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

German Libertarian in English

English, German and Dutch are in the same family of languages. See Naomi in German (link)
Welcome to the world of people who not only think, but do it in two languages!

Finally! Germany is waking up to alternatives to genocidal national versus international socialism and noticing other parts of the Venn Diagram and Nolan Chart.

Since 1972 the Libertarian Party has advocated for repealing cruel laws passed by religious fanatics to torture and criminalize gays. We also advocate abolition of coercive manipulation of fuel markets to cater to imaginary energy hobgoblins created by collectivist pseudoscience. Girl-bullying conservatives are trying to claim Naomi, but she self-identifies as libertarian in her own words.(link)

This hasn’t stopped ecological national socialists and watermelon greens from flinging innuendo to paint the youngster as a brainwashed religious zealot eager to join male Landover Baptists to deny individual rights to women. Washington Post fake news seeks to depict the libertarian lady as a racial collectivist. Both character assassination attempts have been pitiful and dodge the issue of what thermometers have to say about temperature trends.(link)

Conservatives have men point service pistols at doctors and pregnant women.(link) This they justify with mystical and race-suicide claptrap.(link) They also seek to have uniformed police and plainclothes criminal shoot people over plant leaves, and they believe the world is warming when thermometers say it isn’t.(link)

Interestingly, Naomi self-identifies as Libertarian on a number of different videos, but pulpit-thumping, girl-bullying, doctor-shooting conservatives insist on hearing “conservative” every time she says “libertarian.” Why? 

“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.” –Robert A. Heinlein

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

Pro-life or Anti-life?

Speaking in tongues

Yes, many, many languages…

Anti-Life is a chapter in Ayn Rand’s 1957 best-seller Atlas Shrugged, in fact, it’s the chapter that follows Anti-Greed.

Anti-Greed is foreshadowed as part of a newspaper item so distorted as to upset Hank Rearden’s secretary, but

He laughed aloud. “I can see where such a distortion of the English language would make you furious”

It turns out that Anti-Greed is a chapter about Project X, a weapon that broadcasts death.

PRO-LIFE COP-KILLER

Colorado Clinic Shooter

Conservative altruists still advocate sending men with guns to threaten doctors and coerce pregnant women into back-alley surgery. Impressed by that good example set by elected officials, some superstitious characters did indeed march out and murder unarmed doctors by shooting them in the back, or from outside their windows. This trend began shortly after the LP platform of 1972 demanded and got enforcement of individual rights for women. The latest in the long list or religious conservative assassins was Robert Dear, who is now under indictment on federal counts, several of which invoke capital punishment by a just society.(link) The most recent amendments to infiltrate the LP platform call for letting religious terrorists enter the U.S. uninspected, (a Democratic Party idea) then protecting them from the death sentence (a Republican idea) with taxpayers billed for room and board for life. Those planks are an example of how hostile ideologies are again boring in to make Libertarians look like fools to voters.

These are the people Ayn Rand preferred when she declared voting for the Tonie Nathan-John Hospers LP ticket “immoral.”(link) So what? We all make mistakes–and Tricky Dick wouldn’t wreck the economy for another year yet. At age 67, few of us are at the top of our game, but the ability to learn from mistakes is a valuable skill at which Ayn Rand did not excel. Unlike Nixon’s party, she did advocate individual rights for women. The LP did write the boilerplate the Supreme Court used as its Roe v. Wade decision, blocking race-suicide Dixiecrats from sending men with guns out to cause women bleed to death. When was the last time you heard about that in a Republican publication?

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.

My other-language blog, Expatriotas.blogspot is amigra.us

 

 

Canadian Liberals and American Libertarians

mystical whack job

LP Candidate 2018?

Will the Libertarian Party sacrifice integrity to superstition? 

1968 — Nixon elected, Mi Lai massacre, GOP declares war on plant leaves, entheogens, segregationist American Party advocates War on Plant Leaves, gets 35 electoral votes. No US party published a Comstock law plank to ban or censor birth control that year, but Geroge Wallace loudly insisted he wanted politicians to ban most birth control.

1968 — Prohibition party platform: No greater mistake has ever been made by the American people and their government than the Repeal of Prohibition. (This is the party that controls the GOP as of 1928.)

1969 — Canadian abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler defies the law and opens an abortion clinic in Montreal.

1970 — Morgentaler clinic is raided and physician is charged with several offences. The Gestapo had 27 years earlier arrested Morgentaler for internment in its death camp eugenics program to cleanse humanity of Jewish selfishness and make the World safe for Positive Christianity.

1971 — American Libertarian Party formed by David Nolan, adopts the Non-Aggression Principle. This principle was formulated by Ayn Rand in 1947, as National Socialist eugenics proponents were being hanged at Nuremberg and elsewhere. Richard Nixon signs amendment to IRS Code making transfer payment subsidies via the income tax to entrenched Kleptocracy parties for electioneering in media.

1972 — Pro-choice, pro-defense, Libertarian Party candidates John Hospers and Toni Nathan earn one electoral vote from a state in which barred from the ballot.

1973 — Republican Supreme Court copies and pastes the 1972 Libertarian Party pregnancy plank into its Roe v. Wade decision using the 14th Amendment to secure individual rights for most pregnant women.

1974 — Morgentaler acquitted on abortion charges by Quebec jury, later overturned by Quebec Court of Appeal.

1976 — Prohibition party platform adds plank: We support a Constitutional Amendment to protect the unborn by prohibiting abortion except in those very rare cases where the life of the mother is seriously endangered.

1976 — Canadian Justice Minister orders retrial. Morgentaler acquitted by jury again in September. Newly elected Parti Quebecóis drops all charges.

1976 — Republican party platform copies from Prohibition Party the plank demanding a Prohibition Amendment to force pregnant women to reproduce by coercing physicians at gunpoint.

1980 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment.

1984 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment.

1988 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment. Declares “All persons born…” in 14th Amendment really means “All ova fertilized…” Supreme Court of Canada strikes down all laws restricting that individual right of women.  Goodthinkful Republican party politicians struggle to evade this decision as thoughtcrime.

1992 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment. Seeks Mussolini-precedent Lateran Treaty powers to force children in government schools to recite prayers.

1996 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment. Declares its support for Religious Mercantilism by calling it [get this!] “free-market Capitalism,” promises 5th Amendment protection against Asset-Forfeiture looting (except where prohibitionism enters the picture).

2000 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment. Demands formation of Junior Anti-Sex League and additional laws to coerce pubescent teens. 2001, George Bush Jr. signs Executive Order subsidizing infiltration of federal government by faith-based mystical organizations, as in the Mohammedan countries.

2004 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment. Expands demands to export prohibition of individual rights of women (and everyone else) to UN, advocates interference in international organizations to pressure them into coercing physicians who provide healthcare to women. Asset-forfeiture prohibitionism ramps up to wholesale armed robbery by men with government guns.

2008 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment. Demands protection by mock trial (not international law) of troops ordered to bomb civilians in Mohammedan countries. Economy collapses under weight of prohibitionist asset-forfeiture looting.

2012 — Recycled republican candidate Gary Johnson promises to try to overturn Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision. Gets 3 million fewer votes than he got after dropping that dumb idea.

2016 — Republican platform demands Abortion Prohibition Amendment by retasking 5th Amendment to coerce physicians instead of ban asset-forfeiture looting. Libertarian party infiltrated by Republican prohibitionists, platform edited to add faith-based straddle plank. Rights-violating republican infiltrator nearly nominated by LP. Democratic party platform seeks to make electricity as abundant and affordable in Continental United States as in Puerto Rico.  </history>

2018 — ??
Scenario 1: Mystical prohibitionist Republicans take over LP
the way the Prohibition Party assimilated the GOP in 1928, and the People’s Party swallowed the Democrats in 1896–to back a Prohibition Amendment declaring women are not “persons born” and assert that the 5th Amendment legalizes asset forfeiture looting.
Scenario 2 — Libertarian Party maintains its integrity, sheds good-faith-based imprecations and defends the individual rights of all women, as in Canada. LP advocates a constitutional amendment protecting the freedom of production and trade, replaces GOP like Whigs replaced Federalists and were themselves mowed down by Red Republicans in 1860.

The Supreme Court tried backing Prohibitionist superstition in 1920, but when that brought about a depression worse than the one from the 1894 income tax (for which the Prohibition Party incorrectly claims credit), the Court learned. The 1973 US Supreme Court decision has since assured women all over the planet that they are individuals with rights. Christian National Socialists and Mohammedan Sharia Law fanatics object to any kind of individual rights–especially if applicable to women, blacks, latinos… So what? Superstition is dwindling and has few spoiler votes to cast. Libertarians have four million spoiler votes. Our vote share looks like this measured hockey stick graph:

Superstition from 1928 on the other hand…

9/11 showed us religion worships death!

Science will fly you to the Moon. Religion will fly you into the side of a building!

Which will it be? Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand, H.L. Mencken, David Nolan, John Hospers, Toni Nathan? or the Klan, Prohibition Party, Anthony Comstock, Herbert Hoover, Joe McCarthy, Harry Anslinger, Dick Nixon and the Bush Dynasty? Free minds and free markets or Republican Blue laws, Democrat Kristallnacht laws and Mohammedan Sharia law?

Much of the political strife of the Prohibition era, and its economic consequences, are covered in Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929. Live 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