wording that dropped “master.” The public line he approved keeps that word, names polygyny, and concedes none of the complaint about prices.

The proposal says it is wrong to be gay.

Asked whether the view rests on scripture, he gave a different primary reason: homosexuality kills eggs and sperm that would otherwise grow to adulthood. There are further harms, including what he calls a dilution of masculinity in society. Other acts that harm sperm and eggs are also bad. The response, law or culture or persuasion, depends on how large the stakes are.

Homosexuality as an emotion is legal and should be fought culturally. Sex between men should be illegal. Female bisexuality, done along with trying to have children by her husband or by the man of her household, he calls good. Pleasure between women does not, in his account, kill eggs, and he says there is nothing inherently degrading to masculinity in it. He also points to the party’s rejection of equality.

The proposal says that, with the current technology, it is wrong to be trans.

The wrong, he says, is that the technology cannot deliver a good result. It is about the outcome, not about calling the feeling a sin. As an emotion, it should be legal. The drugs and surgeries that affirm a transition are to be banned at the earliest opportunity, for adults as well as minors, until a transition is real. First stop the harm, then see what restitution is owed. An earlier, narrower line limited the ban to procedures that sterilize or damage reproductive organs. He later widened it to all affirming drugs and surgeries. Sterilization remains the sharpest harm, not the only one.

Vasectomy and tubal ligation are also bad and must be prevented, within reason. Within reason means a good-faith effort to prevent something worse, and he means something worse physically. Feelings are never a valid reason to sterilize a human being.

The proposal says prostitution should be legal and regulated.

He says it is not chiefly about empowering women, although it can and does. It is about empowering men. Voluntary sex, in his words, is a product with a market price, and refusing to pretend otherwise does not cause trafficking. Trafficking is a crime against a victim and remains a crime.

He wants unreasonable regulations stripped away so the legal trade can meet legitimate demand, and an all-out campaign against the illegal side until that side is gone. It is wrong, he says, to shame the work as such. Bad practitioners should be shamed, as in any profession. He also says there are more women than men, that each professional serves many men, and that the felt shortage is of ordinary intimacy, which turns on family formation, economics, romance, parenting, and adult examples.

The proposal says the military should exclusively use nonlethal force.

Killing, in his account, is wrong in principle. At the small scale, a situation can force a person to kill in defense, because highly effective nonlethal weapons are not available. That killing is excused, not approved, and the lack of the tools is itself immoral. It is not a reason to kill en masse, and a military is the mass case.

Where nonlethal restraint costs an innocent life, he calls that the price of a just war. He is not saying the innocent should die so that a killer’s soul stays clean. His phrase is that he is spending the child to save the immortal soul of the father, and he corrected the reading that treats this as approval of the child’s death.

The proposal prohibits the death penalty in all circumstances.

For the worst killers, he names three gains in keeping them alive: the fruit of their future labor, the chance to redeem them, and the knowledge that we have not presumed to speak with the authority of God. For a listener who rejects God, he says to substitute the phrase “objective morality,” which he says means the same thing.

A prisoner who kills again can be held where he is no threat, under the prison he has already described, not as cruelty for its own sake. He would rather have had tyrants alive, because living men make history harder to lie about. He grants that a mission of resurrection lowers the price of murder. He says the price is still too high.