Asset forfeiture, espionage & The Sting

Snowdengoogle14Google maintains a transparency page to report on entities pressuring them to not let you see stuff on the Internet. The thing is chock full of interesting data you can load into Google spreadsheets, sort, manipulate and make into graphs. Even more interesting is the background behind the shifts in censorship.

The idea came to Google when things were heating up in 2009. Someone was evidently worried about WikiLeaks. Sure enough, Bradley Manning was arrested and, the cat being out of the bag, there wasn’t much point to doing anything other than crucify the whistleblower. But what was so important about the leaks? Everybody knew that the US military industrial complex was burning women, kids, houses and villages just like in 1969. But there was something else going on at the time.

Securities markets had been in free-fall, and very large businesses operating the way banks operate have been losing a fantastic amount of money. The official story is that mortgage-backed securities––securities made by slicing up mortgage loans and sorting them into risk categories––we’re failing because the borrowers had no credit or money and the variable interest rates have been artificially lowered to get the suckers on board. Where there is some truth to that, but it leaves a lot unsaid. It takes more than a surprise in interest rates to knock over the worlds largest economy. Derivative markets have been full of these products since 1992–about the time George H.W. Bush began pushing asset forfeiture. Adam Smith observed in 1775 that only a government has the power it takes to ruin a nation. The political state when the spaghetti hit the fan was the fanatically prohibitionist George W. Bush Administration.

Besides war, Republican administrations are heavily into prohibition. With its black markets, prohibition is the perfect scenario for cheap mortgages to turn into grow houses producing marijuana. The federal government was having legal problems using  military helicopters and infrared detectors against its own citizens. So the Bush Administrations made a deal with State and municipal police forces  that they would enforce marijuana prohibition, and in exchange get to steal and confiscate property and money under criminal and civil asset forfeiture procedures. This caught on like wildfire.

 

What you see here for California is about the same thing that happened after Herbert Hoover was elected president and serving as lame-duck incumbent. State governments were repealing their prohibition laws, and the federal government was pressuring the states to enforce the Five & Ten Law making beer a major felony. The resulting financial disaster caused state governments to get cold feet, so the feds proceeded to help them out with a little incentive plan.

This is what the Bush administration was doing behind the scenes. Asset-forfeiture-for-prohibition is the root cause of the enormous crash that wiped out mortgage values all over the United States. The losses were measured in trillions of dollars, and the federal government had to find a way to transfer that disaster overseas. At the time of the Great Depression, the Hoover administration was pressuring the League of Nations and foreign governments to expand prohibitionist confiscation overseas.

The State Department memoranda that Bradley/Chelsea Manning transferred to WikiLeaks may have contained information on how the State Department did that very same thing. Through the mechanism of international treaties and cooperative enforcement conferences, prohibition and asset forfeiture were made to look like good ways for foreign governments to rob their own citizens. As long as none of those governments realized that their security prices would plummet to the point of crippling their economies, their loss could become Uncle Sam’s gain with just a wee bit of insider trading. The State Department was worried that the Manning and Snowden leaks would tip off the suckers to the Set-up before The Sting could drain away their wealth through The Big Short 2.

Learn how republican Herbert Hoover used the IRS to swat beer, and crushed the U.S. economy instead. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929, is live at Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

ProhicrashAmazon

 

Franklin Roosevelt and Evo Morales

communistcrossMORALES LOSES ELECTION! spin the headlines, but where’s his replacement? What other candidate did the people prefer? The answer is… nobody.

Evo Morales is as safe in Bolivia as Mayor Cermak was in Chicago when Corn Products Refining provided glucose for all the beer and moonshine for hundreds of miles in every direction. Already the CIA, FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG and other altruistic concerns have been sent by “our” government to dislodge Evo, just as it went after Mayor Big Bill Thompson of Chicago. But the Bolivians have a sovereign government of their own, which expelled the US envoy for espionage.

Don’t be shocked. The looter octopus that has gained complete control over all three branches of what is now Amerika packs its diplomatic service with agents of coercion and espionage. That same woman, with the help of the above Acronyms-With-Guns, got the president of Paraguay impeached and increased homicide rates in the Caribbean by 800% before moving on to Brazil. There, the politician twice preferred by voters as the lesser of two looters was promptly faced with loose talk of impeachment. Morales, thrice-chosen by his countrymen over prohibitionist hypocrites, has reason to worry for the future of his country. President-elect Roosevelt was himself worried about his country as Mayor Cermak of Chicago was fatally shot by an assassin while riding next to him in a parade–less than a month before inauguration day. THAT scared the jejeezes out of Congress!

What Morales did was ask Congress for a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a fourth term, just as Franklin Roosevelt would have done, and gotten, had his health not intervened. Why was Morales refused a possible fourth term?

Part of the reason is doubtless ideological. Under the Monroe Doctrine, South America is more independent than Puerto Rico, but completely unaware that there of any alternative to Soviet-style communism or American-style nationalsocialism. Morales rejected the alien régime of christian fascist prohibitionism, which is precisely why Bolivia’s voters elected him three times in a row. Franklin Roosevelt did precisely the same thing. Roosevelt promised to legalize beer, excuse me, “beeah,” a month before the 1932 election. The entire USA had been a religious police state since the night of January sixteenth, 1920. Politicians, police, judges and gangsters were everywhere murdering, bribing, betraying and conspiring with one another–exactly as in These States today–and for the exact same reason. The Political State, at the urging of religious fanatics, then sought and now seeks to dictate to men and women what they must and mustn’t eat, drink and smoke exactly the way it is done in Mohammedan countries. By saying no to such fanatical totalitarianism, Morales and FDR both earned the grateful thanks of the population they were elected to protect from threats both foreign and domestic.

The difference was that in Roosevelt’s time, the Liberal Party of America in its 1930 platform demanded the overthrow of Methodist White Terror and Ku-Klux Sharia law and pledged itself to the protection of individual rights against teetotalitarian prohibitionism. Roosevelt’s Democratic Party had no choice but to add its own prohibition plank lest its own politicians’ hands be slapped away from the till. In Bolivia there is nothing resembling a Libertarian Party. Voters there have been taught there are two systems: Christian National Socialism and Soviet Communism, and have decided that communism is less obnoxious than nationalsocialist prohibitionism–exactly the same choice made by American voters  before and after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Bolivia is the same as it was in 1910, when William Jennings Bryan ordered them to send men with guns to force them to eat, drink and smoke what His jealous god intended–and nobody understood a word that he said. The US Government, on the other hand, listened, understood, and pointed loaded guns at its own countrymen, and at the rest of the world for good measure.

So why did 51.3% of Bolivia’s Congress turn down Morales’ request for a constitutional Amendment to allow a fourth term? Probably because they do not want him assassinated by a disturbed lone gunman working alone with no support from a fanatical nationalsocialist foreign government.

Lysander Spooner, libertário, fascículo 23

spoonerstamp

Selo do Spooner

O governo eleito por votos secretos e nada verificáveis tomadas na marra de pessoas que nem possuem a liberdade de boicotear a fraude possui legitimidade para tomar emprestado e esbanjar  66% do PIB? Você de livre e espontânea vontade emprestaria um real sequer a algum político conhecido como tal? Na crise dos confiscos republicanos de 2007-2014 quem ressarciu o dinheiro que o governo americano injetou nos bancos cambaleantes? 

XVII

         Sob princípios gerais do direito e da razão, as dívidas contraidas em nome de “os Estados Unidos”, ou de “o povo dos Estados Unidos”, não têm valia alguma. Não passa de absurdo fingir que as dívidas no montante de vinte e cinco centenas de milhões de dólares5 podem ter valia alguma sobre trinta e cinco ou quarenta milhões de pessoas, enquanto inexiste uma partícula de evidência legítima ‑‑tal como se exigiria para constatar uma dívida particular‑‑ que se possa produzir contra qualquer uma delas, que esta pessoa. ou procurador autorizado seu, contratou para pagar um centavo sequer.

Certamente nem a totalidade do povo dos Estados Unidos, nem tampouco algum número deles, alguma vez contratou, separada ou individualmente, para pagar um centavo sequer destas dívidas.

Decerto também, nem a totalidade do povo dos Estados Unidos, e tampouco algum número dentre ele, alguma vez se reuniu, mediante algum contrato visível, escrito, voluntário e autêntico, formando firma, sociedade ou associação pelo nome de “os Estados Unidos”, ou “o povo dos Estados Unidos”, em seguida autorizando os seus agentes a contrair dívidas em seu nome.

Decerto também, inexiste firma, pessoa jurídica, ou associação tal qual “os Estados Unidos”, ou “o povo dos Estados Unidos”, formado mediante algum contrato visível, escrito, voluntário e autêntico, e possuidora de propriedade coletiva para saldar estas dívidas.

Como é possível então, com base em qualquer princípio geral do direito ou da razão, que dívidas sem valia alguma sobre pessoa individual, se façam valer sobre quarenta milhões de pessoas enquanto coletividade quando, nos princípios gerais do direito e da razão, estes quarenta milhões de pessoas não possuem, e nunca possuíram qualquer propriedade coletiva? nunca entraram em contrato coletivo ou individual? nem tampouco existem ou existiram como entidade pessoa jurídica?

Quem foi então que contraiu estas dívidas, em nome de “os Estados Unidos”? Foram, quando muito, umas poucas pessoas, chamando-se de “membros do Congresso”, etc., que presumiram representar “o povo dos Estados Unidos”, mas que realmente representam apenas um bando secreto de assaltantes e assassinos que queriam dinheiro para realizar os assaltos e assassinatos com os quais se ocupavam; e cuja intenção fora de extorquir do futuro povo dos Estados Unidos, mediante assalto e ameaças de assassinato (e assassinato de verdade, fosse parecer necessário), os meios de saldar essas dívidas.

Este bando de assaltantes e assassinos, de fato os verdadeiros principais na contração destas dívidas, é um bando secreto, pois seus membros nunca celebraram algum contrato visível, escrito, voluntário e autêntico pelo qual pudessem se identificar individualmente perante o mundo, ou mesmo entre si. Os seus representantes verdadeiros ou pretensos, que contraíram estas dívidas em seu nome foram selecionados (se de fato houve seleção) para este propósito às ocultas (por voto secreto), e de maneira a delatar a nenhum dos principais individualmente, sendo esses principais desconhecidos individualmente tanto para os seus pretensos representantes, que contraíram essas dívidas em seu benefício, como para os que fizeram o empréstimo. O empréstimo, portanto, foi tomado e feito às escuras; isto é, por pessoas que não viam a cara um do outro, nem sabiam os nomes um do outro, que na época não tinham, como não têm agora, maneira de identificar uns aos outros como principais nas transações; e que consequentemente não podem provar ter contrato entre si.

Ademais, os empréstimos foram feitos e tomados para fins criminosos; ou seja, para fins de assalto e assassinato; sendo os todos contratos, por esse motivo intrinsecamente nulos; o que seriam mesmo que as partes, mutuantes e mutuários, tivessem feito os seus contratos abertamente, cara a cara, em seus próprios nomes.

Ademais, este bando secreto de assaltantes e assassinos, os verdadeiros mutuários desse dinheiro, inexistindo como pessoa jurídica legítima, não dispõe de propriedade como tal que o permitisse saldar essas dívidas. De fato tem pretensões de grandes posses fundiárias em terras incultas situadas entre o Golfo de México e o Polo Norte. Mas com base em princípios gerais do direito e da razão, valeria o mesmo eles terem pretensões sobre os oceanos Atlântico e Pacífico; ou a atmosfera e a luz do sol; e de detê-los e dispor deles para saldar a estas dívidas.

Dispondo de propriedade alguma com a qual saldar suas pretensas dívidas corporativas, este bando secreto de assaltantes e assassinos de fato está falido. Não tem com quê pagar. De fato, não propõem saldar suas dívidas a não ser pelo produto de futuros assaltos e assassinatos. Assumidamente, é esta a fonte única da qual dependem; fato conhecido pelos mutuantes à época dos empréstimos, sendo, portanto, como se fosse parte do contrato o empréstimo ser liquidado apenas com o produto de futuros assaltos e assassinatos. Por este motivo, não houvesse outros, eram nulos os contratos desde o início.

De fato, estas duas classes aparentes, mutuantes e mutuários, realmente formavam uma única classe. Tomavam e faziam os empréstimos entre si. Não só eram parte integrante, mas a própria vida e alma deste bando secreto de assaltantes e assassinos que tomou e gastou o dinheiro emprestado. Individualmente, forneceram capital para um empreendimento comum; tomando, em seguida, o que se apresentavam como participações para empréstimos individuais. A única desculpa que teriam por aceitar essas supostas participações societárias, em garantia destes chamados empréstimos individuais às mesmas partes, seria que teriam assim algum pretexto para futuros assaltos pelo bando (ou seja, para saldar as dívidas da corporação), e que também soubessem quais os quinhões cabíveis a cada qual, do produto de seus futuros assaltos.

Enfim, fossem essas dívidas geradas para os propósitos mais inocentes e honestos, da maneira mais aberta e honesta, pelas verdadeiras partes dos contratos, estas partes não teriam como constranger a ninguém salvo a si mesmas, arriscando nenhuma propriedade que não a própria. Não teriam como obrigar a nenhum sucessor, nem arriscar propriedade subsequentemente gerada por, ou pertencente a outrem.

5   A dívida nacional em 1869 foi de $2.45x10EE7, e a população, 3.98x10EE6.

Continua…

Origens do partido libertário

theamericanlanguageHenry Louis Mencken, autor de “The American Language”, achou que o governo desprezava os direitos dos cidadãos porque o cidadão não entendia mais o inglês do Século XVIII. O que diria o membro do povão de uma frase como esta: “Convocou os corpos legislativos a lugares nada usuais, inconvenientes e distantes dos cartórios em que se guardavam seus registros públicos, com o único fito de arrancar-lhes, pela fadiga, o assentimento às medidas que lhe conviessem.”? Mencken então traduziu a Declaração para o vernáculo americano em defesa da liberdade e dos direitos da pessoa humana, em 1921.

SEMPRE que as coisas ficam tão emboladas que o povo de determinado país tem que cortar os laços que o ligavam a outro, e ficar na sua, sem pedir licença a ninguém, exceto quiçá o Todo-Poderoso, é correto esclarecer porque fizeram isso, para que tudo mundo possa ver que não estão aprontando nem armando nada.

O que temos a dizer é o seguinte: primeiro, tanto tu como eu valemos o mesmo que qualquer outro, aliás, quem sabe até mais; segundo, que ninguém tem direito a burlar nenhum dos nossos direitos; terceiro, que cada um tem o direito de viver, de ir e vir como quiser, e de se divertir do jeito que bem entender, desde que não interfira com outra pessoa.

Que o governo que não garante esses direitos não presta para nada; e mais, que as pessoas deviam escolher o tipo de governo que querem, sem que ninguém de fora se intrometa no assunto. E se o governo não fizer assim, cabe ao povo o direito de botá-lo na rua e instalar outro que cuidará dos seus interesses.

É claro que isso não implica em montar revolta todo dia mode aqueles bobocas da América do Sul, ou sempre que algum titular de cargo ficar à toa, sem ter o que fazer. Mais vale acomodar um pouquinho de corrupção, etc., do que ficar toda hora montando revoluções mode aqueles ladinos, e qualquer um que não seja anarquista ou desses comunas da vida diria o mesmo.

Mas quando as coisas ficam tão ruins que o cidadão quase que não tem mais direito nenhum, faltando pouco para ser chamado de escravo, aí todos deviam unir as forças e botar os sem-vergonhas na rua, e instalar outros cuja roubalheira não dê tanto na vista, e marcar cerrado em cima deles.

Taí a situação que o povo dessas Colônias encara, que já está de saco cheio, e vai dar um basta nisso.

O governo desse Rei atual, George III, nunca prestou desde a largada, e sempre que peão reclama, lá vêm os meganhas dele, impondo tudo goela-abaixo.

Veja só algumas das agressões que ele armou:

  • Entrou vetando na Legislatura as leis que todos favoreciam e que quase ninguém achava ruins.
  • Não permitia a aprovação de nenhuma lei a menos que antes passasse pelo cunho dele, e logo metia no bolso, fazendo de morto, e não estava nem aí para as reclamações da gente.
  • E quando o pessoal trabalhava direitinho, pedindo a ele que aprovasse um projeto de lei sobre esse ou aquele assunto, ele forçava a barra: ou eles fechavam a Legislatura, deixando ele legislar sozinho, ou não podiam ter essa lei.
  • Ele forçou a Câmara a se reunir em vilarejos lá nas cucuias, de modo que quase ninguém conseguia chegar lá e a liderança ficava em casa, deixando ele fazer tudo como quisesse.
  • Ele mandou a Legislatura às favas, e dispensava os deputados sempre que ousassem criticá-lo ou falar grosso com ele.
  • Depois de abolir a Legislatura, ele não permitiu que mais ninguém fosse eleito, de modo que não havia quém tocasse as coisas, e aí qualquer um entrava ali e fazia o que quisesse.
  • Procurou afugentar as pessoas que queriam se mudar pra cá, e colocou tanto obstáculo no caminho do italiano ou judeu, pra tirar os papéis, que era melhor largar mão disso e ficar em casa mesmo. E se conseguia entrar, não lhe permitia posse nem de uma gleba, de modo que nem vinha mais pra cá ou voltava pra sua terra.
  • Ele atrapalhou os tribunais, e não contratou juízes o suficiente para dar conta do trabalho, e a pessoa desesperava de tanto aguardar a chamada da sua causa que abandonava a reclamação, voltava pra casa e nunca ganhava o que lhe deviam.
  • Fez gato e sapato dos juízes, despedindo-os sempre que faziam algo que ele não gostasse, ou ele atrasava os seus salários, de modo que eram obrigados a obedecer ou não recebiam.
  • Ele inventou uma pá de cargos pra dar emprego pra tudo quanto é vadio que ninguém conhece, e o povo, coitado, é obrigado a pagar a despesa quer tenha condições ou não.
  • Sem guerra nenhuma, manteve aboletado no país um exército vadio, por mais que o povo reclamasse disso.
  • Deixou o exército tocar tudo a seu bel-prazer, e num ‘tava nem aí pra quem não vestia uniforme.

Deu trela pros corruptos, só Deus sabe de onde, deixando que dessem palpite em tudo, e ainda que aprontassem o seguinte:

  • Obrigar o pobre povo a fazer pensão para uma tropa sem serventia nenhuma, e que não querem ver vadiando em sua casa.
  • E quando os soldados matam o cidadão, arrumar tudo para que escapem ilesos do crime.
  • Bedelhar nos nossos negócios.
  • Cobrar imposto da gente sem querer saber se a gente achava que o objeto daqueles impostos seria do nosso interesse custear na marra ou não.
  • E quando peão era preso e pedia julgamento por júri, não deixar que fosse julgado pelos seus semelhantes.
  • Tocando gente que não tem culpa de nada pra fora do país, e acusando-os em tribunal lá longe pelo que teriam feito aqui.
  • Nos países fronteiriços, deu apoio a governos canalhas e ainda quis que se alastrassem, de modo a fincar raízes por cá também, ou tornar o nosso governo tão canalha quanto o deles.
  • Ele nunca deu bola pra Constituição, e sim tratou de abolir as leis que todos achavam satisfatórios e aos quais quase ninguém se opunha, procurando sempre mexer com o governo de modo a poder fazer o que desse na telha.
  • Ele botou pra correr os nossos legisladores e ainda deu a entender que fazia tudo melhor sozinho.
  • Agora lava as mãos de nós e ainda se dá ao trabalho de declarar a guerra contra a gente, de forma que a ele não devemos mais nada, e ele não manda mais na gente não.
  • Incendiou as cidades, matou gente cachorramente a tiros, e infernizou as nossas atividades no mar.
  • Contratou regimentos inteiros de holandeses, etc., para guerrear contra a gente, dizendo a eles que podiam tirar de nós o que queriam, e atiçou pra cima da gente esses estrangeiros.
  • Agarrou dos navios os nossos marinheiros, obrigando-lhes a empunhar armas e lutar contra a gente, por mais que se relutassem contra isso.
  • Fomentou insurreição entre os índios, dando-lhes armas e munições e mandando sentar lenha, e estes mataram homens, mulheres e crianças sem ver a diferença.
  • Toda vez que lançou mão dessas coisas, a gente se empenhou pra levantar uma oposição, mas toda vez que a gente se mexeu pra acordar o povo, ele tornou a repetir as mesmas façanhas.

Quando o homem sempre age com tamanha brutalidade, salta aos olhos que esse aí não tem fineza e não merece o poder pra mandar em povo nenhum que ainda tem direitos; merece, sim, um chute na traseira.

E quando a gente prestou queixa pros ingleses, eles não deram satisfação.

Quase que todo dia avisamos a eles que os políticos de lá faziam coisas com a gente que não tinham nenhum direito de fazer.

Tornamos a lembrá-los quem eramos nós, e o que a gente fazia por cá, e porque viemos pra cá.

Pedimos a eles pra serem justos com a gente, e avisamos que se continuasse assim teríamos que tomar uma atitude qualquer e que eles talvez não iriam gostar.

Mas quanto mais a gente explicava, menos eles ligavam para o que a gente dizia.

Já se não nos apoiam, é porque estão contra a gente, e estamos prontos e dispostos a cair de pancada em cima deles, ou até fazer as pazes quando terminar.

Portanto fica resolvido que nós, os representantes do povo dos Estados Unidos da América, reunidos no Congresso, declaramos o seguinte: Que os Estados Unidos, que outrora eram as Colônias Unidas, hoje são um país livre, como deviam ser, e que escorraçamos o rei inglês e não queremos mais nada com ele, e os ingleses não mandam mais na gente; e ainda que, na condição de país livre, podemos fazer tudo o que os países livres fazem, sobretudo declarar guerra, celebrar a paz, assinar tratados, formar empresa, e afins. E nos juramos em apoio a essa proposta com a mão na Bíblia, cada um e todos nós, e prometemos persistir nisso, custe o que custar, na vitória ou na derrota, quer consigamos fazer vingar ou mesmo levando a pior, não importando se agindo assim a gente perder tudo ou mesmo seja enforcada pelo ato.

O trabalho Jefferson 1776 no vulgato de J Henry Phillips foi licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons – Atribuição-SemDerivados 3.0 Não Adaptada.
Com base no trabalho disponível em http://tradutoramericano.com.
Podem estar disponíveis autorizações adicionais ao âmbito desta licença em http://libertariantranslator.com.

Isso sim era liberalismo americano, e não o nazifascismo supersticioso dos republicanos ou o comunismo igualmente saqueador do partido democrata! Se deu para esclarecer esse aspecto da história dos EUA, imagine com que clareza os seus documentos podem ser traduzidos.

The language of coercion

piqrcode8One of the more delightful aspects of physics is its objectivity. Politics, especially looter politics, is not objective. Religious conservatives use the word “liberal” in much the same way National Socialists pronounce the same word. But this is very different from the way the word liberal is used in England, Canada and Australia, or Barbados, Trinidad and India for that matter. The true definition is quite clear. Indeed the Liberal Democratic Party of Australia in its position on victimless crimes sees freedom/liberty very much like any standard dictionary owned by your average college student:

• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state.

So what is this liberty and freedom activists speak of? It is freedom from coercion, that is, freedom from the initiation of force. To an engineer, force is what changes the momentum of an article possessed of mass, such as a bullet. More simply, a charge of gunpowder accelerates a bullet. But what if the bullet strikes someone? Now we are talking about power, work and energy.

Work boils down to making, resisting or overcoming a force over some distance, as when water is moved to a higher elevation by overcoming its weight. To avoid having to constantly break everything down into Mass times Length divided or multiplied by Time we use Newtons, Joules and such as shorthand to condense the clear meanings into useful communicative language. So a brake slowing a car has to do the negative of work and change the kinetic energy of motion into heat. A bullet striking someone also does work, in this case damage, which often stops that person from being able to locally reduce entropy by electrochemical reactions.  In political parlance this is killing when they do it, but exercising authority when we do it. There is nothing objective about political language.

Still, some parallels remain. In physics power is the rate at which work can be done. But when someone in a small country remarks that Russia and America are powerful, they are referring to the instantaneous rate at which human beings may be reduced to cadavers by either or both governments. Politics as she is is not a pretty thing, but when you realize that every government is a monopoly on harmful, coercive, deadly force within its borders, then clearly its political power is measured in deaths per second just as an engine’s power is measured in its rate of doing work, such as Joules per second, Watts, Horsepower or whichever equivalent transformation best fits the context.

So when any politician says that a government needs for whatever reason to have more power, that politician is saying that the instantaneous rate at which that government can kill people needs to be increased.  This is one of those true generalities that are so offensive to people who dislike honestly dealing in the objective facts of reality. Yet when one looks at what is involved, it is higher taxes (and if you resist those you are arrested or shot)  to pay for increased numbers of men carrying pistols, rifles and badges. Those militarized police forces or men with guns, are as a result, even better positioned to bring additional deadly force to bear on their captive populations. None of this was mysterious to Boston attorney Lysander Spooner a century and a half ago, but modern looter politicians react with rage, denial or panic to any such simple recitation of the logical consequences of clearly-defined language.

Getting back to “liberal,”  German National Socialists used the term to mean “jewish,” and “laissez-faire capitalist” and “communist,” all three of which (like logical consistency) they took to be bad things. And when you examine the way American Religious Conservatives use the word, their use of “liberal” is pretty much the same. It is like one of those observations in mathematics that if each of two things is equivalent to a third thing, they are equal to each other.

Clarity is not oversimplification. Clarity is the handmaiden of that truth which will set you free once you know it.

 

YES, Non-Aggression Principle!

auschwitzA genuine libertarian has signed a nonaggression pact drafted by Ayn Rand on April 17, 1947. Without that you cannot pay dues to join the party or contribute to its expenses. As elsewhere in nature, predators and competitors camouflaged through mimesis seek to infiltrate, corrupt and sabotage the party’s efforts to repeal coercive and deadly legislation and secure individual rights. The NAP says: “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”

H.L. Mencken translated Jefferson’s declaration into plain English that likewise brought out the non-aggression implicit in its construction, but despaired of making it work just as he doubted ethical principles could be objectively framed. His loss was made good by one of the young admirers he cared for not a whit.

In “A Treatise on Right and Wrong” Mencken took to task all forms of organized mysticism, superstition and flimflam artistry, down to their basic premises and claims of Revelation as a source of factual knowledge and basis for punishment. Of Herbert Hoover Mencken reported that “he took to good works in 1914, and was presently hailed everywhere as a champion altruist.” Altruism was preached by Auguste Compte, Immanuel Kant, Goethe and Hegel, taken up and defended by Moseley, Mussolini, Franco, Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels & Co. The photo above is the entry to the Auschwitz camp at which selfishness–believed to be a Jewish trait–was to be purged from the “blood” pool of mankind. The NSDAP was really big on pools of blood.

Germans believed in Mendelian breeding for moral “instinct” three decades before research on the Influenza epidemic of WWI was to lead to the Double Helix–discovered by non-superstitious scientists. After Germany’s Christian National Socialist government was overrun by the equally altruistic and mystical Communist army, ringleaders were rounded up and tried for their policies and practices of altruism-through-genocide. History records this as the Nuremberg Trials, where the first simultaneous interpreters were put to work with headphones and microphones.

While working on Atlas Shrugged during the Nuremberg Trials, a young writer of jewish extraction calmly noted that the initiation of force–sending men with guns out to coerce and bayonet people–was the practical manifestation of the “unproductive hands” described by Adam Smith as the parasitical force that ruins and impoverishes great nations, but always for the most genuine and sincerely altruistic motives. The Non-Aggression Pact was explained to me as also having a secondary effect: not even the most brazen of looter propagandists could brand as terrorists people who “oppose the initiation of force.”

The Non-Aggression Pact thus has three functions: 1. It affirms the principle of rights and freedom. 2. It disarms actual looters who would gladly coerce us so they may loot and enslave the population bereft of the opportunity to vote against them. 3. Is honestly states what we are about. We are the party that does NOT want men with guns to kick in your door the way the Republican, Communist, Democrat, Prohibition, Tea and Green parties do.

It therefore follows that every infiltrator from those ideologies wants us to abandon the one thing that we hold in common as the unifying principle, and instead take up the ethical values and methods that led directly to the Holocaust, to Auschwitz, to the slogan over its gate that George Orwell so crisply translated as: Freedom Is Slavery.

The Republican, Prohibition and Tea want the initiation of force to kill doctors, overturn Roe v. Wade, rewrite the 14th Amendment, shoot and jail victimless hippies and bomb them Mohammedans and commie atheists. The Communists, Econazis and Democrats want “deniers” property confiscated at gunpoint for “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (People, not Profits) and a return to the altruist values defended by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.  Things have come to such a pass that National Socialists today proudly call themselves by their proper name, while other altruist-collectivist socialists seek to distance themselves with the Russian slang “Nazi.”

Looters borrow “Liberal” from the wet, American anti-dictatorial party established in 1930 to repeal National Prohibition and Blue Laws and are making it a synonym of its antonym!  “Anarchist” communists, who want “libertarian” arson and murder made legal, seek to attack the NAP by [get this!] claiming a fictional movie character advocated shooting first and letting God sort them out. This is the example they want governments to continue to follow. Pedants of similar stripe ignore the NAP’s author and context, yet balk at reciting the presumed virtues of altruism or evils of individual rights. All rely on prophesy, never the evidence of what socialism has actually wrought everywhere its writ has run.

There will always be spies and saboteurs, parasites and fifth-columnists denigrating individuality and praising death-camp altruism. For the exact same reason there will always be looters and other criminals. Just as pickpockets try to infiltrate the honest, looters seek to subvert honesty in competing political parties.  Dictatorships despise honest competition.

Speaking of competition, next time you need historical or political material translated from Portuguese, Spanish or English, why not get a bid from an ATA-certified translator?

Have you ever seen a convincing explanation of the Crash and Depression? Prohibition and The Crash explains matters straight out of Hoover’s papers, court papers and newspaper reports published at the time. Live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a pint of craft beer per language.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

Lysander Spooner, Libertário, fascículo 22

trqrcode10O atual governo americano vê os estrangeiros como otários para quem é possível transferir crises econômicas mediante tratados. Assim, o colapso no mercado de títulos provocado pelos confiscos do partido proibicionista do Bush em 2007-8 foi transferido para a oposição e em seguida para o resto do mundo mediante tratados proibicionistas e de confisco anti-lavagem e pró-sujeira. No tempo de Spooner já invadira o México para confiscar o ouro da Califórnia… 

XVI

Sob princípios gerais do direito e da razão, os chamados tratados, que fazem as vezes de serem celebrados com as outras nações, por pessoas que se denominam embaixadores, secretários, presidentes e senadores dos Estados Unidos, em nome e benefício de “o povo dos Estados Unidos”, não são de valia alguma. Estes chamados embaixadores, secretários, presidentes e senadores dos Estados Unidos, que manifestam ser agentes de “o povo dos Estados Unidos”, para fins de celebrar tais tratados, são incapazes de evidenciar qualquer prova visível ou escrita ou constatar de maneira autêntica que a totalidade do “povo dos Estados Unidos”, ou qualquer outra corporação visível, reconhecida e responsável que se denomine como tal, alguma vez autorizou estes pretensos embaixadores ou outros a celebrar tratados em nome de, ou de valia sobre qualquer membro individual de “o povo dos Estados Unidos”, ou que qualquer outra corporação visível, reconhecida e responsável que se denomine por tal, alguma vez autorizou esses pretensos embaixadores, secretários, presidentes e senadores ou outros, a reconhecer, em seu nome ou lugar, quaisquer outras pessoas que se denominem por imperadores, reis, rainhas e afins, como governantes, soberanos, senhores ou representantes legítimos dos vários povos aos quais presumem governar, representar ou sujeitar.

As “nações”, como são chamadas, com as quais os nossos pretensos embaixadores, secretários, presidentes e senadores professam celebrar tratados, são tão míticas quanto a nossa. Nos princípios gerais do direito e da razão, não existem essas tais “nações”. Vale dizer, nem a totalidade do povo da Inglaterra, por exemplo, ou qualquer outra corporação visível, reconhecida e responsável, que por tal se denomine, se organizou alguma vez mediante contrato mútuo, visível, lavrado por escrito e autenticado, para se tornar uma associação ou corporação legítima e de boa fé, nem tampouco autorizou algum rei, rainha ou outro representante a celebrar tratados em seu nome, ou de constrangê-los, individualmente ou como associação, mediante tais tratados.

Os nossos pretensos tratados, sendo assim acertados com nenhuma nação ou representante de nação legítima ou de boa fé, e celebrados, da nossa parte, por pessoas sem nenhuma autoridade legítima de agir em nosso lugar, não têm maior valia intrínseca do que um tratado celebrado com o homem da lua ou o rei dos Plêiades.

Continua esta tradução de http://www.tradutoramericano.com.br…

O tradutor brasileiro é explorado?

indigestQuem é impedido de competir, é explorado. Para dar uma noção das diferenças, vamos comparar a situação de um tradutor autônomo no Texas.

O texano que acordar às oito da manhã consegue tirar senha no cartório às nove horas. Lá, preenche uma folha, paga 35 dólares e tem nome de firma garantido por 10 anos. Se chegar no banco às 10 horas com uns 300 dólares, consegue abrir uma conta comercial e pedir cartão de crédito/débito e ainda ganha talão de cheques. Com o talão dá pra encomendar cartões de visita na gráfica e com o cartão, registrar o nome como URL na internet por $10 e apontar para um site ou blog gratuito para mostrar as credenciais. No dia seguinte já tem empresa, conta comercial, cartões de visita, presença na internet, já pode abrir uma conta no PayPal e ter clientes na Europa se quiser. Uma Dell usada custa duzentos dólares com garantia de um ano.

Aliás, eles até dispensam o registro de razão social.

Agora pense bem no que é necessário para você abrir uma microempresa individual, quanto tempo isso leva e quais os custos e as cobranças impostas pelos 32 partidos saqueadores.

Porque isso? Lá como no Brasil existem partidos comunistas, fascistas, socialistas e proibicionistas: o PC, o partido Verde, os democratas, socialistas e republicanos estão todos ali pedindo aumento de impostos, regulamentação, burocracia, multas e voz de prisão. Liberdade ou direitos individuais nem pensar. Mas existe também o partido Libertário. Este partido de não agressão, formado em 1971 em oposição ao militarismo desvairado do Richard Nixon, acredita que a função do governo–que, afinal, não passa de um monopólio sobre a coação–é aquela que consta da Declaração da Independência: garantir os direitos individuais da pessoa de ser feliz e incoacta. Mesmo sem dinheiro e com com poucos votos, bastou o começo da organização deste partido para acabar com o alistamento forçado, e ao longo dos últimos 45 anos vem diminuindo o número de funcionários do governo federal. O programa do partido é bem simples, e aparece no LP.org em inglês e espanhol.

Não se fala muito nisso, até mesmo porque o governo americano, graças a uma lei que o presidente Nixon assinou dentro de 24 horas da formação do Partido Libertário, pega dinheiro do contribuinte para subsidiar as campanhas dos velhos partidos entrincheirados que infiltram toda a programação. A maioria dos cidadãos nem suspeita que existem outros partidos que não o republicano e democrata. Mas os políticos sabem. Afinal, são os políticos e seus juízes que fazem as leis e as burocracias que impossibilitam a autonomia do tradutor.

Agradecimentos ao chargista cearense Newton Silva.

The Case For Voting Libertarian, in English

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

Losing is Winning

Milton Friedman, in “Free to Choose,” made the observation that the Socialist platform of 1928 had become the law of the land — albeit in watered-down form. (pp 286-7 & Appendix A) Without the practical campaigning on political platforms designed to elect their candidates, year after year, decade after decade, the Socialists would have accomplished none of this. Yet their candidates lost practically every election. The prohibitionists likewise consistently lost, yet managed to amend the Constitution to prohibit the sale, manufacture and transportation of any liquid containing even the slightest trace of beverage alcohol. How is it that they who lose the elections get their platform planks enacted and enforced as the supreme law of the land? By what standard does one distinguish between winning and losing?

Looking backward over the evolution of political party platforms in America, the most startling observation is that every major change in national legislation had its origins in the platform some third, fourth or fifth party of political also-rans. Because of their familiarity and impact, the income tax and prohibition enactments are as good as any example to illustrate how this works.

National Prohibition

American colonies imported molasses from French and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean for distillation into rum. British taxes on those imports (not tea) were one of the primary causes of the American Revolution. After the Revolution, an excise laid on liquor by the nascent and debt-ridden US government sparked the Whiskey Rebellion. Excise taxes on alcohol helped fund the Union’s side in the War Between the States. Opium wars waged by the British Empire — to overcome Chinese prohibition of the drug cultivated in British India — horrified Americans already appalled by European colonialism. Alcohol seemed no less evil in effects seen on Indian reservations and among the natives of Africa and Polynesia. To practical politicians, the liquor, beer, saloon and patent medicine industries were sources of tax money, political support and campaign contributions. Yet to the sensitive nostrils of the Prohibitionists, such “paltering” with the “traffic” only laid bare the corruption which permeated the major parties.

The National Prohibition Convention assembled in Chicago in the fall of 1869. After deciding that the “traffic” in intoxicating beverages was a dishonor to Christian civilization, they resolved to wipe it out with the force of state and national law. Their political platform revolved entirely around that one issue as they resolutely pushed their puny statecraft into the turbulent seas of national politics in 1872. The Republican and Democratic parties were alarmed enough to promptly hedge their political platforms with warnings against laws they described as “unconstitutional” and “sumptuary,” depending on who was talking. The major parties spoke with different words—but a single voice—in denouncing an insurgency of crackpots. After all, several New England states had tried prohibition in the 1850s with disastrous results. Still the insurgency grew.

The Income Tax

The income tax made its explicit debut as a platform plank in the Communist Manifesto, published in German in 1848. The Manifesto was translated into English in the pages of a British magazine called “The Red Republican.” That expression burned its way into America’s literary conscience in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” by Harriet Beecher Stowe, before there was a detectable Republican Party in America. The word “income” itself meant different things to different people, but taxes were always exactions. Southern resistance to import tariffs had led to talk of secession as far back as the Andrew Jackson Administration, when state “nullification ordinances” making tariff collection illegal were quashed by the federal government. In the heat of the Civil War, the Union government, strapped for cash, enacted an income tax on July 1, 1862. This unpopular capitation tax was finally repealed and its “revenuers” disbanded December 24, 1872. The income tax was resurrected and entered American electoral politics with the 1880 platform of the Greenback Party, where it was formally introduced as a tax on “property,” and offered as an alternative to high tariffs on imports.

The Spoiler Effect

After the panic of 1873, severe economic depression worsened by monetary contraction brought sudden popularity to the idea of using the government to take from others. The Greenback Party tallied up 300,000 votes in excess of the difference between the popular votes gotten by the Republican and Democratic parties. Granted, this was an unusual and hotly-disputed election in which the electoral college and popular vote counts gave different results. Still, the Greenback vote was 160 times the size of the gap between winner and loser. 

The Prohibition Party, was a more familiar insurgent, its platform predating the Panic of 1873. To John D. Rockefeller, the Prohibition Party was preferable to a party advocating an income tax, and in 1882 he began donating one million gold dollars each year to the Prohibition party’s war chest. In the campaign of 1884, the prohibitionists tallied a vote count five times the size of the gap between winner and loser, gaining ground on the Greenbackers.

The Greenbackers were flanked by the Anti-Monopoly party which eliminated all ambiguity by advocating “a graduated income tax; and a tariff…” in a single sentence during the election campaign of 1884. Again its vote count was a large multiple, 700%, of the spread between winner and loser, but the Prohibitionist vote tally was now equal to 600% of the spread.

Leveraging the Spoiler Effect

We can visualize this ratio of the spoiler vote to the actual vote spread between winner and loser as a “spoiler effect lever.” For units of length, we substitute the ratio of tallies in the popular vote count to the popular vote count gap between the winning and losing parties. The larger the third-party vote count compared to the difference between the popular vote count tallied by major party winner and losers, the “longer” the spoiler effect lever. The longer this spoiler effect lever, the more effectively it works to shift the policies (in the form of platform planks) of at least one of the two major parties.

Rockefeller’s campaign contributions, combined with partial recovery from the depression which followed the panic of 1873, changed the relative lengths of those third-party spoiler vote levers. This, in turn, changed the willingness of Democratic and Republican politicians to “lift” planks published in third-party platforms in hopes of bringing voters clinging to those planks over to their own columns. Republicans immediately realized that they could have easily defeated Grover Cleveland with the votes of either splinter party. Indeed, they unseated Grover Cleveland and took back the White House by running Benjamin Harrison – a “dry” married to “Lemonade Lucy” a famous temperance advocate — in the next election.

The People’s Party of America dusted off the income tax plank and inserted it into its own recipe for a populist kleptocracy in 1892. They were joined in that endeavor by the even shriller Socialist Labor Party. For purposes of calculating our spoiler effect lever lengths, all of these parties advocating an income tax law may be lumped together as “Looters.” Republicans and Democrats alike, however, limited their platform recommendations to monetary and tariff issues while sizing up the swelling ranks of mystical prohibitionists and predatory collectivists. Regulatory enactments by the lame-duck Republicans, coupled with the financial collapse of the Panama Canal venture, brought economic disaster to the U.S. even as the victorious Democrats cheered the Cleveland Administration into office.

Lobbyists of the looter persuasion saw their opportunity and swarmed out of the woodwork. When they began pressuring Congress to add income tax provisions to the tariff act then under debate in Congress, the crisis worsened into what we now refer to as the Panic of 1893. The tax finally passed in 1894 but was struck down by the Supreme Court the following year. Only afterward, in the campaign of 1896, did the Democratic Party add garbled language to its platform which at least bore some resemblance to an endorsement of a federal income tax. This the Republicans politely ignored until Theodore Roosevelt began loudly clamoring for an income tax from the bully pulpit.

spoiler1

Figure 1. Graph of the spoiler vote tallies garnered by parties advocating a progressive
income tax (red) and compulsory prohibition (blue). Bars below the horizontal line indicate vote tallies smaller than the difference between the popular vote count of the winning and losing parties. 

A plank endorsing submission of an income tax amendment was finally added to the Democratic Party platform in 1908, with William Jennings Bryan the standard-bearer for the looter faction. Five parties were suddenly throwing their combined weight behind the income tax — the Democrats, Independence, People’s, Socialist and Socialist Labor parties – yet the aggregate vote tally of the four smaller parties was still smaller than the gap between winner and loser. The Prohibitionists’ spoiler effect lever, though longer, was also shorter than the vote gap. Even though they “lost” the election in 1908, the looters nonetheless got their income tax amendment while William Howard Taft was President.

spoiler2

Figure 2. Graph of the spoiler vote totals divided by the gap between willing and losing party.
Even when the spoiler vote is smaller than the gap, passage of the Prohibition amendment proves that the leverage effect is still large. 

In the 1912 Election Campaign, when Theodore Roosevelt defected to the looter side of the fence, the spoiler effect lever in the hands of income tax proponents once again grew in length to three times the size of the gap between winner and loser. In the five previous elections, neither the Prohibitionists nor the various looter parties had managed an aggregate vote count larger than the popular vote gap between winner and loser. But in 1912, even as Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive party so dramatically tipped the scales toward the looter position, the Prohibitionists also rallied with a tally nearly 800,000 votes larger than the gap in the popular vote. Their prohibition amendment was ratified into the Constitution in January of 1919, less than three years after the income tax.

Ten years ago, assembling this sort of data was a frustrating endeavor for individual researchers. Thanks to the Wikipedia anyone with an internet connection can reconstruct this information. For practically any major issue, the pattern is the same: some group of committed individuals organizes a political party and offers a platform encompassing their views, championed by candidates competing for votes. Sometimes there are many groups and many platforms, but the planks and the vote tallies are what matter to the politicians, and the politicians, after all, are the ones who make the laws.

Conclusions

In a great many elections nowadays, the difference between winning and losing parties is typically a matter of a few percentage points. History shows us that if an outside party consistently manages to garner a few percentage points, election after election, the number of votes they win will often be larger than the difference in the number of votes between the winning and losing parties. The payoff for their persistence occurs when one or the other of the dominant parties, covetous of those “wasted” votes, steals a plank from that party’s platform.

Although news to the voters, this was certainly old hat to professional politicians holding office during the Vietnam war. Back in those days, the Democratic and Republican parties saw their supremacy challenged by the upstart libertarians, whose platform was first published in 1972. Like the Democrats who in 1932 swept Franklin Delano Roosevelt into office on a platform to repeal national prohibition, the libertarians offered to repeal even those sumptuary laws banning substances other than alcohol – things like marijuana. This was anathema to the Republicans, who clung fanatically to all forms of prohibition. The Democrats in 1916 reelected Woodrow Wilson for keeping America out of World War I and the involuntary servitude of military conscription — never mind that they were betrayed. The Libertarians in 1972 promised to end the draft. To this day, neither of the major parties’ candidates, keenly mindful of the Libertarian party, dares to publicly advocate the forcible impressment of youth as cannon fodder.

For the first time in history we have a third party advocating freedom — not prohibition, nor government extortion of the populace. Yes, they do face opposition in the latest reincarnations of the looter persuasion. The New Left has mutated into the Green Party, which seeks to resurrect National Socialism on environmental rather than racial grounds. Since the collapse of communism, however, parties advocating government control and confiscation of everything have lost a lot of momentum. Because of this, and because of the spoiler effect lever, individual voters can make a tremendous difference by voting for the Libertarian party.

If by winning you mean rewriting the law of the land to give individuals greater freedom, a vote for the Libertarian party is never a wasted vote. Quite the contrary. When a minor party achieves 5% of the vote, the spoiler effect kicks in and converts the platform planks they advocate into highly valuable assets. The major parties need 10 times as many votes to accomplish what they want: putting this or that particular clown in front of the TV cameras while they quietly rob your money. The Republicans and Democrats understood this perfectly in 1972, before Richard Nixon was tossed out of the White House. Before the ink was dry on the Libertarian platform, these entrenched parties had already enacted legislation promising government subsidies to looter parties.

The Libertarian Party, dubbed the “Party of Principle,” was morally opposed to that sort of boodling. This commitment and integrity appealed hugely to Republicans, Democrats and Socialists alike. Media corporations also understood the message very clearly: we, the Democratic and Republican parties, will take money from the taxpayers and transfer it to your bank accounts if, in exchange, you will waste no opportunity to keep the Libertarians out of the picture. The value proposition was of course couched in sophisticated language and given such sonorous titles as The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-225) and The 1971 Revenue Act (P.L. 92-178) –See: The Nixon Anti-Libertarian Law.

Papering the thing over with sanctimonious guff did not change its nature. These laws were in the nature of a bribe, paid by the dominant parties to the print and broadcast media with money taken from the taxpayers for purposes of taking more money from those same taxpayers. The effects are not that different from the scattering of reflective chaff or the jamming of telemetry signals Congress was called upon to consider as part of the arms race at the time. The beneficiaries are the entrenched political parties, their lobbyists and hangers-on. Look where the money went: artificial candidates appeared, touted by all of the major networks and radio stations as “the” third alternative. Does anyone remember a single thing Eugene McCarthy or John Anderson stood for that was different from the Republicans or the Democrats?

Despite the wholesale purchase of advertisement for votes, the libertarians offered the only consistent platform, and in the election campaigns of 1980 and 1984 its candidates eclipsed artificial candidates manufactured by the media corporations. Ronald Reagan managed, by posing as a neo-laissez-faire capitalist and individualist, to draw support from Libertarian voters. But the campaign subsidy laws were not repealed. Tax dollars kept flowing and soon enough, another wave of millionaires and celebrities were paraded before the cameras, offering voters a “third” alternative instead of the Libertarian alternative. Media clowns like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader crowded Libertarian-too candidates like Ron Paul off-camera till after the elections. Then all political dialogue again shifted back to what sort of reasonable compromises “both” sides of the aisle could surely work out.

The greatest change since the campaign of 1880 has been government control of the media. Beginning with Herbert Hoover’s first television broadcasts in 1927 all the way up to the Reagan era, mass communications developed into what amounts to a “media trust.” There were three corporations regulated and licensed by looter politicians and their bureaucracies. Subsidized “jamming” of the airwaves kept voting taxpayers from finding out about parties committed to lowering taxes and repealing regulations. The internet has broken that monopoly.

Nowadays, anyone who cares at all can find out about the election results, platforms and subsidy laws. They can discover that their vote is worth 10 times as much when cast for a minor party. The record shows that any minor party getting 5% of the vote is soon able to change the law of the land for better or for worse. The major parties need more than 50% to elect their own and, judging from the past, are capable only of increasing taxes and multiplying swarms of agents and regulators to eat out our substance. To anyone interested in freedom, a vote for anything but the Libertarian party is truly a wasted vote. If the libertarians get 5% of the vote, laws change and  you win. If they don’t, you lose

Which will it be? 

hankdotcom

Need a translator?

Lysander Spooner, Libertário, fascículo 21

spoonerliberalO bom entendedor já divisa, nas entrelinhas das polêmicas do Spooner, a atitude libertária do jornalista H.L. Mencken e não a atitude incendiária e assassina que motivava os anarquistas que bombardeavam e baleavam os arquiduques e arcebispos das metrópoles monárquicas da velha Europa. A recessão severa que abalava os Estados Unidos teve início em 1837, com a reação chinesa à exportação do entorpecente escravizante da dormideira de origem indiana. As duas levas das guerras do ópio, e a agressão ao México pelo ouro da Califórnia prolongaram a miséria na qual minguavam as finanças do jovem país. O monopólio dos correios em 1844 enfrentou em Spooner El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quixote, que agora voltava para consolar os aflitos e afligir os consolados na esteira de mais uma guerra de conquista.

XV

Nos princípios gerais do direito e da razão, os compromissos da soldadesca, de que servirão por determinado número de anos, de que obedecerão aos seus superiores hierárquicos, de que manterão verdadeira fieldade para com o governo, e assim por diante, não são de obrigatoriedade alguma. Independente do caráter criminal de tal compromisso, de que, durante tantos anos, cada qual matará a tantos quanto for comandado matar, sem exercer critério próprio ou se conscientizar quanto ao juízo ou necessidade da matança, existe outro motivo pelo qual o compromisso do soldado não acarreta obrigatoriedade alguma, viz., é que, como todos os demais compromissos citados, é feito para com ninguém. Inexistindo, em qualquer sentido legítimo, governo tal qual “o governo dos Estados Unidos”, o compromisso do soldado, ou o contrato firmado com tal nação ou governo, é necessariamente um compromisso ou contrato firmado com ninguém. E por conseguinte, tal compromisso ou contrato não seria de obrigatoriedade alguma.

Continua…

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog