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

Dry Killers, 2020

PERP NOT SHOWN, REDACTED

FEDERAL Prosecutor initiates deadly force against wife, self. (link)

Dry Killers was the term The Chicago Tribune used to describe government agents and their hangers-on who routinely killed unarmed boys and men in the 1920s and 30s. Anyone who thinks this is a prohibition phenomenon that’s over and done with might care to explain today’s news–or news of the past century.

Federal Prohibition and Second Amendment Kristallnacht infringement mouthpiece Timothy Delgado turned up dead just north of Folsom Prison in California, where police say he apparently killed his wife, then himself. Whether the reporting is accurate or not, it is typical of fanatical prohibitionism–which after the complete economic collapse of 1929-1933 shifted from beer, wine and Demon Rum to coercion over plant leaves and their extracts. The other big change is that big shots at the Chicago Tribune had a lot invested in alcohol precursor chemicals during national prohibition. They evidently have no such stake in Post-Nixon avatars of Satan. Fanatics infiltrating federal agencies, on the other hand, most certainly have a serious stake in the initiation of deadly force.(link)

Tribune reporters back then tracked down and reported on every storeowner, housewife and boat operator murdered in cold blood by prohibition agents. Nowadays such events are typically reported only by Reason Magazine writers. Prohibition killings are masked as “resisting arrest” and other such euphemistic camouflage, and a way is in every case found to minimize their impact on public perception. But America was not always so like a Christian National Socialist Democracy.(link)

Chicago was then and is now home to the largest glucose corn sugar plant on planet Earth. Yeast and sugar companies bankrolled bootleggers who installed refinery-grade continuous stills in bankrupt three-story mansions after The Crash. These outfits could afford to repay the political State in its own coin. This actually happened twice. In 1921-22 civilian posse comitatus‘ hunted down killers with badges as the economy collapsed, then a truce was established. The economic effect can be seen in this graph for hops, a precursor plant used to brew Beelzebub’s beer.(link

Nullification of felony beer prohibition laws

The 1923 Gentleman’s Agreement shifted enforcement away from beer until March 2, 1929, after which the economy lasted another 6 months

The truce broke down when the Klan defected from the Dems in 1928 and helped elect Herbert Clark Hoover. Prohibition related murders–including the killing of federal agents–immediately filled all the papers, and books appeared right after the Crash–itself caused by withdrawals of money from banks to avoid federal asset-forfeiture confiscation. That is a little-appreciated aspect of a fractional-reserve banking system after a looter takeover. Here is an excerpt from Before and After Prohibition, a 1930 compendium by Maryland Senator Millard Tydings:

ONE of the most shocking results of the ten years of effort to enforce national prohibition is the long record of killings by prohibition and other Federal law enforcement agents. Even among some of the strongest advocates of the “noble experiment,” there have been widespread expressions of revolt at this bloody spectacle. Information regarding many of these killings has occupied much space in the public press, and editorial comment upon them has been most denunciatory. Yet they continue—apparently an almost inevitable accompaniment of the enforcement of this law.

Senator Tydings managed to uncover some 1300 suppressed killings committed by prohibition agents that were kept out of the papers and seldom discussed–including cases of federal gangs gunning down each other! Here’s a fratricidal example from Tydings’ collection: 

George Ball and William Porter, State agents, killed in battle with Federal Revenue officers at Camp Creek, West Virginia, June 20, 1925. (Each band of dry raiders thought the others were bootleggers, and they opened fire simultaneously.)

So this pattern of superstition, pseudoscience and political asset-forfeiture looting requires the initiation of force. This in turn requires killing people so that the law is taken seriously. Who advocates these murders? The answer is politicians who, like Germany’s NSDAP, represent Christian altruism–except for the part about how “thou shalt not kill.”(link

Thus, mystical collectivist cheapening of gratuitous murder stimulates demand for revenge and counterexamples, and the sort of agents and prosecutors attracted to this line of work do not even value their own lives, much less those of others. Remember this when next you hear one of God’s Own Prohibitionists seeking to pervert the Constitution and coerce women for “the unborn.” Just as Republican and Democrat prohibition fanatics cannot see “thou shalt not kill” in a book that does not condemn enjoyable substances, just so they cannot grasp “All Persons born” in the U.S. Constitution, or the absence, nay, denial of any federal authority for enactment of sumptuary laws.(link)

Incidentally, Millard Tydings was reelected over and over and served 44 years in the Senate.

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

Before assault flintlocks…

Seymour the Superstitious

Tatsuya Ishida’s Sinfest.net

When I was a child, women dressed like penguins told us children gory stories about the Path of Righteousness. This one is relevant to today’s hot topic.

4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

8 And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? Am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? Choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.

9 If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.

10 And the Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.

11 When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.

12 Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul.

48 And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came, and drew nigh to meet David, that David hastened, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.

49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his eye, that the stone sunk into his eye; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

59 But David was called before the Court, to answer the Philistines complaint he had vanquished by foul means. That one, said counsel for the Plaintiffs, not only drew first blood, but used an illegal basalt eyeful to slay our champion.

60 To this David replied that the challenge was Goliath’s, and that once it is decided that someone is to be killed, the moral question has been settled. The instruments of that killing are not affected by any moral or humane questions or considerations.

61 The Court ruled in favor of Respondent, and David bid goodbye to the uncircumcised Philistines and returned to bed with the King’s daughter. Together they watched a movie on the Burning Bush, titled “Swindler’s List” in which only the Pharaoh and his enforcers had basalt eyefuls.

Moral: better to have a basalt eyeful and not need it, than to need one and not have it.

Translating modern legalese is something I do with ease. Look me up.

Death to Kingpins

God’s Own Prohibitionists want the death sentence for enjoyable drug kingpins…
queenpin15

Just not THIS one.

“And for the drug kingpins: the death penalty.” These are the words of the president–not of some South American military junta–but of  the United States of America on September 5, 1989. Isolated incident? GOP president George Holy War Bush made similar declarations on nearly half a dozen occasions, all recorded in his Presidential Papers. But similar assertions were made my President Clinton October 6, 1996, on September 16 & 24th and bragging November 2, and other occasions. Not to be outdone, George Waffen Bush declared in favor of extermination camp treatment–not only for hemp kingpins–but also for cop-killers other than himself. **

This junior George also repeated the error committed by fellow Republican prohibitionist Herbert Clark Hoover in 1933. He declared asset-forfeiture open season on anything that could be confiscated, so long as someone with a badge and a gun imagined “in good faith” he could get away with it. Herbert Hoover’s use of taxes for enforcement shut down every bank in America before he left office. Congress, Bush Daddy & Reagan wrecked the economy the same way in 1987-92. The George Waffen Bush version of the fiasco in 2007 coincided with subprime mortgage rate resets on a large fraction of homes police were avidly confiscating because someone “thought he smelled grass.”

The Obama administration resorted to having Hillary Clinton export Anti-Money “Laundering” legislation through the United Nations. Throwing other nations under the bus that way made it possible for American traders to short their currency and securities as soon as those countries’ economies collapsed under the weight of FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG and GPML “mentors” telling foreign politicos what sort of prohibitionist and anti-“laundering” laws to pass. The resulting Survive and Thrive Insider trading–like selling enjoyable drugs–worked like a charm for anyone who is above the law. Bush Jr, Hillary and Timothy Geithner all qualify. Whether the 19-year old daughter of a DEA agent–a sweet child who violated no individual rights whatsoever–also qualifies for exemption from idiotic federal and Texas laws depends, in part, on WHAT you vote for: life and production? or death and taxes?

If you think this delightful child should be murdered for peaceful, rights-respecting, consensual enjoyment, then by all means vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party prohibitionists. Just don’t act surprised when the Thought Police turn up on your doorstep. To free the girl, expunge the record and clear her name, vote for the Libertarian Party candidate nearest you. This benevolent act will also reduce the likelihood of another financial collapse.

**By militarizing and then bribing all police with asset forfeiture loot and impunity George Waffen Bush made America’s police forces into Public Enemies. Bush, through victimless “crime” demonization is ultimately the man responsible for prohibition killings and in retaliation many a policeman murdered in America today. The Bush dynasty is responsible for the unemployment and financial depression that ALWAYS follows turning tax laws into mohammedan-style instruments of religious enforcement, as in 1987 and 2008.

*** In April 2019 Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams declared in favor of the death sentence for enjoyable drug kingpins and queenpins. This appeared in his Periscope blog, and may eventually be taken down for deniability purposes.

pidotcom
Now improved with added foreign-language support…

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