Pascal’s Wager v. Freedom

Nobody can know anything

Are facts unknowable before death?

There was a time when politicians called attention to their party’s platform, predicting that its planks would benefit undecided voters. The obverse strategy, now in vogue, claims that the opposition candidate’s secret plans are an existential threat to the life and liberty of the voter being gulled, and to the future of all life on earth. Only the looter demanding your vote pretends to know anything. In its epistemology, the premise is that you cannot know the facts–not until AFTER you’re dead–so there is no point in trying. Instead, you should play it safe, obey, believe what the persuader is telling you.(link) Since the other premise is that you’ll be dead before you could possibly notice it’s a lie, as the conundrum is set up, you can only lose by disobeying the instruction to sacrifice knowledge and settle instead for belief.

screw the Bill of Rights!

No ABM! Freeze and Surrender!

This was the argument against the Second Amendment during the Cold War, and it persuaded Richard Nixon and his Republicans to betray the Bill of Rights. If Tricky were right, he’d be no worse off than Quisling or Petain.(link) If wrong, the communists assured him all life on Earth would end and it wouldn’t be their fault–all they ever do is initiate the use of force–just like Republicans. It was a slow-motion replay of the Molotov-Ribbendtop pact, but with America, not Poland, in the victim’s hood.

A similar gambit nowadays is the “argument” persuading 12-year-olds against generation of electric power, or persons innocent of mathematical sophistry against voting for candidates running on the Libertarian Party platform. Conservatism on both the fascist and communist sides seeks to keep the same decrepit parties in power, and crush new ones in the cradle lest their spoiler votes repeal tax laws.(link

13th Amendment Superhero

Energy Slaves, not Human Slaves!

Energy nihilists reject the R Bucky Fuller notion of energy as our working servant, and will settle for nothing less than a reversion to actual human slavery. Asking for evidence, of course, merely identifies you as an apostate, infidel, denier–precisely at this delicate juncture that is the tipping-point beyond which “Abandon All Hope” prevails.(link) This is unless you repent and believe that “Arbeit Macht Frei” and vote some looter ticket. Nevermind that its congregants do not know the definition of energy and are unsullied by any grasp of its dimensions or units of measure.(link) People who are against energy invariably favor coercion as the approach to problem-solving.

Nolan's wager

Vote for what you value, and that vote will help make it happen–with added interest!

Political nihilists are baffled by consistency. Your one vote in 133 million does nothing to change an election outcome–unless you leverage that vote by casting it for the Libertarian ticket. Then when a prohibitionist bigot loses by a smaller margin than the LP vote slice, a message is received. That candidate suddenly realizes that girl-bullying or ordering cops to shoot kids just cost an entire series of government paychecks.

Conversely, when libertarian spoiler votes cause some nonreligious totalitarian to lose to someone not in favor of higher taxes and collectivized rights charged to others at gunpoint, that message is not soon forgotten.(link) Losing, to activists in both looter parties, means not getting hired. To libertarians, winning is changing bad laws.(link)

All you have to do is vote honestly for legal policies you prefer and, if these are libertarian, your vote packs something like 20 times the law-changing clout. The Pascal’s Wager bluff did not make you surrender and fold your hand, but call and compare the strength or your convictions with fake kleptocracy premises, thereby raising the stakes by adding your own values to the table. This is a win-win approach to getting rid of bad laws.(link)

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

Sarajevo: anarchy is war

A 2014 movie Das Attentat, americanized in translation as Sarajevo, tells a fictionalized version of the routine murder of a government big-shot by youthful dupes enthralled with communist anarchism. Why routine? Hardly a week went by without some collectivist or other trying to murder a mercantilist, politician or royalty.  The German-language movie on Netflix and Youtube seeks to convince the viewer that The Accursed Hun plotted and paid for the assassination for the payoff in railroad stocks for a rail line through Serbia/Servia.

Omitted from mention were the two time bombs hidden under the table at which the Archduke and Duchess Sophia were to have lunch–had not an anarchist bomb and gunshots intervened. Bombs in the chimney at another nearby eatery were also left out, along with the seven being smuggled by a woman in the neighborhood.(link) But the entire region had seen nothing but violence for the past four years.

Political violence was unremarkable for the opium-farming region of Bosnia at the time, and socialists and mercantilists routinely killed each other. But the important detail was that the Chinese revolt of 1911 had blocked dumping of morphine there. This meant that unshipped opium grown in the Balkans and refined in Austro-Hungary, Germany, Prussia, France, Italy and Holland began to accumulate in a heroin and morphine glut. The Balkan States promptly attacked their competitor, Turkey, then flew at each other’s throats with 240,000 killed amid looting, rapine, arson, starvation, disease, mutilation and religious genocide until August 10, 1913.

NOT Mrs Winslow's Soothing Morphine syrup

Glut: cheap morphine was a commodity additive

Another unmentioned detail was the Hague Opium Convention. This had been building since 1909 in a U.S.-led effort to stop the dumping of morphine in China and other Asian and African nations formalized . The Final Protocol of the Third International Opium Conference was signed at the Hague June 25, 1914 by former U.S. Minister to China, former Philippine commissioner and then-current Consul General at Vienna, Austria, Mr. Charles Denby, and also by M.A.A. de Jongh, former inspector general, head of the opium monopoly in the Dutch Indies (at the time also a major source of cocaine).

WWI to save the German Heroin Industry

Read the original document (Link)

This June signing began the ninth inning of years of signature-gathering.  At a series of meetings beginning June 15, Conference attendees resolved that the Convention would come into force between all the signatory powers as soon as existing signatory powers and enough others had ratified it. Enforcement was expected to begin by December 31st, 1914. Instead, the Austrian Archduke and consort were assassinated three days after the preliminary signings, on June 28th, 1914.

Opium producers and refiners were thus saved by the bell when “former” anarchist Gabrinovic and his buddies carried out the assassinations.  Sir Edward Gray proposed a convention on problems in the Balkans, and on Black Saturday, July 25, all European securities markets crashed. Three days later President Woodrow Wilson decreed that under the newly-enacted income tax, returns filed by corporations would be public records open to inspection by State revenue agents of States with an income tax. U.S. stock markets immediately crashed and were shut down. They did not reopen for a long time because Austria also chose that very day to attack Serbia/Servia.

Word War I is also on the list of reasons voters are not attracted by anarchists. It is among the myriad reasons adding anarcho- to libertarian or capitalist (a 1972 smear tactic) does nothing but convince voters we are a band of bomb-hurling communists, just like every other anarchist that has ever made the news in any language.

Why not delve into the failure of Prohibitionism that caused the 1929 Crash? Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 does exactly that, matching newspaper accounts against stock market reactions and competing theories. It is live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

My other-language blog is amigra.us

 

Race Suicide Ideology

Ban Contraceptives, Malthusian Armageddon!

Forced labor popularized

From the sinking hulk of the Prohibition Party a contingent of race suicide fanatics have since 1972 swum over to the Republicans. It is clear enough that their more theatrical and deadly manifestations followed the Supreme Court adoption of the LP birth control plank shortly after the 1972 election.(link) But where do these racial collectivist ideas come from?

One source is U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt who in 1902 wrote a scolding letter to Maria Van Horst on “what is fundamentally infinitely more important than any other question in this country—that is, the question of race suicide, complete or partial.”(link) Teddy also explained how criminal it is to want to live one’s own life, unbothered with “strong racial qualities”:

But the man or woman who deliberately avoids marriage, and has a heart so cold as to know no passion and a brain so shallow and selfish as to dislike having children, is in effect a criminal against the race, and should be an object of contemptuous abhorrence by all healthy people.

How fanatical T.R. was on this subject can be gleaned from another such letter penned while reading Jean Finot, whom T.R. deems an expert on La Mort des Races.(link) This 1907 letter is an attempt to get a book publisher to block such writings, on grounds that

…it is a simple mathematical proposition that, where the average family that has children at all has only three, the race at once diminishes in numbers, and if the tendency is not checked will vanish completely, — in other words, there will be race suicide.

Seven years later the Pope of Rome was alarmed, as is clear enough from the clipping above. Other famous Christians also got on the bandwagon. Heinrich Himmler was another such influential ideologue pushing christian altruism. His published 1938 speech on the subject of homosexuality and its long-term implications for society and reproduction rates states:

I would like to develop a couple of ideas for you on the question of homosexuality. There are those homosexuals who take the view: what I do is my business, a purely private matter. However, all things which take place in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but signify the life and death of the nation, signify world power or ‘swissification’. The people which has many children has the candidature for world power and world domination. A people of good race which has too few children has a one-way ticket to the grave, for insignificance in fifty or a hundred years, for burial in two hundred and fifty years …(link)

Race suicide eugenics may not be the only impulse driving the superstitious and altruistic to meddle at gunpoint in women’s reproductive decisions, but it is clearly one of the more important factors.

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

With Friends like Anarchists…

Legalize rape, murder, lynching, war

A state without borders is a State of War

The only thing holding back the Libertarian party is a pack of communist anarchists claiming Ayn Rand’s 1947 non-aggression principle requires the abolition of a State that protects individual rights by enforcing objectively-defined laws against theft, fraud and violence. (link) For full context, understand that a free laissez-faire government with no individual income tax that protects individual rights from theft, fraud and violence is what no-borders anarchists do NOT want. (link) It therefore follows that all anarcho-communist infiltrators laying siege to the LP since 1973 act to stop the LP from accomplishing what we set out to do in 1972.

http://

So they infiltrate our party, drive away voters, and invite the looter media to depict THEM as champions of libertarianism. Big Tent straddlers are left scratching their heads wondering why the voters are running away. By sabotaging laissez-faire democracy these cuckoos prevent the only sort of government that would hesitate to deport or guillotine the lot of them.

Arnychists, suicide-vest berserkers, amok murderers

Anarchists, epileptics, beggars–Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903 (link)

To flush out the sources of this pollution, the Libertarian party set up a donations/votes auction to democratically see how popular the legalization of murder and importation of hoof-and-mouth disease is among libertarians who join, pay dues, volunteer and vote. One communist plus some sockpuppets evidently voted ANCAPISTAN as the amok berserker image of libertarians they wanted to project to the public.  And why not? Look at how effectively portraying Charles Manson as representative of sixties hippie culture worked to popularize Dick Nixon and George Wallace.

That initiative was badly beaten by TANSTAAFL, from the Robert Heinlein novel published shortly before the founding of the LP (link) and endorsed by Milton Friedman–the man who pointed out to us how small party spoiler votes change the laws and amend the Constitution.  This result convinced me the LP is still healthy and worth working for, even if we have to send a few undesirables back to CPUSA.

Communist anarchist red terror loses! Luna AGORA!

Más vale solo que mal acompañado Better off by yourself than in bad company

Get the complete story on collapsing economies in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in two languages.

ProhicrashAmazon

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

 

 

LP Migration Plank v. Constitution

Jon Roland of Austin, Texas runs a blog on the Constitution. This entry explains why the LP had better restore the Migration plank to what it said in 2016, when it brought us 4 million votes–before it was disfigured into repellent absurdity.

2019/02/16

Constitution authorizes declarations of emergency

The U.S. Constitution states:

[Congress shall]  provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Art I Sec. 8.

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
This last clause is key. The President has authority to call up the militia, and call-ups of militia are for emergencies, not to do the job of the regular military, which is provided for elsewhere. So to call up the militia is to declare an emergency.

So can the President declare an emergency without calling up the militia? All U.S. citizens, including government employees and contractors, are militia. Directing them to reallocate funds for defense is to act within that power. No special statutory authority is needed.

So are entries into the U.S. without consent an invasion? Yes.  Any such trespass is an offense against the law of nations, which Congress has the power to define and punish. They have done that, although first-time simple entry is merely a “deportable offense”, a kind of misdemeanor. However, reentry after having been deported is a felony.

It does not need to be an armed force to be an invasion. A child chasing a butterfly across the border is an invader. It also doesn’t matter whether the invaders are, or can be expected to be, criminals. Peaceful people seeking work are also invaders, if they enter without consent.

So is the situation on the southern border an emergency? If it were only a few a day, no. But thousands flooding the border, faster than they can be managed, is an emergency.

Does it matter that the thousands are seeking asylum? No. U.S. law only recognizes political asylum, not economic asylum. Most of those  thousands are economic refugees. If they are fleeing criminals or corrupt officials, then they have the duty to fight in their own countries, not in ours.

What is the President’s alternative? He could station troops along the border with orders to repel invaders with deadly force. He could erect gun turrets every few hundred yards. That would be more expensive than a wall. Do opponents of a wall really want invaders to be repelled by automatic weapons? Democrats would not get many votes from those.

Jon blogs at constitutionalism.blogspot.com

The Constitution once made Beer a felony, enforcement as which collapsed the economy. Get the complete story in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in two languages

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

Write me:

Herbert Hoover, 1929, Anti-dog-eat-dog

Republican Prohibitionist fanatics

Hitler’s Anti-dog-eat-dog helper (link) shakes with Brezhnev’s ally in violating the Second Amendment (link)

Hoover speech to Chamber of Commerce conference, 12/5/1929: Much construction work had been postponed during the past few months by reason of the shortage of mortgage money due to the diversion of capital for speculative purposes.
 The third line of action has been to undertake through voluntary organization of industry the continuity and expansion of the construction and maintenance work of the country, so as to take up any slack in employment which arises in other directions. (…) This is a far cry from the arbitrary and dog-eat-dog attitude of the business world of some 30 or 40 years ago.  (Hoover 1929 1974 454-5) (link)

Translation: making beer a 5-year prison term felony with a fine of over half a million 2019 dollars just before my inauguration backfired. Asset-forfeiture of everything from ocean liners to homes, automobiles and bank & brokerage accounts caused money to flee the banking system after former prosecutor Willebrandt blew the whistle on how we do it in 21 newspapers in August. We now imitate German and Italian fascism make-work projects to disguise the damage caused by using revenue laws to enforce religious prohibition. Religious fascism is not a bit like the laissez-faire liberalism that kept America wealthy and free back when beer and coca wine were as legal as sea salt.

This speech was made the year Ayn Rand married Frank O’Connor. Here is the relevant page from the Presidential Papers of Herbert Hoover:

Brot un Arbeit! Gott Mitt Uns!

Asset-forfeiture prohibitionism chased money from banks, so no mortgages, no jobs, no individualism, no laissez-faire, no freedom!

Hoover (prohibition): “This is not dictation or interference by the government with business.”

Nixon (war on drugs): “I am not a crook!”

Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged): “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade …”

Get the complete story in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in either of two languages. After this you’ll be able to explain to economists exactly how pseudoscience, fanaticism and loss of freedom wrecked the U.S. economy.

ProhicrashAmazon

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

All persons born…

See many men among these voters?

Individuals who Voted to Enforce their Rights–and WON! Irish women won individual rights (link)

Does the Constitution allow men with guns to threaten physicians or coerce pregnant women? The Harrison Act enabled pseudoscience-addled politicians to have men with service pistols step between doctors and patients in 1914. See why missing an opportunity to vote Libertarian is tantamount to desertion under fire as mystical and collectivist reality control delegitimize individual claims to freedom of action.

Today’s guest repost is by Austin’s Constitutional Scholar Jon Roland, constitutionalism.blogspot.com.

U.S. Supreme Court: Issues with current contenders

Unenumerated rights

The first issue is presented by the statement by nominee appointee Brett  Cavanaugh in his acceptance speech, that he would not find rights not explicitly recognized in the main Constitution.. This has been an issue since the nomination of Robert Bork, who considered the Ninth Amendment, which calls for the nondisparagement of rights that are not “enumerated” (made explicit) somewhere in the Constitution, as amended, to be an “ink blot”. There is strong opposition to Supreme Court judges doing that, especially from so-called “conservatives”, who don’t understand that constitutional rights are all “immunities”, restrictions on the powers of government. They are not “privileges” to receive a sufficient amount of public resources, such as for education, healthcare, elder support, or any other objects of public subsidies.

Interestingly, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Fifth Circuit decided that a “right to an abortion” was a Ninth Amendment right of a woman  “to choose whether to have children”, which by the 14th Amendment, was “incorporated” for the states. This presented the Supreme Court with an apparent problem,  because there was opposition to funding unenumerated rights in the Senate. The Fifth Circuit found a Ninth Amendment “right  to choose whether to have children”. So the SC tried to sustain the Fifth Circuit without embracing the Ninth Amendment. The result was an incoherent opinion. There was no way to avoid the Ninth Amendment.

It would perhaps too much to expect a nominee to venture into an extended discussion of what a “right” is, and what it is not. It is awkward to say “I will not find a ‘right’ to a sufficient amount of a public resource.” That is too complicated for most senators. So the candidate denies he will try to find any “unenumerated” rights. That is somewhat disingenuous, but the issue needs to be discussed.

1968, NO LIBERTARIAN PARTY!

Republicans, Dixiecrats, No Libertarian Party!

When “life” begins

One of the potential nominees, Amy Barrett, has been reported to have stated that human “life” begins at conception. That is a misstatement of the issue in Roe v. Wade. which in its essence was not about “life” but about “personhood” because “Rights (immunities)” attach to “persons”, (roles in court), not to “life”, despite what the Declaration of Independence says. (That is why some activists have sought to move the commencement of “personhood” back to conception. That would be a mistake. We cannot allow each state to redefine “personhood”, because if we did, a state could define some people to be nonpersons, without rights. So there has to be a uniform definition across all states if the protections of the Constitution are not to be meaningless. That is the basis for finding the right to be incorporated under the Ninth Amendment, as the Fifth Circuit did.

So when does “life” begin?

Not at conception. Each individual is the latest in an unbroken chain of life that goes back to at least the point when the first single-celled organism became a multi-celled animal, which occurred about 650 million years ago, during the pre-Cambrian era, when the surface of the Earth was covered with ice (“snowball Earth”) and there was only one continent, Rodinia. We are all descended from that multi-celled organism. That is when “life” began.

So when does “personhood” begin?

This was declared by the jurist Edward Coke in the 15th century, and later restated by legal scholar William Blackstone, in the early 18th century, who provided most of the definitions for terms used in the U.S. Constitution. They held that “personhood” begins at natural birth, or induced natural birth (they had Cesarean sections in those days). Some of the states later found that personhood began with baptism, entry of a name in church records, or even later. Not at “conception”, the date of which could not have been defined with any precision in those days, or even now.

Consider what would happen if we defined “personhood” to begin at conception? It would make every fetus the ward of a court, with the court having power to supervise the pregnancy. It could order the woman to continue a pregnancy, and not terminate it, under penalty of law. That would be forced pregnancy. Do we want that? Every pregnant woman chained to a bed. Anyone see the play “A Handmaid’s Tale”. Good way to stop everyone from having sex.

Forcing women into involuntary servitude and labor

Sinfest.net webcomic 2 awe

Need for uniformity

Incorporation of a Ninth Amendment right is required by the need to have a uniform definition of “personhood” (legal role) across all jurisdiction, since constitutional rights attach to “persons” and not just to “citizens” or “life”.  If states could define personhood, they could deprive anyone of rights by defining him to be a “nonperson”. Thus a state could find that Blacks are not persons as a way to deprive them of their liberty.

Notes:

1. Roe v. Wade, 1221 (N.D. Tex. 1970) (“On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree.”).

2. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

3, A Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood.

4. Robert Bork and the Inkblot, Kurt Lash.

5. Constitutional views on abortion

See also: Ayn Rand (link)

Get the complete story on other prohibitions in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in either if two languages for the price of a craft pint. After this you’ll be able to explain to economists exactly how fanaticism and loss of freedom wrecked the U.S. economy in 1929 and 2008.

ProhicrashAmazon

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us