Libertarians against Crash and Depressions

 

Since 1998 I have shown that Prohibition enforcement–telling people at gunpoint what they may consume–caused the Crash and Great Depression. It is also the cause of most organized crime and cowardly ambushes of citizens by police and vice-versa. Voting Libertarian is your chance to save the economy from prohibition related depressions as in 1907, 1920, 1929, 1969, 1987 and 2008–not to mention the Flash Crashes. It is also the best way to keep your kids from being shot by men with guns acting on behalf of dangerous zealots inflamed with pseudoscientific beliefs. 

Republicans crash the economy by sending goons to confiscate homes, autos, bank accounts, brokerage accounts, life savings, aircraft and equipment. This causes money to disappear from the fractional-reserve banking system, and brings liquidity crunches, bankruptcies, stock crashes, recessions and unemployment. It also undermines the value of private retirement accounts. 

Democrats help Republicans do all of the above harm to the economy, and also to casually murder young people–especially young brown people–while importing the failed communist and national socialist policies that impoverish and kill people wherever they gain a foothold. Democrat-controlled cities resemble Venezuela and Cuba, Angola, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Syria and Togo. Democrat efforts to make demonize electric power and man industry are no less superstitious than Republican coercive exorcism of plant leaves as avatars of Satan. Helping either gang of looters is self-destructive and wrong. Setting them an example, and letting them lose by ignoring it is a teaching experience. 

The 2020 Republican and Democrat platforms STILL call for men with guns to rob, jail and shoot kids over plant leaves. 

Here are the Libertarian vote share percentages for the 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 elections now increasing at a slope of 1.2 or 50 degrees. This logistic replacement curve indicates we are on track to secure eleven million votes this presidential election. This will also upset many down-ballot races by upending the more violent candidates in favor of less cruel, better-educated and less fanatical replacement officeholders.  

Libertarian vote growth

Are you surprised to learn how prohibitionism wrecks the economy? Buy my book, Prohibition and The Crash, for a month-by-month examination of how President Hoover’s enforcement of the Volstead Act and Jones Five and Ten Law crushed the U.S. economy and damaged other nations.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

A simultaneous interpreter has to think outside the box in order to mediate between cultures, concept and languages. Get in touch for translation or interpreting.

pidotcom

 

Clear libertarian principles

The 1972 Libertarian Party Statement of Principles is far and away the best such presentation anywhere today. But the clearer we make it the less chance there is for regrettable misinterpretation. The fallacy of equivocation is the assignment of different meanings to a term, usually by accident or oversight. The word in question, however, is the noun form of “right” or “rights” the thing we seek to defend. Here is the correct usage, in which a right is an ethical claim to freedom of action: 


We hold that each individual has the right to exercise sole dominion over his own life, and has the right to live his life in whatever manner he chooses, so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live their lives in whatever manner they choose.

Compare that with Thomas Jefferson’s phrasing: 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jefferson makes a clear distinction between rights and powers. Here is an LP rendering Jefferson could improve by editing: 

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the life of the individual and seize the fruits of his labor without his consent.

Clearly, this version of a “right” is at best a legitimized power or a deontological arrogation of coercive privilege, and conservatives, fascists, socialists and communists delight in misattributing those meanings to “rights,” just as gleefully as they blur the distinctions between freedom and coercion.

A right is a moral claim to freedom of action was drummed into our UTEXAS Ethics classes by tenured Prof Tara Smith, who dared us to refute it. The definition is consistent with most of our criminal code, Constitution and Declaration. If a right is a claim to freedom (absence of coercion) it can hardly be retasked into a political provision for the execution of convicts, belligerent criminals or enemy combatants, all of which mean the exercise of political power. Even in classical terms, political power in social sciences is the capacity to see to the physical restraint of men, hopefully men who have abdicated their claim to freedom by aggressing against others.

Physics according to the Hog of Steel

Prof. W. Warthog, PhilbertD.


By analogy with freshman physics, where force times distance is work, and the rate at which work is done is power, political power is the same, with the caveat that since the exercise of physical restraint typically involves harmful and often deadly force, the rate at which that sort of work can be done is people incapacitated/killed per unit of time. Look at comparisons of military force and they are measured and expressed in those terms. So if we want to keep clear the distinction between the exercise of individual rights and exercise of the physical restraint States are tasked with using to secure those rights, we ought to resist blurring the distinction.

On the practical side, the change ought not to cost us any votes. I expect that the added clarity will better attract the support of anyone we could ever hope to attract. Even if the suggestion undergoes defenestration, I would then turn to attempting to replace the equivocated “right” with “legal standing”, “authorized authority” or some other, more appropriate construction. Even the “right” to kill in self defense is only a sloppy expression of the special, often regrettable, unintended and unfortunate case of the freedom or right to act in self defense in situations so fluid and dangerous that a jury might agree that the fatal outcome could be justified in a court of law or court-martial. Nicholas Sarwark is more qualified to expound on that collocation.

Suppose the original idea was to deliberately misuse “right” as a venomous barb on what amounts to a criticism of (imputed) wrongs we hope to right. Then I beg leave to suggest the barb was way too subtle for the opening statements intended to enlist support for us. As a joke it does not translate well. Right this minute there are 20 other countries looking to us as exemplars for the drafting of platforms for advancement of rights and minimization of coercion—even if less than instantaneous. Examining just a few of the “constitutions” those people have to work under makes one appreciate the advantage of a Constitution smaller than 8000 words.

This language is in the original platform, which I cherish and defend, yet would not hesitate to rescue from error. I have always admired Hospers and Nolan and would argue the same point to them. This is something no later platform committee can be blamed for, yet its importance is so fundamental (especially when you contemplate expressing it in other languages), that I feel obligated to advance this suggestion. I of course welcome the most vigorous attacks on its supporting logic and rhetorical usefulness.

I move that the expression be reexamined and incorrect iterations of the word “right” be replaced with “political power” something more appropriate for the description of even the most salutary government coercion. If that motion fails, I would move that the incorrect specimens be placed in quotes. 

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

Dividing Private Property

Franco, caudillo de Dios, Mussolini, Lateran treaties

Fascism is socialism cut with christian altruism. All socialists are fascists today in that none seek to nationalize everything

The four squares on the Nolan Chart are the result of grasping the fact that altruist ideologues seek to destroy freedom by attacking individual rights with a meat cleaver.  Two 2-position switches yield four possible combinations or states for two light bulbs. Looters are horrified at the naked way this representation depicts their darling coercion, so their standard reaction is to claim that clarity is oversimplification and there are no either-or choices in real life.

Not for dim bulbs!

Is this difficult?

Such facile dismissal prompted a rebuttal by replacing the flip switches with dimmer switches. This carries the analogy out to more decimal places without giving up the basic conceptual information either version of the model allows you to visualize. So why four possibilities instead of a flip switch and a single light bulb? or just a horizontal line?

If you start with the premise that life is valuable, therefore aggression is wrong, a bar magnet suffices as illustrative visual aid. Objectivists (link) and libertarians flock like iron filings to the pole labeled Voluntary while altruists (fascists, communists, anarchists, socialists) gather at the end labeled Coercive. Agorists see Voluntary as Right, but altruists regard that pole as Wrong after rejecting the life premise.

Undecided voters with neutralized minds or values are imagined to clump near the center of the horizontal line (hence the centrist label). Christians and Mohammedans view the magnet differently. They flock to the Church pole, and imagine themselves squared off against sinners assembled at the Saloon end.

The Nolan Chart was not designed to delight ethical purists nor attract iron filings, but to illustrate to voters the advantages of consistency. Religious conservatives din voters’ ears with horrible prophesies of Race Suicide (in order to rob pregnant women of individual rights). Contrariwise, socialist orators predict appalling Starvation if a rich speculator is allowed to corner the market on food or energy. So the second axis was added to help voters visualize where inconsistency leads.

Even a concept as simple as Private Property can be attacked by lunatics. Officious mystical conservatives will attach to “Private” evidence of a shameful conspiracy to violate a sex taboo, or to experiment with plant leaves. Their socialist comrades single out “Property” as the baaad word, since it is what likens them to thieves. The truth is that such imbeciles are allowed to vote, so the Nolan Chart accommodates the fact by listing the outcome of unprincipled people armed with the suffrage voting the way altruist zealots urge them to vote.

If there were no coercive zealots urging use of ballots to crush economic freedom, scientific inquiry or consensual adulthood, there would be no need for a Nolan chart. A simple line from Good through Muddled to Bad would suffice. Ignoring muddled fools, however, is the formula for failure in politics. Soviet communism and christian National Socialism are examples of failure in politics–you want more?

Why not delve into what sort of voting 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.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

My other-language blog is amigra.us

Florida Voters (not looters) Win Election!

Originally posted on THE LIBERTARIAN IDENTITY: BY BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN PUBLISHER – TLI One of the big pushes within the Libertarian movement is to be active on a hyper-local level – and there’s no better way to be active than to face that challenge head on and run for office on behalf of your friends and…

via Registered Libertarians Now Comprise 40% Of One Florida Town’s City Council — Libertarian Hippie

Altruism versus logic

The initiation of force is good by the standard of altruism, but not as a generalization because generalizations are useful in logic. So what are the special cases altruists prefer?

Democratic and Communist party members agree that to send tax agents with guns to confiscate people’s homes, guns and tools is a good and necessary thing, even if the people voted libertarian and are not represented by the looter politicians declared victorious by secret ballot. This lay coalition does not, however, want men with guns to threaten doctors who safely care for pregnant individuals–even individuals who choose to not be pregnant.

God’s Own Prohibitionists (Rep, Tea, Const, Prohi parties) agree that to send drug agents with guns to confiscate people’s property, and police agents to arrest (or shoot) doctors who enable individuals to safely not be pregnant are good and necessary things.

Clearly, both agglomerations of special interests believe in altruism. Each agrees that the initiation of force is good when the deadly force threatens THE OTHER coalition. This happened in Germany when lay looters wanted to tax and nationalize everything and religious looters wanted to nationalze and tax everything EXCEPT CHURCH property. Conservative socialists wanted religious laws to force people to be christians–and disarm non-christians. Other socialists wanted tax laws to strip wealthy christians of their property through taxation and forfeiture. Adolf Hitler’s national socialists told both coalitions they were right and used he government monopoly on force to eliminate all individual rights. That is the logical altruism that so impressed Hanna Arendt, but not Ayn Rand.

A much better solution would be to agree with today’s lay and religious socialists, but let each faction initiate its own deadly and coercive force against the other, without involving the Political State at all. All each would have to do would be waive its own rights, which is what each asks of the other anyway. If they lack the courage to act on their convictions, then they are parasitical cowards who want us to do their killing for them. There is no sensible reason why we should sacrifice freedom so cowards can use us to bully each other. Instead of war, the President could proclaim a Roman Holiday and stadium owners sell tickets and cable transmission rights to the melée.

I pledge to buy a ticket, no questions asked. Until then, my libertarian spoiler votes will repeal laws rooted in altruism and superstition.

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