Category Archives: Oregon Libertarian Party

Trump vs. Clinton: The Capitalist vs. The Corporate Socialist

Though I originally planned to vote for Gary Johnson, and said I wouldn’t vote for Trump, I’ve come to the conclusion that a vote for Trump is an existential necessity, given the war-mongering  Corporate Socialist Clinton, and the way her brand of Fascism is destroying the country.

paul 19If you wanted one good reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, it would be the avoidance of nuclear war with Russia, and the probable tearing up of the Iran Deal, a deal which guarantees a nuclear weapon within a few years to a war-mongering, belligerent Theocracy. It’s basically a choice of Peace over War, and War is the great enemy of Free-Market Capitalism.

But beyond those reasons, we are really being given a choice between a Capitalist and a Corporate Socialist, who embraces all the free perks that Socialism can send her way, a choice between a man who has made his own money in a heavily socialist society, and a woman who has made her money by kowtowing to the largest corporate interests in America, and the most despotic Christian-hating, Jew-hating, woman-oppressing, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.

I thought, about five years back, after rooting for Ron Paul, and seeing his campaign run up against the Republican establishment, that the only hope for America was an independent billionaire, who did not have to spend his time fundraising, or pleasing the main elements in his party, but who could speak his mind and finance his own campaign. That billionaire turns out to be Donald Trump.

The “campaign finance reform” laws have made it virtually impossible for anyone in America to get elected to office unless they are an independent billionaire, or able to raise millions of individual donations. Since donations to political candidates are now limited to $2,700, it would have been virtually impossible for me to raise enough money to run an effective campaign when I was the Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor in 2014. If a millionaire, or a billionaire had wanted to give me a million dollars for my campaign, it would have been “illegal”, a clear violation of the Right to do what you want with your money as long as it doesn’t violate the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. The Democrats and do-gooders, in their unthinking rush to do something sounding good like keeping “big money” out of politics, have virtually guaranteed that no poor person could ever attain major political office, and that those that can will always be the willing stooges of the two major parties. The fact that so-called “campaign finance reform” violates the Right to use your money to pursue your happiness (by donating it to a worthy, revolutionary candidate) is quickly thrown under the bus.

We should be grateful to Donald Trump for destroying the pathetic Republican Party, and for wiping out all the candidates in that Party who were ready to go fisticuffs with the Russians, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul. Good riddance to that bunch of nothings.

There are other virtues to the Trump candidacy. Here is an amazingly energetic man at 70, who can hold two or three campaign rallies in a day. Trump is also very bright (he graduated at the top of his class at Wharton), and you will notice that he never flubs a line in his speeches, or uses vocal “ahh, umm” pauses like the President does. Unlike Jill Stein, he doesn’t have to say “you know” seven times in every sentence. Moreover, to run a huge business, and make constant decisions that cost millions of dollars, require a brain that can function efficiently and rationally. Apparently Trump has such a brain, and that’s the kind of brain you’d want in a President.

Additionally, you have to admire the fact that Trump has never used a drug, not even caffeine, although one should keep in mind Norman Mailer’s observation that small town wisdom distrusts the man who never takes a drink or who has never been drunk because they know that “devils are inside in that man, waiting to bust out”. That certainly seems the case with Trump, when he lets his mouth run ahead of his mind. And though he doesn’t use drugs, it is obvious that he uses food as a substitute.

Now, there are many things I don’t like about Trump’s platform and manner. His bashing of Mexicans, where he actually called them rapists if you listen closely to the speech, and his juvenile making-fun of a severely disabled reporter, are disgusting. His plan to build a fence along the Mexican border (although he makes no mention of the Canadian border, where many Middle Eastern refugees and immigrants have settled) seems unrealistic. His Tariff policy is certainly anti-Capitalist and shows he hasn’t read or understood Professor Murray Rothbard, since the money saved on cheaper, tariff-free foreign-made goods ends up in the bank balances of US Citizens, which strengthens the country more than foreign tariffs on US-made goods hurt it. Still, he has a point that foreign tariffs hurt our trade deficit, and he’s probably right that foreign countries will have to lower or end their anti-Capitalist tariffs if he threatens them with retaliatory tariffs. His absurd notion that our military is falling apart, and we need to beef-up our conventional weapons, must have the arms manufacturers salivating. He seems to have forgotten our fleet of nuclear weapons.

But you can’t have it all in one candidate (except for me — go read my platform).

But at a more fundamental level, a vote for Trump is a vote for Capitalism over and against the Corporate Socialism of Clinton (which is actually Fascism if you read its founder Mussolini’s definition of it). And Free-Market Capitalism is an essential element of Classical Liberalism, the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the Libertarians. While there has never been a purely Capitalist society, except among so-called primitive tribes who use shells or cattle as currency to trade with other tribes, and never a society that has existed with the amazing modern technology, which has the capacity to end human drudgery, it is also true that the most Capitalistic, Free-Market societies like the old U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands, have been the freest and most tolerant societies in history. Capitalism promotes human dignity and economic prosperity; Socialism always destroys it, as it is destroying modern America. Under Capitalism, the Consumer is King and votes in the market place with his money; under Socialism, the central planner, politician or Fuhrer is king. In that sense Capitalism is democratic and Socialism is authoritarian. Every Socialist society that has existed has economically and socially fallen apart, as currently the US and Europe are falling apart.

Finally, let me add that voting for Gary Johnson is not going to prevent a nuclear war with the Russkies, and many of Johnson’s policies, like mandatory vaccinations and his support of the TPP, are anti-Libertarian. He also has virtually no charisma, which is important in a political candidate. The last straw for me was when he called Clinton a “dedicated public servant” which is unbelievable coming from a candidate who purports to be a Libertarian, and in light of Clinton’s behavior. Where were all the trenchant criticisms of the Democrats, and their whole corrupt system, that used to come from the lips of Ron Paul?

So whether its with enthusiasm, or by default, the causes of World Peace and Capitalism necessitate a vote for Donald Trump for President.

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor in 2014


Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Libertarianism vs. Communism

In my opinion, there are only two political philosophies: Libertarianism and Communism. Libertarianism, or the Classical Liberalism of Jefferson and his predecessors, is based on the ethical bedrock principle, known as the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom, that “no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone”. It says that all humans are endowed with certain inalienable Natural Rights, and that government or other individuals cannot violate those Rights. Such violations are Invasion.paul 19

Communism and all its relatives, which stretch from a pure communism, where the State owns 100% of everything, including your body and Liberty, to its milder cousins like the Democratic and Republican Parties in America, which violate the Individuals Natural Rights, but leave him a little Liberty, and use the propaganda of State Media to describe their system as Capitalist — Communism and its relatives all violate these Natural Rights Principles. They lay claim to the fruits of ones labor; they tell the individual what he can and cannot put in his body, even for medical reasons; they can force him to serve on juries at slave wages for months on end; they force him to buy insurance from private business entities in order just to exist in America; they dump flouride in his drinking water, they dragoon his children into government schools where they are exposed to pesticides, they can murder him through Capital Punishment for a crime he didn’t commit. And these abuses of the Citizenry have persisted unabated for the last 65 years, while the two major parties have both had the power to correct these abuses within 72 hours. That is the putrid morality of the non-Libertarian Parties, and you’ll notice that none of the other minor parties have addressed these issues like the Libertarians.

Libertarianism stands in opposition to moral and ethical relativism. It says there are actions of human beings that are definitely and objectively immoral, and that the actions of a government (or of Libertarian political activity) must always be moral. This opposition to “the ends justifies the means” of the Communist and the Nazi, is one of the main characteristics of Libertarianism. The Means must be Moral.

And by starting from a bedrock of Truth, Libertarianism avoids many of the problems and political issues that would not be even debated in a Libertarian society because they would not exist. Marriage, for example, being a traditionally religious institution, should not be handled by the State, and married people should gain no material advantage from their collective status over those who are single (for example, a lower tax rate for married couples). But the entire issue of so-called “Gay Marriage” would be entirely removed from the political sphere under a Libertarian administration, since marriage, being a religious institution, would be removed from government, and all this wrangling of political energy over a non-issue would be conserved. The same holds true for drug possession, prostitution, and gambling. All those issues would soon be non-issues under Libertarianism. And the same applies to most of the political wrangling that goes on in American political life — it’s dealing with issues that are really non-issues, like (for the Republicans), what level of immoral taxation are we going to accept and tell our followers to grovel and accept, and how can we even spend more in those areas we love, like overseas military bases and farm subsidies. Both major parties are utterly morally bankrupt.

No, there are only two parties in America: the Libertarian and the Communist, and you’d better vote for the former if you want to preserve your Republic.

Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: The Don Merrill Interview

Don Merrill, an independent producer working with KBOO.FM to bring to the public interviews with politicians and Artists, was kind enough to interview me on September 18th for his radio podcast archive program entitled “Between Us”, and yesterday lodged the podcast of that interview on the KBOO.FM  Audio Archives. paul 19I want to thank both Mr. Merrill and radio station KBOO.FM not only for interviewing me, but also for interviewing a wide range of would-be politicians covering the entire panoply of political philosophy. Such actions by the Press serve the commendable function of strengthening and protecting The Republic by broadening the political consciousness of society, which is the political consciousness of each individual citizen viewed in its totality. They are one of the very few members of the Press in Oregon who have fulfilled their Responsibilities to the Public, in my opinion. Don did a great job!

Anyway, this is what I sound like when I get up on my hind legs. Sorry if you don’t agree with some of it. Hopefully not all of it.

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Should Drugs Be Taxed?

Should drugs be taxed? The Libertarian would almost certainly say “no”. And we agree. Taking drugs is a vice, but in a Libertarian society, a vice is not a crime. So it certainly should not be taxed.

However, when we come to a societies like England, Canada, and now America, where there is a government-run public medical service which the taxpayer is forced to fund, then, it seems to me, we could legitimately tax drugs to conduct that service, to offset those taxes paid under coercion by taxpayers who do not use drugs, or who pay their own medical bills.

So, if you have a socialist medical-care system, you could justly impose a tax on deleterious drug-use, that tax going directly to pay for the government-run or funded medical care.

But if you had a completely free-market system, with well-run hospitals that charged what the consumer thought were reasonable prices, and gave flawless service for that price, and with the destitute being aided by voluntary charity organizations that would come into being in a prosperous society where the affluent knew that the moral responsibility for aiding the destitute was squarely on their own shoulders, and not passed on to a government agency to deal with in their dehumanized, bureaucratic way — if you had such a system, you’d have a real solution to the vast medical-care dilemma that is descending on America, because politicians have completely neglected the nutritional health of the people.

In my view, any drug tax should commence at caffeine, but I would set that tax level at one cent per pound, which wouldn’t even cover the cost of collection, so the tax on coffee, tea, yerba mate, and other caffeine-containing plants would be a de facto nil. Then, as you moved up the ugly scale — the opiates, crack cocaine, powdered cocaine, benzedrine, dexedrine, methadrine, ice, ecstacy, qualudes, barbituates, alcohol, and — the most addictive drug on the Benowitz scale of addiction — tobacco-nicotine, you’d increase the tax amounts. All these killer drugs should be taxed if we decriminalize drugs while simultaneously we have a national government medical system. Probably all the taxes collected should go to pay the wages of only doctors, nurses, and workers, not administrators.

So whether you tax all drugs, or some drugs, or no drugs, really depends on how entrenched or absent government is in the medical care economy. In a socialist society, drugs would be taxed; in a Libertarian classical-Liberal society, they would not be.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: How I Voted on Oregon State Initiatives in the Libertarian Primary

The Oregon Libertarian Party’s Primary, paid for by the party and not the general taxpayer, is conducting a primary vote on the Oregon State Initiatives, Referendums, and Referrals measures (IRRs) that will be on the November ballot. In the interests of those voters who might vote for me in the Libertarian Primary, or later in the general election in the unlikely event that I win in the primary, I think it my duty to tell the voters how I voted on these issues and why, so that they can get a better sense of my brand of Libertarianism.

Firstly, there is IRR no.2, which would prohibit all payroll deductions from public employees to/on behalf of any public employee unions. This is a pretty easy one for Libertarians, so I voted yes. Of course, government should have nothing to do with funding any private collective group, whether it be a union or a corporation, and anyone in these groups is completely free to make that payroll deduction on their own.

That said, if I were a utilitarian, I would say that the cost to the state of setting up such an automatic deduction mechanism would be very minimal, and once set up, it would incur virtually no additional costs. In other words, automatic payroll deductions would cost almost nothing to set up and maintain, and would be a great convenience to those who wished to pay into that system. But obviously it is still not the responsibility of the State or the taxpayers to set this up, and the would-be union donor is still as free as a bird to donate money from his paycheck to the unions. It is his responsibility to make that payment, not the State’s or the taxpayer’s.

Since Libertarians base their decisions on Principle, not Utilitarianism, it is easy to decide that this issue requires a resounding “Yes” to prohibit such payroll deductions.

Moving on to IRR no.6, which would prohibit funds directly/indirectly for abortions, we did not vote, for we feel that both sides in the abortion debate are absolutely right. Listening to Murray Rothbard’s arguments for abortion, and Ron Paul’s arguments against abortion, it’s hard not to agree with both of them. Therefore I abstained from voting on this measure.

Moving on to IRR no.8, which recognizes same sex marriage, I again abstained, for I feel that the correct procedure is not to extend the unjust tax privileges that go with marriage, a religious institution, to yet another group of people, but rather to remove marriage altogether from the secular law books and government. Marriage, being a religious institution, should be completely cut off from government, the State, and the lawbooks, in my opinion. However, since this would indicate that I should have voted no on the measure, and I didn’t,  I did so because such a no vote would usually be interpreted as a vote against same sex marriage. Frankly, I don’t give a darn what people do in their private lives as long as there is no violation of the Libertarian non-aggression axiom, but I also don’t think that special privileges should be extended to certain collective groups of taxpayers which force all other taxpayers to pay a higher rate of tax. Instead of legalizing same sex marriage under the law, we should be eliminating all marriage from the law books. However, prejudice is unfortunately so great against gays and lesbians in our current society, that voting no on this measure could easily be interpreted as condoning that heinous prejudice, so I abstained.

Here, we should point out that Wes Wagner, the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s Chairman, made an excellent plea in our voter’s pamphlet, for voting Yes on this measure, pointing out that the Libertarian Party had vigorously opposed Measure 36, passed in 2004, which in effect outlawed same sex marriage. We agree with his arguments, and would have liked to have voted Yes, but Principle forced us not to do so.

Measure IRR no.21, which would de facto legalize cannabis, with a few exceptions, and with state regulation, was one we voted yes for, while holding our nose. The measure is excellent, and duplicates our own view exactly, except for its last part which gives the State the power to regulate, even tax, this powerful and medically-useful herb which is less physically addictive than caffeine. That latter part of the measure spoils it irreparably. The wording that permits “State regulation reasonably defining, limiting, regulating use, possession, production, sale, taxation of cannabis” is so blatantly anti-Libertarian, and so pro-nanny State,that I probably should not have voted for it, but on the other hand, the suffering and misery caused by the cannabis prohibitionists to our fellow Citizens is so great, that voting for this measure is better than voting “no”, and having that “no” vote interpreted as public opposition to the legalization of cannabis. Who is to define what “reasonable” is in this vague measure? Yet, of the three cannabis-decriminalizing measures on the ballot, this is the least Fascistic in my opinion.Cannabis should be completely legal and unregulated, save for delivery to minors, and reckless endangerment issues, and the public should not accept anything less, like a tax, or the government defining what a “reasonable” consumption rate is.

Moving on, we come to IRR no.22, which again would more or less legalize cannabis, but would set up a “cannabis commission”, another unnecessary-boondoggle bit of bureaucracy, with its accompanying huge salaries. I believe all State commissions should be eliminated, and their salaries returned to the taxpayers in the form of lowered personal income tax rates. So I voted “no”.

IRR no.23 puts forth a very important point that needs to be introduced into current law, that Natural Individuals have more Rights than corporations/governments, known as “artificial individuals”, and that  Natural Individuals can exercise an undefined privacy right. Obviously, since this is one of my proposals in my platform, that Individual Rights should be put before collectivist, notional, idea’s, known as corporations, so-called rights, I voted for this measure with gusto, despite its vagueness.

Measure IRR no.34, which puts equality of rights for both sexes into the State Constitution, following on a  decision of the Oregon Supreme Court, is long overdue., so I voted “yes”. This should have been the law since the time of the French Revolution, when the State of Oregon didn’t even exist.

IRR no.52 is a very important measure, and one that I believe violates Federal Law. It gives business an exception from anti-discrimination laws for “religious belief”. I voted against it, because it violates the Federal guarantee, printed on every Federal Reserve Note, that that note is legal tender for all debts, private and public. Now, it seems to me that when you advertise a price for a good or service, either in your store window, or in a public advertisement, then what you’ve done is offer an implied contract, which says that you will exchange the good or service offered for a fixed quantity of Federal Reserve notes. Thus, to suddenly discriminate against someone, based on whatever reason except those which pertain to every single Citizen (like “shirt and shoes required for service” in a restaurant), is to violate a business contract that is guaranteed by the Federal Government, a serious Federal Law offence.

Therefore, since it violates Contract law, it should be voted against, and I did so vote.

IRR no.53 is a horrendous cannabis issue, that already has the state creating all kinds of complex rules, red tape, and huge taxes on cannabis. It’s just as bad as the cannabis commission creating bill, perhaps even worse. But voting against it, again might be construed as wanting to keep cannabis illegal, so we obstained from voting on this one.

IRR no.54, which would lead to only two candidates on the final ballot, is a bipartisan Fascist measure if there ever was one, designed to eliminate our elective choices down to the two “main” parties. The mainstream media, and the two behemoth political parties, would like to have you think that politics is a football game between only two political ideologies, Liberalism vs. Conservativism, with George McGovern and William F. Buckley as head coaches. They certainly don’t want the public thinking in third or forth directions, like the total state ownership of everything under Communism, or the wide-ranging freedom of a Free-market, laissez-faire, Capitalist society under Libertarianism, where government interference in life would be very minimal, except to restrain violent criminals. This bill would attempt to institutionalize that restriction of our political vision, by giving us only a final choice between a Democrat big-government supporter, and a Republican big-government supporter.

After all, if this bill had already passed, I couldn’t be on the ballot in November. So I voted “no”.

Measure IRR no.301, which would issue “drivers cards” to anyone, without having to prove legal residence in the U.S., is another one of those utilitarian measures which should be rejected on Principle. There may be pragmatic reasons for driver testing illegal immigrants, to make sure the roads are safer, and we think they would be, but that does not overlook the fact that we are enabling people to live comfortably in America, when they haven’t gone through the long, tortuous process that Naturalized American Citizens have gone through to become U.S. Citizens. It seems to me that this unfairness to those who followed the law would warrant a “no” vote on this measure, even if it has real, pragmatic effects that would argue for its passage. I think the immigration laws should be obeyed, although one wing of Libertarianism to which I adhere, feels that immigrants are a great boon to a Capitalist society, and that anyone who comes here and contributes his skills and labor to our economy, as long as he obeys the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom, is an asset to be encouraged, not moaned about. There was very little discussion about “illegal immigration” at the time of the American Revolution, when foreigners came to help.

Last amongst our list of measures, is the horrendous IRR no.402, which would amend the Constitution to require creation of a fund for Oregonians pursuing post-secondary education, and authorize State indebtedness to finance the fund. This is just another measure to aggrandize Government schools, and keep loads more people out of the competitive labor market for many more years, as well as financing the cushy lifestyles of the college and university intellectuals and bureaucrats, who live in a completely different world from the minimum wage earner, the roofer, and the barber. (Just look at the immorally high salaries of our university presidents, personnel managers, investment fund advisors, and athletics coaches. Since when has football had anything to do with education? College sports are entertainment boondoggles — modern forms of Roman Circus, paid for at the taxpayer’s expense.) Many of these intellectuals couldn’t make a cent in the free-market if it weren’t for their State subsidization, although in a Free-Market for education, that rid us of these horrendous government schools and the financial albatross they tie around our necks, the talented amongst these intellectuals would soon find positions at privately-financed schools, or as tutors. Our Government Universities should all be closed, except for slowly phasing out the medical-teaching facilities, and their buildings should probably be used as temporary homeless shelters for all the hobos and homeless young mothers who have been impoverished by the Minimum Wage Laws, and the massive bipartisan monetary inflation that is being carried out under Bush-Obama, which has impoverished so many of those who voted Democratic. Housing the homeless thusly would save the State welfare departments a small fortune in housing allowances.

In brief, I voted “no” on IRR no.402.

Hopefully, this discussion will give you a glimpse into my interpretation of Libertarian doctrine vis-a-vis these political issues.

The Libertarian Primary is now underway, and results should be announced around June 6th. I thank the Party for giving those of us who registered as Libertarians a chance to voice our opinions on these very crucial political issues, (and a chance to run for office without having to collect thousands upon thousands of signatures). The Libertarian Party of Oregon has done a Good Deed.

Libertarians can vote for me on the Libertarian Primary Ballot. Democrats, Republicans, and Communists can write me in.

Paul Grad,




Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Opting-Out of Autopsies

One of the key principles of Libertarianism is the reality of self-ownership. This self-ownership lasts not only through the life of the Individual, but into his death. This is clearly illustrated by the Libertarian opposition to the estate and inheritance taxes, which are a violation of inalienable Property Rights. As we pointed  in our post on abolishing the estate and inheritance taxes, such taxes are violations not of the Property Rights of the inheritor, but violations of the Property Rights of the deceased.

If we hold this principle valid, then we would have to give individuals the option of declining an autopsy, when current law would mandate one, since this is literally an invasion of their property rights in their own bodies. This could be done though a codicil in their wills prohibiting an autopsy on themselves.

Many individuals and certain religious groups view autopsy as an irreligious violation of their personal or religous wishes, and their views and Rights need to be respected. This could be done by letting them include instructions in their wills that would forbid autopsy.

However, I would make two exceptions to this opting out. First, if law enforcement had a strong suspicion of foul play, like they found a bullet in your back, then the solving of such a serious “malum in se”, that is, a major crime in Libertarian Law,  would take precedence over the wishes of the deceased, unless their will specifically requested the non-prosecution of their murderer. Even then, it could be debated that the non-pursuit of a murderer would be a violation of law enforcement’s responsibility to solve malum in se crimes. And it is also fairly unlikely that many citizens would request the non-prosecution of their murderers.

The second exception to the autopsy opt-out would be if the next of kin requested an autopsy, because they, for some reason, suspected foul play, even if the police did not.

Liberty means, not only doing with your body what you want during life, as long as it doesn’t violate the Libertarian Non-Aggression Axiom, but doing what you want with your body after death.

Let’s protect the dignity of the dead, defend Natural Law Property Rights, and prevent these violations of religious observance which the State is currently permitted to carry out in modern America. Let’s legalize opting-out of an autopsy.

Libertarians can vote for me on the Libertarian Primary ballot. Democrats, Republicans, and Communists can vote for me in November.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Abolishing PERS, the Public Employees Retirement System

As Governor of Oregon, I will introduce legislation abolishing the heinous public employees retirement system, known as PERS.

There can be little doubt that PERS is bankrupting local governments all over Oregon. It is an outrageous, immoral system, and one which shows how communistic proposals that sound reasonable can lead to horrendous results that undermine an entire society.

Imprimus, let’s remember that the entire idea of publicly funded retirement systems is completely immoral, and a violation of the inalienable right to ones own property in the form of taxes. There is certainly an obligation to pay public employees a salary, just as in the private market, but why should we be obliged to pay a public employee retirement benefits for the rest of their post-60 year old lives? Obviously, we should not be obliged under a system of Libertarian Law, and the property that we are forced to hand over to this sytem in the form of taxes is nothing but theft through coercion. Given the huge benefits accrued, and the annual COLA increase which is larger than most banks pay in interest, where is there in our Jeffersonian Constitution any obligation for the taxpayer to support people after they cease to work for the taxpayer? Since we are all already dragooned into the immoral Federal Social Security System by the Federal Government, and if that system is supposedly sufficient to support people in their old age, why should there be any further obligation on state taxpayers to provide an additional welfare boondoggle to these communistic parasites (and we exclude from this description those state workers who morally objected to PERS but were forced, if they wanted to work for the State, into having to participate in it)?

There is absolutely no reason why people cannot save for their own retirement, or why private retirement funds could not be set up on the free-market that would carry out the same function. State workers should be on the same footing as the Manpower employee who works for the minimum wage, and receives absolutely no retirement benefits.

Whenever the politicians dun you for more tax money for yet another government function, remember that that money probably would have been available if there were no PERS system bleeding local government of its revenues.

Recall that over 1,100 Oregon State PERS recipients currently receive over $100,000 each in pension benefits per year, according to Oregon Live, and a list of the top amount recipients published by the major newspaper, the Oregonian.

The top dozen annual amount recipients are Robert Bellotti — $513, 612, Neil Swanson — $463,053, Frederick Keller — $390,840, Lesley Hallick — $298,176, Steven Goldschmidt — $267,322, David Frohnmayer — $261,234, Frank Anderson — $251,070, William Korach — $249,327, Peter Kohler $246,468, Peter Vonhippel — $245,136, Anthony Montanaro — $241,984, and David Kabat, $238,844. The full list can be found here:

This is the legalized, immoral looting of the taxpayers that goes on under the rule of the Democrats, and their Republican collaborators and enablers.

If you think that over 1,100 former State employees should receive annual retirement benefits of over $100,000, then vote for the Democrats and Republicans. If you think this is utterly immoral and unConstitutional, then vote for me and other Libertarians who would pledge to abolish this fiscal abomination.

Let’s stop mollycoddling wealthy government parasites at the expense of the public’s safety and those few government functions which are within the purview of the Jeffersonian concept of Libertarian government. Let’s abolish PERS.

Libertarians can check my name on the Libertarian Primary ballot. Democrats, Republicans, and Communists can vote for me if I win the Libertarian Primary (I’m running against three Republicans) on the November ballot, or write me in if I don’t win the Libertarian Primary.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Removing Marriage from the Oregon Legal Code

As Governor of Oregon, I will attempt to remove marriage from the State’s legal codes and statutes, and remove the injustices done to single people and those living in concubinage.

In the West, Marriage has always been regarded as a religious function and contract up until the present time. In all the major Western religions, marriage contracts were drawn up, and lodged with the religious bodies. It is only in modern times that we see the State taking over this religious function, and somehow twisting it into something “civil”.

But Jeffersonian Libertarianism deals only with the property rights of the Individual; it says nothing about collective rights, and certainly doesn’t acknowledge that they even exist. Natural Rights Law says that all men are endowed with the same exact Rights, and to give special rights to certain groups or collectives at the expense of those Individual Rights is surely wrong. (The Rights of children differ somewhat in scope from those of an adult, and require a separate discussion.)

Now, marriage gives certain collective rights to married people under current law at the expense of everyone who isn’t married, mostly in the realm of the immoral income tax, where a working man who keeps a wife at home can claim two deductions, while a single man with the same income can only claim one, and thus pays more in tax. This is immoral, and should change. Likewise for the single person, living with a concubine: though these two people are living in identical circumstances to the married couple, they get only one tax deduction on the working partner’s income, not two. In that marriage is a religious contract, this is a violation of the “separation of church and state” that Thomas Jefferson so wisely advised us to vigilantly maintain.

Getting rid of marriage from our laws, and just having the major organized religions, or even a registration group for atheists and agnostics, register marriages as solemn religious or special contracts between two people, would save the taxpayers a small fortune in court costs for divorce proceedings, and put the tax code on a far more just footing, if it is just at all.

However, in the probable event that we could not abolish the income tax, or could only gradually abolish it, I would favor giving a tax deduction to couples with children up to the age of about 16, one deduction for each child up to a maximum of three, and one for the mother if she did not work (if she did, she’d lose that deduction). This would be a family-friendly measure, for I think children should be the last to be penalized for what has been, up until now, a flawed toleration of an immoral law.

Why should a young person in their 20s, saving to start a family, have to pay a higher tax rate than a financially comfortable couple in their 50s and 60s with grown children, who get two deductions instead of the young persons one? But, of course, the root problem is the income tax itself, although a 1% income tax would be much better than a 10% sales tax ,or a 17% “value-added tax” — socialist Europe’s favorite.

Removing marriage from the law books would obviously open the door to any living arrangements people wanted to make. It seems to me that polyandry, polygamy, and so-called Gay marriage would then all be legal and removed as issues from politics, government, and the law books. (The religious court where the marriage contract was filed could settle divorce and inheritance questions.) As Libertarians, all we care about is non-coercion. If people want to live in certain ways, and there is no violence, coercion, or involuntary servitude, then, as Libertarians, what people are doing is none of our concern. It seems to me that what is really perverse is people always looking through their neighbor’s windows and worrying about what those neighbors are doing, instead of worrying about their own behavior.

Let’s abolish this unjust exaction on the backs of singles, and save the taxpayer a small fortune in court costs. Let’s treat marriage as the religious contract it is.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Outlawing Noise Pollution from Air Conditioners and Boomboxes

As Governor of Oregon, I will put forth legislation that outlaws machine noise pollution crossing property lines from air conditioners and boomboxes, though there might be some exceptions for air conditioners.

Those who gripe that Libertarians shouldn’t be putting forth fresh legislation to increase the power of the State have evidently not read Professor Murray Rothbard’s discussion of noise pollution in Chapter 13 of his “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto”. (Let me interject here that the first two works, which I think every Libertarian should read to achieve a firm foundation in its theory, are the aforementioned work, and “The Ethics of Liberty” also by Rothbard. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” is also an eye-opener but is unfortunately both out of print and unavailable as an ebook, with only an abridged version, greatly reduced, available online.)

Noise pollution is invasion, and is a crime. Whether we deal with it through private suits, or government prohibitions, it must be curtailed.

Let’s hear what Professor Rothbard has to say in the Libertarian Manifesto: “Noise, too, is a form of air pollution. Noise is the creation of sound waves which go through the air and then bombard and invade the property and persons of others. Only recently have physicians begun to investigate the damaging effects of noise on the human physionomy. Again, a libertarian legal system would permit damage and class action suits and injunctions against excessive and damaging noise: against “noise pollution”. ”

Rothbard goes on, in regard to air pollution although the argument is identical for noise pollution, that “The remedy is simply for the courts to return to their function of defending persons and property rights against invasion, and therefore to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into the air.”

Such injunctions against air conditioner noise pollution that crosses property lines would be a defense of property rights, since there are technological ways of greatly reducing air conditioner noise with sound bladders and burms, and the offender is free to adopt them.

I could forsee a case, though, where a very poor homeowner, with a noisy air conditioner, could make good faith efforts to reduce the noise, say by installing a bladder and building a sound burm, and still emit a slight amount of noise that an adamant neighbor might insist was still an invasion of his property rights. If the offending homeowner, an elderly widow on a pension, could not financially afford to further abate the nuisance, what then? Should she be thrown out onto the street? This is one for public debate.

However, I think we should distinguish between non-necessary non-survival noise, like playing your stereo so loud that the noise crosses your neighbor’s property line without his consent, and essential noise necessary for human survival and safety, like your neighbor cutting his fire-hazard tall grass, or cutting his personal firewood with a chainsaw, or starting his car. But when it comes to voluntary activity for pleasure or non-essential comfort, like the music or radio noise that crosses the property line, which the offender can easily do something about, then I would have to agree completely with Professor Rothbard’s arguments. I think I’d just prefer to also have a government law against such pollution, so that not every infraction would require going through a lawyer to file a damage suit, which might be very costly and difficult, especially for the poorer victim. I have no objection in this case to the government being the hammer of the malefactor, when the malefactor is being so irresponsible as to invade his neighbor with noise pollution.

Rothbard postulates that if courts started awarding judgments and enacting injunctions for noise pollution, then that would spur the market for noise abatement technologies, like quieter motors and better bladders, and thus the free market would finally render air conditioner noise pollution a moot issue.

Environmentalists who think that all Libertarians want to ravage the environment, or necessarily would if they could, ought to read the last two sections of Chapter 13 of “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto” entitled “Conservation of Resources” and “Pollution”. Even if you don’t agree with Rothbard’s arguments, it will give environmentalists something to ponder over, and may enable them to distinguish between those self-defining Libertarians who want the government and the courts to get out of the way when they pollute, and those who genuinely want to preserve what is left of Nature.

I believe noise pollution is a grave issue, which significantly raises the level of violence in our society, but an issue that the mainstream conformist politicans never bring up, or solve. I think a division of the police force, funded by the money saved by ending the war on drugs and pardoning non-violent offenders, should be dedicated to such environmental enforcement, for such enforcement is merely the government carrying out its Jeffersonian duty to protect your unalienable property rights.

To have a peaceful society, let’s have a peaceful society.

Libertarians can check my name on the Libertarian Primary ballot. Democrats, Republicans, and Communists can write me in.

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad,

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Abolishing the Minimum Wage Law

As Governor of Oregon, I will seek to abolish the State’s Minimum Wage Law.

The Minimum Wage Law has often been put forward as some kind of humanitarian, good intent effort, but what it is is a prohibition making it illegal for you to work for wages below a certain level. Somehow it seems strange to me to say you’re helping someone by passing a law that says”You will have no income, because I say so in the name of humanitarianism”, despite the fact that the person who was disemployed was evidently quite willing to work for that amount below the minimum wage, or he wouldn’t have agreed to it. It is a strange morality  that gives the poor man and the hobo no income whatsoever instead of some income. Indeed, he has been denied the choice whether to work at that amount below the minimum wage, so that his Liberty has been severely curtailed. He is forced to sit on the beach, when he really wants to be working to get the dollars that buy him the commodities that make his life bearable, but the “humanitarian” comes in and says “It is forbidden.” Such humanitarians are usually not homeless.

But obviously, from the standpoint of Natural Rights Law, this is an abridgment of the unalienable Right to Contract, a crime against the Individual. That is all the moral reason necessary to repeal these laws.

However, there is a more sinister aspect to the minimum wage laws, and that is the racist aspect. According to Professor Murray Rothbard, before the Federal minimum wage laws were enacted, the unemployment rate for both Black and White teenagers was 8%. When the minimum wage was raised to 40 cents from 30 cents, the rates shot up for Black teenagers to 14% and for White teenagers to 11%. With the coming of the Korean War, with millions drafted into the armed forces, the rates fell back to 8%, but when the war ended, and the minimum wage was raised to 75 cents, the rates now shot up to 14% for White, and 24% for Black teenagers. When the rate was to be raised from $1.20 to $1. 65, Professor Milton Friedman testified before Congress that such a rise would mean 33% unemployment for Black teens. But the raise was passed anyway, and within 6 months to a year, the rate soared to 35% for Black teens, and has never come down. The differential between White and Black teen unemployment had always been zero before minimum wage laws; afterwards it has always been much higher for Blacks than for Whites. So this racist effect is clearly the work of the “humanitarian” minimum wage laws.

The fact that White teenage unemployment also rose after enactment, shows that not only is the minimum wage law racially discriminatory, but also discriminatory against youths in general.

The beneficiaries of this hell visited on Black youths, and youths in general, are overpaid trade union workers, who have successfully disemployed the more marginally-skilled workers, thus reducing labor competition, and in turn boosting the level of their wages. They ruin the lives of Youth in the name of doing good, but they know very well what they do.

It’s also often overlooked that a raise in the minimum wage has the effect of excluding many small startup companies, who may have gotten off the ground and perhaps succeeded with the old minimum wage, but who suddenly are confronted with new costs when the wage is raised, and find their business venture now unfeasible. This lessening of competition means less choice for the consumer and higher prices, something the large conglomerates love.

Thus the consumer is doubly robbed, first by paying more for goods due to the artificially higher wages received by the trade unions, and then in higher costs due to lack of competition from startup companies priced out by the higher minimum wage. The quality business that could have been but never was is a social cost of the minimum wage law that the Left never mentions, or even thinks about. But the Consumer suffers from that “never was”.

Moreover, one problem that is never mentioned is how the minimum wage laws rob the young of any experience in handling money and dealing with the economic problem, which is usually the main problem in most American’s lives. The child who could work in his uncle’s or neighbor’s business a few hours a week, or doing gardening or babysitting in the neighborhood, could learn something about earning and spending his own money. This economic experience is invaluable in this society, but minimum wage laws, if observed, rob modern children of this experience. The minimum wage, as it is raised, forces young people to get jobs in the one sector that can afford to pay it easily, the giant corporate sector. Working for one of these financial behemoths, the young person is forced to conform, to act like a robot, and to violate his moral code or get thrown out immediately. Is this the initial work experience we want to throw at young people, turning them into obeying robots? Between government schools and corporate jobs, it is no wonder we have such a passive country.

Ridding ourselves of the minimum wage will give teens a chance to work all kinds of different jobs, at different wage rates. Even the teen who is economically exploited may learn something, and resolve to never let himself be exploited again.

Additionally, in a country that is always verbally praising the free-market system and our freedom, in which there are no “maximum prices” on essentials like food, clothing, and shelter, why is it that in this one area of labor, we are willing to accept a government restriction that could mean the difference between hunger, starvation, and avoiding these miseries for a destitute person? Why in this one area in the Free-Market restricted, when no other area necessary to life is?

If we really believed in Capitalism, we would abolish this overthrow of the Natural Law Right to Contract, an unalienable Right of Mankind.

Libertarians can vote for me by checking the box on the Libertarian Primary ballot. Democrats, Republicans, and Communists can write me in.

Paul Grad,