Tax Revolt Alternatives

Spoiler votes that entrenched can uproot socialism

Governments never learn. Only people learn.

Milton Friedman made it impossible ignore that there are two ways of dealing with people: voluntarily, or by force.

Tax collectors and the parties that send them out to collect more and higher taxes invariably choose the second option. Of course they paper it over with sanctimonious doublespeak. At every turn they liken their men with guns to acceptors of voluntary contributions. Media outlets are all tax-subsidized since 1971 (thanks to Nixon). This anti-libertarian subsidy doles out influence to entrenched gerontocracy election campaigns and helps sell an image of eleemosynary voluntarism through the initiation of force.

But what of the people at whom their guns are pointed? Thanks to the Nixon anti-libertarian law, many voters are completely unaware of the existence of a political party whose members seek to gradually replace coercion with voluntary cooperation wherever possible. Here’s what happens when media subsidies–designed to favor entrenched parties–interfere to produce uninformed voters.

Is taxing people at gunpoint worth it? As a Libertarian voter I just say “no” every time I cast a ballot. No, I do not expect all taxation to disappear by the time I unchain my bicycle to return home after voting. But I know for a fact that my LP vote will pack the clout of at least six votes in favor of reversing the trend toward increased taxation. In the case of individual rights for women, fewer than 4000 libertarian votes handed the Supreme Court the language they used in the Roe v. Wade decision, a relative vote clout of 10,000 for 1 if you believe it takes 50% of the total to get anything done. That’s winning!

Forcible expropriation leads to situations like the Bay District standoff. People follow good or bad examples, depending on what they can see. This guy observed the use of force and imagined two could play.

Richard Nixon and Congress changed the tax code in 1971 to keep you from finding out about the no-guns alternative. Like the snake tossed into baby Hercules’ crib, it was an attempt to kill off the Libertarian Party.

But here it is, 46 years later, and we’re still here. What’s more, four million voters–as many as voted in the entire State of Virginia–stood with us this last presidential election. Our vote share is up 328%, and we got way more of the popular vote than the difference between the two looter parties dedicated to the initiation of deadly force. Here’s the sigmoid political party substitution curve, the hockey stick Republican Dixiecrat fascists and Democrat communists do not want you to see:

So, which will it be? If you like what you see, by all means listen to what the Republicans and Democrats say about each other. If you would rather take a positive step to increase freedom by reversing the growth of coercion, read the Libertarian Party platform and vote with us.

If you need a website localized into Brazilian Portuguese, look us up at http://www.falascreve.com Falascreve is how they translated Orwell’s speech recognition neologism http://www.speakwrite.com.br in South America.

Try my Amazon Kindle explanation of Prohibition and The Crash and see how a small party wrote the plank that brought repeal.

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

 

Advertisements

Prohibition and The Crash

Prohibition and The Crash

Portuguese-language edition on Amazon Kindle

If you are seriously trying to unravel the reasons behind the Crash of 1929 and the causes of the Great Depression which followed, this will open your eyes. The project–a banking interpreter’s searching examination into a mystery daunting to economists–sifts even the forbidden causes.

This took 21 years to get straight!

Prohibition and The Crash, English version on Amazon Kindle

In hindsight, the causality blank-out defies comprehension. Economists and historians were able to look back on prohibition, the Crash and the Depression without noticing the causal links between them–assuming they coexisted by the sheerest of coincidence. Back then the connection between prohibition and the economy was asserted daily and hotly debated.

“No one man will ever realize how big it is, so lay off.” –Al Capone, July 1930

“When the time comes that we can look at this depression objectively it will be our duty searchingly to examine every phase of it.”Herbert Hoover, June 15, 1931.

Maryland Senator Millard Tydings used statistical data to refute every argument advanced by proponents of prohibition. He also documented hundreds of cases of legalized murder (or extrajudicial killing) of ordinary citizens and bootleggers by wielders of police powers. His 1930 book examines economic effects and how the 18 new powers granted Congress by the looter amendments to the Constitution plus the character of the American people doomed economic dictatorships from the outset.

Defending shoot-first prohibitionism was Herman Feldman, Professor of Industrial Relations at the Amos Tuck School of Administration and Finance, Dartmouth College–1927. The way he tells the story, all of the postwar economic growth was due to the beneficial effects of national prohibition. After the Crash, his output ceased.

Prohibition and the Crash also sheds light on the causes of the Panic of 1893, Panic of 1907, and several lesser financial convulsions. It just might help to understand recent crashes during the Reagan (1987) and Clinton (2000) administrations, for the same ingredients were there.

Never is anything but government responsible for causing economic collapse. The fact was widely known and published in 1775 by Adam Smith:

Great nations are never impoverished by private, though they sometimes are by public prodigality and misconduct.

About taxes Smith reflected:

It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries.

The worst Stock Market Crashes began in 1929 two weeks after the Jones 5 and 10 Law (Increased Penalties Act) was signed on March 2 (two days before Herbert Hoover took office as President). But the average chart slope went from positive to negative on or about September 2, 1929, as former prosecutor Mabel Willebrandt explained enforcement tactics in “The Inside of Prohibition” syndicated in 20 major newspapers. Once investors understood the Income Tax and asset forfeiture were weaponized against beer, the collapse began about September 2 and accelerated. See for yourself.

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

For financial, tax and banking translations, look me up.

 

Patriot Act, 1913

First the Balkans, now U.S.-occupied Afghanistan!

See the original article…

Remember Serbia? It was Servia back when communist youths shot European politicians practically every month before World War One. But war in the Balkans did not begin in 1914. Only when China overthrew its imperial government in 1911 and halted British and German dumping of narcotics did the price glut destabilize prices, then politics, in that opium-farming region. That particular outbreak of European opium wars began in 1911. Newspapers at the time juxtaposed related articles and let readers draw their own correlations and conclusions.

Prohibition linked to War

Decriminalization instead of legalization circumvents government dependence on addictive dope

Here is a sample of an Enabling Act or Patriot Act enacted by the Serbian government. This was over a year before another communist youth shot yet another feather-bedecked Germanic militarist as ratifying signatures slowly accumulated on the Hague anti-opium convention.

Article 1. The police authorities are authorized, in case of a deficiency in the regular organization for securing the liberty and security of persons and property, to ask military commander for the troops necessary for the maintenance of order and tranquillity. The military commander is bound to comply immediately with these demands, and the police is bound to inform the Minister of the Interior of them.

Article 2. Any attempt at rebellion against the public powers is punishable by five years’ penal servitude.

The decision of the police authorities, published in the respective communes, is proof of the commission of crime.

If the rebel refuses to give himself up as prisoner within ten days from such publication, he may be put to death by any public or military officer.

Article 3. Any person accused of rebellion in terms of the police decision and who commits any crime shall be punished with death.
If the accused person himself gives himself up as a prisoner into the hands of authorities, the death penalty shall be commuted to penal servitude for ten or years, always provided that the commutation is approved by the tribunal.

Article 4. Where several cases of rebellion occur in a commune and the rebels do not return to their homes within ten days from the police notice, the authorities have the right of deporting their families whithersoever they may find convenient.
Likewise the inhabitants of the houses in which armed persons or criminals in general are found concealed, shall be deported.
The heads of the police shall transmit to the Prefecture a report on the deportation procedure, which is to be put in force immediately.
The Minister of the Interior shall, if he think desirable, rescind deportation measures.

Article 5. Any person deported by an order of the Prefecture who shall return to original domicile without the authorization of the Minister of the Interior shall be punished by three years’ imprisonment.

Article 6. If in any commune or any canton the maintenance of security demands the sending of troops, the maintenance of the latter shall be charged to the commune or the canton. In such a case the Prefect is to be notified.
If order is restored after a brief interval and the culprits taken, the Minister of the Interior may refund such expenses to the canton or the commune.
The Minister may act in this way as often as he may think desirable.

Article 7. Any person found carrying arms who has not in his possession a from the police or from the Prefect, or who shall hide arms in his house or elsewhere shall be condemned to a penalty varying from three months’ imprisonment to five years’ penal servitude.
Anyone selling arms or ammunition without a police permit shall be liable to the same penalty.

… and so on for another two pages. The lesson here is that economic dislocation–such as resulted from the George Bush Jr. asset-forfeiture crash or the religious terrorism the Bush Dynasty invited by the entangling shelling and bombing former Ottoman territory–results in even grosser initiation of force in a mystically mixed economy.

The initiation of harmful and deadly force sets in motion a feedback loop with forced oscillations. Voting Libertarian is the only effective way to counter these buildups, as the Kleptocracy parties are well aware. Why? Because LP.org candidates and partisans oppose the initiation of force for political or social reasons. No initiation of force means there is no pretext for violent retaliation.

Defeat doublethink and reality control
Orwellian interpreting and translations. Don’t miss out: foreign blog….

 

 

Another death sentence Queenpin?

Release murderers to make room!

Victimless crime laws destroy human life

George Holy War Bush urged the death sentence for plant products, and Cartoonist Scott Adams is also on that bandwagon. Yet whenever the opportunity arises–with, say, a non-minority teenager–these manly champions of get-tough prohibitionism develop blind spots, incessant dinning and hysteria by media corporations and Satan-scolders notwithstanding. What’s the deal?

Texas has prison time and asset-forfeiture penalties for plant ROOTS and seeds on its law books. Yet when a white DEA agent’s lovely daughter turned up influenced into that agency’s extracurricular practices, that’s different. The 2015 case is mired in obfuscation and drags on–hopefully until you vote libertarian and give politicians good reason to focus on repealing cruel laws instead of bullying girls.

A gang of documendacity experts called Sixty Minutes does character assassination jobs. The most memorable was a smear attack on Illinois Power’s Clinton reactor project. The utility company videotaped the media fakes and released its own documentary exposing deliberate falsehood on the part of ABC’s media outfit. H.L. Deakins, at Public Affairs, Illinois Power Co., 500 S.27th Street, Decatur, IL 62525, used to mail out transcripts and supply videotapes of the exposé–back in 1980, when utility companies had guts. 60 Minutes hasn’t changed.

A documendacity spawn of the same name in Australia has settled on a victim WAY less able to retaliate via pistol-packing daddy-with-badge. The dupes who watch this stuff are induced to drool over the mistreatment of a blonde youngster duped into handling relatively harmless (compared to tobacco) plant leaf products. Does 60 minutes stand up for rights and against pseudoscience? Not a chance! Victimless crimes are hinted at with appallingly feigned seriousness on the part of the media presstitute. A Latin American democracia infiltrated by the U.S. asset-forfeiture cartel meanwhile chortles over a captured sacrificial victim worthy of a role in Aldous Huxley’s The Devils of Loudon.

This is today’s global warming media, graduating from creating a health hazard by obstructing access to energy to fashionably fanning hysteria about another scapegoat of prohibitionist superstition. Pseudoscience hobgoblins invented in America and exported to Colombia are props in a deadly media circus. If the fake media’s karma turns out to be pitiless in its retribution, schadenfreude!

Dupes who vote to retain corrupt soft machines need to reflect on the human cost of pseudoscience and the initiation of force. Ask yourself: Am I proud of having wasted the chance to cast a law-changing spoiler vote for freedom?


Speaking of puppet régime jurisprudence

Texas: No negro or libertarian voters

The NEW Whites Only

Individual Rights need not apply! See the original newspaper…

The Democratic Party of Texas would not allow blacks to vote in its primaries in 1932. Not, that is, until the Supreme Court slapped its wrists with a ruling that the 14th Amendment and 19th Amendment also applied to the Lone Star State, Klanbakes at the State Fairgrounds to the contrary notwithstanding. The case was Nixon v. Condon:

Executive Committee of the Democratic Party in Texas adopted a resolution that only white Democrats should participate in the primary elections, thereby excluding Negroes.

Here we are, 87 years later, and the Richard Nixon Anti-Libertarian Law still subsidizes those same entrenched political parties. It therefore follows, as night follows day, that their earlier strategy will be repeated–though ballot access–against the only party that seeks to repeal prohibition laws that have been a tool of racial collectivism since coercive prohibitionism first reared its ugly gun.

This is the confession that what antichoice Republicans fear is competition. Here’s hoping I can count on your vote to oppose this repetition of a bad mistake.


Now fortified with international coverage!

Vote Repellent

Alabama and Louisiana both gave their electoral votes to George Wallace’s platform of de jure racial segregation and forcing women to reproduce in 1968. In the 2016 election both States went heavily for the party with the platform most resembling the Dixiecrats’ racial collectivism and planks urging the initiation of force against women and physicians.

Alabama gave the Republican Party a 15% overkill victory, and netted the Libertarian ticket 36% fewer votes than the reported national average. Libertarian votes there amounted to only one-seventh the amount needed to cover the gap between the two Kleptocracy parties. Alabama plainly needed seven times the libertarian voter turnout to qualify for message-sending, law-changing spoiler vote clout status in the rough-and-tumble earning of respect as a force to be reckoned with in George Wallace territory.

Louisiana voters handed antichoice prohibitionist Republicans an 11% lead over the other looters, and dismissed Libertarian candidates even more brutally than Independent American Party fans in Alabama. The LP ticket there got 42% fewer votes than we earned on average in These Sovereign States.  That’s less than an eighth the turnout needed for the law-changing spoiler vote status that forces Kleptocracy parties to drop cruel planks to keep from losing perks, paychecks and political power. 

Commies for McGovern!

Message: The Libertarian Party demands uninspected entry of strangers!

So where would you look to recruit false-flag infiltrators to make libertarians look like the kind of fools that have never read the Constitution, worked under oath or even bothered to learn the definition of government, rights or law?

Here is the text of a “resolution” sent to the National LP by persons claiming to represent what few libertarians voted for our unadulterated 2016 platform in those states:

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Alabama believes that the only proper role of law is in the protection of the natural rights of individuals from the initiation of force or fraud;

WHEREAS, no individual has a natural right to prohibit consensual visitation to or consensual habitation on the private property of another individual;

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party believes that eminent domain is a violation of private property rights;

WHEREAS, we affirm the right of individuals to set whatever standards they wish for entry onto their own private property but not that owned by others;

WHEREAS, we believe that all individuals have the same natural rights regardless of their citizenship;

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party acknowledges that economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Alabama condemns and opposes efforts to build a governmental border wall.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Alabama supports open borders.

Maybe it’s not brazen sabotage at all. Perhaps open borders means what the US currently has: ports of entry at which travelers may produce visas and inoculation documents and be inspected by Americans against lists of persons known to be violent or dangerous–as in the LP Migration plank before it was gutted by Platform Committee personnel AFTER our record-setting capture of national spoiler-clout status. But what would be the point of that? Indeed, what was the point of damaging the plank to make voters perceive it as an enticement to uninspected entry? What better way is there to repel voters than setting us up as anarchists aiding and abetting reckless endangerment?

Would it not be more honest to say that they who presume to speak for those scarce LP voters want uninspected entry to not be a deportable offense? That would be easily understood as pressure to change federal law. Pitifully hopeless pressure, true enough, from states that were utterly lacking in libertarian spoiler votes even when our platform was mostly sensible–but clear enough to understand as a demand from Whitney Bilyeu, Thomas Knapp, Alex Merced and C.A. Harlos that any and everyone walk or climb right in. Even the locust-swarm of illiterates that recently attempted uninspected entry at the California stretch of the U.S. border at least had the courage to say what it is they figure the world owes them. 

For clear and accurate simultaneous interpreting of Latin American news, legislation, contracts or court cases, get in touch.

 

With Friends Like These…

A typical email asking for money begins: Together, we’re forging ahead and navigating toward even greater accomplishments. Every step we take building party resources and infrastructure, all the hours of hard work put in by our dedicated volunteers, all the battles for ballot access and fair election procedures—(the message could end)… go down the toilet every time an infiltrator pimping for a hostile ideology penetrates the platform committee to poison our platform with nonsense! Today’s story is about a recent bit of… of what? sabotage to LP goodwill? clumsy incompetence? that could easily wipe out our 328% increase in ballot share earned in the November 2016 election.

Hearsay, apocrypha, curbside speechifying

LP News August 2018 p 5

Knapp then lays on some self-administered back-patting, flattery, apocryphal storytelling, hortative pseudo-ethics, hearsay, but no factual data. Formulated on false premises and hearsay, Knapp’s entire argument is fallacious. Candidate Trump said he likes libertarianism and was overwhelmingly elected on the promise to build the Republican platform fence.  True, Trump lost in the popular vote, but largely because the LP got four million of those votes–well over the Hillary-Trump gap.

Trump’s most popular move was the entry ban on “individuals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property,”  meaning suicide-vest terrorist ideologue brainwashees that crash planes into skyscrapers, machine-gun Paris nightclubs, run down pedestrians en masse in London, Nice and elsewhere, and today specialize in stabbing sprees much like the anarchist communists of a century ago–whose entry congress banned by law. As for borders, the first clear definition of government is an “entity which has a monopoly over the use of legitimate coercive power in a given territory.” Lack of borders typifies anarchy or war.

Knapp proceeds to assert that based on his reading of “the public mind” and his unmeasurable perception of the motion of “America’s political center of gravity” the “principles” of the LP needed “to move.” Libertarian principles in 1972 supported “laws that prohibit trespass” and urged “the maintenance of a sufficient military establishment to defend the United States against aggression” including “sufficient nuclear capacity.” The LP does not even want to recognize totalitarian governments. Nowhere in the principles or planks on which the Party was founded is there any restriction on Knapp himself buying land on the border and declaring it an entry point for jihadists and locust-swarms of refugees from unlibertarian satrapies. Knapp’s arm-waving assertions as to bedrock LP principles are fiction.

Knapp´s perceptions of principles only he sees, coupled with his public-mind-reading, his imaginary schedule of when things should happen and his sensing of massless gravity culminate in doublethink changes in the meaning of our original and recent platforms. His explanation? He “heard people.” Knapp claims he heard people “assert” that the platform plank he sought to savage might be invoked in support of a spurious and totally imaginary claim that the LP supports “collective immigration bans based on nationality, ethnicity, or religion.” Hearsay and fiction don’t get any more obvious than this.

First of all, federal laws prohibit those, but toothily demand bans on individual violent criminals. The Kleptocracy and its majority of voters have not yet changed that law, and the hearsay invoked is irrelevant even if true. Unlike Knapp, the federal government produces data its agencies claim are factual:

True? False? Exaggerated?

Enforcement and Removal Operations Report p 4. This is where el Presidente gets his figures.

This is last year’s list of what ICE claims are individual criminals they caught and turned over for prosecution or deportation. The second-largest item is Republican and Democrat sumptuary legislation banning enjoyable plant leaves, etc. Libertarian spoiler votes–to the extent we can still get any–are repealing this category of victimless “crime” even when we do not get our candidates elected. Assault, burglary, spouse-beating, robbery, rape, theft and vandalism, kidnapping, homicide and menacing are what the Republicans are mainly talking about, but Knapp never mentions. These acts are a far cry from worshipping a spaghetti monster, being brown or having a non-American passport–things Knapp imagines “some party members” associate with  a “credible threat to security, health or property.” But even Donald Trump welcomes individuals who “enrich our society and contribute to our nation.”

What has happened are visa restrictions against such People’s States as Cuba, Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone for refusing to accept back their nationals deported from the USA. Even those are not blanket visa restrictions, but country-by-country restrictions on the more troublesome categories of visas.  These five exemplify the sort of country the 1972 LP platform urged us not to even recognize–much less reward with visas.

But as long as we’re on the topic of threats, observe in the LP News article that Knapp postures defensively at imagined menaces to nationality, ethnicity, or religion, then warns that “my fellow Libertarians will never allow” the imaginary hearsay threat to materialize. Knapp boasts that the LP “never has” supported such fictional nonsense, which is true enough. But thanks to hostile infiltrators, nobody can say that no past LP platform has ever asked voters to enshrine molestation or child prostitution.

With friends like these...

Pimp, by Tatsuya Ishida

Libertarian Party platforms and spoiler votes have overturned cruel laws banning birth control, interfered with tax hikes, and drawn the boiling wrath of fanatical looter ideologues. Naturally these ideologues will pass up no opportunity to sully our platform and make us look bad. Then again, we should expect no less–and certainly not expect honesty. Constant vigilance is due diligence.

If in need of a translator or interpreter for Latin America, look me up.
My other blog is foreign.