Monthly Archives: September 2014

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Abolishing Jury Duty Slavery

As the Libertarian Nominee for Governor of Oregon, I will, if elected, seek to abolish the heinous Crime of Jury Duty Slavery.paul 19

If there is one evil that Libertarians stand squarely against, it is involuntary servitude, or slavery. Slavery might be defined as forcing a person to work for no wages, or forcing a person to work for a wage which they would not accept under the Free Market.

Compulsory Jury Service differs very little from Conscription. Liberals have long been vocal against the draft or slavery, but they seem to be completely silent when it comes to the Crime of Jury Slavery. They’re quite vocal when it concerns the minimum wage, but are silent as the grave when it comes to the injustice of dragooning Free Citizens into working an entire day for $10 (the Oregon State compensation rate for the first two days of jury duty, which increases to $25/day after that. Mileage compensation is an inadequate 20 cents/mile.)

It should be clear that there is little difference between compulsory Jury Duty and Slavery. The Individual is forced to perform tasks on the State’s behalf and at the State’s bidding, at slave wages. If he refuses to comply with his enslavement, he can be fined $750. In some trials, he can be locked away for weeks and forbidden to read newspapers. This is obviously prison and slavery for non-criminals, something forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment. Yet this vile Crime has continued unabated in Oregon for decades, with Republican and Democrat Governors completely ignoring it. It shall be ignored no longer under my Administration.

But some might object that Jury Duty is a very important civic function, and insures that defendants will receive a fair trial before a jury of their peers, instead of trials and verdicts being conducted and declared by judges, especially since the judge is part of the State, and could be used by the State to silence its critics.

Very true, but this objection only highlights the pressing need for jurors who will gladly serve voluntarily. Obviously, the same claims for the virtue of serving on a jury at slave wages could also be made for the judge and the district attorney, but you will note that they are not paid $10 for a day of their life. No judge or D.A. would serve for less than minimum wage, unless they were gladly volunteering their services, nor would the public expect the quality of people in those positions to be of the highest if they were dragooned and coerced into serving at slave wages.

If we wouldn’t expect judges and D.A.s to serve at slave wages, why do we expect jurors to serve at those wages? And obviously, the quality of those juries suffers greatly when we have disgruntled jurors chaffing at the way they are being exploited as slaves. How many innocents have been sent to Oregon State Prisons because the jurors were in a hurry to bring in a verdict and get home to their televisions? We’ll never know.

Obviously, if we want jurors to serve gladly and voluntarily, we should pay decent compensation.

If elected Governor of Oregon, I will mandate that jurors must be paid at least minimum wage for all hours they are forced to be confined in court or the deliberation room, except for the lunch hour when they are free to leave the court building, thus making the State of Oregon compliant with the Thirteen Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If we paid our Oregon jurors somewhere between minimum wage and $20/hr. we would have far better juries making far better decisions.

Let’s abolish the heinous Crime of Jury Slavery in Oregon.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor.


Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: I’m Invited to a Corporate Hard-Drug Fest

I got an invitation to attend the “City Club Election Civic Drinks” event, put on by the City Club of Portland. That was nice of them. But I guess they weren’t aware of my views on the use of any drug more addictive than caffeine, so I sent them back this missive:

“Thank you for inviting me to your City Club Election Civic Drinks event. Unfortunately, while I feel that all drugs should be legal, I cannot accept an invitation to an event that serves addictive drugs. As you know, alcohol is a powerful, mind-altering drug, with serious deleterious effects on human health. As a Gubernatorial Candidate, attending your event might well be construed by my supporters and the general Public as condoning the use of alcohol, which I strongly oppose.

Additionally, your event is (partially – not in original letter) sponsored by one of the largest corporations in the State, which currently receives a preferentially lower income tax rate than an individual making $7950 or more. By accepting anything at all at your event (drinks, snacks, etc.), such an action might be construed by the Public as accepting a bribe, or donation from a corporation. As you may know, I have pledged to accept no donations at all during my campaign, and to spend less than $750, above which the State requires many additional reporting procedures. Therefore, I must decline your invitation on this basis as well.

Might I urge you, in the future, not to include dangerous, addictive drugs at your events?

Cordially yours,” etc.

The nerve of inviting a Gubernatorial Candidate to a drug fest.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor, paul 19

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: The Immorality of Taxing Tips

As Governor of Oregon, I will seek to eliminate the heinous personal income tax, but if I am not successful in that endeavor, then I will seek to eliminate one of the most lowdown, lily-livered taxes I can think of — the tax on tips.

The fact that the Democrats are willing to milk the income of the lowest-paid in our State — the waitresses, couriers and messengers, barbers and low-cost hairstylists, bellhops and deliverymen — in order to finance the opulent pensions of retired State apparatchiks, is a disgrace, and shows their true moral fibre. And the fact that Republicans have stayed mum on this issue, while the poorest Capitalists who vend their labor suffer, shows their true moral fibre also.

The Greens and Progressives have also been silent on this Crime against the Poor, despite their loudly proclaimed championing of the little guy. Probably because they figure they already have those votes in their pockets, so that can avoid dealing with that egregious injustice. But also because they have no sound theory of Individual Property Rights, which Libertarians do have. If they understood the importance of the Natural Right to own Property, with its corollary principles of the Right to Exchange title to your property for title to someone else’s property, and the Right to Give Away your Property, their dogmas would crumble. These two Rights are contained within the Right to Private Property.

Therefore, when I give the waitress or bellhop a tip, I have the Inalienable Right to Give them the entire tip, and they have the Inalienable Property Right to the entire tip. When the State intervenes through the personal income tax to loot both part of my gift, and the part that the waitress was forced at gunpoint to turn over to the State, it has aggressed against both our Inalienable Rights, something Jefferson foresaw would happen and tried to prevent with the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. He was our buddy.

So if you want to get rid of this rotted, lowdown, dastardly portion of the Oregon Income Tax laws, please consider voting for me for Governor on the November ballot. Let’s not tolerate this injustice against the Poor and the Generous any longer.paul 19

Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: The League of Oregon Cities’ Puerile Candidates Forum

The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) invited me to their puerile Gubernatorial Candidates Forum next Saturday in Eugene, Oregon. I had to respectfully decline.paul 19

The League’s agenda and shopping list of new tax depredations shows what they are angling for: more money mulcted from the individual taxpayer to flow into the glutted coffers of city officials and their minion affiliated businesses.

Here is the information the candidates received, and the four questions the LOC was asking candidates, who would get two minutes to answer each of two of the four questions.2014 Candidate Forum Packet FINAL

Though the League will be holding days of in-depth “workshops” on issues that wouldn’t even exist in a Libertarian society, like gouging the sick with a medical-marijuana tax via dispensaries, and is allotting an entire speech to former State Attorney General David Frohnmeyer, it could only deign to offer two minutes each to the six Major and Minor Party Candidates for the Governorship to answer some extremely complex questions. You’ll see when I discuss the four questions they ask how utterly impossible it would be for any responsible politician to give a comprehensive and competent answer to any of these questions in two minutes. Do you see the foolishness of this, that they will hold and fund a special conference, supposedly to let the public hear what the candidates for the highest office think on these important issues, but they will only deign to give them two whole minutes to expound on their views? In one of their workshops on municipal law, they gave 17 speakers a total of eight-and-one-half hours, or 30 minutes per speaker. Evidently, the views of a potential next Governor of Oregon are only worth 26.66% of a lawyers’ And  also, why should this LOC collective be more important than any other collective in the State, like the League of the Homeless?

And the questions are obviously loaded from the standpoint of what the LOC wants. For example, on more tax money for the infrastructure, they want to tax the little guy by increasing gasoline taxes and raising license fees, and even increasing gasoline taxes in line with the inflation rate, so that they’ll shoot up drastically in a hyperinflation. You’ll notice there was no mention of cutting State salaries and pensions, or eliminating the personal income tax, even on incomes below the average income (AGI) of all Oregonians, or raising taxes on corporations with incomes above $1billion/yr, or raising gasoline taxes on corporate trucks, which don’t pay the equivalent of the damage they do to the roads, while they sponge off the passenger-car driver.

Oregon’s Democrats and locally entrenched Republicans will always try to rip more tax money from individuals to transfer to the political sector, and the LOC infrastructure-transportation proposal is a classic example.

The LOC Candidate’s Forum is not a debate, and candidates aren’t permitted to address comments directly to other candidates. Each of the six candidates gets two minutes to introduce themselves, then two minutes to answer two of the four questions the LOC had pre-formulated, and then give a two minute summation.

I offered to submit written answers to their four questions, each in a number of words equivalent to two minutes of speech, if they could share it with their members and the Public via their website, but they declined, so I suppose the technology of doing that was too complex for them. So much for promoting the transparency of candidates’ views before the People.

Since the LOC couldn’t accomodate my pro-democratic transparency offer to give written answers to their questions, I shall do so here so that the People may know how I would have answered those questions, but since this is not the Forum, I shall not confine my answers to the extensive depth which two minutes would have permitted had I attended the “Forum”.

The first of the four questions, which you can read in depth on the attached Candidates informational attachment, dealt with Home Rule of Cities, which is granted in the Oregon Constitution, and how far the State should be able to inject is proboscis into local affairs.  The four topics which you had two minutes to cover were cities’ control over Right of Way, gun control, medical cannabis dispensaries, and sick leave. Thirty seconds a piece.

My view, and I’d guess the general Libertarian view, is that power devolved to lower legislative bodies is better than power concentrated at the top, but I also think it depends on the issue. Segregation showed the dark side of local control and States’ Rights, the war on cannabis users showed the dark side of Federal control. The real question should be: are individual property rights being aggressed against?

But to answer specifics: I’d say I’d be for cities retaining Right of Way powers, especially when dealing with corporate or governmental entities. If a governmental body wants to run a cable or pipeline over a city Right of Way, it should pay the city compensation. However, if a city wants to give special treatment or tax concessions to a corporate collective, like a corporation, which are not applied to Individuals, I would oppose it, and think the State should prevent such mercantilist special deals.

On gun control, I think State laws should dominate and be uniform, so if the State forbade issuing a gun to someone convicted of menacing, or threatening, or required passage of a safety test to own a gun, or clip size, I don’t think a city should be able to override that prohibition or requirement.

But certainly, no city in Oregon should be permitted to allow brandishing a skunk in public.

As for medical cannabis dispensaries, I don’t think the cities should have any licensing or taxing powers because I think there should be no controls or taxes on cannabis at all by any governmental agency, save for DUI, non-medical delivery to minors, and second-hand smoke exposure. A tax on medical cannabis is deeply immoral, and should be forbidden by law. And making a profit off of medical marijuana is one of the lowest forms of Capitalism I can think of. These cannabis dispensary would-be profiteers are a vile breed. While I would obviously oppose State monopolies, I think a State, non-profit, monopoly on cannabis, administered at the County level, with any profits or taxes going to local County government, — as bad as that would be — would be much better than these for profit “dispensaries”. Like many prohibitionist-manufactured problems, this one could be solved by complete, tax-free, legalization, with no limit on grow size. In other words, our beloved Free-Market.

As to sick leave, while we would be against any pension or medical plan offered as part of a municipal job contract, we’d feel that eliminating sick leave would be both inhumane and unusual, since the sick employee obviously cannot perform a government function due to an act of nature. He should not be punished for this. Therefore, cities should be able to set their own standards for sick leave as long as it does not differ from norms used by the State and the County within which the city is situated.

The second LOC question for the candidates asks what is the appropriate relationship between state, county, and cities. Then it asks “Describe in detail how you plan to include local government officials in your decision-making process,” and would you commit to regularly meeting with the LOC Board of Directors? That’s forty seconds to describe the relationships, forty to describe in detail your plans to include local-government officials, and forty to say whether you’d meet with the Board regularly. “Yes, I’d commit to meeting regularly with the Board” doesn’t take long to say. That leaves about 57 seconds each to explain the appropriate relationship between State, County, and City governments, and describe in detail your plans to include local officials. Can you do it?

Obviously, the Cities are a huge part of the State’s human activity, and cannot be ignored. On the other hand, they are in a similar situation to the State vis-a-vis the Federal Government, or the Counties vis-a-vis the State. They should be given as much local autonomy as is consistent with the State Constitution. They may know better the problems they face than State officials, but this “they” usually just represents the elected clique or cliques on the city council, and the large business interests in the city. They probably don’t reflect the homeless, or the minimum-wage worker, who may be too exhausted by evening to attend a city council meeting. Certainly, in huge Cities like Portland, local community satellite villages, with autonomy over their local government spending and police forces, would be a great boon. Money would thus stay in the neighborhoods, for immediate concerns like road maintenance and noise-abatement, and not just be wasted on  $1000-plus/day travel junkets and seminars for the city’s top officials, or PERS pensions.

Question the Third deals with “Tax Reform Measures 5/50”, and the LOC’s demands to work around the tax obstacles which the voters of the State have democratically implemented through the ballot. The so-called Tax “Reform” proposals include letting local voters overturn Measure 5 and “empowering local citizens to determine their level of service”, by passing “temporary operating levy (levies) outside Measure 5’s compression limits.” In other words, more money for government schools and for government salaries and pension boondoggles like PERS. The solution to this is the dissolution of government schools, and the opening up of a vast new field of employment for tens of thousands in education. Any government school teacher who was worth his salt would quickly be snapped up by the new private or educational-charity schools.

The second part of this third question (to be answered in two minutes) deals with resetting property values at time of resale. Now, since the abolition of government schools would lower most property taxes in the state by over 50%, and there would be some need for tax revenues to fund city police, jails, and courts, then, if government schools were abolished, and other reforms like abolishing PERS were implemented, I think I’d favor this resetting of property values to the general market level upon resale. A property that originally sold for $10,000 fifty years ago, and now fetches $230,000, should not be taxed at $10,000. But, of course, this assumes individual property taxes are Constitutional, which they may not be. (And property taxes on collective entities may be Constitutional, because they are not Individuals.) The last part of the question asks for a City-wide change (i.e. raise) in the appraisal ratio, instead of a County-wide change, which sounds like a way of trying to get around a County-mandated refusal by the voters to change the ratio. Now only the city property taxpayers will be gouged. So I think I’d be against this part of the measure. However, they supplied a very confusing example of Gresham, which seemed to have a higher appraisal ration than Portland, but whom they mention as having a lower ratio in discussing the example. So, I’m unclear on this part of the question.

Question the Fourth deals with Transportation Infrastructure. It bemoans the deterioration in Oregon roads, cheerleads for a big transportation-funding “package” in the legislature, and seems to assume you’d be all for it, and queries as to what would you do to get it passed.

I doubt they would have appreciated my answer, which, in this case I could have fit into two minutes.  Abolish PERS pensions, and used the saved money for roads. Cut State salaries paying more than twice the Oregon average Adjusted Gross Income by 15%, and used the saved money for roads. Close government schools, and use the saved property tax money for roads. If those don’t provide enough money, then raise the income tax on corporations making over $1billion to make up the shortfall. Lower the gasoline tax on passenger-cars, and increase it on corporate trucks, which do most of the damage to the State’s roads and make profit off them. The Democrats have protected their corporate masters for far too long.

Of course, the ultimate solution would be privatized roads that were better designed, safer, and cost the passenger-car driver less than his current gas tax, although I can see many problems in privatizing roads which Libertarian theorists have not clarified to my satisfaction, so for the interim, I would keep roads public. I am strongly opposed to toll roads, but adjusting state licensing fees to miles driven does seem like a fair proposal, though not one I like.

Finally, the State provided a proposal sheet on Mental Health in the State, and how Law Enforcement and the Cities might deal with the appalling number of mentally disturbed people in this sick society the socialists have created. While I liked very much the concepts of “walk-in” help for all Oregonians, regardless of location, I wonder where they think the money for an entire new bureaucracy is to be found, how “mental health professionals” are to be paid the exorbitant amounts they want to compassionately care for their fellow men, and how “mental health” is to be brought to Oregonians living deep in the bush. The entire concept of a neurotic society defining what is “mental health” is obviously very dangerous. We have not forgotten the elimination of Soviet dissidents by sticking them in mental institutions and drugging them. But obviously there are many genuinely psychotic and schizophrenic individuals who need constant supervision, and who are caught in a maze of intense suffering.

I think, though, that this mental health issue can best be handled by private charities which, you will remember, will probably have far more money from donations if the personal income tax is eliminated, and the public will know that they are fully responsible for funding these charities. People who feel helping the mentally ill is of the highest importance will be able to donate the money they would have paid in State income tax to those charities that do an effective job, instead of having it go for mayorial junkets to Bend on the taxpayers tab, who are then told they are inhuman if they don’t pay taxes for mental health.

I did, however, like the proposal that would give training to all police in Oregon on how to deal with the mentally anguished in a non-confrontational way. This is clearly a public safety (and police safety) issue, and funds could be justified for such a program under Article 1 Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution.

As for drop-in mental health centers, there are myriad Individuals in Oregon, many of them elderly, who are so experienced in life’s ups and downs, that they could well be competent in listening to the troubles of a young person of today, driven half-mad by the constant inflation and economic pressure to which the Democratic and Republican Party Inflationists have subjected them. But the program requested by the LOC requires, we’d guess, licensed “professionals”, and merely having life’s experience and a sympathetic ear will not suffice. They want big paychecks for listening. So these “mental health” proposals, though I personally like them, will only further bankrupt the State, which is already $86 billion in debt.

That concludes the four questions and the Mental Health request of the LOC for which you get two minutes to give a comprehensive answer. These questions were followed by “informational” discussions, from the LOC’s viewpoint, of these issues. In the first, on Property Tax “Reform” (i.e. increase) they include this amazingly arrogant statement, “While voters may still be concerned about the state of the economy, in many instances they clearly realize the value of local government services and are willing to tax themselves to provide those services.”

Firstly, the voters who voted against these measures obviously did not “clearly realize the value of local government services”. To say that “they” clearly realized the value would mean that every single voter who voted realized that value, which is obviously a lie. They also overlook the fact that many people do not vote, so that the “voters” they refer to are probably 20-25% of the actual residents of the area. Moreover, it is clearly unfair that only some of the residents of a city (the property owners) should pay all the taxes, instead of a equal head-tax on all residents in the city, which would be fair, although poll taxes (head taxes) are banned by the Oregon Constitution. Finally, the arrogance of government saying what went through the minds of the voters, i.e. “they clearly realized the value of local government services”, is very revealing. Perhaps those voters were Marxists-Anarchists, who wanted to bring down the Capitalist system faster by bankrupting it with new taxes? How does government know what went through the minds of the voters?

One other aspect of the Conference brochure was interesting, and that was the massive amounts of Corporate advertising therein. I personally think this is a terrible practice where any governmental organization is involved, and it illustrates the necessity for a complete separation of State, not only from Church and from Education (except possibly for reading), but also from Business. Thousands of hours of sweat labor are transferred from the hapless workers to those businesses connected to big government, just like the firms that advertised in the Conference brochure, and the private firms that sponsored speakers at this event. Mussolini said that Fascism was Corporatism, the melding of Government and Big Business, just as you can see, 70 years after the Fascist’s death, in this Oregon LOC Conference brochure.

No, the LOC Candidates Forum is designed to have the candidates listen to the whole shopping-list of fresh taxes and boondoggles which government officials hope will swell their coffers with tax swill, and get them re-elected, so they can spend the next 35 years sponging off the taxpayers of Oregon, through PERS, in the style to which they have become accustomed.

The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) — another collectivist entity designed to loot the Individual Free-Market Capitalist.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor,
paul 192014 Candidate Forum Packet FINAL

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: My Oregon Ballot Measure Recommendations

paul 19As the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s Nominee for Governor, appearing on the November 2014 ballot, these are my suggestions and opinions as to how to vote on the Oregon State Ballot Measures.

Measure 86 – NO, because we should have a complete separation of Government and Education, and education should and could be completely privatized. Funding higher education is not the responsibility of the minimum wage worker and the taxpayers.

Measure 87 – NO. We should maintain a strict separation of powers between the Judiciary and the State Administration. Judges might have conflicts of interest if asked to rule on the abolition of government schools.

Measure 88 – YES. I switched from NO to YES on this Measure because ultimately it is a State’s Rights matter, and as Governor I would support a measure that helped insure public safety and probably would save a few lives every year. Oregon State has no responsibility to insure legal residence or citizenship. That is a Federal function. However, promoting public safety through testing driver competence is a valid State function, irregardless of legal residence. Oregon taxpayer’s money should not be spent to fulfill a Federal responsibility. However, I can understand the position that government should not facilitate the residence of people here illegally. So, voting on this measure is a matter between your conscience and the ballot envelope.

Measure 89 – YES. Libertarians have supported the equality of men and women before the law since the days of the French Revolution.

Measure 90 – NO. A very dangerous, Fascistic bill that must be crushed at the polls if Republican representative government, determined through democratic elections, is to continue in America and Oregon. Limiting the public’s de facto choice to two candidates is a farce.

Measure 91 – YES. While we don’t like this measure’s establishment of a taxing, regulating authority, we support it because the injustice and crime of taxation is less heinous than the jailing of American Citizens for the Capitalist “Crime” of owning private property. However, since the bill allows possession of eight dried ounces and four plants, it should be adequate for any recreational user who isn’t a hog about it, even if it is dreadfully flawed in permitting State taxation, which will ultimately lead to another so-called “Black Market”, which is actually the Free-Market. Black is Beautiful.

Since cannabis is less physically addictive than caffeine, according to Dr. Neal Benowitz of the University of California, one of the world’s leading authorities on drug addictions, it should not be taxed or regulated (other than DUI, delivery to minors, and second-hand smoke exposure) unless caffeine beverages are also taxed and regulated. Taxing medical cannabis is Immoral.

Measure 92 – YES. There has been vigorous intra-party debate on this Measure on the LPO facebook page. A poll on that page runs about 60% NO, 40% YES. Technically, I’d agree with the NO’s that the correct procedure would be to have non-GMO products labelled non-GMO, instead of forcing the GMO companies to label theirs as containing GMOs, but I side with those who think people have a Right to know what is in their food, and the studies I’ve reviewed on GMOs in diets may indicate possible difficulties. I believe in employing the “precautionary principle” in dealing with GMOs, and that justifies this Measure in my opinion.

These recommendations are solely my own, and do not reflect any official endorsement by the Libertarian Party of Oregon.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor


Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Don’t Let Van Den Bleeken Die

You might wonder why someone running for the Oregon Governorship should be commenting on a case in Belgium, but I do so because it illustrates my alternative to the Death Penalty, which I oppose on both Constitutional and moral grounds.

The Belgian case involves the 50-year-old serial murderer and rapist Van Den Bleeken, who has requested and been granted permission to die by euthanasia because he says he has “unbearable psychological suffering” in prison, and, since he admits he cannot control his impulses, he would need to be confined for life. This request has been granted because Belgium allows euthanasia, but it has never been requested before by a non-terminally ill, or seriously physically-unsound person. So the case breaks new ground. And since Oregon has a Death with Dignity Law, a parallel situation will eventually arise here when a prisoner claims “unbearable psychological suffering”.

I don’t think Belgium should put down Van Den Bleeken. One reason I am categorically opposed to the Death Penalty is because I believe that the life energies of the murder, after conviction, then become the Property of the next of kin of the victim, and so, if any labor can be extracted from such persons whose crime are so heinous that they currently carry the Death Penalty, then the profits from that labor should justly go to the next of kin, or at the least be divided between the next of kin and the State, to defray the costs of incarceration. To waste that person’s life by executing them would be to steal the life-energies that now should actually belong to the next of kin of the victim or victims. The Property Rights of the victim’s survivors are being assaulted if the murderer is executed, and the financial sums they are robbed of, over the course of 40 or 50 years of a prisoner’s confinement, are enormous.

Prisoners who are so dangerous that they must be confined to solitary, or who committed especially heinous crimes that would normally get the Death Penalty, should certainly have the Right to commit suicide. This is part of self-ownership, one of the key Libertarian principles. But likewise, the prison personnel may feel a moral obligation to save that person’s life that should not be thwarted or forbidden.  A prisoner should have the Right to hunger-strike himself to the edge of death and pass out, but, equally, the prison staff may feel a compassionate moral compulsion to revivify and intravenously-feed such a person to bring him back from the brink of death, and they certainly should not be interfered with in the pursuit of fulfilling their self-perceived moral obligations.

In other words, keeping Van Den Bleepaul 19ken alive should be part of the punishment. If he is experiencing “unbearable psychological suffering”, then he should be free to end his suffering by attempting suicide (say, by holding his breath), but the People, through the prison personnel, should also be free to carry out their will to preserve life if it is endangered, and they extend this will even unto serial murderers.

I believe a life sentence at dull labor in solitary confinement, with all profits from that labor going to the victim’s next of kin for life, would be a far greater deterrent to murder than Capital Punishment ever would be.

The Declaration of Independence says that we our endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and first among them the Right to Life. This very clearly precludes the use of the Death Penalty.

The State should never be given the power to murder an Individual, because it can be used far too easily to murder political opponents, or wealthy citizens whose estates can then be seized by the State and its bureaucrats.

Capital Punishment is one of the cornerstones of Fascism, and that cornerstone must be smashed.

Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Oregon Measure 88 The Drivers Card, I Switch from NO to YES

As the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s Nominee for Governor of Oregon, appearing on the November ballot, I have decided to switch my vote  on Measure 88, the so-called Drivers Card Veto Referendum, from NO to YES, and to change my recommendation, from a NO vote, to YES or abstain. A YES vote affirms the legislature’s passage of the Drivers Card Bill, a NO vote vetoes it.

I had voted NO in the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s Primary because I felt quite strongly that the laws of the land should be obeyed, and we should not be facilitating the residence of people here illegally.

But the other day, a States’ Rights argument came to mind that ran like this: Enforcing immigration laws is a Federal Responsibility, and, given the unfailing competence of the Federal Government, I would have to assume that every person I see on the street is here legally. As Governor, my responsibility under Article 1 Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution would be first for the safety and security of the People. Therefore, in the interests of public safety, I would only have the responsibility of testing the driving competence of people, but have no responsibility for proving whether they were citizens or not. This would be to usurp a Federal function and responsibility, to overstep my legal demarcation. Therefore, showing proof of Citizenship or legal residence in the U.S. should have nothing to do with my issuing a drivers card, virtually equivalent to a drivers license, to those who passed that competence test. Such test might well save a handful of lives over the four years of my administration, and that would be enough to justify this Measure’s enactment, in my opinion. (I realize there are purist Libertarians who feel that requiring drivers licenses is a violation of their Constitutional Rights under the Declaration of Independence, and their arguments have merits.)

But there is another issue, that of American Citizens who, for some reason, cannot obtain, or easily obtain, their birth certificates, who are denied a license in Oregon. I know such a gentleman, an 85-year-old veteran of WWII and Korea,  who was born on the N. Dakota-Minnesota border, and who, after writing to one State, was referred to the other State, and then the other State referred him back to the first. This elderly man, with no knowledge of the internet, might have to go to Minnesota to clear it up, and this despite showing  Oregon State his expired CA drivers licenses and military discharge papers. Passing this Measure would correct this absurd Inpaul 19justice.

In short, Measure 88 is a State’s Rights matter, and the responsibility to prove legal residence or Citizenship is a Federal matter. The Federal Government should not be usurping the energies of Oregon DMV assistants in ascertaining what is a Federal Responsibility. That is theft of Oregon taxpayer’s money in the form of wages paid to those assistants during that time spent on citizenship certification.

So, I’m going to vote YES on Measure 88, and suggest a YES vote or an abstention. That’s a matter between your conscience and the ballot box.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor


Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Outlawing Fluoridation of Water

paul 19As the Libertarian Party Nominee for Governor, appearing on the November ballot, I am adding to my platform a plank pledging to initiate legislation outlawing the adding of fluoride to public drinking water systems, or, if possible, banning its use as a municipal water additive.

In reviewing the scientific arguments on both sides, I find that I would, at the least, come down on the side of the “precautionary principle” in dealing with the fluoride issue, and as Governor, acting under the authority of Article I Section I on the Oregon Constitution, I think I would have the authority to ban its use within the State. Individuals, of course, would continue to exercise their inalienable Right to add it to their own domestic water, but no Government Collective could impose this clear violation and assault against that personal property known as your body.

It is interesting to a Libertarian that that so-called progressive city, Portland, has voted four times against adding it to that city’s water since 1960, while a quarter of Oregonians,living in so-called “conservative” cities, are subject to this communistic assault. The Communists want to force all members of the community to their standards, and their way of life, and fluoridation is a perfect example of that coercive process, justified in the name of public health, even though there is ample evidence to raise doubts not only about its efficacy, but also about its long-term safety. The justifications for using fluoride are the usual Benthamite, pragmatic, “the greatest good for the greatest number” arguments that ‘progressives” and leftists often make for implementing an Individual Rights-violation measure. They always ignore that small group of individuals for which their measures may mean death, or serious illness.

Ramming fluoridation of water down the throats of non-voting children, and voting city residents who don’t want fluoridation, will not be tolerated under my administration. Individuals, of course, will remain free to use it.

If elected, I pledge to either send legislation to the legislature outlawing the governmental addition of fluoride to public drinking water systems, or ban it by executive order under the authority of Article 1 Section 1 (safety of the People).

Let’s abolish this Collectivist assault on our Inalienable Property Rights, and the Rights of non-voting children.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Four New Additions to My Platform

Recently I thought of four more measures I am adding to my Gubernatorial platform.

I believe the State has a responsibility to its patrol officers to provide them with bulletproof vests under Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution. I would favor having the State provide these to all police officers who wanted one, and if the Legislature rejected this commonsense measure, then I would favor any police officer who buys one being eligible for a tax credit dollar for dollar against any income tax they might owe. It seems insane to me that the State does not already provide these as standard issue for any law enforcement officer. However, while all officers should be issued vests, it should not be mandatory that they wear them all the time on duty because there may arise a situation where the officer judges them to be a hindrance to the performance of his duties (such as chasing on foot an unarmed suspect).

Additionally, under my animal welfare plank, I would have the State provide bulletproof vests for police dogs. Given the cost and effort of training these dogs, bulletproof vests for police dogs would eventually pay for themselves.

The next addition to my platform would be to increase the penalty for tree theft from the current risible three times the value of the tree to a more just 30 times the value of the tree. Private property must be protected, and the current 3x penalty is a bad joke.

My next measure deals with second-hand tobacco smoke. The current “smoke free oregon” ban of smoking within 10 ft. of a public doorway is far from adequate to insure that no smoke enters a public building and assaults those inside. One gust of wind can fill a hall with tobacco smoke so that the actions of one person assault the health of hundreds, yet no one in government has addressed this egregious injustice. I would extend that smoke ban to somewhere between 70 and 100ft. Under Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution, as chief officer of the Government, I have responsibility for the safety of the People, and since this measure protects the pubic from violent assault, I believe it is valid.

Finally, I would implement the “Natural Selection Forestry Management” program. This program provides for a sustainable harvest of dead trees, and would provide self-employment for those removing and marketing the wood, while creating no environmental degradation.

These four additions to my platform are logical and positive measures, but I have never heard them proposed by any of my opponents, even though some of them have been in office for years.

The safety of our police officers should not be neglected as it has been by our irresponsible legislators. And laws against tree thieves and tobacco-smoke assaulters need to be toughened and revised.

Let’s not permit these egregious injustices to continue yet again through another administration that fails to protect the property rights of the People.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: My League of Women Voters’ Questionnaire Responses

The League of Women Voters kindly sent me a questionnaire, asking what my three top priorities were. They allowed you 500 words for each response, although mine needed only fifteen altogether.

My three top priorities were: 1) Legalize heroin for the terminally ill, 2) Abolish the Death Penalty, and 3) Abolish the personal income tax.

How many words does it take to say that a dying person should not have to suffer in agony because of the sadistic indifference of the State Administration and Legislature, or that we should no longer tolerate innocent people being legally murdered by the State, or that government should not take from the mouth of labor the bread which it has earned?

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor,