Why voting Libertarian works

Why would anyone bother to drum up votes for the Libertarian party?

Read' em and weep, looters!

Libertarian share of votes earned in national elections.

Why ask for libertarian votes? Simple. Every such vote benefits ME, not the Kleptocracy candidate, by getting rid of violent laws.  Every time Ram Johnston loses an election by 3% when the Libertarian Candidate got 2% of the vote, that–like a smack upside the head–is a learning experience. For a Texas State Legislator, the loss of pay comes to $43,000 (not counting bribes and kickbacks).  Women voters who want to keep birth control safe and legal need not help the Democrats make electricity scarce and unaffordable. The Libertarian Party platform of 1972 wrote the Roe v. Wade decision into law with fewer than 4000 votes nationwide. Comstock Law Republican and Prohibition Party organizers are painfully aware of this fact, though they struggle to evade it. Your vote can count if it replaces a bad 19th-Century party with a good 20th-Century party that values freedom and individual rights.

Here is what a logistical substitution curve looks like. This is how the Whigs replaced the Federalists, and Red Republicans replaced the Whig Party.

Freedom replacing Left=Right coercive collectivism

The Libertarian vote share curve starts at 0 but never reaches 100% in a democracy.

Technically competent individuals who understand that electrical power generation drastically reduces the death rate are free to vote Libertarian. You need not help Republican-funded militarized police crowd prisons, shoot foreigners and confiscate property because mystical pseudoscience says to ban plant leaves. Conscientious voters change bad laws by keeping their integrity. Simple arithmetic makes voting for candidates that support the Libertarian Party Platform the most effective use of the franchise.  The only wasted vote is one that tells violent looters to keep trying to ban electricity, prohibit plants and repeal the Bill of Rights.

Energy enables eudaimonia

Interfering with energy increases the death rate

I am asking naturalized citizens to vote Libertarian and resident aliens to contribute to Libertarian campaigns.  The hardest part is helping voters understand that that your vote should benefit YOU, not some force-initiating politician. I prove this with algebra showing 1.4% of the vote in 11 campaigns brought the 18th Amendment which caused the Great Depression. Earlier, 9% of the 1892 vote brought an income tax law, so if 9% has the law-changing clout of 51%, then each People’s Party vote counted for six Republican or Democrat votes in terms of its effectiveness in forcing at least one of the soft machine factions to change its platform. These are examples of spoiler vote leverage.

Solving the 1892 equation for x yields 6. This shows us that every populist vote had six times the law-changing power of a vote wasted on a machine politician. In the Prohibition case, 1.4% of the vote made beer a felony as if it were the same as 51%. So set 1.4x=51, x=36 means every such vote packed 36 times more law-changing clout. This is the mechanism whereby the entire Socialist platform of 1920 became law by 1980, even with the candidates all losing.

The libertarian party is simply reversing that process. Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Lenin, Mussolini, Ceaușescu and Pol Pot have demonstrated the legal and economic results of socialism via historical events not on record in 1913. That was the year American voters believed the Communist Manifesto income tax was a good idea.

Do you have a good idea that needs translation for a larger audience?

Advertisements

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.

Ticking Turing Machines

Why did British codebreakers—Polish codebreakers, actually–call their cipher machines “bombes”?

Background: before National and International Socialism signed the pact agreeing it was OK to invade and dismember Poland, Polish mathematicians were already working on breaking Enigma machine codes. These gadgets used wired wheels inserted into a cipher machine to scramble and unscramble text. Since business and Die Ewige Staat are much the same in Germanic Altrurias, commercial Enigma machines quickly evolved into military coders to meet the exigencies of the initiation of force. The initiation encountered resistance, much as in Newton’s Second Law, and war was declared.

After actual bombs rained down on British assets, the folks at Bletchley Park hired Alan Turing to work on decryption. Alan was comfortable with mechanical approaches and improved codebreaking machines the Poles called “bombes.” Why bombes?

The explanation in several Turing books that mention the name had to do with the ticking sound they made. The writers then leapt to the conclusion of ticking time bombs, nèe (or is it née?) “bombes,” Quod Erat Demonstratum. This explanation was, for some reason, facile and unsatisfactory.

Another unsatisfactory answer to a simple question was given by a couple of Brazilian students being prodded, poked, inspected and detected by Amerika’s own imitation of Germanic Altrurian officiousness. I refer, of course, to the Transport Sozialist Arbeiterpartei, affectionately dubbed the Tea Essay at U.S. airports. The unionized government employee doing the poking, prodding, inspecting and detecting produced from their luggage a plastic box with some heft to it, a wire going in and a tube coming out, and asked “Wuz dis?”

The Brazilian students knew exactly what it was: an aquarium pump to keep tropical fish from drowning—a bomba de ar.
“Eat ease a air bomb,” they replied politely–albeit none too fluently–and were immediately surrounded by semiliterate steroid abusers First Responders™ with loaded guns, handcuffs, pepper spray, clubs, nylon straps, badges and governmental impunity.

So returning to the bombes that defeated Europe’s christianizing eugenics program:
Q: what goes tick tick tick and is familiar to Polish scientists?

A: a vacuum pump.

Ever need technical translations?

Mentation and Malingering

Positive Christianity, Altruism, Duty

Painter of churches, Jesus and Madonnas honored

We imagine we understand malingering–at least until, upon reflection, the concept turns up surprises. Feigning illness or injury to avoid physical labor is the familiar meme. But what about feigning injury, outrage, condescension, pity, insanity or disbelief in order to avoid the necessity of thinking? “That can’t be right” is a wishful reply made by many a fool whose lunch tab added up to more cash than he carried. Other instances are not so trivial.

Mental malingering is the most popular form of self-deception engaged in by altruists of both the “left” and “right.”
Those that describe themselves as “conservative” commit thought-malingering no less assiduously others who, with equal smugness, describe themselves as “left-wing.”

Take the bell in the picture. No conservative can look at it and simultaneously realize that Adolf Hitler represented most of the voters in 98% Christian Germany. Yet every religious conservative defends at least half of Hitler’s 1920 National Socialist platform. Conservatives manage this by never reading the original, and imagining in its place some egotistical writings of a socialist atheist “madman.” Germany’s mystics engaged in the same self-deception. The fairly recent hagiography movie of Sophie Scholl (of The White Rose student protest group) injected gratuitous lines to depict Positive Christian National Socialists as virtually identical to Bolshevik atheists. Even the flyers for which these students were put to death specifically referred to Christian National Socialist Policies as “atheistic.” No religious conservative–German or American–can bear to admit that Adolf Hitler ran a christian religious conservative government complete with transfer payments from producers to non-producers and eugenics policies to build the “New Race” of Herbert Hoover’s inaugural speech..

Similarly, left wing socialists, communists and anti-industrial collectivists deny that Hitler was a socialist–a fact known to everyone on the planet before 1939.  But they do join mystical conservative bretheren in denying absolutely that there is anything altruistic about the National Socialist belief in “The Common Good Before the Individual Good.”
Looters of the bureaucratic persuasion swear hotly, loudly and vehemently that every communist government was “not really” socialist. This appeal to volume or carpet-biting is another form of malingering to avoid mentation.

The common ground both altruist factions share is the proof-by-insistence that there is something good about altruism and sacrifice. But to this day none have stepped forward to explicitly state what it is. What they do agree on, as a sort of corrolary Revelation or belief, is that the initiation of force must also be defended against all comers as the end-all Final Solution to all problems real or imaginary. What is clear–especially after demonstrations at Alamogordo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki–is that unsuperstitious science has retaliatory capabilities that have made the wholesale initiation of force as suicidal as its proponents have always wished it could be.

When in need of political or legal translations of the content of such things as treaties between nations, look me up.

The word comprehensive

The guy the Republicans hired to win the election likes two things: libertarianism and the word “comprehensive.”

The libertarian part is easy to understand. It was Trumps way of telling God’s Own Prohibitionists that he could hand them government jobs or hand them another beating–the same way Ross Perot got George Holy War Bush fired.

But my favorite Soviet website (we will Doonesbury you), recently took issue with the word comprehensive. After JFK negotiated the Limited Test Ban to keep strontium 90 out of children’s milk, communist intellectuals sought to puff comprehensive up into the entering wedge for unilaterally disarming the USA. That ran aground on the Second Amendment. So after the Soviet bloc collapsed like a Berlin Wall or US Embassy in Saigon, “comprehensive” went out of fashion. This graph shows the decline and fall of the word “comprehensive” before Trump.

Look into my eyes...

Go ahead, try it yourself

This we know from Wolfram Alpha, a collection of programmers who appreciate math AND language. The graph shows a falloff in stock (quotes, usage) for comprehensive dating from about the time the looters started mothballing their tens of thousands of fusion bombs after the failure of The Altrurian Experiment in the crumbling Soviet Empire. So, why is this important?

The current president got the nomination ten months after saying something nice about a burgeoning minor party. Four months later he was President and Libertarian Party stock (in votes) was up 328%. If comprehensive is welcomed back into the vernacular, its reformation glittering over its faults, that would suggest there is some truth to “master of hypnosis” theories for Trump being elected.

If it doesn’t, the fact would lend weight to the theory that infiltrators in the Democratic party platform committee threw the election by injecting the platform with pseudoscience depicting reliable electric power plants as a life-threatening plague. This was the way all US power generation facilities were depicted during the Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev and Yanayev dictatorships. The 2016 Republican platform also broke ranks with Prohibition Party’s ecological nationalsocialism planks of 2016:

We advocate… subsidies for consumers wishing to change from fossil fuels to renewable domestic sources of energy.
We believe that climatic change is an existential threat to civilization.

The Gee Oh Pee urinalysis platform trashed carbon taxes, promised to toss the Paris Capitulation into the same dustbin as the Kyoto Proctocol. The platform protects power plants and fuel from fanatical fearmongers, and even improves transmission line infrastructure.

The Libertarian party platform is also in favor of access to energy. Here is the LP energy plank in its clear and unambiguous entirety:

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Can you say Hockey Stick?

WANTED: Fisher-Pry least-squares curve fit for these burgeoning vote counts

But what of that hockey-stick growth in Libertarian spoiler votes? Did the LP suddenly become popular because a real-estate mesmerist admitted to liking libertarianism? Perhaps it was because the recycled Republican candidate the LP resorted to abandoned his 2012 promise to try to bring back the coathanger abortion laws struck down by the reincarnation of the 1972 LP birth control plank as the lead paragraph in the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. Is there a third hypothesis? Perhaps the American voter is discovering that the less you try to coerce others, the less others will respond in that particular kind.

Do you ever need simultaneous interpretation of a speech, or sight translation of a legal document?

Individualism vs. Socialism

This is a Letter to the Editor of Physics Today from during the Cold War, March of 1982. Background as a letter from another subscriber urging preemptive surrender to the USSR, which Petr Beckmann, on the Reason Board at the time, believed was the real purpose of all such defeatist whimpering. At that time I was a dues-paying member of John Hospers’ Libertarian Defense Caucus, not the regular LP.  Here’s the letter:

I’ve enjoyed reading the articles and letters addressing the topic of nuclear weapons in recent issues. There is, however, one point which has been conveniently ignored by both sides during the debate: the difference between the philosophic bases upon which the Soviet and American governments are based.
Capitalism is rooted in individualism, and is retaliatory in nature, as can be seen in our code of laws. Socialism is altruism applied to government; its collectivist and egalitarian aspects can be traced to that basic premise. All socialist states, whether communo-fascist or redistributionist, depend on the initiation of force to achieve their goals. This basic difference is generally omitted in the course of “scenario building,” and the result is that the conflict is viewed as though both nuclear powers had similar goals.

During the second World War, no American strategist would have considered the extermination of the Jews as a tactic and many were surprised when Germany’s National Socialist government embarked on that very program. Today we tend to think that the Soviet Socialist government would not target civilians because we ourselves see no strategic benefit in such a course. The fact is that we have different goals and different philosophies. The possibility that the Soviet state might regard us as the National Socialist state regarded the Jews cannot be dismissed by any who have compared the original documents on which those systems were built.

It is possible, therefore, that the option of surrender may no more exist for Americans than it did for the Jews during the last war.

Our best option seems to be to follow the advice of Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov and increase our defenses to the point at which we can sustain a first strike and still defeat the aggressor. Any less of an effort will simply serve to reinforce the tendency to fire on warning and thus increase the possibility of an accidental war.
J. H. PHILLIPS 3/82 Austin, Texas
PHYSICS TODAY / MAY 1982 131

 

This letter was written 36 years ago this month. As I look around I still see many of the same things.

Many at the time urged surrender to the communist dictatorship whose policies they literally worshipped. Even this issue included a hand-wringing appeal from Italian “scientists.” Those “peace” appeals relied on a Pascal’s Wager form of intimidation and never (except for a letter in a preceding issue of Physics Today) advocated surrender to totalitarianism in so many words. Propagandists for looter statism simply blocked off all other alternatives as insane, misguided, ill-informed or unrealistic, and let the reader arrive at the only alternative left standing.

Those same people today urge totalitarian control of the economy and impoverishment of every aspect of live on the strength of the Millerite supposition that another trace gas (carbon dioxide, not freon) stands poised to wipe out humanity. The only country not required to give up a kilowatt-hour of electrical energy to please the Vichy Paris Accord proponents is itself a communist dictatorship. Search Google News Archives for members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists, Stockholders for Corporate Responsibility, _X__ Anti-Pollution League, _X__ for Social Responsibility and you will find today’s CO2ercion advocates among the survivors. The phenomenon is a political 5th Column meme that worships slavery and death as alternatives to the delusions of Armageddon and Rapture that “the left” (correctly, in my view) attribute to “the right”. (The Libertarian theory of  non-aggression and individual rights is completely different from the European politics of 19th-Century political parties).

That same issue of Physics Today raised the question of whether a bolide impact might have–in a matter of hours–so completely changed the climate as to wipe out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If such a danger arises again–and a look at the Moon clearly shows hundreds of thousands of such events–only an advanced energy-converting industrial civilization would stand a prayer of warding off or surviving such a  test of humanity’s competence to survive. This is the test the dinosaurs failed.

Co2ercion advocates have nothing to say about that proven scenario. The article on the Monte Carlo algorithm in that issue of Physics Today, incidentally, relates to a mathematical technique developed by designers of thermonuclear weapons (Nicholas Metropolis, John von Neumann and Stanislau Ulam). The purpose of those weapons was to defeat National Socialist Germany and their Japanese allies in the 1940s.

Bolide impact is the “Alvarez Theory” because geologist Walter Alvarez asked his physicist father Luis why the clay boundary? Luis Alvarez designed the geodesic detonation cord for the plutonium bombs used at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. These competent people whose technology defeated National Socialism and held off International Socialism until it rotted and collapsed are the ones whose ideas make sense to me. The Fifth Columnists still recite the exact same totalitarian formulas and slogans, and care nothing for measurement data, definitions or conceptual clarity. They are the villains in Atlas Shrugged.

The Libertarian Party had by 1982 already seen to the repeal of cruel, Medieval laws against birth control, and provided the philosophical and ethical arguments that toppled totalitarian parasitism. I’m proud to be a Libertarian Party member and supporter, and hope we can count on your spoiler vote to repeal another mess of really cruel and unusual laws the kleptocracy and its lobbyists use to eat out our substance. That’s winning!

If you need technical translations (oil, mining, power dams, reactors, agribusiness, and yes, contracts, laws and environmental regulations) from or for Latin America, check out my websites.

In the dark and vulnerable…

Every voter who missed the opportunity to vote libertarian (and make a difference) should read Hillary Clinton’s econazi mein kampf. The thing is a sobbing, altruistic tell-all exposing the utter cluelessness of an ignorant collectivist dupe.**  Hillary made it clear she has never understood the function of the President, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and … Commission all the Officers of the United States.” Nor has she even read or understood the platform of her own party in its entirety.

Every sane voter is normally inclined to believe whatever the democratic and republican parties say about each other’s politicians. After all, they are all looters, ideologically committed to the initiation of force.  Yet when was the last time you saw a Democrat quote verbatim and contest a plank from God’s Own Prohibitionists’ platform or vice-versa? Only thinking people read the platforms. Clueless folks read tweets about cankles, hairdos and vague allegations of email impropriety.

Most especially, voters in mi Puerto Rico querido. Puerto Rico is dominated entirely by superstitious prohibitionist republican and cynical communist democratic politicians. The Nixon anti-libertarian law shunts tax money into the island’s fake media to advertise these charlatans as “both” alternatives. Voters are aware of only one choice in elections: force women to bear unwanted children AND/OR send men with guns to kick in your door because of plant leaf products. “Both” parties are prohibitionists, but the Dems want to ban energy and God’s Own Prohibitionists want to bring back Prohibition and then some.

Superstition made boricuas susceptible to anti-nuclear propaganda. Econazi propaganda convinced the island voters that bird-killing windmills and useless solar panels can replace a power plant. Altruism caused them to elect looter politicians willing to squander 120 million borrowed dollars. That money bought the DemoGOP enough votes to bully women, kill birds and produce blackouts. Puerto Rico today is in the dark and vulnerable.  Look at the before and after outcome:

 

Quen es Juan Galt?

Slide the Atlas Shrugged divider… Page down, VIEW IMAGE COMPARISON shows before and after view.

La Rebellión de Atlas is available in Spanish translation. There is no excuse for Puerto Rico to live in the Dark Ages anymore. A libertarian governor and economy could soon enable a boricua power company to purchase a natural uranium Canadian CANDU reactor on reasonable terms. This would make our island the searchlight beacon of the Caribbean. Houston’s nuclear reactors were hit directly by the same hurricanes and never felt a thing. Puerto Rico more closely resembles a satrapy of the Spanish Inquisition because of energy prophesies–such as this one from the 2016 Democratic platform:

We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country.

The Libertarian plank looked like this:

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

The Democratic Party final solution for Puerto Rico looked like this:

So if having electricity is more important than government ownership or making a pregnant girl suffer, consider voting Libertarian next election. If clear text is more important than garble, consider getting a bid from an ATA-certified Portuguese interpreter.

** I did not vote for Trump. I always vote Libertarian.