I'm a libertarian and I agree with _most_ of what you said. However, I have some disagreements as well:

> Denying massive income ... inequality

I don't think anyone is denying that income inequality exists (if they are they're delusional), I think the conflict arises for a few reasons:

- What is "massive" relative to?
- Is perfect income equality an ideal scenario?
- What amount of income inequality is acceptable?
- Income inequality vs wealth inequality vs income mobility - many, including me, claim that income and wealth inequalities are almost worthless metrics, and that the focus should be on income mobility instead

> clean up campaign financing for all branches and at all levels (starting with Citizens United and PACs)

I'm really not sure this is the correct approach to the problem. First of all, this disregards an entire scope of debate around the argument that corporations have a right to freedom of speech and that political donations are a form of political speech. This debate is, IMO, a predicate to discussing possible political action. It looks like a constitutional amendment is necessary. What would that amendment look like? etc, etc

Second, there is a second angle to look at this issue: corporations invest in politicians because it has a high ROI (regulatory capture, exclusive contracts, competition impedance, etc), so maybe we should instead try to lower that incentive by reducing the power of government.

> reduce justice system bias

I am all in for:

- Ending the war on drugs
- "Public defense duty", like jury duty but for attorneys
- Closing private prisons
- Drastically lower prison sentences for most crimes
- Removing mandatory minimums
- Focus on rehabilitation, not punishment
+ Strong divides between violent and non-violent offenders, lethal violence, sexual violence, etc
+ Full education from any level to community college level
+ High-quality therapy

> eliminate barriers to organized labor

I think organized labor should be entirely voluntary on every level.
- If a company doesn't allow collective bargaining, they're free to deny attempts and fire strikers
- If a company wants to require union membership, they can and workers have to pay fees and everything if the company requires it
- If a worker doesn't want to be a union member, that's between them, the union, and the company
- The government shouldn't force an employee to be a union member, should force a company to accept a union opt-out, and shouldn't force a company to accept a strike.

> host of other things (basic income)

I think basic income is a wonderful replacement for the current means-tested and entitlement welfare programs (including Social Security).

I'd also love to see some super-simplification of the tax code to not necessarily a flat tax, but reduction to a simple mathematical function like `income => taxes` no deductions. The UBI could be implemented as a reverse income tax, I've yet to see a compelling argument either way.

Another thing worth mentioning is that I'm willing to accept a single-payer healthcare system merging Medicare and Medicaid into a single entity encompassing all citizens.

> deploy a sane, accessible, efficient, high-throughput visa system for guest workers

I'd go one step further to full "free trade, open borders" system where you just undergo a background check and get a SSN when you cross the border, and you're good to work, you just have to pay taxes.

> Massive public works projects in the service of non-fossil fuel energy and space exporation

While I am convinced that those industries are worthy endeavors, I'm not sure if large-scale public works projects are really applicable to those industries, or if it would be better to just have the UBI and pay construction companies, SpaceX, etc to do what they're already good at. Maybe you and I mean different things by "public works projects", but I think that the money going into those endeavors would be more efficiently spent on experts than the unemployed public.

Anyways, that's my [way more than] 2 cents. Note that most of those things I am willing to compromise on, but not all, and not a lot at once either.