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

 

Petition Project v. Consensus impostors

Over 30,000 degreed scientists signed the Petition Project successfully urging the Senate to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Yet politicians too ignorant to integrate by parts or even differentiate a simple constant apply religious tests for office.

Arrayed against the 30,000 is the self-styled “Consensus” of unlisted looter scientists. The Consensus claim amounts to unquestionable religious belief impersonating science in the name of Ochlocracy panic. Anonymous sockpuppets haunt internet videos, heaping shrieks and abuse upon “deniers.” But just how many of these Affirmers preach the Revealed Word of the Consensus to the faithful?

centerpetitionIn Legates et al. (2013)Watts Up With That revealed that only 41, or 0.3%, of 11,944 learned papers on climate and related topics published in the journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 flatly stated that recent global warming was mostly manmade. (This was itself premised on the existence and measurability of half a degree’s difference).

Let’s assume there were three authors prophets per paper. That would give us, um,  123 is to 30,000 as x is to 100… 0.41%. So 0.41% of so-called climate scientists set up a caterwauling din over how–because of electricity–the world is a rotisserie. THAT is a Consensus?!   Furthermore, the comparison with the Petition Project is assuming the illustrious Cassandras have actually earned a Bachelor of Science degree in ANY field of science.  One half-wit for every 100 researchers producing papers is several cards shy of a full deck.

I’m gonna have to go with the Petition Project on this one. Indeed there is healthy competition springing up in this business of scientists and educated laymen petitioning Congress on behalf of empowering humanity through access to energy. The Center for Industrial Progress has its own petition to lawmakers. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is shaping up as a nice companion volume to Dr Petr Beckmann’s The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear.

It was Petr Beckmann who convinced me that the Libertarian Party was a worthwhile effort, and not a collection of mad anarchists.

cause and effect

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

For more exposés of deliberate lies about disasters see Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929, live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a cold pint of stout.  If you find an error in the book, report it here. 

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

 

Atlas Shrugged, 1943

franciscodanconia1943

Young Francisco D’Anconias

Surely you’re thinking “The Fountainhead,” I hear you wonder… but neither book was written in a day. The Fountainhead was indeed part of the war effort against National Socialist collectivism–including its religious component. Safely ensconced within These States, Ayn Rand, age 38, read in the newspapers about how in the Europe she’d fled, Germans and Russians fought, starved, bled and died–whether enslaved to sacrifice for Communism or enslaved to save German NSDAP Christianity from “stock market jewry.” (Does this sound familiar? Occupy Wall Street?)

As usual, These States got sucked into the vortex of that foreign war after the attack on Hawaii. Newspapers and radio were the internet of the 1930s and 1940s. In their pages young Ayn Rand read about Sweden’s fantastic new Harden metal alloy, shadowy Match Kings and Beer Barons. She read about young men whose ambition led them to hire on with railroad maintenance crews in 1943 nazimayors1946before maturing into Copper Barons able to rattle stock markets into a panic with a gesture.  This latter news item was framed in exhortations to buy war bonds, with air raid signals and instructions on the facing page. She also read of the Allied Military Government putting some Nazis back in power while hanging others for genocide as she was writing Atlas Shrugged.

The same thing is happening today. Christian National Socialism, motivated by altruism, now targets a different semitic people and religion–all the while angling to monopolize and control drug markets through the only mechanism it understands… war, coercion, murder.  Totalitarian communist territory has dwindled to Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela and a tiny scattering of pestilent dictatorships likewise limited to war, coercion, murder as ways of getting things done in the name of altruism. The ku-klux fascists‘ competition? Lay or Gaian socialists claiming to be democrats, likewise motivated by altruism–and guided by pseudoscience to rule by violence.

Christians and Gaians alike are terrified of imaginary hobgoblins. LSD-possessed Manson clan communists plot with Saracen terrorists to lead Christian youth away from Jesus and confiscate their money and guns, worry the former–with some justification as to the money. The Gaians’ nightmares are animated by Ku-klux mercantilist plutocrats advised by mad scientists and Hell-bent on turning the planet into a rotisserie,–with urine testing with licensing regulations so that only their toadies have jobs. Again, their fears as to urine-test blacklisting are not at all unfounded.

This is the Cold War all over again, with different actors–but always and on both sides the same altruism and reliance on faith as opposed to reliable evidence. The one constant is the belief that altruism is a good enough reason to have someone else pick up deadly weapons and coerce some third party. But… by what standard is altruism or the initiation of force good?

Os Exterminadores do Tio Sam

O que é que a Colômbia e o Brasil têm em comum?

Eis o que está ocorrendo na Colômbia, e não passa nas teletelas brasileiras.

Eis o que ocorre no Brasil. Não sei se isso aparece nas teletelas colombianas ou não.

bushaecioA atual embaixadora americana no Brasil foi expulsa de Bolívia, saiu do Paraguai numa enxurrada de protestos “populares” para depor o presidente eleito. Seu trabalho no Caribe coincidiu com um aumento de 800% na taxa de mortalidade em tiroteios. Assim que a Dilma derrotou o crente das pistas de pouso (e amiguinho do George Bush) por 8% na votação do primeiro turno, a diplomata americana foi transferida para o Brasil.

O atual embaixador americano na Colômbia foi expulso de Cuba, transferido para Venezuela, depois trabalhou numa burocracia internacional que empurra o programa dos partidos Democrata e Republicano nos EUA. Sem perceber a ironia, o governo americano o destacou como embaixador na Colômbia em primeiro de abril de 2014, antes mesmo do primeiro turno nas eleições.

Algo mais? Ah, sim… As agências de espionagem americanas grampeiam as ligações telefônicas dos políticos e das empreiteiras de economia mista nos dois países e no resto do mundo. Basta um vazamento seletivo dessas gravações e dados aqui e acolá para os bananais de partidos oposicionistas nada libertários, e pum! Multidões populares nas ruas para cassar… a quem não agradou os dois partidos corruptos e xenofóbicos que por voto secreto controlam o governo americano. Todos estes paralelos, é claro, podem ser pura coincidência.

A onda libertária nos EUA

LPeagleA empresa Gallup faz perguntas e dessas enquetes calcula estatísticas. Seu levantamento anual sobre governança pergunta: 

  1. Tem gente que acha que o governo está tentando fazer muita coisa que melhor seriam feitas por indivíduos e empresas. Outros acham que o governo deveria fazer mais para resolver os problemas do país. Das duas, qual atitude é mais parecida com a sua?
  2. Tem gente que acha que o governo deveria promover determinados valores na nossa sociedade. Outros acreditam que o governo não deveria favorecer nenhum determinado conjunto de valores. Qual dessas atitudes mais parece a sua?

São duas questões, cada qual com duas possibilidades, resultam quatro respostas possíveis. Eles (Gallup) calculam os resultados em 4 grupos: conservadores, libertários, populistas e socialistas leigos. Numa quinta categoria cabem os que anularam ou não conseguiram responder com competência. O maior grupo foi o dos libertários, com 27%, que acham que o governo se intromete demais e que ele NÃO deveria favorecer nenhum conjunto específico de valores. Em segundo plano os conservadores (26%), seguidos pelos socialistas leigos (23%) e de lanterna os populistas (15%). Segundo a revista Reason, no ano 2000 a categoria libertários estava em meros 18%. Se verdade, houve aumento de 33% em 15 anos neste sentimento “libertário” segundo a interpretação da organização Gallup. Essa mesma organização assevera que a satisfação do povo com o governo americano vem caindo e que 58% querem um terceiro partido.

Se isso é verdade, então por que tanto candidato das correntes socialista, proibicionista, conservadora e populista entre os pré-candidatos dos dois grandes partidos que formam o cartel político nos EUA? Uma hipótese é que como são um cartel, mentem sobre a contagem dos votos. Essa prática é muito antiga e piorou bastante depois da instalação do voto não verificável. (Voto secreto é outra coisa, onde só você verifica seu voto–assim como verificar o seu saldo no caixa eletrônico com senha). Outra é que o eleitor tem medo daquilo que desconhece e–como na mídia subsidiada pela lei do Nixon nunca aparece nada sobre o partido libertário–ninguém sabe o que está na sua proposta e mesmo sabendo que seu voto único ali valeria mais, prefere continuar na mesma e reclamar.

Consta que no Brasil o Partido Novo passou pelo corredor polonês do TSE. São muito encabulados, com pouca coisa no manifesto, mas se defenderem os direitos individuais e sempre procurarem alternativas que dispensam a coação, a coisa só pode melhorar.

 

 

 

Boycott Wikipedia Panhandling

The Wikipedia has been a focus for infiltration by cranks with axes to grind, socialist orators, pseudoscientific panic-mongers, prohibitionists, looters, thieves and wannabee dictators. Donate money if you must, but please donate to a worthy cause. The Wikipedia is NOT that worthy cause.

I personally consider the Libertarian Party a worthy cause. For similar reasons I have thought of giving to the NRA, LEAP (policemen against Prohibition), Naral (pro-choice) and other causes to which I am sympathetic. But I conclude that none of them can possibly succeed if LP.org fails. I do on occasion turn a tiny contribution over to Project Gutenberg the way I’d pay library dues, but this has a lot  to do with a linguist’s profession and need for research material.

Resumo: não dê dinheiro para a Wikipédia. Foram infiltrados por hostes contrárias à liberdade humana e à honestidade (que chegam a ser a mesma coisa).