Trump’s Term Limit Proposal Would Have Shut Up Ron Paul

Today, in Gettysburg, Donald Trump proposed term limits on Congressmen. This anti-democratic proposal, which denies to voters the right to choose whomever they want for Congressmen in the House of Representatives, is obviously an anti-Libertarian proposal, although many so-called Libertarians seem to advocate it.paul 19

Term limits clearly violate the Right to choose our Congressmen. But more damningly, term limits mean that if any very effective or wildly popular Libertarian Congressman were to arise, they’d quickly be thrown out of the political arena, probably to be replaced by one of the hundreds of mediocre bipartisan Congressmen who infest the halls of Congress.

A clear example of the damage that could be done by Congressional Term Limits is that of Congressman Ron Paul, who served 12 terms in the House of Representatives, where his Libertarian voice was heard for many years speaking sanely on many of the important political issues of those times. Term limits, such as Trump is proposing, would have gagged Ron Paul, and had a severely deleterious influence on the propagation of Libertarian-Jeffersonian principles of government to the People. Ron Paul is a clear example of that rare Congressman whose ideas have an influence far beyond that on their local electors. In Dr. Paul’s case, his experience in Congress was a springboard for his three Presidential runs, which inserted Libertarian ideas and arguments into the American body politic in a way that no Congressman limited to two terms could have ever done. Indeed, Dr. Paul is still regularly sought out on major media sites for his opinions, as anyone searching his name on Youtube will see instantly. This very original and iconoclastic thinker would have been shut up if Donald Trump’s term limit proposal were the law of the land.

Ironically, Ron Paul has also advocated for Congressional term limits. Apparently he himself does not see the danger such an anti-democratic proposal would have on the Republic.

In my view, there should not be term limits on any elected political offices in America, save for the Presidency. And the Presidency is too powerful an office not to apply a term limit to. Unfortunately it seems that Presidential term limits have been overridden by Presidents having their children or spouses run for office, creating family dynasties which Jefferson railed against when he spoke about the landed gentry ruling the country through dynasties (and restricting voting to only those who had a large amount of property). America has had the Bush dynasty, and now, tragically, we may have a Clinton dynasty, Heaven forfend, or, if Trump  is elected, a future Trump dynasty. The idea that only certain families are competent to serve in the White House should be voted against, and this is a very strong argument for voting against Hillary Clinton, just as it would have been if Jeb Bush had been nominated.

If a majority of voters in a Congressional district vote to elect the same person over and over, that is their Inalienable Right. The solution of term limits, because almost all the members of the House of Representatives as mediocre bipartisans, should not be resorted to out of practicality because it precludes the possibility that some really radical, revolutionary Congressman like Ron Paul could ever have a huge impact on national political thought, while at the same time it violates the Right of the voters to choose whomever they please.

So, as Libertarians, let us vigorously oppose term limits for Congressmen, but retain them for the Presidency.

— Paul Grad, 2014 Libertarian Party of Oregon Nominee for Governor

Oregon Measures 94 to 100 2016 Election: My Recommendations

My recommendations, as a self-styled Libertarian, on Oregon’s 2016 Ballot Measures, are as follows:

Measure 94, which amends the Oregon Constitution, and removes the mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges, obviously deserves a “yes” vote. The idea that judges at 75 suddenly become incompetent to rule on cases is absurd. Indeed, jurisprudence is something that probably improves with age, as the judge is exposed to more and more cases. Moreover, there are already ways of removing any judge who suddenly becomes “gaga”.

Measure 95 is a vile, heinous measure that would tie the financial health of government universities to the performance of the stock market. Here is another measure designed to give government backing to the price levels of stocks, i.e. private corporations. One can see the damage such cozenage has done to the Japanese economy, where the central bank has been buying stocks for years. Obviously, government entities buying stocks ties an entire nation’s economy to the fortunes of the stock market, and gives another “too big to fail” reason for the Federal Reserve to print more money to “bail out” the stock market, while it dilutes your purchasing power and makes you poorer. Indeed, the Federal Reserve is already preparing the public for such a massive theft by talking about the necessity of buying “securities” — ironically the most insecure investment there is besides buying a government lottery ticket. This measure is designed to defeat the “separation of government and private business”, which has already been defeated at the Federal level. Libertarians believe in separation of business and state, just as we must have separation of church and state, and separation of education and state. The failure to maintain such separations is a major reason for the steady decline of America as a civilization. Vote “no” on measure 95.

I oppose Measure 96, which would earmark 1.5% of lottery earnings for veterans services. While this may be a worthy use of the money, I oppose it for two reasons. Firstly, because I strongly oppose the lottery itself, which puts the State in the position of promoting vice, and destroying the financial well-being of its citizens. So any good-sounding reason for the lottery merely increases its attractiveness to the public. Secondly, the military and veterans affairs are provinces of the Federal Government, not of the State, and any aid to veterans should come out of the Veterans Administration and Federal Funds, not State funds. Any money the lottery players of Oregon save the Federal Government will quickly be absorbed by the next billion-dollar stealth plane the Pentagon builds. So vote No on 96.

Measure 97, the supposed tax on corporations in Oregon, has been well-exposed as another scheme to transfer monies from poor Oregon consumers to the wealthy, well-fed retirees of the Oregon State Pension boondoggle, PERS. Currently there are at least 1,195 PERS recipients receiving at least $100,000/yr as a pension. One receives $55,000/month, and four years ago I counted 12 that were receiving over $212,000/yr. Any funds looted from the public through increased costs for corporate services will surely go into these bloated, immoral pensions, which well illustrate the legalized theft possible under socialist governments like Oregon has had under Governors Kitzhaber and Brown. Vote “No” on 97, unless you believe in robbing the poor to maintain the cushy lifestyles of wealthy retired State bureaucrats.

(Note that in 2014, when I ran for Governor, I proposed a corporate income tax while eliminating the personal income tax. My tax would have begun at 1% for corporations with profits of $10-$100million, rising slowly from $100million to $1billion. Corporations making $1billion or more would have paid 8%, which is the current personal income tax rate on individuals making $30,000.)

Measure 98 is another ripoff you should definitely vote “No” on. It provides $800 per high school student to prevent and discourage drop-outs. The Government schools in Oregon are so lousy that many teens can’t wait to get out from under this royal wasting of the time of their youth. If the schools were really interesting, and had anything truly relevant to a youth’s life, there would be no “drop-out” problem. But children, who can’t vote, are the easiest group to exploit in our society, and the huge bureaucracies that make a fortune running the Oregon School system are not about to lose all that filthy lucre by having their victims drop out of it. Therefore they say let’s throw more money at the problem that their own existence has created. Government schools are a curse on children, and we should vote against any continuance or further financial aid to them.

Measure 99 is another one that indirectly promotes the State lottery and sends yet more private sector funds to the rotten government schools. It would give 4% of lottery funds to provide “outdoor schools” for 5th and 6th graders. (And one must wonder about the logic behind this measure since the weather for outdoor classes is most inclement during the Oregon school year.) Just like Measure 96, it encourages people to play the lottery for what seems like a good cause. I wonder how many children have been left parentless because the Oregon Lottery caused their parents to become financially destitute and commit suicide. The Lottery, besides being Immoral and outside the sphere of Jeffersonian Government, financially destroys the lives of countless people, whose tragic stories never become public. Let’s rid ourselves of this outrage known as the Oregon Lottery.

Measure 100 is an obvious “yes” vote if you consider yourself an “Enviro-Libertarian” as I do. While the measure is flawed, it is basically an anti-hunting measure, and I oppose hunting in all its forms as legalized animal torture.

So in summary here are my recommendations on Oregon State Measures: 94-Yes, 95-No, 96-No, 97-No, 98-No, 99-No, 100-Yes.

—Paul Grad, 2014 Libertarian Party of Oregon Nominee for Governor

Trump vs. Clinton: The Capitalist vs. The Corporate Socialist

Though I originally planned to vote for Gary Johnson, and said I wouldn’t vote for Trump, I’ve come to the conclusion that a vote for Trump is an existential necessity, given the war-mongering  Corporate Socialist Clinton, and the way her brand of Fascism is destroying the country.

paul 19If you wanted one good reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, it would be the avoidance of nuclear war with Russia, and the probable tearing up of the Iran Deal, a deal which guarantees a nuclear weapon within a few years to a war-mongering, belligerent Theocracy. It’s basically a choice of Peace over War, and War is the great enemy of Free-Market Capitalism.

But beyond those reasons, we are really being given a choice between a Capitalist and a Corporate Socialist, who embraces all the free perks that Socialism can send her way, a choice between a man who has made his own money in a heavily socialist society, and a woman who has made her money by kowtowing to the largest corporate interests in America, and the most despotic Christian-hating, Jew-hating, woman-oppressing, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.

I thought, about five years back, after rooting for Ron Paul, and seeing his campaign run up against the Republican establishment, that the only hope for America was an independent billionaire, who did not have to spend his time fundraising, or pleasing the main elements in his party, but who could speak his mind and finance his own campaign. That billionaire turns out to be Donald Trump.

The “campaign finance reform” laws have made it virtually impossible for anyone in America to get elected to office unless they are an independent billionaire, or able to raise millions of individual donations. Since donations to political candidates are now limited to $2,700, it would have been virtually impossible for me to raise enough money to run an effective campaign when I was the Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor in 2014. If a millionaire, or a billionaire had wanted to give me a million dollars for my campaign, it would have been “illegal”, a clear violation of the Right to do what you want with your money as long as it doesn’t violate the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. The Democrats and do-gooders, in their unthinking rush to do something sounding good like keeping “big money” out of politics, have virtually guaranteed that no poor person could ever attain major political office, and that those that can will always be the willing stooges of the two major parties. The fact that so-called “campaign finance reform” violates the Right to use your money to pursue your happiness (by donating it to a worthy, revolutionary candidate) is quickly thrown under the bus.

We should be grateful to Donald Trump for destroying the pathetic Republican Party, and for wiping out all the candidates in that Party who were ready to go fisticuffs with the Russians, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul. Good riddance to that bunch of nothings.

There are other virtues to the Trump candidacy. Here is an amazingly energetic man at 70, who can hold two or three campaign rallies in a day. Trump is also very bright (he graduated at the top of his class at Wharton), and you will notice that he never flubs a line in his speeches, or uses vocal “ahh, umm” pauses like the President does. Unlike Jill Stein, he doesn’t have to say “you know” seven times in every sentence. Moreover, to run a huge business, and make constant decisions that cost millions of dollars, require a brain that can function efficiently and rationally. Apparently Trump has such a brain, and that’s the kind of brain you’d want in a President.

Additionally, you have to admire the fact that Trump has never used a drug, not even caffeine, although one should keep in mind Norman Mailer’s observation that small town wisdom distrusts the man who never takes a drink or who has never been drunk because they know that “devils are inside in that man, waiting to bust out”. That certainly seems the case with Trump, when he lets his mouth run ahead of his mind. And though he doesn’t use drugs, it is obvious that he uses food as a substitute.

Now, there are many things I don’t like about Trump’s platform and manner. His bashing of Mexicans, where he actually called them rapists if you listen closely to the speech, and his juvenile making-fun of a severely disabled reporter, are disgusting. His plan to build a fence along the Mexican border (although he makes no mention of the Canadian border, where many Middle Eastern refugees and immigrants have settled) seems unrealistic. His Tariff policy is certainly anti-Capitalist and shows he hasn’t read or understood Professor Murray Rothbard, since the money saved on cheaper, tariff-free foreign-made goods ends up in the bank balances of US Citizens, which strengthens the country more than foreign tariffs on US-made goods hurt it. Still, he has a point that foreign tariffs hurt our trade deficit, and he’s probably right that foreign countries will have to lower or end their anti-Capitalist tariffs if he threatens them with retaliatory tariffs. His absurd notion that our military is falling apart, and we need to beef-up our conventional weapons, must have the arms manufacturers salivating. He seems to have forgotten our fleet of nuclear weapons.

But you can’t have it all in one candidate (except for me — go read my platform).

But at a more fundamental level, a vote for Trump is a vote for Capitalism over and against the Corporate Socialism of Clinton (which is actually Fascism if you read its founder Mussolini’s definition of it). And Free-Market Capitalism is an essential element of Classical Liberalism, the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the Libertarians. While there has never been a purely Capitalist society, except among so-called primitive tribes who use shells or cattle as currency to trade with other tribes, and never a society that has existed with the amazing modern technology, which has the capacity to end human drudgery, it is also true that the most Capitalistic, Free-Market societies like the old U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands, have been the freest and most tolerant societies in history. Capitalism promotes human dignity and economic prosperity; Socialism always destroys it, as it is destroying modern America. Under Capitalism, the Consumer is King and votes in the market place with his money; under Socialism, the central planner, politician or Fuhrer is king. In that sense Capitalism is democratic and Socialism is authoritarian. Every Socialist society that has existed has economically and socially fallen apart, as currently the US and Europe are falling apart.

Finally, let me add that voting for Gary Johnson is not going to prevent a nuclear war with the Russkies, and many of Johnson’s policies, like mandatory vaccinations and his support of the TPP, are anti-Libertarian. He also has virtually no charisma, which is important in a political candidate. The last straw for me was when he called Clinton a “dedicated public servant” which is unbelievable coming from a candidate who purports to be a Libertarian, and in light of Clinton’s behavior. Where were all the trenchant criticisms of the Democrats, and their whole corrupt system, that used to come from the lips of Ron Paul?

So whether its with enthusiasm, or by default, the causes of World Peace and Capitalism necessitate a vote for Donald Trump for President.

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor in 2014

The Democratic Convention: Boos, Boos, Beautiful Boos

It certainly was an elegiac ecstasy to hear those golden tones, as hundreds of disgruntled Democrats and Sanders supporters told the party establishment what they thought of them, as the Party robots praised Ms. Rodham. Choruses of boos greeted her every mention, and the next day, Panetta was met with such a tsunami of boos during his speech, that his forward progress was arrested, and he had to stand there grinning like a baboon as the wave of sound continued to drown him out.

Never had such things been seen at a political convention since 1968, and before that only rarely. The American Public was greeted to the spectacle of a major party self-immolating on national television, and it was a beauty to behold, as this rancid bunch of politically ignorant lemmings finally busted apart into their own narrow sectarian gangs. The Sanders Left will leave her in droves, and we will have an election where four candidates for President get over 5% of the vote.

Boos, boos, beautiful boos, the more they grow, the more she lose.

-Paul Grad

Brexit: Libertarianism Blows Up Keynesianism

I haven’t heard commentators say it, but the Brexit vote was actually a Libertarian assault on Keynesianism, that system of government graft which uses socialist giveaways to control and manipulate the populace, getting them to work and save for decades, and then inflating away the value of their savings in a few years. They boil the frog slowly, so that only the Ron Paul-types protest, and how many Ron Paul supporters or Libertarians have actually studied and understood Austrian School Free-Market Economics as presented by Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard?

That Brexit was carried out by the British People shows that the Liberty thread that ran all the way from Magna Carta through Henry VIII’s break with Rome to Cromwell’s Glorious Revolution, and onto Lord Acton and Lords John and Bertrand Russell, was no fluke, but something deeply ingrained in the British psyche. And this proclivity for Liberty is not something peculiar to the British people, but is a component of all the more reasonable forms of government, excluding of course dictatorships. The American and British forms of government, blemished as they may be, are far and away the best forms of government on the planet, and it is on this principle alone that a vote for Brexit was not only justified but absolutely necessary.

British Capitalism could not be conquered for centuries by foreign adventurers and monarchists, but now people are told that Federalism brings such economic benefit that it is alright, even beneficial, for them to give up their rights and self-government in order to have a higher material standard of living. Such “pragmatism” was soundly crushed by the Brexit vote.

What the European Nationalists had not been able to conquer in a thousand years with violence, they thought they could conquer in a few years through the nepenthe of Federalism and Socialism. But, in the first large manifestation against the Leviathan Socialist State since the Trump campaign, the voters of Great Britain gave ’em the V-sign in reverse.

Brexit gives us hope that Mankind will avoid the Big Motherism of Ms. Rodham, and turn once again to the uncomfortable Freedom of Liberty. There must be some element of deep sanity in Man that wants to turn him away from the great chaos of Socialism we see in America, Venezuela, and Europe, and turn him towards the sanity of an arduous Freedom. Enough of that sanity seeped through into the intelligence of the British voters to change the course of British history.

Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign, begun in 2008 and continued in 2012, has finally born fruit in 2016, and Brexit is the child that he helped deliver. For the first time since the end of WW2, a people in the West have made a significant move towards Libertarianism, even if it is just the negation of a larger Socialism.

The politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate welfare-chiselers expected “Mrs.” Clinton’s Nehru jackets to be purfled with miniver after the Brexit vote, but now they see their ermine trampled with muddy boots by the masses.

To paraphrase a famous Englishman, Brexit may not be the end; it may not be the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

The beginning of a true Jeffersonian-Rothbardian Libertarianism.

—Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Brexit, the Libertarian Devolution

It seems that, outta the blue, the Leave vote on Brexit has sprung into the lead in the polls, and a Brexit seems a real possibility.paul 19

Such a Brexit would clearly be to the benefit of the British peoples, but whether benefit or hinderance, it would mark a clear step backward from bureaucratic centralization, and against the concentration of democratic power in the hands of a handful of bureaucrats.

One of Libertarianism’s key concepts is that in bureaucracies, the worst rise to the top. Hayek and Mises both wrote extensively on the phenomenon. This is well illustrated the world over where government actions, on a daily basis, are performed incompetently, costing people their lives or much misery. There is always an “investigation”, and never an end to the errors. Nor does it matter in which country it occurs; we constantly hear appalling stories of government abuses carried out all over the globe, in first world as well as third world countries.

The peoples of Britain have been robbed of their sovereignty, as well as being looted of their treasure, by the EU, and they know it. “You can’t fool all the people all of the time” goes the old political saw.

So the move back from EU subservience to U.K. Parliamentary subservience is salubrious , but it is naive to think that such an action will bring a Libertarian Norther, coursing galeforce through the un-limed, mephitic outhouse of the UK Government. The British Bureaucracy is formidable in itself, and will leave plenty of shackles around the legs of Englishmen in their daily endeavor to survive. But it is less immune than the Brussels Sprouts, being subject to the power of the British voter, who has watched as Socialism has destroyed the Individual in Britain — an Individual who, had he been born in the 19th century, could have passed his whole life without contact with, or imposition from, the British Government, except for his birth and death certificates. No military draft, no income tax (or “statutory incomes policy” in the language of the bureaucrats and politicians), no mandatory insurances, were there to furrow his brow. The dissipation of energy engendered by western socialism in the U.S. and E.U. has destroyed Western man, and turned his mind from philosophy to survival, and thus materialism, whether that materialism be the food, clothes, shelter of survival, or the materialism of pleasure in various entertainments.

Nevertheless, the devolutionary crawl from more centralized bureaucracy to less is always to be welcomed in Libertarian theory, although there are some cases where Federalism, as in the case of the desegregation of the American South, seems necessary to overcome local injustices. But the violation of States Rights, all over America, has certainly had dire consequences when it comes to the criminalization of Cannabis by the Democratic Party Fascists, showing how a bunch of Fascists in Washington can terrorize an entire nation for decades, and get away with the Crime.

So the best of British luck to the Englishmen, Welsh and Scots, as they make ready to reestablish their national sovereignty over themselves.

“Britons never never never shall be slaves.”

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014



On the Futility and Necessity of Politics and Political Parties

I just chanced to come upon the analysis of George Phillies concerning the National Libertarian Party’s platform, and his opinions regarding each measure and plank. and it reminded me of how futile political parties are, given the inevitable bureaucracies that arise, trying to seize power and influence within the party structure. There is no way that a political party of any size can ever exist without creating a bureaucracy that will take it over, and thenceforth direct the energies of a million good-faith citizens who truly believe in the few ideological slogans the party bandies about.paul 19

That the Libertarian Party, of all parties, should fall into the trap of Bureaucracy shows how the minds of people trick themselves. One of the key teachings of the Libertarian “Big Three” Economists, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, was that bureaucracies arise in all organizations, from big government down to the local chess club, and that certain energetic individuals will take over that bureaucratic power, while Hayek’s rule that in bureaucracies the worst rise to the top has been well proven by a long parade of Federal Government departmental heads.

We see the same problem arising in progressive school’s bureaucracies. Bertrand Russell, A. S. Neill, and J. Krishnamurti all had problems with the school administrations of the schools they set up, and these were three very revolutionary thinkers when it came to the question of education.

So it would seem that in the realm of both politics and education, the bureaucracies should be abandoned, and only individual action should take place. This would mean, politically, coagulating around a few set principles, like the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, and the Inalienable Rights of the Individual over and above any false Collectivist claim to Rights. A large part of electing someone would then be: are they genuine or a carpet-bagging opportunist, repeating like a parrot the party’s mantra. That is where the insight of the voters comes into action. In the performance of the candidates lies the key to modern elections. This has been proven by both Trump and Sanders, who have ripped away the diaphanous skirts of both major parties, to reveal only fat cellulite legs, lined with the varicose veins of corporate corruption. The veins run dollar-bill green, and run from the bottom upwards.

And in education, it seems my view of educating children in small groups of 3-5, with a teacher and assistant, in combination with all the educational tools available over the internet, which have made the lecture hall and the library virtually obsolete, is the correct view. Schools serve as a collectivizing agent, getting the children ready, on a daily basis, for a collectivist action (going to the school where there is a huge crowd of people, sitting in the class in the midst of a large group.) These collectivist actions prepare the child for the corporate job and the political party, and the idea that they are part of a ‘society” when in actuality that “society” only exists in their daily contact with individuals. Educating children individually, or in tiny groups of 3-5, will remove this collectivizing brainwashing which both government and private schools can’t avoid because of their current structure. We should question whether schools are even necessary any more.

As far as politics go, it should be obvious that only through individual change within a huge number of people will it be possible to radically alter the rotten world society in which we now live. Without that inner change, merely changing the outer society will do very little. You only have to look at the percentage of people who eat meat (over 98%), and the realities of the factory farm and the slaughter house, to see how self-centered the mass of Humanity is. And creating a political party that is going to somehow magically change this situation is a pipe-dream. This is the trap into which the Communists and the Socialists fall. They falsely think that: merely change the outer economic circumstances and the laws, and everyone will become angelic and non-greedy. The cherishing of material possessions in Soviet society showed just the opposite. The Soviet Marxists were just as materialistic as the American Capitalists. Maybe even more so when you compare the amount of charitable giving which the American middle class has historically shown, due probably to the general level of prosperity in America (compared to most world historic societies). There were many wealthy Romans, but I don’t recall them being noted for their philanthropic works, unless it was passing out corn to quell a food-riot insurrection.

So, if societal change can only come about through individual change, and if all political parties are doomed to the disease of Bureaucracy if they achieve any notable size, then it should be clear that political action is pure folly and a waste of time.

But does that mean the Libertarian, the 18th Century Classical Liberal, and the Anarcho-Capitalist should abandon the field to the Fascists, the Socialists and Communists, the Nazis, the Racists, the Nationalists, the Theocrats, and even Monarchists?

Does not the outer society play a large part in conditioning the individual, when only a child, into the implicit values of the society? Little Johnny quickly catches on that doctors make a lot of money, and since Johnny notices that adults talk a lot about money, he decides to become a doctor. And since everyone wants to know what Johnny wants to do when he “grows up”, little Johnny gets the message that what you do in society is very important to these large apes he’s growing up amongst. The schools, both government and private, reinforce this when they tell the students how much more a college graduate earns over the course of his lifetime than a high school graduate or drop-out.

Therefore, if the outer society plays such a large part in conditioning the individual, then, even though politics is futile and a waste of time, it must be engaged in, at least at the minimal level of voting (and usually having to write in people for most positions since the usual party hacks are so bad). Even though change must be at the individual level, it makes a huge difference to individuals if they live in a free, free-market Capitalist society, with Classical Liberal Jeffersonian views when it comes to political issues and Rights. Historically, such Liberalism has only been found in the most Capitalistic societies — Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the U.S.A. All three have had a long tradition of both Capitalism, or the Free-Market, and a wide liberality of opinion, with significant minorities or majorities opposing censorship, the Draft, Capital Punishment, and supporting separation of church and state. All three of these countries also engaged in the most egregious outrages against Libertarianism in terms of their colonies, their wars, the American enslavement of the African and his descendants, and theft of the American Indians’ lands. But whether because of it, or in spite of it, Capitalism within these societies brought Classical Liberalism to heights it had never imagined in previous times. In earlier days, Bertrand Russell and Clarence Darrow would have been burned at the stake or lynched (Russell almost was once, when speaking at an anti-War rally in a church during World War One). Now, in the Liberal Capitalist 20th Century societies, people just grumbled about them. Everyone would rip the government by word, but assassinations of government officials by ordinary citizens were very rare.

So, if the outer society does have an impact on the conditioning of the individual, it is obvious that politics, and the society it breeds, are extremely important.

And thus we are left with the paradox that, while we can see clearly that politics is a waste of time and a great dissipation of energy, we can also see that it is vitally important to the bringing about of a Libertarian, Jeffersonian, Free-Market Capitalist, democratic-Republic Society, where dissident opinions are tolerated, and with a low, or non-existent level of violence.

— Paul Grad

Oregon Presidential Primary 2016: Write In Ron Paul

Given the mess in the Republican Presidential Primary, and the suspensions of the Cruz and Kasich campaigns, I am recommending writing in Ron Paul, since none of the listed candidates on the ballot fit the necessities of a fiscally-conservative and Constitutional President. Cruz came closest, but since he dropped out, and there were many flaws in his positions, and Trump is almost certain to get the nomination, one might as well make one’s vote count by writing in someone who is a fiscally-conservative Austrian School of Economics Libertarian like Ron Paul.

For one thing, voting write-in lets the winner, and the other mainstream politicians who lost, know that they don’t have your vote. Additionally, it lowers the percentage of the vote that the winner gets, making them look worse, if only minisculely. If enough people vote write-in, it can lop a few percentage points off the winner, making him look not so invincible. This is healthy for the body politic.

Since Dr. Paul is such an expert on Free-Market Capitalism, and has the correct economic views on almost every issue, and since America is primarily a capitalist country where almost everyone is obsessed, or at least heavily involved, with money or using money to get his daily needs, it makes great sense to put someone at the top of government who understands Economics. Dr. Paul is such an individual.

Therefore the choice is clear. Any Oregonian who really wants to turn government from a corrupt looting mechanism into its Jeffersonian Ideal should write in Ron Paul on the Republican, Libertarian, and Democratic Party ballots.

Vote Ron Paul for President on May 17, 2016!

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Gubernatorial Nominee 2014


Murray Rothbard on Donald Trump

In a speech given in 1989 at the Libertarian Party convention, Murray Rothbard, the founder of the modern American Libertarian Movement, in discussing reaction to the sentencing  and income of Michael Milken, made the following comment about Donald Trump.

Rothbard quotes the New York Times as discussing the reaction of three famous individuals to the sentencing of Milken, and his $550 million/yr income: John Kenneth Galbraith, Donald J. Trump, and David Rockefeller. Galbraith, who made millions criticizing Capitalism, thought it was outrageous. Rockefeller opined that anyone who could make such an income showed a serious imbalance in our financial system.

When it came to Trump, Rothbard said, “The other was Donald J. Trump, of all the nerve, saying ‘You can be happy on less money than that.’ What gall, what chutzpah!”

All three observations elicited intense laughter from the audience.

-Paul Grad

Donald Trump and the Myth of Inciting to Riot

I noticed tonight that the political websites are full of talk of Donald Trump inciting violence, and his opponents in the Republican and Democratic political ranks seem to be universally jumping on the bandwagon, blaming him for the violence carried out by some of his supporters and the demonstrators themselves. In my previous blog post, I went into the reasons why disrupting his rallies is a property rights crime against both Trump and his rally attendee supporters.paul 19

As I said in my last post, I would not vote for Trump and would write-in Ron Paul first or vote for any decent Libertarian if the National Party ran one. (It looks like the Libertarian Party of Oregon will be choosing their own candidate independent of the National LP.) But the attacks on Trump tonight that seem to be pervading the political websites are based on the erroneous phenomenon of “inciting to riot”.

Inciting to riot implies that the people aggressing against property rights of others have had their wills taken over by another and are not responsible for their violent actions (and a physical assault is a property rights assault in Libertarian theory since your body is part of your property). “I was calm and collected, but so-and-so’s rhetoric was so overwhelming that I got carried away, and committed this murder or assault which I swear I would never ever normally commit, but something came over me and I was no longer in control of my actions. Blame Trump or whomever, Your Honor, don’t blame me.”

This is the universal cop-out of violent demonstrators. Of course they were responsible for their actions of violence. Of course they are the guilty ones and not the rabble-rouser who worked them up into a mouth-foaming frenzy of violence. The rabble-rouser, the demogogue who preaches hatred, may have a moral culpability for attempting to incite them to violence, but under America’s very liberal freedom of speech laws, he is not legally guilty. It is the person who carries out the violence who is the guilty party, and to believe in the validity of “inciting to riot” is to say that people who carry out acts of violence are not morally responsible for their crimes. This is an extremely dangerous idea, far more dangerous than the words of any demagogue.

That said, if a demagogue stood up, tried to work a crowd up enough to riot and carry out a pogrom against, say, Hispanics or Armenians by saying “Kill the Hispanics” or “Kill the Armenians”, both unfortunately completely legal under our liberal Freedom of Speech laws, and a mob descended on a string of Hispanic-owned or Armenian-owned stores, assaulting and murdering the occupants, and a Hispanic or Armenian in the area being attacked shot to death the speaker attempting to incite violence because he felt his life was threatened, and I was on a jury trying the shooter for murder, I would vote to acquit him, and perhaps even contribute to his legal defense. (Note however that it is illegal  and not protected speech in America for a rabble-rouser to say to a mob “Kill Jorge Perez” or “Kill Arpad Avakian”.)

The best weapon against any demagogue who attempts “inciting to riot” is to economically boycott him and anyone who supports him for life. If he or she is a politician, vote against them. “Send them to Coventry”, as they say in England, forever.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014