Achieving bipartisanship on social issues---the politics of civility, co-operation, and mutal respect---is a major reform of American politics offered only by the FRE party. The politics of partisanship is often rude, occasionally vicious, always contentious and ever-more polarizing. The morality and love of liberty is the moral glue in America which unites non-partisan voters with the center-Left and center-Right in the FRE party as it seeks bipartisanship on political issues.

1. Abortion

Perhaps no other issue is as permanently divisive as abortion, because 1). Both sides of the issue make excellent moral arguments to bolster their support or opposition to legal abortion and 2). Both sides are self-contradictory. Because both sides are morally self-contradictory, this is not an issue which is ever going to simply 'go away.' So the FRE party adopts a stand on abortion which incorporates both center-Left and center-Right views, to achieve the broadest possible consensus by balancing the opposing views and being moderate. This means, not everyone is going to be happy with FRE's bipartisan stand on abortion, but then, not everyone is happy with either of the two partisan stands.

For the center-Left, having an abortion is the right of every woman to decide. It is her choice to give birth or to have an abortion, and their stand uses the phrase "pro-choice" to express their view. They have a principled, moral stand on the issue. [Perhaps the moral self-contradiction should be mentioned here: Many of the same people on the Left who support a woman's free choice on abortion then oppose that same woman having free choice on where to school her child. All politics is a morality play, and all humans are sometimes self-contradictory, including morally.]

For the center-Right, an abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and often their stand is rooted in religion's divine moral commandment: 'Thou shall not kill.' Clearly humanity over the millennia has adopted moral exceptions to the divine command not to kill (self-defense or killing in 'just war'), and the center-Right presents several exceptions to the absolutist prohibition on a woman having an abortion, as in cases of incest, rape, sexual assault, fetal deformity, and the life of the mother who would likely die in childbirth. [It must be mentioned here that some of the people on the Right who make the moral argument against abortion because of its killing are the same ardent supporters of an aggressive foreign policy of waging interventionist wars. Again, all politics is a morality play, and all humans are sometimes self-contradictory.]

To the center-Right, the woman is at least half-responsible for her pregnancy from having voluntary sex. In their center-Right view, the future human should not have its life extinguished by the 'irresponsible' woman having an abortion. Laws have been passed to make the father partly responsible financially for the mother's cost of raising the child, in an effort to make the responsibility for the birth a mutual effort.

But something which is rarely mentioned in the fierce debates about assigned responsibility and irresponsibility over abortion is: What is the unintended result of giving birth to unwanted children? The exceptions to prohibiting abortions share the feature of a pregnant woman deciding to not give birth to an unwanted infant, due to having involuntary sex from incest or rape. But little debate is devoted to the futures of unwanted children born after having voluntary sex.

There are some 500,000 to 2,000,000 abortions each year in the U.S., and it is likely that a substantial portion of these abortions are the decision of women to not devote the next eighteen years raising an unwanted child. She also knows that it will cost her some hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise the child to self-sufficiency. Instead of being the wanted child of a mother's joy, the unwanted child is the mother's chore, an impoverishing burden, especially if she is unmarried.

An argument can be made that American prisons and jails are full to over-flowing (2,000,000 prisoners) with sociopathic adults who were never wanted as a child. The unwanted child is more likely to develop a personal adult psychology that is socially stunted. Not an abnormal psychology, but one not fully socially adapted. How many or what percentage of unwanted children become an uncaring adult inflicting harm on others?

Philosopher William James, father of American psychology, wrote a century ago that "the fundamental principle of human nature is the craving for appreciation." None of this deepest psychological insight about humanity is ever included in the debate over abortion. Quite simply, this primary natural feature of every human being is violated by giving birth to children who are not 'appreciated,' 'wanted,' or 'approved-of.' The unwanted birth often becomes a future jail sentence to be enforced around eighteen to twenty-five years after the unwanted birth. The unwanted children make up our future prison population, and America is notorious for having the largest prison population in the world.

To balance the center-Left and center-Right moral views on abortion, and especially to include the moral, life-long consequences of unwanted birth, the FRE party's position on the issue of abortion is:
a. In our 'Human Rights Amendment' to the Constitution, every law-abiding adult citizen is sovereign over their mind and body, which means that a woman's decision to give birth or have an abortion is hers. The father should be consulted, but the decision is her's.
b. Her sovereignty over her decision is absolute during the first trimester of her pregnancy, but fades by the length of her pregnancy afterward. Beyond four months, the abortion must have an arrested rapist, or a DNA sperm sample, or proof of fetal deformity, or a medical doctor's diagnosis of peril to the woman's life if she gives birth.
c. No government funds pay for the abortion. Instead, the cost is entirely paid by the extended two families of the pregnant adults, or by private donations. One of the most notorious features of the 'Progressive Era' in 20C American politics is the destruction of the family ethic. Making the cost of an abortion a two-family responsibility could help restore some of the destroyed family ethic.
d. Impoverished young adult men not wanting to have family children can store their semen sample in a sperm bank at minimal rental cost in case they change their mind, and then have a permanent vasectomy at a State's government expense. Women not wanting to give birth to an unwanted child can practice birth control (after their doctor tells them these are hormones and what the several side-effetcs are), and the young men who do not want to have a vasectomy should carry condoms. Their sex lives may actually improve when anti-family men are voluntarily sterile (merely sterile and still enjoying an orgasm, not dysfunctional). The American culture will grow stronger by building on the joy of wanted children. The generations of millions of unwanted children and the mega-size of prison populations of sociopaths might slowly decline, as a result.

2. Bipartisanship vs Partisanship

It is how they think---how they make decisions---which is the major difference between political partisans and bipartisans. They think differently and both wrap themselves in moral argument to justify their decisions, preferences, and choices. The fact that they both have an alternative or contrary opinion from the other is entirely normal, because the fact that one human being thinks differently from another human is an obvious feature in all of humanity. The naturalness and certainty that all humans are capable of forming and then expressing an alternative opinion or contrary point of view is the epistemological grounding of the philosophy of freedom. Free speech, free press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are grounded in the certainty that all humans, by their nature, naturally form different opinions and points of view.

A Nobel Prize was awarded in 1989 for the scientific research into the bifurcated brain in all of humanity. Another Nobel Prize was awarded in 2002 for the scientific research into humanity's bifurcated mind with its two contrasting methods of thinking, one "slow" and the other "fast." Yet while a bifurcated mind has been a natural feature of humanity for over two million years, religions and politics for the past ten thousand years have successfully stifled humanity's natural diversity of opinions and ways of thinking.

Christians burned tens of thousands of their fellow Christians at the stake, Muslims beheaded tens of thousands of their fellow Muslims, and racists, nationalists, and socialists shot, gassed, starved and mass-murdered more than 100 million innocent people during the 20C, all for the crime or sin of having in some way a different way of thinking, or expressing a contrary opinion, or having an alternative point of view. Religious heresy and apostasy became modern crimes ('sin') deserving death in the 20C atheist ideologies. 'Cancel culture' is the newest religious orthodoxy.

The two ways of thinking in the divided brain are both entirely normal, and they both sincerely believe that their way of thinking is morally superior to the other. Every human has both ways of thinking, but usually one dominates. The dominant method of thinking often becomes the narrow-minded partisan, and the partisan, if not careful to balance the two methids of thinking, will become the closed-minded extremist, humanity's greatest enemy. 

A religious or political partisan is a monist---the One---a way of thinking which highly values 'unity,' 'solidarity,' 'purity,' 'perfection,' and 'unanimity.' The monist esteems its own group (the Many) gathering as, 'the One.' Political partisans are monists whether they are atheist or religious, whether they are ideologically racist, nationalist, or socialist, whether they are on the political Left or Right. Monist thinking is driven to consolidate power, esteem their true-believers, and to centralize authority. Consider kings and conquerors, popes and ayatollahs, and autocrats and authoritarians as monists. Think of the monist as an implosion or as centrifugal force, always swirling down from the rim toward the concentrating center. The ultimate monist is the totalitarian such as the right-socialism of Fascism and Nazism or the left-socialism of Marxism, Maoism, and Communism.

In contrast, the bipartisan is a pluralist, a way of thinking which highly values 'diversity' and 'diffusion,' 'discord' and 'difference,' 'debate,' 'discussion,' and 'dialogue.' Where the monist seeks homogeneity of opinion (such as in 'political correctness' or 'safe spaces'), the pluralist seeks heterogeneity of opinions, finding that the honest critique and constructive criticism in Open Inquiry is especially valuable to human well-being. To a pluralist, Open Inquiry is humanity's greatest invention and asking honest questions is more important than a true-believer's partisan answers. A bipartisan is a pluralist, driven to diffusing power, respecting differences, and de-centralizing authority. Think of the bipartisan pluralist as an explosion or as centripetal force, always swirling up from the center out toward the expanding rim.

The monist partisan perceives its survival as depending upon uniting into One, as in, "Defend by uniting." In contrast, the bipartisan pluralist perceives that its survival is dependent upon growing, as in cellular biology: "Grow by dividing."

In their drive toward the center to become the One, monists (partisans) over the centuries sought to ban or burn books with opposing opinions, stifle or suppress open debate at universities, or they now, as groups, individuals and corporations, try to shame, insult, bully or intimidate other views into silence on social media. Desperate to turn anarchic diversity into controlled unanimity and personally feeling death-threatened by another opinion or point of view, the monist generates an unintended conformity. Seeing itself as Many gathering into One, the monist---the partisan---exhibits Janis's "group-thinking," or Nietzsche's 'herd-thinking' by extolling the virtues of the unified group: "United we stand, divided we fall." By its nature, the political partisan is a group-thinking monist. What is the consequence of this natural way of group/herd thinking by the partisan?

Monotheism is monism. Every monarchy, aristocracy, and oligarchy is monism. Every dictator is a monist. Every racist, nationalist, and socialist is a monist (the 'purity' of the race, the 'unity' of the nation, the 'solidarity' of socialism). Every political mass-murderer is a monist. There has never been---ever, anywhere---a pluralist who was a dictator, king, queen, conqueror, slave-owner or mass murderer.

The opposite way of thinking, the pluralist (bipartisan), sees herself as One gathering into Many, a society where voluntary 'co-operation' among diverse individuals is esteemed more highly than the partisan's group-thinking 'consensus.' The bipartisan pluralist exhibits independent-thinking while extolling the virtues of the autonomous, responsible individual: "Every society benefits by its individual members striving to become self-mastered," (from Duoism: The Philosophy of Freedom).

Another difference in the thinking between partisans and bipartisans is their measure of 'trust.' In psychology and psychiatry, 'trust' is the measure of any human's good mental health. Unfortunately, the partisan will often form a distrust of its opposing partisan and a worsening political polarization results. Remember, monist partisans subconsciously feel death-threatened by alternative choices and opinions, because they formed a personal identity with their One and subconsciously believe they will die if their One has opposition. The more partisan that the partisan becomes (from a narrow-mind partisan into a closed-mind extremist), then arguably the more uncertain becomes his mental health. In psychiatry, unreasonable fears are phobias and an outward display of poor mental health. Two opposing partisans locked in rigid, hate-laced, closed-door thinking become a visible demonstration of immature emotionality, even of poor mental health.

In contrast, for the bipartisan, 'trust' is the very embodiment of what it is to be bipartisan: Getting along with your fellows, teamwork, tolerance for disagreement, and the deepest respect for honest questions from independent thinking. Recall the chart in 'How' of ever-growing partisanship and extremism in American politics over the past six decades, and ask yourself an honest question: What lies at the top of this long-term partisan trend created by the two major partisan parties? Is it better social mental health, or worsening societal mental health? At what point does the friction from ever-increasing polarization become so hot that society---our democracy---either melts or flames into spontaneous combustion? At what point along that ever-worsening polarization will the American people democratically elect a dictator, ending the democracy based on prudent 'trust'?

Knowing about these two natural ways of thinking and their political consequences, the FRE party deliberately chooses to practice the pluralist politics of bipartisanship, which is being open-minded instead of narrow-minded, being conscientious instead of conforming, asking questions instead of group-thinking. American voters can decide for themselves how they want to practice politics on Election Day, and vote accordingly.

3. Budget

There are two opposite extreme political positions about government budgeting: mandatory balancing versus unrestricted spending. The FRE party offers two decades of Serious Reform Amendments to the Constitution for American citizens to consider, one of which focuses on the partisan budget process because it is the major source of legal corruption in American politics.

The center-Right calls for a balanced federal government budget, where expenditures must match revenues….a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of an always-balanced federal budget will give momentum to ever-higher taxes. The partisan duopoly can simply budget spending first and then raise taxes to balance the ever-higher spending. So the center-Right's worthwhile goal of a balanced federal budget, when it is dogmatic or absolutist, is impractical, even counter-productive.

The center-Left calls for increased government spending in excess of revenues in order to stimulate economic demand during a recession, or to pay for an improvement in social welfare. Since the government controls the printing presses, any deficiency in revenues can be easily offset by simply printing the money they want. Unfortunately, in order to spur on economic growth forever…another worthwhile goal…ever greater government spending requires unlimited printing of government money. The unlimited printing of a nation's money supply has the unintended consequence of making the money less valuable, eventually resulting in a hyper-inflation with massive unemployment, savings wiped out, and cavernous store shelves empty of anything to buy. The collapsed, hyper-inflated economies of democratic socialist Weimar Germany in the late 1920's, in democratic socialist Zimbabwe in the late 2000's, and in democratic socialist Venezuela in the late 2010's are three notable examples of the self-destructive effect of unlimited printing of the money in order to have an unlimited budget of unlimited expenses.

The FRE party's Fiscal Reform Amendment to the Constitution balances the two views of the center-Left and center-Right in such a way that deficits are permitted during war-time and the growth rates of debt, deficit, and government spending are set by the Constitution. For several decades, the two partisan parties have proven themselves to be unable to control their mutual addiction to debt, deficits, and spending. If the American voters want to reform their government's budgeting process, the FRE party's Fiscal Reform Amendment is one possible serious reform worthy of their consideration.

4. Civil Liberties, Civil Rights

With the morality of freedom as its foundational principle, the FRE party is dedicated to civil rights and civil liberties, and to defensive human rights and economic liberties. Both the center-Left and center-Right in America are committed to civil rights and civil liberties, but the center-Left in American politics can be considered to be a bit more dedicated to civil rights and the center-Right can be considered to be a bit more dedicated to civil liberties. Thankfully, both partisan parties in America share a love for liberty.

Civil rights are the right to be free from discrimination based upon inherited features such as race, gender, national origin or an inherited disability, while civil liberties are the basic freedoms. The dispute between the center-Left and center-Right over civil liberties and civil rights is based upon the center-Left's effort to expand civil rights by discriminating for an inherited feature, in order to rectify past discrimination. This discrimination 'for' is sometimes at the cost of civil liberties.

All forms of discrimination, whether for or against, produce 'exclusion,' and all human beings who feel unjustly excluded grow a natural hate against the unearned exclusion, because they correctly perceive that a moral injustice has been committed against them (think of the hate a slave has for his slave-master). They are innocent themselves, having done nothing to harm anyone else by simply being born with a different level of melanin in their skin, or another color of eyes, or with an 'innie' instead of an 'outtie.' The morality of freedom is violated whenever 'A' (a person, a group, a government, a religion) inflicts some unearned harm against 'B' (any innocent person) who has done no harm against 'C' (another innocent person). Esteemed philosopher Joseph Raz established the moral code of freedom in his 1979 work, The Morality of Freedom.

The critical feature to note in discrimination is the psychological connection that we humans make between 'innocence' and 'involuntary,' and between 'earned' and 'merit.' Civil rights and civil liberties---human freedom---are about protecting against harm inflicted upon innocent people who did not inflict any harm against another. Punishment or penalty (harm), in order to be just, is inflicted only upon the specific person who inflicted harm against other people voluntarily, i.e., punishment is 'earned,' it is 'merited. ' The infliction of harm against a person who has done no harm, i.e., someone who is innocent, is considered to be unjust and unfair. Both rewards and punishment, in order to be perceived as 'just' and 'fair,' are earned by the deeds of a person.

So, discriminating against being born left-handed or brown eyed, or freckled, or with straight blonde hair or curly black hair is unjust, unfair, and violates the morality of freedom. Such people by their existence are innocent of committing harm to people who are, by their existence, right-handed or green-eyed or with red hair. Under the morality of freedom, any discrimination either for or against skin color is unjust, unfair---immoral---because the discrimination is entirely unearned, unmerited. No harm has been done voluntarily to another person simply by being born. Deeds determine reward or punishment, not the physical features at birth!

As part of its bipartisan dedication to civil rights and civil liberties, the FRE party opposes both racist discrimination against race and racialist discrimination for race. They are both Exclusion, they both merely perpetuate hate, and both violate the human dignity, morality, rationality and epistemology in the philosophy of freedom. Both racism and racialism are born of the deterministic monist's world-view, both are irrational because they both represent the post hoc fallacy against logic, and especially important, they both violate the morality of freedom.

5. Climate Change, Global Warming, Environmentalism

The FRE party is dedicated to the government's role in achieving clean water and clean air for the American people. Clearly from private industry's history of toxic water, rivers on fire, oil spills and death-dispensing smog inversions, private industry was irresponsible about polluting the environment. In economics, this is known as 'tragedy of the commons,' so government regulation became necessary.

As dedicated as FRE is to achieving clean water and clean air, the FRE party strongly cautions against the ideology of environmentalism being made into a secular religion. The atheist ideologies of right-wing nationalism and left-wing socialism learned long ago from the history of the salvific religions that the best way to control a congregation, or get them to be obedient and make them do what they would otherwise not do, is to scare them with apocalyptic prophecies of doom and gloom, and death and disaster. Preaching fear (of imminent death, burning in hell, eternal damnation) is the tool used by religious priests and today's apochryphal politicians to assert power, dominance, and control over the congregation. The priests' death prophecy became the politician's effective propaganda.

The priests' and politicians' prophecy tool of death and disaster works because we humans respond to fear, sometimes with enjoyment. We humans enjoy being afraid, we instinctively respond to fear and fright, we love the adrenaline rush, our blood quickens with excitement at near-death experiences, we love our religious death-festivals, we love screaming on death-plunging roller-coasters or when riding through the haunted house at the county fair, or standing in at the plate against a 100-miles-an-hour fastball. Preaching fear is a very effective, although thoroughly distrustful, method of motivating and controlling the congregation, and especially to get them to unite and do as a group what they otherwise would never do as autonomous individuals...such as burning 10,000 screaming women at the stake for the mortal sin of fornicating with Satan (witchcraft), or mass suicide, or crushing an economy.  

The FRE party supports environmentalist policies which aim at clean water and clear air. The FRE party is opposed to environmentist extremism that  turns the ideology into a neurotic pessimist's secular religion full of apocalyptic prophecies, eschatological socialism, armageddonist whip-wielding and the moral blackmailing by shaming and shunning of innocent people who have an honest alternative belief system.

The FRE party's '12" Ruler Graph' (below) of atmospheric carbon dioxide measures the wide gap between quasi-religious apocalyptic prophecy of "climate change crisis" and where impartial, honest science proved the crises are genuine. The crises are, as ever, at the extremes; the moderate middle is where humanity thrives. CO2 in the atmosphere is toxic to humanity at 10" on the FRE Ruler (5,000 PPM) and at 3/8" (150 PPM). Today's atmospheric CO2 is at 415 PPM, a long, long way from a "crisis": 

Ruler Graph

In the 1970's, after a decade-long moral outrage sparked by Ralph Nader's book on the Corvair car and Rachel Carson's book on shrinking bird populations, the center-Right created the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the center-Left quickly adopted E.P.A.'s at the State level. Cleaning the environment has been a bipartisan policy ever since, for nearly fifty years.

In the same 1970's decade, a media-fed apocalyptic frenzy began about the peril to humanity from global cooling. "Record low" temperatures and "record-breaking" blizzards filled the news. Scientists used science to predict (prophesize) an imminent extinction of humanity from global cooling.

Yet less than a generation later, scientists noticed that temperatures were no longer falling to "record lows," but instead, were reaching for "record highs." The quasi-religious prophecies of imminent frozen peril from global cooling were wrong. Turning on a dime, abruptly the apocalyptic priests of global cooling in media/academia became the eschatological priestesses of global warming. Literally, by simply including the perils of global warming in their research, scientists and 'scientists' could now obtain financing for their studies. The canon became full of the personal 'sacrifice' to be made by citizens in order to 'Save the Whales,' or to 'Save Humanity,' or to 'Save the Planet.' Abraham blushed. Two covers from Time magazine show the priest/politician, media/academia 'dime-flipping' of completely opposite, environmental death-prophecies:

(Time covers) 

Then suddenly, within the same generation, temperatures began to moderate. The New York Times still reported "record highs", but their prophecy carefully filtered out the fact that the planet Earth had been a lot hotter numerous times in the past, long before the thermometer was invented in 1861. The doom-and-gloom, death-and-disaster, quasi-religion of environmentalism 'science' proved to be thrice wrong within the same twenty-five years of a single generation. Turning on another dime, the apocalyptics simply redefined the "crisis" of either cooling or warming to include both possibilities, as in the "crisis of climate change."

To make 'climate change' into a crisis, just like making both cooling and warming into a crisis, the apocalyptics have to filter out the facts of reality which prove them wrong. The full facts of reality are tough on any religion, which is why they have to filter out, or fail to mention, or blindly ignore certain facts which can disprove their belief system.

First fact: Climate change is normal on any orbiting planet or moon with an atmosphere and proximity to a star. The FRE party is not climate change 'denialists'; just the opposite: we are climate change proponents, because Earth's continuous climate changes eventually benefitted humanity. However, since climate change is normal, it is not a crisis of science; calling it a "crisis" is an opinion expressed by an apocalyptic psychology.

Weather change is a natural phenomenon on every square yard of the planet Earth's surface every hour of every day for the past four billion years. This frequency makes longer time climate changes normal. Furthermore, for billions of years the climate on early Earth was toxic to animal life; only microbes survived on toxic levels of sulphur, carbon dioxide, and methane gases in the atmosphere. The billions of years of climate changes in the Earth's atmosphere, from toxic to life-supporting, eventually benefitted the evolution of animal life.

In contrast, since it has no atmosphere, the moon has no climate. On Mars, with its atmosphere nearly gone, the planet's carbon dioxide still lies frozen on the ground. In the FRE party, we regard 'no climate' as the crisis, since humanity perishes where there is no climate change.

Second fact: Global warming is not a crisis just as global cooling is not a crisis, and calling them "crisis" is the opinion of a person with an apocalyptic personality. Global warming and global cooling ebb and flow---they cycle---with great regularity every one hundred thousand years on Earth. For millions of years, the planet Earth cools gradually for approximately 90,000 years and then quickly warms for approximately 10,000 years. What is deadly about climate to humanity are the extremes, either much too hot or much too cold, as in the porridge parable in the children's story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Further, humanity was born in Africa, the planet's hottest continent. Africa is the hottest continent because it is the only continent on Earth which has both tropical latitudes and the equator running through it. Furless humanity---the "naked ape"---thrives in global warming and perishes in global cooling.

Furless humanity thrives on Earth where it is warm enough to walk naked, and barely survives where it is so cold that thick clothing is necessary. Humanity also thrives during the current period of global warming because plants thrive where it is wet and warm (due to strong solar radiation), and die where it is wet and too cold (at the two poles with weaker solar radiation).

Third fact: The planet Earth's atmosphere is in constant flux, an on-going symbiotic balance between green plants breathing in CO2 and exhaling oxygen, even while animals breathe in the plant-life emissions of oxygen and exhale CO2. The atmospheric CO2 which can become deadly to humans at extreme levels is life-essential food to plants, and the atmospheric oxygen essential to humans is exhaled from plants. Gotta have both atmospheric gases, oxygen and carbon dioxide, in balanced moderation for both animal and plant life to thrive together on Earth.

In the fluctuating exchange of life-giving gases between plants and animals, their balance is the key. Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere is essential for green plant life, but becomes toxic to plants---they will suffocate---if it falls to 150 parts per million (PPM). Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is toxic to humans---we will suffocate---if it rises to between 5,000 to 7,000 PPM [studies by NASA (enclosed space stations) and the U.S. Navy (enclosed submarines)].

The science of biology proved that green plant life thrives when carbon dioxide is at 1,000 PPM (the pumped-in level in commercial greenhouse nurseries), more than double today's atmospheric level. Currently, the spike in carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolutions has brought its PPM up from 180 to 415 PPM (0.0004), more than double after a steady decline over hundreds of millions of years from many tens of thousands PPM (between 60,000 and 700,000 PPM). For most of Earth's four billion years' existence, the atmospheric carbon level was so high and toxic that no animal life was possible.

Humanity could have survived the extinction of green plants that nearly occurred just two centuries ago when carbon dioxide slowly collapsed over hundreds of millions of years to 180 PPM (again, green plants die at 150). We came very, very close. Remnants of humanity could have survived a green plants' mass extinction for a short while by living on fish and shellfish diets, since all of the green trees, grasses, grains, and the animals that eat them would be gone. Unless there were a massive effort by humanity to boost CO2 levels back above 150 PPM, there would be no more bread, beer, milk, no more steaks, hot dogs, chicken soup, or vegan salads. Humanity perishes at either of the two extremes of CO2.

An easy way to see how this data about human extinction and climate change is a false 'crisis' is to take a 12 inch ruler and stand it up on one end. (See FRE 'Ruler Graph' above). Too little carbon dioxide, plant suffocation, is at 3/8 inches, and too much carbon dioxide, human suffocation, is anything above 10 inches. Currently, CO2 at 415 PPM is at 3/4 inches, a long, long way from human-toxic 10 inches but only 1/2 inch from plant-toxic 3/8 inches.

The 'crisis' of carbon levels in the atmosphere is related to the greenhouse effect that carbon dioxide and water vapor and other gases have on global temperatures, which is known as "climate sensitivity," the point when the carbon levels double. The more sensitive the Earth's atmosphere is to rising and falling concentrations of greenhouse gases---the doubling or halving of carbon---the more that global temperatures will rise and fall, although there is a natural lag in years (it can be centuries) for the temperature fluctuations to change.

"Climate sensitivity" (CS) from doubling atmospheric carbon has been estimated (remember, this is an estimate) to be between 1.5 to 4.5°C. At 4.5°, global temperatures will rise significantly; at 1.5, not so much, if at all. Counter-intuitively, at higher CS levels, temperature changes take longer to rise and fall.

Initially, the scientific reports at the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) estimated that CS was around 3°, then a few years later it was estimated to be below 2°, then a few years later it was back above 2°, and now (in 2020) they refuse to give an estimate since they have no actual accurate, scientific measure of what the true level of climate sensitivity is.

In conclusion, the mass extinction of humanity could occur at both extremes of atmospheric carbon dioxide: Too much (suffocation of humanity at 5,000 PPM) or too little (starvation of humanity at 150 PPM). Bouncing up to 415 PPM since the Industrial Revolutions is safely above the lower toxic levels and well below the upper toxic level. Atmospheric CO2 at today's 415 PPM is not a "crisis," especially since the optimum level for plants is 1,000 PPM and all of those humans who work inside commercial greenhouse nurseries with their 1,000 PPM are not impaired.

Will climate sensitivity worsen at plant-optimum CO2 levels of 1,000 PPM? No scientist knows, but the apocalyptic, quasi-religious 'scientists' do know that their prophecies will result in the death and destruction of humanity if they are not personally put in charge of governments, courts, the economies and prison systems.

Arguing that climate change is currently not a crisis is not a call by the FRE party to do nothing about de-carbonizing the production of energy by humanity. Massive amounts of funding all over the world are being invested to de-carbonize energy production, and the FRE party supports funding those efforts. In the bipartisan FRE party, we believe the world's finite carbon resources would be better spent on making fertilizers for foods and life-saving pharmaceuticals. We just refuse to punish innocent people for using carbon-based energy, and we are dedicated to not turning over the punitive powers of government to frantic apocalyptics, who are humanity's whip-wielders. We would much rather create positive incentives, such as funding new technologies to transition from current carbon emissions to more reduced, even minimal, carbon emissions.

The FRE party strongly supports government regulations designed to clean the environment. However, FRE will oppose laws and regulations which protect the environment by punishing innocent people in order to fulfill the doom-and-gloom prophecies of extremist, frantic priests and priestesses in the quasi-religion of environmentalism.

[An opinion, based upon extensive readings in history: When priests and politicians pose as 'savior' and call for "sacrifice," know that they will often not be making the sacrifice themselves, and that those who do make the sacrifice might die. If priestly politicians include a time-prediction in their call for a sacred sacrifice (the thousand-year Nazi Reich, the 100-year rise of oceans, the 12-year death sentence for failing to fix climate), mass deaths can result. Adolph Hitler was a 'savior,' so was Josef Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Mass murder begins by committing moral murder or by achieving a sacred sacrifice, or especially by achieving both together as a duocide, the simultaneous homicidal-suicide (for example, the 3,000 innocent people killed by suicidal religious terrorists committing moral murder at the two towers in New York City on 9/11). Not all eschatological environmentalists are religious fanatics such as eco-terrorists, but they are quasi-religious partisan extremists preaching "sacrifice" and 'salvation' while filtering out counter-facts from their belief system, and very often they are not making any sacrifice themselves].

6. Debt, Deficit See 'Budget' above.

The FRE party's bipartisan position on the ever-expanding debt and deficits of the U.S. government under the control of the duopoly partisan parties is found under #3 above, 'Budget.' 

7. Defense and National Security

To achieve an international 'perpetual peace' (the title of Immanuel Kant's famous Enlightenment essay), the FRE party supports a national defense for the people of the United States which is second to none, and one that is fully capable of defeating any group of non-free nations gathered to do the American people harm. Kant pointed out that humanity forever treats the periods of peace as being merely interregnums between wars, so that the nations can rearm at higher technological levels of lethality.

In his philosophy, Kant reasoned that world peace---which everyone wants as they re-arm---is not achievable until after humanity achieves world freedom. It will be the morality of freedom that achieves peace. The morality of peace---because of human nature---does not generate peace.

The League of Nations and the United Nations were both established to adopt the reasoning in Kant's philosophy. The 'League of Nations' was Kant's specific phrase in his essay to become the mechanism, the institution, that he recommended to achieve world peace by creating world freedom. Gradually over time, the many non-free nations in the League would become free, because the people in the non-free nations want the advantage that the people in free nations enjoy: A much higher national prosperity than what they have in the non-free nations.

By inviting the many non-free nations to join the few free nations in the League after WWI, the process of achieving 'perpetual peace' began. The League folded politically when the U.S. did not join and WWII eventually ensued, but immediately after World War Two the victorious Allies adopted Kant's philosophy again and created the United Nations.

In the half-century of the United Nation's existence, the human dignity, morality, rationality and epistemology of freedom has spread across the planet. There are still conflicts and wars, but they are far less lethal and are often resolved with little warfare. Even intransigent conflicts are gradually being ended. Kant's formula is working, slowly and gradually and sometimes with reverses, but the upward trend is inexorable: As humanity becomes freer, humanity achieves more peace. The reason? Because greater national prosperity correlates with greater freedom, not with greater peace and a people do not want to lose their prosperity in an invasive, expansionist war.

Until world freedom is achieved in the United Nations, the FRE party supports a national defense for the United States which is second to none, and one which is fully capable of defeating any group of non-free nations that want to do the American people harm. When the "inexorable" world freedom is finally achieved in the United Nations, the FRE party will support a steady disarmament of the United States, but we'll do it in the name of 'freedom,' not in the name of 'peace.' While the FRE party supports a strong national defense, we are also strongly opposed to maintaining 800 military bases outside the U.S. when there are less than 200 nations in the world, and opposed to interventionist wars or military 'nation-building.'

8. Drug (Addictive) Control

To craft a bipartisan balance between the center-Left and center-Right on control of addictive drugs, the FRE party supports the Left's position to decriminalize drug addiction and drug use, while also supporting the Right's position to make addictive drug use more the responsibility of the individual user instead of making society culpable. Much of this bipartisan balance would simply make many addictive recreational drugs legal but taxed and strictly regulated, much like how the addictive psychoactive drug, alcohol, is again legal but now is taxed and strictly regulated.

Since nearly all addictions are voluntarily acquired, and since addictions are strongly correlated with early deaths, the FRE party regards drug addiction as the physical manifestation of a self-destructive psychic impulse. Humanity's psychic impulse for self-destruction results in self-destructive behaviors, such as alcoholism, serial adultery, morbid obesity, and addiction to narcotics or nicotine or opiods. The FRE party supports a drug control policy where the taxes on addicting substances are spent entirely on the health care of addicted people. Essentially, a bipartisan policy by the FRE party on drug control would finance health care for the addicted by taxing the legalized drugs, make drug policy corrective rather than punitive, and emphasize that the voluntary acquisition of an addiction will result in addicts losing self-control and self-mastery over their lives. What is freedom if not self-mastery?

9. Economics, Liberties & Prosperity

In crafting a bipartisan position on economics between the different beliefs of the center-Left and center-Right, the FRE party grounds its thinking on the morality of freedom and the pragmatism of learning from historical results. In actual human history since the Industrial Revolutions, there is an extremely high positive correlation between a people's level of economic liberties and the level of their national prosperity. Note the chart below: The higher that economic liberties are in nearly 200 nations, generally the higher is the national prosperity. (A few oil-exporting nations are the rare exception.)


The best example of this positive correlation between economic liberties and national prosperity is Communist China. The Chinese Communist Party kept its authoritarian one-party socialist dictatorship after the death of Mao, but adopted reforms of its socialist economics by raising the level of economic liberties. The economic boom in socialist China begun by Deng directly correlates with the reforms that increased China's economic liberties. As the Chinese people become more and more prosperous by open market reforms of their socialist economy, they prove that economic liberties is more important to achieving prosperity than communist ideology.

The countries which exert greater control over the economic behavior of their people generally experience lower prosperity than those countries which open up their economics to less control. In the FRE party this historical positive correlation between economic liberties and national prosperity is so high that it is included in the party's motto: 'Open Minds, Open Markets, Open Inquiry.'

10. Education Reform

The American institution which is most resistant to honest, genuine reform is the one which needs it most: Public education. The heart-breaking documentary film, Waiting for Superman, and the liberty-loving feature film, Miss Virginia, detail the deeply entrenched legal corruption and anti-reform bias of public education in America. The institutional hostility and opposition to genuine reform comes from principals, teachers, school boards, state legislatures, and especially from school-teacher labor unions who dominate partisan politics.

The legal corruption and anti-reform bias is so deep, so enduring, that a systemic overhaul is required. At the least, a thorough review of what the socialist and conservative parties accomplished in bipartisan education reform in Sweden will be a FRE priority, especially the Swedish socialist party's strong support for equal individual vouchers. The FRE party melds the views on education reform from both the center-Left and center-Right to propose the following reforms of the entire public educational system:

a. The parents of school children are sovereign over their child's education, not the State or federal government, or a school board or teachers' labor union. The parents' goal in public education is to have their child taught a life-long love for learning; the State's goal in public education is to teach the reasons why 'Open Inquiry' is humanity's greatest invention. As in the socialist/conservative bipartisan education reform in Sweden, the taxes paid by parents for public education are attached to the child as vouchers. The sovereign parents decide where their voucher will be spent to educate their child.

b. Any certified school teacher in a public school may join or quit a teachers' labor union at any time for any reason, without any penalty imposed for joining, not joining, or quitting. (See the FRE party's proposed 'Freedom of Association' reform amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

c. To encourage accountability, any parent of a child in public school may bring civil suit against a school board, State Department of Education, school principal, individual teacher and a teachers' labor union where the child has been harmed by exposure to teacher incompetence, failing schools, falsification or debasement of grades, gang violence or intimidation on campus, or ideological indoctrination. The parent's civil suit, if joined by other parents in the school's Parent Association, is to be financed by the federal Department of Education.

d. Because the correlation between advanced education and superior teaching is so high, to maintain their employment school teachers in public schools are required to earn a Master's degree in a rigorous STEM subject by the sixth anniversary of their employment.

e. If a parent chooses to home-school rather than send their child to a failing school or gang school, that parent is paid by the school board a contractor's fee commensurate with the amount paid to clerical staff. No school board contractor fee is paid for home-schooling if the child does not achieve at grade level.

f. Charter schools in school districts with any failing schools will be independent from public school boards, from the fifty States' Departments of Education, and from the teachers' labor unions. The federal Department of Education shall pay the salaries of Master Degree STEM teachers at charter schools established by parents in a public school district with any failing schools. Parents establish rigorous academic standards at such charter schools, and establish disciplinary standards for student misbehavior, homework non-compliance, or truancy. Such federally-supported charter schools are to be named Lincoln/Douglas Academies, after two self-taught men: President Abraham Lincoln and former slave, Frederick Douglas.

11. Electoral College

It is neither the center-Left nor the center-Right which seeks to abolish the Electoral College in American presidential politics, but it's the more radical partisans of whichever of the two parties won the popular vote but lost the Presidential election in the Electoral College. The same people who cheered in 1992 when Bill Clinton won the Electoral College vote despite not winning a majority of the popular vote then called for the abolition of the Electoral College when Hillary Clinton lost in the Electoral College despite winning a majority of the popular vote. The FRE party supports keeping the Electoral college for two reasons:

The College is carefully designed to give disproportionately more influential votes to small States than large States, in order to prevent one large State or a small group of large States from dominating presidential politics. This crafted small-State influence compels candidates for the presidency to visit and campaign in the small States, to become president of the entire country instead of simply winning a few large States. Thus if a candidate for President ignores the small States, then that candidate can lose the election, as Hillary Clinton proved in 2016 by not visiting Minnesota and Michigan to shore up her working class vote.

Second, the electors in the College have the ability to rebel against their pledged vote and instead vote for another person. This ability is the last chance for the Electoral College to avoid the American people democratically electing a dictator.

Protecting freedom and growing a broader democracy are why the Electoral College exists, and the FRE party supports keeping the College in American presidential politics.

12. Fiscal Policy & Taxation

When partisan politicians in the Progressive Era (1901 to the present) amended the Constitution to permit direct taxation of personal incomes, they left out any limit when imposing the income tax. The Constitution establishes the powers of three branches of government, but also sets limits on those powers. However, the Progressives ignored setting limits on income taxes when they wrote and passed the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. Today, in the 20th year of the 21C, the income tax code is a ponderous 10,000 pages of rules and regulations, incentivizing a few privileged people and dis-incentivizing many.

The FRE party offers a Reform Amendment for voters to consider which finally places limits on Congress raising income taxes during peace-time. The peace-time limits on income taxes in the FRE party's Fiscal Reform Amendment are a balance between the Left and Right opposing positions on income taxes.

On the Right, taxes punish, and taxes on income are deterrents to productivity. On the Left, taxes on income more easily finances government solutions to public problems, and can be a vehicle to re-distribute income from the wealthy to the poor. The FRE party's Fiscal Reform Amendment keeps the income tax---which appeals to the center-Left---while setting limits on how much and when income taxes can rise---which appeals to the center-Right.

A key reform in the FRE Fiscal Reform Amendment is that violation of its restraints upon Congress will trigger a mechanism for immediate removal of the fiscally irresponsible Congress and authorize elections to sit a new Congress within 30 days. Finally, a century after enacting the 16th Amendment, Congressional power to raise income taxes will be put under control of the Constitution and, something entirely new, a fiscally irresponsible Congress will be removed from office if they abuse their power to impose taxes on the American people.

13. Globalization, Immigration & Borders 

The free movement of people and capital is an essential part of globalization, so globalization is easily understood to be a worthy goal for both the center-Left and center-Right in American politics. However, there has been a large, unintended consequence of globalization: as capital investment and incomes rose in the poorest countries, capital dis-investment and stagnating incomes rose in the industrialized nations.

In the philosophy of freedom every individual freedom is attached to a personal responsibility, and the same connection applies to globalization. Globalization as a measure of increasing freedom is welcome and supported by the FRE party, but unrestrained globalization which results in the destruction of an economy is opposed by the FRE party.

There is a 'trust' in globalization's ability to generate only positives that borders on the naiveté of idealistic optimism. Globalization also generates negatives, often unintentionally. To assure that globalization produces more positives than negatives, the FRE party supports globalization that is cautiously restrained by responsibility:

a). Immigration is welcome, but a people have a right to protect their culture and society from destruction by unrestrained immigration;

b). Foreign capital investment is welcome and capital flight is an essential freedom to protect capital, but full repatriation of all profits is mercantilism, not capitalism, and should be regulated by the country benefitting from the foreign investment. Return of invested capital and a market-level return on that capital every year is reasonable; profits in excess of a market-level return which are not invested in the local economy are a mercantilist exploitation by the investor corporation of the invested country;

c). In the economic theory of 'conscientious capitalism' (not to be confused with Conscious Capitalism), it is the responsibility of the corporation bringing back profits from foreign operations to fund the re-training of its own domestic workers who are unemployed due to the profitable success of the foreign investment;

d). Tariffs are a tax upon consumers and should be minimal, and free trade benefits all the countries participating, but the populists in Europe and the United States correctly criticize that 'bad faith' (non-conscientious) nations engaged in free trade can destroy another country's companies, industries, and economy. The ideal of free trade is positive for the prosperity of a people, but if they are not careful about whom they freely trade with, they risk impoverishing themselves. Unfortunately for an honest nation, free trade can become unintentionally self-destructive, because to a dishonest country free trade is merely the open door to a thief;

e). To distinguish between the catabolic and anabolic effects from globalization, the FRE party has its motto: "Open Minds, Open Markets, Open Inquiry." Free nations can trade with non-free nations, but no nation should try to engage in unrestrained 'free' trade with another nation which does not prioritize open minds (non-censorship), open markets (no state-owned or state-subsidized companies), or open inquiry (freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and no state-owned media). A free people can trade with a non-free nation, but if they attempt to 'free' trade with a non-free nation, then the free should be wide-eyed awake about the unintended yet very real self-destructive risks to their economy.

14. Gun ownership and controls

It is not too difficult to strike a balanced, mid-position between the Left and Right on gun ownership and gun control. The Left argues for banning gun ownership and confiscating guns already owned, in the belief that it is access to guns which cause crimes committed with guns. The Michael Moore movie, Bowling for Columbine, makes the Left's argument in a feature documentary: In the Left's view, easy access to guns is the basic problem.

The Right argues for unlimited, unrestricted gun ownership in the belief that gun ownership is a specific right enshrined in the Constitution's Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The British Army's march on Concord to confiscate the American militia's guns and ammunition inspired the United States Congress after they won the Revolution to recognize gun ownership as a basic right of self-defense. The tripartisan FRE party crafts a position on gun ownership and gun control that balances the two extremes:

a). Gun ownership is in the Bill of Rights, but the "right to bear arms" is actually assigned to "militias," not to individuals. But then, a militia is made up of individuals. It was the pre-war experience with the British army (the government) marching to Concord and Lexington to impound (confiscate) the colonists' ammunition and guns stored for the local militia that gave rise to the Second Amendment after America won the War of Independence. A narrow reading of the Amendment would restrict guns to the fifty State militias, but such a narrow reading is unlikely to win a majority vote in the Supreme Court. The FRE party supports a law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun.

b). The responsible qualifier is "law-abiding." The FRE party is opposed to gun ownership by felons, drug dealers, and by known psychopaths and sociopaths. The gun never commits a crime; humans do, and the humans who are violent do not have a continuous 'right' to own a gun. In the FRE party, every 'right' comes attached to a personal responsibility, and the violent among us have proved their irresponsibility. In the name of responsible freedom, the FRE party supports gun control that keeps firearms out of the hands of the violent.

c). A note about the political psychologies behind confiscating guns and owning a gun. The natural human desire to remove weapons to achieve 'peace' is the psychic desire by prey to improve its chances of survival against the predator. Confiscating guns is the psychic, subconscious effort to defang and declaw the predator. All humans are omnivores, part predator and part prey, but when we identify mostly as prey, then we know instinctively that to strip the predator of its weapons will improve our chances of survival. When some human omnivores identify mostly as predator, then they know instinctively that if they are defanged and declawed---as the colonists believed at Concord and Lexington---then they are helpless to defend themselves, so owning weapons is a matter of survival. A defanged, declawed predator is going to starve to death…which is what the prey unconsciously desire: To kill off the predator who wants to kill one of the prey for dinner.

d). These conflicting political psychologies are innate in every human, which means that the debate about gun control is never going to end. Both competing arguments are grounded in humanity's natural, evolved psychology which is forever self-conflicted and self-contradictory. It is the pragmatic pluralist---the FRE party---who stands the best chance of striking a moderate balance between the two opposing views on gun control.

15. Health Care

On the political Left, health care is a right and as a right of every human, access to health care should be provided by their government. On the political Right, health care is not a natural right (which is a right independent of government), so access to health care is the responsibility of the individual citizen. The ultimate reach of their opposing views is that the Left wants socialized medicine---total government ownership and control over the production and delivery of health care---while the Right wants a capitalist health care system which is privately owned and delivers a higher quality health care.

For the FRE party, the key is freedom of choice. The American people are better by having the ability to choose between competing health care deliveries, whether it is government-owned and controlled (the Left's socialist preference) or privately-owned and managed (the Right's capitalist preference).

The United States already has a socialized medical system in the Veteran Administration's numerous hospitals around the country. These hospitals with doctors and nurses are government-owned, government-financed, and government-controlled for the benefit of government military personnel. This is already a socialized health care system that could be extended to poor citizens by building a new wing on the existing veterans' hospital campus devoted to health care for America's civilian poor.

The privately-owned owned and managed health care system (Catholic hospitals, corporate hospitals, charity hospitals, etc.) would still deliver health care for the citizens who choose to use the existing private system built over the past two centuries. By the two systems competing for patient approval, the American public is better served.

However, the whip-wielding impulse in politicians of compelling or mandating that privately-owned health care systems provide 'free' health care for all (as in socialist medicine) is opposed by the FRE party. Socialist health care in socialist nations is notorious for its inefficiency and inferior care, while capitalist health care is notorious for pricing health care out of the reach of the poor. We believe that, as a matter of reform, by balancing the Left's position on health care with the Right's position, a much better health care system---one that is both caring and fair---can be in America's future.

16. Human Rights & Women's Rights

The FreedomReform (FRE) party strongly supports civil rights and defensive Human Rights, and civil liberties and Economic Liberties for all law-abiding adults, everywhere. The morality of freedom is universal for all humanity, not just for one group privileged over another. The more that narrow groups argue that they have, or are part of, a special category of 'rights,' the more they weaken the universality of defensive Human Rights.

17. Identity Politics, LBGT & Determinism

Humans naturally form identities throughout their life-span (Erik Erickson, Harvard University) and easily adopt multiple loyalties, whether to a religion, an ideology, a skin color, their gender, or to their family, clan, tribe, village, town, city, nation, or local sports team. Identity formation is entirely normal human behavior; it is who we are.

Aristotle famously pointed out that humans are a social animal; again, being social is entirely normal human behavior. We gather as a group naturally because we enjoy the companionship of our fellows, especially when they look, think, and speak like we do. But gangs and mobs are also social and group-thinking is also social, so being social, although it is entirely normal to humans, has just as many positives and negatives associated with it as there are when we are being autonomous.

Politics is always a morality play and politics is always social, so identity politics is also normal human behavior. It is normal for humans to perceive other humans as being just that: The Other. It is the sudden awareness during childhood of personal individualism that creates the understanding that there are Others.

Nearly every successful politician in a democracy makes the argument that it is imperative for his tribe to defeat the Other tribe because "they" are in some way threatening, deficient, "stupid" or "deplorable." This is a tried and true strategy in partisan social politics: Pose as the defender (moral hero) of the in-group against the Other (immoral, evil) out-group.

Twenty-first century identity politics is the attempt to create social loyalties based upon a person's physical attributes, rather than upon a shared language, religion, history, birthplace, or ideology. The unintended consequence of 21C identity politics is that the Other is excluded as a matter of the higher morality of the favorite tribe. In identity politics, the favorite tribe is defined as being the better tribe. All of racism is identity politics. All of feminism is identity politics. All of nationalism is identity politics, where the Other tribe is morally deficient from the favorite tribe. All of these forms of identity politics share in common the fact that they are loyalties entirely based upon factors over which the group and its individual members had no control: Where they were born and their physical features at birth.

Born with bright red hair and green eyes, it is normal to have pride in being Irish, just as it is normal to have pride in being born Pakistani with brown eyes, dark skin and black hair. Pride in being born female or male is normal and to be admired, but identity politics turns normal pride of who we are into an excessive, elitist pride against the Other.

In identity politics, the normal, quiet pride in being born female becomes a loud pride which feels contempt for males; identity politics about gender too easily feeds and justifies misandry and misogyny.  The normal, quiet pride of being born a male---who would otherwise be arrested for walking naked down a public street---in identity politics this becomes the loud pride of a naked gay man walking down the public street with legal impunity. What identity politics does is to flaunt, to celebrate human hatred in the name of diversity. And where the hatred results in harm, then it violates the morality of freedom.

Diversity is: The gay have the freedom to be gay, just as the heterosexuals have the freedom to be heterosexual. But every individual freedom comes attached to a personal responsibility, so neither of them has the freedom to be harmful. The general public---their fellow social humans---long ago decided that public nudity or public hatreds is more harmful than helpful in building a civil, moral society.

Three things to note---three cautions---about identity politics, beyond it being normal:

a). When identity politics is based upon skin color, genitalia (or being freckled or left-handed), physical features are the deciding factor. This is known as determinism, the world-view that every effect has a cause such that the cause will forever create the identical effect. All racists are determinists, Adolph Hitler being the most famous example. Both right-wing nationalism and left-wing socialism are determinist. Harvard University racialists (discriminating for one minority race over another minority race in admissions) are determinist. The hatred by misogynistic men for women and the same hatred by misandrist women for men is determinist. Homophobia is determinist. Every mass murderer in the 20C was a determinist (115 million innocents slaughtered; uncountable tens of millions enslaved or starved). Identity politics is normal, but they can become loaded with the disdain and contempt for the Other which could be easily manipulated by a skillful politician into harming innocent people. The FRE party works hard to make sure every one of its candidates for public office knows well the anabolic politics of pragmatic pluralism and the "dangerous descent of determinism" into mass death.

b). When identity politics is practiced by determinists, 'diversity' and 'inclusion' are reserved solely for the in-group and not for the Other, whoever the Other might be. This word-game by determinists turns identity politics into the politics of self-isolation, the very opposite of diversity and inclusion, and self-isolation in the social animals is self-destructive. Identity politics, when practiced by determinists, is a psychic impulse of self-destruction. In the FRE party, we beware electing identitarians whether on the Left or Right regardless of whether they are racists or racialists, nationalists or socialists, misogynists or misandrists.

c). Since all politics are a morality play, it is rather self-defeating for identitarians to practice a determinist's politics which acts to reduce or diminish the moral standing of their political appeal. There is no moral blame or credit attached to being born white, black, or brown, or to being born with an "innie" or an "outtie." Giving credit or blame to a skin color or genitalia is so anti-intellectual it defies understanding why so many highly intelligent people practice identity politics. There is NO morality or immorality, superiority or inferiority attached to skin color or genitalia, so practicing identity politics reduces, even obviates the morality of its politics. Identitarians argue they are moral, but then, so do all racists, nationalists, and socialists who propagate their extremist determinism.

18. Income Inequality

The FRE party is dedicated to improving the prosperity of America's middle class, so tackling the sharply growing disparity of incomes between the wealthy 1% and the middle class is a high priority for the FRE party. We believe that the best way to reduce poverty is to open the way for the poor to become part of the middle class. To balance the opposing views of the center-Right and center-Left on income inequality, the FRE party adopts the ethic in 'conscientious capitalism' (not Conscious Capitalism).

The center-Left agrees with the center-Right that history proves capitalism is more effective than socialism at building a prosperous economy.  However, the Left finds socialist moral thinking attractive, so higher income taxes to redistribute wealth is a favorite policy of the center-Left. To the center-Right, higher income taxes are a disincentive to building prosperity, so the graduated income tax system is self-defeating if building a general prosperity is the goal. Conscientious capitalism splits the difference, melding both.

To reform income inequality, first it is necessary to understand how it grew. The recent and growing disparity of income inequality in America is the result of three phenomena occurring simultaneously:

a). Ever since the Information Age replaced the Industrial Age in the 1980's, a higher market premium is put on cognitive skills rather than on physical skills. Engineers are the new journeyman laborer, and the cognitive skills associated with mathematical thinking are valued much more in an Information Age than physical skills were valued in the Industrial Age.

b). Costs in economics come in three major categories: Land, labor, and capital. In the rapid globalization of trade after the creation of the EU and the fall of soviet socialism, labor and capital gained unprecedented free movement around the globe. Rapidly, labor was commodified. The major industrial nations with their well-paid, skilled union labor were abruptly uncompetitive in making labor-intensive goods. Manufacturing in the industrialized nations had to either adopt robots to replace humans, or re-locate to economies which had not yet industrialized, or went bankrupt. Millions of skilled laborers in the middle class were out of the job market, or taking jobs at lower income levels than before globalization.

c). Bureaucratic managers invented a market mechanism that rewarded them for managing a public company, making managers nearly as richly compensated as entrepreneurs---the risk-takers---who could potentially earn fortunes by creating or inventing a business enterprise. The entire managerial class of Alfred Chandler vaulted into the highest level of incomes in America by the expedient of awarding themselves stock options as part of their compensation. Using the lowest interest rates in history to amass trillions of new corporate bond debt, the modern managerial class used the firm's cash from selling all the new bond debt to buy back the firm's shares in the stock market. The stocks' prices then rose steadily in Wall Street on this ocean of stock buy-backs, the options rose in value as the stock prices increased, and the managers---the non-risk-takers---cashed in their options at spectacular gains. The mechanism resulted in record corporate debt and 'bonuses' paid to managers in the tens of millions of dollars, well in excess of their fixed salaries. This stock buy-back mechanism is legal, but the FRE party considers it to be another example of "legal corruption." By this stock buy-back mechanism, business bureaucrats joined the 1%.

The FRE party intends to reform the "mechanism" (should we call it, 'scheme'?) of stock buy-backs so that the middle class employees benefit beyond merely having their few shares increase in value in their retirement accounts. Melding the center-Left views with the center-Right and to improve middle class prosperity, the FRE party would implement a policy for any firm implementing a stock buy-back scheme:

1. As a matter of good conscience, no managers' bonus is paid until after all the line employees of the firm (the middle class and working poor ) are paid 5% of their income into an employee-owned, tax-free retirement account;

2. As a matter of good conscience, no mangers' bonus is paid until after a stock dividend of 5% is paid to any shareholder owning less than 1,000 shares (this is the middle class and Herman Melville's "widows and orphans");

3. Corporations can buy-back their shares and issue new debt to expand their business, but would be prohibited from using the cash from bond sales to fund a buy-back scheme if their indebtedness grows beyond the value of the capital stock of the company or if the cost of the debt cannot be covered by existing operating revenues;

4. The Securities and Exchange Commission would be required to collect and publish quarterly a special report of the data on all firms engaged in stock buy-backs, so that the investing public is informed beyond the regular corporate filings about which companies are employing the buy-back scheme to inflate their stock price.

This policy will still enable stock buy-backs that benefit the managers, but now the middle class workers will benefit before the managerial class receive their enormous bonuses. The reform focuses upon building middle class prosperity to help mitigate income inequality. This FRE policy on income inequality increases the potential of the poor to join the middle class, perhaps to retire early and very prosperous.

19. Monetary Policy and MMT

The FRE party is opposed to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) except in one rare instance (see 'UBI' below) and on one condition: If MMT is adopted, all income taxes on the middle class and working poor below the national median income are to be cancelled. This FRE policy will have a huge positive effect upon middle class prosperity.

The unlimited printing of money in MMT will result in the eventual destruction of an economy's banking system and the debasement of a nation's currency until it becomes worthless. When the nation's currency---the medium of exchange---is worthless (as in democratic-socialist Germany in the 1920's, democratic-socialist Zimbabwe in the 2000's, and in democratic-socialist Venezuela during the 2010's), barter becomes necessary to effect normal exchange and the poor become even poorer. The wealthy can always find ways to protect themselves from the harm of a worthless currency, but the poor have no ability to protect themselves from institutionalized harm. The poor have little money, and if the little amount they have is worthless then they become even poorer.

MMT is a policy recommended by statist economists on the political Left. MMT policy will always be attractive to statists on both the partisan Right and partisan Left, because it finances their ideological agenda. The FRE party opposes MMT because it causes long-term harm to broad numbers of innocent people as it promises short-term benefits to those same people. There is nothing 'modern' about MMT; it is merely the newest incarnation of self-destructive socialist economics. If MMT is ever adopted, then there is no longer any moral argument to justify income taxes on the middle class or working poor.

20. Pensions & Social Security

Perhaps it is not a surprise to the American people that the retirement system in the United States, built by the two partisan political parties since 1935, is either broke, under-funded, or merely a glorified method of robbing from Peter in order to pay Paul. The government's scheme for Social Security is to take the individual's tax money put into Social Security and spend it upon someone else's retirement. This scheme of rewarding retirees at the expense of young workers is effective so long as the number of retirees is always smaller than the number of workers. Oops.

The flawed thinking behind this system in the U.S. (by the two partisan parties) is exactly like the poor thinking that resulted in the housing bubble of the 2008-2009 Great Recession. So long as housing prices went up forever, the housing bubble would not burst. But people forget that housing prices do NOT go up forever. Same with retirement: The system is built upon the thinking that the number of workers will forever be larger than the number of retirees, but that is not modern reality. In reality, the demographic explosion of "boomer" workers born after WWII will be larger than the tax contributions of smaller pre-war generations, and as the nation becomes wealthier people have fewer children, so the system will burst because of demographics unless something is done to lower benefits for retirees or raise taxes on the new younger generation, or both.

The FRE party offers a Reform Amendment to the Constitution which includes reforming retirement planning by returning sovereignty over the retirement money to the people who are planning to retire. Under the duopoly of partisan parties, the government (which is always controlled by one of the duopoly) is in control; it is no longer the workers' money in their retirement accounts. It's the government's money! The partisan political parties have constructed a retirement system since 1935 where the taxes on income for retirement are the property of the government, not of the taxpayer. The government can then decide what age qualifies for retirement and penalizes 'early' retirement. The government tells the citizen when they can access the retirement money. If a citizen tries to take it out early, the government slaps the citizen with penalties on top of taxes. And incredibly, the government takes the retirement plan money (because they own it) and uses it to fund the government, promising to return the money later. This retirement system---this scheme---is an excellent example of legal corruption: The duopoly partisan parties have made unconscionable thinking into legal behavior and slapped 'entitlement' on the entire hollow edifice to make it acceptable.

To be clear, the FRE party is strongly in support of the prosperity of the middle class, including its retirees. We will never advocate abolishing Social Security or reducing benefits or raising workers' taxes, but we do believe Social Security can be reformed to better protect the prosperity of middle class retirees by adopting a Reform Amendment to the Constitution. There are numerous countries in the world where their system of social security permits the middle class to retire at levels of prosperity above what the duopoly partisan parties made legal in the U.S., not least by avoiding the immorality of punishing young working Peter in order to pay older, retired Paul.

21. Polarization

(Masket chart)

For more than sixty straight years, partisan political polarization has steadily worsened in America. The graph above of California politics shows the data. Partisan politics has always been contentious in America, but until 1956 the nation's politics were just as often bipartisan as partisan. Bipartisan politics in 20th mid-century America was the politics of co-operation, consensus, and civility. The bipartisan politics of the 1950's and 1960's produced the 'Fabulous Fifties' and 'Soaring Sixties.'

But beginning in 1953 in California, the two largest partisan parties 'changed' American politics to reward re-election for partisan loyalty rather than for bipartisan co-operation. As the nation's politics thereafter became ever-more partisan, the politics of partisanship became the politics of hate. Notoriously, decades into the 'changed' politics, the national Chair of one of the major partisan parties loudly proclaimed he actually "hated" the other major partisan party and all they stood for. The politics of polarization rewarded him for his hate. The growing politics of hate by partisans is easy to understand once the partisan is understood as being the more narrow-minded, the extremist is the closed-minded, and the bipartisan is the open-minded. 

The chart below shows the national rise of polarization since the 'change' in 1953; as the politics of polarization and hate rose, the politics of civility and co-operation fell. Since 1972, the divide has only become worse.

(voterview chart)

Media and academia decry the hate-filled polarization, but they do nothing to correct it internally in their own organizations. The partisan hate grows on campuses and in the media even as the political polarization grows nationally. The two graphs, one of a State legislature and one of the national legislature, measure the ever-growing gap between 'partisanship' and 'bipartisanship' in American politics, and reveals the long-lost decades of bipartisan cooperation. The growing gap reveals when the reversal---the 1953 'change' in how partisan politics is conducted---became effective after 1956. The graphs shows the crossover point occurred in 1972, when political partisanship began to increasingly dominate American politics and bipartisanship became the oddity instead of the standard.

As partisanship grew steadily worse in American politics for the past sixty-six straight years, 'ideological extremism' grew in both major partisan parties. The growing hate in partisan polarization is from the growing influence of extremists in both of the major partisan parties.

As bipartisanship in American politics steadily declined every year after 1972, 'civility' and especially 'moderation' withered and evaporated under the assault of partisan hate. In FRE, we summarize the two charts to make a single graph: falling bipartisanship and moderation, rising partisanship and extremism:

(FRE graph summary)
Our national polarization grows steadily worse unless a reform is adopted by the American voters.  The FRE party is dedicated to practicing bipartisan politics and offers a Reform Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which will enable the American people to restore a bipartisan politics based more upon mutual respect than the past sixty-six years of mutual disrespect in the partisan politics of hate.

22. Racism, Racialism & Reparations – see 'Identity Politics' and 'Civil Liberties'

In the FRE party's foundation upon the morality of freedom, there is no place for racism. Racism, right-wing nationalism, and left-wing socialism are still immensely popular ideologies, despite their long histories of slavery and slaughter. In the recent 20C, the three ideologies adopted very successful religious thinking to build an identity among their followers which imitates the belief system of a "true believer." Even if they are atheist, all three of the ideologies are better described as being ideo-theologies, complete with apocalyptic priests and priestesses asserting the battle of good against evil puts them in control over the congregation, 'sacrifice' is a virtue, 'salvation' is the ultimate moral goal, and achieving transcendence above the individual human being justifies punishing the innocent who are pre-judged to be guilty.

Racism prejudges innocent people to be guilty; so does racialism. So does 'political correctness.' So does nationalism and all of the various forms of socialism. This prejudging of the innocent to be guilty completely violates the morality of freedom and is the most distinguishing feature of the determinist world-view, so common among humanity. Racists believe all of history is determined by the struggle for racial superiority (right-wing socialism of Adolph Hitler). Socialists believe all of history is determined by the eternal class struggle (left-wing socialism of Karl Marx). Nationalists believe their nation is superior to all other nations (the Armenian Massacre by the Turks). Determinists in science and mathematics seek the actual causes and effects in reality, but determinists in the social sciences 'see' cause-and-effect that does not actually exist in reality, and then they build a belief system of values based upon the illusion that they 'see.'

Mass murders, mass suicides, slaughters and slavery are all born in the determinst's world-view, which helps explain the ten thousand Christian women over two centuries burned screaming while tied to a stake (after they were tortured into confessing their fornication with Satan), the mass killing of 3,000 innocent people in New York City by flying two planes into two towers, and the 115 million people slaughtered and enslaved by left-wing and right-wing socialism during the recent 20C. And yet, the continued popularity of the atheist ideo-theologies matches the continued popularity of the salvific religions from which they were born: they learned from the religions how to build 'true-believers.'

'Reparations' in American political discourse is the call for a group of people today to pay for the crimes committed centuries ago by people long dead. In other words, reparations is another example of the determinist's world-view seeking 'justice' by punishing the innocent who never committed the crime. In order for this form of 'social justice' to succeed, it is necessary to pre-judge innocent people to be guilty, which is exactly the same determinist's thinking in racism.

So to all the true-believing racists and racialists, to all the true-believing right-wing nationalists and left-wing socialists, know that the FRE party has the morality of freedom as its foundation, and by counting the many hundreds of millions of innocent dead, you obviously do not. 

23. Social Justice

The FRE party is opposed to social justice because it violates the morality of freedom, and the morality of freedom is the foundational ethic used by the FRE party to approve or oppose social issues. 

Some significant portion of the American electorate, both religious and atheist, believes that certain groups create care and growth and that other groups create hate and crime. To right the wrong done to a group by a group, group crimes call for a special kind of justice, a group-justice known as 'social justice.'

The debate over social justice has been on-going for decades. Roman Catholicism has a sincere concern for social justice, radical Islam has a fervent concern for social justice, and the atheist Left shares the true-believers' dedication to achieving social justice by either rewarding one group or by punishing another group. There are two fatal flaws in the logic of social justice, whether Christian, Islamic, or atheist, which makes them violate the morality of freedom in order for their concept of group-justice to succeed.

First, groups do not commit crimes, individuals commit crimes. Even in a gang or mob, the crimes are committed by individual members of the group. If the German people as a group were guilty of the Nazi crimes against humanity, the entire population of Germany would have been hung after the war. The idea that groups commit crimes is an integral part of determinists' group-think, where mobs and demagogues and dictators rule.

Second, in order for social justice to be successful in punishing a group, it is necessary to prejudge all the members of the group to be guilty. In social justice, guilt is not found after an honest investigation. Even worse, guilt is pre-assigned, pre-judged; it's prejudice and bias that marks social justice's determinism. There is no 'presumption of innocence' in social justice; all the members of the offending group are guilty by their membership in the group. This irrational group-thinking in social justice is exactly the same thinking that motivates the irrational hate in racism. 

Being born black, brown, or white is no crime…except to a pre-judging racist. Social justice hatred is the equivalent to racist hatred, identical in their determinist world-view which feeds their post hoc illusion that they 'see' cause-and-effect. Bias and bigotry are entirely created by post hoc illusions. Social justice is, at the least, illusory, a mirage; at worst, it's group-thinking that teeters toward mob in the French Terror where many thousands if innocent people were slaughtered for the crime of being a priest or being born the child of an aristocrat.  

The FRE party offers a Human Rights Reform Amendment to the Constitution which fixes the 'presumption of innocence' and 'presumption of liberty' into the Constitution. Social justice can do neither, so the FRE party, guided by the morality of freedom, opposes all forms of social justice whether Christian, Islamic, or atheist. Note that after 2,000 years of Christianity and 1,500 years of Islam, and after 3,000 years of socialism, none of them has the morality of human freedom in their fundamental doctrines. Perhaps if they did, they would not have their blood-drenched histories of slaughter and slavery. 

24. Socialism & Capitalism

Socialism has existed for thousands of years, while capitalism replaced mercantilism barely three hundred years ago. Pythagoras had a socialist commune and ancient Sparta was organized as a slave-holding, communist commune.

If the past is any guide to the future, socialism is likely to be popular for more thousands of years because of its appeal to one facet of human nature: our prey instincts. Preys gather to increase their odds for survival against the predator, whether gathering as a large flock of birds, a giant school of fish, or as a herd of zebras, cattle, or sheep.

Humans are an omnivore, part prey and part predator, part herbivore and part carnivore, so prey-thinking and herd-thinking is a normal part of our psychological makeup. The point is, because herd-thinking or group-thinking is a normal part of every human's evolved psychology, socialism will always be popular to the many millions of humans who naturally identify as the herd, or as the class, or group.

As normal as herd-thinking is for humans, the problem with herd-thinking is that it tends to be unintentionally suicidal. Zebras will blindly follow behind the rump in front and voluntarily jump into a crocodile-infested river, tree monkeys nest within easy sight of giant Orinoco eagles instead of relocating, and humans…well, our self-destructiveness (obesity, alcoholism, serial adultery, narcotics, nicotine, opeoids) is just as pronounced as is our destructiveness.

The predator is, in Schumpeter's famous phrase to describe capitalism, "creative destruction." The predator seeks its own survival by taking advantage of opportunities to kill the weak, the sick, the elderly prey who do not have the strength to outrun, out-swim, or out-fly the predator. The predator earns its daily calories by acquiring hunting skills (creative destruction) while prey merely drop their head and graze on the plentiful grass Nature provides.

The capitalist is constantly inventing new technologies and new strategies to acquire the customers, sales, and profits of its competitors. The unintended consequence of this never-ending destruction is the rapid rise in the prosperity levels of all the prey/predators, not least because 'profit' in capitalism is the measure of efficiency in capturing the customers from competitor capitalists by offering either higher quality, better service, lower prices, or all three.

The FRE party is capitalist, or more accurately, we find 'conscientious capitalism' (not Conscious Capitalism) to be the best economic theory which observes and practices the morality of freedom as a key fundamental principle. Socialism does not, and also unfettered capitalism does not. Capitalism can become just as monopolistic (the Many gathering as One) as socialism is by its nature. "Crony capitalism" is monopoly capitalism and violates the morality of freedom just as much as socialism does.

The human dignity, morality, rationality and epistemology of responsible freedom is lost in monopoly whether capitalist or socialist. The FRE party is conscientious capitalist, opposed to any form of monopolies in economics because consumers benefit most by open competition. The FRE party puts conscientious capitalism into its motto: 'Open Minds, Open Markets, Open Inquiry.'

25. Tariffs

The FRE party supports Adam Smith's free trade and regards tariffs as anti-free trade. But as pragmatic pluralists, we realize that free trade only benefits everyone so long as everyone engaged in free trade is operating under the same rules of open competition. Monopolists do not engage in open competition, which means all socialists and crony capitalists are exploiting free trade to their exclusive advantage by breaking the rules of open competition. In such cases, tariffs are, unfortunately, a necessary tool to make the trade with monopolists more rules-based for mutual advantage.

However, instead of calling it 'free' trade, the FRE party supports 'open' trade. Instead of 'free' markets, the FRE party supports 'open' markets. We make the language distinction because both capitalist and socialist monopolists have no morality of freedom to guide their economics.

26. Term Limits

The FRE party offers a Reform Amendment to the Constitution that empowers the American people to restrict federal officeholders to twelve years of service in either of the two chambers of Congress. The duopoly partisan parties, both Left and Right, have successfully squelched all previous efforts to limit their terms in Congress.

27. Universal Basic Income (UBI)

The Left regards UBI as a natural part of government 'caring' for the citizenry such that every citizen receives a monthly guaranteed income from the government. The intended beneficiaries are broader than narrower, perhaps excluding only incarcerated felons and people under age eighteen.

The Right regards UBI as simply another effort by the Left to create an 'entitlement' that will explode beyond its initial constraints and further diminish the sense of personal responsibility which the Right believes is vital to human flourishing.

The FRE party likes the Left's concept of UBI and also shares the Right's concerns that it is too broad and will only serve to make citizens even more dependent upon the State, instead of incentivizing self-mastery and self-reliance. The FRE party supports a more modest 'Basic Income' instead of a 'universal' income. Note that the Left refuses to give a credit against taxes in order to put the income back into the pockets of citizens. Their concept is to tax everyone and then 'give' the monies back to everyone as a government-created entitlement.

Instead of Universal Basic Income, the FRE party would label the program 'Special Basic Income' (SBI), reflecting its beneficiaries as people deserving of special care for their inherited inability to become self-reliant. The 'SBI' program proposed by the FRE party melds both the center-Right and center-Left views:

a). A guaranteed monthly income is extended to any adult citizen who has an I.Q. less than 85 (estimated to be 15 million adults in 2020) – at a poverty annual income of $12,000. This FRE party suggested SBI policy would cost approximately $180 billion per year, far less than the Left's UBI proposal;

b). To incentivize restoring the family ethic in America (destroyed by poorly-designed, self-destructive welfare policies), the SBI is greater for beneficiaries if they are living with and supported by their family;

c). Excluded from SBI are able-bodied citizens, all non-citizens, incarcerated felons, and any adult citizen with an I.Q. above 90;

d). The SBI program is not to be part of the federal Social Security Administration, but is instead to be funded by federal grants to the States who in turn give direct grants to the beneficiaries with minimal administration by State governments;

e). The monthly 'allowance' of the SBI is 90% of the poverty level average in the U.S., 100% if a beneficiary is gainfully employed, and 120% of the poverty level if the beneficiary is both gainfully employed and lives at home with two parents.


Copyright 2021 FreedomReform Party