Category Archives: Libertarian Party

I Unregister from the Libertarian Party

Due to the castrated response of the Libertarian National Committee to a situation in which members whose views are, in my opinion, completely antithetical to Libertarianism are being permitted to remain members, I have unregistered as a Libertarian Party member after 20 years, and now will remain unaffiliated unless another party comes along preaching the Jeffersonian-Rothbardian principles of inalienable Individual Rights and their accompanying economic principles.

Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Mises, and Murray Rothbard all pointed out how the worst rise to the top in any bureaucracy, and that has clearly happened in the Libertarian Party. The puerile reasons given for continuing to include what are, in my opinion, anti-Libertarians in the party show that the worst have risen to the top in this organization, and at this point to continue as a member of the party is to enable its very opposite.

A parallel situation would occur if a group of Stalinists established themselves at the head of a state or county party committee and the party refused to throw them out. Obviously, to remain in the party in such a situation would be to promote and enable Stalinism.

And a similar situation arose in the dispute over which Libertarian Party of Oregon group was the legitimate one. The Hebdor/Wagner group was obviously the valid group and had been so determined several times by the Oregon Secretary of State, but the Burke group, which had forced the real LPO to waste vast sums of money and energy in legal disputes, was still invited and accepted at the LP’s national convention as an alternative and valid Libertarian group. The Burke group even supported President Trump in his election bid, instead of Governor Johnson, and basically bought their way into some kind of pseudo-legitimacy.

I suggest true libertarians either remain unaffiliated, or form a new party under a name like “The Liberal Party” (as the old Liberal Party in the British Parliament was the closest to the libertarian philosophy — however this would obviously cause confusion because modern Liberals in America have come to mean the antithesis of Classical Liberalism), or the Classical Liberal Party, or the Jeffersonian Party if they are Minarchists like Jefferson, or the Anarcho-Capitalist, or Capitalist, or Rothbardian Party if they are Rothbardians.

If the fascist elements are micturated out of the Party, I would gladly rejoin, since all the other political parties in America are far worse.

Disassociation is one of the few non-violent libertarian actions that one can take against tyranny, or mediocre, caponed bureaucrats.

—Paul Grad, enviro-vegan libertarian

Ten Little Democrats: A Political Poem Sort Of

Ten Little Democrats going out to dine

One choked to death trying to eat a copy of the Constitution

And then there were nine.

Nine Little Democrats sat up very late November 8

One cried himself to death

And then there were eight.

Eight Little Democrats travelling in Devon

One was told his citizenship had been revoked and he’d been deported

And then there were seven.

Seven Little Democrats chopping up some sticks

But then one was prosecuted for wasting strategic resources necessary for Homeland Security

And then there were six.

Six Little Democrats playing with a hive

A Libertarian Bee stung one

And then there were five.

Five Little Democrats going in for law

Alan Dershowitz sued one

And then there were four.

Four Little Democrats going out to sea

A red-herring-baiting House Un-american Committee Chairman subpoened one

And then there were three.

Three Little Democrats walking in the zoo

A Russian bear hugged one

And then there were two.

Two Little Democrats sitting in the sun

The  climate change frizzled one

And then there was one.

One Little Democrat Left all alone

So he joined the Libertarian Party

And then there were none!

—Paul Grad

On the Futility and Necessity of Politics and Political Parties

I just chanced to come upon the analysis of George Phillies concerning the National Libertarian Party’s platform, and his opinions regarding each measure and plank. and it reminded me of how futile political parties are, given the inevitable bureaucracies that arise, trying to seize power and influence within the party structure. There is no way that a political party of any size can ever exist without creating a bureaucracy that will take it over, and thenceforth direct the energies of a million good-faith citizens who truly believe in the few ideological slogans the party bandies about.paul 19

That the Libertarian Party, of all parties, should fall into the trap of Bureaucracy shows how the minds of people trick themselves. One of the key teachings of the Libertarian “Big Three” Economists, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, was that bureaucracies arise in all organizations, from big government down to the local chess club, and that certain energetic individuals will take over that bureaucratic power, while Hayek’s rule that in bureaucracies the worst rise to the top has been well proven by a long parade of Federal Government departmental heads.

We see the same problem arising in progressive school’s bureaucracies. Bertrand Russell, A. S. Neill, and J. Krishnamurti all had problems with the school administrations of the schools they set up, and these were three very revolutionary thinkers when it came to the question of education.

So it would seem that in the realm of both politics and education, the bureaucracies should be abandoned, and only individual action should take place. This would mean, politically, coagulating around a few set principles, like the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, and the Inalienable Rights of the Individual over and above any false Collectivist claim to Rights. A large part of electing someone would then be: are they genuine or a carpet-bagging opportunist, repeating like a parrot the party’s mantra. That is where the insight of the voters comes into action. In the performance of the candidates lies the key to modern elections. This has been proven by both Trump and Sanders, who have ripped away the diaphanous skirts of both major parties, to reveal only fat cellulite legs, lined with the varicose veins of corporate corruption. The veins run dollar-bill green, and run from the bottom upwards.

And in education, it seems my view of educating children in small groups of 3-5, with a teacher and assistant, in combination with all the educational tools available over the internet, which have made the lecture hall and the library virtually obsolete, is the correct view. Schools serve as a collectivizing agent, getting the children ready, on a daily basis, for a collectivist action (going to the school where there is a huge crowd of people, sitting in the class in the midst of a large group.) These collectivist actions prepare the child for the corporate job and the political party, and the idea that they are part of a ‘society” when in actuality that “society” only exists in their daily contact with individuals. Educating children individually, or in tiny groups of 3-5, will remove this collectivizing brainwashing which both government and private schools can’t avoid because of their current structure. We should question whether schools are even necessary any more.

As far as politics go, it should be obvious that only through individual change within a huge number of people will it be possible to radically alter the rotten world society in which we now live. Without that inner change, merely changing the outer society will do very little. You only have to look at the percentage of people who eat meat (over 98%), and the realities of the factory farm and the slaughter house, to see how self-centered the mass of Humanity is. And creating a political party that is going to somehow magically change this situation is a pipe-dream. This is the trap into which the Communists and the Socialists fall. They falsely think that: merely change the outer economic circumstances and the laws, and everyone will become angelic and non-greedy. The cherishing of material possessions in Soviet society showed just the opposite. The Soviet Marxists were just as materialistic as the American Capitalists. Maybe even more so when you compare the amount of charitable giving which the American middle class has historically shown, due probably to the general level of prosperity in America (compared to most world historic societies). There were many wealthy Romans, but I don’t recall them being noted for their philanthropic works, unless it was passing out corn to quell a food-riot insurrection.

So, if societal change can only come about through individual change, and if all political parties are doomed to the disease of Bureaucracy if they achieve any notable size, then it should be clear that political action is pure folly and a waste of time.

But does that mean the Libertarian, the 18th Century Classical Liberal, and the Anarcho-Capitalist should abandon the field to the Fascists, the Socialists and Communists, the Nazis, the Racists, the Nationalists, the Theocrats, and even Monarchists?

Does not the outer society play a large part in conditioning the individual, when only a child, into the implicit values of the society? Little Johnny quickly catches on that doctors make a lot of money, and since Johnny notices that adults talk a lot about money, he decides to become a doctor. And since everyone wants to know what Johnny wants to do when he “grows up”, little Johnny gets the message that what you do in society is very important to these large apes he’s growing up amongst. The schools, both government and private, reinforce this when they tell the students how much more a college graduate earns over the course of his lifetime than a high school graduate or drop-out.

Therefore, if the outer society plays such a large part in conditioning the individual, then, even though politics is futile and a waste of time, it must be engaged in, at least at the minimal level of voting (and usually having to write in people for most positions since the usual party hacks are so bad). Even though change must be at the individual level, it makes a huge difference to individuals if they live in a free, free-market Capitalist society, with Classical Liberal Jeffersonian views when it comes to political issues and Rights. Historically, such Liberalism has only been found in the most Capitalistic societies — Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the U.S.A. All three have had a long tradition of both Capitalism, or the Free-Market, and a wide liberality of opinion, with significant minorities or majorities opposing censorship, the Draft, Capital Punishment, and supporting separation of church and state. All three of these countries also engaged in the most egregious outrages against Libertarianism in terms of their colonies, their wars, the American enslavement of the African and his descendants, and theft of the American Indians’ lands. But whether because of it, or in spite of it, Capitalism within these societies brought Classical Liberalism to heights it had never imagined in previous times. In earlier days, Bertrand Russell and Clarence Darrow would have been burned at the stake or lynched (Russell almost was once, when speaking at an anti-War rally in a church during World War One). Now, in the Liberal Capitalist 20th Century societies, people just grumbled about them. Everyone would rip the government by word, but assassinations of government officials by ordinary citizens were very rare.

So, if the outer society does have an impact on the conditioning of the individual, it is obvious that politics, and the society it breeds, are extremely important.

And thus we are left with the paradox that, while we can see clearly that politics is a waste of time and a great dissipation of energy, we can also see that it is vitally important to the bringing about of a Libertarian, Jeffersonian, Free-Market Capitalist, democratic-Republic Society, where dissident opinions are tolerated, and with a low, or non-existent level of violence.

— Paul Grad

Oregon Presidential Primary 2016: Write In Ron Paul

Given the mess in the Republican Presidential Primary, and the suspensions of the Cruz and Kasich campaigns, I am recommending writing in Ron Paul, since none of the listed candidates on the ballot fit the necessities of a fiscally-conservative and Constitutional President. Cruz came closest, but since he dropped out, and there were many flaws in his positions, and Trump is almost certain to get the nomination, one might as well make one’s vote count by writing in someone who is a fiscally-conservative Austrian School of Economics Libertarian like Ron Paul.

For one thing, voting write-in lets the winner, and the other mainstream politicians who lost, know that they don’t have your vote. Additionally, it lowers the percentage of the vote that the winner gets, making them look worse, if only minisculely. If enough people vote write-in, it can lop a few percentage points off the winner, making him look not so invincible. This is healthy for the body politic.

Since Dr. Paul is such an expert on Free-Market Capitalism, and has the correct economic views on almost every issue, and since America is primarily a capitalist country where almost everyone is obsessed, or at least heavily involved, with money or using money to get his daily needs, it makes great sense to put someone at the top of government who understands Economics. Dr. Paul is such an individual.

Therefore the choice is clear. Any Oregonian who really wants to turn government from a corrupt looting mechanism into its Jeffersonian Ideal should write in Ron Paul on the Republican, Libertarian, and Democratic Party ballots.

Vote Ron Paul for President on May 17, 2016!

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

 

Murray Rothbard on Donald Trump

In a speech given in 1989 at the Libertarian Party convention, Murray Rothbard, the founder of the modern American Libertarian Movement, in discussing reaction to the sentencing  and income of Michael Milken, made the following comment about Donald Trump.

Rothbard quotes the New York Times as discussing the reaction of three famous individuals to the sentencing of Milken, and his $550 million/yr income: John Kenneth Galbraith, Donald J. Trump, and David Rockefeller. Galbraith, who made millions criticizing Capitalism, thought it was outrageous. Rockefeller opined that anyone who could make such an income showed a serious imbalance in our financial system.

When it came to Trump, Rothbard said, “The other was Donald J. Trump, of all the nerve, saying ‘You can be happy on less money than that.’ What gall, what chutzpah!”

All three observations elicited intense laughter from the audience.

-Paul Grad

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

The Libertarian Party of Oregon Should Nominate Ron Paul for President

When one looks at the horrendous field of candidates being shoved in the face of the American People to serve as their next President, one can only shake ones head and wonder how we came down from Jefferson to this.paul 19

Given the dismal choice, “a choice of cancer or polio” in the words of Sir Mick, and the news today that Donald Trump may go back on his pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee and run as an independent, and given the unique situation of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in relation to the national LP, it seems possible, and actually advisable, for the Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO) to nominate Ron Paul as their nominee for President of the United States.

Now, there is a long and complex issue between the LPO and the national LP of which the reader might not be aware. In brief, a self-proclaimed rival group calling itself the Libertarian Party of Oregon, with a largely Republican agenda, sought twice to have itself legitimized as the LPO recognized by the Oregon Secretary of State (SOS). After two lengthy legal proceedings and in both cases, the courts ruled in favor of the true LPO, chaired by Wes Wagner, and ruled against the usurpers, led by Richard Burke. The Oregon SOS only recognized and currently recognizes the Wagner faction as the true LPO. The Wagner faction is far more democratic and egalitarian, requiring no dues, and sending ballots to every registered Libertarian in the State. The Burke faction wanted to require dues, and hold a State convention to select candidates.

However, despite the rulings of the Oregon Courts and the Oregon SOS, the national LP Judicial Committee recognized the Burke faction as an affiliate faction, and gave them access to the national convention on an equal footing with the Wagner faction. At the same time, the national LP executive branch continued to recognize the Wagner faction as the legitimate Oregon Party, making for a confusing situation. This is roughly my understanding of the spat between the Oregon LPO and the national LP.

And what this means is that the legitimate Wagner LPO will probably not be attending the national convention because they probably won’t be seated, or will be seated as equals with the Burke faction usurpers.

However, this also means that the LPO has the possibility to choose its own Presidential Nominee, independent of the national party, and would present a situation where a different candidate from the National nominee could be put forth.

Now, after today’s Trump statement that he might run as an Independent, we have the possibility of three major-party candidates running: the Democrat, a non-Trump Republican, and Trump. Given this three-way splitting of the vote, it might be possible for a well-known fourth candidate, with a very radical Libertarian free-market outlook and understanding, to break through and capture the Presidency. And given that the national LP might nominate again Governor Gary Johnson, who failed to ignite much fire in his two previous Presidential campaigns, or the unknown Dr. Mark Feldman, or one of the other unknowns, it seems to me there is a great opportunity for the Libertarian Party of Oregon to make history.

That would be done in a way similar to the Dixiecrat Southern segregationist parties, who ran their own candidates several times in the face of a national candidate who wasn’t racist enough for them.

I would suggest that members of the LPO, upon receiving their nominating ballots, should write in former Congressman and three-time Presidential Candidate Ron Paul for President.

Such an action would bring a ray of hope into a dismal field of candidates that will probably look like: Sanders-or-Clinton, Cruz-or-Rubio, Trump, and Johnson — four candidates splitting the national vote. Under such a fragmentation of the tally, it might be possible for a well-known outside maverick, with a national following that reached over 20% of the vote in several Western States, to gain national media attention by getting on the ballot in just one State, and nominated by a Libertarian Party that was so independent, it was even independent of its national organization (an example of States Rights).

Such an action would not only propel Ron Paul into the national spotlight as an instant candidate, roiling the muddy political waters, but would also propel the Libertarian Party of Oregon into national (and international) prominence as an independent state party, nominating its own candidate, and giving the finger to the national bureaucracy, in classical Libertarian mode.

I realize that many in the Libertarian Party would disagree with many of Ron Paul’s political positions. I do myself. But as far as understanding the economic underpinnings of Capitalism, and its relation to the Jeffersonian Rights adumbrated in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, and as far as understanding Libertarianism, Ron Paul has no equal amongst any politician in America now serving, or serving in the last few decades.

Compared to the garbage being offered the American Public by the major parties, Ron Paul would make a great nominee for President, and a great Libertarian President. I urge all current LPO members to write him in on their nominating ballots, and I urge the Oregon public to register with the Libertarian Party of Oregon, so they can write in Ron Paul.

When it comes to choosing the next President, let Jefferson’s children have a choice, not an echo.

— Paul Grad, LPO Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Ron Paul and Donald Trump Destroy the Republican Party

paul 19Ron Paul and Donald Trump have destroyed the Republican Party — and good riddance to it.

Ron Paul really laid the groundwork for this overthrow of the GOP with his revolutionary ideas about government, harking back to the Jeffersonian tradition, and its logical economic sequitor, the Austrian School of Economics (i.e. pure free-market capitalism). The 20%plus he was getting in the early 2008 campaign showed that a considerable tranche of the Republicans and Libertarians were fed up with the constant collectivist actions of the mainstream Republicans. The recent budget giveaway under Paul Ryan shows that the Republican Party has not changed, and is still the right wing of the Democratic Party.

So Ron Paul laid and wired the dynamite to blow-up the stinking edifice. All Trump did was press the detonator.

Ron Paul’s gentle, gentlemanly approach to his campaigns was not the vehicle that an angry public could drive off the ranch of Fascism. It would take another eight years of poverty, inflation, social degeneration in American society, soaring crime, and Obamacare taking the last discretionary dollars every month from millions of middle-class Americans, to push enough millions over the cliff that they would turn to a brusque, direct-speaking, abrasive Donald Trump. No matter that he has proposed horrendous socialist programs in the past like single-payer government medical insurance, and supported the income tax, Trump’s new supporters don’t care, because he is advocating 60% of the positions that Ron Paul articulated. Trump has formed a new party that grabs favorite positions from the left (affirmative action and single-payer medical) and the right (huge military increases while somehow cutting income taxes on everybody while somehow dealing with the deficit). Ron Paul’s Austrian Economics proposals make logical and obvious sense; Donald Trump’s don’t. But that will not stop Trump’s supporters from voting for him.

However, there is another reason why Trump may well win, and that is his conciliatory attitude, at least recently, towards Putin and Russia. With the sole exceptions of Rand Paul, Trump, and Sanders, all the other candidates are ready to go fisticuffs with the Rooskies, which is a near sure prescription for World War III. Ironically, it will be Trump’s peace LBJ vs. Clinton’s warmonger Goldwater (and recall she was a Goldwater Girl at the 1964 Republican Convention).

Personally, I could not and would not vote for Trump, based not only on his stereotyping Mexicans, and ridiculing disabled people, but also based on his ridiculous economic proposals (eliminate the deficit while greatly expanding the military, and cutting taxes on almost everybody and huge corporations). His proposals to “bring jobs home” would be highly inflationary for hundreds of millions of American consumers, while just helping a few thousand workers and stockholders in those companies. Trump doesn’t seem to grasp the economic principle that what is best for America is to have the highest cash balances possible in the savings accounts of consumers, and when he slaps huge tariffs on foreign goods, he helps impoverish those consumers while subsidizing American stock holders in the protected companies, and the Federal spendthrifts. That said, it probably would help the U.S. trade deficit slightly.

However, if Trump ran against Clinton, while I would not vote for him, and vote Libertarian if they ran somebody decent, or write in someone, I would be routing for Trump to beat Clinton, not only because of Clinton’s warmongering with Russia, but also for her support for the terrorism-promoting Iran Deal, and her long history of political actions and proposals (remember when she proposed lowering the estate tax to $250k). We definitely do not need “dynasties” in American politics, and the history of the Kennedys, the Bushes, and the Clintons illustrate why. Family dynasties ruling America smacks of Monarchy. The idea that only a relative or spouse of a powerful politician is competent to take over governance is an insult to a country of 310 million people, and an affront to Jeffersonian Republicanism.

The dissolution of a political party by one candidate, Trump, was foreshadowed earlier this year by an event which I have seen no American commentators mention. That event was the U.K. General Election of 2015, which saw the Labour and Conservative Parties wiped out in Scotland by the SNP (Scottish National Party), and saw UKIP, the UK Independent Party, gain almost 13% of the vote, though they garnered only one seat in Parliament. This broke a stranglehold on British politics by the Tories and Labour that has existed since 1900. Prior to 2015, people didn’t vote for candidates, they voted for party manifestos. But those days are thankfully gone. Masses of people, on both sides of the Pond, are starting to see that the economic policies of the Left consistently fail, and that the Right is not so far from the Left in its collectivist thinking.

The Democratic and Republican Parties, the Conservative and Labour Parties — these are the megatheria of the past, dinosaurs sinking into the La Brea Tarpits of History. In a decade they will be extinct, or starved and voted into marginality. So, whatever you may think of them, we owe a debt to Ron Paul and Trump for blowing up the Republican Party — that putrid and mephitic edifice of Collectivism and Fascism, masquerading as Free-Market Capitalism. The Western world’s politics will never be the same again.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

America’s Five Political Parties, and the Need of a Sixth

Watching the amazing and beautiful disintegration of America’s major political parties, and experiencing the ecstatic shadenfreude of seeing major politicians being rhetorically ripped apart and sinking in the polls, it struck this writer that America now has five, distinct, political parties, and that, over the last month, alignments have changed drastically in the American Political Colosseum.paul 19

The first thing to occur was the Republican Party handing the election back to the Democrats by having Trump deliver his xenophobic and racist remarks, in my opinion, on Mexicans. You can only imagine the Furore, and the tsunami of justified abuse he would have received if he had substituted for “Mexicans” the words “Blacks, Jews, Asians, Muslims, American Indians, paraplegics”, etc. The other Republican politician’s tepid, feckless criticisms on this Outrage will have cost the Party the Latino vote, I’d guess, as well as a major tranche of voters who share the general repugnance with racism in America, one of the few healthy signs in this society.

But for the Democrats, as in a chess game where two supposed masters continually leave their pieces en pris, no sooner has a week of sure-victory for them gone by, when Obama hands the election right back to the Republicans with his Iran “deal”. Only this dope deal went sour for the Democrats, even if it passes Congress. The Democrats have permanently lost the Jewish-American vote, which was the margin for victory for Obama in the last two elections, the Bible-belt Evangelical vote, and any Independents who like the Republican’s drum-rolling on the military, or who fear terrorism. Add to this the rise of the lovable Socialist, Senator Sanders, who is so bright he comes out for a “deal” guaranteeing nuclear proliferation. He seems to have forgotten the words and the work of that great Civil Rights Libertarian Socialist (yes, there are such creatures), Lord Bertrand Russell, who fought so valiantly to “ban the bomb”.

Indeed, it is now President Obama vs. Lord Russell, and I’ll take the Genius any day.

So, within a fortnight,  the Republicans throw the medicine ball of electoral victory to the Democrats, and the Democrats throw it right back.

That said, we can now commence to discern five major parties in America. These being:

The Democrats-Conventional. The tired old wing of the Democratic Party, as tired as the bags on Ms. Rodham’s face. Her conventional politics, her aversion to debate and be cross-examined, and now her support of the horrendous Iran “deal”, have killed her chances for any national consensus of support. An old hag hazbin.

The Sanders Socialists. A new wave of the tired Old Left laps its putrid waters against the bonnie, bonnie banks of the Love Canal of American Politics. Outside of a few enclaves of Leftism on the West Coast, some of the University towns, and New York, there’s probably very few Leftists left in America who would be moved to tears by hearing the Internationale, or who chirp “Hail Moscow” as they down their Coors. One reason I ran as a pro-Free Marketeer was that I felt that was the core philosophy of America, and had been for a couple of hundred years, and any politician or reformer who wanted to get anything done would have to genuinely share that philosophy, which I do. And, currently, the only Party extant that is truly for the Radical Free-Market is the Libertarian Party, so I ran as a Libertarian with environmental and animal welfare planks appended to the standard Libertarian positions on economic issues.

Additionally, I’d bet dollars to drachmas that the Green Parties, like the Pacific Greens, will probably endorse Sanders. He shares their Socialist views, and perhaps some of their environmental concerns.

Sanders and his socialists will never go anywhere, until their philosophy of looting those who save and invest becomes dominant in America, which it might do when hyperinflation finally hits. Until then, their State-coercion schemes will only make conditions worse, and be laughed at outside of Portland, Seattle, and the SF Bay. But he should do well in Oregon.

Moving from the Democrats to the Republicans, we can now discern two, or even three, distinct parties forming.

First the Trump slap-in-the-face Party. While I find his attacks on Mexicans so repugnant that I could never vote for, endorse, or praise this candidate, I can see why perhaps 20% of the country would like him. The Establishment of both parties are so cowardly and fawning in their sycophantic courting of the public that one feel nausea when they appear on the screen, and Trump’s attacks exploit that discomfiture. I think Ron Paul’s analysis of his character, and his opinion that he was “dangerous”, were fairly accurate.

America’s fourth political Party is the Republican-Conventional Party. This consists of that sorry sad-sack bunch of losers we saw at the Republican “debate” the other night, excluding Trump.

‘Twere obvious from the respectful way they addressed the Nation, that not one of them had ever committed a sin; a sterling group. They’re as irrelevant as Ms. Rodham, but one of them might win, heaven forfend!

The fifth Party in America are the Libertarians, who used to garner 1-2% consistently, but have now scored 8-10% in some States. Their philosophy is based on minimal (or no) government whose sole function is the defense of “personal property rights including your body”, and on the protection of the Individual against Rogue Government (the Bill of Rights), while forbidding aggression against anyone else’s Property Rights. Having run as a Libertarian, read widely on the Philosophy, and being familiar with its major tenents, I can enthusiastically endorse it as the correct Political Philosophy for all mankind, at all times on Earth.

However, on a pragmatic level, I feel the Libertarian’s do not exploit the validity of their Philosophy to its fullness. For example, they seem much more concerned with some minor gun restrictions, like background checks, than they do with major thefts of their wealthy, like the income tax, estate tax, and compulsory social security deductions. I’m the only campaigning Libertarian I ever heard bring up the topic of Jury Duty Slavery, or its violation of the 14th Amendment. And I was rather put off by their failing, in many cases, to understand that second-hand tobacco smoke is a serious assault on our Individual Property Right in our Persons, or than noise pollution from non-survival activities, like boom boxes, is a similar assault. Pitbulls running off-leash in public is a reckless endangerment issue, like drunk driving, but that also didn’t seem to be important to them. And there seemed a great lack of Environmental concerns among many, as Mankind destroys Life on Earth, although about 40% of the Party voting in the Oregon party primary wanted a ban on GMO-crops, which usually indicates a high level of Environmental awareness. But West Coast Libertarians probably differ from the National norm.

So those are the Five Current Political Parties: The Democrats-Main, the Democrats-Socialist, The Republicans-Main, The Trump Republicans or 3rd Party, and the Libertarians. And, outside of these delineations, are also a massive number of “Independents” who could flock to any of these parties.

In my next post, I will give my views on the necessity of a new, major political party in America, and what it’s general platform should be.

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