Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

Advertisements

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

Governor Kate Brown’s Reign of Terror Over Southern Oregon

A state of terror and anarchy rules over Southern Oregon, where car thieves and methamphetamine addicts are released after a day, to continue to wreak havoc on the local communities. Nor do the locals point the finger at the guilty party, the Governor, whose primary solemn State Constitutional duty under Article 1 Section 1 is the peace and safety of the inhabitants. Wolf-butcher Brown’s crime against the People of Oregon is to let anarchy rule while the citizens are taxed to the death to provide for bloated state salaries, and incredibly obscene public employee pensions (the current highest recipient receives $913,000/yr). The remuneration of the bureaucrats, and of the teachers in this incredibly lousy school system, come well in advance of the safety of the People to wolf-butcher Brown.

Unfortunately most of the locals who complain about the anarchic crime that has turned a quiet retirement community in the Illinois Valley of Southern Oregon into a Compton,and transformed the Grants Pass area of Josephine County into a urban war zone, don’t point their fingers at the Governor. In the late 1980s the only crimes in the police blotter were the usual and habitually-reoccurring drunken brawls of several well-known local imbibers, as well as some cannabis arrests. And murders were as scarce as hen’s teeth.

Now there is a nightly car theft or two, and Grants Pass has become the car theft capital of Oregon. Cars scream around the town in the early hours of the morning, unstopped by any police force, and pillaging by meth addicts has become a daily ritual. But does the State intervene by jailing car thieves in State Prison for years? Are meth addicts placed in rehabilitation camps for the environmental crimes that have committed by fueling the polluting meth-lab cooks’ distribution businesses?

No. The State leaves that up to the county taxpayers and the County Sheriffs Department, who are overloaded and have to arrest and re-arrest over and over the same scoff-laws who never show up for their court dates, but who are then re-released by the County District Attorney as not being a “threat” to the community. A candidate for County Sheriff recently explained, at a public forum, how, if the D.A. told them not to hold someone because they were not a threat, they had to let them go. What he didn’t explain was that, under such a system, why would it much matter who was sheriff if the D.A. was going to release the same people over and over, to save money on jail costs (though the salaries, car insurance, and danger to the officers when re-arresting would probably be far in excess of what it would cost to keep these suspects in the county jail)?.

But the economically and politically uneducated public, instead of blaming the Governor, argue back and forth that we need yet another property tax increase (last year the taxes were raised about 10% for the Sheriff and the jail and the public was told that this would control the crime situation,and that those who oppose it are wicked and irresponsible, while those who are on the brink of being taxed out of their properties have no voice in the public debate). Now the residents of Cave Junction are talking about another “taxing district” to fund a city police force — this in a community of poor retirees and scarce jobs where the average income is about $21k, mostly from pensions and welfare. There is no way such a poor community could fund such an expensive police force — made expensive in large part by the PERS requirement that sucks up about 21% of all County (and State)salaries. In other words, a city police force might be economically feasible were it not for the PERS contribution requirement.

Thus does Socialism, in the form of huge government bureaucracies and huge government pensions, destroy a once peaceful and civil society.

Wolf-Butcher Brown has the responsibility for the misery of thousands of Southern Oregon crime victims on her conscience, those who have had their lives turned into chaos by her passivity and utter neglect of her Constitutional responsibility under Article One Section One.

Hopefully the voting public will soon remove this political carcinoma from the Oregonian body-politic.

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

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

The Yulin Dog Meat Crime: Red China, The Miscreant Nation

The sadism and cruelty of the current Yulin Dog Meat Festival, at which over 10,000 are butchered by being beaten to death with metal rods, blowtorched, or thrown into caldrons of boiling water, is a good example of the brutality and savageness of the Chinese Nation. For a country and people to tolerate such barbaric practices, and let them go on year after year, shows a people corrupt and savage. Yet the rest of the world is also savage in its feckless disregard for, and quietude on, such Immoral Crimes.

Recall that President Bill Clinton gave Red China Most Favored Nation trading status, and that not one Democrat President, Senator or Congressman has ever spoken out and demanded an end to MFN trading status until these Criminals in the Dog Meat Trade, its miscreant patrons, and the Criminals in the Red Government who tolerate this, are brought to task. The Yulin Dog Meat Festival is proof that Commies will do anything for a Yuan, as illustrated by these Dog Meat Traders, who fully deserve Capital Punishment (although I must oppose it in Principle), and the Chinese Government itself.

Let us therefore resolve to boycott all products from Red China until they give up this deeply immoral activity of terrorizing and murdering dogs, which is not far from the mass torture and murder of children. I certainly would not grieve if these creeps were put up against the wall, although I’d prefer that they spend the rest of there days in cages, and at hard labour.

Let us undertake a Gandhian boycott of all Red Chinese products, and initiate non-violent political agitation leading to abandonment by Congress and the President of MFN trading status with these Criminals. Let the Liberal Democrats, for the first time in decades, tell their “Good People” to speak out against the Chinese Miscreants and their barbaric, sadistic “cultural” practices that have no place in the new civilized world.

Let us boycott Red China and give our trade to Taiwan, Free China, which bravely recently outlawed the Dog Meat Trade, showing that the Taiwanese Chinese people as a whole have a qualitative moral superiority to their Mainland neighbors. Repentance and Reform should be rewarded in the wallet, since politically we live in a very materialistic world.

While I think the treatment of factory farm animals in the West is nearly as sadistic and barbarous as the dog meat trade, there is one qualitative difference in the attitudes of the people. I doubt there are many meat eaters in Western countries, like the US and Britain, who would approve or tolerate or not condemn the intentional torture and slaughter of animals by beating them with steel rods, blowtorching them, boiling them alive, skinning them alive, and all the other inventive sadistic techniques the Chinese Dog Meat Criminals have thought up to “improve the flavor” of Fido. People in the West take the anodyne that the animals condemned to a horrific death in their abattoirs are murdered “humanely”, and that myth provides an analgesic to any Moral pain their consciences might feel as they eat their cow, veal, lamb, and rock cornish game hen. But that the animals should be intentionally tortured would be a very rare opinion I would think. However, the callousness the Dog Meat Trade breeds alike in its traders, its customers, and the Chinese nation as a whole, is a form of insanity, and the Dog Meat Traders really should be locked up for life, in mental hospital prisons, for the safety of the remainder of the society.

A society that remains silent in the face of such Crimes destroys itself, and we now have a World Society, thanks to the internet, technology, and fast planes, though we may still live in fictional individual nations. So putting an end to this filthy trade is the responsibility of people of all nations, not just the Red Chinese inhabitants. Every Crime and War going on in the world, whether to animals, or whether by governments, is the responsibility of all human beings. Although obviously there is nothing I can do immediately, right now, to affect the violence in, say, South Sudan, or Yulin, China, other than to write my Congressman, hire a hall and give a speech,demonstrate in front of the Red Chinese Embassy, or write an essay like this.

Finally, we should acknowledge the many Moral People in Red China who oppose the Dog Meat Trade, struggle against it, sabotage it, and undertake civil disobedience against it in the best tradition of Henry David Thoreau, a Great Libertarian. We absolve all those in Red China who oppose and are disgusted with this filthy business, and harbor no animus towards them.

Most likely, a puppy has been blowtorched to death, or thrown into a boiling cauldren, while you read this. Others are waiting terrorized while the mob of sadistic humans surrounds them, waiting for their meals. They’re dying as you read this. More profits for the Trader.

Let us bring Death to the Dog Meat Trade. Let us butcher this vile, heinous business. Let us make the Miscreant Nation of China pay, in lost dollars and yuan, for their toleration, promotion, and protection of this gargantuan Crime.

Let us Boycott Red China until they cease to wallow in the filth of their Moral Turpitude. Let us Boycott Red China until they outlaw the Dog Meat Trade.

Death to the Dog Meat Trade! Make the Sadists pay!

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Racism: The Big Lie

Mankind has found many ways of dividing itself up into illusory groups, and the four deadliest of these ways have been nationalism, organized religions, class divisions, and racism. It is of racism that we speak herein. (Though it is an illusion, we will continue to use the term “race” as commonly meant in this post.)

It is obvious that the Human Mind is a Universal Mind, that is, it is identical in its fundamental characteristics in all creatures that call themselves human beings. All human beings experience fear, hunger, pain, and many other physical and psychological states. The fear and terror of a child being murdered in Uganda, Armenia, or Wounded Knee is exactly the same.

The fact is that people of all different races are identical psychologically. What differs is the way they are conditioned by their society and their personal experiences.

I think there are four major disproofs of racist theory.

First is the historical proof that, in the past, warring groups invaded, raped, and intermarried so extensively that anything like a modern “pure” race is obviously non-existent, except when groups remained completely isolated from other people, as on an island, in a remote mountain fastness, or in a virtually empty desert like Western Namibia. In an old encyclopedia, from the early 20th century, I once read that all human beings were 38th cousins, or somewhere in the 30s. Any man who tells you that he comes from some racially-pure stock obviously belongs to the Race of Fools.

The second strong disproof of the falsity of racism is the Capitalist, Economic, or Praxeological disproof. Simply put, all human beings have identical capitalistic tendencies when trading or conserving commodities, no matter where they come from. This is well shown in the works of Ludwig Mises, the main proponent of the Austrian School of Economics. For example, marginal utility theory applies to men in all cultures at all times. If you have a very limited supply of some vital commodity, you will value the last unit of that commodity much more than if you have a vast quantity, far beyond what you’d need for years. The corn farmer is glad to trade his millionth bushel of corn for the tractor part he suddenly needs to complete his harvest, but if he’s down to his last two pounds of corn grits in the midst of a North Dakota blizzard, he will value them more.. Time preference is another example of universal economic thinking: all human beings would prefer to have capital or whatever commodity they want as soon as possible, rather than having to wait for it. This is why longer-term interest rates are almost invariably higher than short term interest rates, and why people would prefer to be paid what they have earned immediately, rather than in a few weeks or months. The professional would rather you pay his bill on the first possible day rather than the last legally-allowable day. This is true whether you’re in the Trobriand Islands, Norway, or Namibia. All so-called races react identically in these modes of economic thinking.

The third proof of the falsity of all racism is the sexual one. If you accept Theodor Reik’s premise that men and women have emotional and psychological differences that hold true in the vast majority of cases, you will find that there is far more psychological congruence between the behavior of a woman in, say, Namibia and one in Finland, than there is between a man and woman in Namibia, and a man and woman in Helsinki. The fact that psycho-sexual characteristics of both sexes hold true for all people throughout the world is another proof that there is only one race, the Human Race, with a universal Human Mind that differs only in particulars and individual abilities.

A fourth disproof of racist theory is that, in every “race” and ethnic group you find fools and clever people, and chess actually proves this point. If racists who say that Black people are less intelligent than White people were correct, it would be impossible for any Black man to beat a White man at Chess, yet there are Black Chess Masters, who, if playing a hundred White amateurs and beginners, would win 98 or more of those games. If racist theory were correct, this would be impossible. Moreover, the vast ethnic differences in the worlds very top Grandmasters, including ethnic Indians, Japanese, Norwegians, Russians, and Anglo-Saxons is another damning disproof of racist theory, which only a fool would ignore.

Lastly we come to my own pet theory on why racist theories might have come about.

Imagine five different “primitive” cultures, existing long before our current age. In the first culture, drumming talent amongst men is considered the highest virtue. All the young men with drumming talent would compete against each other for popularity, much like modern rock stars, and the most talented and handsomest would get the best looking young women. Over a thousand years, through genetic selection of the most talented reproducing with the healthiest, most feminine women, mating would produce a group of drummers so talented that they far surpassed any other group on earth. The XYZ Tribe would gain a reputation as great drummers, and its cause would be imputed to their race or tribe in general opinion.

In the second culture, male physical prowess, athletic ability, and physical perfection would be considered the highest social value, somewhat like ancient Greece, and the most perfect athletes and body builders would get the best looking, healthiest young women. Again, over a thousand years, the members of that culture might develop a reputation as being a “handsome race”.

In the third culture, wisdom would be value. The sage,  the man who sat with disciples or other wise men, discussing various aspects of life, would be considered the highest in social value and esteem, and the sages would all get the best looking, healthiest young women, producing over the course of a millenium a group who were considered to be extremely wise, (and usually peaceable if not threatened). This has occurred in many ancient cultures.

In a fourth culture, family wealth and trade might be valued as the highest and most respected social value, as in old China. The most stable, industrious, and wealthy young men would get the best-looking, healthiest young women, and over the course of a thousand years, you might get people who were extraordinarily good at commerce, while the ancient Japanese rice markets produced the modern Candlestick trading theory. Over a thousand years, the people in this group might develop a reputation amongst neighboring groups that they were extremely good at commerce, or rice trading on the Osaka exchange.

Lastly, image a culture where Chess ability ranked as the highest value. All the top Chess geniuses would constantly be bombarded with mating requests from the best looking, healthiest young women, and over the course of a thousand years, this isolated group would become known as the world’s best Chess players.

Now, I maintain that even if these various culture groups developed in isolation, and acquired a certain level of talent over and above what would be an average, generic human being’s talent in that area, this advantage conferred through genetic selection would quickly be dissipated once that group had mating contacts with outside groups that did not display this special talent. Within two or three generations, I’d guess, this talent would become so diluted that it would no longer be noticeable. Perhaps it would take more generations. But within ten generations I’m sure the genetic mixture of different gene pools would obliterate such distinctions.

Lastly, let me leave you with one facetious theory I have as to why there were no White men in deepest Africa when Livingston strolled there.

It’s because of this: it is well known that actually the superior races on earth are the Black race and the American Indians. American Indians evidently burn calories more efficiently than other races. And Black People have a superiorly-designed kneecap, that permits them generally to run faster than Whites, who have a less-efficiently designed kneecap.

This fact is, I believe, why there were no White men in deepest Africa. It was because, in ancient times, when Whites did inhabit Africa, when a beast of prey like a lion would chase a bunch of Humans to have a snack, it would be the Whites who would end up at the back of the pack, and provide a tasty meal. And before long, there were no more White men or women in deep Africa.

However, on this theory, there are those who doubt my thesis.

— Paul Grad, Vegan Libertarian or Classical Liberal

Brexit: Libertarianism Blows Up Keynesianism

I haven’t heard commentators say it, but the Brexit vote was actually a Libertarian assault on Keynesianism, that system of government graft which uses socialist giveaways to control and manipulate the populace, getting them to work and save for decades, and then inflating away the value of their savings in a few years. They boil the frog slowly, so that only the Ron Paul-types protest, and how many Ron Paul supporters or Libertarians have actually studied and understood Austrian School Free-Market Economics as presented by Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard?

That Brexit was carried out by the British People shows that the Liberty thread that ran all the way from Magna Carta through Henry VIII’s break with Rome to Cromwell’s Glorious Revolution, and onto Lord Acton and Lords John and Bertrand Russell, was no fluke, but something deeply ingrained in the British psyche. And this proclivity for Liberty is not something peculiar to the British people, but is a component of all the more reasonable forms of government, excluding of course dictatorships. The American and British forms of government, blemished as they may be, are far and away the best forms of government on the planet, and it is on this principle alone that a vote for Brexit was not only justified but absolutely necessary.

British Capitalism could not be conquered for centuries by foreign adventurers and monarchists, but now people are told that Federalism brings such economic benefit that it is alright, even beneficial, for them to give up their rights and self-government in order to have a higher material standard of living. Such “pragmatism” was soundly crushed by the Brexit vote.

What the European Nationalists had not been able to conquer in a thousand years with violence, they thought they could conquer in a few years through the nepenthe of Federalism and Socialism. But, in the first large manifestation against the Leviathan Socialist State since the Trump campaign, the voters of Great Britain gave ’em the V-sign in reverse.

Brexit gives us hope that Mankind will avoid the Big Motherism of Ms. Rodham, and turn once again to the uncomfortable Freedom of Liberty. There must be some element of deep sanity in Man that wants to turn him away from the great chaos of Socialism we see in America, Venezuela, and Europe, and turn him towards the sanity of an arduous Freedom. Enough of that sanity seeped through into the intelligence of the British voters to change the course of British history.

Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign, begun in 2008 and continued in 2012, has finally born fruit in 2016, and Brexit is the child that he helped deliver. For the first time since the end of WW2, a people in the West have made a significant move towards Libertarianism, even if it is just the negation of a larger Socialism.

The politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate welfare-chiselers expected “Mrs.” Clinton’s Nehru jackets to be purfled with miniver after the Brexit vote, but now they see their ermine trampled with muddy boots by the masses.

To paraphrase a famous Englishman, Brexit may not be the end; it may not be the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

The beginning of a true Jeffersonian-Rothbardian Libertarianism.

—Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

On the Futility and Necessity of Politics and Political Parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Paul Grad

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Libertarianism vs. Fascism

In listening to Mussolini’s  “The Doctrine of Fascism”, one is struck by his everlasting emphasis on “The State”, the very thing that Professor Rothbard, the definer and refiner of modern Libertarianism, said was the enemy of the Individual. In Mussolini, the State becomes a super-human entity with a life of its own, and the Individual is merely a cog in this collective, his every action a manifestation of “The State”. His Individuality is lost; he becomes part of an ethnic or national collective, and even his ideas are shaped by the past. Fascism is a doctrine of the old, the dead, continuing to condition the action of the now, the new. The Fascists revel in that fact, and make sure that nobody escapes from this collective historical consciousness.

Libertarianism, on the contrary, says that the State is the Enemy of the Individual. The word “Individual” comes from the word “indivisible”, in other words, something cannot be broken up. But the Fascist State, be it Mussolini’s bloodthirsty regime, or Obama’s more benign one, intrudes itself into the indivisibility of the individual, through so-called education, through brainwashing mechanisms like National Public Radio and the major corporate news sites, through the thousand-and-one mandates the modern American State puts on the Individual, the latest being the medical insurance compulsive-purchase mandate, and breaks up and dissipates the energy of the Individual. By either brainwashing the Individual, as Mussolini did through his so-called “education”, or dissipating his energy like the modern American Democrats and Republicans through a thousand mandates, from registering with selective service to compulsory jury-service slavery (a violation of the 13th Amendment if you go read it), the Fascist State wastes the life energy of the Individual, and forces any exceptional person to dissipate his talents in complying with all the mandates that mediocre, accepting Americans never question, or even champion. This produces a mediocre society, and you can certainly see that any time you have contact with government workers and bureaucrats.

Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism” is certainly full of a great deal of other garbage, at least what is garbage to a Libertarian. He highlights the necessity of “Empire” which is some sort of mystical expansion of the nation through not only land but through historical inevitability. The Individual is merely a part of this historical inevitability. Mussolini champions organized religion, and speaks of the State’s respect for it, instead of constructing a strict wall of separation, like Jefferson urged. Organized religion should be completely outside the functions of the government, which should be concerned solely with protecting and defending Individual Property Rights, including ones’ body.

Additionally, he was a racist.

And when Mussolini defined Fascism in a nutshell as corporatism, he must have had the Obama-Republican State in mind, for, under the Bipartisan Fascists, the corporations have taken almost complete control of the once comparatively-free American economy. You only have to see the continued deterioration in competition as small banks and retail chains are wiped out by the mandated “reforms” which only the mega-banks and supermarket chains can afford to comply with, to see how the Democrat-Republican Party has destroyed free-market Capitalism through Corporatism.

In other places Mussolini has the gall to call Fascism a “spiritual” doctrine, then go on to speak of the necessity of violence, and dealing harshly with anyone who does not see the new necessity of Fascism over what Mussolini deems horrendous systems like Liberalism (Classical) . Classical Liberalism, or as we now call it Libertarianism to distinguish it from the modern term “liberalism”, which is merely a form of corporate and individual socialism very close to Fascism — Classical Liberalism puts the emphasis always on the Individual and his Rights. It knows the State is the enemy of the individual, as it always has been in human history. It guards the Individual against the invasions of the State, which the caponized American public has readily allowed. That is why Thomas Jefferson included the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution — to protect the Individual against the tyranny of the State.

The State is a myth; a mental phantom. Only the Individual is real.

Paul Grad, Enviro-Vegan Libertarian