Divide and Conquer

Totalitarians and Libertarians understand that freedom is indivisible. Those that value it seek to preserve it intact, and those that despise it try to extirpate it root and branch. Yet there are many who struggle to evade this realization. A single example will suffice.

16 Then came there two women, Equality and Faith, that were voters, unto the Chancellor, and stood before him, one on his Left and the other on his Right

17 And the leftmost woman, Equality said, O my lord, I and this woman Faith dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child, named Sharing, with her in the house.

18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house.

19 And this woman’s child, named Righteousness, died in the night; because she overlaid it.

20 And she arose at midnight, and took my Sharing from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child, Righteousness, in my bosom.

21 And when I rose in the morning to give my Sharing suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my Sharing, which I did bear.

22 And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my Righteousness, and the dead is thy Sharing. And this said, No; but the dead is thy Righteousness, and the living is my Sharing. Thus they spake before the Chancellor.

23 Then said the Chancellor, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.

24 And the Chancellor said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the Chancellor.

25 And the Chancellor said, we must compromise. Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.

26 Then spake both women and said, Let this be settled by unselfish compromise, the common good before the individual good, and divide it, for half of Sharing or Righteousness is better than none at all. Any other view is unequal and extreme

27 Then the Chancellor answered: divide the child in half.

28 But another woman, Liberty, protested this was monstrous, saying Equality had no more just power to deprive Faith of her precious child than Faith had to deprive Equality of hers. Then all three turned to Liberty. The Chancellor told her she was not invited to the debate–and the child was cut in half.

29 And all Germany heard of the judgment which theChancellor had judged; and they feared theChancellor: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment with integrity, as in the Twenty-Five Points, and that he would relentlessly seek the implementation of these points, if necessary at the cost of their lives.

Totalitarians (no rights or freedom) & Libertarians (yes rights & freedom) are consistent

Mixed economy advocates (yellow) believe freedom is divisible

I hope you understood this parable on how the mixed-economy, Left&Right socialists sacrifice all principles and integrity to take from others what they value, and the Libertarian Upper quadrant and Totalitarian Lower quadrant remain true to their values and principles. Remember that clarity next time you need a translator. Oh, and be SURE you remember what the Left-Right Socialist parties say about each other when you see LIB on the ballot.
My other blog is usually in Portuguese.

Advertisements

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 life on the strength of the Millerite supposition that another trace gas (carbon dioxide, not freon anymore) 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.

Brennt Paris?

France, of course, surrenders to German National Socialism at every opportunity. This 1940 French Translation of Mein Kampf (as Mon Combat–My Struggle) appears in the first 5 minutes of the 1966 movie Brennt Paris? The movie shows Parisians mostly riding bicycles, with the wealthy saving gas driving those horse-drawn Hoovercarts used in America during Prohibition After the Crash. The Occupation of Paris was Ecological National Socialism in black & white.

But France’s own media set them up for permanent obloquy in the Fawlty Towers Pantheon of Pathetic Poltroons. Seen this French hagiography of the current International Socialist Chanceller of Germany? It’s not all that different from Time Magazine thrice putting another nationalistic, Socialist German Chancellor on its cover a few decades ago. At least two such Chancellors made Time’s Person of the Year. Back in 1938 the Chancellor’s crowds shouted Raus juden! Today it’s Keine Atomkraftwerks!

If votes count for anything, America still prefers to keep electric power safe, legal and abundant. No Nukes, Nuclear Disarmament, Surrender to Soviet, Ban Coal, Ban Fracking, and other Gaian collectivist shibboleths notwithstanding.

But the Democratic party digs itself deeper and deeper into the pseudoscience of ecological national socialism. This cost them the votes of many who also want an end to the Republican régime of prohibitory televangelist pseudoscience, mass incarceration, cops shooting children and asset-forfeiture looting. The Democratic Party platform committee made the bed those loser politicians and their frustrated supporters get to lie in. They lie awake hearing God’s Own Prohibitionists Make Amerika Grate Again.

This appeals hugely to Libertarians. Unlike the socialist-prohibitionist DemoGOP, our platform says to relegalize self-medication, free the victimless-yet-persecuted from prisons and expunge their records. We seek to ABOLISH most taxes & regulations and all wars soon. Every Libertarian vote forces looter politicians to repeal or modify at least 6 times as many rights-destroying usurpations now masquerading as laws–or lose their seats.  Libertarian spoiler votes cover the gap between the main looter parties, and currently swing 90 electoral votes in major elections.

So Democrats, why not heat up some tar, cut open a few pillowcases and throw an outdoor party for your former platform committeemembers? Teach their replacements to spell R-E-P-E-A-L. Who knows? Maybe you can get jobs for some of your ward heelers and a hand in the till to boot? Failing that, try voting Libertarian instead: the other parties offer you warmunists, bureaucrats and politicians, we offer you freedom.

Did this help clarify why the US  need not sacrifice taxpayer earnings on the altar of pseudoscience?  Clarity is what many people want in their translations. This is why I have repeat customers. I look out for their pocketbooks.

 

GOP destroys economy, wants Libertarian vote

libertyparty19oct1844Google Paddypower and you’ll find that Irish bookies are betting 2 to 1 that the pro-choice party wins and the pro-life-after-death prohibitionist party loses. Naturally the losers are screaming to the libertarians for help as their hulk flounders. The same thing happened in 1844.

The high-tariff Whigs claimed to be against slavery in speeches to abolitionists. But nobody believed anything a tax-and-spend looter politician swore. Back then, before teevee, any fool knew that the dishonest–them that believed in thievery and robbery–had no problem with lying either. Here is one such rebuke from the Hartford Times in October of 1844:

The Liberty Party and Cassius M Clay–Since the speech of the Pilgrim nephew of the great embodiment in the city, the Liberty Party has held three public meetings to take into consideration his proposal to them to abandon their separate organization and go over in a body to the support of Henry Clay; and they have met this proposition in just the manner that every rational man supposed they would. The consummate folly and impudence of the Whigs in trying to make it appear that their candidate is worthy of the votes of the abolitionists, is the best of evidence that they consider that the success of their causes depends upon those votes. But they cannot get one of them. Abolitionists know, as well as the Whigs themselves, that the system of slavery never had a bolder and more uncompromising advocate than Henry Clay. They know that he declared in his place in the Senate, not six years ago, that he should continue to oppose “Any scheme whatever of the emancipation, gradual or immediate;” and that the liberty of the black man could only be established by “subverting the union,” thus echoing back the unholy sentiment of a distinguished southerner, that “slavery is the corner-stone of our republic.”

So the Republicans completely destroyed the economy in 2007, yet vow to continue to support civil asset-forfeiture looting. Their platform vows never to repeal such looting, or the kidnapping of military conscription, or the communist manifesto income tax plank of 1848. But they have the gall to whine to libertarians that as comrades-in-arms “we” ought to support their murderous and destructive policies because Creation Science prophesies that the other looters will, in the future, do worse than send federal killers after us for prohibition and cause crashes as in 1929, 1998, 2007, with a flash crash in 2010.

With friends like God’s Own Prohibitionists, who needs enemies?

Tapping your phone, reading your email

Both the Inner Party and Outer Party politicians see every person in the United States as owing them money because of the individual income tax enforced as of 1914. In order to better seize your goods and assets, any competent thief appreciates the advantage of “casing the joint” before breaking in and stealing. As long as the motive is not selfish, but altruistic–such as to contribute to the support of the national government–stealing and snooping are good because altruism is good by definition. So long as the law sends men with guns to rob you, this is a kleptocracy in which individuals have no right to property or privacy any more than you can cave your cake and let your neighbor eat it too. There is exactly one (01) political party committed to repealing the individual income tax.

I vote for the Libertarian Party and against all others. Before 1914 people had no experience with communo-fascist socialism and small parties forced the large parties to adopt the tax by running candidates and getting votes. Now that we know about Auschwitz, Treblinka, Ukraine, East Germany, Cambodia’s Killing Fields, the IRS, etc… we can reverse the damage by voting. Knowing the difference now makes it ethically important to act to preserve the rights individuals so clearly require as a matter of survival. The closer to socialism (personal income tax + government ownership of production and control of trade), the more murder, torture, starvation, genocide, suicide and refugees struggling to escape. This is a smooth function. Moving away from socialism does not mean accepting a mercantilist mixed economy. It is the simple rejection of the initiation of force.

There is a healthy libertarian party in Holland, which along with the rest of The Netherlands, was occupied by German National Socialists. The invaders wanted to protect Christianity against selfishness (by which they meant Jews and free-trading liberals), and communism (by which they meant all socialists not in the thrall of dogmatic christian altruism). Dutchmen, however, valued freedom and not coercion, and the Netherlands became a dangerous place to send SS Protection Squadron officers. The symbol of De Libertarische Partij, Netherlands, is an open birdcage and a free bird. Where had I seen anything like that before?

The University of Texas at Austin hosts art exhibits, among which I found an SS propaganda poster titled KULTUR TERROR or LIBERATORS depending on the version, intended to make nationalsocialism popular in Holland. The US juggernaut depicted had as its thorax a birdcage containing a jitterbugging couple. A nearby European collaborator, appalled at the apparition with its Ku-Klux head and ungainly appendages, pronounces it a threat to European values. No doubt the same mentality is muttering similar comments–nowadays about the Libertarische Partij.

You can see this poster by googling  “Dutch SS poster” and using the images option. There you will also see inspirational posters of nationalsocialism protecting christianity against godless communism. France was invaded and occupied by those same superstitious fanatics. If French reaction to Uber apps and mohammedan infiltration is any indication, Laval’s heirs show little evidence of having learned much from the experience. The Dutch, however, can easily understand German, and thus felt on their hides exactly what philosophical errors motivate the enemies of freedom. The error is blind acceptance of predatory altruism and superstitious nonsense as good by definition.   It makes one almost optimistic about the future of Europe.