The LIB for Liberal gambit

Randal Paul–Son of Ron and survivor of the Bernie Sanders Volunteer Killing Fields gunfight–is tolerated by God’s Own Prohibitionists as handy bait and a false flag lure for libertarian defection; he is a useful Libertarian impersonator.

Randal’s function is to lure wavering mystics away from the LP and into the rights-destroying  mob he himself reinforced with his vote for Anointed General Beauregard Sessions, the new Prohibition Czar. The strategy is a variant on the 1932 tactic of suddenly calling communist looters “liberals.” To visualize how odd this is, here is how liberal is defined in the dictionary on my Apple computer:

(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state.

Need I remind the reader that freedom (in a political context) means freedom from coercion? Anyone can search Google News Archives and see that Liberal meant something akin to Libertarian before the summer of 1932. The stratagem arose in the Corn-Sugar Belt as the Prohibition Party and God’s Own Prohibitionists knelt before the guillotine of the November elections. The Liberal Party in its 1931 platform gave mystical bigots short shrift:

The Liberal Party aims at the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, because that society, suppressing the social and political rights of Jews, Catholics, and Negroes, is a foul vulture that is eating the heart out of the body politic; and when it was in its greatest power it continued to enroll new thousands in its membership through the encouragement which Mr. Ford gave to its propaganda with his senseless campaign of libel against the Jews.

Henry Ford and the Klan were pillars of prohibition enforcement, completely immune to rational thought or objective facts. Actual Liberals were organized by Carnegie Institute regulars, captains of industry, railroad presidents, college teachers, steamship officials, bankers, merchants, authors, journalists, publishers, labor leaders, and statesmen in the Steel Belt, not corn farmers, distillers or glucose magnates.

Drys want men with guns to shoot people over alcohol, and conservatives are drys against repeal or relegalization. Wets–mostly meaning liberals–wanted nobody with a gun banning the production, sale and transportation of beer, wine, sauerkraut or liquor in 1932, or hemp, LSD, peyote or mushrooms today. By 1932, wet was the freak flag of liberals against the initiation of force. Mrs Pauline Sabin explained how the former slur became a mark of distinction.

Liberals sought repeal of Republican and Mohammedan Sharia prohibition and blue laws the mystical autocracy had imported from the Mohammedan Middle East. The Liberal Party platform of 1931 explicitly repudiated communism. The rest of their platform could have been written by low-tariff, prohibition repeal liberals in Ontario. Their pre-election propaganda in America, however, was stinging.

The Liberal Party wet plank had already been added to the Democratic platform, and the Dems then won five (05) elections in a row. Today’s mystical prohibitionists hope to trick illiterate voters into thinking “commies” when they see the LIB on the ballots. Make no mistake; the Libertarian party platform is the antithesis of imported communism or Germany’s religious nationalsocialist dictatorship. People who speak of left and right really want communism or nazionalsocialismus. Libertarians seek to protect the constitution from the tendentious initiation of force no government can afford to indulge in this 72nd year of the nuclear era.

Are you surprised to learn that a libertarian-style party existed and wrote the plank for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment? Interpreters have to think outside the box to mediate between languages and cultures.



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

Gary Johnson’s long lever

2016nmspoilerArchimedes had one, of course, but Gary Johnson’s is longer. I am talking about law-changing spoiler vote leverage in his home state of New Mexico. New Mexico’s five electoral votes went to the other faction of the looter Kleptocracy, that also wants cops to stop and shoot your kids–or at least asset-forfeit your car–claiming they “thought they smelled” marijuana.

Were it not for Gary, those electoral votes might have gone to the party that disagrees on forcing women to reproduce, but is OK on Chinese Carbon Tax transfer payment sacrifices in support of the Church of Misantropomorphic Global Warming.  They’ll not forget those 72, 000 votes and five electoral votes. Those votes will cause God’s Own Prohibitionists to defenestrate the Tea Party mystics infiltrating their platform committee–to keep from losing that battle.

Gary Johnson’s libertarian party got more votes than the difference between asset-forfeiture prohibitionists and other looters in several other states–more than enough to change the election outcome. That is how we small parties change the laws–by moving the carrot this way and that.

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?

LPeagleIn 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 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.

Lysander Spooner, anarquista ou libertário? Fascículo 18


Uma das leis que Spooner mais criticava durante a ocupação militar dos latifúndios algodoeiros sulistas foi a que nomeava cobradores de impostos. Tamanha era a desconfiança federal neste ofício que os cargos vinham ouriçados de compromissos, com multas e penas de prisão se o cobrador embolsasse o dinheiro arrecadado em vez de entregá-lo aos mandantes federais. 




E é justamente por isso que os compromissos de todos os demais pretensos agentes deste bando secreto de assaltantes e assassinos são, sob os princípios básicos do direito e da razão, igualmente destituídos de qualquer obrigatoriedade. São compromissos para com ninguém, feitos apenas com o vento.

Os compromissos dos fiscais e agentes fazendários do bando são, nos princípios gerais do direito e da razão, de nenhuma valia. Fosse qualquer desses fiscais embolsar o dinheiro que arrecada, recusando-se a entregá-lo, os membros deste bando não teriam como dizer a ele: Arrecadaste esse dinheiro enquanto agente nosso, para as nossas finalidades; juraste entregá-lo a nós, ou a pessoa por nós designada. Nos traíste, e violaste a nossa fé.

Bastaria, como resposta, dizer-lhes:

Nunca vos conheci. Nunca se apresentaram a mim individualmente. Jamais fiz compromisso com vocês enquanto indivíduos. Podem ou não ser membros daquele bando secreto que designa agentes para assaltar e assassinar; porém cujo precavimento é tal que nem se identificam sequer aos seus agentes, nem àqueles aos quais seus agentes são incumbidos de assaltar. Se é que são membros daquele bando secreto, que designa agentes para praticar assassinatos e assaltos em seu benefício, não dispõem de prova de que alguma vez me encarregaram de praticar assaltos em seu benefício. Nunca os conheci individualmente, e portanto nunca prometi entregar-lhes a verba proveniente dos meus assaltos. Pratiquei os assaltos por conta própria e para o meu benefício. Se me julgaram tolo a ponto de permitir que se mantivessem às ocultas, utilizando a mim como instrumento seu para a rapina de terceiros; ou que assumiria todo o risco pessoal desses assaltos, pagando a vocês o saque, foram muito parvos. Conforme assumi todo o risco dos assaltos, cabem a mim todos os lucros. Sumam! Pois além de pilantras, são otários. Se é que fiz compromisso algum, o tenho com outros e não vocês. Mas na verdade, não fiz com ninguém, apenas com o vento. Veio de encontro aos meus propósitos à época. Possibilitou que me apossasse do dinheiro que queria, e com o qual agora pretendo ficar. Se esperavam que o entregasse a vocês, dependeram apenas da honra que dizem prevalecer entre os ladrões. Entendem agora quão débil essa suposição. Estou confiante de que terão o juízo de não repetir esse erro. Se é que me cabe algum dever nesta questão, seria de devolver o dinheiro àqueles que dele desfalquei; e não de entregá-lo a pilantras como vocês.

Continua adiante essa tradução de…