Category Archives: Law

Two Books That Will Turn You Into a Libertarian

There are two books which, I believe, if you will read them and ponder their content, will turn you into a Libertarian, i.e. a Classical Liberal.

The first in Professor Murray Rothbard’s “The Ethics of Liberty”.

The “Ethics” begins with a discussion of Natural Law Theory as it pertains to Ethics in the field of  Political Philosophy. Not based on any theological necessity, but rather on man’s reason, Natural Law gave a rock-hard ethical roadbed to the basis of Libertarianism. Libertarianism is actually an ethical movement, based on universal principles that exist for all men at all times. That is why Constitutional Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights pertain to anyone within the United States, not just U.S. Citizens.

Libertarianism deals with “what ought to be” rather than “what is”, although it is often a reaction to what is. The Abolitionists knew that Slavery was Immoral, and a great Crime, despite the fact that it was part of State Law (in contrast to Natural Law) that said it was legal for people to own slaves, and there was nothing sinful about one man owning another, being able to force him to work for nothing, being able to whip him at the owner’s whim, and being able to kill or maim him with impunity. Natural Law, which said All Men had an inalienable, Natural Law Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, was here in direct conflict with Positive State Law, which said it was legal to own and kill slaves, and that racism and segregation were valid, justified, and even a social virtue.

Thus Rothbard, in the first part of the Ethics of Liberty, lays down a foundation for an ethical political philosophy that enables any man to judge any government action or State in the light of certain immutable principles. This is why most Nation States hate Libertarianism, because it shows up very clearly their violation of basic Natural Civil Rights, which so many States and Countries around the world violate with impunity, including the Democracies. You can easily see why Fascists, Nazis, Communists, Stalinist Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and Post-FDR Democrats and Republicans in America, all fear Libertarianism, because its Ethics will clearly show up the authoritarian aspects of all those named political ideologies.

Moving on further, Rothbard explores the question of property rights, and the aggression against those valid property rights. He points out that if we see B holding up A and taking his watch, we don’t really know if A was the legal owner of the watch, or if B was re-taking a watch that was originally his and was stolen by A. He discusses what are the conditions that make for valid titles to property, and points out that it is not trade in goods and services that is taking place in Capitalist society, but the trade in the legal titles to those goods and services. Valid private property titles can be sold (for the money commodity in that society), traded for other pieces of property, rented out, or given away. Under Libertarianism, these are the only legal ways in Libertarianism of exchanging private property titles. Any other way of acquiring property rights is illegal and is termed “aggression” or invasion. And key to this is also ones’ property right in ones’ own person.

Rothbard also makes the clear distinction between “freedom” and “power”. Freedom is the individual’s right to use his own will to manage his life, but this is not to be confused with power. There are many things the individual is not free to do because he does not have the power to do them (like leaping tall buildings in a single bound, or buying up Manhattan when he only has $1.27 in his pocket). And he shows up the Left’s usual slogans that people have a “right” to free medical care, free schooling, free meals, by pointing out that these all lay claim to goods and services provided by others, so that those others become mere slaves who have some duty to provide these services against their will, and thus these “rights” are not actually natural law rights, but aggressions against the self-ownership of those people who must provide the food, medical care, and teaching.

Additionally, he discusses the natural rights theory of land ownership known as the “homestead” principle. Land is not owned if nobody claims it until somebody comes along who does claim it, and at the same time mixes his labor with the land to produce commodities necessary for his survival. The farmer who settles on a piece of land on the edge of the wilderness, clears the land, and farms it to produce oats, has a legitimate legal title to that land and its products, but an explorer who lands on a continent and announces on the beach that the entire continent is now the property of Queen Isabella of Spain or himself does not have a legitimate legal title to the entire continent.

This acts as a theory of the rights of property: that every man has an absolute right to the control and ownership of his own body, and to unused land resources that he finds and transforms. He also has the right to give away such property, or to exchange it for likewise legitimately-owned property. It also produces a theory of criminality, i.e. a criminal is someone who aggresses against such legitimately-owned property.

Then Rothbard moves on to discussing self-defense against property rights aggressions. These defensive measures are legitimate only up to the point where they begin to infringe on the property rights of the aggressor. If someone steals a twig off your land, you are not entitled to take their entire homestead, or gun them down. Non-violent aggressions cannot be met by violence, so that if someone intentionally or accidentally trespasses on your land, you are not entitled to shoot them. Moreover, direct threats of aggression which are palpable, immediate, and direct can be met with similar measures, like shooting someone who pulls a gun on you and says they will shoot you if you don’t give them your wallet. But “threats” that are vague, indirect, or pose little danger cannot be treated in the same way. You cannot shoot someone who shakes their fist at you and says, “Just you wait.” You cannot outlaw cannabis, and throw its users in cages as the Democrats and Republicans have done for decades, because you say that cannabis use leads to crime and thus is an immediate threat to society, which needs to be protected against that threat by prohibiting cannabis use and jailing its users.

Rothbard then discusses fraudulent contracts, and how some contracts can be violated without the need for Libertarian action. For example, selling someone a car of a certain year and model which turns out to be a different year and model is fraudulent adulteration and would justify legal redress, but if two people sign a contract to marry in six months, and one of them fails to live up to the contract, that is not a fraudulent contract but a broken promise. Promises are not legally binding.

The proposition that the store owner does not have the right to shoot the child who is stealing a pack of chewing gum is based on the proportionality of the crime. Rothbard proposes that the criminal loses his right to self-ownership in proportion to the extent to which he has aggressed against the victim’s right to self-ownership and property. Thus the child stealing the gum might have to pay the store owner two or three times the cost of the gum, but he could not be punished by being made the slave of the store owner for life, being gunned down by the store owner, or being executed by the State.

Next Rothbard discusses retributive punishments for aggressions against property rights. He notes that ancient laws correctly looked for restitutions made to the victim, but that in modern society this has (or had) been totally eliminated, and the crime was now against “The People of the State of …” instead of a specific individual. Fortunately, in recent years, moves have been made to have restitution paid to the victim, and this is now a common Libertarian part of sentences. However, in many cases the victim receives no restitution, and is even forced to pay taxes to feed, clothe, and house the criminal who assaulted him.

After this, Rothbard moves on to a discussion of Libertarian principles as they apply to children. These differ in many aspects from Libertarian principles as they pertain to adults. He comes to the conclusion that abortion is the right of the mother over her body, and the unusual conclusion that adults have no responsibility to feed, clothe or care for their children, a view that most people would not concur with.

Next Rothbard tackles the question of “Human Rights” vs “Property Rights”. Many liberals and Leftists maintain that they are for the “Human Rights” of The Freedom of Speech, and The Freedom of the Press, while aggressing against private property rights through taxation, monetary inflation, and bureaucratic regulations. But Rothbard cogently points out that all “Human Rights” are ultimately reducible to “Property Rights”. Thus, the Freedom of the Press is dependent on the private property right to own print, buy paper stocks, and own a printing press. Likewise, the Freedom of Speech is dependent on the Property Right of renting or owning a hall. It is obvious that in a socialist society, where the State owned everything including newsprint, lecture halls, and the streets, there would be no such thing as Freedom of Speech or the Press safe from governmental intrusions. And note too that these two freedoms are based on the Freedom to Contract.

Rothbard also discusses the “Freedom of Speech” of the shouter who interrupts a performance with false cries of “fire”. He correctly notes, in contrast to the Supreme Court, that what this actually entails is the Crime of Contractual Fraud. The audience had a contractual expectation to the quiet enjoyment of the performance, and the shouter is aggressing against that contractual property right. This is also why interrupting a political rally being held on private property (as was done against President Trump’s campaign rallies) is a crime. But interruption would not be a crime if the speaker and the rally were using public streets.

Rothbard next discusses privacy laws, libel and blackmail, and various other topics such as subpoenaing reporters and forcing them to reveal their sources. Unusually, Rothbard believes that blackmail should be no crime, because it is a willing contract between two parties, and that there should be no such things as libel and slander suits, since “reputation” is something in the minds of other people and does not belong to the individual bringing the suit. He also feels subpoena is a form of slavery, i.e. forcing someone to come to court and to speak, and that reporters have the right not to reveal their sources, because just as you have The inalienable Right to The Freedom of Speech, so too do you have The Right to remain silent, and not to speak.

Rothbard also points out, several times, that what is legitimate and legal in Libertarianism is not necessarily what is moral. It may be immoral to back out of a promise of marriage in six months or to blackmail the poor widow into near starvation, but it completely legal under Libertarianism, because promises are not legally binding, and the blackmail is an agreement between two parties, freely entered into, in which the victim feels it is worth the money to not have certain news come out.

Next Rothbard moves on to his astonishing view of bribery, which he maintains should be completely legal since not only does one have The Freedom of Speech to propose a bribe, but also the Freedom to Contract. If the person offered the bribe, however, accepts it, that person is the guilty party in the eyes of the Libertarian, for if he is a policeman or government official, he has violated his good faith contract with the public, and if he is a corporate worker taking a kickback for negotiating a deal, he is defrauding his employers, the Company, and the stockholders. So the bribe offerer is the innocent party, the bribe taker is the guilty, under Libertarian ethics. Not a view your normal unthinking Liberal Democrat will ever have cross his mind, because to him the bribe offerer is the real culprit, and a criminal.  However, bribe offering is obviously a form of The Right to Freedom of Speech, and an exercise of The Right to Contract. He also discusses payola, a form of bribery.

Continuing, Rothbard discusses the Boycott. This beloved Libertarian weapon, which can be used to show disapproval for actions one considers immoral, involves no coercion or aggression against the Property Rights of others, but only voluntary abstention from action, which is no Crime. I’ve written at length elsewhere on the virtues of the Boycott as a non-violent tool, and all it requires is the old Zen Buddhist activity of “Sitting quietly, doing nothing.”

The Boycott also shows the Power of the Consumer in largely-Capitalist societies. Ludwig von Mises along with Rothbard have pointed out that in Capitalist society, it is the Consumer that is King, and not the Corporations or the Unions. The Corporations, though huge and highly influential, still have to bend to the will of the consumer. If they come up with a good product that is generally liked, they will make a fortune and the Consumer will be happy, but bad products and companies go under, though it may take years if the company has a large cash balance. So the Leftist and Unionist who blames the “Bosses” and “Big Capital”, and the factory owners who blame the Unions, are both wrong. Their power is miniscule in relation to all the consumers in the U.S., and overseas too.

Next Rothbard discusses property rights and the theory of contracts, pointing out the difference between a valid contract, which involves changes in the title to real property, vs mere promises, the breaking of which may be ethically bad, but which do not involve the transfer of property rights titles. The difference between a promise and a legally-binding contract is a subtle one, and Rothbard goes into some detail in describing that difference. He saliently points out that bankruptcy laws are a violation of such legal contracts and, by letting the debtor off the hook, are a virtual license to steal. The fact that the creditor knows beforehand that the debtor may squirm out of his debt by using bankruptcy laws does not negate the fact that the debtor has aggressed against the creditor by not fulfilling his contract, and that he should be forced to pay back the money with interest, although debtor’s prisons violate the proportionality of punishment principle. Bankruptcy laws should clearly be abolished.

Next, Rothbard discusses entail, and how it cannot be a valid contract, since the Right to restrict the sale of land must belong to a living person. In other words, entail, which forbids the sale in the future by any descendant of the current owner (a favorite of feudal law), is not a valid legal concept because the Right of transfer or sale of the property belongs to the current owner and not some long-dead ancestor. To quote Rothbard, “Property Rights must only be accorded to and can only be enjoyed by the living.”

This promise vs. contract theory has a political aspect: it shows that the “social contract” theory of government is completely invalid, since the promises made originally had no validity, and certainly have no validity for future generations.

Continuing, Rothbard turns to “Lifeboat Situations” in which extreme circumstances may be felt to override Libertarian Principles. He correctly points out that the “Right to Life” is false phraseology since my Right to Life may infringe on your Right to Life. Though he doesn’t mention it, it seems to me cannibalism would be such a situation, where, if I’m starving, I have a right to kill and eat you. Would seven starving people in a lifeboat be justified, on the basis of an inalienable “Right to Life” in eating a weak and dying eighth lifeboat passenger? Obviously not. Instead of the inaccurate “Right to Life”, we should instead use the term “Right to Self-Ownership” which obviously encompasses and includes ones’ Life.

Certain “lifeboat” situations, however, can be adjudged correctly through Libertarian theory. For example, after a shipwreck, two men swim towards a floating plank which can carry the weight of one man but not two. Who is entitled to the plank? Obviously, under the “homesteading” principle, the first man to reach and embrace the plank has homesteaded unclaimed property and is utilizing it for productive ends. The second man to reach the plank and who tries to take it away from the first is now aggressing against the property right in the plank of the first man, and is committing a Crime. However, if he is a dedicated Libertarian, he will cheerfully drown rather than violate the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle by trying to wrest the plank from the first man.

In the last chapter of this section of the book, Rothbard discusses “Animal Rights”. As a vegan morally opposed to animal slaughter, I’d say I’d have to agree with Rothbard that animals don’t have “Rights” in the same way a human being does. I’ve written a separate blog post on this topic, arguing that those who share my view of animals should use the term “animal welfare” instead of “animal rights” since these rights can only belong to human beings, due to the nature of our consciousness and intellect.

In the final section of the book Rothbard turns to the issue of “The State versus Liberty”.

Firstly he goes into the question of the State’s coercive power to tax, and points out that there is no difference between taxation and theft. Indeed, it is well nigh impossible to frame a definition of taxation that does not show it is theft by coercion, for should someone not pay their taxes, their property will be seized by force, and if they resist that depredation, they will be arrested or shot if they resist arrest. Moreover, many of the services that government carries out, like policing services, fire fighting, and mail delivery, could easily be carried out by private businesses. The arguments about paying ones’ “fair share”, or that taxation is comparable to paying voluntary club dues, are relentlessly shot down one by one by Rothbard as being the absurd propaganda of the socialists and the liberal democrats. Moreover, the idea that democratic elections justify this taxation theft is left in the dust by the observation that in America about 40% of the people vote in elections, and the deciding vote usually compromises 20-25% of the electorate. Obama was elected with about 22% of the eligible vote, yet they call that “democracy”. Maybe a better term would be “hypocrisy”. To quote Rothbard again, “If then taxation is compulsory, and is therefore indistinguishable from theft, it follows that the State, which subsists on taxation, is a vast criminal organization, far more formidable and successful than any private “Mafia” in history.” — telling it like it is to the face of the Democrats and Republicans. Rothbard mentions the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer who pointed out that there are only two ways of gaining wealth, either through the market process of production and voluntary exchange with others — the free market system (Capitalism),  or else through the violent expropriation of wealth produced by others— the political process (Socialism and taxation). He called the first “the economic means” and the second “the political means”. Oppenheimer accurately calls the State “the organization of the political means”.

Rothbard also quotes Lysandor Spooner’s analysis of the difference, if any, between the highwayman who demands “you’re money or your life” and the State which makes a similar demand on the individual, the only difference being that after robbing you, the highwayman leaves you to go your own way, while the State is there annually robbing you.

Spooner goes on to discuss how the ideological minions must go to work justifying the theft by the State as being some noble undertaking, instead of a glorified highwaymanship. When the State kidnaps you, and forces you to work for nothing or near nothing, it is not called kidnapping, but rather “conscription” (or jury “duty”). When the State kills, it must not be called ‘murder’ but rather ‘war’, ‘suppressing internal subversion’, or ‘capital punishment’. This manipulation through ideology of the necessity and morality of the State is necessary because whatever the form of the State — democracy, republic, dictatorship — it cannot survive without the support of the majority of the people. If the majority of the people really believed the State was a criminal enterprise, it could not long survive. So this brainwashing is essential to the State’s survival, and it is usually carried out by the “intellectuals”, who gain recognition and usually income by issuing propaganda. Key to this brainwashing is the State’s control over education, from the universal education of the public schools, with their compulsory attendance laws, to the financial incentives given to the universities, where the new “leaders” of society are intellectually groomed. Though “The Ethics of Liberty” was written in the 1970s, this education propaganda-process can still clearly be seen in 2017.

Now, as a Minarchist, or believer in minimal government, at least temporarily, I was interested in Rothbard’s next arguments against Limited Government. I’m a Minarchist because firstly I don’t think Americans in general, or the Western Democracies in Europe and Australia, are anywhere near ready for Rothbard’s Anarcho-Capitalist Stateless society, they have been so brainwashed into thinking that government is necessary, and that the government is them. Of course, with such a Libertarian Constitution with its Libertarian Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, it is easy to admire the basic concepts of American Government,  especially when compared to what went on previously in history, and when compared to the current Constitutions of the other Western “democracies”, with their vast socialist loopholes that let the Government push the Individual around if the Individual rocks the boat. This is the norm around the globe, from the Phillipines to Saudi Arabia to Iran to Indonesia to China and Vietnam, and everywhere else. There are no Libertarian societies anywhere on the globe, and the ideals of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers still have never been realized in any nation. And now that technology can produce efficiency and wealth with very little expenditure of energy, unlike any pre-technology period in history, there is no technological reason why any human being should lack the basics of food, clothes, and shelter. Libertarians feel that the best way to bring this about is to have a radically free society, with a completely free market, no or very low taxation, and either no government, or government in only law enforcement, courts, jails, etc, and perhaps a few other areas such as public health, plague control, or environmental laws. The scope of the minimalist government depends on the particular Libertarian. Most modern Libertarians would probably concede the need for some kind of military force in today’s world, but are no fans of the military. One big benefit of a peaceful Capitalist world would be the relaxation of international tensions as people learned that trade brought prosperity and a higher standard of living. This in turn would deter the impulse to war since war would mean the disruption of consumer markets, leading to a disgruntled civilian population. So Capitalism will breed more Capitalism, and as the general level of wealth goes up, as it would, there would be more and more demand for a variety of new services and talents that had never previously been able to secure an individual a living, but now could. For example, in the pre-industrial age, in the industrial towns of England and America, no one could have made a living as a dog-walker. But in an affluent age, where most of the elderly would be financially secure in their senescence, there might be enough demand from elderly people who had difficulty walking to pay someone enough to walk their dog so that the dog-walker could make a living at it. Various cosmetic surgeons currently are able to do quite well because of the demand for physical perfection which in previous times wouldn’t have existed because either the technique or the demand for that specialty didn’t exist.

Moving on, Rothbard discusses the inherent contradictions in the State, in his attempt to prove the fatuousness of Minarchism. Rothbard argues against a limited government because he says there is no guarantee that it will stay within its limits. Past history would show that it never has. And as the State moves beyond its minimalist beginnings, the power of its bureaucracy will grow, along with that bureaucracy’s desire to extend its power and guarantee its further employment.

He goes on to point out that government is naively regarded by many of the public as an “umpire” or objective ruler who will make the best decision in the public interest. This is what most pro-government people believe I’d guess. But given the immense power and wealth of the government, it is dangerously naive to think that the decision makers in the bureaucracies will funnel their huge spending budgets in a way that is totally objective, and since their funds come at the expense of the rest of society instead of through free-market trading profits made from delivering goods and services to consumer, and those funds come from coercive confiscations, there will surely be a corruption somewhere in the vast government. Coercive confiscations, being against both Natural Law and the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, cannot lead to a moral society.

Rothbard then points out that there is no such thing as a neutral tax, so that when a government imposes a tax, it is automatically creating two antagonistic classes in society: the payers of the tax and its recipients. These two classes will now be in friction, which means that the government will not, and cannot be, the objective “umpire” that limited-government advocates believe in, but must choose sides.

He then goes on to note that most limited-government advocates think that government is necessary for there to be law, but Rothbard points out that this is a myth, and that stateless societies have existed which still had laws. He cites the example of Ireland, which for over a thousand years prior to its conquest by Cromwell, was a stateless society but had laws, law courts, and panels of jurists. They seemed to do just fine without “The State”.

Rothbard then discusses the fact that the State is not required to live up to the laws that it sets down for its citizens. It tells them they must not rob from another, and then proceeds to rob them through taxation. It tells the citizen he cannot aggress violently against his neighbor except in self-defense, but allows its own police force to use deadly force against anyone and imposes itself by force on everyone in its jurisdiction.

Then Rothbard asks: even in a limited-government situation where the government only provided protection and a legal system, who would decide how much protection is necessary? The government could supply every citizen with a tank and a private bodyguard, but this would quickly bankrupt the State. So who decides? And we are back with the same problem that socialism always brings: who decides how much and what quality of good or service is to be provided to the public?

Rothbard next tackles the question of the size of the State, a question rarely asked. He discusses secession, and holds that the smaller the government unit, the better, until we get down to the level of the individual, who secedes from the government, thus giving a basis for individual anarchism.

In the next chapter, Rothbard discusses the criminal nature of the State, and whether one has any moral obligation to it. If it is a criminal organization, then lying to and cheating the State is no longer immoral (although it may be prudential to tell the truth to avoid perjury charges), any more than lying to an armed robber about whether you have money in your wallet is immoral. He goes into whether one has an obligation to pay taxes or to not break contracts one makes with the State. For example, is it morally licit to desert from the army after one has been drafted, or after one has volunteered for the armed forces? Rothbard’s answer: yes!

He then discusses the morality of bribing government officials, distinguishing between an “aggressive bribe” designed to use government to keep out market competition, and a “defensive bribe” which seeks to prevent government from shutting down an activity that would be completely legal under libertarianism. He points out that “defensive bribes” are the only way a lot of business can be transacted under corrupt governments, and that such a system, though immoral, is better than a system where no business can be transacted at all due to a totalitarian government. Throughout history, “defensive bribes” have been the only way many corrupt State governments have been able to function.

Next, Rothbard moves on to inter-State relations. He makes the point that modern weaponry has made a difference to libertarian theory regarding war, since with earlier weapons like the bow and arrow or the gun, the weapons could be used selectively against those in the other State who were individually responsible for making aggressive war, while with nuclear weapons we are in an age where many innocent people would be killed in any use of these weapons. Rothbard regards war as illegitimate and illegal, and the mass murder of war as the worst crime than can be imagined. Therefore disarmament is viewed as one of the highest activities, and threatening nuclear war as one of the lowest.

It is interesting to note here than Rothbardian and Misesian Libertarians are often painted by the Left as Right-wing extremists, yet their position on Militarism and War is congruent with Leftists like Bertrand Russell, and anti-war anti-militarists in general. Obama and Clinton are much further to the Right when it comes to the military and war than Rothbard or Ron Paul. And that is logical and consistent because, apart from the moral issue of murdering innocent human beings, war destroys vast quantities of useful commodities and wastes vast quantities of capital, both of which could have been used in a libertarian society to raise the standard of individual wealth and increase human happiness.

And of course another misery brought about by war is an increase in the taxation-aggression of the State against the Individual. Throughout history, the wealth level of the Individual has been seriously depleted by the war taxes levied, first b y kings, and now by “democracies”. In the practical terms of its wealth effect, military spending in excess of defense needs is the enemy of Laissez-Faire Capitalism and the Capitalist.

Rothbard concludes the chapter with discussion of various other aspects of interstate relations like foreign aid and imperialism.

In the final section of the book, Rothbard looks at various other flawed theories of Liberty, like utilitarian Free-Market economics and social philosophy which holds that what is best is what gives the “greatest good for the greatest number”. Rothbard points out flaws in the Unanimity Principle, the Pareto optimality concept and its “Compensation Principle” variant. He craftily criticises “value-free” utilitarian economists like Prof. James Buchanan, and even goes after Mises, trenchantly criticizing him in a subtle analysis of the flaws in his positions on this topic. One thing I like about Rothbard is his willingness to ruthlessly but accurately criticize the economists who come closest to his philosophy, like Mises and Hayek, and to consistently hit on the weak spots in the arguments of other prominent Libertarians. He points out that Mises was a utilitarian economist, whose praxeology theory of economics is value-free, but that as a liberal (or classical Liberal) he had a value-judgement philosophy, and he found it difficult to reconcile the two, saying that as an economist he was a value-free praxeologist, but as a “citizen” he was a laissez-faire liberal, an ideology which is clearly value-based, which says that it is better for man to live free and in accord with Natural Laws, than to break those laws and live in constant violence and fear, that it is better for all men to live as citizens with equal Rights and self-ownership, than it is for one man to own another as a slave.

Rothbard concludes his roasting of Mises by pointing out that, while value-free praxeology can give an economic basis to Libertarian theory, showing that the free-market and Natural Law Rights do lead to the freest, most prosperous societies in most cases, praxeology alone cannot give an ethical basis to Classical Liberalism, which is a value-based philosophy.

He then discusses Isaiah Berlin’s theory of Negative Liberty, Berlin’s revision of that theory, and the absurdities it led him into. He finishes the chapter by quoting from Berlin and blasting him on his inconsistencies and falsehoods.

Frederick Hayek is the next victim on Rothbard’s intellectual chopping block. He points out the problems with Hayek’s definition of “coercion” as a replacement for the word “aggression” in the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, and shows where it fails. After pointing out the many flaws in Hayek’s “coercion” idea, he mentions that Hayek even fails to distinguish between “aggressive violence”,such as armed robbery or assault, and “defensive violence” used in defense of ones’ property or body from assault. The first is criminal, the latter is both licit and proper. But Hayek skips over this distinction.

Anyway, Rothbard really tears poor old Hayek to shreds in the rest of the chapter, and points out the many egregious flaws in “The Constitution of Liberty”, which lead Hayek to accept many government invasions into the Rights and Liberties of the Individual which are completely against the Libertarian Principles that Rothbard has clearly demonstrated in the first part of his book. It’s no wonder that a pseudo-Libertarian like Margaret Thatcher threw down a copy of Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” at a cabinet meeting and said, “This is what I believe in.”

Next Rothbard hunts Robert Nozick, who starts out with an “Immaculate Conception” of the State, i.e. that,, through some “invisible hand” it started as men banded together and found that it was to their protectionist advantage to form a protective force, which transformed into an ultraminimalist State, which further transformed itself into a minimalist State, a sort of “social contract” theory of the State. Rothbard, however, points out that no State in history has actually started like that; that in almost all cases the State was founded by violence, with the most brutal and victorious gang of cutthroats becoming the King and the government. Rothbard quotes Thomas Paine in support. Moreover, the “social contract” theory presupposes that every individual within the territory voluntarily gives up their sovereignty and, in times of war, self-ownership, but Rothbard points out that for a contract to be binding and enforcable, it must only deal with “alienable” titles such as physical property, but it cannot deal with the “inalienable” Rights of the individual, like “self-ownership” and The Right to the Freedom of Speech or to remain silent. Therefore, such “social contract” theories are bogus.

As George Mason put it, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, “All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”

Rothbard goes on to discuss Nozick’s views on police forces in his State, and the question of competing law, lawcourts, insurances, and other topics that are rather subtle for the Libertarian neophyte. All in all, he really lambasts Nozick, concluding with a list of ten points and theories which Nozick has dead wrong.

In the final section of “The Ethics of Liberty” Rothbard discusses the previously undiscussed topic of a theory of strategy for Liberty. Firstly, such a strategy must reflect Lord Acton’s view that “Liberty is the highest political end” which of course doesn’t mean that it is the “highest end” for mankind in general.

If Liberty is the highest goal in politics, then what is its moral grounding?  It is clear that Liberty is a moral principle, and it is grounded in Justice. The Libertarian must have a passion for Justice, and that must be his overriding political goal, and Justice is the search for the abolition of aggressive violence in the affairs of men. It is Justice, and not mere utility, that must be the motivating force behind the Libertarian.

If Liberty is the highest political means, then it is obvious that a strategy of implementing it must be approached by its most efficacious means, which means by the fastest means that will bring it about. This means the Libertarian must be an “Abolitionist”; if there is an unjust situation or law, it must be removed immediately, not just slightly reformed. Indeed, as the Abolutionist William Lloyd Garrison correctly observed, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

However, the means cannot contradict the end or be inconsistent with it. A Libertarian could not use aggressive violence, such as murder and theft, to bring about a libertarian society in which murder never occurred or never went unpunished.  Another example of inconsistent means would be if a Libertarian advocated repeal of the Income Tax, but argued for replacing it with some other tax, or argued for the legalization of cannabis on condition that it be taxed and licensed.

He next discusses “Right Opportunism” and “Left Secularism”, two distinct groups that the Marxists correctly observed always form within a movement. Right opportunism will give up the long term goal for a short term gain, while Left secularism criticizes the slightest deviation from what it perceives as libertarian principles.

Then, quoting the Marxists again, he points out that they felt there were two sets of conditions necessary to the success of a social movement, the objective and subjective conditions. The  subjective conditions are the existence of a self-conscious movement dedicated to the principles of the philosophy, and the objective conditions are some kind of crisis that impinges on almost everybody in society, breeding a cynical attitude towards the government and the State. Indeed, every major revolution in modern history has followed this pattern.

Rothbard observes that both Marxists and Libertarians have had their visions unrealized so far. The Marxists have had to put off their utopia indefinitely, and the Libertarians have seen the diminution of the Classical Liberal philosophy and a massive resurgence of the State and State power in the 20th century. However, Rothbard feels optimistic about the future of Libertarianism. He feels the industrial revolution changed the picture completely, and that in the long run, Libertarianism will prevail.

Perhaps in the weakest part of the book, Rothbard seems to exude a strong optimism that things are about to change, that Watergate, the bankruptcy of New York City, and Proposition 13’s passage in California, are signs that we are on the brink of a transformation in the American political scene.  How little are those events talked about nowadays. This book was published in 1982, and this last chapter sounds as if written even earlier, and in light of how little has changed since the book was published, and how the State seems even more entrenched than ever, and with Libertarians continuing to get 1.8% of the vote after 35 years, you have to question Rothbard’s optimism. In the long run a Libertarian society will come about, but in the last few decades, things have continued to deteriorate. Yet Rothbard’s belief that we were on the brink of armageddon in 1982 has been proven premature, if not wrong. The system still had 35 years of fat to ride on.

However, he does end the book on a stirring note of optimism.

The second book that will turn you into a Libertarian is also by Rothbard, his “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto”. Anyone having read carefully “The Ethics of Liberty”, will have little difficulty understanding the concepts presented in “For a New Liberty”, since they are largely a recap of the earlier-presented theory.

Rothbard begins “For a New Liberty” with a historical perspective on Libertarianism from the American Revolution up to the time the book was written, concentrating on the libertarianism of the Founding Fathers, the French Revolution, and also how the libertarian heritage was curtailed in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and how statism, big government, and the military-industrial complex, in collusion with the unions, basically took over society, and crushed the libertarian spirit of earlier times.

Forty years on from the writing of the book, we current Americans can see that little has changed, although Ron Paul’s campaigns did expose the country, and many young people, to mainstream libertarian ideas in a way that had never been seen before in American politics. Senator Rand Paul carries on that legacy somewhat, in a diluted form. But we do see much more cynicism and scepticism about big government and its efficiency, and that is a healthy sign.

Moving on to chapter two, we encounter the now familiar concepts of the libertarian non-aggression principle, the definition of aggression as invasion against ones’ property rights, and how the state commits all the acts, through war, conscription, and taxation, that it forbids to the individual citizen. More specifically, “aggression” is defined as ” the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else”.

He points out that the libertarian is often characterized as “right-wing”, but to the libertarian he is just taking a consistent position of liberty for the individual on every issue. On some issues he is “left-wing”, on others “right”. He wonders how the Left-wing can claim to be for human rights and civil liberties like freedom of speech, and at the same time support the violence of taxation and government controls. And he wonders how the Right-wing say they are for Individual Rights and Property when they support war and conscription, the war on drugs,and taxation? And looking back on the last thirty years since the book was written, we can see how the Republicans have done nothing to abolish the income tax and estate taxes, abolish minimum wage laws, and shrink military spending. They can’t even repeal the Obamacare forced-payment-to-private-insurance-companies tribute, even though that was a major reason the Republicans were elected.

He next makes an important point about the fiction we call “society”. To the libertarian, there are only individuals, and the sum total of their interactions is “society”, but it is a mistake to think that there is an entity called “society” that exists on its own. This is one of the traps into which both Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans fall but not the libertarian. He knows that society is a fictional collectivist concept, and that is all. It is a mere convenience for designating a large number of people. A similar phenomenon occurs with the term “nation”. And we can see how these terms serve as cop-outs for individual responsibility, when we hear that “society” drove John Doe to commit robbery or murder, not John Doe himself. The term “social justice” is likewise a bogus term, since it is obvious that only if you always have “individual justice” will you then have “social justice”, but “social justice” is a term currently used to justify the theft of one group of citizens by another group via the government enforcers.

Then Rothbard sums up: “The central core of the libertarian creed, then, is to establish the absolute right to private property of every man: first, in his own body, second in the previously unused natural resources which he first transforms with his labor. These two axioms, the right of self-ownership and the right to “homestead”, establish the complete set of principles of the libertarian system.”

These axioms lead to the free-market system, since, if you have property rights over something, you are free to sell it, exchange it, rent it, or give it away. And the free-market system leads to the most libertarian, prosperous society. But unlike the utilitarian capitalist who supports capitalism because it leads to the wealthiest societies, the libertarian supports the free-market system based on the morality of the libertarian axioms. This is the big difference between Milton Friedman and his utilitarian Chicago School of Economics, and Rothbard and the Austrian-Libertarian School of Economics.

Rothbard then points out that inheritance taxes are a violation of the rights of the “giver”, not the receiver. It is not the orphan but the dying parent whose rights are violated when the Democrats and Socialists rob him of the money he earned with his labor and which he wanted to give to his offspring.

The central thrust, then, of Libertarianism is to oppose all aggression against an individual’s property rights both in their person and in the things they have voluntarily acquired title to. This also means that in a libertarian system of justice, there would be no “district attorney” who may or may not file charges against someone in the name of “society”. Rather it would be up to each individual if he wanted to pursuit a suit against someone’s aggression against himself. Moreover, the punishment would first seek restitution to the victim, not just “protecting society”, since it was not some vague notional “society” that was attacked, but a specific individual or group of individuals.

In regard to opposing theft and assault, libertarians would differ very little from most societies throughout history who opposed robbery and murder. Where the Libertarian differs from the others is his regard for the State as being the worst aggressor against the property rights of Man that has every existed, and it matters little if that State is monarchical, dictatorial, democratic, or what you will.

While the Democrats and Republicans will regard the people holding high office as above the moral law, Libertarians will morally measure people at the top of government in the same way as they would measure the behavior of individuals. So while Democrats will applaud a new tax proposed by Obama, and the Republicans will either tolerate it, or not do anything to abolish all taxation, the Libertarian will continue to regard someone like Obama or Sanders as indistinguishable from the meth addict who steals your car battery. They will coolly and deliberately continue to apply the moral law to those in the highest echelons of government irregardless of their titles, or their being elected. When they carry out aggressive war, Libertarians will call it Mass Murder. When they talk of “conscription”, “the draft”, or “national service”, the Libertarian will call it Slavery. When they rob people at bayonet point and call it “taxation”, the Libertarian will call it “Robbery”.

Moreover, while all individuals and groups get their income through voluntary payments, only the government gets its income by violent coercion through the threats of confiscation and imprisonment. Additionally, and with the exception of criminal gangs, only government can use those funds to aggress against its own citizens by prohibiting pornography, compelling a religious observance, or jailing someone for selling something at a higher price than the government deems fit.

And what of checks on State depredation? When an individual or gang attacks one, one has recourse to the law courts. But what about when the State attacks you? There is no recourse to that, as countless people who were murdered in mistaken police drug raids during the last 50 years could have testified if they were able. What check is there on a dictatorship? None, since the State has arrogated to itself a virtual monopoly on violence and decision-making in the land area to which it lays claim. For example, if you don’t like the Supreme Court’s decision on some case and law, you have no further recourse.

And additionally, though America has a Constitution which places strict limits on government, we can see clearly how that Constitution has been overridden in so many instances. Unfortunately, that is the tendency of all governments, and eventually whatever Supreme Court exists in a society will reinterpret those strict limits according to what those court justices happen to think, and inevitably those limits will be overcome by Tyranny.

Here Rothbard adds a long quote from John C. Calhoun discussing how, in any government with a constitution of strict limits and constraints, there will eventually form two parties. One will hold to a strict constructionist view of the limits, and the other to a broader, more liberal interpretation. When the party with the liberal construction vision of government becomes the majority, it will remove those strict limits through the court decisions of judges who share their liberal view, and then the strict constructionist party will have no further recourse. This process Calhoun felt was more or less inevitable, even in a Constitutional Republic.

And a second problem with all States is that they are inevitably ruled by an oligarchy, an elite set of government officials who have taken over the most powerful positions. In every organization, from a political party to the local chess club, certain individuals, more aggressive and assertive, will end up taking over and dominating such organizations, and it is no different with governments. We have only to look at the Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton dynasties to see how a small group of individuals are accepted as “knowing best” for the country. And we may well see an attempt at a “Trump” dynasty. This so-called “Iron Law of Oligarchy” was discovered by the Italian sociologist Robert Michels, while studying the Social Democratic Party of Germany, who ruled Germany before the Nazis. Despite their verbal commitment to equality, Michels found that the party was rigidly heirarchical and oligarchical in its actual functioning.

After repeating certain points made in “The Ethics of Liberty”, Rothbard discusses both the role of religion in aligning with the State, and how the Individual is deprecated and the collective society elevated in the rhetoric of the State rulers. Any Individual coming up with new ideas, especially critical ones of the State, will be ridiculed (and, in many modern societies, censored), and since almost all reform movements start with small minorities critical of the status quo, those movements will be ridiculed and pilloried.

The role of the State is made to seem inevitable by the fear aroused by the State when it warns of the chaos that would ensue if it were abolished. This causes a passive acceptance of the State as ruler over men, and through the further identification of the State with a certain piece of the Earth’s geography, and given that most men will grow to love the lands they inhabit, it is easy to convince men of the Nationalist illusion that they are the such-and-such people, and they are threatened by the other-such people next door to them. In the old days, the peasants of Europe mainly felt that wars were irrelevant disputes between the nobles of rival nations; now people really believe in Nationalistic self-identification — that they are, for example, Norwegians or Turks.

Another favorite State strategy for continuing its control is guilt. Any increase in private well-being is called “unconscionable greed”, “materialism”, or “excessive affluence”, and mutually beneficial exchanges in the free market are condemned as “selfish”. Somehow it is touted as good that more resources should be extracted from the private sector, and siphoned into the parasitic “public” sector, i.e. the State. Listen to Bernie Sanders and the Liberal Democrats if you want to hear a modern version of this. The version often calls for more “sacrifices” or “belt-tightening” to save the nation, but it is not the members of the ruling elite in government who will sacrifice.

Another illusion is that men enter the State government apparatus out of concern for the general welfare of society, and not out of the interest of maximizing their own incomes. When it comes to businessmen and workers, no one is surprised that they seek to maximize their incomes, but with the politician it is assumed that they are there out of altruistic motives. So-and-so is a “good man”, even though he has a gold-plated salary from the public, a gold-plated healthcare system, and a gold-plated retirement, all at the individual taxpayer’s expense.

Another support for the State illusion has become scientists and “experts” in various fields, who tell the public what the State must do to avoid various catastrophes. This replaces the old system of religion backing rulers “by divine right”, the scientists having displaced the clergy. Rothbard cites the case of the thief who would argue that his thefts have boosted retail sales, and thus helped the economy. Such a thief would be laughed down. But when the “economic experts” propose the same theory and cloak it in mathematical formulas  and language about “the multiplier effect”, they are listened to attentively.

Another unelected group of “experts” are the “national security managers”. Their scope has obviously increased in the 40-odd years since the publication of “For a New Liberty”.

And Rothbard points out that, just as the State needs the intellectuals to make it seem legitimate, so do the intellectuals need the State, for under the market system intellectuals may have a very hard time making a living, the public in general not being too interested in intellectual subjects. State sponsorship gives them a luxurious lifestyle without their having to compete in the free market system. Look how many university professors make salaries far in excess of anything a manual laborer can make. And with government grants being handed out to professional students and universities, it is easy to see that the intelligentsia knows on which side its bread is buttered.

One huge area of support for the continuance of the State, in my view, which Rothbard doesn’t mention, is faith in the currency. Since Federal Reserve Notes are what most Americans hold their wealth as, and how much their property is worth in those Notes, it is highly unlikely that any normal American would welcome the abolition of the American State which would make their savings completely worthless. Fear of a collapse of the Dollar with the abolition of a Treasury Department is enough to make most American savers skip a heartbeat.

Rothbard next discusses how supreme courts create justification for the State by ruling that some law is “constitutional”. Those who disagree must just quietly sit and lump it. They have no further recourse except to emigrate. But the fact that these supreme courts are part of the government, and then rule on laws made by the government is obviously a conflict of interest, because anything that would tend to dissolve the government would in effect help dissolve the supreme court. The court is in effect the government ruling on its own legitimacy, which flies in the face of correct judicial procedure, where some impartial body of judges must make the final decision. The overthrow of the Jeffersonian ideals in the Bill of Rights by the New Deal of the 1930s just goes to illustrate John C Calhoun’s argument that no matter how well written the constitution is in protecting individual rights against the encroachments of the State, eventually those protections will be destroyed, as in the New Deal. Income taxes, inheritance taxes, forced social security depredations, price controls, usury laws, warrantless searches and wiretaps, and military conscription are all obvious violations of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but finally they made their heinous way into the law of the land.

Rothbard suggests we start fresh and question the whole necessity of a State government. He mentions the libertarian society of Ireland which existed for a thousand years before the British invasion in the 17th century.

In Part II of “For a New Liberty”, Rothbard looks at Libertarian solutions to modern political problems.

First he notes the major problems that afflict our society, and further notes the “red thread of government” running through all of them. The problems he mentions are high taxes, the urban fiscal crisis, foreign interventions, crime in the streets, traffic congestion, the military-industrial complex, transportation, river pollution, water shortages, air pollution, power shortages and blackouts, telephone service, postal service, television, welfare system, urban housing, union strikes and restrictions, education, inflation and stagflation, and (back then) Watergate. Note how many of these government-controlled problems are still problems forty years on. What better proof of the inefficiency of the State.

Rothbard begins the next chapter, on Involuntary Servitude, with the words, “If there is anything a Libertarian must be squarely and totally against, it is involuntary servitude — forced labor — an act which denies the most elemental form of self-ownership. “Liberty” and “slavery” have ever been recognized to be polar opposites.” (The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution only allows involuntary servitude “as a punishment for crime”.)

First he discusses conscription, which fortunately no longer exists now we have a volunteer army. And, if we were invaded, would we actually need conscription to get people to fight? If the Canadian socialist baby-seal-clubbers were to stream across the border in an invasion of America, do you think Americans would welcome them with open arms? More like automatic arms.

Next he discusses the involuntary servitude involved in withholding taxes, which force the employer to become the unpaid tax-collector for the government, and the income tax, which not only forces the filer to work for nothing filling out his tax form, but also violates the 5th Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination. He points out that retail sales taxes also force the businessman into the position of unpaid tax collector for the government. The income tax also greatly favors large business enterprises at the expense of much smaller competitors, since the costs of tax compliance are huge, and the large business can bear that cost much better than its weaker competitors, thus tending to reduce competition in the market place, driving up the cost for consumers because of government meddling.

Next he deals with the Courts. He discusses the involuntary servitude involved in compelled testimony and the subpoena. He mentions that in a Libertarian society there would be no “district attorney” and the criminal would be prosecuted in the name of the victim, not “society” or “the people of the state of …”. He mentions that in early colonial America it was a common punishment for a thief or defrauder of a farmer to have to work as an indentured servant — in effect a slave — for the farmer until the theft had been repaid. He points out that during the Middle Ages, the emphasis of justice was on restitution to the victim, and it was only with the rise of powerful kings and nobles that more and more of the restitution came to be claimed by the State, at the cost of the hapless victim.

Rothbard goes on to discuss the unLibertarian procedure of jailing people before they have been convicted of a crime, since there is a presumption of innocence, and how this is particularly dangerous in the case of contempt of court charges, because here the judge has acted as both prosecutor, judge, and jury. The judge has accused, convicted, and sentenced the culprit all without trial by jury, and in the face of the judicial principle that one should not be a judge in one’s own case.

Next, he discusses compulsory jury service, which is indistinguishable from slavery, and a violation of the 13th Amendment. I have written a blog post on the topic under Abolishing Jury Slavery.

Finally, Rothbard goes into the many problems with compulsory commitment of mental patients, and how those who have committed no crimes should immediately be released.

In Chapter 6 Rothbard discusses Personal Liberty, beginning with The Freedom of Speech. Libertarians believe in a near-total Freedom of Speech, and believe that “incitement to riot” laws are bogus because they implicitly take the view that men are not wholly responsible for their actions. This is a deterministic view of Man’s Nature which Libertarians would disagree with. The rioter’s defense that he hacked to death the old lady because of the words of a rabble-rousing street speaker, and that normally he would have never done such a thing, so blame the rabble-rouser, not him, is not a defense a Libertarian would hold truck with. Of course, the crime boss’s order to murder a specific individual is an exception to the Freedom of Speech and makes him as guilty as the assassin.

Likewise, Libel and Slander Laws violate The Freedom of Speech and the Press. In the case of Libel, the claim of the plaintiff that his “reputation” has been damaged is bogus, because one’s reputation is a thought in the heads of other people. It is thus their property and not yours, and therefore in Libertarian theory, there has been no assault against your personal property or person, since your reputation belongs to them, not to you. Pretty subtle reasoning here by Rothbard.

Then he discusses various offshoots of the Freedom of Speech, like picketing on government streets, and radio and television censorship. He points out the incongruity of letting publications be as biased and politically one-sided as they like, but forcing television stations to present “responsible opposing views”. The fact that radio and tv stations are licensed,and must submit to all kinds of regulations and restrictions on their speech, flies in the face of our so-called Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Freedom would mean there was no licensing requirement and that they could say anything they liked other than advocating violence against an individual.

When it comes to pornography and violent films, Rothbard stresses that the Libertarian believes it is not the business of the law — the use of retaliatory violence — to enforce anyone’s idea of morality. He correctly adds that “Sometimes it seems as if the ‘beau ideal’ of many conservatives, as well as of many liberals, is to put everyone into a cage and coerce him into doing what the conservatives or liberals believe to be the moral thing.”

Rothbard makes the subtle observation that in forcing someone to act morally, the conservative, religious fanatic, or liberal, seems to forget the principle of free will in the behavior of men, and that it is only in freedom that the choice of moral action can take place.

Rothbard next mentions the outrage of the government being involved through sex laws in what takes place between consenting adults in private. He discusses abortion and compulsory birth control. And just as the State should not be involved in these issues, so too should it not be involved in “affirmative action” measures based on sex. Setting a quota on how many women or men must serve in a workforce is thus forbidden under Libertarianism. Likewise, certain laws which prevent women from working in certain professions or working certain hours must be crushed. To quote the 1978 Libertarian Party platform, “No individual rights shall be denied or abridged by the laws of the United States or any state or locality on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual preference.”

When it comes to Wiretapping, Rothbard says “Wiretapping is a contemptible invasion of privacy and of property right, and of course should be outlawed as an invasive act.”

As for gambling, it is obvious that laws against it are not only anti-Libertarian (two individuals agreeing to contract on the terms of a wager), but largely unenforceable, given the amount of clandestine betting that goes on everything from football games to elections. Conservatives may argue that just because murders occur it does not mean therefore that we should abolish laws against murder, and likewise with gambling. But they overlook the fact that almost everybody in civilized society believes and accepts that there should be laws against murder, but it is obvious that masses of people don’t seem to believe gambling is so highly immoral to the extent that they should be jailed for participating in it. Thus, as with cannabis, large numbers of people will flaunt these anti-Libertarian, anti-Humanistic laws, because they know they are violations of their self-ownership, and there is no way the state can afford to enforce them.

Moreover, what could better illustrate the filthy immorality of the State than, after ruining millions of citizen’s lives with their anti-Enlightenment laws against gambling and drug possession, they themselves have now gone into the business of peddling these immoral activities to the public, implying that just because the State now engages in them, these activities have somehow suddenly become moral. If it is immoral for two old-timers to play blackjack for nickels at the park, it should be immoral for the State to drive people into poverty and suicide with their immoral lotteries, which mulct the poor, and keep people on welfare. It is outrageous that people receiving welfare assistance are free to buy lottery tickets in the U.S.A.

Rothbard then discusses the legal terms “malum in se”  and “malum prohibitum”. The first refers to crimes that most of humanity — and Libertarians— regard as crimes: murder, theft, rape, etc. The second refer to State-made crimes such as those we’ve been discussing: gambling, prostitution, drug possession. He points out that police corruption tends to occur almost exclusively in “malum prohibitum” laws, and that the corruption can consist not only of being paid off to ignore violations of the law, but to create a private monopoly for a crime syndicate, as when the police are paid off by an illegal gambling joint to not only not shut it down, but to enforce the law against all its competitors, so that the gang operating it has a virtual monopoly in that police precinct.

Therefore, the sure way to get rid of almost all police corruption is to immediately abolish all laws against voluntary business activity and all laws against “victimless crimes”. Not only would this end police corruption, but a large number of police and much court and jail space would be available to go after the real criminals, the aggressors against persons and property.

To end the chapter on “Personal Liberty”, Rothbard discusses gun laws, where he of course takes the position that it is your property right to own a gun if you choose.

Chapter 7 deals with “Education”, and Rothbard makes brilliant and decisive arguments against the government school system. He points out correctly that in the 1970s the New Left was an acerbic critic of the school system, with writers like Paul Goodman pointing out how government schools ruined the lives of so many children. This chapter contains many interesting arguments against public schools, and Rothbard points out that totalitarians, from Martin Luther to the anti-Catholic Protestants in 19th Century America, were in favor of compulsory education in government schools. The Ku Klux Klan got “democratic” Oregon to pass a law in 1922 requiring compulsory attendance and outlawing any competing private schools. Fortunately this was overruled by the Supreme Court in 1925. Rothbard even quotes Mises who states, “the state, the government, the laws must not concern themselves in any way with schooling or education. Public funds must not be used for such purposes. The rearing and instruction of youth must be left entirely to parents and to private associations and institutions.”

The latter half of “For a New Liberty” deals with the economic fundamentals of the Libertarian Austrian School of Economics and its clash with Keynesianism. Specifically, it deals with the problems created by Keynesian economics’ effects on welfare and the business cycle. Rothbard discusses the problems created by government’s involvement in business, in owning streets and roads, and the police, law, and the courts. He then moves on to environmental factors like conservation, ecology, and growth.

Environmentally, Rothbard points out that no one has the right to pollute the air you breathe, and that noise is a form of pollution that has negative effects on health. If environmentalists adopted the Libertarian attitude that environmental pollutions are aggressions against individual property rights, they might do better than they have by believing that government is going to protect the earth, when it obviously operates hand in glove with huge corporations to permit them to continue to destroy the earth’s environment. Oregon’s timber industry under Democratic Governors Kitzhaber and Brown has continue to spray pesticides far and wide, undoubtedly killing untold thousands of citizens and children, and causing serious health problems for thousands more. But the gutless liberals and environmentalists never call them to account. The deforestation of the Pacific Northwest continues unabated in the “liberal” Democrat States of Oregon, Washington, and California, to the detriment of the planet and its inhabitants.

In the final chapter of the work, Rothbard discusses the very important topic of war, for, to the Libertarian, war is the gravest violation of libertarian principles — the mass aggression of the property rights unto death by one mass of people by another mass of people, usually because they have come to identify themselves with the nation-state instead of just themselves. Add to that the vast destruction and waste of goods and commodities that could have been used in a libertarian-capitalist society to fulfill individual wants and needs, and we can see why Libertarians view war as the ultimate statist folly.

If, after reading these two books by Murray Rothbard, you can still think that Libertarianism is not a pro-humanistic, ethical political philosophy, and not the historical continuation of man’s longsuffering attempts at liberation from state tyranny that has been going on since the time of the pharaohs and beyond, then you and I must agree to disagree.

— Paul Grad, 2014 Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Grenfell Tower Fire Massacre Shows Socialist Government’s Failure

Great Britain has had Socialist governments since the 1930s, and socialist legislation shortly after the turn of the century, but after almost 90 years of big-government socialistic, bureaucratic rule, the Grenfell Tower Massacre can still occur.

This massive death was caused by government incompetence, because all governmental bureaucracies become incompetent. Frederick Hayek pointed that out in his 1943 book, The Road to Serfdom. This is because in all bureaucracies, the worst rise to the top. The most mediocre, fawning, afraid to criticise, milquetoast, bureaucrat will rise to the top, and we see this in the constant incompetence of the police, and the security services in Europe, who let known terrorists and law offenders wander around the streets, instead of incarcerating or deporting them.

The same incompetence is illustrated by the Grenfell Towers fire massacre. First they tell people to stay in their apartments, and they’ll be rescued. Then, when the building is being engulfed in flame, they tell people to selfl evacuate. How much more incompetence can there be in a country as developed as England, with an educational system which traditionally has prided itself on the quality of the scholars, intellectuals, and writers, which won renown throughout the world?

Now they say that sixty apartment blocks must be evacuated immediately, and thousands of people are being thrown out of their domiciles on a second’s notice, even though these sixty blocks have had people living in them for ages, and its hard to believe it wouldn’t be cheaper to hire firewatchers on each floor with extinguishing equipment for far less than it has cost to rehouse these people, the Socialists thrown them into the streets, or sterile hotels. At the very least a few days to a week’s notice should have been given to these victims of Socialism.

With sixty out of sixty blocks failing fire safety standards by having the flammable cladding on their sides, and the number of buildings to be checked at 600 according to the Press, it is clear how dangerous Socialist government is to the health and safety of the Individual Citizen and the non-voting Child. That such a situation could go on for so long without a tragedy bringing it to mass attention clearly shows why government, especially socialist government (and every government in the world is socialist or authoritarian in some measure) is always going to be incompetent in whatever it touches.

If this had been a private huge company or corporation, you can be fairly sure that that cladding would have been tested and guaranteed not to be flammable, or else they would have been sued into bankruptcy, or probably had their CEO serve jail time and a huge fine. If people have died, he might have been convicted of Manslaughter. There would have been some sort of retribution and compensation for the victims, and the satisfaction in knowing that someone who caused the death of your relative because of negligence or the quest for profits had paid a heavy price. But when Socialist Government does it, nobody goes to jail, nobody resigns, nobody loses their salary and pays a huge fine, or sits behind bars like the person having a few ounces of cannabis.

All Big Government does is set up a commission or inquiry. No one gets executed. A White Paper is issued with recommendations, because the Socialist illusion is that big government can always be reformed, so they have been “reforming” it for ninety years, while it continues to keel from one tragedy and incompetence to the next. Crisis after Crisis without end, with people uselessly losing their lives, because most voters have been brainwashed into tolerating Socialist, un-Jeffersonian Government.

With Corbyn’s 40% Labour vote, you can see how mentally brainwashed are the British People. This guy’s love-of-big-government doctrine has brought about situations like the Grenfell Tower Massacre, yet he recently got cheered at Glastonbury by the young crowd. So the coming generations have no inkling of how they are supporting what is destroying them, because they never read the philosophical Masters and Writers of the 20th Century; they never read anything except perhaps an assigned textbook, certainly not Hayek and Rothbard, and Russell, Sartre, and Camus. Or Huxley, Alan Watts, and J. Krishnamurti,or stuff from the earlier philosophers from Plato’s Socratic dialogues to Schopenhauer’s Essays, stuff that will develop the brain, make you doubt opinions you’re sure off,and lead to an investigation of the consciousness of the individual.In the modern world, this is all bypassed for visual stimuli and junk food among most of the young, and it’s been going on for so long that their parents are just the same. I’m now seeing old middle-aged women with wrinkly tatooes.

So Socialist government destroys Liberty and Mentality, and impoverishes so many people, especially the young, that it leads them to more Socialism, which finally results in the complete breakdown of society. The West is in this process; England well illustrates it.

Since the process will continue because so many cheer and believe in big, bureaucratic government, there is very little hope of turning it around in America, the UK, and Western Europe, and Asia is equally as wimpy as the British when it comes to confronting Governmental Authority, look at China and Japan, or Singapore. Of course, Asia also has a rich tradition of Capitalistic trading, with many merchants.

Yes, the Grenfell Tower Fire Massacre clearly shows that with so many brainwashed, historically- and economically-ignorant, people there is really very little hope of now diverting Mankind away from disaster,

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Should Women Have the Right to Vote? For and Against

Of course Women should have the vote, it’s absurd to even discuss the point because woman’s consciousness is not that far removed from men’s. Women are capable of having Property Rights, just like men, and are therefore liable to receive all the Inalienable Rights enumerated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Women are often far more intelligent that most men, and some of them seem to be able to run huge bureaucracies, like hospitals and libraries, with the efficiency that is presumably a characteristic of men.

However, I recall what my late neighbor, who was a Bluedog Democrat, used to say about women. He half-jokingly felt that America had been pretty much ruined when women were given the vote. And while I scoffed at his notion good-humordly, I thought there might be a seed of truth in his half-serious dogmatism.

(All this presupposes a certain belief in the general psychological differences that seem to characterize each sex differently, and while as we say this is only on a percentage basis of the general population, and without precluding the fact that there will be many women with many masculine characteristics, and many men with many feminine characteristics. However, we maintain and believe that there is more psychological similarity between a woman in Japan, in Uganda, and in Finland, than there is similarity between that woman and a man of her own country and ethnicity. The fact that men are generally more violent is one of those examples of a psychological difference between the sexes, and this fact is borne out by fact that the murder rate among Lesbian couples is far lower than among gay men. But the general tendency does not preclude the possibility of non-violent men or violent women.)

For I had thought in the past that women were more likely to vote socialist, or vote for government socialist programs, because they are (or were) the more sensitive sex, viewing the preservation of life and the amelioration of the social evils of the past as more important than economics. (However, such programs would eventually lead to deficits so high that the currency would be undermined, leading to inflation and social chaos, thus precipitating violence in society. Thus implementing these programs would eventually lead to Fascism, which is why Libertarians consider them so dangerous and socially destabilizing, and why they regard Socialism as so dangerous to the general peace of society).

And also women would tend to vote socialist because women tend to be in general less intellectually interested in economics and other intellectual fields than men. This is a huge generalization, because one finds many intellectual women, and many women who are far better money managers and capitalists than many or most men. But in this non-intellectual age of no reading, most modern men aren’t far behind the non-intellectual woman. Not that there is anything virtuous about intellectualism. But occasionally it can be interesting to sink your mental teeth into an essay, or the writings of philosophers like Schopenhauer, Sartre, and Camus, or Rothbard on economics, or Lord Bertrand Russell and Lord Acton on government. Or reading some meticulously-crafted fiction, like Joseph Conrad or Robert Louis Stevenson, or the intellectual novels of Alberto Moravia, which combine psychological dissection of the protagonist and main characters interlarded with a very interesting plot. I thought Alberto Moravia was the greatest novelist I’d ever read, and still think so, and told him that once at a public speech of his at a university. (Moravia wrote from 9-12am every day, and said he never gave a thought to his fiction outside of those hours. He was also a great short story writer, which is unusual, because writers are usually either great novelists or great short story writers, but rarely masters of both. Some great films have also been made from Moravia’s novels, such as The Conformist, directed by Bertolucci, and Two Women, with Sophia Loren, another Masterpiece. Moravia, like Bertrand Russell, was also a Libertarian Radical when it came to opposing all forms of censorship.)

Very few Americans, men or women, now have this intellectual addiction to mental chewing-tobacco, probably because of their addiction to the Visual Media. It is as if Cinema retained its mechanical ability to mesmerize, but after completely losing the profundity of theme that characterized even the American Cinema. We used to think American films were corny in comparison to the black and white films of the 1960s made by the new wave of French, British, and Italian directors. But now we see how great many of those American films of the 50s and 60s were in comparison to modern films. Those films were made for adults, but the modern film gears for the 14-year old boy who likes science fiction computer games.

No one can now make films like were made in the 1960s: films like Hud, the Garment Jungle, Hombre,  12 Angry Men, or The Getaway, or films that have a psychological profundity and reflect the intensity of an auteur director, the director as a strong personality, like Michelangelo Antonioni. Federico Fellini had a similar intensity, but with a humor and fun which was totality lacking in the cold world of Antonioni, or the miserable world of a child as in Truffaut’s The 400 Blows. Even when reflecting on his childhood under Fascist Italy, Fellini is full of fun in his telling of the story. You can’t imagine Antonioni or Robert Bresson ever laughing like Fellini. Bresson’s The Diary of a Country Priest is such a joyless bummer, it’s a masterpiece. No laughter there.

But with all these directors, not forgetting Ingmar Bergman, who has to be added to Antonioni and Fellini in terms of self-authorship and being near the top in the Art of Cinema, and even with the weird experimental directors like Godard, i.e. “Le Weekend”, you felt a sense of both individuality, and a philosophical exploration of some important facet of mankind’s universal life situations. Such profundity seems to have completely evaporated from Cinema into nothingness.

I put it down to the watching of television and tv commercials, which probably destroys a good part of the brain, although watching occasionally when you really have the urge to watch a film is no sin, and may actually be good for the brain if you enjoy it. (However, one should never watch or listen to a commercial on tv or the internet. Mute the sound immediately, block the screen with your hand, and skip to the video at the first possible moment.)

But starting really with the beginnings of television, and well established in the late 60s and 70s, the television took over the life of tens of millions of Americans, and such excessive viewing of images might, or must, have a deleterious effect on the human brain. The brain goes into a flabby, receptive mode, for hours, with no originality stemming from the viewer except to passively cooperate with the image on the screen by giving all their attention to it. If the story was good, profound, engrossing, or a Hitchcock, it wasn’t hard to do. But in a film like Antonioni’s The Red Desert, Il Deserto Rosso, it was necessary to exercise patience to stay with the film, although Antonioni intrigued the viewer, like Bergman, with the most incredible, beautiful shots, and cinematic juxtapositions, as when Richard Harris in the Red Desert is seen talking to some workers at a plant, and then is seen from above and in the distance, in relation to a giant piece of machinery which suddenly emits a vast cloud of loud steam. Harris so small, this vast piece of machinery so huge, dominating puny Man, who is like an ant in the face to such massive, complex, technology. Or the telephoto shots at the beginning of the film of huge factory chimneys belching forth toxic yellow smoke. And later in the film, Antonioni gliding the camera around the room’s wall while his characters converse, or the way he’d leave the camera on the scene for long seconds after his main characters had walked out of it, making you aware of the existence of objects around us, long after we’ve left them, and existing eternally on their own in silence. No other filmmaker seemed to have ever thought of such shots, or used them to deepen the mystery of the film. Or added an ending to a story like the last eight minutes of “Eclipse”, a sequence of incredible poetry and beauty, added after an intense interaction of the viewer for over an hour with the main characters, and which has no obvious direct connection to them. Seeing Antonioni’s L’Avventura and The Red Desert are musts.

So maybe television is why the movies have been so trivial for so long, compared to the masterpieces of the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s, as the Cinema began to degenerate, — that Liveliest Art that the cavemen wouldn’t have believed could be the ultimate refinement of their paintings on the walls of caves, and their petroglyphs of the American and Australian Deserts. Blame tv.

And what this all shows is that the Judaic and Islamic prohibitions against image-making are based on that primitive wisdom that image would easily take over the mind of man if it became worshiped, and that the image, like the word, is not the thing, but rather a mental illusion of thought. And the Buddhists too aim for the eliminating of all psychological images.  They all saw the danger of forming images in your mind, which are always based on the past, your past experiences. Thus, the past ends up clouding the present, and you will look at someone with your image of them based on the past, instead of seeing them in the instant now. Television, and its successor, the computer, have taken over the minds of younger Americans, because it took over their parent’s minds a generation before. And it is not only Americans, because the whole world unfortunately has been taken over by the American culture, or rather the degeneration of that culture that began in the 70s with Nixon-Carter. You can see it in the appalling sameness of dress among all people, all over the world, while not long ago each nation had a particular way of dressing that was characteristic, be it the French beret, the Englishman’s suit and tie, or the Japanese kimono or Indian Sari. Now, everybody looks like Walmart.

It is also interesting to note that these two iconoclastic organized religions, Judaism and Islam, both forbid tatooing, which is such a prominent feature of the younger generation in both  America and Europe. Obviously, such a prohibition is based on both religion’s horror of image-making, turning the human being into a picture, that human being who is supposed to give his entire worship to God, and not to any image or graven image, and who is made in God’s image. Turning the human body of someone made in the image of that God, which is an undefinable changeless process, into an fixed image, which defies the insights of these religions into the dangers of image-making, make the tatoo prohibitions completely understandable. Additionally, because of the unnecessary pain the mind is causing the body during tatooing, this torturing of the body for unnecessary reasons is considered sinful in both religions, again acknowledging the sacred nature of the human body. As an Indian non-ascetic said, the body is not a slave to be exploited by the desires of the mind, which is very similar to these religion’s views of the unnecessary suffering caused by a whim of the mind. Similarly, the use of highly deleterious drugs like tobacco, alcohol, and hard narcotics like cocaine, and the addictive opiods of the morphine family, as well as speeds and barbituates, are all looked down on as ruiners of the health of the body, while light use of caffeine in tea and coffee is tolerated, as well as the occasional glass of liquor to the non-alcoholic infrequent drinker in non-Islamic cultures, who has never been seen drunk. Or, in Islam, the frequent and sometimes vociferous debate over whether cannabis was an intoxicant that was sinful idol worship, while the other side felt it was nowhere near as bad as alcohol, and didn’t really fit into the definition of forbidden intoxication, and was also a probable prophylactic against the use of alcohol, given the hardness of life for the typical Middle Eastern Muslim in the days before technology. After reading a scholarly book in the 70s on this debate over the years on views on cannabis in Islam, of various notable Islamic thinkers throughout history, it seemed clear to me that there was a general tolerance of cannabis among many scholars, but still with a sizable minority feeling that it was forbidden. And stimulants, whether the horrendous effects of amphetamine and meth amphetamine on people, or merely the irritability of the heavy coffee drinker, are obviously to be avoided. But can you deny a morning cup of tea to the coal miner or the factory worker, or the invalid confined to one room? Such extremism imposed on others would be most unfair, as much as we might feel for ourselves that total sobriety is demanded of us by God or by our religion? One of the characteristics of Communism is its forcing of all members of the Community to live according to its standards. And that applies to religious communists too, who want to impose their religious views on the entire society. Of course, there are always Common Law rules that any sane human accepts, like prohibiting child or human sacrifice or theft. Just because you say your religion permits something, it shouldn’t mean that it contradicts Common Law, which is fairly self-evident to all. Murder, theft, rapine, and contractual fraud are all Crimes which the vast majority of Humans would object to, and they recognize the immorality of those Crimes because of their consciences. You might say the Ten Commandments are more like Laws of Human Consciousness which are common to all Humans on Earth, and Common Law is pretty similar. I believe the Anglo Saxons in England, in the 5- and 6-hundreds, had no Government, but they had Common Law and courts, and agreed to proposals fairly democratically in terms of talking the issues over together at meetings and coming to a consensus on laws and decisions without Government. But i’m not an expert on their history; I’ve merely read something to that effect. It sounds like they were better off than when they were invaded by the Normans, a virtual occupation of Britain by the French for so long that the two cultures admixed and melded together, providing an enriched language, and a rich culture, at least in literature. The architecture was interesting too, and it’s obvious that Planet Earth was meant to be covered with structures built in the Gothic Style of Architecture, the most amazing to the eye, mixed in with lots of trees and greenery. The attendees of Oxford and Cambridge were indeed fortunate to have their eyes daily filled with the beauty of the buildings, so different from our modern box-like sterile architecture. Norman Mailer, the writer and philosopher, pointed out the association between sterile architecture and violence in the cities.

England still seemed to hold off from that Kinematic degeneration a good while longer than other places, probably because of the quality of the acting, and the long tradition of British Theatre producing very interesting stories, films like “A Rather English Marriage” with Courtney-Finney now playing near-old men after giving their incredible performances as young men in the British films of the early 60s, or “She’s Been Away”, a very original story with superb acting. It began, after Room at the Top really got it rolling,  in early British New Wave films like Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (Alan Sillitoe’s fiction is superb, and a real treat to read.), and A Taste of Honey with Rita Tushingham, based on a play written by a 17-year old teenage girl, Shelagh Delaney. What a masterpiece. Or Bryan Forbes’ The L-Shaped Room. All films portraying the grim realness of life in post-war Britain, or else well-crafted plays taken to Cinema, instead of the escapist bread of puerile unlikely comedies which had been the staples of pre-1957 Britfilm, clever as they may have been. Suddenly you were confronted with the problems of the factory worker, the Borstal Boy jailed for a first crime, the pregnant teenager with the fairly-indifferent mother. And all superbly acted.

And not even mentioning the Japanese films of the 60s And even later on, with films like Kurosawa’s Derzu Uzala, which will make you want to live in the forest, and wonder why you live in a house. Coming on top of the New Wave in France, England and Italy, it was too much. There was electricity in the air, and it never seemed to end.

And the degeneration of the quality of humor, since the early 60s when the new wave of intellectual comedy hit America, has tracked the degeneration of the quality of Cinema, and the degeneration of the quality of music. From the Stones, Dylan, the Beatles, and so many countless others, to a mess of boring synthesizer garbage, written by computers, and just as sterile. The humor of Berman, Winters, Sahl, and Dana was so intellectually sophisticated that it was cleanly outside any of the ruts that American humor had stayed within for so long: the wife and mother in law jokes, etc. Or Berman talking about Zen, where you are able to answer very difficult questions like, “You know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand clapping?” Then Berman pauses and adds, “Unfortunately, I know that sound.” Or Sahl with his political jokes, or Winters with his space ships or auto mechanics. In England you had Sellers and the Goon Show, and a new absurdity humor that went back in some ways to The Theatre of the Absurd of Ionesco and others. Eugene Ionesco is great stuff, and Rhinoceros is a play that is so fitting for our modern times about the spread of Fascism. The Left ought to read this play, and then look in the mirror. They might find they had grown a horn in the middle of their face overnight. Jakov Lind’s “The Silver Foxes are Dead” is also a great play about Fascism, and Edward Albee’s first plays are Absurdist masterpieces, and a crack-up to read.

(I should add that, while Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” is invariably quoted as the beginning of Absurdist Theatre, I think it really began with Ionesco’s “The Bald Soprano”, which contains a humor not found in Godot, and which is great fun to read. “The Lesson” is another must-read, and Ionesco’s short one-act play “The Leader” is another work of his dealing directly with Fascism and dictatorship. It is short enough that anti-Fascist theatre groups could manage to put on a performance.)

These psychological and economic conditionings are the conditions that produced an Obama, the last straw of the  socialist continuation that had existed since Franklin Roosevelt brought in the first socialist social programs, although given the primitive technology of those times and of prehistory which was only ceasing to exist in those days of the 20s and 30s, it is understandable that many intellectuals thought that socialism would work, and was a logical, rational system that would provide food clothes and shelter for all. And given the fact that when Roosevelt took office, about 90% of the American populace was made up of poor farmers living in rural areas, it was obvious that there would have been a persuasive argument in favor of socialism, or socialism mixed with capitalism. It had never been tried by such a wealthy country in all of history, so there were high hopes that government could act like a friendly neighborhood corner grocer, helping everybody who needed it, rather than as a necessary evil as Jefferson pointed out, because of its inevitable tendency to abuse its enormous power, and its economic power. The Middle Class was tiny, and the upper class few in numbers. So socialism easily won out.

Eighty-five years on, we can see that Jefferson was right, and the socialist democrats were wrong, just as he had predicted. And part of that, I believe, is due to the Women’s vote, because, as I said, women tend to be generally less intellectual and generally less interested in economic and political theory than men are, taken as a percentage of women and men. So they will be more easily influenced in general than men by emotional arguments that are economically disastrous for others, like the minimum wage laws, which hit teenagers and Black youth disproportionally hard, and which violate the Inalienable Natural Right to Contract, one of the fundamental Rights of a Capitalist Society. Or the Social Security confiscation, which helps keep young people poor and economically shackled, and currently robs 27.6% of an American’s paycheck, 13.8% of which he even has to pay income tax on. This violates the Inalienable Natural Right to the Fruits of your Labour. The fact that many, if not most, Women support these two unConstitutional assaults on Inalienable property Rights, the Rights that Jefferson championed as being absolutely necessary for human happiness to exist in society, shows how puerile is those women’s understanding of Inalienable Rights. These programs are supported by vast numbers of Men too, which in turn shows how limited is their understanding of the fundamentals of Jeffersonian Republicanism, the most Libertarian Government theory that has ever been the good fortune of People to inherit. Far from perfect, it is yet the least flawed conception of government that Mankind ever produced.

The fact that so many men, and even more women I’d guess, don’t understand the importance of defending these Inalienable Natural Rights, which are the cornerstones of Jefferson’s conception of Government, is the real danger to America. These Rights, and their guarantee, are the most important thing about our Government, and we’d better defend them vigorously through non-violent means or go the way that all Fascist and dictatorial governments from time immemorial have gone, leading to chaos and misery for untold billions throughout History. This is why it is possible that Women’s Suffrage may actually be leading to the decay of American Government, and my Bluedog Democrat neighbor may have been correct.

And Jefferson was twenty-six when he formulated that Libertarian conception of Government, and wrote it out in crystal clear, mellifluous prose, along with the formulations of many other of the Founding Fathers and Tom Paine. This was the latest fruit of Sane Government, that had commenced with Magna Charta, and ripened with Cromwell’s Glorious Revolution against Monarchy-in-Concert-with-Mercantilism. Not that the Founding Fathers were all that pure; most of them wangled huge land contracts, and Franklin made a fortune from Government printing contracts. The rot was soon to set in, and never left. But Rooseveltian socialism took it in a different direction.

Still, early post-Independence America was a freer and a more Capitalistic society than had ever been known in History, despite its wallowing in the Crime of Slavery, the worse anti-Libertarian Crime there is after Murder, and despite its Genocide and land-grab from the American Indian Tribes, who to this day still have the vast majority of their Tribal lands ripped off. I don’t hear any Democrats demanding that the Indians have their land returned to them. Libertarian Theory demands that stolen property be returned to its original owners, if it can be proven to be stolen. And it’s pretty obvious that the American Indian (and Canadian Indian, and Central American Indian and South American Indian) Lands were stolen by force.

So, despite my feeling that the Women’s Right to vote is one of the axioms of modern Classical Liberalism, as championed by Lord John Russell, Lord Acton, and Bertrand Russell, Jefferson, and Libertarians and Philosophers like Rothbard and Camus, and it is axiomatic that Women have the Vote, it still seems to me that there could well be a kernel of truth in my neighbor’s Bluedog view that the Woman Suffrage ruined America, and brought on the socialist mess we’ve been in for so long.

Lastly, we should recall George Bernard Shaw’s quip that when a woman seeks equality, she renounces her superiority.

— Paul Grad, Vegan Enviro-Libertarian, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

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

Against Government Pensions: The Early State Constitutions

One of the Socialist Institutions that makes life so miserable for the lower classes in America is the obligation to pay governmental pensions to a vast number of retired citizens, both private and governmental. These pensions ultimately bankrupt the State, which leads to inflation and social chaos. The private citizen pension-recipient is the Social Security Pensioner who worked for a private business or was self-employed. The governmental citizen is the Federal worker, Congressman or other politician, retired military receiving some form of pension, and State or County worker receiving a pension.

All these violate one of the most fundamental principles of the American Revolution, which was enunciated in most State Constitutions. It ran, “That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services.”

This “Fathers of the Constitution” Principle clearly bans any “emoluments” going to public servants except as salary. “In consideration of public services” clearly refers to labor done. The retired worker does no labor or “services” for the government or his former employer. Once they retire from service, they should be entitled to nothing further from the public taxpayers.

There is no reason why these people could not set up their own retirement plans with private companies, and certainly a well-run, well-capitalized pension fund could easily be set up by one of our famous “public-spirited” deca-billionaires, or a consortium of such, which would provide a pension system equal, if not better, than the current Federal Social Security system.

I would also not object to a fund set up and administered by the Government, as long as all liabilities, costs, and short-falls would be born solely by the pension fund participants, and not the general taxpayer. But in that case, the Government fund would not differ fundamentally from a private fund, though it would fulfill the patriotic fervor of those on the Left who thing the Government is the greatest invention since The Pill.

In Oregon, a Democrat-Administered State with many poor people and much crime, there are currently at least 1,195 former State workers receiving annual pensions of at least $100,000/year. The Kitzhaber and Brown Administrations have continued to increase the State’s Debt so that it is in the high $80 billions range, equating to a personal debt share of about $28,000 for each of the 3 million Oregon State Residents. Add this to a child’s burden of $160,000 share of the $20billion Federal Debt, and you see that a child born in Oregon already owes the Democrats and Republicans $188,000. No wonder he’s howling at birth! This clearly shows the extreme Injustice that soon flows from Socialist governmental programs, and clearly shows why the Founding Fathers were so adamant about preserving Individual Rights and Liberty, and why they were so wary of governmental power.

They knew that Power Corrupts, and Jefferson had stated that Government was evil, though perhaps necessary, and because Government had Power and Power always Corrupts, it was therefore necessary to keep Government as small as possible, and to set up various checks and balances on the power of Individuals in Government.

Compared to anything else that had gone on before in World History, what the Fathers of The Constitution (and mostly Jefferson) produced was nothing more than the most Libertarian Doctrine that had ever existed since Magna Charta. And unlike the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Americans declared that these Inalienable Rights applied to All Mankind, not just Englishmen, although the Americans had to take it not too seriously so they could continue with their filthy slave trade — the quintessential antithesis of Libertarianism.

America should return to its Libertarian roots, and get government off the backs of the newborns and the lower-paid workers. They have no responsibility to pay cushy pensions to anybody, and if they feel they have such a responsibility, they are free to exercise it through charities or private companies.

Those who have paid into government pension funds should, of course, have those paid-in funds returned with the accrued interest.

Let’s abolish these immoral contracts that the newborn have no say, power, or vote on. Let’s abolish governmental pensions.

—Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump and the Myth of Inciting to Riot

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Why Trump Rally Protesters Are Property Rights Criminals

Though I would not vote for Donald Trump, and will probably have to write-in Ron Paul if the Libertarians don’t run someone decent, I believe the protesters who interrupt his rallies are committing a crime against both him and his supporters who attend those rallies.paul 19

The reason this is a crime was brilliantly explained by the radical Libertarian and founder of the Libertarian Party in America, Professor Murray Rothbard.

In an insightful analysis of why shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or interrupting a speech or lecture with heckling, is a crime, Rothbard points out the real reason this is a crime, in contrast to the incorrect analysis by the U.S. Supreme Court which is usually glibly quoted by those discussing the crime.

Interrupting a speech, lecture, or concert, Rothbard argues, is a property rights crime (as are all crimes). The Crime is Contractual Fraud. Those attending the lecture or concert, by purchasing a ticket or merely attending a free lecture, have implicitly agreed to let the concert or lecture take place without interruption. If someone yells, “To Hell with Beethoven” in the concert hall in the middle of a performance of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, or starts heckling a lecturer or politician during a previously scheduled and announced lecture, they have violated the property rights of the ticket holders or attendees, who had the right to the quiet enjoyment of what they paid for when purchasing a ticket, or agreeing to attend the lecture or speech by their presence. The crime of a heckler or demonstrator is contractual fraud against all the attendees, who could reasonably expect to hear the event uninterrupted, the speaker or performer, and against the sponsor or promoter of the event. If the promoter of the event caused the disruption, he would be the criminal in the case. If an attendee causes the disruption, his property crime is against the ticket holders, the performer or speaker, the attendees, and the promoter of the event.

Note that this would not be the case if someone got up on a soapbox in the middle of a public street or a public park. Then there would be no crime in heckling or interrupting him, because no listener had a reasonable expectation of enjoying the speech without interruption, nor were any funds expended to hear the speech.

So the people who are interrupting the Trump rallies are Criminals who are violating the property rights of the attendees, Donald Trump, and anyone else who promoted the event. In my view, their punishment should be a fine equal to the cost of putting on the event, the time spent by the non-heckling attendees at a rate of the current minimum wage in that State times the length of the event, plus the time spent and cost of transportation for all the non-interrupting attendees at the rate of the minimum wage. Trump should sue the protesters for that amount, and the courts would be justified in giving that amount to him and to the non-interrupting attendees.

These protests will merely gather more sympathy and support for Trump and his campaign. The protesters are free to stage their own rallies, and vote for whomever they wish. Those protestors should not violate the property rights of Trump and his attendee supporters by assaulting the attendee’s implicit property rights in their courteous attendance at his rallies.

Note that the same reasoning applies to the Black Lives Matter interruption of Bernie Sanders, when he just folded, let them take over the stage and harangue the crowd, shamefully permitting them to violate the property rights of his attendees at that rally. But Senator Sanders obviously does not understand property rights the way Professor Rothbard did.

So whether you agree or disagree with Donald Trump, protesters should not make him a martyr by interrupting his speeches and aggressing against his property rights. If Americans correctly understood Property Rights Crimes, they would know why interrupting one of his rallies is a Crime.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Walter J Palmer: The Lion Murderer Walks Free

Walter J Palmer of Minnesota, the sadistic serial animal-murderer of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe, has gotten away yet again with his Crime, as the government of Fascist Dictator Robert Mugabe, which makes a fortune off of letting the country’s animals be butchered for money, said Palmer had done nothing illegal.

If you had a pet cat for thirteen years and somebody shot an arrow into its hip, pursued the suffering animal for 40 hours, and then shot it so that it slowly died, while filming the blood slowing oozing from the mouth of your dying pet — what punishment would you decree for such a person, and what punishment would you decree for a government that says it would be legal? Whatever punishment you’d decree for someone who did that to your pet, that is what Walter J Palmer deserves.

Palmer and his fellow sadistic trophy hunters are the scum of the Human Race. These Human Vermin are a curse on the planet that must be expunged by making hunting illegal, and then jailing the Criminals for Life, or executing them. Since I’m opposed to Capital Punishment, I’d favor the cages.

But equally guilty with Walter J Palmer is Fascist Dictator, Torturer, and Murderer, Robert Mugabe, and the other national governments of the world that permit trophy hunting, or any kind of hunting. Nor is the problem just hunting, but the cruel, sadistic way in which human beings treat animals all over the world.

So it is not only Walter J Palmer who is guilty, although he is the most immediate sadist and the one who has committed these atrocities. Merely because these murderers hide behind the diaphanous skirts of immoral “laws”, it does not make their actions moral. Trophy Hunters, and all hunters, are Nazis to the animals.

But to put the guilt solely on Palmer is to exonerate all the other animal abusers in society, many of them who could not even bring themselves to strike an animal. These are all the meat eaters who put animals through a living hell from the moment they’re born to the moment of their violent murders. Slaughter houses are nothing but mass animal-child murder centers, and they exist throughout the world by the hundreds of thousands, and 98% of the Human Beings don’t say a word against it, or even think about their part in paying to have animals murdered so they can eat their carcasses. They are just as guilty as Palmer.

And then there are the vivisectionists, keeping monkeys in cages for years, torturing them in useless but highly profitable (for them) experiments, and torturing countless mice, rats, cats, dogs, and every kind of primate.

Add to that the zoos, marine parks, dolphin murdering Japan, whale-murdering Japan, whale-murdering Norway and Iceland, American rodeos, horse-racing, the beagle torture facilities in England,the bear-baiters of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and all the single raisers of pigs, goats, sheep, lambs, who murder them themselves on “family” farms throughout the world, the South Korean dogmeat market, where dogs are blow-torched to death to “improve the flavor”, the Chinese Dog-meat festival, where 10,000 dogs were murdered and eaten within three days, fox hunting in both Irelands, and bull fighting in “civilized” France and Spain… this is the record of Man’s depravity in the current “civilized world”.

But there is a counter-wave. In Tel-Aviv last week occurred the largest Animal Welfare demonstration in Israeli history, when an estimated 10,000 marched against animal murder and torture. Last year the number was 5,000. Five years ago it was 50, showing that a dedicated minority can spread Truth as fast as Sam Adams’ “Brushfires of Liberty”.

And each person can do their part by becoming vegan, agitating to outlaw hunting, running for office on an Animal Welfare platform, voting against politicians who are indifferent to, or support, vivisection and hunting, boycotting hunter’s businesses and avoiding any social contact with them, protesting at circuses, and passing legislation outlawing zoos, rodeos, etc. There is a vast amount that can be done.

But the Criminal and Human Garbage, Walter J Palmer of Minnesota will walk free, and live to sadistically murder again, and Robert Mugabe will continue to rake in the dollars in the Zimbabwean hell he has created, because the publics of America, the U.K. Ireland, and Europe will say nothing, and continue to vote in politicians indifferent to animal sadism like Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Angela Merkel.

But in the minds  of millions in the Court of Public Opinion, the murderers and their enablers  will be adjudged “Guilty!”.

As far as Walter J Palmer of MN and the other trophy hunters of the Earth, bringing their horror and misery to every corner of God’s Creation, I wish them as horrible a death as Cecil experienced. They are the dripping anus of the Human Race.

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor, 2014