Monthly Archives: May 2017

Bertrand Russell vs. Canada’s Fascist Blasphemy Law M-103

Bertrand Russell would spit on the Fascism of the Left in Canada if he were alive. Lord Russell was a Leftist himself, but also a rabid Atheist who supported the Freedom of Speech, one of the inalienable Natural Rights of Mankind. He was merciless in his criticisms of organized religion, and wrote tirelessly on the issue. He opposed all censorship.

Now the so-called “Liberals” in Canada have overthrown that Inalienable Right to The Freedom of Speech by passing M-103, a law which outlaws the criticizing of Islam, labelling it Islamophobia. The Left, the Greens, the Liberal Party, and the Prime Minister have all jumped on the Nazi-Fascist bandwagon in outlawing this Libertarian Right championed by the Libertarian Americans Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, both of whom would now have been rotting in Canadian prisons now that the Canadian Left has had its way.

Is there any clearer indication of the affinity between the Left and Fascism than M-103? I think not, because the Left has always been in favor of overthrowing individual Libertarian Rights through coercion, and through forcing all the members of the community to live according to their vision and their standards. That’s why they hate the Bill of Rights, as is shown by their overwhelming support of restrictions on The Freedom of Speech as illustrated by Canada’s M-103. It also shows why Democracy is bad unless it has a Bill of Rights which is scrupulously upheld, because inevitably the majority will vote to abridge the inalienable Right or Rights of a minority, or the ultimate minority, the minority of One. The mob will beat up the Individual if it ever has the chance, and this is shown by blasphemy laws such as that in Pakistan, which has been used to condemn Christians, some mere children, to death because they allegedly said something critical of Islam.

Russell, as a rabid opponent of all organized religions, would now be thrown in jail in Canada. His valid criticisms of organized religion would now, under the Fascist law M-103, be labelled Islamophobia. His freedom to espouse Atheism and Agnosticism has now been criminalized by the “Progressives” of Canada.

Not surprisingly many Muslims who have found refuge in Canada because of persecution in their original countries are outraged by this law, which would set up the same persecution of their Freedom of Speech in Canada which they were jailed for in their former countries.

M-103 is a great victory for Fascism and a great Crime against Libertarianism, and shows how Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada is a Fascist whose National Socialism has now aligned itself with religious fanatics to protect those fanatics from any criticism, or to protect all organized religions from the slightest criticism from Atheists, Agnostics, and members of those organized religions who have valid complaints about how those religions function.

It is now a Crime in Canada to say, “All organized religion is a lie and false.” It will now be a Crime in Canada to espouse Atheism. Such a Crime against The Freedom of Speech is a vile overthrown of Human Rights and Human Dignity.

Bertrand Russell, Thomas Jefferson, and many dead Libertarians are turning in their graves as they see how Canadian Liberalism under Trudeau has been transformed into Fascist Totalitarianism.

Long Live the inalienable Right to Freedom of Speech! Down with Canada M-103!

— Paul Grad, vegan libertarian and 2014 Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor

Trump’s Libel Law Enlargement is Unlibertarian

Without going into the specifics of the President’s desire to “toughen” Libel laws, we should point out that any toughening is a move away from the Libertarian realities of America’s original political philosophy, and a move away from the Bill of Rights.

The reason is that all Libel and Slander Laws are un-Libertarian, as Professor Murray Rothbard pointed out in his discussion of this issue. This is because, to Libertarians, only assaults on people’s property Rights, including their body, can be considered Crimes or Aggression.

Now the key point is that your “reputation”, which is what the plaintiff in a Libel suit is claiming was damaged, is not your personal property. Your reputation is a thought or thought pattern in the mind and brain of another person, and so your reputation is actually their property and not your own. Thus damage to your reputation is brought about in the minds and opinions of others, which is their personal property and not yours, and thus you have no just claim to damages of that reputation. You have no Property Right in your reputation.

Professor Rothbard also pointed out that currently if someone libels or slanders someone, especially someone famous, and they do not respond with a Libel suit, then many people will start to believe the validity of the wild claim. But if Libel and Slander laws were abolished, the public wouldn’t take too seriously the claims of the wild-eyed fanatic who says he has irrefutable proof that the President has sex with goats in the Oval Office closet.

The President doesn’t have to toughen Libel laws to protect himself against the rotten propaganda machine of the media; his supporters in the public can see their incredible animus against the President very clearly.

The President was elected, and has received a bashing like no President ever did in modern history. The Democrats, 95% of the media, and apparently the intelligence community in alliance with many Republicans, all seem to just pummel the man mercilessly, despite the fact that he was elected by the People according to the Constitution. While I don’t agree with many of his positions, I do at least agree with quite a few, and much more some of his rhetoric during the campaign that he seems to be backing off on. But the bottom line is: He wasn’t Mrs. Clinton, and he wasn’t a long-term politician, and he really was just a mescolanza of Democratic and Republican programs based at core on a dollar bill.

So quash the Libel Law legislation, Mr. President. You don’t need it.

—Paul Grad, Vegan Non-Affiliated Libertarian

Animal “Rights” or Animal Welfare? A Libertarian Perspective

This discussion is solely about the use, or rather misuse, of the term “Animal Rights”. It’s a term thrown around quite frequently from my fellow vegetarian, and anti-vivisectionist, anti-hunting, animal welfare fanatics. This discussion is about a point of accuracy, but it also allows one to point out the inaccuracy of the term “Animal Rights”, for animals don’t have “Rights” according to Libertarian doctrine. To have Rights, they would have to have Human Consciousness, and the Inalienable Rights Thomas Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence can only pertain to the Human Being (or possibly, he being the closest in the animal kingdom to human consciousness, the Gorilla). You must have the intellect of a Human to apprehend the Inalienable Rights that are an implicit part of Human Consciousness. Only we humans know, instinctively, in the Justice and necessity of the Inalienable Rights, which are the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the Right to Contract freely with any other human on any terms mutually agreeable, the Right to the Fruits of your Labor, the Right to Associate, or Disassociate, with or from others, and because the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness necessitates and implies the Right to Private Property, since you need to own all kinds of implements to survive as a human being, from the car to the roof to the fridge to your clothes and toothbrush —- all these must one be able to own individually, not as part of a collective, or not at all, as in the communist societies where the State owns everything in your house, and the house itself. And Private Property includes the Right to exclude all others from your property, since if someone invades or takes your property, and retains possession, then obviously you don’t actually own that property. Private Property implies an individual’s complete dominion over that property.

So in speaking of Rights, we can only speak in terms of Human Inalienable Natural Rights, which can only appertain to  Human Consciousness.

Therefore, the term “Animal Rights” is a Libertarian inaccuracy and falsehood. I believe my fellow anti-animal torture advocates should  instead always use the term “Animal Welfare”.

If anyone has a Right, it is we, who have a Right to live in a society that does not tolerate highly sensitive animals, with a consciousness and innocence comparable to a small child, being slaughtered  and terrorized daily, in the numbers of the hundreds of thousands and million, in the United States alone.

For it is One, the vegan or vegetarian Libertarian, who has the Right to live in a society that does not permit animals to be treated in such abominable ways, just as one has a right to live in a society that does not tolerate cannibalism, rapine, and child murder. Common Law courts based on Natural Law know instinctively that these are Crimes and have traditional codes of punishment that purport roughly to fit the severity of the Crime. And we know this because of our inborn Human intelligence. In a Libertarian Society, there might be no government but there would still be Law, and Common Law courts would administer justice accordingly, as they did in England before the Norman invasion, and as they did in the American Indian tribes, and as is done in the various religious courts of the major organized religions.

Therefore, I urge all those campaigning for “animal rights” to desist in the use of that term and to begin using the term “animal welfare” instead, or an equivalent that they prefer. And I urge them to point out to the Public that it is we, the Human Beings, who have the Right to live in a society that does not tolerate animal slaughter, animal torture, and other abuses like zoos and circuses.

Animal welfare is an issue that cuts across all party lines. Whether you are a Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, or non-Affiliated, you can usually see eye to eye on many Animal Welfare issues with your fellow animal welfarers, and any politician who includes the sort of radical planks for animal welfare such as outlawing hunting and trapping, and slaughterhouses, as I did in my 2014 campaign for Governor of Oregon, will gain a certain constituency because he is the only one speaking out on this issue. Ask for it all, don’t compromise and merely ask for more humane methods of mass butchery. Be radical in your demands. But insist they be passed by a democratic vote of the people, not merely by the legislature, or unilaterally ordained by the Governor.

Professor Murray Rothbard, the founder of the Libertarian Party in the U.S., and who loved his ham sandwich on wonder bread, when the topic of Animal Rights was brought up, used to quip a bit contemptuously (and followed by his famous infectious giggle), “Animals will have their Rights when they petition the government for them.” (Rothbard’s economic-historical lectures were full of little jokes and humor, a lot of which he laughed at himself.)

But since the Animals can’t petition the government themselves, it’s up to us Human Beings to do it for them. And the only two petitions the government really cares about are the Vote and the economic Boycott, both Libertarian non-violent tools of change.

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