Monthly Archives: June 2014

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: NO on Oregon Ballot Measure 90, A Lighter Shade of Fascism

(This is a revision of a post I wrote when Measure 90 was called Measure 55 and/or Measure 54. The arguments and core text arepaul 19 the same, but the number has been changed by the guilty to try to fool the Public).

As the official nominee of the Libertarian Party of Oregon for Governor, appearing on the November ballot, I urge all voters to vote NO on State Measure 90, better known as “Top  Two”. If this measure passes, it will leave only a choice between two Corporate Fascists or two Keynesian politicians in charge of that portion of The Republic that takes place within Oregon.

The end result of this Measure would be a vast restriction and virtual disembowelment of the democratic method of electing our representatives. All it will do is give the voter a vapid voice in making a vapid choice, choosing between two wings of Keynesian economics, the Democrats and Republicans, with never a choice in favor of Austrian economics, which is synonymous with free-market Capitalism.

Why should we only have two choices, a choice between Hitler or Franco, or Stalin or Castro? Why shouldn’t we have four or eight candidates on the final ballot, if the democratic ideals the Democrats and Republicans are always braying about are really important to them? If those ideals were important, they would be denouncing these initiatives as 100-proof Fascism, a way of making sure no free-market Classical Liberal, or Communist or Socialist for that matter, could get into office.

Although splintered parties do make for tough ruling, there is not much danger of six or seven parties emerging consistently on American ballots. But as a Libertarian, I would welcome having the Communists or Socialists sharing our ballot, so they could express their political sentiments equally.

There also is great value in having multiple parties in that it gives us a much clearer picture of the political landscape in our State. It would be valuable to know that 20% of our citizens were Libertarians, or 7% were Socialist Workers, or 1% were in the Vegetarian Party, or the Prohibitionist Party. The vast growth in Citizens classifying themselves as Independents has been fueled by the fact that they cannot more accurately define their political tastes in parties like the Communists, Vegetarians, and Prohibitionists.

Of course, one party we can be sure we’d never see is the Anarchist Party, because their very formation as a political party would undermine their basic principles.

If this horrendous measure passes, we will be saddled with a system differing little from the mock elections that used to take place in the Soviet Union, where the people had a choice between two looting party hacks. Don’t let that happen in America.

Don’t collaborate with the Fascists on this measure. Let’s make sure we always have the possibility of many choices on our electoral ballot.

Smash Measure 90 by voting NO with your pencil at the ballot envelope!

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor,


Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Platform Summary

As the Libertarian Party’s official nominee for Governor of Oregon in 2014, here is my  platform in brief, according to topic. Proposals with several exceptions to them are followed by an (x).

Economic Proposals

1. Abolish the personal income tax, most corporate income tax, and  the estate tax.

2. Abolish PERS, the Public Employee Retirement System.

3. Abolish the State Lottery.

4. Abolish farm subsidies, and subsidies, loans, and grants to private business.

5) Abolish all State Commissions

6) End State funding to State Universities and Colleges.

7) Outlaw business-license and vending-license requirements.

Social and Legal Proposals

1) Abolish the Death Penalty.

2) Legalize heroin for the terminally ill.

3) Completely legalize cannabis, no taxes. (x)

4) Outlaw pitbulls, current owners can keep.

5) Permit opt-out of autopsy.

6) Increase sentences for 1st- and 2nd-degree rape by 50%.

7) Pardon all cannabis prisoners. (x)

8) Outlaw 2nd-hand tobacco smoke within 100ft of another person.

9) Legalize prostitution and gambling.

10) Remove marriage from State legal codes and statutes. (x)

11) Outlaw air conditioner noise that crosses property lines.

12) Affirm Natural Rights of Individuals take precedence over any alleged rights of corporations.

13) End Civil Forfeiture; only Criminal Forfeiture allowed under law.

Environmental Proposals

1) Implement live logging moratorium on all State lands. (x)

2) Repeal the Right to Farm and Forest Act.

3) Outlaw fracking.

4) Ban GMO-crop cultivation.

5) Ban pesticide, herbicide sprays on State lands and in public schools.

6) Ban atrazine, neonicotinoid pesticides, and certain other herbicides.

7) Jail anyone smoking tobacoo within 10 ft. of a child.

8) Utilize the “Natural Selection Forest Management” System in managing State lands. This provides a sustainable harvest of dead trees, self-employs the harvesters and distributors, and cuts our national trade deficit while being carbon-neutral and leaving the forests in near-wilderness conditions with no measurable environmental degradation.

Animal welfare proposals.

1) Outlaw vivisection.

2) Outlaw hunting and fishing. (x) (Native-American Tribal Lands exempt.)

3) Outlaw slaughterhouses.

4) Outlaw rodeos and circuses using animals, marine parks using killer whales and/or dolphins, bullfighting, bear-baiting.

5) Implement Statewide spay program at one hour minimum wage cost.

6) Outlaw horse and greyhound racing.

7) Provide bulletproof vests for all police dogs in Oregon.


Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Jobs vs. A Nation of Shopkeepers

As the Libertarian nominee for Oregon Governor, I thought it useful to review an Oregon Gubernatorial debate forum from 2010, where the four previous candidates for Governor spoke.

It seemed that all one heard were calls for “jobs, jobs, jobs”, and how was the government going to help create jobs, as if that is the main function of government, instead of protecting individual property Rights.

Why do we want jobs? Why don’t we talk of creating independent Capitalists, instead of calling for people to go to an office for forty hours a week for forty years to make somebody else rich, doing the exact same thing, day after day. If you have a job, you’re working to make someone else wealthy (and to pay the government officials’ salaries). Now why do all these Democrats and Republicans always want you to work for someone else? Why don’t they aim to make every individual in our society economically self-sufficient, which would mean that you wouldn’t have a job, but instead a business.

Now jobs are probably necessary at the start for many people, but many others could start out at near zero with a business service or a pushcart if we didn’t have so many obstacles in our communistic society to starting a business. Business licenses should be anathema in a Free-Market society. They are restrictions on your Right to Contract, because you should not need anything in America, which is always touted as a Capitalist society, to engage in trade.

Now, what we mean by “A Nation of Shopkeepers” is not literally that; what we mean is that everyone should have a “shop”, a process by which they can procure their income through their own efforts, without interference from the government. It might literally be a shop, a store where the person conducts his business. But the shop could also be a talent, like a musician or barber or photographer or free-lance roofer. It is something the person is doing for themselves, working for themselves, and not a job where the bulk of the fruits of their labor goes to their employer, although there is nothing inherently wrong with that if the worker willingly accepts employment.

Moreover, there may be jobs that remunerate the worker so lavishly, that they willingly accept a job because they can make in one year what would take them ten if self-employed. The worker with the boring job making $50/hr may be much happier at his work than the minimum-wage worker who finds his work interesting. There is a reason that installing the pipeline in Alaska commands more income than working in a Southern California mini-mart.

The politicians Kitzhaber and Richardson spend much time talking about “what government can do to spur job growth and economic development”. They don’t seem to have much faith in the “silent hand” of the free-market or the freedom of Capitalism to constantly develop new consumer needs and wants. They talk like there is a limit to Capitalist prosperity in a free society. Isn’t Richardson a bit of a economic Communist to talk as if it is government that creates jobs and wealth, not individuals?

And I listened to some recent interviews of Demo and Repub candidates on a community radio station. The interviewer took the same Keynesian view which seems to be epidemic in Oregon,asking what did the candidate think they (or government) could do in office to spur job growth and economic development in their region. None of them said, “get government out of the way, and let the free-market work its magic.” Richardson talked as if the only way was through natural resource exploitation, but that is not necessary for a large capitalist economy to exist. The Japanese have very few natural resources but a somewhat high standard of living. It is trade that produces wealth, the demands of the consumer in the free-market, although, of course, every product must start from raw materials. But natural resource raw materials are all over the earth, and can be transported.

What is destroying Oregon economically are the same things that are destroying the whole country, and the mentality behind them. Things like the minimum wage, the income tax, the Fed policy of intentional inflation which economically weakens everyone relative to the super-rich and causes such pricing havoc, massive Federal deficits weakening the dollar which in turn helps spur inflation, and perhaps greatest, the mentality of Keynesian economics which says the government runs the economy and can successfully tweak it through its policy. This has been shown to be an utter disaster both in America and Britain.

Capitalism’s development of new crafts as the general level of prosperity increases can be shown by the following example.

Imagine a society that is very poor, hand to mouth. What are the chances a dog-walker could make a living in such a society? Just about nil. Then move up to a lower-middle class income society. It’s still unlikely that a dog-walker could get work there, but he might occasionally get an hour or two. Then move up to a largely middle-class and upper-middle class society. Now it’s quite possible that a dog-walker could have a group of clients, too busy or arthritic to walk their beloved pets, who could together give the walker enough income to continue as a walker. Then imagine a wealthy society, where almost everyone had a million dollars in the bank and gasoline was a buck a gallon. Now, not only could the dog-walker make a good living, but you might have a proliferation of dog walkers, and even specialists in different breeds. Some dog walkers might become famous because of their rapport with certain breeds, and command fabulous fees from eccentric millionaires: “if you want your Great Dane walked properly, old boy, Blenkenthrope is the man to see. Amazing rapport with the beasts, just whispers in their ear. He only charges a thousand-an-hour.”

At its Capitalist high point, England was known as “A Nation of Shopkeepers”. The historian, Sir Richard Evans, has pointed out that it was quite possible, in Victorian England, for a man to go his whole life without any official contact with the State or government, except for his birth and death certificates. Compare that to modern America.

So America needs to trust in the Freedom of the Free-Market, get away from this one aim of creating jobs, and move to the more far-sighted aim of having everyone find something they like or love to do, whether because of the function or its remuneration. In short, a Nation of Shopkeepers.

Then we will have a happy, affluent society.

Paul Grad, paulgrad4governor,


Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Banning Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Saving the Bees

As the official candidate of the Libertarian Party of Oregon for Governor, I will, if elected, immediately ban the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in Oregon, which have been implicated in the recent horrendous decline in bee populations, until such time as it has been shown to my satisfaction that these pesticides are completely harmless to bees.

The U.S. saw a 23% decline in bee populations over the winter, according to a BBC report, and one of the major causes, according to the Friends of the Earth, is the use of these pesticides. This group is prudently calling for our President to ban this product in U.S., but instead the President has set up another namby-pamby task force “to study” the problem for six months instead of taking decisive action, while handing out more millions to wealthy farmers and ranchers, who really need it, to subsidize their bee farming. This is typical of President Obama’s failure to come to terms decisively with environmental problems his own neglect and negligence have caused, instead of banning many of these bee-killing poisons years ago.

Maybe the President doesn’t have the decisiveness to ban neonicotinoid pesticies, but, if elected Governor of Oregon, I will. It would be my responsibility under the Oregon Constitution.

According to the White House, honey bee pollinators contribute $15 billion to the U.S. economy. They are key to pollinating crops like apples, carrots, and avocados. President Obama, by not immediately banning these pesticides, is willing to risk that production and cashflow, and much higher food prices for the public and the poor, in order to placate his corporate friends.

Our decisions with pesticides and herbicides should follow the “precautionary principle”, that is, they should not be allowed until it is shown that they are absolutely safe. Perhaps the only exception would be if we were facing a major contagion that threatened to decimate the entire world population, like the Black Plague.

Letting collectivist corporations run roughshod over the health of the public, in order to swell the coffers of government politicians and their election campaign chests, is leading to extremely costly and tragic problems that vastly increase the misery of the general public, in order to benefit those politicians who owe their allegiance to the mega-corporations.

This issue exactly illustrates the call I have been making, to combine our radical Libertarian Capitalism with a stringent environmental protection, for without maintaining the health and integrity of the environment, which is the Earth, there will be no Free-Market Capitalism left.

Let’s blaze a new path in political history by combining the virtues of Capitalism and Environmentalism in one political platform.

Vote for me for Governor of Oregon on November 4, 2014, and help save the bees, the food supply, and this incredible Earth. Don’t let the Kitzhabers, Richardsons, and Obamas of this planet destroy Her.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: The Stupidity of Political Ideals

Someone send me a comment accusing me of violating the “Libertarian Ideals” which I was hypocritically putting forth in my posts. But I never put forth a “political ideal”.

Political Ideals are the most stupid of things. They are the projections of a political mind caught in the middle of a crisis, to a solution which it transforms into an ideal, but such an ideal is only an image in that confused and frightened mind, an idea born of that confusion. A violent and bureaucratic society may have an ideal of non-violence and freedom, but it remains violent and bureaucratic, decade after decade.

How can a violent, socialistic, bureaucratic society know what a Libertarian society would actually be like? All such a society knows is violence, and dealing with the bureaucratic State in a way so as to minimize ones personal discomfort. And from that condition of violence and confusion, the political mind tries to find a way out of the mess, and the ideas it comes up with it calls “Political Ideals”.

Because such ideals always arise out of past disorder and confusion, they are always old, and so may have nothing actually to do with what would arise out of a radical transformation of the social structure. Capitalism married to Jeffersonian Libertarianism might bring people much more affluence and leisure than they dream imaginable because, as Jefferson believed, Society is capable of infinite improvement, materially and culturally.

Libertarianism, I think, has no political ideals. It is a branch of political philosophy dealing with the ethics of property rights and their valid transfer, although you might also consider it a branch of ethical philosophy dealing with politics and the  justice of property rights. Both outlooks are correct. It has only one axiom, which is not an ideal, but a moral observation that “No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of any individual.” This is an observation of our moral nature by our reason, and almost all law-abiding individuals would instinctively concur with it; it is not a “political ideal”.

The Democrats and Republicans, like the Communists and Socialists, do have “political ideals”. They are confused people with a vision created by  confused minds, and that is why their political programs never work. Their thinking is always based on the past and the old.

The Democrats and Republicans approach any new situation with a fixed political ideology in their minds. The Democrats, let’s say, believe that government should intervene greatly in the economy, and peoples everyday lives, for their own good and the general collective good. They think government is basically good, not evil as Jefferson informed us. They see government programs as help given objectively to people by a caring, benevolent government which is the manifestation of a caring, benevolent society. They actually want to impose a religious ideal on everyone, just like the Communist’s Brotherhood of Man, the jihadist’s Sharia Law, and the Ghandiist’s non-violent resistance — all political ideals of purity that in reality are exactly the opposite; for example, India’s political ideal of non-violence in a society that is incredibly violent.)

And the Republicans have actually accepted the same interventionist view of government; their only program is to cut it back a little. A Democratic candidate wants income tax rates of 65%; the “outrageous, irresponsible” Republican candidate wants to lower them to 55%. So, the Republicans have accepted all the big government programs that the Democrats have brought in, and then spend all their time arguing about what minor modifications to these boondoggles they can effect.

The Libertarians in contrast are Abolitionists; they would wipe out these programs as quickly as possible, although gradualists like myself and Ron Paul would slowly transition out of the social welfare programs, while axing the corporate welfare thefts.

80 years ago came the New Deal, a Socialist program of government intervention in the economy, based on Keynesian economic principles. 50 years ago we had The War on Poverty. And yesterday I read that one-third of the people in Multnomah County can’t meet their basic needs on their income. This is after 80 years and trillions of dollars in welfare spending. And it’s because, at root, the Democrats and Republicans have ideas by which they rule, and because those ideas violate the ethical Libertarian Axiom, their schemes and programs always end in disaster plus inflation. That inflation lowers the affluence of the entire society, and creates economic chaos, especially for the poor and middle class. And that leads to more social problems, and on and on it goes.

The public is now acutely aware of how the two major political ideologies no longer work. America has lived on its wealth for a long time, but the warfare-welfare state has finally said farewell to American prosperity.

America must rid itself of political ideals, realize its problems are great, and adopt the Libertarian approach to legislation and the economic structure. All legislation should be measured against the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom. Then you are out of the realm of political ideals and compromise, and on a rock-solid foundation of ethical behavior.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: The Oregon Unified Primary Initiative, Ballot Measure 90: The Fascist’s Dream Bill

The curse of the Unified Primary Initiative, Oregon Ballot Measure 90, hangs over the State. Now that the Fascists have shut up the California voters into their Top Two voting prison, they want to spread their Fascist disease to Oregon.paul 19

The Unified Primary Initiative, also known as “Top Two”, which would leave only two candidates on the final ballot, instead of the current three or more which gives the voters a real choice in the final election, is the Fascists’ dream bill to keep out any effective opposition to their rule from a third party. Great Britain has had three major parties for over a century, and it has served her well. But here in America, the Fascists want to make sure that you only have this one feeble choice, every four years, between the two wings of the Bipartisan Fascist Party, and the two charlatans they vomit forth. And they tout that as Democracy!

I believe what they want to do is supress any dissent of their Corporate Fascist State, and stifle any moves towards a Jeffersonian Libertarian society, with its accompanying great Freedom of action for the Individual. It’s very convenient for the professional politicans that there be only two parties. This way, they keep the people spinning their wheels in the mire of a political mudpile: the Tories vs. Labour, the Democrats vs. the Republicans.

But now Americans can see that both parties are essentially the same Statist, corporate communist, entity. The “Libertarianism” of the Republicans is non-existent. They are as Collectivist as the Democrats, and to be given a choice between two Fascists every four years is no choice at all. And we call them Fascists because they believe in a partnership between government and corporate business, and the planned economy, which has always been a failure.

Libertarians take a completely different approach, starting off with a bedrock of ethical behavior and building on that. Because this philosophy is so radically different from the compromises of groups like the Republican Party or the Thatcherites, it should not be viewed as close to them. They have taken tiny baby steps towards Libertarianism, but taken giant strides towards Fascism. As in Britain, American Republicans have let Statist programs be introduced under the Democrats, and then maintained those Statist programs when they got into power. Then the Democrats would get in again, expand the Leviathan State, and then again the Republicans would get in, and tolerate or even re-inforce that Leviathan State (for example, Bush’s No Child Left Unmolested and Free).

The American People need a clear choice, and that can only be found in third, fourth, or even more political parties. Mark Twain said that difference of opinion makes horse races. And it makes for a healthy, democratic, Constitutional Republic too.

We urge our “friends” in the Socialist Workers Party to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in solidarity with Libertarians in opposing this heinous, Fascistic initiative, which would shut them up just as much as Libertarians. Pacific Greens, Communists, and Bull Moosers are also welcome to join us.

Don’t be misled by the argument that this will give minor party candidates a chance to win in the primary, where they will be outspent by the party-hack political machines. The only way to win an election is to be on the final ballot (unless you can win with write-ins, and when has that every happened?), and if that ballot is confined to the Democrat and the Republican as it surely will be under this bill, then there is no chance for a minor party candidate to ever win. This bill has had devastating effects on third party candidates in all the States in which the Fascists have been successful with it. Let’s hope the Greens and Socialist Workers have enough mental capacity to see how dangerous this bill is for them also.

It will also have a disastrous effect on voting percentages, as many dissident voters will feel that voting is as much a waste of time as it was in the Soviet Union under Andropov or Kosygin. A choice between two lying Fascisti every four years? Why bother to vote?

As the official Libertarian Party of Oregon candidate for Governor, I urge the voters to vote against this Fascist assault on our Jeffersonian, democratically-elected, Constitutional Republic.

Vote No on Oregon State Ballot Initiative No. 90.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Capitalism, The Society That Never Was

We hear a lot of propaganda about how Capitalism has failed, and how we need even more Socialism and government intervention in the economy, but I disagree. On the contrary, I think a Capitalist, Free-Market economy has never truly existed.

Of course, there have been pockets of Capitalism that have existed. The South Sea Islander or the Native American, trading shells or some other money commodity for another useful commodity, like food or tools, was engaging in pure Capitalism. There was no coercion, both parties to the trade did so willingly, they used the money commodity to realize the transaction, and both were glad afterwards. The man with a thousand cowry shells, but only a day’s food, traded some of those shells for a months supply of victuals, while the man receiving the shells knew that he had a thousand pounds of food which would soon go bad, and also knew he could trade those cowry shells in the next village for a goat he wanted for a pet. Each got what he wanted, with no coercion or violence. The trade was effected with the money commodity, better known as Capital. And both traders ended up with a more commodious life, according to their individual pursuits of happiness. That is Capitalism, and that is good.

But outside of such native trading situations, and perhaps isolated pockets of the Old West, where people traded precious metal coins or dust back and forth to get their commodities, there has been no true Capitalism.

What Libertarianism, and Jefferson’s Republic sought and now seek, is the realization of such a Capitalist society within the Jeffersonian framework of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It’s not that Capitalism produces Libertarianism, though it does if we look at the history of England, the Netherlands, and the Italian Republics, but rather that Libertarianism leads to Capitalism, because of the sanctity of Property Rights under the Natural Law theory.

There have been two necessary ingredients to this Capitalist Revolution that have never existed before simultaneously in history. The one was the Libertarian philosophy and government according to Jefferson, and the other, which has only become recently available, is the incredible explosion in technology.

Technology has exploded so many of the problems that Human Beings used to have to spend most of their lives dealing with. Compare the problems of performance and maintenance of the first Model-Ts to the current models. Now there is a device that can suck moisture out of the air in the middle of the Sahara, so that one need not die of thirst. Technology has enabled many “disabled” people to perform on a computer just like their “enabled” counterparts, and there are very few people who could not now do some useful work on a computer, no matter what their disability, though there are many exceptions.

It seems to me that now, with this amazing technology, and this amazing Jeffersonian concept of government, finally bringing the Libertarian, or Classical Libertal, philosophy to fruition, there is no obstacle in the way of creating such a Libertarian Capitalist free society, save for big, socialistic, government, and the mentality it has created in most of the American Public. That Libertarian philosophy was nurtured and passed through so many thinkers from the Middle Ages, through the Renaissance, to the English Dissenters, and finally to that Renaissance Man, Thomas Jefferson, who saw and acted as if money was not an end in itself, but a tool in the “Pursuit of Happiness”. Recall that in previous constitutions, the phrase had been “an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property”. I believe Jefferson had the great insight that money only had relation to the things it could be used to obtain and to do, and he certainly lived his life that way, throwing every cent that came his way into Monticello, and crop experimentation, and books, and musical instruments, and land. The great blot on his record was that, paradoxically, this great “Libertarian” descended to owning slaves, about the worst Libertarian crime there is, after murder.

But now, we have the Jeffersonian blueprint, which took millenia to develop, and we have this amazing technology, which also took millenia. With each in one hand, we can create a Free-Market society where there will be great Freedom and prosperity, where the Bill of Rights is scrupulously enforced, and men are generally happy because they have found a calling that they enjoy, that earns them a living.

Let’s create this non-coercive Libertarian society of Free-Market Capitalism, which I believe will lead to a constantly rising standard of living, and a constant creation of new jobs and professions catering to the free-market demands of whomever has the Capital to undertake a project, be it buying an orange, or building an orphanage.

For the first time in recorded Human History, let’s have a real Capitalist Society.

Please help bring this about by voting for me for Governor of Oregon. While bringing about this Capitalist Revolution, I will defend the Land and Nature tooth and nail, beginning with a logging moratorium on all State Lands, preserving this valuable asset, owned by the residents and taxpayers, to increase the intrinsic value of the land.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: How the Libertarians Voted on State Ballot Measures in Their Primary

As promised in our last post, in which we discussed our winning of the Libertarian Party’s Gubernatorial nomination in the party’s self-financed primary, we shall here review how Libertarians voted on the probable State Ballot Measures come November.

All in all, it was a heartening vote, with Libertarians generally coming down hard on the right side of the issues, although there were a few disappointments and surprises.

Ballot Measure No.2, which prohibited automatic payroll deductions from State workers into their union, was endorsed 551 to 386 with 47 blank votes. I voted Yes.

Measure No. 6, which prohibited government funds for abortion, was defeated 430 to 539 with 16 blanks. I abstained.

Measure No. 8, which legalized same-sex marriage, was passed 698 to 268 with 12 blanks. I abstained because I think all marriage, being a religious contract, should be outside the realm of the law and government.

Measure No. 21, which de facto legalized cannabis but gave the State the power to tax and regulate, and which was the least restrictive of the three cannabis de-criminalization measures on the ballot, was passed by the Libertarians with a resounding 807 to 173 vote with 9 blanks. 807 was the highest number of votes any of the State Measures received on one side of the issue. We voted yes on this issue, somewhat reluctantly, because we do not think cannabis warrants any State interference, regulation, or taxation, except for possible DUI and non-medical delivery to minors. But we are pleased to see that Oregon Libertarians are this tolerant, and makes us glad we are representing this party and its views.

Measure No. 22, which would legalize cannabis and set up a state cannabis commission passed 696 to 272 with 16 blanks. I voted against it, because I did not want to endorse the setting-up of yet another unnecessary State commission, which I have a visceral opposition to. Perhaps if you looked at the annual salaries of those on State Commissions, you would experience a similar visceral nausea.

Measure No. 23, which called for Individual’s Natural Rights to be placed above so-called Corporate Rights, passed 669 to 297 with 18 blanks. Another good and vital decision by the Oregon Libertarians. I voted yes.

Measure No. 34 called for equality of the sexes. It passed 769 to 185 with 24 blanks. I voted yes.

Measure No. 52 is a very important issue, that would in effect re-legalize racial discrimination in business, by classifying it as a “religious belief”. I was disappointed to see that it passed 535 to 418 with 26 blanks, but the fact that the vote was more or less evenly divided in opinion is a good sign. I voted against it, since I believe it violates Contract Law, but the issue calls for more clarification and debate.

Measure No. 53 is yet another cannabis legalization bill, but restrictive in our view because it sets up an entire taxing regime. Though it passed 772 to 203 with 13 blanks, I abstained, because I feel very strongly that cannabis should never be taxed, though State medical certification of potency would probably entail a fee. Cannabis aficianados should stand pat on “no taxes on cannabis”.

Measure No. 54 carried a surprising result. This was the “top two tier” voting bill, that would list all the candidates, minor parties included, in the primary, but only allow the top two to appear on the November ballot. This bill seemed to me a dream method for keeping the Libertarian Party and Libertarian Candidates off the ballot for good, instead of our current system where, despite the arduous process, Libertarians can hope to be represented on the final ballot. State Chairman Wes Wagner wrote an eloquent argument against this measure which appeared in the Libertarian Ballot mailed to every registered party member in the State, but apparently it fell on largely deaf ears. I voted against this horrendous measure, which aims to suppress any dissent in American politics, unless it comes out of the Democratic and Republican Parties, the two main collectivist, Fascist parties. But the vote was 606 to 311 in favor, with a large 50 blank votes, the largest number of blank votes received on any of the measures, which illustrates the confusion voters felt as to whether this bill advanced or hindered the prospects for Libertarian and other minority party candidates. But its aim is suppression.

Measure No. 301, which would give drivers cards to illegal aliens was defeated 287 to 677 with 19 blanks. While this bill might have practical beneficial effects on road safety, it condones and facilitates the breaking of national immigration laws, and we do not feel that is fair to those who have already gone through the long and arduous process of becoming Naturalized U. S. Citizens.

Finally, there was Measure No. 402, which would place funding post-secondary education as a requirement in the State’s Constitution. The measure was rejected 282 to 675 with 23 blanks. I voted against it. With over 50% of State spending going on so-called education, it is clear that this measure will just further bleed the taxpayers by burdening them with yet another unconstitutional “Consitutional Amendment”. Government schools are a curse, and should be abolished, not augmented. Their abolition would open up a whole new industry to tens of thousands of potential educators and tutors.

This Primary showed that Libertarian voters tend to be “Liberal” in the sense of “Classical Liberalism”. They seem to be for legalizing cannabis and same-sex marriage, yet seem divided on abortion and “religious descrimination” in business. I believe it is a party inchoate, looking for a form, and those of us who speak up will help to define that form.

My platform can be reviewed at:

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: I Win the Libertarian State Primary

Thanks to the approximately 990 Oregon registered Libertarians who mailed back their ballots, and the 739 who voted for me in round one of the ballot count, I have gained the nomination of the Libertarian Party of Oregon for the Governorship. I trust Providence will find me worthy of their confidence.

Being the candidate of a major political party in America gives one an awesome burden of responsibility, for one is offering oneself up to be the steward of the public’s society. At the same time, being a nominee gives one the opportunity to bring crucial issues before the public, focus attention on them, and perhaps thusly effect a solution. This is certainly the intent of my proposals such as legalizing heroin for the terminally ill, or outlawing second-hand tobacco smoke and noise pollution, while at the same time virtually completely legalizing cannabis, and pardoning all cannabis prisoners in prisons. Instead of just whining and commiserating with neighbors and friends about the things that the government should do, but doesn’t, like enforcing and protecting individual property rights, running for office gives one the slim chance to actually effect revolutionary changes in the way government runs, and thus the social structure. Even if one loses, the effect of debate and discussion is salutory on general society because we believe that the mind of man naturally sympathizes with the just side of any political issue. At least, the majority does in all but the most morally-depraved societies.

In the interests of transparency, we give some of the results of the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s self-conducted Primary Election. There were three fusion candidates running beside myself for the gubernatorial nomination: Tim Carr, Bruce Cuff, and Mae Rafferty, all Republicans. This was one reason I put my name forward as a candidate, because I thought it ignoble and unseemly for the Libertarian Party to not even be able to field a candidate for the highest office in the State government, and thought it futile to have to go back to the ancient dismal choice of either a Democrat or Republican, the two sides of the eternal football game. And while I could have voted for Tim Carr, who sounded sane, Cuff or Rafferty would have required writing myself in.

It is interesting to note that while the proposed State Ballot Measures attracted roughly  980 votes per measure, the Governor’s office only attracted 887 valid votes, with 8 blank votes and 2 illegal votes. So, about a hundred people who voted on the ballot measures chose not to vote on the four gubernatorial choices. Good. People aren’t willing to vote for someone and a platform they don’t know, although I posted my platform early on on this blog. Neither are they willing to vote for another Statist Republican, who wants not only just slightly less government intrusion than the Democrats, but on many issues even more government meddling, or else even less environmental protection than the miserly protection the government currently barely furnishes. It’s either too much or too little.

Still, I was pleased to note that Tim Carr, whom I voted for 2nd for governor, and whom I recommended as a second choice in my blog post on the Oregon State Ballot Initiatives, came in second after my 739 votes with 47 votes, with Cuff and Rafferty trailing. In the second round, where the losing “fusion” candidates were eliminated, and 2nd choices counted on those ballots, I received 789 votes, and nine Libertarians received one vote each.

In my next post, I will discuss how the Libertarian Primary voters treated the probable State Ballot Measures that most likely will appear in November, and how the party member’s votes compared to my own on these issues.

Thanks again to all those who chose to spend that forty-odd cents (how much is it now?) for a stamp to mail back their ballots, and all those who contributed their Capital to, and those that actually ran, the Primary. They have help promote the democratic elections that pick the Representatives for our Constitutional Republic, which guarantees the continuation of our Jeffersonian system of governance.

My platform can be found at:

And now, onward to a Libertarian, Free Society in Oregon.

Paul Grad,



Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Not Accepting Donations

As the Libertarian candidate for the Oregon Governorship, I shall refuse to accept donations, although I could not morally interfere with any voluntary groups that might form, which might help propel my candidacy, or any non-financial aid in campaigning anyone might want to contribute. There are several reasons for this refusal.

Firstly, I feel the requirements imposed by the State of Oregon in its election rules are violations of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against involuntary servitude. To run for office in America is a property Right, and there should be no restrictions on what you spend, or having to keep records of what you spend, or your donations, or who donates, etc. These are all unConstitutional in my view, but highly convenient for the two Bipartisan Fascist parties to keep out any competition to their monstrous rule. I shall refuse to subject myself to involuntary servitude in order to realize my inalienable Right to run for elected office.

Also, by not accepting money, I keep my candidacy pure, and keep my ability to say what I want on any subject open.

Additionally, I am not joining either the national Libertarian Party, nor the Oregon State organization, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, since a) I don’t agree with every single iota of their platform, just 99% of it, and b) I have a few proposals that many Libertarians might argue are antithetical to Libertarianism, though I don’t feel they are, so by joining the party it would seem hypocritical to run as a member of that party whose political platform some, or even one, of your proposals contradicted. And c) by not formally becoming a member of a political party, other than a registrant in that party, I increase my credibility with the public, because I am not welded 100% to an ideology. My animal welfare, and environmental proposals might well outrage many Libertarians, but they will bring into a political panoply two sectors that might greatly increase the appeal of Libertarianism. Yet these same outraged Libertarians might heartily endorse my radical free-market, pro-Capitalist views, far more radical than most major Libertarian politicos. My environmental proposals I consider defences of Free-Market Capitalism, because without an environment that can sustain human life, there will be no Capitalism, and invariably environmental pollutions are property Rights assaults on other property owner’s Rights. And more and more, we are seeing nations having to expend small fortunes in dealing with the problems that environmental neglect has engendered. Money wasted on correcting environmental pollutions that should not have occurred in the first place, could have been used for constructive and useful improvements in the life of Individuals (i.e. their taxes would be spent by themselves on their own good, instead of being sucked up by government to correct a fire, flood, or invasive species that should never have occurred).

My animal welfare and cruelty prevention measures I admit are put forth as purely moral proposals, that may be outside the realm of Libertarian theory. Just as a strict Rothbardian Libertarianism handles children’s Rights in a completely different way that adult’s Rights, and Rothbard devotes whole chapters to the differences in treating children and adults under Libertarian ethics, so too I feel that animal welfare calls for differences in treatment. To implement my very radical animal welfare proposals, legal theory would probably have to change so that animals are no longer merely “the property” of their owners, although we agree with Rothbard that animals don’t have “Rights” in the same sense that human beings do. The “Animal Rights” movement, like the “Community Rights” movement, are working to justify concepts that we feel are unsound, since all Rights can only pertain to Individual Human Beings. We strongly agree with their goals, but feel the timbers at the base of their tenets are rotten.

I run as a Libertarian, because that is what 90% of my platform is concerned with, and I think it is a pretty radical brand of Libertarianism at that, compared to what is usually touted by politicians who call themselves Libertarians, or Libertarian Republicans.

If you elect me, or even if you vote for me, you will have made a statement that a candidate can win high office in America without money, without formally affiliating with a “movement” and an ideology carved in stone, and beholden to no one except those who keep the Classical Liberal ideas of Jefferson alive, and to all the 18th and 19th century Libertarians who wanted to see an end to the tyranny of one man over another, and the great sorrow in society.

The American Revolution was the beginning of the Libertarian Revolution towards a non-violent, free-market society where almost everyone is prosperous and none lack the necessities, without any coercion existing at all. This candidacy is an attempt at a revivification and continuation of that Revolution, which began when Jefferson sat down and began to write out the Declaration of Independence.

Vote as if the American Revolution depended on it.

 My complete platform can be found at:

Paul Grad,