Tag Archives: Libertarianism

The U.K. Elections: The Young Socialist Pitbulls Put Down John Bull

It looks like Britain has finally gone to the dogs, the socialist pitbulls that is. The election the other day had young people flocking to vote for a racist, and, in doing so, overlook his racism.

It’s a bit like if the hippies and the leftists of the 60s had voted for George Wallace, never mentioning his treatment of Blacks when he was Governor in the segregated South.

Apart from the fact that Theresa May was your typical Hillary Clinton-type middle-aged woman politician, with no charisma, spontaneity, or humour, and had done a dismal job as Home Secretary for six years, what really got the vote for Corbyn’s Labour party was the malaise that socialist society imposes on youth. Ironically, those youth were voting for a further entrenchment of their poverty, and their comrade’s poverty, by voting for a despot who glories in the overthrowing of Property Rights, And let us not forget that all Rights, including the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press, ultimately boil down to some form of Property Rights, thus their importance.

They also chose to vote for a Leftist racist, and thus they have crossed over the line from being Liberarians as far as civil rights go, even if they were unfortunately Leftists, to becoming Fascists. The toleration of Corbyn’s antisemitism, and his toleration and friendship for antisemites, show him to be little different from the left wing of the Nazi party in the 30s. This situation is exactly the same as if all the Liberals in America had crowded around George Wallace when he ran for President, and never ever mentioned his racism. In four hours of election night news I did not hear one word about Corbyn’s antisemitism, but I did hear many words of praise from Leftists and fellow party members for Corbyn. Yet in America, as we neared the last election, the names Trump, Bannon, and  Breitbart were never mentioned without mentioning words like “racist, antisemitic, white supremacist”. The fact that Corbyn’s antisemitic scat has been swallowed by the Left shows how utterly corrupt and far from Jeffersonian Principles they have moved.

Of course, this corruption is inevitable with socialism, or Marxism, which immediately catagorizes and defines each man according to material standards, the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, big Capital, etc. Socialism must violate the inalienable Jeffersonian Rights in order to achieve its goals, and thus it produces corruption — the corruption of force or coercion. This Aggression against Individual’s Property Rights is what Libertarianism seeks to end, both when carried out by government or by rogue individuals.

So the Socialism of England, not unlike the Socialism of America or of Western Europe, has corrupted the youth of Britain and the Continent, and now the Youth of Britain are rebelling against that prison of socialist bureaucracy by voting for a racist. This shows you how corrupt and cynical decades of Socialism can make people, especially young people who have their lives ruined through government controls like the income tax, the social security tax, the health services tax, local property tax and code regulations, and the minimum wage laws which guarantees a hefty level of teenage unemployment, to the glee of the unions, who can thus cut out a lot of wage competition from youths.

Additionally, the rotten, boring government schools, are only really training the youth for corporate fodder jobs. Government schools train at public expense the corporate workforce that could have been trained by the billionaire corporation.  For example, in the period from 1900-1910, trade between the U.S. and Latin America heated up, and that is when the schools first started teaching Spanish. Thus do corporations, in collusion with the Democrats and Republican, shift the burden of corporate training to the local property tax payer, while braying about the virtues of government schools.

The big boost in the Labour vote coming from new younger voters seems to parallel the lack of critical economic understanding that characterized the youth in America who supported Bernie Sanders. You’ll notice in Sanders campaign speeches that he wailed long and hard about the evils of the corporations and wall street, but would never mention the huge military spending budgets that are ballooning the budget deficits. Sanders understand of economics is that of a piss ant, and to have him at the helm of the country would have been very economically dangerous. Somehow it seems that being a Leftist over the course of ones’ life, for fifty or sixty years, damages or deranges the brain so that such people can no longer discern reality. Sanders blind naivete is a good example.

The good news out of the bad news from the UK election, is that Corbyn didn’t win, and he won’t be Prime Minister, and also that Theresa May may not be Prime Minister much longer. Both outcomes devoutly to be wished.

— Paul Grad, vegan libertarian, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor 2014

Should Women Have the Right to Vote? For and Against

Of course Women should have the vote, it’s absurd to even discuss the point because woman’s consciousness is not that far removed from men’s. Women are capable of having Property Rights, just like men, and are therefore liable to receive all the Inalienable Rights enumerated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Women are often far more intelligent that most men, and some of them seem to be able to run huge bureaucracies, like hospitals and libraries, with the efficiency that is presumably a characteristic of men.

However, I recall what my late neighbor, who was a Bluedog Democrat, used to say about women. He half-jokingly felt that America had been pretty much ruined when women were given the vote. And while I scoffed at his notion good-humordly, I thought there might be a seed of truth in his half-serious dogmatism.

(All this presupposes a certain belief in the general psychological differences that seem to characterize each sex differently, and while as we say this is only on a percentage basis of the general population, and without precluding the fact that there will be many women with many masculine characteristics, and many men with many feminine characteristics. However, we maintain and believe that there is more psychological similarity between a woman in Japan, in Uganda, and in Finland, than there is similarity between that woman and a man of her own country and ethnicity. The fact that men are generally more violent is one of those examples of a psychological difference between the sexes, and this fact is borne out by fact that the murder rate among Lesbian couples is far lower than among gay men. But the general tendency does not preclude the possibility of non-violent men or violent women.)

For I had thought in the past that women were more likely to vote socialist, or vote for government socialist programs, because they are (or were) the more sensitive sex, viewing the preservation of life and the amelioration of the social evils of the past as more important than economics. (However, such programs would eventually lead to deficits so high that the currency would be undermined, leading to inflation and social chaos, thus precipitating violence in society. Thus implementing these programs would eventually lead to Fascism, which is why Libertarians consider them so dangerous and socially destabilizing, and why they regard Socialism as so dangerous to the general peace of society).

And also women would tend to vote socialist because women tend to be in general less intellectually interested in economics and other intellectual fields than men. This is a huge generalization, because one finds many intellectual women, and many women who are far better money managers and capitalists than many or most men. But in this non-intellectual age of no reading, most modern men aren’t far behind the non-intellectual woman. Not that there is anything virtuous about intellectualism. But occasionally it can be interesting to sink your mental teeth into an essay, or the writings of philosophers like Schopenhauer, Sartre, and Camus, or Rothbard on economics, or Lord Bertrand Russell and Lord Acton on government. Or reading some meticulously-crafted fiction, like Joseph Conrad or Robert Louis Stevenson, or the intellectual novels of Alberto Moravia, which combine psychological dissection of the protagonist and main characters interlarded with a very interesting plot. I thought Alberto Moravia was the greatest novelist I’d ever read, and still think so, and told him that once at a public speech of his at a university. (Moravia wrote from 9-12am every day, and said he never gave a thought to his fiction outside of those hours. He was also a great short story writer, which is unusual, because writers are usually either great novelists or great short story writers, but rarely masters of both. Some great films have also been made from Moravia’s novels, such as The Conformist, directed by Bertolucci, and Two Women, with Sophia Loren, another Masterpiece. Moravia, like Bertrand Russell, was also a Libertarian Radical when it came to opposing all forms of censorship.)

Very few Americans, men or women, now have this intellectual addiction to mental chewing-tobacco, probably because of their addiction to the Visual Media. It is as if Cinema retained its mechanical ability to mesmerize, but after completely losing the profundity of theme that characterized even the American Cinema. We used to think American films were corny in comparison to the black and white films of the 1960s made by the new wave of French, British, and Italian directors. But now we see how great many of those American films of the 50s and 60s were in comparison to modern films. Those films were made for adults, but the modern film gears for the 14-year old boy who likes science fiction computer games.

No one can now make films like were made in the 1960s: films like Hud, the Garment Jungle, Hombre,  12 Angry Men, or The Getaway, or films that have a psychological profundity and reflect the intensity of an auteur director, the director as a strong personality, like Michelangelo Antonioni. Federico Fellini had a similar intensity, but with a humor and fun which was totality lacking in the cold world of Antonioni, or the miserable world of a child as in Truffaut’s The 400 Blows. Even when reflecting on his childhood under Fascist Italy, Fellini is full of fun in his telling of the story. You can’t imagine Antonioni or Robert Bresson ever laughing like Fellini. Bresson’s The Diary of a Country Priest is such a joyless bummer, it’s a masterpiece. No laughter there.

But with all these directors, not forgetting Ingmar Bergman, who has to be added to Antonioni and Fellini in terms of self-authorship and being near the top in the Art of Cinema, and even with the weird experimental directors like Godard, i.e. “Le Weekend”, you felt a sense of both individuality, and a philosophical exploration of some important facet of mankind’s universal life situations. Such profundity seems to have completely evaporated from Cinema into nothingness.

I put it down to the watching of television and tv commercials, which probably destroys a good part of the brain, although watching occasionally when you really have the urge to watch a film is no sin, and may actually be good for the brain if you enjoy it. (However, one should never watch or listen to a commercial on tv or the internet. Mute the sound immediately, block the screen with your hand, and skip to the video at the first possible moment.)

But starting really with the beginnings of television, and well established in the late 60s and 70s, the television took over the life of tens of millions of Americans, and such excessive viewing of images might, or must, have a deleterious effect on the human brain. The brain goes into a flabby, receptive mode, for hours, with no originality stemming from the viewer except to passively cooperate with the image on the screen by giving all their attention to it. If the story was good, profound, engrossing, or a Hitchcock, it wasn’t hard to do. But in a film like Antonioni’s The Red Desert, Il Deserto Rosso, it was necessary to exercise patience to stay with the film, although Antonioni intrigued the viewer, like Bergman, with the most incredible, beautiful shots, and cinematic juxtapositions, as when Richard Harris in the Red Desert is seen talking to some workers at a plant, and then is seen from above and in the distance, in relation to a giant piece of machinery which suddenly emits a vast cloud of loud steam. Harris so small, this vast piece of machinery so huge, dominating puny Man, who is like an ant in the face to such massive, complex, technology. Or the telephoto shots at the beginning of the film of huge factory chimneys belching forth toxic yellow smoke. And later in the film, Antonioni gliding the camera around the room’s wall while his characters converse, or the way he’d leave the camera on the scene for long seconds after his main characters had walked out of it, making you aware of the existence of objects around us, long after we’ve left them, and existing eternally on their own in silence. No other filmmaker seemed to have ever thought of such shots, or used them to deepen the mystery of the film. Or added an ending to a story like the last eight minutes of “Eclipse”, a sequence of incredible poetry and beauty, added after an intense interaction of the viewer for over an hour with the main characters, and which has no obvious direct connection to them. Seeing Antonioni’s L’Avventura and The Red Desert are musts.

So maybe television is why the movies have been so trivial for so long, compared to the masterpieces of the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s, as the Cinema began to degenerate, — that Liveliest Art that the cavemen wouldn’t have believed could be the ultimate refinement of their paintings on the walls of caves, and their petroglyphs of the American and Australian Deserts. Blame tv.

And what this all shows is that the Judaic and Islamic prohibitions against image-making are based on that primitive wisdom that image would easily take over the mind of man if it became worshiped, and that the image, like the word, is not the thing, but rather a mental illusion of thought. And the Buddhists too aim for the eliminating of all psychological images.  They all saw the danger of forming images in your mind, which are always based on the past, your past experiences. Thus, the past ends up clouding the present, and you will look at someone with your image of them based on the past, instead of seeing them in the instant now. Television, and its successor, the computer, have taken over the minds of younger Americans, because it took over their parent’s minds a generation before. And it is not only Americans, because the whole world unfortunately has been taken over by the American culture, or rather the degeneration of that culture that began in the 70s with Nixon-Carter. You can see it in the appalling sameness of dress among all people, all over the world, while not long ago each nation had a particular way of dressing that was characteristic, be it the French beret, the Englishman’s suit and tie, or the Japanese kimono or Indian Sari. Now, everybody looks like Walmart.

It is also interesting to note that these two iconoclastic organized religions, Judaism and Islam, both forbid tatooing, which is such a prominent feature of the younger generation in both  America and Europe. Obviously, such a prohibition is based on both religion’s horror of image-making, turning the human being into a picture, that human being who is supposed to give his entire worship to God, and not to any image or graven image, and who is made in God’s image. Turning the human body of someone made in the image of that God, which is an undefinable changeless process, into an fixed image, which defies the insights of these religions into the dangers of image-making, make the tatoo prohibitions completely understandable. Additionally, because of the unnecessary pain the mind is causing the body during tatooing, this torturing of the body for unnecessary reasons is considered sinful in both religions, again acknowledging the sacred nature of the human body. As an Indian non-ascetic said, the body is not a slave to be exploited by the desires of the mind, which is very similar to these religion’s views of the unnecessary suffering caused by a whim of the mind. Similarly, the use of highly deleterious drugs like tobacco, alcohol, and hard narcotics like cocaine, and the addictive opiods of the morphine family, as well as speeds and barbituates, are all looked down on as ruiners of the health of the body, while light use of caffeine in tea and coffee is tolerated, as well as the occasional glass of liquor to the non-alcoholic infrequent drinker in non-Islamic cultures, who has never been seen drunk. Or, in Islam, the frequent and sometimes vociferous debate over whether cannabis was an intoxicant that was sinful idol worship, while the other side felt it was nowhere near as bad as alcohol, and didn’t really fit into the definition of forbidden intoxication, and was also a probable prophylactic against the use of alcohol, given the hardness of life for the typical Middle Eastern Muslim in the days before technology. After reading a scholarly book in the 70s on this debate over the years on views on cannabis in Islam, of various notable Islamic thinkers throughout history, it seemed clear to me that there was a general tolerance of cannabis among many scholars, but still with a sizable minority feeling that it was forbidden. And stimulants, whether the horrendous effects of amphetamine and meth amphetamine on people, or merely the irritability of the heavy coffee drinker, are obviously to be avoided. But can you deny a morning cup of tea to the coal miner or the factory worker, or the invalid confined to one room? Such extremism imposed on others would be most unfair, as much as we might feel for ourselves that total sobriety is demanded of us by God or by our religion? One of the characteristics of Communism is its forcing of all members of the Community to live according to its standards. And that applies to religious communists too, who want to impose their religious views on the entire society. Of course, there are always Common Law rules that any sane human accepts, like prohibiting child or human sacrifice or theft. Just because you say your religion permits something, it shouldn’t mean that it contradicts Common Law, which is fairly self-evident to all. Murder, theft, rapine, and contractual fraud are all Crimes which the vast majority of Humans would object to, and they recognize the immorality of those Crimes because of their consciences. You might say the Ten Commandments are more like Laws of Human Consciousness which are common to all Humans on Earth, and Common Law is pretty similar. I believe the Anglo Saxons in England, in the 5- and 6-hundreds, had no Government, but they had Common Law and courts, and agreed to proposals fairly democratically in terms of talking the issues over together at meetings and coming to a consensus on laws and decisions without Government. But i’m not an expert on their history; I’ve merely read something to that effect. It sounds like they were better off than when they were invaded by the Normans, a virtual occupation of Britain by the French for so long that the two cultures admixed and melded together, providing an enriched language, and a rich culture, at least in literature. The architecture was interesting too, and it’s obvious that Planet Earth was meant to be covered with structures built in the Gothic Style of Architecture, the most amazing to the eye, mixed in with lots of trees and greenery. The attendees of Oxford and Cambridge were indeed fortunate to have their eyes daily filled with the beauty of the buildings, so different from our modern box-like sterile architecture. Norman Mailer, the writer and philosopher, pointed out the association between sterile architecture and violence in the cities.

England still seemed to hold off from that Kinematic degeneration a good while longer than other places, probably because of the quality of the acting, and the long tradition of British Theatre producing very interesting stories, films like “A Rather English Marriage” with Courtney-Finney now playing near-old men after giving their incredible performances as young men in the British films of the early 60s, or “She’s Been Away”, a very original story with superb acting. It began, after Room at the Top really got it rolling,  in early British New Wave films like Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (Alan Sillitoe’s fiction is superb, and a real treat to read.), and A Taste of Honey with Rita Tushingham, based on a play written by a 17-year old teenage girl, Shelagh Delaney. What a masterpiece. Or Bryan Forbes’ The L-Shaped Room. All films portraying the grim realness of life in post-war Britain, or else well-crafted plays taken to Cinema, instead of the escapist bread of puerile unlikely comedies which had been the staples of pre-1957 Britfilm, clever as they may have been. Suddenly you were confronted with the problems of the factory worker, the Borstal Boy jailed for a first crime, the pregnant teenager with the fairly-indifferent mother. And all superbly acted.

And not even mentioning the Japanese films of the 60s And even later on, with films like Kurosawa’s Derzu Uzala, which will make you want to live in the forest, and wonder why you live in a house. Coming on top of the New Wave in France, England and Italy, it was too much. There was electricity in the air, and it never seemed to end.

And the degeneration of the quality of humor, since the early 60s when the new wave of intellectual comedy hit America, has tracked the degeneration of the quality of Cinema, and the degeneration of the quality of music. From the Stones, Dylan, the Beatles, and so many countless others, to a mess of boring synthesizer garbage, written by computers, and just as sterile. The humor of Berman, Winters, Sahl, and Dana was so intellectually sophisticated that it was cleanly outside any of the ruts that American humor had stayed within for so long: the wife and mother in law jokes, etc. Or Berman talking about Zen, where you are able to answer very difficult questions like, “You know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand clapping?” Then Berman pauses and adds, “Unfortunately, I know that sound.” Or Sahl with his political jokes, or Winters with his space ships or auto mechanics. In England you had Sellers and the Goon Show, and a new absurdity humor that went back in some ways to The Theatre of the Absurd of Ionesco and others. Eugene Ionesco is great stuff, and Rhinoceros is a play that is so fitting for our modern times about the spread of Fascism. The Left ought to read this play, and then look in the mirror. They might find they had grown a horn in the middle of their face overnight. Jakov Lind’s “The Silver Foxes are Dead” is also a great play about Fascism, and Edward Albee’s first plays are Absurdist masterpieces, and a crack-up to read.

(I should add that, while Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” is invariably quoted as the beginning of Absurdist Theatre, I think it really began with Ionesco’s “The Bald Soprano”, which contains a humor not found in Godot, and which is great fun to read. “The Lesson” is another must-read, and Ionesco’s short one-act play “The Leader” is another work of his dealing directly with Fascism and dictatorship. It is short enough that anti-Fascist theatre groups could manage to put on a performance.)

These psychological and economic conditionings are the conditions that produced an Obama, the last straw of the  socialist continuation that had existed since Franklin Roosevelt brought in the first socialist social programs, although given the primitive technology of those times and of prehistory which was only ceasing to exist in those days of the 20s and 30s, it is understandable that many intellectuals thought that socialism would work, and was a logical, rational system that would provide food clothes and shelter for all. And given the fact that when Roosevelt took office, about 90% of the American populace was made up of poor farmers living in rural areas, it was obvious that there would have been a persuasive argument in favor of socialism, or socialism mixed with capitalism. It had never been tried by such a wealthy country in all of history, so there were high hopes that government could act like a friendly neighborhood corner grocer, helping everybody who needed it, rather than as a necessary evil as Jefferson pointed out, because of its inevitable tendency to abuse its enormous power, and its economic power. The Middle Class was tiny, and the upper class few in numbers. So socialism easily won out.

Eighty-five years on, we can see that Jefferson was right, and the socialist democrats were wrong, just as he had predicted. And part of that, I believe, is due to the Women’s vote, because, as I said, women tend to be generally less intellectual and generally less interested in economic and political theory than men are, taken as a percentage of women and men. So they will be more easily influenced in general than men by emotional arguments that are economically disastrous for others, like the minimum wage laws, which hit teenagers and Black youth disproportionally hard, and which violate the Inalienable Natural Right to Contract, one of the fundamental Rights of a Capitalist Society. Or the Social Security confiscation, which helps keep young people poor and economically shackled, and currently robs 27.6% of an American’s paycheck, 13.8% of which he even has to pay income tax on. This violates the Inalienable Natural Right to the Fruits of your Labour. The fact that many, if not most, Women support these two unConstitutional assaults on Inalienable property Rights, the Rights that Jefferson championed as being absolutely necessary for human happiness to exist in society, shows how puerile is those women’s understanding of Inalienable Rights. These programs are supported by vast numbers of Men too, which in turn shows how limited is their understanding of the fundamentals of Jeffersonian Republicanism, the most Libertarian Government theory that has ever been the good fortune of People to inherit. Far from perfect, it is yet the least flawed conception of government that Mankind ever produced.

The fact that so many men, and even more women I’d guess, don’t understand the importance of defending these Inalienable Natural Rights, which are the cornerstones of Jefferson’s conception of Government, is the real danger to America. These Rights, and their guarantee, are the most important thing about our Government, and we’d better defend them vigorously through non-violent means or go the way that all Fascist and dictatorial governments from time immemorial have gone, leading to chaos and misery for untold billions throughout History. This is why it is possible that Women’s Suffrage may actually be leading to the decay of American Government, and my Bluedog Democrat neighbor may have been correct.

And Jefferson was twenty-six when he formulated that Libertarian conception of Government, and wrote it out in crystal clear, mellifluous prose, along with the formulations of many other of the Founding Fathers and Tom Paine. This was the latest fruit of Sane Government, that had commenced with Magna Charta, and ripened with Cromwell’s Glorious Revolution against Monarchy-in-Concert-with-Mercantilism. Not that the Founding Fathers were all that pure; most of them wangled huge land contracts, and Franklin made a fortune from Government printing contracts. The rot was soon to set in, and never left. But Rooseveltian socialism took it in a different direction.

Still, early post-Independence America was a freer and a more Capitalistic society than had ever been known in History, despite its wallowing in the Crime of Slavery, the worse anti-Libertarian Crime there is after Murder, and despite its Genocide and land-grab from the American Indian Tribes, who to this day still have the vast majority of their Tribal lands ripped off. I don’t hear any Democrats demanding that the Indians have their land returned to them. Libertarian Theory demands that stolen property be returned to its original owners, if it can be proven to be stolen. And it’s pretty obvious that the American Indian (and Canadian Indian, and Central American Indian and South American Indian) Lands were stolen by force.

So, despite my feeling that the Women’s Right to vote is one of the axioms of modern Classical Liberalism, as championed by Lord John Russell, Lord Acton, and Bertrand Russell, Jefferson, and Libertarians and Philosophers like Rothbard and Camus, and it is axiomatic that Women have the Vote, it still seems to me that there could well be a kernel of truth in my neighbor’s Bluedog view that the Woman Suffrage ruined America, and brought on the socialist mess we’ve been in for so long.

Lastly, we should recall George Bernard Shaw’s quip that when a woman seeks equality, she renounces her superiority.

— Paul Grad, Vegan Enviro-Libertarian, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Trump’s Libel Law Enlargement is Unlibertarian

Without going into the specifics of the President’s desire to “toughen” Libel laws, we should point out that any toughening is a move away from the Libertarian realities of America’s original political philosophy, and a move away from the Bill of Rights.

The reason is that all Libel and Slander Laws are un-Libertarian, as Professor Murray Rothbard pointed out in his discussion of this issue. This is because, to Libertarians, only assaults on people’s property Rights, including their body, can be considered Crimes or Aggression.

Now the key point is that your “reputation”, which is what the plaintiff in a Libel suit is claiming was damaged, is not your personal property. Your reputation is a thought or thought pattern in the mind and brain of another person, and so your reputation is actually their property and not your own. Thus damage to your reputation is brought about in the minds and opinions of others, which is their personal property and not yours, and thus you have no just claim to damages of that reputation. You have no Property Right in your reputation.

Professor Rothbard also pointed out that currently if someone libels or slanders someone, especially someone famous, and they do not respond with a Libel suit, then many people will start to believe the validity of the wild claim. But if Libel and Slander laws were abolished, the public wouldn’t take too seriously the claims of the wild-eyed fanatic who says he has irrefutable proof that the President has sex with goats in the Oval Office closet.

The President doesn’t have to toughen Libel laws to protect himself against the rotten propaganda machine of the media; his supporters in the public can see their incredible animus against the President very clearly.

The President was elected, and has received a bashing like no President ever did in modern history. The Democrats, 95% of the media, and apparently the intelligence community in alliance with many Republicans, all seem to just pummel the man mercilessly, despite the fact that he was elected by the People according to the Constitution. While I don’t agree with many of his positions, I do at least agree with quite a few, and much more some of his rhetoric during the campaign that he seems to be backing off on. But the bottom line is: He wasn’t Mrs. Clinton, and he wasn’t a long-term politician, and he really was just a mescolanza of Democratic and Republican programs based at core on a dollar bill.

So quash the Libel Law legislation, Mr. President. You don’t need it.

—Paul Grad, Vegan Non-Affiliated Libertarian

Animal “Rights” or Animal Welfare? A Libertarian Perspective

This discussion is solely about the use, or rather misuse, of the term “Animal Rights”. It’s a term thrown around quite frequently from my fellow vegetarian, and anti-vivisectionist, anti-hunting, animal welfare fanatics. This discussion is about a point of accuracy, but it also allows one to point out the inaccuracy of the term “Animal Rights”, for animals don’t have “Rights” according to Libertarian doctrine. To have Rights, they would have to have Human Consciousness, and the Inalienable Rights Thomas Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence can only pertain to the Human Being (or possibly, he being the closest in the animal kingdom to human consciousness, the Gorilla). You must have the intellect of a Human to apprehend the Inalienable Rights that are an implicit part of Human Consciousness. Only we humans know, instinctively, in the Justice and necessity of the Inalienable Rights, which are the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the Right to Contract freely with any other human on any terms mutually agreeable, the Right to the Fruits of your Labor, the Right to Associate, or Disassociate, with or from others, and because the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness necessitates and implies the Right to Private Property, since you need to own all kinds of implements to survive as a human being, from the car to the roof to the fridge to your clothes and toothbrush —- all these must one be able to own individually, not as part of a collective, or not at all, as in the communist societies where the State owns everything in your house, and the house itself. And Private Property includes the Right to exclude all others from your property, since if someone invades or takes your property, and retains possession, then obviously you don’t actually own that property. Private Property implies an individual’s complete dominion over that property.

So in speaking of Rights, we can only speak in terms of Human Inalienable Natural Rights, which can only appertain to  Human Consciousness.

Therefore, the term “Animal Rights” is a Libertarian inaccuracy and falsehood. I believe my fellow anti-animal torture advocates should  instead always use the term “Animal Welfare”.

If anyone has a Right, it is we, who have a Right to live in a society that does not tolerate highly sensitive animals, with a consciousness and innocence comparable to a small child, being slaughtered  and terrorized daily, in the numbers of the hundreds of thousands and million, in the United States alone.

For it is One, the vegan or vegetarian Libertarian, who has the Right to live in a society that does not permit animals to be treated in such abominable ways, just as one has a right to live in a society that does not tolerate cannibalism, rapine, and child murder. Common Law courts based on Natural Law know instinctively that these are Crimes and have traditional codes of punishment that purport roughly to fit the severity of the Crime. And we know this because of our inborn Human intelligence. In a Libertarian Society, there might be no government but there would still be Law, and Common Law courts would administer justice accordingly, as they did in England before the Norman invasion, and as they did in the American Indian tribes, and as is done in the various religious courts of the major organized religions.

Therefore, I urge all those campaigning for “animal rights” to desist in the use of that term and to begin using the term “animal welfare” instead, or an equivalent that they prefer. And I urge them to point out to the Public that it is we, the Human Beings, who have the Right to live in a society that does not tolerate animal slaughter, animal torture, and other abuses like zoos and circuses.

Animal welfare is an issue that cuts across all party lines. Whether you are a Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, or non-Affiliated, you can usually see eye to eye on many Animal Welfare issues with your fellow animal welfarers, and any politician who includes the sort of radical planks for animal welfare such as outlawing hunting and trapping, and slaughterhouses, as I did in my 2014 campaign for Governor of Oregon, will gain a certain constituency because he is the only one speaking out on this issue. Ask for it all, don’t compromise and merely ask for more humane methods of mass butchery. Be radical in your demands. But insist they be passed by a democratic vote of the people, not merely by the legislature, or unilaterally ordained by the Governor.

Professor Murray Rothbard, the founder of the Libertarian Party in the U.S., and who loved his ham sandwich on wonder bread, when the topic of Animal Rights was brought up, used to quip a bit contemptuously (and followed by his famous infectious giggle), “Animals will have their Rights when they petition the government for them.” (Rothbard’s economic-historical lectures were full of little jokes and humor, a lot of which he laughed at himself.)

But since the Animals can’t petition the government themselves, it’s up to us Human Beings to do it for them. And the only two petitions the government really cares about are the Vote and the economic Boycott, both Libertarian non-violent tools of change.

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

Against Government Pensions: The Early State Constitutions

One of the Socialist Institutions that makes life so miserable for the lower classes in America is the obligation to pay governmental pensions to a vast number of retired citizens, both private and governmental. These pensions ultimately bankrupt the State, which leads to inflation and social chaos. The private citizen pension-recipient is the Social Security Pensioner who worked for a private business or was self-employed. The governmental citizen is the Federal worker, Congressman or other politician, retired military receiving some form of pension, and State or County worker receiving a pension.

All these violate one of the most fundamental principles of the American Revolution, which was enunciated in most State Constitutions. It ran, “That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services.”

This “Fathers of the Constitution” Principle clearly bans any “emoluments” going to public servants except as salary. “In consideration of public services” clearly refers to labor done. The retired worker does no labor or “services” for the government or his former employer. Once they retire from service, they should be entitled to nothing further from the public taxpayers.

There is no reason why these people could not set up their own retirement plans with private companies, and certainly a well-run, well-capitalized pension fund could easily be set up by one of our famous “public-spirited” deca-billionaires, or a consortium of such, which would provide a pension system equal, if not better, than the current Federal Social Security system.

I would also not object to a fund set up and administered by the Government, as long as all liabilities, costs, and short-falls would be born solely by the pension fund participants, and not the general taxpayer. But in that case, the Government fund would not differ fundamentally from a private fund, though it would fulfill the patriotic fervor of those on the Left who thing the Government is the greatest invention since The Pill.

In Oregon, a Democrat-Administered State with many poor people and much crime, there are currently at least 1,195 former State workers receiving annual pensions of at least $100,000/year. The Kitzhaber and Brown Administrations have continued to increase the State’s Debt so that it is in the high $80 billions range, equating to a personal debt share of about $28,000 for each of the 3 million Oregon State Residents. Add this to a child’s burden of $160,000 share of the $20billion Federal Debt, and you see that a child born in Oregon already owes the Democrats and Republicans $188,000. No wonder he’s howling at birth! This clearly shows the extreme Injustice that soon flows from Socialist governmental programs, and clearly shows why the Founding Fathers were so adamant about preserving Individual Rights and Liberty, and why they were so wary of governmental power.

They knew that Power Corrupts, and Jefferson had stated that Government was evil, though perhaps necessary, and because Government had Power and Power always Corrupts, it was therefore necessary to keep Government as small as possible, and to set up various checks and balances on the power of Individuals in Government.

Compared to anything else that had gone on before in World History, what the Fathers of The Constitution (and mostly Jefferson) produced was nothing more than the most Libertarian Doctrine that had ever existed since Magna Charta. And unlike the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Americans declared that these Inalienable Rights applied to All Mankind, not just Englishmen, although the Americans had to take it not too seriously so they could continue with their filthy slave trade — the quintessential antithesis of Libertarianism.

America should return to its Libertarian roots, and get government off the backs of the newborns and the lower-paid workers. They have no responsibility to pay cushy pensions to anybody, and if they feel they have such a responsibility, they are free to exercise it through charities or private companies.

Those who have paid into government pension funds should, of course, have those paid-in funds returned with the accrued interest.

Let’s abolish these immoral contracts that the newborn have no say, power, or vote on. Let’s abolish governmental pensions.

—Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Jefferson on the Gallows: The Republic on the Brink

Jefferson stands on the gallows, and the Republic is on the brink of existing no more.paul 19

Jefferson’s Dream, of a Republic with Individual Rights above all else, with the Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property instrumental to the Pursuit of Happiness, championed by the Government, and with a steel wall separating church and state, so that no hated Theocracy could ever be established, with No Monarchy, and no Aristocrats, Nobilities, or wealthy Landed Gentry controlling the Government — that Dream hangs in the balance next week. Will we move towards a society of Individual responsibility and effort, or continue in the mire of more and more socialist programs creating inflation, further destroying the middle class and entrenching the poor in their poverty?

This election is really a choice between some degree of Individual Liberty, or none at all. Socialism and Military spending have so destroyed the pro-Capitalist society that could have been, if they had been kept at bay in the 1930s, that we are left with a very fragile society, finally on the brink of cutting all ties with the Libertarian, Capitalist, Minarchist Minimal Government outlook of Thomas Jefferson, and many of the more Libertarian Founding Fathers.

Frederick Hayek brilliantly explained, in his Masterpiece “The Road to Serfdom”, how both Fascism and Communism or Socialism, ultimately lead to a totalitarian society, with economic chaos, and the most mediocre bureaucrats rising to the very top of Government, and that is precisely what has happened to the United States. 80 years of Social Welfare programs and Federal Reserve inflation, and unnecessary military spending, have led to a situation where 7 out of 10 Americans have less than $1,000 in cash assets. Compare this to the salaries of corporate lawyers, financial house workers, government bureaucrats, and the military top brass, and you can see the vast discrepancy in wealth that Jefferson would have railed at. And it has all come about because of Socialism, and Fascism, which Mussolini defined as Corporatism, the blending of the State with the large Industrial Corporations, and the Workers Unions in those Corporations. These three institutions destroy any small Capitalist and anyone trying to work outside of that Fascist structure. Instead of a Nation of Shopkeepers, as Capitalist England was known as, you get Hillary Clinton’s Socialist, Corporatist hodgepodge, completely stifling the Individual and the small Capitalist.

America, and Jefferson’s Dream, are on the gallows, and America’s Voters must deliver a reprieve in this final hour, and not let the spirit of Totalitarianism, and Corporate Fascism, take over his and our beautiful Republic, a Republic based on democratic elections to choose its Representatives, and with Congress and the Courts serving as a check on any lunatic wanting to establish an Imperial Presidency, like a Nixon or an Obama or a Clinton.

On November 8th, give a finger to the Fascists and the Communists, the enemies of Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, the doctrine that a person makes their own destiny, and should be free to act in any manner they wish, as long as they do not assault the Property Rights and Person of any other. Vote for the Person closest to that Libertarian ideal who has a chance to win. The Republic is too sick for you to vote for Candidates who have no chance of winning, a position I have never taken in the past, having agreed with Spooner and the Libertarians that no election is decided by one vote. But now, with $20 trillion in debt, and a candidate who wants to go fisticuffs with the Ruskies, and who has guaranteed in ten years that a Fascist Theocracy in the Middle East will have a nuclear weapon, we must vote not only to elect the greatly-lesser of two evils, the more Capitalistic Candidate, but also vote to show a popular opposition to the Fascist Candidate, should she win.

On November 8th, save Jefferson from the Gallows, and give the Finger to the Fascists!

— Paul Grad, 2014 Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee

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

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

Brexit, the Libertarian Devolution

It seems that, outta the blue, the Leave vote on Brexit has sprung into the lead in the polls, and a Brexit seems a real possibility.paul 19

Such a Brexit would clearly be to the benefit of the British peoples, but whether benefit or hinderance, it would mark a clear step backward from bureaucratic centralization, and against the concentration of democratic power in the hands of a handful of bureaucrats.

One of Libertarianism’s key concepts is that in bureaucracies, the worst rise to the top. Hayek and Mises both wrote extensively on the phenomenon. This is well illustrated the world over where government actions, on a daily basis, are performed incompetently, costing people their lives or much misery. There is always an “investigation”, and never an end to the errors. Nor does it matter in which country it occurs; we constantly hear appalling stories of government abuses carried out all over the globe, in first world as well as third world countries.

The peoples of Britain have been robbed of their sovereignty, as well as being looted of their treasure, by the EU, and they know it. “You can’t fool all the people all of the time” goes the old political saw.

So the move back from EU subservience to U.K. Parliamentary subservience is salubrious , but it is naive to think that such an action will bring a Libertarian Norther, coursing galeforce through the un-limed, mephitic outhouse of the UK Government. The British Bureaucracy is formidable in itself, and will leave plenty of shackles around the legs of Englishmen in their daily endeavor to survive. But it is less immune than the Brussels Sprouts, being subject to the power of the British voter, who has watched as Socialism has destroyed the Individual in Britain — an Individual who, had he been born in the 19th century, could have passed his whole life without contact with, or imposition from, the British Government, except for his birth and death certificates. No military draft, no income tax (or “statutory incomes policy” in the language of the bureaucrats and politicians), no mandatory insurances, were there to furrow his brow. The dissipation of energy engendered by western socialism in the U.S. and E.U. has destroyed Western man, and turned his mind from philosophy to survival, and thus materialism, whether that materialism be the food, clothes, shelter of survival, or the materialism of pleasure in various entertainments.

Nevertheless, the devolutionary crawl from more centralized bureaucracy to less is always to be welcomed in Libertarian theory, although there are some cases where Federalism, as in the case of the desegregation of the American South, seems necessary to overcome local injustices. But the violation of States Rights, all over America, has certainly had dire consequences when it comes to the criminalization of Cannabis by the Democratic Party Fascists, showing how a bunch of Fascists in Washington can terrorize an entire nation for decades, and get away with the Crime.

So the best of British luck to the Englishmen, Welsh and Scots, as they make ready to reestablish their national sovereignty over themselves.

“Britons never never never shall be slaves.”

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

 

.

The Libertarian Party of Oregon Should Nominate Ron Paul for President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Paul Grad, LPO Gubernatorial Nominee 2014