The Anarchy Fallacy

division by zero is wrong

Approaching 0 is different from putting 0 in the denominator.

A theory popular among folks who never cracked a logic or math book was that anarchism is “the logical end-product” of communism. That changed in 1972 when under 4000 Libertarian votes for John Hospers and Toni Nathan generated one consistent and uncorrupted electoral vote and changed important laws. Nowadays, intellectuals of the looter persuasion din everyone within earshot with the amended revealed truth that anarchism is “the logical end-product” of liberalism or libertarianism. Orwell commented on this sort of flip-flop when he explained how English socialists abhorred nationalsocialism until the Hitler-Stalin pact–AFTER which they promptly granted that fascism was, after all, a form of socialism, hence not all that bad.

Before trying to axiomatize a thing, it pays to examine what the thing does and doesn’t mean to begin with. There were communist anarchists all over the map, firing shots and exploding bombs in crowded places, when Max Weber spun off an objective and useful definition of government as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”.

The typically Germanic purpose Weber attributed to this “community,” however, was “the use of physical force as a means of domination”–the opposite of what libertarians want. To be legitimate, our use of force ought to be retaliatory–the response to aggression, to menacing–rather than initiated. The idea is to defend the rights of individuals, their moral claims to freedom of action, and nothing else. Weber also took pains to remind his students: “Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state.” Looters are apt to grasp this precisely because they are the ones bent on domination by force. Weber also makes clear that “expropriation” is part and parcel of the domination by force he described in 1919.

The Libertarian Party was founded by admirers of Ayn Rand’s ideas, in particular, her ethical approach to the use of force within the context of limited constitutional democracy. In April of 1942 she wrote the non-aggression principle, which in 1971 was distilled into a pledge required for membership in the Libertarian Party. Every libertarian partisan has signed this Non-Aggression Pledge:

I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

The objective definition of government, including its territoriality feature, survived, but the purpose Weber wrote down–which Hitler exploited to form the NSDAP a year later–is today discarded. After all, most German voters were convinced National Socialism was successful after 18 years, but that theory did not survive past 25 years of age.

America’s lasting success comes from the word “free.” In the First and Second Amendments, free means free from aggressive coercion in a literal sense. This also symbolizes right (as opposed to wrong) in an ethical sense. In These States, an individual life worth living is the objective standard of value. Hence, the forcible defense (enforcement) of individual rights–thwarting their forcible violation–is the sole purpose of legitimate government. The LP’s growing success stems from this demonstrably desirable standard of ethical value.

You cannot divide by zero instead of using the definition of a limit to find a derivative for the slope of a curve. On these sigmoid curves the derivative exists and changes sign at the halfway mark. Nor can you reduce to zero the territorial jurisdiction or definition of government and still enforce the rights of individuals. Rand said to ask yourself what competition in the forcible restraint of men has to mean. The answer, the monstrous answer which all communist infiltrators pretending to advocate for freedom struggle to evade, is war. War and death are what every anarchist seeks. So why else, other than hostile mimesis, would they infiltrate the LP?

If sabotage weren’t the motive, anarchists could be expected to organize the Anarchist Party of America, offer to legalize murder, robbery extortion, rape, slavery and disfigurement. Members could be encouraged to burn their voter registration cards. The party could field candidates who declare themselves opposed to the Constitution of the United States and eager to overthrow it by force rather than uphold it per an oath of office. I seriously wish more anarchists would clearly state their purpose. Their comrades could no longer infiltrate gullible parties, point to their own 5th-column provocateurs embedded within the the LP, and hiss “anarchists!”

When not infiltrating the LP, looter intellectuals wriggle to infiltrate pacifist movements. These are populated by folks who promise not to forcibly resist “domination”, nor to capture, try and punish those who aggress against them. In theory this leads to Aldous Huxley’s Island of Pala being invaded and dominated. In practice you observe it in the streets of India, Pakistan and Portland.

Our spoiler vote method of bringing pressure to bear paid off when the LP platform stopped Dixiecrats from restoring laws banning all birth control. Still, the momentum behind the population curve, though decelerating since that time, was huge. Hence the delay in reversing population growth, even though the derivative of the population curve has been negative since the late sixties.

Since 1972, socialism–especially in its communo-fascist variants–is reversing in these States because of Libertarian candidates supporting our platform and offering to support (but repair) the Constitution. Spoiler votes entrusted to these candidates cause entrenched “vocational” politicians of the kleptocracy to repeal brutal laws and lower parasitic taxes–that or be unseated by other looters quicker on the uptake. Our candidates don’t even need to be elected in order to change the laws. The Nixon law bribing the media to ignore us has slowed the process, but the replacement is going on with mathematical inexorability as the libertarian vote share increases.

See how the Liberal Party of 1930 gained enough spoiler votes to sell the Democrats on its repeal plank–after Republican fanaticism wrecked the economy. Prohibition and The Crash is live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Brought to you by…

simultaneous interpreting

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

Advertisements

Ayn Rand v. Spoiler Votes

Luckily the LP is not a religion, and has no doctrine of infallibility. What it does is put into practice a suggestion made by Ayn Rand in 1947:

For a practical definition, if men merely agree that no man or number of men have the right to initiate the use of force against any human being (and that includes the forcible seizure of his property), that they have no such right for any purpose whatsoever, at any time whatsoever—that would be all we need, that would achieve a perfect Utopia on earth, that would include all the moral code we need. (LOAR 366)

Did Ayn Rand understand how spoiler votes change laws? Apparently not. Never has she explained how the income tax moved from the Communist Manifesto to the 16th Amendment. In The Fountainhead Dominique clearly opposes Prohibition, but how did it move from the Prohibition Party platform to the 18th Amendment? When asked in 1972 about the Libertarian Party she replied:

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. … (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]

Rand’s vote-count error is reminiscent of the socialist “fixed pie” error Peikoff pointed out in a debate. Looters imagine there is only so much wealth, and that if you gain some, it is taken from someone else. Hospers and Nathan’s LP took nearly 4000 votes from parasitical competitors. The result was that the LP platform’s plank on overpopulation was copied almost verbatim into the Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court. This stopped Texas and Wallace Dixiecrat states from reviving Comstock laws to again ban all birth control, including abortion. This individual right Ayn Rand defended in keeping with the 14th Amendment.

Nixon’s party, on the other hand, got the “message” that George Wallace’s racial collectivist supporters sent to Washington with their 1968 votes (46 of them electoral votes). The Republicans imported some of Wallace’s planks and rhetoric and again scooped up the Klan vote–as they had in 1928. At 67, Ayn can’t be blamed for not realizing on October 22 that Wallace–in 1972 the leading Democratic contender–“had the sense to stay home” because he was shot May 15. Ayn hardly noticed that Bobby Kennedy (whom she doubtless saw as another heir of the Nazi Papacy) was fatally shot June 6th. When the GOP allowed Goldwater to lose to LBJ, that was NOT the republican endorsement of Jewish values or repudiation of christian naziism the author of “The Fascist New Frontier” had struggled to imagine.

Ayn Rand, born in an autocratic empire turned communist dictatorship, lacked experience with democracy. Like teevee personalities, she saw votes as vectors for hiring politicians, NOT as policy instruments with which individuals directly change laws. The idea of spoiler votes moving policy–as the U.S. Liberal Party votes did when she was 25, or as communist votes changed the U.S. Constitution when she was 8, never occurred to her then, or to most libertarians today.  But the religious Prohibition Amendment and communist Income Tax Amendment were championed by parties that averaged under 3% of the vote.

So when a brilliant ethicist opines that “taking ten votes away” from a lying, superstitious, girl-bullying fascist looter the likes of Richard Nixon is “a moral crime”, one has to wonder if philosophy, like science, “advances one funeral at a time.”

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

Ayn Rand’s description of the Crash and Depression in Atlas Shrugged more closely resembles the historical record than prior theories. Republicans have managed to efface Clark Warburton’s “The Economic Results of Prohibition”.  Prohibition and the Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929, takes Warburton’s work one step further. Live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

 

Wonder Warthog’s Snout

Americans grow up with superheroes ‘n such. Sgt. Rock, Superman, Spiderman, Mr. A, Dr. Atomic and best of all, The Hog of Steel! Wonder Warthog turned up in mid-60s Drag Cartoons as technologist of scattershields and mechanical engineering, then resurfaced in the refined and sophisticated literature bristling up and down Haight Street all the way down to Market and to the Fillmore at Van Ness. Comics were the market currency with which kids learned to bargain, haggle and barter back in the day–skills that settled the Cold War on the side of Do Your Own Thing.

Skepticism struggled against the suspension of disbelief as Sgt. Rock’s deltoid looked the same after being shot dozens of times. How did Superman’s X-ray vision simultaneously project and receive? And howcum Wonder Warthog’s snout looked unlike those of pigs in the wilds of Texas and Mato Grosso? What was his other secret (besides identity)?

Research on the Opium Wars, Panic of 1907 and Balkan Wars required research in mail order catalogs of the sort Pearl S. Buck’s missionary father ordered stuff sent to China from at right about the time of the Boxer Rebellion, and lo! The secret of that most prurient of snouts was laid bare. As anarchist Leon Frank Czolgosz fired a bullet into President McKinley, patent lawyers sweated over the:

No wonder he was pissed off!

Extry, extry! Wonder Warthog victim of cruelty!

Thumbscrews! Is it any wonder Wonder Warthog became THE libertarian champion of freedom alongside Mr. A and Spidey? This Austintatious champion of laissez-faire was not only mutilated, but was also (SPOILER ALERT) Continue reading

Before the Libertarian Party

My green porcupine!

Playing with matches before Lenore Skenazy

Before the Libertarian party we had military conscription to bomb civilians in French Cochin-China, race riots, racial collectivism carrying five Southern states and 22 electoral votes, the Human Rights Party (impostors alert), the Buffalo Party and Reason Magazine… even candidates like George “Coyote” Chalfa ran ads next to the lemons-into-porcupines instructions.

Robert Heinlein wrote about curing a sick society, Robert Rimmer chimed in on free love and Timothy Leary and Ayn Rand both made the case for non-aggression and doing your own thing without bothering others. Leary thought the enemy was the Republican Party. Rand meanwhile struggled to believe that throwing Goldwater under the steamroller of Lyndon’s Soft Machine meant that God’s Own Prohibitionists had abandoned religious fascism for laissez-faire. What really mattered were the 9,906,473 message-sending spoiler votes saying “coloreds” weren’t welcome. Those 46 electoral votes gave the American Independent Klan control of the GOP for the first time since 1928, and the Solid South seceded.

The Jefferson Airplane’s Volunteers of America, Doors fans and citizens of Woodstock Nation recoiled in horror as the military-industrial complex Ike warned against rolled into power on tank treads. Small hepcat parties sprouted peace and legalization planks, only to be crushed, voter-suppressed and gerrymandered out of existence. The Buffalo party felt the poniard…

And the Human Rights Party went like lambs to the slaughter…

Only the Libertarian Party had a clue as to the definition, function and machinery of government. This non-aggressing, legalizing rights-enforcer straight out of an Eric Frank Russel novel blindsided the gerontocracy nearly as thoroughly as Wallace’s Dixiecrats and Wallace was taken out less thoroughly than JFK or Bobby, but as decisively. Women got Roe v. Wade from the LP but were gulled into an Equal Rights Amendment with too short a fuse.

Forty-six years later nobody is drafted, fewer kleptocracy bombs are dropped, communist/anarchist looters are history and Legalized Psilocybin is finally a thing! How bright is the future? Can you say hockey stick?

Learn how Republican policies made Prohibition and The Crash a cause-and-effect phenomenon, live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a pint.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

 

South Carolina Libertarian Platform

I was led to the South Carolina Libertarian Party website by an irate mystical conservative. Everything that angered the conservative delighted me. Especially impressive are their platform planks.

The headers drop down into terse, yet clearly-worded summaries of the type of Libertarian Party principles on which John Hospers and Toni Nathan ran, beginning with 1 – Our Constitutional Republic:

Our Constitutional Republic was established to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. The only legitimate purpose of Government is to preserve and protect our individual rights.

See the entire platform (here).

Up at the top-right of every page is a bright yellow DONATE link that accepts Paypal. This allows you to donate to the party even while vacationing in the Bahamas. Other state LPs use “services” that simply turn down credit card contributions over ISP providers outside These Sovereign States and Possessions, and do not allow Paypal accountholders to donate at all…

Luckily, there is healthy competition among State LPs

The Texas LP platform by comparison is as ragged a patchwork quilt as the State Constitution. Someone injected “LPTexas” into every available paragraph, much like a teenager with a can of spray paint. Readers are expected to puzzle out a jumbled maze of nitpicking pettifoggery over obscure regulations. Paypal contributors like myself are invited to drop dead or go look for a U.S. government post office. The future prospects of an LP taken over by folks who turn away supporters with money to donate is about the same as for those who spit on registered voters.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Speaking of economic disasters, Prohibition and The Crash shows what happens when mystical prohibitionists infiltrate a government. It’s available in Kindle format from Amazon for about the price of a pint of legal beer. If your LP has a publication, I’m looking to advertise!

Spoiler Votes Change Laws

Turning the tables, 2 can play

Freedmen after the 13th & 14th Amendments

Conservatives are good at pointing to Friedman’s Free to Choose and arguing that Their Dark Side is the only way to vote. But that same book shows the Socialist Party platform and flatly asserts that every plank has become as legally binding as a hangman’s noose. So… how dat happen?

And how did beer get to be a felony worth 5 years on a chain gang and a fine worth 30 pounds of gold in 1929? All the Prohibitionists, Populists and Socialists ever did was lose every important election. Could it be that their average 1.5% of the vote ushered in the income tax, prohibition amendment 5 & 10 Law, Crash and Depression?

Ask any antichoice prohibitionist Republican and the answer is a mixture of feigned incomprehension and blustering evasion. But the Republican party became what it is by absorbing George Wallace’s race-baiting National Socialist Dixiecrat platform just as the Dems absorbed first the People’s Party (1892) then the Green Party (2000) looter platform planks. Compare the GOP with these American Independent Party planks:

  • God-given gifts
    “The American Independent Party gratefully acknowledges God as the Creator of all and appeals to Him for help in protecting all He has graciously given us.” (See Prohibition Party platforms)
  • Right of association
    “The right to associate includes the right to choose one’s associates, but does not include the right to force others to associate.” (No black people need apply)
  • Freedom from liberal government
    “Freed from the lawless oppression of Liberal rule, we may then compassionately and justly use our energy and ingenuity to provide for ourselves and our families.” (Liberal Party of 1930 wrote Prohibition repeal plank)
  • Life and family
    “We believe in protecting all human life however weak, defenseless, or disheartened; we endorse the family as the essential bulwark of liberty, compassion, responsibility, and industry; and declare the family’s right and responsibility to nurture, discipline, and educate its children.” (Arrest birth control doctors)
  • Marriage
    “We insist that marriage is between a man and a woman and assert the role of the law in establishing and reinforcing the mutual rights and obligations of that God-ordained contract.” (George Bush)
  • Illegal immigration
    “We oppose all illegal immigration. We support secure borders and immigration policies, inviting the best of the world to join us in freedom.” (Grenzbefestigungssystem)
  • Pro-life Constitution
    “The Republic established by our Constitution is the greatest of all pro-life institutions.” (barefoot and pregnant)
  • Public service
    “We believe that all those who govern are the servants of God for the good of citizens.” (Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz, Gott Mit Uns)

These planks turned the low-tariff Democratic Solid South into a racial-collectivist appendage of God’s Own Prohibitionists. The process began in 1928, to defeat wet Democratic candidate Al Smith, who wanted beer to be safe and legal. Burning crosses were lit wherever “Whiskey Al” campaigned that year.

Find out more about how bad platforms, amendments and laws caused the Crash and dragged America into The Great Depression in Prohibition and The Crash, from Amazon Kindle

Hint: Prohibition caused The Crash

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Visit my Brazilian blog too…

Ethics for Translators

The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band

A Child’s Guide to Good and Evil, recommended, from Amazon

This 1998 relic is as good as any code of ethics I’ve ever seen. Indeed, ethics itself does not vary among professions. Right and wrong are fairly simple, as generalities go.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES

Competent Translators agree:

1. To translate with the greatest fidelity and accuracy we can command, endeavoring always to give the readers and audiences the impression they would have if they could understand the original.

2. To maintain professional discretion by respecting our clients’ rights, by divulging no confidential information we may have acquired in our professional capacity under nondisclosure agreements, and by refusing assignments we believe would violate contractual rights of third parties.

3. To turn down assignments for which we believe ourselves to be less than qualified in either language or understanding of the subject, except with the prior knowledge of clients or employers; and to turn down assignments that we believe we cannot properly complete within the time allowed.

4. To settle professional differences by arbitration whenever possible, and to seek and accept work only on virtuous or honorable terms.

5. To defend all individual rights of translators, including their right to exercise the profession freely, unvexed by coercive restrictions.

This part about coercive restrictions is apropos in view of current hubris in the ATA Chronicle, published by the American Translators Association (May-June 2019 p. 2). The current ATA was assimilated in the 1990s by the American Society of Association Executives through voter suppression, and revamped so that anyone joining could vote on policy. Before, as of 1981, only those able to pass a translation test could vote or run for office. Since the change, the association has morphed into an expensive lobby for barriers to entry into the profession.

Most vocal among those lately importuning the Texas Legislature to keep interpreters scarce and expensive are folks who have never passed an ATA translation test. Nor have the bulk of them passed a Texas court interpreter test. A large number of incumbents, myself included, were for the longest time “grandfathered” in on what amounts to a bribes-for-work-permits racket, but even that was a farce disguised by tortuous legalese. That law stopped nobody from interpreting in the courts.

Many grandfathered incumbents for over a decade lied about the nature of the law. Those worthies told newcomers the law required them to buy the license in order to interpret in court. In fact, the original Texas law existed only as a pretext, making it easier to dismiss an obviously incompetent impostor during proceedings. It was only repealed after the truth was broadcast, then replaced with an even worse law.

Similar rackets sought in the past to prevent Texas roofers from bidding against corporations. Those were repealed. Spurious and parasitic extortion rackets organize, under color of altruism, to erect barriers to keep young interpreters from working in the courts–except as disposable contract labor on behalf of companies with political pull.

The whole point of ethics–a code to guide your choices and actions–is to thwart such impairment of individual rights.

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

Don’t miss the Kindle version of my book on the Crash and Depression! For sale on Amazon Kindle

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages