Category Archives: Libertarianism

A Libertarian H-Bomb on May 23rd: The Brexit Party and the EU Parliamentary Elections

Brexit (definition) – A type of British hardtack biscuit much favored by the English peasantry which the EU broke its tooth on in 2019.

On May 23rd, 2019, we may see the second, and most potent, stage of the quasi-Libertarian Revolution being staged in Britain by those Old World Liberal Englishmen who wanted Mankind’s Liberation from the tyrannies of governments. The Libertarian wants, first and foremost, the Liberty of the Individual to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t assault someone else’s Property Rights. But he also wants that not only for himself, but for all the other Humans.

Part of that Liberty concerns self-government — the people ruling themselves through Parliament, which they choose in democratic-majority elections. This is what is generally known as British Democracy.

It took hundreds of years of bloody British history for the people to throw off the double-yolks of a monarchy with omnipotent power, and a state church. But they finally did it and developed an unwritten Constitution, unlike America, that had certain traditions and established certain boundaries. And the first boundary was that Parliament ruled and was the voice of the people, not any other force like the monarch or the church.

And because a Prime Minister was chosen by his fellow party members in Parliament, and ruled for no fixed terms, he was indirectly chosen by the people who, by voting for a party, knew the general policies that whomever became Prime Minister would surely follow and promote. But unlike in America, if the Prime Minister lost the confidence of his party or the nation, he could be out of office at any time if he proved corrupt or incompetent. In America the Citizens are stuck with whatever clown is voted into the Presidency for four years, and squawk though they may, they cannot easily remove the clown before his sell-by date, no matter how putrid he or she is. Look at the War Criminal Johnson and the War Criminal Nixon, both of whom it took years to remove from office, and only when their fellow politicians finally wanted it.

But in England, the only checks on Parliament were a certain unspoken pressure from the monarch, and the secondary influence of the House of Lords. Otherwise, Parliament ruled supreme and Parliament was the voice of the people who could be called on to vote at any time. In that sense, British Democracy was and is more immediate than American democratically-elected Republicanism.

Britain’s joining the EU changed all that, a change which the masses and most of the politicians failed to comprehend. For it has led to EU rules being imposed on the UK, and for the first time in history UK courts have overruled acts of Parliament because they did not comply with EU laws. This, in effect, gave the unelected EU bureaucrats, who propose EU legislation, which is then passed by the EU Parliament, power over and above Parliament, which could find its decisions being rescinded by UK courts that were being forced to follow EU rules (as has occurred). In effect, for the first time in its history, the UK had a constitutional court that could invalidate an act of Parliament. Or, to put it simply, Parliament no longer ruled the UK.

That is, the Cromwellian Revolution of the 17th century, which overthrew the rule of an absolute Monarchy, had been overturned by the EU bureaucrats without the British public having any say in the decision. Indeed, the Remainers in the UK call the Brexiteers all kinds of names, and predict dire disaster if England does not abjectly lie down and subject herself to the EU bureaucrats. After centuries of war, France and Germany have finally conquered England.

But the recent local council elections in Britain changed all that. The Tory Party, led by the pathetic Theresa May, kept flying in the face of the Tory rank and file, and huge numbers of Labourites and Independents, who wanted a Brexit. The dilatory tactics of May finally exasperated the public to such an extent that the Tories lost over 1300 council seats while Labour lost 82. The Greens gained 145, the Liberal Democrats, who are like milquetoast Democrats in the US, gained many seats, but the largest number of seats gained, over 400, went to Independents unaffiliated with any party, and the minor parties.

The fact that Independents and fringe parties won the greatest number of seats was in itself an indication of a libertarian upsurge in public cynicism towards the corrupt major parties in the UK.

But feeding on that has been the amazing growth of the Brexit Party, which, formed only a month ago by Nigel Farage, is way ahead in the polling, leaving the Parties that have dominated British Politics for several centuries in the dust. That a libertarian Party, libertarian in the sense of wishing to devolve power from a huge Leviathan state to a smaller democratic state, could leap in 30 days from non-existence to leading the British polls at 64% is an amazing political phenomenon. After years of constipation, it looks like the public is tired of eating white bread and junk food.

Whether May 23rd, 2019 will prove to be the beginnings of a great British Libertarianism, so well articulated in the old British Liberal Party and its shining lights like Lord Acton, or merely another descent into the dark, castrating bureaucratic rule of the unelected EU Councils, we cannot as yet know.

On May 23rd, we will see if Britons, once again, will never never never be slaves.

— Paul Grad, vegan-libertarian


Socialism: The Anti-Masculine Ideology

Socialism is a profoundly anti-masculine ideology, substituting the tyranny of the old, pre-Revolutionary European monarchies for the moral and independent ideology of the Jeffersonian Libertarians of the Revolution. And here we use the term “masculine” to characterize the qualities of independence, moral consciousness, and insight, in opposition to the action of acquiescence in the face of fascistic tyranny.

When the new Left in America, now firmly ensconced in the Democrat Party, promotes the values of a fanatical religion as being “peaceful” in the face of facts, and supports Theocratic Fascist regimes like Iran which practice Capital Punishment on a grand scale, while remaining mum on China’s herding a million Uighers into concentration camps, we know we are back in the Dark Ages long before Jefferson.

Those Leftists must have no knowledge of the long, bloody history of Europe where those Men who saw that Liberty and the Inalienable Rights of the Individual were the highest political good were burned at the stake, as was anyone who disagreed vocally with the prevalent religion of the realm. Nationalism and the marriage of church and state meant havoc for Europeans for almost a millenium. But in America was born the idea that a man owned himself, and had no allegiance to any monarch, any flag, or any pre-formulated ideology of religion.

Yet this new generation of Leftists and Liberal Democrats seems to have no knowledge of the dangers illustrated by the past, and this must be due to not teaching European history in the government schools, combined with a tragic non-interest in reading history, philosophy, and many other mind-stretching subjects. This must be due to a vast uninterest in the younger generation in complex mental subjects, which is well illustrated by the meager number of downloads of many important books on free-share websites like and

And this uninterest is primarily due to the conditioning of the new media on the brains of the upcoming generation. By now, those brains have been heavily worked on for decades, and the government-school teachers of today are so mediocre because they were the Reagan-babies of yesteryear. And, as the actor Richard Dreyfus pointed out in a recent interview, since 1970 Civics have ceased to be taught in the government schools, so the children grow up with no exposure as to why our Jeffersonian government is the only one to be consistent with Human Dignity, but also with no exposure to the millennium of failures of European monarchies and the countless wars to which they led. It is thus understandable why Leftists are so easily gulled in their thinking. Their brains are on the level of medieval religious fanatics who could easily be incited into a howling mob. They have no idea of the significance of Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan Revolution, nor of Napoleon, nor are they aware of the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of the Huguenots in France.

There are four anti-Masculine qualities implied in Socialism.

First is the authority of the State, and the Individual’s submission to that authority. This is a problem with any State government, but least so with the Government as envisioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, whose anti-Majoritarian provisions were designed to protect the Inalienable Rights of the Individual against the assault of the democratic mob.

Such submission to authority is most retrograde to Masculinity.

Secondly is Fear in the face of the State. It is obvious that the Socialist State has vast resources with which to harass any Individual who sticks in its craw, even if he stays within the limits of the law. Whether it’s immorally high income and estate taxes that steal over half of the Fruits of Ones’ Labour over the course of a lifetime, or submission to minimum wage laws designed to crucify Black youth and youth in general, the State uses the threat of imprisonment or bankruptcy to cow the Individual into submission. (Bankruptcy or penury in the situation of someone having to bankrupt themselves to hire legal representation to prove themselves innocent in the face of IRS accusations or investigations, as happened to various Conservative political organizations during the Obama Administration.)

Thirdly is conformity, the pressure to go along with the mob. Communists have faced this pressure in America, as their ideology was almost always out of tune with the people they interacted with on a daily basis, and, like the gays of those times, they had to either stay “in the closet”, or earn a dossier with the FBI if they got rowdy. A Capitalist in the Soviet Union or Mao’s China or Castro’s Cuba would have been in the same predicament.

So since it is far more comfortable to share the basic political ideology of the State in which one lives rather than to abrade against it, the modern Socialist State (and what country on the face of the Earth can honestly say that it is not socialist?) subconsciously encourages the Individual to accept the prevailing political and economic ideology. How many times have you heard a Democrat proudly say “We are the Government”?

Finally, there is a subtle pleasure of belonging to and identifying with a group, which goes against the total Independence of the Individual. (And here we are referring to psychological Independence, not the physical dependence we all have on the supermarket, the auto mechanic, the doctor, the airplane repair technician, etc). Technologically we cannot avoid dependence, but we are talking here of the Independence of the psyche acting within the political and economic realms. Organized religions, political parties, generational and sexual-identification groups, national and cultural identities — all these urge the individual to identify with them, and by doing so it automatically creates a division between the individual and members of all other groups.

These harrowing and obviously pernicious qualities are all implied in living in a Socialist State, and it seems that the only protest against this degradation comes from a few Libertarians braying in the wilderness.

So the real question is: Can Masculinity be preserved in a World that prostrates itself before the throne of the Socialist State?

For that to happen will require a total Revolution in the Human Psyche.

— Paul Grad, Enviro-vegan Libetarian

The Yellow Jackets Protests: Socialist Demands, Libertarian Rage

It seems the socialist crumbs that President Macron has thrown to “les canailles” to keep them from ripping him apart are not sufficient to abate their canine rage, as the “Yellow Jacketa” protests in France continued today for a fifth-straight weekend.

The promises to raise the minimum wage — an anti-individualist tyranny designed to make it virtually impossible for low-skilled workers to get any kind of income except welfare, and a dart specifically aimed at the young and minorities, — and to reduce taxes on pensioners have not stopped the rage that is evident on the streets of Paris, and throughout France.

The fact that people are making socialist demands is not surprising in a socialist country. The French are economically uneducated, and have been brainwashed, in a hugely bureaucratic society, to renounce individualism and to subject themselves to the diktats of the State. This is a profoundly anti-masculine, totalitarian subjection which the average Frenchman seems to accept with a shrug of the shoulders. Or, at least, up until now.

While I believe these demonstrators are largely socialists who are being pinched by the big-brother Obamaism that Americans had to suffer under for eight years, and don’t seem to realize that fact if they are just asking for more socialistic programs, their anger seems to me to be solidly in the economic tradition of the Founding Fathers,and Congressman Ron Paul and those who share his economic views.

It sounds like the French have had it with the encroaching Leviathan State, constantly restricting and demanding, turning them into a subject rather akin to what they were under the French Monarchy, rather than an Individual who has the Freedom to determine his own life according to how he best sees fit, as under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, or the unwritten Constitutional tradition of Great Britain.

So in France it’s Socialist demands, but Libertarian anger. Perhaps one day they will realize that and make another and better French Revolution.

— Paul Grad, Enviro-vegan Libertarian

Is a Libertarian Revolution Beginning in France? The Yellow Jacket Protests

It looks like a Libertarian Revolution against Socialism is breaking out in France, as the common people are taxed to death by the Socialist Democrat politicians who run the French Government.

President Macron has condemned the violence, but he doesn’t seem to condemn the violence of his own taxation that sparked the ructions.

I doubt that many of the protesters are Libertarians, but they are reacting as Libertarians react to taxation, the difference being that the masses are firm believers in the State and the socialist set-up that rules in the EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, and the United States. It’s just that those masses are now being pushed to the brink of destitution by the Social Democrat politicians, like Macron, and in America by people like former Governor Jerry Brown, and current Oregon Governor, Kate Brown. If the protestors weren’t being pinched severely in the wallet, they’d be quietly at home, watching their videos.

It looks like the People of France are finally learning the lessons that Frederick Hayek discussed in his seminal work, “The Road to Serfdom”. Only, Hayek realized these truths in 1943; the French masses seem only now, in 2018, to be comprehending what he meant when he said that, under Socialism, the worst rise to the top, both of the government and of its numerous bureaucracies.

On the demonstrators side,they don’t seem to realize that the destruction of police vehicles and government property will only mean that the government will have to raise taxes even more to replace the equipment, and it will be big corporate capitalist companies who will get the contracts and the profits. Moreover, attacking the police is both stupid and immoral. The people they should be attacking are the actual government officials and the heads of the bureaucracies, and those attacks must always be non-violent. In a Libertarian society, those attacks would come in the form of boycotts, and non-violent political agitation. These people are also free to run for office or to form a political party that rescinds taxation.

It is about 50 years since the Student Demonstrations in Paris that rocked the World in the 1960s, led by Daniel Cohn-Bendit. After 50 years of Big Brother Socialism in France, and ridiculous taxation, it looks like the People have finally cottoned on to how destructive the Socialist system is.

Hopefully, the “gilets jaunes” or Yellow Jacket protestors will become Libertarians.

— Paul Grad, Enviro-Vegan Libertarian

The Degeneration of American Society, Circa 2018

America has really degenerated over the last 60 years, and lost many of the qualities that people of that time were capable of. People of that day were just coming out of eons of Mankind living in the most primitive, violent ways because of lack of technology. When Mechanism took Command, it enabled man to live on a level, and in an orderly way, as he had never been able to in all human history. This was exemplified for a while in the 1920s, when, for the first time, a man could live an orderly life, with clean surroundings, new clothes, a modern house, and conveniences and amusements like cars and radios, if he could secure a living. The possibility of Order came into humanity, which had never, ever existed before. Imagine living in the world of Henry VIII; even the wealthy could not live an orderly life then, because of the insecurities of disease, of impoverishment through government fiat, or else having your head cut off.

As the 30s progressed, despite the Depression, the technologies just became more refined, a progress that has gone on uninterruptedly since those days. Compare the cinematography of the 1930s to that of 1963, and you will see a huge improvement in image quality. And now, unfortunately, films look like commercials, having lost that documentary realism one got from the black and white dramas of the 1960s.

This artistic degeneration also eclipsed Jazz. Jazz from the late 1950s to around 1970 was quite a popular genre, though not the major one of Rock, which also had a huge creative explosion during the same period. Both of them started to change in the early 70s, and by 1980 you had disco and jazz was using synthesizers, and sounding a bit like Soul music. The drive and elegance of Basie and Ellington, and the many, many talented trios and quartets, was really amazing, even to this lover of Rock. College kids back then would listen to Jazz in addition to Rock. Do they do that now?

So the breakdown of Art in Film, Jazz, and Rock seemed to parallel the breakdown of American Society that started to set in under Nixon, and really took off under Jimmy Carter. Since then every President has made it worse. Hopefully the current one might reverse that trend, although it is too far gone already.

In the 1960s, people were still in touch with that long past wisdom and humanism of man. People in Britain were generally very courteous and civil, and despite a hard life, alleviated only by beer, cigarettes, and football, they seemed to remain cheerful, and displayed a sharp sense of humour, based on plays, puns, and double meanings of English words. Literature was prized. In a famous, or infamous, speech of War Criminal Lyndon Johnson, in the early 1960s,on gun control, he mentions that in the US there were over 40,000 homicides in the previous year, compared to 38 in England. A murder in England would be in the national papers, and the police didn’t carry guns. In fact, if anyone attacked or shot a policeman in a robbery, the other thieves would help the police catch the criminals.

Of course, there were many very bad aspects to British society, but in general it was a civil, courteous, fairly cheerful, one.

One reason for this was Capitalism. Not the Capitalism of the behemoth corporations like GE and the major banks. But Capitalism in the form of the shop, Individually-owned. England used to be known as a “Nation of Shopkeepers”. A person would open a store dealing in something he liked, or was interested in, or knew much about. The fruitier who loved fruit and seeing people eat, the bookseller with his regulars whose favorite subjects he’d memorized, the three-chair barbershop, the antique junk shop, the cigarette card and stamp shops,— all these enabled their owners to earn a living in an age when many were virtually forced down the coal mines, or to be a dull bank or insurance clerk, scribbling away all day, while the boss rode you. To shop-ownership you probably owe the Capitalist, libertarian strains in English history, the low murder rate in a country where drinking was de rigueur for the working man and everybody else, despite alcohol’s lowering of inhibitions. Blows they’d come to, but rarely murder. And if done on alcohol, murder was rarely premeditated. The Dr. Cribbin who poisoned his wives was a figure of horrible fascination for the public, frequently referred to for decades afterwards. I doubt if many American millenials would now know who Dr. Cribbin was.

And Capitalism in England, as in Holland, forced or encouraged people to get along with each other, so that toleration of other people’s views was necessary if you wanted their custom, and custom meant money now and money in the future. As I put it, imagine two Armenians who go into business together, and after a few years, one finds that the other is defrauding him through the business. He breaks the partnership, and takes on a Korean partner. Not only is the Korean scrupulously honest, but he’s pleasant to work with, having an excellent sense of humor. And both partners are making a good living through the business. Is the Armenian likely to hate Koreans, or does the partnership humanize what was an Ethnic identity into an Individual? Modern people have forgotten that up to 1960, Americans thought all Japanese and Chinese looked alike. But decades of frequently seeing Asian faces have now led people to see them as individually as they see Western faces. This is what made America unique; it was a place where people from many lands came to create a society where Capitalism and the law created the conditions for an orderly life (as compared to anywhere else on the earth), and its basic law was the most Classically Liberal and Libertarian in the long history of Mankind. Jefferson in 1776 was light-years ahead of most of the current leaders in the world in his Libertarian understanding of political science, Natural Rights, and the composition of a Minarchist, or minimal government, Republic, as well as being far ahead of almost all current American politicians. (President Kennedy, the last great President, once invited Pablo Casals to perform at the White House. After the performance he said, “There has never been this much culture in the West Wing since Jefferson dined alone.”) That Capitalism, combined with the radical Freedom of Conscience which some of the Christian Radicals like Roger Williams displayed, along with those other colonies that propounded a radical tolerance for different religious sects and religions, — that I think is what made America so unique in the history of Human civilizations, although there were those anti-libertarian colonies that persecuted sects mercilessly, like the terrible persecutions of the Quakers. You also see this radical Libertarianism in the later efforts of Christian radicals like William Lloyd Garrison who, in the 1830s, was speaking out against “the Peculiar Institution” of slavery, as it was so euphemistically referred to, the worst anti-libertarian Crime next to murder.

You can see this collaboration of many ethnic strains coming together in the making of Hollywood films. If you look at the names of the technicians and actors, you will find names typical of virtually every country excluding the Third World of Asia and Africa (except for cameraman James Wong Howe). Somehow all these people of different backgrounds came together to make the steady stream of excellent films that came out of Hollywood for 30 years after sound came in. And what caused all this energy to be expended was Capitalism, the desire of all these people to make a profit in order to live. As one person aptly put it, the films were written by Communists, they were directed by Social Democrats, and they starred Right-wing Republicans.

But now that Socialism has so long depleted the wealth of Americans, and the constant printing of money and piling of government debt has further weakened the currency, American society is reaching the limits where social groups start fighting for the limited resources. And that is the underlying cause of the increased social friction between the two competing large political camps in America, the Left and the Right. Like Camus, the libertarian is neither one nor the other.

The Libertarian economists Hayek and Mises both predicted this degeneration late in the socialist cycle, and now that 51% of Americans receive government benefits, and 49% don’t and pay into the system, we have crossed into a democratic-majority socialist entity that is no longer the old Jeffersonian Republic of pre-1964, when the US ended silver coinage.

I recall financial analyst Robert Prechter predicting this increase in conflict in 2009. He said that you didn’t want to be in office during that time because you would be blamed for the collapse, no matter what you did. But he recommended getting elected during the depths of the late depression because, when the economy naturally rebounded as markets always do when they’re not interfered with, you would reap the Political credit, even if you did nothing. (Re-elect Harrigan! He did nothing! (Cheers are heard from the crowd.)).

So the heated political rhetoric goes on, with very few having any idea of the libertarian political and economic Principles on which the Republic was founded.

The U.S. – A great Society that reached its peak 55 years ago, and began to die with the twin murders of President Kennedy and silver coinage.

— Paul Grad, Enviro-Vegan Libertarian

My Positions on Oregon Measures 7-65, 14-62, 18-111, 20-290, 22-174, 22-176, For The November 6, 2018 General Election

As promised in my previous post, these are my views on the Oregon non-statewide Measures that are specific to certain Counties in the upcoming election. As usual, I take a strict libertarian approach to these measures which may differ markedly from the positions of the political party that goes by that name.

Measure 7-65 concerns the looting of Crook County property tax payers to support the Bowman Museum in Prineville. It is pretty obvious that local taxpayers have absolutely no responsibility to fund cultural or educational museums. If this museum is that important to the State and its historical heritage, and it probably is, then it should be funded at the State or Federal level, by the State either cutting its salaries and PERS pensions, or by taxing multinational corporations doing business in the State, who currently pay no income tax whatsoever.

Moreover, if the levy fails, the Museum will not close, but will cut hours and staff. It would still be open to the public.

Crook County Government. A fitting name.

On Principle, Crook County property owners and residents should vote NO on Measure 7-65.

Measure 14-62 is another attempt to loot the public in order that the government can swill at your trough. It concerns a heinous attempt to impose a cannabis tax on retail sales of marijuana items in Hood River County. The tax is an outrageous 3%. I believe there should never be a tax on any drug less addictive than caffeine on the Benowitz Scale of addictive substances, and cannabis is less addictive that caffeine on that scale. Therefore it should not be taxed. And, while I would oppose any tax on any drug in a libertarian, laissez-faire society, if the taxpayers are going to be forced at gunpoint to pay for other people’s medical costs, as they are under Medicaid and other schemes, then I would not oppose a tax on substances more addictive than caffeine.

Don’t let them financially exploit you while they pay out State PERS pensions of $913,000/yr. If the State can pay that, they can do without your 3% looted contribution. Give ’em the financial finger on November 6th, and vote NO on Measure 14-62.

Measure 18-111 is another boondoggle that will suck approximately $230,000/yr from the wealth of local property taxpayers for 5 years running to fund the Klamath County Museum System. Like Measure 7-65, such educational and historical museums should be funded at the Federal level or by voluntary private organizations. If the State thinks it is that important, let them cut State salaries by $0.05/$1000 and fund it that way.

Vote NO on Measure 18-111 if you live in Klamath County.

Measure 20-290 is a Lane County attempt to get around the first-past-the-post
method of deciding democratic elections in Oregon, by substituting a very complicated point system which is actually an attempt to insert proportional representation, a terrible system, into the US electoral system. It applies only to non-partisan county elections. Each candidate will receive points from the voter, which will then be added up, the two highest point-receivers are then placed in an “automatic runoff”, and the person with the most points wins the election. In other words, not only won’t candidates have to compete in a primary, so the public can get to know their positions long before the final election, but a candidate who ran second could beat a candidate who was the first choice of the public through democratic majority.

Such measures favor socialist and mixed economy candidates at the expense of Libertarian candidates, because libertarians can usually only vote for a libertarian candidate, but would not tolerate anyone who was a partial or complete socialist, as are almost all non-libertarian candidates. Socialists or social democrats can vote for several candidates depending on the extent of the candidate’s socialism. So Libertarians are at a clear disadvantage under this so-called STAR voting system.

Don’t tinker with our first-past-the-post, democratic majority, system of deciding elections. Vote NO on Measure 20-290 if you live in Lane County.

Measure 22-174 may be quite popular with some libertarians, but not with this one. What it does, in effect, is have the local Sheriff, in this case the Linn County Sheriff, decide which firearms laws are Constitutional and which are not, and to not spend money enforcing those laws which he decides are unconstitutional. Any Individual or organization that happens to follow the Supreme Court or State Supreme Court’s decisions, can be fined $2k for an individual or $4k for a corporation if the Linn County Sheriff happens to think those laws, which have been declared Constitutional by the Courts, are unconstitutional. Which obviously means, in effect, that the local Sheriff has replaced the Courts, and the Supreme Court, in deciding Constitutional Law, a risible attempt at overthrowing our judicial system. Given the lack of legal training as to the Constitutionality of gun laws that the typical Sheriff suffers from, it is obviously absurd to have them decide by themselves which laws are Constitutional, and which aren’t, and to be able to fine people thousands of dollars if their view of gun laws (and the Court’s view) differs from the Sheriff’s. This is a real invitation to vigilante law, and is obviously an unConstitutional Measure. The Sheriff’s function is to enforce the current laws on the books, not to create new law out of whole cloth.

Defend the Constitution, and the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of our government. Vote NO on Measure 22-174.

Finally, we have Measure 22-176 in Linn County, which changes the office of County Surveyor from an elected to an appointed position. Obviously, this is an aggrandizement of government power at the expense of the democratic choice of the People. County Government already has far too much power in that many county positions from dog catcher to patrolman are assigned by appointment rather than election. The office of Surveyor is too important a position to let it be filled by appointment. Let the voters decide at a general election who is the best to be surveyor.

Vote NO on Measure 22-176 in Linn County.

That concludes my positions on the non-Statewide Measures that will only be on the ballot in specific Counties. Readers interested in my positions on Oregon Statewide Measures 102 through 106 should consult my previous blog post.

— Paul Grad, enviro-vegan Libertarian.

America’s Seven Political Parties: What They Believe in a Nutshell

Osbert and Vlad were planning their political campaign for the school’s upcoming election.

Osbert: What shall we call our party?

Vlad: Do we really need a political party? Couldn’t we just run as ourselves?

Osbert: No, no. You must have a political party or people won’t know who you are.

Vlad: Well, what do these parties want to do?

Osbert: First, they all want to make things better. The Conservatives want to make things better by keeping things exactly as they are.

The moderate Democrats want to make things better by changing things, but not so much that anybody notices.

The Republicans want to make things better by changing things, but not so much that anybody notices, and only if it benefits themselves.

The Progressive Democrats and Socialists want to make things better by taking everything away from everybody who isn’t a Progressive Democrat or a Socialist.

The Fascists and Communists want to make things better by killing everyone but themselves.

The Libertarians want to make things better by letting everyone do whatever they please as long as they do not assault someone else.

Vlad: We’d better not run as Libertarians. They sound dangerous.

— Paul Grad, enviro-vegan libertarian

Economics, History, and Polly Sigh: The Fatal Non-Conjunction

One of the very important points that Professor Murray Rothbard makes is the fact that few economists are historians, and few historians are deep scholars of economics (and if so, they’ve usually studied Keynesian economics), and so, in looking at history, the average writer and reader is fully unaware of the importance of certain events. The history book mentions that John Williams became Secretary of the Treasury during James Smith’s Presidency, but the historian fails to note that Williams, the son-in-law of the daughter of the sister of the Secretary of the Treasury, had been a corporate lawyer for XYZ Inc. before appointment, and joined the board of ZYX Corp. after leaving office.

Add to this the fact that few economists have studied Political Science, and,for historians, their studies have usually been confined to Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke. The intimate connection between political Philosophy and Austrian School Free-Market economics, which, face it, was the economics of the first large Capitalists in Renaissance Italy, has been overlooked.

So, to find someone steeped in political philosophy, Classical Liberal Free-Market economics, and American Economic History, like Professor Rothbard, is extremely rare, although it is obviously absolutely essential to any valid analyses of past history and economics.

In “The Ethics of Liberty”, Rothbard lays out the philosophical basis of the American System of Property Rights, which puts the Individual and his Property above any governmental or collective powers. It is a moral doctrine which says that the means must be pure, that the end does not justify the means, and that no one may aggress against anyone else’s property. This philosophical basis for Capitalism seems to me to be sorely lacking in prominent “Libertarian” or “Conservative” commentators.

For example, rarely do two “Libertarian” or Classical Liberals, or Conservatives, start with the Property Rights argument when approaching any problem. I’ve listened to long discussions by Dave Rubin and many of his guests, or free-market conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Dennis Praeger, and not once do they bring up this rock-solid basis of Property Rights in their discussions. And they seem so shocked at the antics of the Left when the Left’s understanding of economics, history, and political philosophy is so puerile, and its’ ignorance of the Libertarian roots of the American Revolution is vast. The Left’s histrionics are completely predictable as the economic situation worsens under socialism.

Likewise with historians like the British historian, Vernon Bogdanor, or even the venerated Arthur M. Schlesinger — a complete non-understanding of economics which makes many of their historical observations invalid.

So without a simple understanding of the interconnection between economics, history, and political science, it is rather futile to read any of these topics in isolation. Libertarianism can only adumbrate certain main routes to Human Liberation in the political realm, but it leaves it up to those who do not understand the interconnections we are discussing to delineate the minor details and combinations of specific political issues with their adversaries, as in the long-suffering Democrat vs Republican football game.

But without also a deep understanding of the three basic principles of Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism — the Non-Aggression Principle, Natural Rights theory, and the idea of Self-ownership —, there can be no laying of the foundation for an orderly, non-violent society.

— Paul Grad, Enviro-Vegan Libertarian

Tariffs: Another Word for State Theft

Libertarians and Classical Liberals oppose tariffs as an interference in Free Trade. The British Liberal Party in the 19th Century firmly agitated against tariffs as do modern Libertarians.

But tariffs are actually just plain old theft. And that theft is conducted by “The State”, whatever the name of the country or the ruling party in that country happens to be. In essence it is the State interfering in the Free Market and extorting Capital from Capitalists to enrich the coffers of the State instead of the coffers of the Traders. This is an evil and pernicious activity.

There has always been an opposition between the Free Market Capitalists and the State looters, who extort money from the Capitalists by assaulting them through taxes, tariffs, and excise taxes (although the excise tax, especially on pernicious products like tobacco, is the least immoral of all taxes, and was used to fund the fledgling American Republic prior to the immoral income tax). The justification for tariffs is always to “protect” certain favored home country industries in a process not unlike the Mercantilists of the various European monarchies of the past. Monarchs would sell “monopolies” to favored nobles and bureaucrats who formed themselves into “Companies”. The modern day Statists do the same thing by putting tariffs on products to protect their favored client industries which are akin to those mercantilist companies under the monarchies. As you may recall, the American Colonists had some division of opinion with King George over this matter, which caused quite a ruction.

However, what happens when one country imposes tariffs on trade with the U.S., but the U.S. charges no tariffs on its own products? Is that not one way theft? And if tariffs are sauce for the socialist-country geese, are they not also sauce for the Free Market-country ganders that do not charge tariffs?

It sounds like the retaliatory tariffs that President Trump is throwing at various socialist and totalitarian countries are really a matter of saying, if you’re going to ream us, financially-speaking, we’ll ream you back in like fashion.

However, tariffs, whether they’re put on as mercantilist looting mechanisms for the State and their client industries to legally rob the Consumer, or whether they are put on in response to other countries current tariffs, always hurt the consumer. As Rothbard pointed out, it is the size of bank balances held in a country that is the important item. That is, if I can buy a manhole cover from the U.S. for $125 or a manhole cover from India for $50, it is better for the U.S. nation as a whole if I buy the Indian cover and keep the extra $75 in the bank, where it is loaned out to buy capital equipment that increases productivity, rather than if I pay the $125, have a smaller bank balance, and the extra $75 goes to the wealthy owners of the “protected by tariff” U.S. manhole-cover manufacturers’ cartel.

Tariffs strengthen the Leviathan State and weaken the Consumer and the individual Capitalist. Free Trade Capitalism weakens the Leviathan State and enriches the Consumer and the Free Market Capitalist.

That said, tariffs as a form of punitive punishment for the Crimes of Totalitarian Regimes are, to me, no sin. If a country abuses the inalienable Jeffersonian Rights that are germane to any modern democratic Republic or democracy, then I will not object to tariffs on that country’s products and industries. Fascists should not be tolerated in the modern world. Their regimes should be overthrown and undermined by every non-violent means available.

The ultimate solution is for all nations on Earth to abandon tariffs completely, so that any nation that did try to impose tariffs would be viewed by the rest of the world as a looting moral pariah, little different from a gang of highwaymen.

Our first motto should be, “No democratic-elections Republic or Constitutional Monarchy, no trade.”

Our second, “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nomineee 2014

Senator Rand Paul’s Attacker Gets 30 Days: A Travesty of Justice

A great and heinous travesty of Justice has just taken place in America. The attacker of a US Senator, Rand Paul, who was grievously injured in the assault and sustaining five cracked ribs, pneumonia,and a lot of physical pain,— that attacker was given a slap on the wrist by the “Unjustice System” in the U.S. There was no “with Liberty and Justice for all” for Senator Paul when the court in effect gave a green light to any Democratic nutcase who wants to assault a U.S. Senator who doesn’t agree with their immoral agenda.

In a previous post I stated that the attacker of a U.S. Senator should get 30 years in Federal Prison without Parole as a deterrent to this very serious crime. I’m sure there are a lot of Leftists in America truly disappointed that this assassination attempt on the most (and only) Libertarian member of the Senate did not succeed.

The Congress must immediately pass legislation making it a Federal Felony of the highest order to physically assault a U.S. Senator, Congressman, or member of the Administration Cabinet.

Only then will Justice be done, and those chosen to serve by the free vote of the American public will not have that choice negated by violent political agitators.

Rene Boucher deserved 30 years in the Pen. He got 30 days. When will we have Justice in America?

— Paul Grad, vegan-libertarian