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

A onda libertária nos EUA

LPeagleA empresa Gallup faz perguntas e dessas enquetes calcula estatísticas. Seu levantamento anual sobre governança pergunta: 

  1. Tem gente que acha que o governo está tentando fazer muita coisa que melhor seriam feitas por indivíduos e empresas. Outros acham que o governo deveria fazer mais para resolver os problemas do país. Das duas, qual atitude é mais parecida com a sua?
  2. Tem gente que acha que o governo deveria promover determinados valores na nossa sociedade. Outros acreditam que o governo não deveria favorecer nenhum determinado conjunto de valores. Qual dessas atitudes mais parece a sua?

São duas questões, cada qual com duas possibilidades, resultam quatro respostas possíveis. Eles (Gallup) calculam os resultados em 4 grupos: conservadores, libertários, populistas e socialistas leigos. Numa quinta categoria cabem os que anularam ou não conseguiram responder com competência. O maior grupo foi o dos libertários, com 27%, que acham que o governo se intromete demais e que ele NÃO deveria favorecer nenhum conjunto específico de valores. Em segundo plano os conservadores (26%), seguidos pelos socialistas leigos (23%) e de lanterna os populistas (15%). Segundo a revista Reason, no ano 2000 a categoria libertários estava em meros 18%. Se verdade, houve aumento de 33% em 15 anos neste sentimento “libertário” segundo a interpretação da organização Gallup. Essa mesma organização assevera que a satisfação do povo com o governo americano vem caindo e que 58% querem um terceiro partido.

Se isso é verdade, então por que tanto candidato das correntes socialista, proibicionista, conservadora e populista entre os pré-candidatos dos dois grandes partidos que formam o cartel político nos EUA? Uma hipótese é que como são um cartel, mentem sobre a contagem dos votos. Essa prática é muito antiga e piorou bastante depois da instalação do voto não verificável. (Voto secreto é outra coisa, onde só você verifica seu voto–assim como verificar o seu saldo no caixa eletrônico com senha). Outra é que o eleitor tem medo daquilo que desconhece e–como na mídia subsidiada pela lei do Nixon nunca aparece nada sobre o partido libertário–ninguém sabe o que está na sua proposta e mesmo sabendo que seu voto único ali valeria mais, prefere continuar na mesma e reclamar.

Consta que no Brasil o Partido Novo passou pelo corredor polonês do TSE. São muito encabulados, com pouca coisa no manifesto, mas se defenderem os direitos individuais e sempre procurarem alternativas que dispensam a coação, a coisa só pode melhorar.

 

 

 

Nixon’s anti-Libertarian Law

nixon1960aHere is how President Richard Nixon, after decreeing wage and price controls over the US economy destroyed by the Democratic and Republican parties’ undeclared war against “Godless Communism” in Vietnam, resorted to taxation and political subsidies in an effort to destroy the Libertarian Party. The following law was passed by the Republicans and Democrats and signed by Nixon on December 10, 1971.

It begins with TITLE VII–TAX INCENTIVES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE (You may read the full law online and see just who benefits from the tax subsidy). The more important part is:

TITLE VIII – FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS


SECTION 801. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND ACT.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subtitle:
“Subtitle H – Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns (…)
“SECTION 9002 DEFINITIONS.
“For purposes of this chapter –
“(1) The term ‘authorized committee’ means, with respect to the candidates of a political party for President and Vice President of the United States, any political committee which is authorized in writing by such candidates to incur expenses to further the election of such candidates. Such authorization shall be addressed to the chairman of such political committee, and a copy of such authorization shall be filed by such candidates with the Comptroller General. Any withdrawal of any authorization shall also be in writing and shall be addressed and filed in the same manner as the authorization.
“(2) The term ‘candidate’ means, with respect to any presidential election, an individual who (A) has been nominated for election to the office of President of the United States or the office of Vice President of the United States by a major party, or (B) has qualified to have his name on the election ballot (or to have the names of electors pledged to him on the election ballot) as the candidate of a political party for election to either such office in 10 or more States. For purposes of paragraphs (6) and (7) of this section and purposes of section 9004 (a) (2), the term ‘candidate’ means, with respect to any preceding presidential election, an individual who received popular votes for the office of president in such election.
“(3) The term ‘Comptroller General’ means the Comptroller General of the United States.
“(4) The term ‘eligible candidates’ means the candidates of a political party for President and Vice President of the United States who have met all applicable conditions for eligibility to receive payments under this chapter set forth in section 9003.
“(5) The term ‘fund’ means the Presidential Election Campaign Fund established by section 9006 (a).
“(6) The term ‘major party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party whose candidate for the office of president in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 25% or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office.
“(7) The term ‘minor party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party whose candidate for the office of President in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 25% or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office.
“(7) The term ‘minor party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party whose candidate for the office of president in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 5% or more but less than 25% of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office.
“(8) The term ‘new party’ means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party which is neither a major party nor a minor party.
“(9) The term ‘political committee’ means any committee, association, or organization (whether or not incorporated) which accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing, or attempting to influence, the nomination or election of one or more individuals to Federal, State, or local elective public office. (…)

“SECTION 9003. CONDITION FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS.
“(a) IN GENERAL – in order to be eligible to receive any payments under section 9006, the candidates of a political party in a presidential election shall, in writing –
“(1) agree to obtain and furnish to the Comptroller General such evidence as he may request of the qualified campaign expenses with respect to which payment is sought,
“(2) agree to keep and furnish to the Comptroller General such records, books, and other information as he may request,
“(3) agree to an audit and examination by the Comptroller General under section 9007 and to pay any amounts required to be paid under such section, and
[page 565] “(4) agree to furnish statements of qualified campaign expenses and proposed qualified campaign expenses required under section 9008. (…)
SECTION 9004. ENTITLEMENT OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES TO PAYMENTS.
“(a) IN GENERAL. – Subject to the provisions of this chapter –
“(1) The eligible candidates of a major party in a presidential election shall be entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to $0.15 multiplied by the total number of residents within the United States who have attained the age of 18, as determined by the Bureau of the Census, as of the first day of June of the year preceding the year of the presidential election.
“(2) (A) The eligible candidates of a minor party in a presidential election shall be entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount computed under paragraph (1) for a major party as the number of popular votes received by the candidate for President of the minor party, as such candidate, in the preceding presidential election bears to the average number of popular votes received by the candidates for president of the major parties in the preceding presidential election. (…) STATUTE 85 PAGE 497.PDF

Following this unnecessary legislative incentive for the media to completely ignore the LP–unnecessary because TV oligopsony had chosen only two of 17 candidates for the Nixon-Kennedy debate–the law created, in CHAPTER 96, the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND ADVISORY BOARD, to which, by definition, only Democratic and Republican politicians (plus three placeholder shills) may be appointed. Observe that only the decrepit GOP and Dems, defenders of communism and chattel slavery respectively in their youth, qualify as “major” parties. The secret ballot in the hands of the looter party oligopsony effectively guaranteed, with this law subsidizing the fossils and penalizing new directions, that vote fraud would give spavined political soft machines absolute political power and nullify the salutary effect of  small-party spoiler votes–the source of all political change, for good or ill.

For comparison, the Communist Manifesto was published in English in 1850 in The Red Republican. Its Plank 2, a progressive income tax, was enacted by presidential fiat 12 years later, for about 10 years. Word of its impending revival caused the Panic of 1893 and the Supreme Court struck the tax down down in 1895 to stop general financial collapse. The Communist Manifesto tax was then injected into the Constitution, and its first implementation in 1914 coincided with the closing of all US stock exchanges for months.  Time elapsed from fool idea to full disaster was 64 years.

The Libertarian Party’s non-aggression principle first appeared in a 1947 letter from Ayn Rand. It framed the basis for the Libertarian party 24 years later. Nixon’s importation of Italian Fascism’s wage and price controls catalyzed the formation of the party. The “Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act,” created for the sole purpose of strangling in the crib any nascent political evolution toward freedom, passed one day before the LP was born. Mr. David Nolan founded the Libertarian Party with a group of colleagues in his home in Denver, Colorado, on December 11, 1971.

Time elapsed to-date is 44 years, but today we have the Internet and “ballot selfies” to break the stranglehold of unverifiable election fraud and political machine corruption. In another 20 years it should be possible to broadcast the non-agression principle that we “do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals,” in all languages, abolish the income tax on individuals, and thus eliminate the major driver of sudden financial instability, warfare, and ruinous economic collapse.

Learn how republican Herbert Hoover used the IRS to swat beer, and crushed the U.S. economy instead. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929, is live at Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Need South American laws translated? Check out an ATA-certified Spanish and Portuguese translator.