Libertarian Party 20 years ago

We're still here, growing at 80% a year!

See the original newspaper (link)

The Southeast Missourian, July 3, 2000, page 5 of 56 = page 8A
Libertarians Nominate Browne for Second Run (AP) ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA – More than 1000 libertarians gathered at the party’s national convention on Sunday nominated Harry Browne, their 1996 candidate for president, to run again in 2000.
The 67-year-old investment banker from Nashville Tennessee acknowledged he has little chance of winning the presidency. He said he hoped his campaign would reinvigorate what was formerly the nation’s top third-party.


“We’re the only political party that’s offering to set you free,” Browne said. “It’s the most powerful political message in the world.”


Officials with the Libertarian party claims some 30,000 dues-paying members. It also identifies itself as the biggest third-party movement in the United States.
However, the party has lacked the star power of the Reform Party and the Green Party in recent years.
Browne finished fifth in 1996, behind Reform Party candidate Ross Perot, and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, garnering less than 1% of the national vote.
He has proposed a program that would eliminate income taxes, Social Security, the war on drugs and federal welfare.
Competing against Browne were: Don Gorman of Deerfield New Hampshire, a former four-term New Hampshire state legislator; Barry Hess, a salesman from Phoenix Arizona; David Hollist, a charter bus driver from Alta Loma, California; and Jacob Hornberger, president of the future of freedom foundation, a think tank in Fairfax, Virginia. 

She's with Us! Libertarian candidate 2020

She’s With Us!

Brazilian Sci-fi from 1926 featuring the usual beautiful daughter of a scientist touting prohibition and racial collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

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

Hormesis and Freedom

Chusch of Communism

Anarchist communism is an altruist religion

Communist anarchists hyphenated and rebranded as soi-disant “anarcho-libertarians” or Ancapistanis confuse taking a limit (useful math) with dividing by zero (mathematical fallacy). This is what happens when you abandon definitions.(link) Libertarians have since 1971 sought to reduce government functions to the protection of individual rights through objectively-defined laws against theft fraud and violence.(link) Even in 1776, before communist anarchism was invented, Thomas Jefferson pointed out the obvious

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 

That sort of democratic laissez-faire is precisely what anarchists do NOT want. Anarchists loudly insist that ALL government is an evil poison, and that no tiny amount of it is safe. In this, as usual, they are joined by eugenicists, nationalsocialists and prohibitionists–all of them division-by-zero fanatics who reject the virtue of voluntary temperance.(link)

Buzzing is healthy

Moderate doses of radiation, alcohol, hashish, mescalin, LSD, INCREASE life expectancy, to the horror of eugenicist prohibitionists

Back when communist anarchism was popular among the clueless, prohibitionism was also on the march.(link) The two factions collaborated to increase coercion via the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments–with almost no spoiler votes and hardly anyone elected.(link) Just as anarchists want no laws against murder, prohibitionists (like their communist pals) want murderous laws against trade and production, especially of things like freedom, beer and plant leaves. 

Radiation and drugs are healthy

Hormesis curve looks like Laffer Curve

Republicans finally endorsed prohibitionism in their 1928 platform and lost the next five elections. 

The people through the method provided by the Constitution have written the Eighteenth Amendment into the Constitution. The Republican Party pledges itself and its nominees to the observance and vigorous enforcement of this provision of the Constitution.

Real life had another surprise in store for prohibitionists, who say ALL enjoyable drugs are poison, and ANY poison kills and therefore ALL must be banned for your safety by men brandishing loaded service pistols. Prohibition made it a felony for drinking water to contain over half a percent of alcohol. That’s 0.6 fluid ounces per gallon. Understand that drinking two gallons of pure water–without the shotglass of Everclear–means a 50% chance of death from shock. We know this because people died in water drinking contests during Prohibition, their electrolytes that severely imbalanced.(link)

A handful of hemp seeds was a prison time felony in 1969. German National Socialists wanted to exterminate ALL people suspected of selfishness when Herbert Hoover helped them to power.(link) All of these wrong positions arose from the pseudoscience of Eugenics.(link

Even assuming there were something bad about laissez-faire government, as nations move toward it (that is, away from communo-fascist socialism), life expectancy increases along with per-capita Gross National Product. So as is the case for beer, magic mushrooms, hemp, LSD, and any number of maligned items, the initial effect at least is beneficial

Hormesis curves are a lot like the Laffer curve. To Kleptocracy looters, cutting taxes is arterial bleeding. But whenever the Coolidge Administration lowered taxes back closer to 8% of GNP, government revenue increased.(link) To Reefer Madness fanatics, one light beer is Demonic Possession, but medical statistics indicate two shots of single-malt are a fortifying tonic.(link)

This stamp is the East German Communist ANTIFA anniversary celebration of the “protective” Berlin Wall, five years before the collapse of Euro-Communism. I have interacted with hundreds of communists over the years, and all are rabidly opposed to anything that makes human life longer or less miserable. Electric power, individual rights–the things without which life worth living is impossible–these they oppose just as religious bigots oppose beer, plant leaves, contraception and deterrents to aggression. Aggression is the one thing that communist anarchists and mystical caudillos together seek to maximize. Aggression is what libertarian voters seek to minimize so that freedom is increased.

Caudillo de Dios

God’s Own Dictator

Read pro-American compulsory racial-eugenics appeals touting prohibition and collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

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

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

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

Libertarian Party Universe of Discourse

Visual illusion

The mirror is real, the photo unaltered (link)

Every child is sooner or later faced with the God conundrum: If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so heavy that even He Himself is unable to lift it? The puzzle is a tiny intelligence test with consequences. Children who cannot solve it–the ones eugenicists used to refer to as feeble-minded–conclude that religious superstition makes no sense and are easily enlisted into some Communist Youth Movement–believing that to be the only existing alternative. (link)

Others, equally unprepared for abstract thinking, undergo a moment of epiphany from which they emerge convinced that God obviously can produce a rock to nonsensical specifications, and are thankful for having had the Faith with which to resist the Devil’s attempt to inveigle them into the Sin of Denial. They then back political efforts to jail or kill all who disbelieve. Two wrongs make zero rights. (link)

None of these children ever grow up. At best they metamorphose into communist anarchists, democrats, republicans or fascists permanently confounded by false contradictions and unable to mature into rational thinkers. The idea of individual rights as an ethical claim to freedom of action stumps them completely. (link)

The results assume various forms: 

  • The Non-Aggression Principle says not to initiate the use of force against anyone. Therefore “we” should replace government with a state of war. 
  • “We” must abolish all government because laws against murder require prior restraint!
  • “We” must send armed agents of the Political State coercively reaching inside of women like Joe Biden because pregnant women aren’t individuals!
  • Invading armies, plague carriers and drovers of herds of infected cattle must be welcomed, because border inspection implies coercion to prevent invasion!
  • The tariff that funds Navy and Coast Guard inspections is a restraint on free trade (and hobbles entry of hostile biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) so “we” must abolish all tariffs (and instead keep the Communist Manifesto income tax).
  • “We” need shoot-first prohibitionism because pseudoscience says grass is addictive and mescalin messes up your chromiums, so Creation Science predicts we’d mutate into apes!
  • “We” need eugenics to wipe out the joos and make the world safe for altruism because eugenics says selfishness is an innate birth defect, like club-foot or feeble-mindedness!
  • “We” must rob someone else to feed the halt and lame because coercion is freedom!

Smart children, on the other hand, instantly recognize a toy–possibly even a weapon–with which to confound grownups. Brightness in a child is the belief in the ignorance of grownups–a concept physicist Richard Feynman reworked into a definition: “science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” This approach pays off. Artless fathers respond to God’s heavy rock conundrum with “go ask your mother.” Less-neglected parents explain how universes of discourse(link) are subject to rules of engagement that do not admit such artless dodges as equivocation, division by zero or doublethink. (link

So if you include an irresistible force in your premises, that excludes any immovable objects from that particular universe of discourse. If you include elections, that excludes anarchism. (link)

If you include a Libertarian political party in your plans, that precludes a platform to abolish the government, violate the Bill of Rights, or enshrine communist activities like bomb-throwing anarchism as some sort of protected “right” to invade, menace or otherwise initiate force or presume to retaliate. It does not preclude writing an intelligent platform calling for reversal of past mistaken amendments. The Prohibition of trade and production of alcoholic beverages was repealed by vote, and the Communist Manifesto income tax and illiterate election of senators can also be repealed. But candidates and planks that promise to violate the oath of office or Bill or Rights are a liability.

Fat Freddy and Gilbert Shelton say

Rights will get you through times of no anarchists better than communism will get you through times of no rights!

Communist anarchists, Comancheria war party raiders, warriors against individual rights of women, of blacks or semites, people who think devils are real and borders imaginary, believers in Rapture, televangelists of Apocalypse or race suicide are all just as welcome to register and vote for Libertarian candidates as engineers, scientists, actuaries, statisticians, physicians, nurses, writers, loggers, roofers, carpenters, busboys, waitresses, entrepreneurs, inventors and even attorneys. But we do not need people incapable of understanding the simplest definitions writing our political party platforms. It is tough enough to keep changing the laws through the unrelenting pressure of spoiler votes without incompetent bungling or deliberate sabotage. Fair enough? 

As you read this, infiltrators are adding planks to nullify biology inviting child molesters into both children’s bathrooms, declaring girl-bulliers act “in good faith,” package-dealing “free trade” and “migration” to again invite uninspected entry of infected cattle, foreign agents and biological weapons into These States, abolishing your copyrights, elevating “desire” over the constitutional provisions for defense, replacing the functions of government plank with an endorsement of communist anarchism (a state of war), removing national defense from international affairs, (infiltrators with no passport or second language) meddling in the territories plank, and converting the self-determination plank into a Dixiecrat endorsement of secession. 

I move that every participant who voted to approve these frauds resign or face a straight-up vote of no confidence by all dues-paying members registered to vote. I am also searching for candidates to replace certain table officers and entrenched moles. (link)

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

 

 

Apocalyptic Prophesies

Fat Freddy's Cat v TeeVee

Things we learned in the Sixties…

There was a time when only mystical fanatics with invisible friends got in your face with “knowledge” of horrible disasters to come. Millerites predicted rapture in the 1840s. The fiery bloodbath never came so they changed into 7th-Day Adventists and have learnt to be coy about exactly when the Rapture will smite unbelievers–but it WILL! Before the 1920s, religious fanatics were sure men with service pistols could ward off race suicide, dirty books, venereal disasters and the mass insanity brought about by beer saloons and Sunday baseball. Their 16th and 18th Amendments pushed by the likes of William Jennings Bryan turned out worse than all of the above.

Communism and Landover Baptist Fanaticism

Monkey trial religious communist

Soon there were Reefer Madness predictions, Nuclear Winter if we didn’t disarm and surrender, Radioactive Rapture if we kept using heavily shielded nuclear reactors for cheap electricity, Instant Enslavement if we failed to bomb Southeast Asia (because dominoes), Bozone Barbecue, imminent high energy global frying of the sparsely populated Southern Hemisphere unless air conditioner freon and hair spray were banned (and 20 or so Antarctic volcanoes repented and quit spraying chlorine upward)…(link)

The Soviet Union’s religion was based on invisible Success and Happiness the Faithful would Someday enjoy, and when JFK defeated Nixon it predicted Misanthropic Climate Change (bad weather caused by non-communists bearing arms).(link) By the 1980s this had gotten old enough to merit satirizing. The Church of the Sub-Genius filled its brochures with ghastly predictions:

CLEVELAND, Ohio: The Church of the SubGenius has announced that the end of the world will take place on Monday, July 5, 2010. In preparation for the fulfillment of this doomsday prophecy, the Church is requesting that all of its members participate in a bizarre religious ceremony taking place in upstate New York, during the final weekend before the arrival of the apocalypse.(link)

This scooped the failed 2012 End-Of-The-World and icecaps blowing off in a puff of steam as tsunamis wash the snow off of Mount Everest–all of which are way past their use-by dates.(link)

Competing with the Church of the Sub-Genius we now have the more specialized Landover Baptist Church of Freehold, Iowa.(link)

But there have been real disasters in the past (even before communist germ labs and reactor shacks in occupied Ukraine), most of them resulting from pseudoscience-driven prohibitionism acting upon a fractional-reserve banking system. Nobody talks about the tipping point where AML looting crashes the banking system.

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

North Carolina LP Growth

Roe v Wade Libertarian victory

Pro-choice NC Libertarian Party performance

by Brad Hessel, copied from their Facebook page
Another year, another new all-time record for the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

In a year in which the number of registered voters overall in NC declined by 4%—due to the usual off-election year purge of inactive voters—the number of registered Libertarians edged up 3% to a new all-time high of 39,631 as of the end of 2019. In contrast, the number of Democrats declined 7% year-over-year, Republicans lost 4%, and even the number of independent (“unaffiliated”) voters declined by 1%.

The 2019 purge was the second biggest in the last 26 years (as far back as our annual data go), exceeded only by a 5% reduction in the voter rolls in 2001. The declines were the worst ever for the Ds, second worst ever for the Us, and tied for second worst for the Rs during that time span. It was also the slowest annual growth rate recorded for the LPNC (excepting the three years we were off the ballot, the number of registered Ls in NC has never declined year-over-year).

Bucking the trend were the two new parties: the number of Green party members was up 90% in 2019 to 1,938 and the Constitutionalists did even better, up 217% to 2,786. The Greens—who had a head start in 2018—started the year ahead of the Constitutionalists, but are now decidedly eating the latters’ dust.

Looking at the entire quarter century, the LPNC continues to lead the pack with a robust compounded annual growth rate of 14% compared to 8% for independents, 2% for Republicans, and 1% for Democrats. The Rs and Ds are consistently failing to keep pace with the overall 3% CAGR for the number of voters. The Democrats have grown slower/declined faster than the overall number of voters 25 out of the last 26 years, only beating the average in 2008 thanks to Barack Obama. The Republicans have beaten the average 11 times…but their last win was in 2004 and they are currently on a 15-year losing streak.

Overall, the percentage of voters registered as either D or R—the “Ubinger rating”—fell to an all-time low of 66.58% at the end of 2019, down (as it has been every year for 26 years in a row) from 91.87% in 1993. ***

Libertarian organizations like the NCLP are what brought us the pro-choice hockey stick vote share growth tracked by Fisher-Pry and other logistic growth curves.

History shows us that a growing small party gets its platform plagiarized by both halves of the entrenched kleptocracy. Every time votes flow away from a decayed and derelict political party, its swineherds get the message no amount of self-deception can distort.  Laws change as a result. The technical term for causing the looters to change bad laws is winning.

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses, and how its causes changed the laws. 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

Dividing Private Property

Franco, caudillo de Dios, Mussolini, Lateran treaties

Fascism is socialism cut with christian altruism. All socialists are fascists today in that none seek to nationalize everything

The four squares on the Nolan Chart are the result of grasping the fact that altruist ideologues seek to destroy freedom by attacking individual rights with a meat cleaver.  Two 2-position switches yield four possible combinations or states for two light bulbs. Looters are horrified at the naked way this representation depicts their darling coercion, so their standard reaction is to claim that clarity is oversimplification and there are no either-or choices in real life.

Not for dim bulbs!

Is this difficult?

Such facile dismissal prompted a rebuttal by replacing the flip switches with dimmer switches. This carries the analogy out to more decimal places without giving up the basic conceptual information either version of the model allows you to visualize. So why four possibilities instead of a flip switch and a single light bulb? or just a horizontal line?

If you start with the premise that life is valuable, therefore aggression is wrong, a bar magnet suffices as illustrative visual aid. Objectivists (link) and libertarians flock like iron filings to the pole labeled Voluntary while altruists (fascists, communists, anarchists, socialists) gather at the end labeled Coercive. Agorists see Voluntary as Right, but altruists regard that pole as Wrong after rejecting the life premise.

Undecided voters with neutralized minds or values are imagined to clump near the center of the horizontal line (hence the centrist label). Christians and Mohammedans view the magnet differently. They flock to the Church pole, and imagine themselves squared off against sinners assembled at the Saloon end.

The Nolan Chart was not designed to delight ethical purists nor attract iron filings, but to illustrate to voters the advantages of consistency. Religious conservatives din voters’ ears with horrible prophesies of Race Suicide (in order to rob pregnant women of individual rights). Contrariwise, socialist orators predict appalling Starvation if a rich speculator is allowed to corner the market on food or energy. So the second axis was added to help voters visualize where inconsistency leads.

Even a concept as simple as Private Property can be attacked by lunatics. Officious mystical conservatives will attach to “Private” evidence of a shameful conspiracy to violate a sex taboo, or to experiment with plant leaves. Their socialist comrades single out “Property” as the baaad word, since it is what likens them to thieves. The truth is that such imbeciles are allowed to vote, so the Nolan Chart accommodates the fact by listing the outcome of unprincipled people armed with the suffrage voting the way altruist zealots urge them to vote.

If there were no coercive zealots urging use of ballots to crush economic freedom, scientific inquiry or consensual adulthood, there would be no need for a Nolan chart. A simple line from Good through Muddled to Bad would suffice. Ignoring muddled fools, however, is the formula for failure in politics. Soviet communism and christian National Socialism are examples of failure in politics–you want more?

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.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

My other-language blog is amigra.us

All persons born…

See many men among these voters?

Individuals who Voted to Enforce their Rights–and WON! Irish women won individual rights (link)

Does the Constitution allow men with guns to threaten physicians or coerce pregnant women? The Harrison Act enabled pseudoscience-addled politicians to have men with service pistols step between doctors and patients in 1914. See why missing an opportunity to vote Libertarian is tantamount to desertion under fire as mystical and collectivist reality control delegitimize individual claims to freedom of action.

Today’s guest repost is by Austin’s Constitutional Scholar Jon Roland, constitutionalism.blogspot.com.

U.S. Supreme Court: Issues with current contenders

Unenumerated rights

The first issue is presented by the statement by nominee appointee Brett  Cavanaugh in his acceptance speech, that he would not find rights not explicitly recognized in the main Constitution.. This has been an issue since the nomination of Robert Bork, who considered the Ninth Amendment, which calls for the nondisparagement of rights that are not “enumerated” (made explicit) somewhere in the Constitution, as amended, to be an “ink blot”. There is strong opposition to Supreme Court judges doing that, especially from so-called “conservatives”, who don’t understand that constitutional rights are all “immunities”, restrictions on the powers of government. They are not “privileges” to receive a sufficient amount of public resources, such as for education, healthcare, elder support, or any other objects of public subsidies.

Interestingly, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Fifth Circuit decided that a “right to an abortion” was a Ninth Amendment right of a woman  “to choose whether to have children”, which by the 14th Amendment, was “incorporated” for the states. This presented the Supreme Court with an apparent problem,  because there was opposition to funding unenumerated rights in the Senate. The Fifth Circuit found a Ninth Amendment “right  to choose whether to have children”. So the SC tried to sustain the Fifth Circuit without embracing the Ninth Amendment. The result was an incoherent opinion. There was no way to avoid the Ninth Amendment.

It would perhaps too much to expect a nominee to venture into an extended discussion of what a “right” is, and what it is not. It is awkward to say “I will not find a ‘right’ to a sufficient amount of a public resource.” That is too complicated for most senators. So the candidate denies he will try to find any “unenumerated” rights. That is somewhat disingenuous, but the issue needs to be discussed.

1968, NO LIBERTARIAN PARTY!

Republicans, Dixiecrats, No Libertarian Party!

When “life” begins

One of the potential nominees, Amy Barrett, has been reported to have stated that human “life” begins at conception. That is a misstatement of the issue in Roe v. Wade. which in its essence was not about “life” but about “personhood” because “Rights (immunities)” attach to “persons”, (roles in court), not to “life”, despite what the Declaration of Independence says. (That is why some activists have sought to move the commencement of “personhood” back to conception. That would be a mistake. We cannot allow each state to redefine “personhood”, because if we did, a state could define some people to be nonpersons, without rights. So there has to be a uniform definition across all states if the protections of the Constitution are not to be meaningless. That is the basis for finding the right to be incorporated under the Ninth Amendment, as the Fifth Circuit did.

So when does “life” begin?

Not at conception. Each individual is the latest in an unbroken chain of life that goes back to at least the point when the first single-celled organism became a multi-celled animal, which occurred about 650 million years ago, during the pre-Cambrian era, when the surface of the Earth was covered with ice (“snowball Earth”) and there was only one continent, Rodinia. We are all descended from that multi-celled organism. That is when “life” began.

So when does “personhood” begin?

This was declared by the jurist Edward Coke in the 15th century, and later restated by legal scholar William Blackstone, in the early 18th century, who provided most of the definitions for terms used in the U.S. Constitution. They held that “personhood” begins at natural birth, or induced natural birth (they had Cesarean sections in those days). Some of the states later found that personhood began with baptism, entry of a name in church records, or even later. Not at “conception”, the date of which could not have been defined with any precision in those days, or even now.

Consider what would happen if we defined “personhood” to begin at conception? It would make every fetus the ward of a court, with the court having power to supervise the pregnancy. It could order the woman to continue a pregnancy, and not terminate it, under penalty of law. That would be forced pregnancy. Do we want that? Every pregnant woman chained to a bed. Anyone see the play “A Handmaid’s Tale”. Good way to stop everyone from having sex.

Forcing women into involuntary servitude and labor

Sinfest.net webcomic 2 awe

Need for uniformity

Incorporation of a Ninth Amendment right is required by the need to have a uniform definition of “personhood” (legal role) across all jurisdiction, since constitutional rights attach to “persons” and not just to “citizens” or “life”.  If states could define personhood, they could deprive anyone of rights by defining him to be a “nonperson”. Thus a state could find that Blacks are not persons as a way to deprive them of their liberty.

Notes:

1. Roe v. Wade, 1221 (N.D. Tex. 1970) (“On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree.”).

2. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

3, A Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood.

4. Robert Bork and the Inkblot, Kurt Lash.

5. Constitutional views on abortion

See also: Ayn Rand (link)

Get the complete story on other prohibitions in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in either if two languages for the price of a craft pint. After this you’ll be able to explain to economists exactly how fanaticism and loss of freedom wrecked the U.S. economy in 1929 and 2008.

ProhicrashAmazon

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

 

Sullum’s Drug Debate

Hippies, Blacks, Mexicans--murder them all!

Killing is the whole point of sending men with guns to kick down doors, fire on vessels and riddle automobiles with bullet-holes!

Watching Nick Sarwark get bushwhacked by the debating tactics of a libertarian-impersonating anarchist made for a sense of foreboding over Jacob Sullum debating a prohibitionist. The opening argument–that violent narcs murder and maim people–could have been copied from the 46-year-old news clipping above. (link) Sullum recited almost identical stories of brutal mayhem against bystanders and even brought up the deliberate mass-poisoning of populations by adding wood alcohol to ethanol–of which practice God’s Own Prohibitionist (a novelist and pseudoscience hack) feigned ignorance, even surprise. Continue reading

Google bias experiment

Try this experiment. We know for a fact that coercion (socialism, fascism) is losing power and freedom (libertarianism) is waxing strong. The same substitution curves that modeled past trends, such as democracy replacing monarchy and digital media replacing vinyl, reveal this with mathematical integrity.

Now… use a search engine to look for “libertarian trend curve”…
And select View Images…

Duck Duck Go returns nothing at all, not even for “libertarian trend” curve–at least not south of the Equator. But fills the screen with images if you search for “honest politician”.

Google pulls up an old graph of LP Twitter links then fills the rest of the screen with “libertarian socialism”… Wobbly geezers in sepia and Daguerrotype peer out from wrinkles and beards. Through the looking-glass of corporate search engines, web-surfers are tube-fed this association of “libertarian” with embalmed brainwashed communists and bomb-tossing, politician-shooting anarchist arsonists. How convenient.

Before 1972, when our platform handed the Supreme Court a Roe v Wade decision on the same platter with the first electoral vote ever earned by a woman, such package-deal tarbrushing was already common. For a historical parallel, in 1932, as economy-wrecking Republican prohibitionists were in the shadow of the 1932 election guillotine, they invented the fiction that Liberal meant anti-american communist jewish drug pornographers. The Liberal Party had the previous year published a platform calling for repeal of the 18th Amendment root and branch.

If in need of simultaneous interpreting of the sort that made the Nuremberg trials of National Socialist war criminals possible, hire a Portugueseinterpreter. For general Latin American public faith translations visit Speakwrite.
My other blog is Brazilian. Buy the Portuguese-language edition of Prohibition and The CrashA Lei Seca e o Crash, on Amazon.

ALeiSeca0619

 

simultaneous interpreting, legal and financial