Spoiler Votes: Evolution in action

Spoiler vote evolution for change

Spoiler vote evolution in action: prohibitionists, socialists, averaging 2% of the vote. Votes above the horizontal line covered the gap between parties gaining and losing a hand in the till. Tall bars that did not cover the gap still exert great pressure for change on entrenched parties.

WINNING!

Libertarian votes are replacing Kleptocracy votes like CDs replaced vinyl LPs

Evolution is a process whereby DNA-based living things adapt themselves to reality in order to survive. Failure to deal with the facts of reality results in increased attrition, that is, death rate. Political systems evolve similarly. A century ago dead monarchies were washing ashore, replaced by democracies or dictatorships relying on a modified form of brainwashing and coercion. The Federalist Party went extinct, its niche occupied by the Whig, then by red Republican partisans. None of this happened overnight, but the 1st World War sped up the process. The 2nd raised the potential cost of aggression to levels that voters realize they cannot afford. The initiation of force now entails risk of retaliation with nuclear and biological weapons.

The logistical replacement curve above shows that voters are increasingly aware of this risk and acting to reduce it. Looter parties are also aware of this shift, and increasingly meddle with elections through subsidies, voter suppression, gerrymandering, intimidation, propaganda, character and actual assassination, trumped-up charges, infiltrators, agents provocateur, tarbrushing, sabotage, arson and violence–and not just in the United States. 

Comunists abolish elections

Russian voters increasingly shun the Communist Party, so Putin seeks appointment as Dictator For Life instead of more elections. Trends matter!

Since our own War Between the States, small looter parties fattened on Marx, Bellamy, Howells, London and less literate but still active communist anarchists. The constitution was mutated by artificial selection favoring the initiation of force, resulting in the Income Tax, Prohibition and direct Senate election amendments.

From 1868 to 1968 there was not a single party dedicated to the increase of freedom. All of them sought to maximize coercion–especially the seizure of other people’s goods. Young men had to choose between exile, prison or meddling as foreign murderers. Plant leaves were good for a prison term and forfeiture of assets. American women were conscripted in a eugenic War Against “Race Suicide”–the sort of law even Catholic Ireland has since repealed.

When Irish sights are open

Irishwoman before Libertarianism

All that changed when the Libertarian Party platform earned a ten thousandth of half the vote, and with one electoral vote assisted the Supreme Court in the defense of the individual rights of women. For the past 48 years voters have increasingly realized they can vote for individual rights for women without endorsing communism. Voters can reject entangling alliances and transfer payments from producers to non-producers without endorsing fascism. It is now possible to vote for economic freedom without attacking individual rights, and vice-versa.

We got 4 million presidential votes in 2016, up 328%, plus a similar number of votes in down-ballot State and county elections won by several of our candidates. A clout-wielding, law-changing Libertarian spoiler vote is never wasted. A vote for the Kleptocracy is a ballot wasted as 0.00000007% of the votes endorsing increased coercion, violence, war, debt, imprisonment, shooting of youth over plant leaves, torture of Americans abroad, and menacing of doctors who offer birth control. Your libertarian vote packs about 20 times the law-changing clout, and changes the laws to favor freedom, not add coercion.(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

 

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

Germ warfare and China

Germ War Genocide prophet

Socialist lecturer 1907

The current viral pandemic looks a little like the bacteriological war designed by an American communist. The story dates back to the battered, bowed and bloodied Quing Dynasty, a few years before the 1911 revolution.(link) It was written before the Celestials were invaded by Japan, then later degenerated into a socialist dictatorship. The American communist was Jack London, author of Alaskan Wolf and Dog stories of the gold rush days, stories our parents were pleased to see us devour in childhood. London was an admirer of all variants of “the German philosophy” and bore bitter hatred for merciless, remorseless laissez faire. Nothing less than the initiation of deadly force made any sense to that socialist orator and author.

Comrade Jack London revealed to a surprised America that “The Japanese is not an individualist.” This in The Yellow Peril, written back when racial collectivism was completely fashionable–at least among the pukka sahib.(link) Our eugenicist Republican President had opined that American women were duty-bound to reproduce. To think otherwise, according to Theodore Roosevelt, was “race suicide.” (link)  

The Unparalleled Invasion was written shortly after The Yellow Peril. In it “all countries” attack a relatively peaceful China with germ warfare agents. The story was written as sci-fi predicting the distant future year 1976. So if the Chinese controlled the World Health Organization and took over FATF to wreck the banking system as a bioweapons attack kicked in, they got the idea from America’s own Wild Dog looter.(link) Go to gutenberg.org and find Jack London’s The Strength of The Strong, where the story starts on page 60.(link)

Jack London prediction realized

1932 cartoon matches Jack London’s 1904 predictions

Jack London was one with the prohibitionist communists urging passage of the income tax, prohibition and proletarian Senate election Amendments. Objectivists may feel a sense of schadenfreude to learn that the author of “Love of Life,” supposedly committed suicide in 1916; his half-brother Louis London was said by police to have shot himself in suicide in January of 1965. (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

Cognitive Mental Blocks

Ecological National Socialists have no trouble understanding how two logical variables yield four possibilities when it suits their agenda. The NFPA circulates the above (admittedly garbled) chart in support of violent laws against anything liable to interrupt a game of dominoes at the government-owned fire station.

Genetics offers another illustration:

But teevee, subsidized by the Nixon anti-libertarian law to ignore everything except kleptocracy, can only focus on three possibilities.

Yet those same intellectuals become one-dimensional when challenged to understand anything that lies outside the Venn Diagram circles encompassing socialism in its populist and communo-fascist variants. A blinkered looter visualizes a straight line running from Hitler/Mussolini/Franco to Stalin/Ceausescu/Mao with nothing in between but religious gradations of socialist and mystical altruism.

To the entire satisfaction of mystical prohibitionists, adding alcohol to water eventually transubstantiates the latter into a Satanic alcoholic beverage, and adding (non-mohammedan) religion to a heavily-mixed economy gradually changes it from “bad” socialism to (by their lights) “good” fascism. Nowadays fascists and socialists alike refer to their own system as “democracy” and that other one, respectively, as socialism or fascism.

In These States the Tordesillas line was drawn at an alcoholic content of 0.5% in the Prohibition Enforcement act drawn up by Andrew Volstead of Minnesota. This distinction also made sauerkraut evil, Satanic and illegal. But when this law enforcing the Prohibition Amendment flipped off the lights of freedom on the night of January 16th, 1920, the U.S. Senate, by declining to be a party to the Treaty of Versailles, kept us technically at war with Germany, or The Accursed Hun as it was known at the time. So no True American™ really cared about sauerkraut.

Among today’s fanatics–struggling to ban electric power or plant leaves instead of beer–none have even the foggiest notion or how an individual right might be defined. To them a right is something the world owes them at your expense, not a moral claim to freedom of action. Most puzzling to this mentality is confrontation with the Nolan Diagram. Even survivors of the Argentine educational system can grasp a 2-gradient chart between freedom and orders at gunpoint when broken down according to the two primary contexts (individual personhood and agency as homo economicus) from which they fish for pretexts to justify aggression at gunpoint.

Here is an Argentine version of the Nolan Chart in its version tilted so as to allow the one-dementional to superimpose upon it their own universe of discourse confined to a horizontal line extending from Hitler to Stalin.

To American National Socialists, for whom Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and George Wallace are plain, regular folks, this Argentine chart makes no sense whatsoever. Ever since Carnegie Institute Liberals formed an anti-Klan, pro-Beer party in 1930, then published a platform demanding the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment, the word liberal changed its meaning. Shortly before Election Day, in late October of 1932, the ruling coalition redefined liberal to mean “godless communist drunkards who hate America” in the costume of its own imaginings.

Citizens of civilized nations are utterly baffled by this coinage–minted as it were in the very heart of the Sahara of the Bozarts over which Richmond Hobson of Alabama, Morris Sheppard of Texas and Volstead shone beatifically as the very embodiment of the Holy Trinity… while voters locked the head of the Republican Party into the stocks of the guillotine and gave the lever a satisfying tug.

Pero, no, y evite Evita

Argentine Libertarian Party

Eighty-seven years later, liberal everywhere else in the world still means libertarian. Cowardly, spineless, unprincipled or gelded libertarian, true enough, but libertarian or liberal is in both cases lies at the root of the noun denoting an individual who recognizes the individual rights of fellow human beings–even in opposition to the Divine “right” (meaning sanction to murder and rob) of kings, popes, caudillos and klans. 

So all is not lost. Looter values begin and end with “we must issue the following orders at gunpoint” because (__insert rationalizing pretext__). If the pretext is “because the Bible says altruism is good,” then the speaker is fascist-prohibitionist-totalitarian in value orientation. If the pretext is “because selfishness feels like it ought to be denounced as evil,” then the speaker is a conditioned socialist-collectivist-communist-totalitarian.

Argentinos–politically separated by a papal line on a map–cannot completely let go of the one-dimensional lay/progressive v. religious/fascist differentiation. But today they at least they grasp the concept of how two related choices generate four possible outcomes. That’s progress Americans would do well to understand.

Get the complete explanation of the 1929 Crash in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in two languages

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

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

Conservative altruism versus life

Fake moral compass

Altruism is subjective, anamorphic

Genocide is a social adaptation that observably marches in lockstep with altruism. Altruism itself is variously redefined by collectivists–especially religious conservatives–to infuse it with an odor of scientific eugenics.

This manufactured reaction dates back to Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene.” The book’s introduction humbly apologizes for unwittingly validating the individualist view of life and survival, especially the way virtue ethics considers values or goodness. Fourteen years before The Selfish Gene, similar ethical conclusions were advanced in Atlas Shrugged, a book organized mysticism struggled to pretend never existed in much the way The Party members in Orwell’s novel 1984 struggled to believe an apostate or “unperson” had never existed. Dawkins, a scientist, was harder to ignore, so distortion was relied on instead.

It is informative that since Dawkins’ writings, the idea of altruists as a race that reproduces sexually is again advanced by religious conservatives as solemnly as though it were a new argument. Bonobo monkeys and other instinctual beasts incapable of conceptual thought are offered by religious conservatives as examples that “prove” that altruism–acting sacrificially to benefit others, not self–is by Revealed ipso facto Definition “the” Good. A reinforcing example is the assertion that female Bonobo monkeys won’t copulate with non-sacrificial males. Leaving aside the yearning for female monkeys as the last possible partners girl-bullying brutes can hope for, the net appeal is to collectivist reproduction increasing the subspecies. Each Selfish Gene applies game theory to survival of the gene pool as accurately as physical phenomena apply efficient paths to conservation of energy transitions.

Yet genes lack the intelligence or moral decision making ability to avoid Malthusian disasters such as occur when population exceeds food supply. Whether conservatives also lack this discernment or simply rely on the Rapture’s host of angels lifting them bodily from the jaws of overpopulation crises leading to war, etc. is not obvious. One possibility is that control over children offers organized mysticism the opportunity to cripple young minds through conditioning and indoctrination. After all, in pre-1911 China, girls were encouraged to cripple themselves by binding their own feet, and actually thought this a “good” thing according to consensus and generally accepted community standards.

A mind is a terrible thing to cripple

Bound feet, crippled from early childhood per custom

The Conservative theory is a rewarming of the old Race Suicide view held by Roosevelt Republicans in 1906. The argument was structured in much the same way Lutheran and Papist nationalsocialism characterized “juden” in Germany’s Altruria as an invasive species that cannot be “assimilated” and must instead, regretfully and with heavy heart, be exterminated like so many Apaches or Comanches. From Adolf Hitler’s Theodoric struggle to use genocide for altruist collectivist eugenics, religious conservatism has lately evolved to Trump’s offer to extirpate the families of unappreciative Semitic tribesmen whose Sharia jurisdictions Christians so eagerly tax us to bomb.

Over a century later mystical ideologues STILL Stand at Armageddon Doing Battle For The Lord, exactly like the fanatical Mohammedans of similar ideology. This is the key difference between religious socialism and individualism. Communists and nationalsocialists never tire of each declaring the other are “not really” altruists. Yet both clearly value coercion, sacrifice, death in their fundamental manifestos. This is a subjective, distorted, unreliable moral compass pointing in the wrong direction in all cases.

Letting these twin variants of the rejection of reason replace science, philosophy–especially ethics–would be suicidal.  Fortunately it isn’t happening. The genocidal rampages of communo-fascist socialism in Germany and Russia were as vivid an object lesson as the amok berserker hijackings into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Communist vote shares in elections are falling like membership in mystical congregations. The Libertarian party is gaining votes and membership while the looter parties are shrinking. You can help by studying virtue ethics, voting and making a small donation to the Libertarian Party.

Was this exposition of a commonly-used misdirection into error useful? Remember this when you want an error-free translation of important legal documents. My other blog is in Portuguese.

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–but they change their platforms and laws in hopes of staying on the payroll. Your vote can count even more 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 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?

BTdotcomc

Can you explain whether Prohibition and The Crash were a coincidence? Were they perhaps causally related via by the Five and Ten law of March 2, 1929–the making beer a chain-gang felony with a fine worth 30 pounds of gold? For the cost of a pint you can discover the answers, LIVE on Amazon Kindle in a format you cell can read using the free app.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

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.

Integrity is their Enemy… 1

Politicians and their accomplices are fond of reciting that “Perfection is the enemy of …” of what? A look at the plug-in variables used to complete the false dichotomy turns up: good, progress, completion, and a host of similar abstract nouns with pleasant connotations. But if we translate the concepts behind the phrase, its meaning turns out to be: “Integrity is the enemy of self-deception.” This is Part One of a two-part exploration.

Libertarian spoiler vote levers (vote % * electoral votes) in LP Battleground states

Farfetched? Here is a typical dictionary definition of perfection, which in politics is a verb, an ongoing process approaching a theoretical limit:

3. The action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible: e.g. Among the keytasks was the perfection of new mechanisms of economic management

Compare that with an attempted definition of integrity:

3. Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data: [as modifier] : integrity checking

Integrity checking was the approach to logical cryptographic analysis Alan Turing used to help England crack the Enigma code in the war against National Socialist Germany. Turing’s preoccupation with integrity was belittled by Ludwig Wittgenstein in prewar discussions at Princeton U. Ayn Rand defines integrity more clearly than dictionaries compiled for the Great Unwashed:

Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality.

In other words, integrity is ethical or moral perfection. Ask yourself what, then, is the meaning of political perfection as an ongoing process?  Now ask yourself: what is the definition of political corruption? The answer that comes to mind is betrayal of one’s convictions and values. You cannot translate campaign bribes paid by disparate artificial persons into platform planks and be consistent. But to use the government’s coercive power to meddle in trade and production and repay those bribes one needs to persuade voters to abandon integrity and betray some of their principles. Hence, perfection/integrity becomes an impediment to betrayal/corruption–but stating it that bluntly is politically incorrect.

The sanction of the victim must be obtained through fear or intimidation. This is why looter politicians paint “opposition” politicians as the very embodiment of impending doom. Their job is to grab at the initiation of force for the gain of their backers. The pundits and pollsters they rent are incapable of working the three-body-problem once third-party spoiler votes are involved. And no wonder! Third-party spoiler votes are investments in perfecting the rule of law and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and out posterity.

LP Spoiler Votes Repeal Bad Laws

Spoiler votes as agents of change were understood in 2007

Before 1971, small parties were without exception mystical, collectivist and/or nativist looters. Socialist populists of 1892 wanted the Communist Manifesto income tax which had been translated from German in The Red Republican in 1850. Coinciding with these mostly Christian altruists were the Prohibitionists, to whom the deadly threat of government guns would transubstantiate heathen tipplers into rum-hating fanatics all messed up on the Lord. The George Wallace and Tea Party approach meant the racial eugenics of woman-bullying Ku-Klux Christianity. Integrity in those three third-party cases meant pointing government guns at people to rob or brainwash them into submission. Their goal in every case was to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. To mixed-economy politicians, these “third parties” were full of votes which, like money, could be suckered by flim-flam persuasion. After all, they all wanted practically the same thing.  All of that changed in 1971.

To be continued…

Do you ever need Latin American or European Peninsular financial reports or analyses translated?