Category Archives: Law

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

 

President Sanders Announces Major Counterfeiting Bust

White House, Nov 11, 2019 – LNN (Libertarian News Network) President Sanders today announced the arrest of a major American counterfeiter who, he claimed, was behind the recent destabilization of the U.S. Dollar which has rocked the world’s currency markets, and sparked rioting in many major U.S. cities.

Los Angeles Police today arrested Alfred E. Newman, 38, homeless, at the corners of 6th and Broadway in downtown Los Angeles. Newman, when arrested, was said to comment, “What, me worry?”. Since Newman cooperated fully with the police, he had to be tasered repeatedly. “We’ve had a problem recently with people becoming violent when we detain them,” said arresting officer O.J. Kitzhaber, “and we thought it would be a good idea for the local street people to see we meant business.” “Sometimes, on this job, you have to do things you don’t like to do,” he added with a chuckle.

Newman is accused by Federal Authorities of counterfeiting $103billion in plastic pennies, which were introduced under President Sanders in 2017, amid the infamous budget crisis of that year. Newman cut the pennies from old plastic bottles he collected while scrounging rubbish heaps in the downtown area, intaglioed each one with the image of Lincoln with his old Bowie knife, and then painted them by hand with a combination of rust collected from old building sites, and his own sweat. “I did it to feed my old dog Pete, my one friend in the world,” he shamefacedly admitted before the Press.

Newman’s scheduled execution by vivisection will be performed November 22nd by a trained team from the UCLA Medical Center. “Though his dispatch will be gruesome, the knowledge we gain will go far towards finding a cure for Keynesianism,” said chief physican, Dr. Scabrus Kitzhaber. (editors note: no relation to Officer Kitzhaber.)

The event will also be televised by CNN and Fox, and Mayor Yorty’s coffin is being disinterred so that he can comment on the proceedings.