Tag Archives: Murray Rothbard

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

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

Murray Rothbard on Donald Trump

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

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

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

All three observations elicited intense laughter from the audience.

-Paul Grad

Why Trump Rally Protesters Are Property Rights Criminals

Though I would not vote for Donald Trump, and will probably have to write-in Ron Paul if the Libertarians don’t run someone decent, I believe the protesters who interrupt his rallies are committing a crime against both him and his supporters who attend those rallies.paul 19

The reason this is a crime was brilliantly explained by the radical Libertarian and founder of the Libertarian Party in America, Professor Murray Rothbard.

In an insightful analysis of why shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or interrupting a speech or lecture with heckling, is a crime, Rothbard points out the real reason this is a crime, in contrast to the incorrect analysis by the U.S. Supreme Court which is usually glibly quoted by those discussing the crime.

Interrupting a speech, lecture, or concert, Rothbard argues, is a property rights crime (as are all crimes). The Crime is Contractual Fraud. Those attending the lecture or concert, by purchasing a ticket or merely attending a free lecture, have implicitly agreed to let the concert or lecture take place without interruption. If someone yells, “To Hell with Beethoven” in the concert hall in the middle of a performance of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, or starts heckling a lecturer or politician during a previously scheduled and announced lecture, they have violated the property rights of the ticket holders or attendees, who had the right to the quiet enjoyment of what they paid for when purchasing a ticket, or agreeing to attend the lecture or speech by their presence. The crime of a heckler or demonstrator is contractual fraud against all the attendees, who could reasonably expect to hear the event uninterrupted, the speaker or performer, and against the sponsor or promoter of the event. If the promoter of the event caused the disruption, he would be the criminal in the case. If an attendee causes the disruption, his property crime is against the ticket holders, the performer or speaker, the attendees, and the promoter of the event.

Note that this would not be the case if someone got up on a soapbox in the middle of a public street or a public park. Then there would be no crime in heckling or interrupting him, because no listener had a reasonable expectation of enjoying the speech without interruption, nor were any funds expended to hear the speech.

So the people who are interrupting the Trump rallies are Criminals who are violating the property rights of the attendees, Donald Trump, and anyone else who promoted the event. In my view, their punishment should be a fine equal to the cost of putting on the event, the time spent by the non-heckling attendees at a rate of the current minimum wage in that State times the length of the event, plus the time spent and cost of transportation for all the non-interrupting attendees at the rate of the minimum wage. Trump should sue the protesters for that amount, and the courts would be justified in giving that amount to him and to the non-interrupting attendees.

These protests will merely gather more sympathy and support for Trump and his campaign. The protesters are free to stage their own rallies, and vote for whomever they wish. Those protestors should not violate the property rights of Trump and his attendee supporters by assaulting the attendee’s implicit property rights in their courteous attendance at his rallies.

Note that the same reasoning applies to the Black Lives Matter interruption of Bernie Sanders, when he just folded, let them take over the stage and harangue the crowd, shamefully permitting them to violate the property rights of his attendees at that rally. But Senator Sanders obviously does not understand property rights the way Professor Rothbard did.

So whether you agree or disagree with Donald Trump, protesters should not make him a martyr by interrupting his speeches and aggressing against his property rights. If Americans correctly understood Property Rights Crimes, they would know why interrupting one of his rallies is a Crime.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Paul Grad for Oregon Governor: Smashing the Pot Laws, YES on Oregon Measure 91

After more than fifty years of tyranny, of the Communistic terrorizing and kidnapping of the public by the Prohibitionists, the voters of Oregon are about to have a chance to crush this evil, probably once and for all. Shreds of the laws might remain, but they will have been caponized.paul 19

For over fifty years the Fascist-Prohibitionists have been allowed to spread their miasma of fear over the population, using the hated “Controlled Substance” laws to crush Individuals, and tear families apart. It should be clear that “Controlled Substance” is just another term for Communism, and State interference in the Free Market.

Along the long road that has led to Measure 91 — a measure with imperfections to be sure, but one that, though rough and ready, will serve — there have been many heroes and villains.

Perhaps the first crack in the Fascist dyke came from a British Conservative newspaper editor, Lord Rees-Mogg, editor of the London Times. If you get to legally possess cannabis on November 5, 2014, it will be in part due to the fact that Lord Rees-Mogg had the temerity to speak out, almost fifty years ago, against an injustice that no one else had the courage to name. It was Reese-Mogg’s editorial concerning the cruel way in which Mick Jagger and Keith Richard were treated by the British judiciary, entitled “Breaking a Butterfly on a Wheel”, that was the first major protest against the anti-Libertarian cannabis laws by anyone in the Establishment.

That was in the mid-60s, so you can see how long people in the Western “civilized” countries, the so-called social democracies, have suffered from the tyranny of the Democrats and Republicans, the Labourites and the Tories. All Communist bullies. Remember that Texas gave someone Life in Jail for possessing one seed.

There was a long list of these Prohibitionist Miscreants: Mayor Yorty, Joseph Califano, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Jack Webb. The list of the infamous rolls on and on, and will not be forgotten by future generations and historians.

One of the few in America who spoke out against the Fascists was William F. Buckley, Jr., as well as Professor Milton Friedman, but apart from these few there was little dissent against this Fascism until the Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 by Professor Murray Rothbard and a few other Radicals. The Libertarians, believing in self-ownership, soon came to champion the cause of not only cannabis legalization, but the decriminalization of all drugs, based on inalienable personal property rights, and the Libertarian opposition to all forms of involuntary servitude, or State control over ones’ body. The Libertarians, — Harry Browne, Ron Paul, Judge Grey, Neill Franklin, and Gary Johnson, as well as Steve Kubby in California, and brave scientists and medicos like Vera Rubin (Ganja in Jamaica) and Dr. Lester Grinspoon — were the only quiet voice speaking out against Evil, while the major parties remained blithely silent on the Injustice, which itself is a great Injustice. They were cowards; the Libertarians weren’t.

But if you had to name one Individual who has done more to bring about real cannabis legalization that anyone else, you would have to name Congressman Ron Paul. (I say legalization because the Measure makes legal eight dried ounces and four live plants, which to me is de facto legalization, despite the other taxing and regulating provisions in the Measure).

It was Ron Paul’s two latter campaigns for the Presidency (he also ran in 1988 as a Libertarian) that really brought cannabis-legalization to the forefront of the political arena, and his occasional 20% vote percentages sent the message to the political establishment that their prohibitionist days were coming to an end. Ron Paul made advocating for cannabis legalization respectable, especially since the advocate was a Doctor.

Then again, perhaps the real developers and facilitators of Measure 91 were the Ron Paul voters who made him a force to be reckoned with. As soon as he hit 15-20%, the lemmings of the Democratic Party began to mouth their usually mealy doubletalk. They never had the guts to propose outright abolition, but he did.

The Colorado and Washington laws were also forerunners, but it is the Oregon measure that will finally defend the People’s Right to own and utilize this drug if they so wish, as long as they don’t involve endangering the public or children when they do so.

But there will be another salubrious effect from this Measure if it passes, and that will be that the “medical marijuana” business, the mulcting of the sick for profit both by the dispensary owners and by the government bureaucrats and pensioners, will be wiped out, and good riddance to it. The immorality of making money off the misery of the sick, charging them through the nose for a gram of something which they could grow by the ounce and the pound on their window sills, if the Communists didn’t stick their nose in, will be obliterated. For those few souls who genuinely need high-potency cannabis, and need to know the exact dosage they are taking, there will be private labs and voluntary organizations that can certify potency. These products may indeed cost more, because of the labor, equipment, and packaging that would go into producing them. But for the average person, who is using cannabis medically for neuralgia, insomnia, glaucoma prophylaxis, and other more serious medical conditions which still do not require a specific dosage, Measure 91 will fulfill their needs. Instead of paying hundreds of dollars an ounce, or $80 or $50, the typical patient will pay virtually nothing, and that saved money will rest in private bank balances, where it will be loaned out to purchase capital equipment which in turn produces better quality goods at a cheaper price. This productivity gain helps all consumers, but especially the poorer. Legalization also means that the money will remain in private market hands, able to assist the account owner should he have need of it, instead of having it pay the bloated and immorally high pensions of State workers and retired bureaucrats. Moreover, this money gain will be spread over a large number of generally less affluent members of society (the young, and the elderly infirm), instead of being concentrated in one sector only, like retired government bureaucrats, or dispensary pushers.

The medical dispensary owners are shivering in their shoes. The taste of easy money, made off those who have no choice, the seriously ill, is fading from their palates, and they may soon have to think of a real way to make a living. The four-plant/eight-dry-ounce rule will wipe them out, and trade in medical cannabis may prove so slack, that only one dispensary will be necessary for a city, and that could easily be run by a non-profit or religious institution.

So, if you are a cannabis user who, on November 5th, can, for the first time in modern American history, inhale or ingest cannabis without fear of being kidnapped and thrown in a cage by the Democrats, remember that it is thanks to a long line of Libertarian radicals — Rees-Mogg, Timothy Leary, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, the Libertarian Presidential Candidates, and finally Ron Paul and the Americans who voted for him — that this heinous and cruel whip of Fascism has finally been sundered in two.

Vote to smash the Fascist’s Cannabis Prohibition into smithereens! Yes on Measure 91!

Paul Grad, Libertarian, for Oregon Governor,

paulgrad4governor.wordpress.com,

kboo.fm/content/paulgradinterview,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Grad, paulgrad4governor.wordpress.com

Paul Grad,