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

Is Freedom Prime?

What brand of socialism for you today?

Three of the four categories are Socialist, hence normal and mainstream by looter standards

The Nolan chart made visible the thing that separates Fabian Socialists from doi-disant “conservatives.” But for good measure it also underscored a crucial point on which Libertarians and Totalitarians agree. I refer to the divisibility of freedom.

Biblical mythology tells of an unelected monarch surrounded by concubines and other women and called upon to settle disputes–such as who a child belongs to. By applying the standard of simplistic egalitarian fairness and offering to sever the kid asunder, he prompted the real mother to realize her child could not be divided and live. Her child was prime, indivisible. Its individual life was to her a value, and in acting on those premises she inadvertently identified herself as the true mother.

The pansy “left” and religious “right” reproach each other for hypocrisy or conflicting premises. But listen closely and you discover they are simply quibbling over how best to chop freedom to pieces. “Both” agree on lack of value, vagueness, equivocation, indecision and cowardice as virtues. Both value altruism, albeit distorted by meaningless modifiers. Both seek to send others (tax gougers, doctor killers, thugs with guns) to threaten, coerce and kill if victims need sacrificing.(link)

Both the lay and mystical looters understand that to impress onlookers with the benefits of yielding to social pressure and intimidation, some must be killed as examples. All in the three squares defining those who seek to divide or destroy freedom are willfully blind to any possible alternative to the initiation of force. They also struggle to evade the fact that there is a third choice. Only by casting a libertarian spoiler vote can you confront them with their own self-deception.(link)

Totalitarian communists and fascists cling tenaciously to the revealed faith that coercion is indivisible–so much so that any talk of watering it down with effete compromise is to them not simply heresy, but actual criminal menacing. To them it goes without saying that the very suggestion that there is something wrong with the initiation of force justifies the initiation of deadly force.(link)

Fascism or socialist communism? What'll it be?

1939: Religious Fascism and Socialist Communism, either-or, no 3rd choice, it CAN happen here


Actual libertarians (not Anarcho-communist infiltrators) are no less convinced that freedom is indivisible. They at best pity the conflicted, indecisive looters-mislabeled-as-liberals and mystical bigots unable to settle on whom to sacrifice first for the common “good.” The fundamental conviction–the one that makes a difference–is what to protect from division: life, reward and freedom? or coercion–which requires aggressive killing in order to be taken seriously enough to intimidate the survivors?

Libertarians (in the top square) seek to protect freedom from division. The bottom square is cluttered with communo-fascist socialists–all of them committed to making coercion total, indivisible, all-encompassing–while they pretend to be in the left and right squares. Inability to decide on divisibility is what clutters the sidewalks with the indecisive left-and-right whose votes elect looter parties to rob us. Please listen closely to what the so-called “left,” “right” and totalitarian looters say about each other, then decide whether to participate in their blood feuds or vote Libertarian.

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

Fascism in 1944

Gott Mitt Uns

National Socialist Positive Christianity

The Smith & Zurcher Dictionary of American Politics, updated in 1944 from Smith’s 1924 edition, very cautiously “defined” fascism NOT as religious socialism during WWII, but rather:

fascism. The authoritarian political system and totalitarian social regime evolved by Benito Mussolini and his followers of the Fascist party in Italy after 1922, hence any actual political system such as the regimes of the German Nazis or the Spanish Falangists inspired by the Italian model or comparable to it. Also any set of ideas which advocates the destruction of democratic parliamentarism, every kind of personal liberty, and the pluralistic social order; and which demands instead the institution of an irresponsible political dictatorship, supported by a single hierarchically organized party, the regimentation of all forms of social and economic activity under a regime of totalitarian governmental control, and the liberal use of force, violence and arbitrary power in the process of government. Fascist ideas have had no great currency in America, although they have been advocated by the so-called Silver Shirts, the German-American Bund, and like organizations.

This reads as though several layers of qualifiers and editorial comment were added to distance the NSDAP from both U.S. parties and those of so-called allies. It also conflicts with another definition in the same source. The authors did not define National Socialism as Christian, which Hitler’s 1920 platform most emphatically did. Instead:

National Socialism. The authoritarian, totalitarian and imperialistic doctrine of German Fascism developed by Adolf Hitler and his followers after 1923.

Desperate over the declining popularity of books after decades of government schools and inane teevee, dictionaries have taken to redefining anarchist as what Republicans have been labeling libertarians since 1972. Many had already redefined liberal as the label Republicans applied first to Liberal Party members demanding repeal of the Prohibition Amendment, then to Democrats for copying that wet plank and winning the next five elections.

Both of these retaskings of language into vehicles of misleading execration have been added to less particular American dictionaries with a straight face. Everyone else in the world is baffled that Republicans managed to get U.S. dictionaries to refer to liberals in exactly the way Hitler did, with the insinuation that all such creatures were at best communists and at worst, puppets of international stock market jewry.

But those same foreigners, all of them socialists of one variety or another, received the U.S. Republican redefinition of libertarians–as bomb-throwing communist terrorists with no party of their own–with the childish delight that altruistic self-deception enables.

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.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Brazilian blog

Anarchism in practice

Socialist collectivist attacks socialist mystic


Anarchism before publication of the Libertarian Platform

Before 1972, everybody on the planet understood clearly that anarchism is a communist theory embraced by persons to whom the world owes a living. Anarchists naturally rely on the same deception, coercion and deadly violence that is used in the collection of taxes–and even legitimate debts.

With fewer than 4000 votes the Libertarian Party prompted secular looters to change their definition of “anarchism” and extended to pregnant women in These United States and Dominions the protection of individual rights against mystical Dixiecrat depredations. To George Wallace supporters the LP was clearly a nest of cleverly disguised commie atheists pressing for the racial suicide of white folks and obstructing the Comstock Laws. Why? Because Ayn Rand–whose writings inspired the formation of the party–was completely non-superstitious–therefore a communist. After all, she even sounded Russian!

Individual rights baaad!

LP plank as Supreme Court decision

The problem was how to keep the Libertarian Party option out of the sight of voters. Republican and Democratic soft machines had dealt with competition from communist anarchists back before socialism was associated with gulags, Siberia, mass starvation, censorship, concentration camps, firing squads, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibór, Nowogrodek… Back in 1936 socialism and anarchism were associated with the fictional writings of the likes of London, Bellamy,  Steinbeck, Howells, Goldman, Goebbels and Hitler–none of them Republicans or Democrats. To guard against spoiler votes that might confuse the voters, the 1936 party faithful used the violence of local election laws to neutralize their socialist-anarchist competitors.

Our hands are tied!

The law is the law, sorry…

Richard Nixon’s 1971 tweaking of the tax code had made tax money available for suppression of libertarian candidates.  The media understood there was money on the table for anyone equating the libertarian and communist parties. Satisfying results appeared in print media before the next general election.

Nixon's fake media earns subsidies

From commie liberals to free-market communists, smearing in the looter press

Conscripts flowing into Southeast Asia meant coffins stuffed with young men who might otherwise have voted against the draft, religious sumptuary laws and foreign entanglements. Voter suppression was already a hardball racket back then, and rigged elections are still the norm. The suppression continues, of course, with millions kept from voting by grinding court cases and lengthy parole or probation terms over victimless plant leaves, stems, seeds and even roots!  For 46 years Republicans have called libertarians anarchist liberals while Democrats struggled to lump the LP in with Republicans, Dixiecrats, religious Juntas and nationalsocialists in general without once referring to the party platform or pledge endorsing non-aggression. So how is this working out?

We’re still here! Every bad law we cause cleptocracy looters to repeal is a victory for the voters. This is winning!

pidotcom

Need financial, legal, mining or political translations?

ALeiSeca0619
My Portuguese-language explanation of the Crash and Depression is available on Amazon Kindle

 

All anarchists are communists

When one first discovers the Libertarian Party, the biggest surprise is the swarm of anarchists buzzing about the organization. These worthies rarely join and pay dues, to say nothing of making campaign contributions. The overall impression they produce is much the same as that of a swarm of flies–which is precisely the intended effect! 

Not that there is anything new about anarchism. One quickly gets a sense of just how flyblown the theory is by searching the Google News Archive for specimens. Here’s one from 1894–the year a small communist party got 9% of the U.S. vote and cowed Congress into tacking Manifesto Plank 2 onto a tariff bill. An aggressor fired a pistol at Italian Premier Crispi, missed twice and was overpowered by his intended victim. A few days later another anarchist social revolutionary shot and killed French president Carnot. 

Observe that neither anarchist raised a pistol on the field of honor; both instead ambushed unarmed victims. Crispi’s wannabee assassin, captured by his intended victim, begged for the death sentence. Hanging was deemed too good for him. Carnot’s murderer was decapitated–not without irony–using a good, old-fashioned, Red Terror guillotine. Garfield was shot in the back by a similar political parasite and McKinley’s anarchist murderer carried with him a dog-eared copy of Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” translated into Polish.

The general rule in these cases is that a sort of Transubstantiation occurs as the bullet leaves the barrel, such that the communist aggressor suddenly always was an anarchist. George Orwell illustrated the phenomenon, describing the way communists and nationalsocialists began French-kissing before the ink was dry on the Hitler-Stalin pact. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-four he again stressed how the faithful believed that “Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.” This is the method of inference that concludes that anarchists “are really” libertarians. 

Americans educated in the free market system weren’t susceptible to doublethink. Garfield and McKinley’s assassins were promptly tried and hanged on the tried-and-true theory that dead anarchist madmen did little additional harm. Congress showed showed how little sympathy there was for the anarchist push to decriminalize murder when it passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1903. The Libertarian platform of 2016 contained equivalent language against importing “foreign nationals who pose a credible threat” until hostile (Republican? Anarchist?) infiltrators struck it out.  

The idea that an ideology of murdering madmen is compatible with the Libertarian Party is a 2+2=5 equivocation. Membership requires signing the Non-Aggression Principle penned by Ayn Rand in 1947, while hangmen were still busy cutting down murdering altruist National Socialist madmen at Nuremberg and other venues. In 1947 everyone recalled clearly that competition in the forcible restraint of men is War.  The Libertarian Party is concerned with freedom and peace. Any argument that our platform is compatible with murder-legalizing anarchism is a division-by-zero error. Yet in Peru and Chile today there are anarchist communists blatantly posing as “libertarian” parties. 

     


Libertarian candidates seek a constitutional government empowered to enforce laws protecting individual rights from theft, fraud and aggression. This is what anarchists are AGAINST or there would be nothing for them to criticize in the LP platform.  What we regard as the rule of law they see as obstructions interfering in the labor of murderers and highwaymen. The fact that most parties corrupt government power to put into practice the ethics of parasitism is all the more reason to distance ourselves from the anarchist branch of that same philosophy.

With friends like anarchists, freedom needs no enemies. 

My other blog is usually in a foreign language.

My book explaining the Crash and Depression is out in two languages too…

29coversmall

For certified or juramentada translations or interpreting contact Portugueseinterpreter or Speakwrite.

Mysticism and Fascism

Altruistic nationalsocialism

Read the original 1929 Chicago Tribune article

Remember the Lateran Agreements? The Romish Church doesn’t, but newspapers record how King, Dictator and Pope entered into another Byzantine Tordesillas pact–this one to divvy up power over the population of Italy. By Mussolini’s decree, Italian schools were required to include Catholic indoctrination of children too young to resist such conditioning.

In laissez-faire France, so many could afford cars that a movement was afoot to ban collective transportation. A decade later, National Socialist tanks rolled into Catholic (and Protestant) France and replaced Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité with Travail, Patrie, Famille. Jewish families were packed off to 40,000 Nazi camps, but every Catholic or Protestant in Germany acted surprised to learn in May of 1945 that even a single such death camp had ever existed.

Here is the current pope of Rome’s endorsement of Ecological National Socialism:

“The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast.” For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an “ecological conversion,” whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience. (Laudato Si’, 217)

Below is a sample of current papist equivocations berating libertarian non-aggression. The speech, worthy of any South-American integralista surrounds the concept of “freedom” with a Vatican-worthy wall of conditionals, adjectival qualifiers and vagueness to disguise its collectivist calls to coercion. Observe how this Argentine Holy Father rearranges the National Socialist plea to put “The Common Good before the Individual Good” (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz in the 1920 original)

Calling for integral development means engaging in widening the space of dignity and freedom of people: freedom, however, not only in the negative sense of the absence of impediments, nor only in a positive sense as a choice. It is necessary to add freedom “for”, that is, the freedom to pursue its vocation of both personal and social good. The key idea is that freedom goes hand in hand with the responsibility of protecting the common good and promoting the dignity, liberty and well-being of others, reaching the poor, the excluded and future generations.

Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences on the theme Towards a Participatory Society: New Roads to Social and Cultural Integration (Casina Pio IV, 28 April – 2 May 2017). Freedom in a political context is freedom from government coercion. But in the infallible speech, coercion by harmful or deadly force replaced by the more euphemistic equivocation “impediments,” suggestive not of government action, but ordinary features of terrain.  The dictionary in Mac OS defines impediment: “a hindrance or obstruction in doing something.” The example: “a serious impediment to scientific progress.” In a very real sense, faith and initiation of force are the two primary impediments to scientific progress.

The Pope’s mystical claim that temperatures are rising and coercion must be resorted to as an emergency measure is another example. Thermometer records not tampered with clearly show that temperatures have been decreasing since the Lateran Treaty was signed, as in these measurements for Texas.

Disclosure: this interpreter was as a child enrolled in two mystical schools in a country politically subservient to Rome. The conditioning evidently didn’t “take,” and in college I took physics and math classes. Indoctrination attempts nevertheless provided first-hand experience with the conditioning whereby mystical altruism offers the initiation of force as the only acceptable solution to imaginary political or social conundrums.

Get the complete story in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in two languages. After this you’ll be able to explain to economists exactly how 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

I am looking for other libertarian translators. If you know of any, please let me know.
Brazilian blog…

 

What is Winning?

GOPNSDAPThe key to political campaigns is in the definition of winning. Suppose someone wanted his son shot and jailed, home confiscated, unemployment up, and all markets crashed, you’d suggest he vote Republican. Same solution if they were to want a daughter to bleed to death because of medieval approaches to accidental pregnancy. To Republican, Christian National Socialist and Islamic State legislators that’s winning–provided their candidate also gets the government job. Communists and lay socialists on the other hand prefer to forego the government job but force the kleptocracy to change the laws in response to the pressure of their spoiler votes. It’s kind of like a “sacrifice” move in a chess game, in exchange for gaining tactical or positional compensation farther along. So if their platform planks seem “extreme” (meaning consistent with their ideology), that’s not a problem. Spoiler votes will gradually make those positions seem wearily centrist. That’s the strategy that enacted the 16th and 18th Amendments.

demcommieWhen socialist parties lose, it’s because (their cheerleaders feel) that particular unverifiable secret ballot election was rigged. Deep down you know this is true–or at least unfalsifiable–so the tendency is to feel a twinge of sympathy for the raw deal they got. But it’s not just ordinary socialists. Christian National Socialists, Islamic Mohammedans and devout altruistic Communists all want essentially the same thing: decisions imposed at gunpoint by the better people who know what’s good for the riff-raff. Of course they have surrogates. National Socialists of Third Reich Christian persuasions have since 1932 been the hand inside the Republican party sockpuppet. International Socialists of the East German Communist variety have lately pulled the strings that move the arms and mouths of Democratic Party spokesmen. One can’t think independently and still have faith in altruism.

But suppose a voter wants freedom? That is, not the initiation of force, but rather, voluntary cooperation? Suppose you want the Marxist personal income tax abolished, its collectors disarmed and returned to the productive labor market? What about those who want to eat, drink and smoke what they prefer–people to whom winning means becoming the masters of their own financial decisions?

Fake Trump combover?

Not a Fake Trump combover!

In that case, the recommendation can only be to vote for the LP platform Gary Johnson is standing on. It is easy to verify that, as in 1892 or 1908, each third-party spoiler vote has way more law changing power than a vote wasted on shape-shifting actors fronting for soft machines. Dry Christian Progressives backing small parties in the 1890s paved the way for Prohibition making light beer a felony. Likewise, dry Christian Socialists paved the way for Soviet Communism in Russia, National Socialism in Germany, and transfer payments to non-producers elsewhere. Yet all their parties–Greenback, Farmer-labor, Anti-monopoly, Socialist, Socialist labor, Prohibition, LOST by their candidates getting less than half the electoral vote. However, they eventually won what they wanted by changing the laws, whether through enactment, court decisions, or repeal.

I’d wager that even if Gary Johnson were to receive 60% of the votes, a way would be found to defraud the election. But the fright would nevertheless cause the looters to abolish a mess of bad laws–which is what I really want. THAT’s winning. Consider making a Paypal donation at LP.org I absolutely guarantee your donation will change 600% to 3600% as many words in laws as it would if wasted on either of the Kleptocracy soft machines.

pidotcom