Of course, we already know that they’ve fallen prey to the Dictator Fallacy – their scheme will be implemented as if they were an all-powerful dictator.
forgotten that they will someday lose power to the opposing party. This problem is currently on display in the Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nomination fight.
The Democrats are going to filibuster to block the confirmation. This is short-term thinking because it could lead the Republicans to use the so-called “nuclear option,” a procedure that would end the filibuster rule.
Republicans are also thinking short-term because someday the Democrats will be back in power. Then, the GOP may wish they had the filibuster power to protect their positions.
This reversal of power applies to all expansions of political power. So…
Encourage your partisan or ideologue friend to have empathy for their future selves using this brand new Mental Lever, which is only 187 words long.
Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Co-creators, Zero Aggression Project
P.S. This message is in no way a commentary on the relative merits or charms of Judge Neil Gorsuch. The Zero Aggression Project is legally non-partisan and temperamentally anti-partisan. We are concerned with principles, not personalities. The nuclear option (a Senate voting rule) is just the current, hottest illustration of the “Shoe on the other foot” rule.
*-”ZAP The State and have a nice day” is a Service Mark of the Zero Aggression Project (an initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation)
I hope to see some of you in Manchester, New Hampshire, this May 28 at the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance (LSLA) Conference.
The conference is open to anyone interested in the future and direction of the Libertarian Party. Traditionally, many of our state and national party leaders have attended. While there will be official training sessions, I’ve often heard that the most valuable part of attending is being able to talk informally with other motivated Libertarian activists.
It’s a one day all day conference the Sunday before Memorial Day.
Below is an announcement with more details.
Libertarian State Leadership Alliance
National Conference The Future of the Libertarian Political Movement Sunday, May 28, 2017
Lunch Keynote Speaker: Larry Sharpe
Dinner Keynote Speaker: Angela Keaton
Michael Pickens will give an all-day candidate and training session.
Wes Benedict will give a training session on Fundraising for Affiliates.
3 meals served on-premises. Cash Bar at dinner.
One day event: 9:00 AM until late evening
Admission including meals is $99. Registration deadline is May 15.
The convention is not in a hotel. A list of nearby hotels is posted here.
Schedule (details subject to change):
10:00am-12:00pm Two morning sessions
12:00pm-1:30pm Lunch: Larry Sharpe, keynote speaker
1:30pm-5:30pm Four afternoon sessions
5:30pm-6:30pm Cash Bar, interactions
6:30pm-late Dinner: Angela Keaton, keynote speaker
Track A: Candidate and Activist Training
Michael Pickens – Candidate and Activist Training – all day
Wes Benedict – Fundraising for Affiliates – AM
Track B: Doing Politics
Talking and Walking (tentative) What Real Elected Libertarians Have Done – AM
Answering Questions (Mike Jingozian) – AM
Reviving less active parties (Darryl Perry, Rodger Paxton, Jake Porter) – PM
Outright Libertarians-Using FIJA to Protect Minorities (Mike Shipley) – PM
Moving Parties to the next level (Jake Porter, David Traynor, Wes Benedict) – PM
Track C: Libertarianism
Peace now! End the Warfare State (Angela Keaton, Will Hopkins, Patricia Lee, Bill Walker) – AM
“Physically Removed, So To Speak”: Making the LP Inhospitable to the Alt-Right and Other Enemies of Liberty. (Josh Katz, Jody Weitzman, Leslee Petersen, Mike Shipley) – AM
End the Surveillance State (George Phillies, Angela Keaton, Larry Sharpe) – PM
Why Two Parties Guarantee Failure (Mike Jingozian) – PM
Over the last couple of weeks, I have emailed you about the contest to help choose our 2018 Libertarian Party National Convention theme.
Thanks to all who have voted and donated.
The final results are in!
Our 2018 Libertarian Party National Convention theme will be “I’m That Libertarian!”
For those who don’t know, this phrase references the motivational speech made by Dr. Marc Allan Feldman at the 2016 Libertarian Party National Convention. Dr. Feldman has since passed away and his speech lives on as a rallying cry for Libertarians nationwide.
In total, this campaign raised $15,395 for convention expenses.
These donations will be used to help cover early convention planning expenses.
The 2018 Libertarian Party National Convention and associated activities will be held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on June 30 through July 3, 2018. Please save the dates on your calendar!
Thanks for your help in preparing for our 2018 convention!
Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
1444 Duke St.,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any
candidate or candidate committee.
Did you ever doubt yourself? Have you ever wondered whether you’re on the right track? Or that you were enough for the job? I have. And often still do. It’s hard, popping your own balloon and seeing yourself as you really are. Sometimes you just don’t like what you see. My new life started over…
Disruption. One of its definitions, according to the Free Dictionary, is “to break apart or alter so as to prevent normal or expected functioning.” Well, that pretty much describes Trump’s administration in a nutshell. He ran on a campaign of reversing course on policies and practices ingrained in a Beltway culture that thinks change is…
Obamagate. You’d think an ex-president would know better than to direct the vast surveillance powers of the American government toward a private U.S. citizen, much less one that was running to replace him in the highest office in the land. But for a supposedly smart guy, this sure looks like a dumb move. Because now…
A coup in America? No way, you say. I must be nuts. And I hope I am. But that’s the way it looks to me. America is in the middle of an attempted coup, and the two sides are slugging it out while we watch. At the very least, the picture being painted suggests a…
It was a good night for America. Last night the President made a joint address to both houses of Congress on national TV, and by all accounts, Trump’s speech was a winner. In our eyes, he hit a home run. If you want to watch or read it for yourself, here’s a link. Setting aside…
I am pleased to announce that David Friedman (economics professor and son of Milton Friedman) and Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) are now featured speakers at the Libertarian Party of California State Convention. The convention is coming up fast - April 28 to 30 at the Santa Clara Marriott, 2700 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA (near San Jose Airport). Sign up now to ensure your seat at the table with these great speakers, as well as conduct party business and meet fellow freedom-lovers from around California.
Not only will Mr. Friedman and Mr. Byrne be speaking, but we will also hear from Richard Fieldsfrom the Pacific Legal Foundation, which defends property rights and currently has a case before the U. S. Supreme Court. There’s also Eric Garris, the founder of Antiwar.com, the only consistent anti-war, anti-intervention organization around; Edward Hasbrouck from the Identity Project; Maggie McNeill – “the Honest Courtesan”; Zoltan Istvan on technology and liberty; LP national vice-chair Arvin Vohra; Aaron Starr from Moving Oxnard Forward; Calimesa Mayor Jeff Hewitt and a panel of Libertarian officeholders; and much more.
The convention opens on Friday evening with a reception featuring potential 2018 candidates for governor and other offices. Saturday and Sunday will feature speakers and party business, as well as the gala banquet with Patrick Byrne as the main speaker Saturday evening. For those who haven’t heard of Overstock, it’s an internet retail company with $1.8 billion in revenues, founded in 1999 by Byrne. He was also a major supporter of Gary Johnson for President, and has been an outspoken advocate for school choice and for Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
We will be hearing officers’ reports, electing officers and State Executive Committee members and discussing possible changes to the bylaws and platform. You can bone up on Robert’s Rules of Order if you want, but don’t worry, we should be able to get through party business without too much of a rough ride!
I’m looking forward to a great convention, and I hope to see you there! There are plenty of options for you, from being a delegate (voting on party business) at no cost, to packages that include all the meals and all the speakers. We should have something that fits your budget. Join us and support the Libertarian Party of California – and have a great time in the process!
Did Obama & Congress just create a Ministry of Truth to generate fake news?Retweet
What if politicians could deem your favorite website “propaganda” and shut it down? What if politicians could “create truth” by using your taxes to buy journalists, non-profit groups, and public figures? Well…
Obama used an executive order to create a Ministry of Truth to fight ISIS.
Congress has just passed legislation to validate Obama’s action and expand the concept to target the Russian Federation
Congress took this action by cramming the authorizing legislation into a completely unrelated bill, the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The NDAA could be the posterchild for why we need the One Subject at a Time Act.
The NDAA always get stuffed with bad things. It’s easy to see why. The NDAA is sure to pass because few politicians want to be seen as voting against national defense or the troops. So when Congressional leaders have a bad idea that can’t pass on its own merits, they cluster it in the NDAA. For example…
The 2012 NDAA is where Congressional leaders hid a provision that permits the Feds to kidnap people and hold them indefinitely without due process. We were among the first and the few to sound that alarm. Now we have to sound an alarm again!
America does not need a Ministry of Truth
They call this new, $60 million agency the “Global Engagement Center (GEC).” It will develop and synchronize the official U.S. propaganda line, label it truth, and thereby counter foreign propaganda lines. But it won’t stop there.
The GEC will also create a cadre of journalists and work with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), including think tanks, media organizations, civil society groups, and experts. It will put hundreds of these actors “on the payroll” to help spread the official U.S. federal government line — you know, because the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and so forth don’t already do that for them!
Which brings me back to the indefinite detention/kidnapping provisions from the 2012 NDAA. Congressional leaders were outspoken in their repeated denials of our claim that they had legalized kidnapping by The State. It wasn’t until THIS YEAR (2016) that one of those loud-mouths who called us liars (Sen. Dianne Feinstein) FINALLY admitted we were right! Well…
We’re right about this too. The proposed Global Engagement Center really is a Ministry of Truth The political class will use to promote its own brand of “fake news” using your tax dollars.
For many years, I felt a moral obligation to inform business owners whenever I thought they had a personnel or customer-service problem they may not recognize. I say moral obligation, because I, for one, have always been grateful when a customer — or anyone, for that matter — took the time to call to my attention any aspect of my business which they felt was not up to par.
I use the past tense here because I rarely volunteer my observations anymore. Even though the urge to be of help to a fellow entrepreneur or business owner still resides within me, I long ago came to the conclusion that most business owners are neither interested in, nor serious about, receiving such feedback.
A few years ago, I was doing business with a public relations firm that assigned a seemingly intelligent young lady (“Ms. Snit”) to my account. Subsequent events made it clear that she had it all — negligence, laziness, incompetence, and a huge chip on her shoulder. Her purported job was public relations, but her entitlement mentality caused her to focus on her technical “duties” rather than on pleasing her company’s customers.
After enduring one abysmal experience after another with her, I finally decided to go to the trouble of writing a letter to the CEO of the company, a letter in which I detailed Ms. Snit’s myriad deficiencies and belligerent attitude. I subsequently spoke to him on the phone and emphasized that I would prefer he handle the matter in a general sort of way in order to avoid a backlash. I specifically requested that he leave my name out of his discussion with her, given that I have an aversion to axe murders.
I suggested that he simply point out some areas of weakness where he felt Ms. Snit needed some improvement. He assured me that he wouldn’t even mention my name and that he would handle the matter “gingerly.” I guess we had differing definitions of the word gingerly, because he not only told her straight out what I had said about her, he actually showed her my letter!
A short time later, I called Ms. Snit to inquire about an unrelated matter, whereupon she went into a tirade about how I had “defamed” her. In rare form, she demonstrated an uncanny knack for coming up with four-letter words that I didn’t even know existed.
Needless to say, from that point on she went out of her way to make things difficult for me. Worse, having been allowed to get away with her outrageous behavior, it was a green light for her to continue to treat her company’s most valued assets — its customers — with glaring contempt.
So much for Ms. Snit.
About a year later, I hired an audio/video company to do some work for me, and dealt primarily with the vice president of new business development. Notwithstanding his impressive title, he never once delivered work to me on time. Worse, he was unresponsive to an extreme.
I finally got so fed up with the bad service I was getting that I felt compelled to let the owner know about it. Since he had been the one to personally solicit my business, I assumed he would be concerned about the lack of follow-through on the part of one of his top people. Here again I asked him to please be sure to handle the problem gingerly since we were only about half way through my project and I didn’t want any problems.
Once again, however, there apparently was a wide disparity between our definitions of “gingerly.” Wham! Immediately after the owner of the company talked to him, the vice president of new business development called to let me know, in no uncertain terms, that he didn’t appreciate my “going behind his back” to complain to his boss.
I didn’t bother to remind him that on numerous occasions I had expressed my dissatisfaction directly to him, but it seemed not to have had any effect. Needless to say, working through the remainder of the project with him was a very uncomfortable experience for me.
Advice: If you’re a business owner, when a customer does you a favor by pointing out that one of your employees is not doing his job properly, don’t make the mistake of creating an adversarial relationship between your employee and your customer. Be grateful to the customer, thank him for taking the time and trouble to tell you about his dissatisfaction, then approach the employee gingerly.
Meaning, tactfully point out the area or areas where you feel he needs improvement, but leave the customer out of it. Why? For at least two reasons.
First, because you can count on the employee’s having his own version of the story, and that version is almost certain to cast him as a victim. Which means you then have to make a decision as to whom to believe.
Second, if you intend to have an ongoing relationship with the customer, the offending employee is likely to act in ways that will drive him away from you by exacting retribution for his “tattling” on him.
I believe that one of the reasons so many employers make this mistake is that they tend to be naive. By and large, anyone ambitious enough to go into business for himself is usually conscientious, competent, reliable, hardworking, and customer-oriented. Where the naiveté comes into play is that such business owners also have a tendency to assume, at least subconsciously, that their employees possess the same traits.
And, fortunately, many employees do — at least the ones who are focused on getting ahead in life. However, the employees who treat customers disrespectfully are most likely to be the same ones who excel at kissing up to their bosses.
How do some employees manage to get away with this kind of charade throughout their careers? Sadly, I believe the egos of many business owners simply can’t resist the gushy verbiage of the professional sycophants on their payroll. It makes them feel secure to know they are surrounded by a cadre of pit bulls who make great theater of protecting their bosses.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that many employers are literally addicted to the fabricated adulation of their employees. The unspoken understanding is that in exchange for treating the boss as if he were the Pope, they can count on him to stand up for the guys and gals on “his team” at all costs.
All of which sounds very noble, except for the reality that it’s simply not good business. An owner cannot serve his customers effectively if he is focused on not offending his employees.
I want to emphasize that making certain your employees are treating your customers with tender loving care does not prevent you from treating those same employees with respect. But your relationship with an employee should be based on how well he treats your most precious asset — your customers — rather than how well he treats you.
The corollary to this is that if you happen to be an employee, you should skip the sycophantism and focus your efforts on pleasing your company’s customers. You’ll get ahead much more quickly by having customers tell your boss what great service you gave them rather than by your continually telling the boss how great he is.
Finally, if you’re a work-alone entrepreneur, everything is in your lap, because you are both the employee and the employer. Without customers, you have nothing. Treat them like the valuable assets they are. The only rigid policy you should have is that the customer must be satisfied at all costs.
In fact, you should look at every customer complaint as an opportunity to strengthen your relationship with that customer. I’ve done this a thousand times in my career not only by apologizing and thanking the customer for letting me know about his dissatisfaction, but also by doing something special for him.
Almost without fail, it results in having a more loyal customer than having one who has never registered a complaint. In other words, you should view a customer’s complaint as an opportunity rather than a problem.
One last piece of advice that I feel is critical: Don’t ask customers to fill out evaluation forms unless you, personally, are prepared to read them. On at least two occasions that I can think of, I was about to fill out one of those “tell us how we’re doing” forms, because I thought the owner of the company would appreciate knowing that someone in his organization was not performing up to par.
The problem? In both cases, the form was to be returned to the very person I was having the problem with! As I said, many business owners are very naive.
If you own a business — or plan to own one some day — never make this mistake. If having your customers evaluate your products and services is really important to you, make sure all customer evaluation forms are sent directly to you. Otherwise, you’re tempting the employee who reads the forms to shred the ones that don’t please him — and then plot ways to get even with those who do the complaining.
In March 2014 the Institute for Justice filed suit on behalf of Celeste Kelly, Grace Granatelli and Stacey Kollman against the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. IJ reports, “each [woman] turned their lifelong love of animals into their own businesses through which they offer animal massage. Massaging horses is Celeste [Kelly]’s livelihood; Grace [Granatelli] massages dogs; and Stacey [Kollman] owns a horseback riding and horse training business where she also massages horses. Each [woman] spent hundreds of hours learning animal massage techniques to obtain private certifications, and each woman has more than ten years’ experience massaging animals.” However the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board “demanded they obtain veterinary licenses to massage animals.”
There are other onerous licensing requirements that many people believe are needed to keep us safe, however nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that occupational licensing laws serve to protect one group of people from competition from another group of people. If people really do have an “inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” then how can anyone honestly support restrictions on those rights?
Between 1950 and 2009, American public schools experienced a 96 percent increase in student population. During that time, the number of administrators and other staff increased by over seven times the increase in students. This staffing surge still exists today, but the promised benefits are nowhere to be seen.
Will Attorney General Jeff Sessions Stand for Privacy?
by Jonathan Lee
The Department of Justice has been trying to use a law from the 1968 to force access to Microsoft’s servers in Ireland. Jeff Sessions, the new Attorney General nominee, should use this opportunity to stand up for digital privacy and ease diplomatic tensions with Ireland.
The Six Mysterious Elves of the Commercial Marketplace
by Jeffrey A. Tucker
In the Brothers Grimm story, the couple was mystified about where the new shoes in their shop came from. But they benefitted from the prosperity they brought in any case. Why were they not more curious of the source of this magic.
As the highest-ranking soldier among the 1292 American POWs in the camp, Roddie Edmonds was responsible for the others’ well-being. The German commandant told Edmonds to identify his Jewish soldiers. Edmonds replied, “We are all Jews here.” He cared about the well-being of another group of people without thought of his own well-being, expressing a bigger love than personal love. We can call this Big Love.
Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission formally proposed to mandate that all new cars be equipped with “vehicle-to-vehicle” communications, also known as connected-vehicle technology. This would allow vehicles stuck in traffic to let other vehicles know to take alternate routes. It would also allow the government – or hackers – to take control of your car any time they want.
FEE Summer Seminars: A Beacon of Light for the Rising Generation
It’s time. Spread the word. Applications are now open for 2017 FEE Summer Seminars. FEE has been hosting sought-after entrepreneurship and economics-focused seminars across the US for decades — all with the goal of making the principles of a free society familiar and credible to the rising generation. We have something for everyone, whether you’re a high schooler, college student, or recent graduate.
Two Important Bills to be voted on by the full House this week. Take Action Now!
Make Sure Ride-sharing Services have a Place in Florida
HB 221 would prevent local governments from regulating “transportation network companies” such as Uber and Lyft and would adopt a uniform, common sense law focused on safety and access to the new technology.
It makes no sense that 67 counties and 410 municipalities would create their own set of regulations, which would make it impossible for ride-share drivers to comply as they serve neighboring cities and counties.
This legislation establishes common-sense guidelines throughout the state, and allows people in Florida to continue benefiting from ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft and allow affordable, reliable rides.
Common-Sense Protection for Concealed Weapon Permit Holders
HB 779 Would protect concealed weapons permit-holders from arrest or criminal charges if they “temporarily and openly display” their gun.
If HB 779 passes, law enforcement cannot penalize a concealed weapon permit holder for temporarily displaying a weapon, such as a wind blowing a jacket open, or a situation where the pistol grip was unintentionally exposed.
HB 221 and HB 779 will have their second reading on the House Floor this Tuesday April 4th, 2017 and could receive an up or down vote by the full House this week.
Call and e-mail your district Representative and tell them to support the following two bills on the House floor this week:
HB 221 Make Sure Ride-sharing Services have a Place in Florida
HB 779 Common-sense protection for concealed weapon permit holders.
IMPORTANT: Make sure you save the contact information to your representative in your cell phone.
The LFN April Legislative Update Statewide Video Conference Call will take place on Monday April 3rd 2017 at 7:00 PM EST. We will be giving an update to you on the 2017 session so far in Tallahassee and what you can do to help make an impact. CLICK HERE TO RSVP
You can also join the Liberty First Network as we lobby our legislators on liberty issues. Come out on Tuesday April 4th 2017 and make a personal impact in the state capitol. CLICK HERE TO RSVP
ACTION ALERT TEXT SERVICE AVAILABLE
Liberty First Network has launched our “ACTION ALERT TEXT” service to make engaging legislators easy and painless, with a quick swipe of the phone.
One of the most effective ways that you can influence the agenda is by calling specific representatives on bills when these bills are in their committees and these representatives will be voting on or scheduling these bills for a hearing
With the ACTION ALERT TEXT you will get all the information you need to make the call in one text. The text will have up to 2 Representatives to call and will not take more than 5 minutes to complete. You can call when you’re walking to your office or when you are on a coffee break.
With a tap of your finger, you can do your part to restore liberty in Florida.
This service is available to all members of the Liberty First Network. If you would like to know more on becoming a member you can call or text Alex Snitker at (813) 315-0513
And don’t miss the Special Gold Auction for the very first 25 “Trial Strikes” of the one ounce MAGA Gold Trump Dollar that is detailed below.
Announcing the 2017 “Make America Great Again” Gold & Silver Trump Dollar
To make America great again.
So what is the key for President Trump to make America great again? Monetary history and many experts agree that sound money is the first step towards national and international prosperity and even world peace.
While President Trump has promised to make America great again, and I am confident that the President and his team have a plan to do just that, why wait to profit from the Trump Effect and higher metals prices?
The new 2017 ‘Make America Great Again’ Trump Dollar in gold and silver provides a model for a value based standard and encourages the President to redefine the US dollar based on value vs. the foul hot air of the entrenched political elite class and the Federal Reserve fiat dollar.
Given gold’s persistent performance, promising future and the precarious nature of the US dollar – why wait? Show your support for a sound monetary system with the new Make America Great Again Gold Trump Dollar.
But why buy gold when silver is so cheap? Silver has always outperformed gold as there are many more uses for silver than gold. And silver will continue to appreciate, as it is “the” metal for the high tech industry. Dollar for dollar, over time, silver will reward you with more bang for your buck.
The obverse of the commemorative features President Trump and his personal mission to: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. The reverse features Steve Forbes’ often-quoted mantra: FREE TRADE – STABLE MONEY – LOW TAXES as the well proven formula to make America great again with the iconic Liberty Dollar logo.
MARKET DRIVEN BULK PRICING AVAILABLE
Want to get more than one? New up-to-the-minute market driven, bulk pricing is now available online. No need to call for a quote or wire funds. NOW: All bulk orders are online, payable with a credit/debit card and better priced that ever!!
The Gold Trump Dollar with Make America Great Again in proof-like condition measures 32mm and contains one Troy ounce of .9999 fine gold. The Silver Trump Dollar with Make America Great Again in brilliant-uncirculated condition measures 39mm and contains one Troy ounce of .999 fine silver.
Special Proof Editions of both the Gold & Silver Trump Dollar minted with a stunning ultra high relief (UHR) obverse of President Trump are available in flawless proof condition with a Certificate of Authenticity and packaged in a special presentation case.
Take action! Hoist your personal Liberty Dollar flag for a value based monetary standard and get a Trump Dollar with “Liberty Dollar” on the reverse for only $25 MSRP and encourage President Trump to return America to a value based monetary standard.
Bulk pricing for is also available online.
Special Gold Auction
In 2016 I hoped that Donald Trump – an unlikely billionaire from New York – could make America great again. So I commemorated his candidacy with the Vote Trump Dollar with Liberty Dollar on the reverse. Fortunately it became wildly successful. That issue was quickly followed by the 2017 Inaugural Trump Dollar that celebrated Trump’s upset victory and attracted even more collectors.
MY SECRET GOLD PROJECT
With the success of the Trump Dollar, I must confess that I have been working on a Secret Gold Project for months.
While I dearly love the Trump Dollar commemoratives and foresee a tremendous future for their collector value, I wanted to do something different, more meaningful, more daring and more exciting! In short, I wanted to create a model to make American money great again.
And while I expect President Trump to keep his promise to make America great again – and I am confident that the President and his team have a plan to do just that – why wait to profit?
So I launched a Secret Gold Project that has enormous upscale collector potential.
The BIG News is that I just minted the first 25 one-ounce 2017 Gold Trump Dollars! I have them in hand and they look TERRIFIC!
That’s right! They are minted and ready to ship! NO WAITING!!
These 25 Gold Trial Strikes are so special that each one will be specially hallmarked with a “T” to permanently identify it as one of the very first 25 “Trial Strike” Gold Trump Dollars. But as the “T” could also refer to President Trump, I reserve the right to issue additional Gold Trump Dollars with the “T” hallmark if the President himself places an order during 2017! But of course, that is highly unlikely and even if I received an order from the President, his Gold Dollars would not be the freshest strikes with the brand new dies.
So as a collector of Trump Dollars – here is a special off to get one of the first 25 Gold Trump Dollars ever issued.
These first 25 Gold Trump Dollars are truly “Trial Strikes.” And while they are not offered as “Proofs” because the obverse does not feature an ultra high relief (UHR) die, every one looks like a proof and will most likely be graded as such! They are the very first specimens from brand new dies and again – they look terrific!
The Trump Dollar series has great historical significance and these 25 Gold Trial Strikes cannot be overestimated. Who knows… they might even be a prelude for a new Gold Standard that President Trump obviously has in mind as he has mentioned it many times!
The obverse features the iconic engraved portrait of President Trump with his campaign slogan and personal mission for America: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. The reverse features the Liberty Torch with LIBERTY DOLLAR and the legend: FREE TRADE – STABLE MONEY – LOW TAXES popularized by Steve Forbes, himself a two-time presidential candidate.
The Gold Trump Dollar is not a Piedfort! It measures 32mm in diameter and is a solid one ounce of .9999 fine gold as stated on the reverse, with a MSRP of $2000. And to add to the distinction of this very limited and unique issue, each Gold Trump Dollar will be packaged in metal case with a special Certificate of Authenticity. If you are not blown out with this beauty, I will gladly return your willing bid, regardless of the amount.
So how can you get one or more of these very special 25 Trump Dollar Trial Strikes? Simple: We decided to will let the market decide the price via a private email auction limited to Liberty Dollar supporters like you.
Terms of Auction:
To bid on one or more of the unique 2017 Gold Trump Dollar “Trial Strike” issue:
This email is the Official Announcement that bidding is now officially open. All bids must be submitted via email within five days. No email bids will be accepted after midnight on Monday, April 10, 2017. Only one bid per person. No duplicate or revised bids. No limit on number of Trial Strikes per bidder. So bid for as many Trial Strikes as you wish, but please be advised that if your bid is not one of the top 25 bids you will not win any hallmarked “Trial Strike” Gold Trump Dollars.
All bidders will be notified on Wednesday, April 12th as to the outcome of your bid. Payment is due via credit/debit card, before 5PM EDT on Friday, April 14, 2017. Please don’t miss the payment deadline or your bid will be cancelled. All cancelled bids will be offered to the next highest bidder. All winning bids will ship on April 17, 2017.
If you like gold and grasp the importance of President Trump’s legendary presidency – then bidding for one or more of these 25 historic Gold Trump Dollars should be high on your list of collectibles this year. This is your only opportunity to get a Gold “Trial Strike” Trump Dollar at the initial auction bid price. Prices for this unique, very limited collectible will certainly increase after the auction, as minting is strictly limited to only 25 specimens via this email auction. And of course, as the price of gold rises, the collector value will also certainly multiply too.
PLEASE NOTE: This auction is NOT available at www.TrumpDollar.US. This is your only email announcement for the very limited hallmarked “Trial Strike” with a special “T” Hallmark. The next mintage of Gold Trump Dollars will be in eight weeks as production time for the specially prepared one ounce gold planchets (blanks) is six weeks, plus a week shipping to the mint and another week for minting. So even if the President of the United States ordered Gold Trump Dollars, it will take eight weeks before the Gold Trump Dollar is available again.
Let us all pray that President Trump will return America to a value based monetary system and lead the world toward a more peaceful planet.
And be sure to put: Gold Trump Dollar Bid in the Subject Field.
Thank you for your support and collecting the Trump Dollar.
No more Fake News – No more Fake Money!
Bernard von NotHaus
PS: Check out the old [www.LibertyDollar.org]www.LibertyDollar.org site. It has been restored and has tons of info on money and the history of the Liberty Dollar is still there and the live quotes for the Liberty Dollar are automatically updated every minute – but are no longer available.
IVN interviews LNC Chair in a podcast series on alternative parties
The IVN show “A Civil Assessment” welcomed LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark on March 13 for an interview about the Libertarian alternative to the two dominant parties.
This week, meet the party whose mantra is “good ideas don’t have to be mandatory.” Host T.J. O’Hara is joined by the Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark. The two discuss the Libertarian Party’s core principles; where the party stands in relation to Trump’s economic policies, healthcare, the Dakota Access Pipeline, the U.S. military, and immigrant vetting; and what’s next for the Libertarian Party.
LNC seeks audio-visual services vendor for 2018 LP national convention
The Convention Oversight Committee of the Libertarian National Committee seeks proposals from qualified vendors who would like to provide audio-visual services for the 2018 Libertarian National Convention in New Orleans. The convention will be held from June 30 through July 3, 2018.
To be considered, send e-mail to Alicia Mattson at Secretary@LP.orgno later than noon EDT on April 14, 2017, and include these three RFQs:
New Jersey Libertarians nominate Peter Rorhman for governor
Peter Rohrman, Libertarian candidate for governor of New Jersey
In front of a sold-out crowd at Rutgers University on March 11, the New Jersey Libertarian Party nominated U.S. Marines veteran Peter Rohrman for governor. Rohrman’s platform includes tax cuts, school choice, legalizing marijuana, and ending corporate welfare.
“I believe in maximizing personal freedom. I cherish the Constitution and every one of the rights afforded to us in the Bill of Rights,” Rohrman said.
Libertarian Will Hammer runs again for VA House of Delegates
Will Hammer, Libertarian candidate for state delegate in Virginia’s 20th district
From NBC29.com, the website for television station WVIR in Staunton, Virginia:
“A Libertarian candidate from Staunton is challenging four-term 20th District Del. Dickie Bell (R) for the second time.
“Will Hammer ran for the seat against Bell in 2015.”
From Hammer’s campaign press release:
“I will be looking to get people to talk about the role of government, personal and economic freedom, and the grave failure of the two-party system.
“When elected, …I will protect your gun rights, as I was given an A grade from Gun Owners of America last year. I will fight for judicial reform, marijuana legalization, balancing the budget, and paying down the state’s debt. …If you are tired of business as usual and the duopoly of the Republicans and Democrats, join me and let’s seriously drain the swamp known as Richmond.”
Mr. Hammer finished second to Mr. Bell in the 2015 race for the same seat with 24 percent of the vote in a two-way race.
Click here to read the full article and press release.
Libertarian Mark Wicks campaigns for U.S. Congress in Montana
Mark Wicks (at right), Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress (Montana)
From KPAX-TV on March 19:
“The Libertarian candidate for Montana’s lone U.S. House of Representatives seat campaigned in Great Falls Saturday after being nominated by Montana’s Libertarian Party in Helena last week.
“[Mark Wicks’s] number one goal is to reduce what he sees as wasteful spending in Washington….
“Wicks is up against Republican Greg Gianforte and Democrat Rob Quist in the May 25 special election to fill the state’s vacant congressional seat.”
Illinois Libertarians win federal lawsuit; campaign contributions by medical marijuana groups now protected
From Ballot Access News on March 24:
On March 24, U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee, an Obama appointee, struck down a 2013 Illinois campaign finance law that makes it illegal for any medical cannabis cultivation center or dispensary organization to make a campaign contribution to a candidate for state or local office. Ball v. Madigan, n.d., 1:15cv-10441. The decision is 22 pages long.
The only two plaintiffs are Claire Ball, the Libertarian nominee for state comptroller in 2016, and Scott Schluter, the Libertarian nominee for state house, 117th district, in 2016. Schluter was not on the ballot because of Illinois’s severe ballot-access requirements for candidates for the legislature.
2017 State LP Conventions
This list of state LP conventions is subject to change. Watch for newly announced conventions or updates to those listed here, by visiting: LP.org/2017-state-conventions
Alabama: Feb. 25
Alaska: May 6
Arizona: Jan. 20–21
Arkansas: April 8
California: April 28–30
Colorado: March 24–26
Connecticut: March 11
Delaware: March 25
Florida: May 5–7
Georgia: March 25
Illinois: April 7–8
Indiana: May 5–7
Iowa: March 24–25
Kansas: April 22–23
Kentucky: June 23–25*
Maryland: April 29
Massachusetts: Oct. 14
Michigan: Feb. 4†
Minnesota: April 29
Mississippi: April 8
Montana: Feb. 19
Nebraska: Oct. 20–22
Nevada: Jan. 21
New Hampshire: March 18
New Jersey: March 11
New Mexico: April 8
New York: April 29
North Carolina: Aug. 11–13
Ohio: May 5–7
Pennsylvania: April 2
South Carolina: Nov. 4
Tennessee: March 11
Utah: April 22–23
Washington: April 21–23
West Virginia: May 6
Wisconsin: April 21–2
* LP Kentucky will also hold a special convention on Aug. 5, to focus on rules and constitutional changes that are needed to alleviate time constraints for rules issues at the main convention.
† LP Michigan’s Feb. 4 event was a special convention for purpose of adopting bylaws pertaining to LPMI’s acquiring “major party” status; state convention to be scheduled for late spring.
Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC)
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
Craft Breweries are prohibited by law (Three-Tier System) from distributing directly to retailers and are required to sell their beer to distributors, who then sell to retailers.
Using a distributor can be an efficient way to get products into the marketplace — when it is voluntary.
But mandatory wholesaling can prevent other competitive business models from emerging, especially small breweries.
Many small breweries in Florida don’t brew in substantial volume. Having the freedom to self-distribute can be more profitable for a small brewer. Craft breweries know what’s best for their beer; from how it should be stored, to how it’s sold, where it’s sold and how it’s delivered. Selling directly to a retailer allows higher profit and the ability to develop their product and brand. SB 554 and HB 679 will allow small craft breweries to self-distribute.
Call and email Senator Montford, Chair of the Commerce and Tourism Committee and tell him to schedule SB 554 in the next Commerce and Tourism Committee meeting.
Palm Beach Libertarians call for ending discriminatory worker ID cards for dancers
Boynton Beach, Fla – The Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County is calling on county commissioners to end the discriminatory requirement of adult entertainment dancers having to register with the county. In 2008, the Palm Beach County Commission passed an ordinance requiring adult dancers to acquire a worker identification card at a $75 fee and the ordinance requires their employers to photocopy and produce on demand a record of the cards.
This week, the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County reached out to the county commission to see how effective the program has been. We heard back from Stephanie Sejnoha, Director of the county’s Public Safety Department who stated, “The Public Safety Department considers the adult entertainment identification card program to be effective. We continually have performers come to our department to show proof that they are at least 18 years old to obtain a work identification card. We send out reminders to the establishments annually of our ordinance requirements. Establishments are aware and advise their performers of the requirement.”
Adult entertainment dancers seems to be outside the purview of the Palm Beach County Public Safety Department. Their purpose is to “coordinate and dispatch emergency services; Police, Fire and EMS, in response to fire, flood and natural disasters. The Public Safety Department provides security for county residents and visitors from crime and terrorism, rendering aid in the event of accident or attack.”
Libertarians contend the program is discriminatory. Karl Dickey, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County said today, “While managers of food establishments are required to hold certificates of competency, there are no worker ID cards for the food service workers below them. Why have adult dancers been singled out? Someone handling my food is far more important to me than whether an adult worker has been forced to pay $75 to the county government to earn a living. The selective taxing of some workers over others is unconscionable as Palm Beach citizens are taxed too much as it is just to exercise their right to work. Either you require ID cards from all those employed in the county, or you end discriminatory policies such as the adult entertainment worker ID cards.”
The original ordinance was ruled unconstitutional in 2000 but that decision was reversed by the Fourth District of Appeal. The challenge was that information such as birth certificate, social security card, home address, driver’s license, etc. was required as part of the application which became publicly available.
“Demanding strippers be licensed in the first place is a problem, though. There’s no legitimate public-safety or consumer-protection element to the requirement—strip club patrons don’t care if the woman wriggling on their laps is properly permitted. Government officials have portrayed the measure as a means to stop human trafficking and the exploitation of minors, but that’s ludicrous; anyone willing to force someone else into sex or labor and circumvent much more serious rules with regard to age limits isn’t going to suddenly take pause over an occupational licensing rule they’ll have to skirt. The only ones truly affected are sex workers and adult-business owners. Not only does the regulation drive up their costs (and close off legal dancing to those just passing through town), it gives Palm Beach regulators a database of anyone who’s ever taken their clothes off for money locally—leaving these records open to FOIA requests or hackers—and gives cops a pretense to check clubs at random to make sure there aren’t any unlicensed dancers. Those found to be dancing without a license can be arrested on a misdemeanor criminal charge.”
The Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County believes that employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. The Party supports the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
Tuesday, April 4,5:30PM: LP Palm Beach Outreach event “1984 Prevention Squad”. The movie 1984 will be shown and there is national attention being to this showing. LP Palm Beach volunteers are seeking volunteers to help with outreach to the moviegoers. We will have information and a limited number of t-shirts for volunteers. In addition to this downtown Lake Worth event, the movie will also be shown in western Lake Worth at 7:35pm. See this link.
Running for Public Office
We are seeking those interested in running for public office. Our focus is for local offices (County Commissioner down to “dog catcher”, though all will be welcome to run for any public office in the upcoming elections. Karl Dickey is filing to run for Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation District, Group 5 today and we’d like at least one other to run for that district (group 1). Go to https://www.runforoffice.org and punch in your address to see what upcoming offices are available to you. We have been contacted by a few interested, though not many have filed. It’s still early, but we’d really love for you to give it some serious consideration.
We are seeking volunteers to keep us informed as to what is happening in their town with regard to upcoming ordinances that you feel we should take a stand on. For example, we recently took a stand on two issues in Boca Raton and we would like to voice our support or opposition to other upcoming issues in the county. We can do this effectively if you help let us know what is happening in your town/city. Send your information to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dealing with the canard that President Trump is an anti-Semite.
I’ve never liked the term “right”; it reinforces the mythology that conservatism is even remotely aligned with fascism and Nazism. Such regimes, in their expansive power, have more in common with the Big Government of so-called “progressives.” And nationalism is inconclusive; FDR was no shrinking violet, and it was JFK who urged “what you can do for your country.” READ MORE
Nouns and Verbs and Obama Do Not Agree
BY: R. EMMETT TYRRELL, JR.Instead of learning to kite-surf the recent president should have been signing up for remedial English composition.
Did you know this? “Not since Lincoln has there been a president as fundamentally shaped — in his life, convictions and outlook on the world — by reading and writing as Barack Obama.” Frankly, I did not know President Obama was so wedded to books and the printed word as to be compared to Abraham Lincoln, author of the Gettysburg Address and the magisterial Second Inaugural, and devotee of Shakespeare. To be honest, I did not think that Obama, by the wildest leap of imagination, could be compared even to Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D., or U.S. Grant, the author of — until now — the finest presidential autobiography of all time. That is, if Mark Twain is to be believed. Twain compared Grant’s memoirs to Caesar’s Commentaries. READ MORE
The Mobbing of Milo
BY: ROBERT STACY MCCAINLiberals may regret their applause for a “high-tech lynching.”
What happened to Milo Yiannopoulos this week illustrates many problems in 21st-century culture, including the way the Internet has created a dangerous mob mentality. Justice Clarence Thomas famously called his Senate confirmation ordeal a “high-tech lynching,” but advances in technology have shortened the rope, so to speak. In a span of 72 hours, Yiannopoulos was disinvited from speaking at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, lost a book contract with Simon & Schuster, and was compelled to resign from his job as tech editor of Breitbart News. READ MORE
American is having a long delayed political nervous breakdown. That derives from a breakdown in our underlying philosophy. Silicon Valley could fix that.
America was founded on, and has as its DNA, “classical liberalism.” America’s political structure was very intentionally patterned on the philosophy of such thinkers as John Locke.
Classical liberalism got bifurcated some time ago. Its increasing fragmentation is causing massive cognitive dissonance within, and between, the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans. Neither fragment of it by itself provides a blueprint for sustained political flourishing. Both aspects, together, do.
But where to find classical liberalism as a living and thriving culture instead of an academic artifact?
Do you know the way to San Jose?
Silicon Valley shows strong signs of holding, if not quite coherently, to the classical liberal ethos. Silicon Valley is full of geniuses. Let some of them turn their brainpower to clearly articulating, and systematically projecting, this governing political philosophy. Silicon Valley can set America to rights — and secure its position politically — by coming out of the closet as classical liberal.
“a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.
“Both modern American conservatism and social liberalism split from Classical Liberalism in the early 20th century.
At that time conservatives adopted the Classic Liberal beliefs in protecting economic civil liberties.
Conversely social liberals adopted the Classical Liberal belief in defending social civil liberties.
Neither ideology adopted the pure Classical Liberal belief that government exists to protect both social & economic civil liberties.
Philosophy professors would find this a bit of an oversimplification. For practical purposes it frames our predicament nicely.
Key Silicon Valley thought leaders, some anyway, seem to get classical liberalism.
Peter Thiel wrote, for the Cato Institute in 2009, “By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.” Thiel may be the most influential classical liberal public intellectual at work in the world today.
Sam Altman, the young head of Y Combinator, sounds like another. Tad Friend’s New Yorker profile of Altman contains this very interesting Tell:
(Altman)’d been reading James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention for guidance in managing the transition. “We’re planning a way to allow wide swaths of the world to elect representatives to a new governance board,” he said. “Because if I weren’t in on this I’d be, like, Why do these f***rs get to decide what happens to me?”
Quintessential classical liberalism.
Another important classical liberal is a public intellectual with a strong association with Silicon Valley, George Gilder (a personal friend and sometimes professional colleague). Gilder was the living writer most often quoted by President Reagan, author of the “Bible of Reaganomics ”Wealth and Poverty, and the high tech classics Microcosm, Telecosm, and The Silicon Eye. Gilder has been and likely soon will again become known as an important technology investor.
Gilder may be the most essential classical liberal thought leader of our era.
But Silicon Valley, despite its influential and well-heeled DC business lobbyists, has so far made itself into something of a political Brigadoon. Silicon Valley appears prominently for a day every four years and then, mostly, disappears into bubbled obscurity as a kind of “Revenge of the Nerds” Valhalla. Its elusiveness represents the loss of a potential national political treasure. It may even pose a risk to Silicon Valley itself.
Until Silicon Valley projects a coherent, inherently American, philosophical message it is in default on its political and social responsibilities. That default also makes it vulnerable to caricature and even vilification. America needs Silicon Valley to lead it back to classical liberalism by word, deed, and sustained political engagement.
Restoring classical liberalism need not be daunting. There are many famous contemporary figures who exemplify classical liberalism. As the philosophy is in eclipse they are not often fully recognized as such. Two iconic figures who exemplify classical liberalism are rarely recognized as such.
One of these is George Orwell, the author of what may be the most culturally influential critique of totalitarianism ever: 1984.
The other is Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals. Nicholas von Hoffman, one of Alinsky’s most accomplished protégés, observed in a 2010 interview on C-Span: “He descends philosophically from classic British liberalism.”
Alinsky’s work had a significant influence on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump’s 2016 disruptive campaign employed most of Alinsky’s tactical rules. We have not yet reached peak Alinsky. Silicon Valley might begin there. If Alinsky’s a little too radical give George Gilder a ring.
The key to solving our political predicament lies in restoring the philosophy that made America both good and great. That philosophy seems to be leaking out of Silicon Valley. The Valley should desist playing a political Brigadoon and radiate as the beacon of classical liberalism it deserves to be.
By coherently advocating its classical liberalism Silicon Valley can become a key political force to transform the government into one dedicated to the protection of both social and economic civil liberties. Restoring classical liberalism could produce a dynamic in which the humanitarian factions of the right and the left can find ways to unite.
As legislation is being sent from one chamber to the other, Liberty Lobby LLC continues to advocate for maximum freedom at the statehouse and Legislative Office Building (LOB) testifying for pro-freedom legislation and against anti-freedom legislation.
On Tuesday (March 21), CEO Darryl W. Perry testified on:
Audio is available for these hearings on the Liberty Lobby LLC YouTube channel, with video to be available soon for some of them. You can find updates on committee recommendations, and actions by the House and Senate, on legislation we are tracking, here.
Darryl W. Perry
CEO, Liberty Lobby LLC
The mission of Liberty Lobby LLC is to advocate for minimal government and maximum human freedom by weighing all legislation against the litmus of our principles and responding accordingly by testifying in legislative hearings, holding court with individual legislators, and crafting liberty-minded legislation.
Our goal is to acquire a mere $5,000 per year in contributions from people like you to help pay for travel and administrative expenses. If you are interested in helping fund Liberty Lobby LLC, you can start with a recurring contribution of as little as $5 a month. Every contribution helps bring us that much closer to achieving our goals and ensuring liberty in our lifetime.
Liberty Lobby LLC is not for hire to the highest bidder, and will advocate for 100% freedom on every issue, every time. Liberty Lobby LLC specializes in Election Law (specifically ballot access reform and voter rights), Freedom of Information / Government Transparency, Freedom of Speech & Municipal and County Government.
Outraged by yesterday’s terrorist attack in London, one of my Facebook friends has posted this:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The way to deal with Islamic terrorism is mercilessly. You must not be squeamish about liberal use of the death penalty for those who commit or attempt acts of terror, or their associates. You must not be squeamish about retaliatory acts against their friends and families. Every attendee at their mosque should be deported if a dual of foreign national, then no stone of the building should be left standing and the soil soaked in pigs blood.
If you don’t do these things, or attack those who do, you are enabling terror. You yourself have some blood on your hands. This is not me being angry, for I am not angry at all. I’ve just read some history, and this is how it is. Not taking necessary dissuasive action is profoundly harmful. It is evil.
What I find interesting about the post is my friend’s advocacy of collective punishment for individual crimes. He is advancing these propositions:
First, that the man who committed yesterday’s attack is to be regarded both as an individual as a member of an alien group;
Second, that this alien group, or a section of it, is to be held partly responsible for the attacks;
Third, that punishment for the attacks is to involve loss of property and other rights for people who cannot be proven to have taken part in the attack, or to have known about it in advance, plus a deliberate religious desecration;
Fourth, that these punishments, taken together, are to mark out the attacker’s group as both legally inferior and generally unwelcome in this country.
Taking into account what he has said, and what naturally follows from it, my friend’s justification seems to be utilitarian. If a member of a relevant group has reasonable suspicion that someone he knows is contemplating a terrorist attack, he will have an incentive to tell the authorities about it. The leaders of this group will also have an incentive to take their own deterrent actions. This being so, there will be a diminution of terrorist violence from within that group.
To put it mildly, I find the post troubling. I find it troubling for two reasons.
First, we live in a civilisation that pays unusual attention to individual rights and individual responsibilities. We punish only those individuals who can be proven to have committed a crime. We also punish accomplices before and after the fact. We may also impute criminal liability in obvious cases of common purpose. But, unless they are accomplices of some kind, we do not punish the relatives and friends and neighbours of a criminal. This is an important limitation. It is central to our conception of civic order. So far as we depart from it, we become less English and less European and less Christian in our ways.
Second, collective punishment may be a recipe for civil war. If I cannot persuade the man down the road out of the crime that I reasonably believe he is contemplating, I may be tempted to inform on him. On the other hand, I may believe that my other neighbours will then murder me. This will be very likely if I belong to a group that has been officially told it is inferior and unwelcome. I may then connive at covering up the man’s crime. Or I shall be inclined to join in rioting and other acts that may deter the authorities from imposing more than a token collective punishment.
I could end my response here, basking in my own liberalism. There is, however, a difficulty with my first point. The civic order that I mention emerged in its purest form in England and those other European nations that enjoyed a high degree of ethnic homogeneity. It seemed reasonable to treat each other as individuals, because we were all members of the same group – or members of groups closely-related and with fluid boundaries. Such an order has never emerged in territories populated by groups who define themselves as radically separate from each other. The custom here has been for members of each group to deal justly with their own as individuals, but to extend such dealing to others only as a matter of limited courtesy, or from a position of overwhelming strength. When there is a conflict, the custom has been to treat individuals from another group as a representative of the group, and to hold the group as a whole responsible for the acts of its individual members.
The civic order that I mention is not a universal fact, but a product of unusual circumstances. Indeed, it has not been an entirely settled fact even in England. Look at our treatment of the native Irish after each of their rebellions. Look at our treatment of the Scottish Highlanders whenever they actively sided with the exiled Stuarts. Look at how we treated the subject nationalities in our Empire.
We have, since the end of the Second World War, moved from unquestioned homogeneity to an increasing diversity. The civic order that emerged in one state of affairs may not be supportable in a different state of affairs. There are certain new groups among us who do not wish to assimilate – or perhaps cannot assimilate. So far as it fears loss of territory or demographic weight, the traditional majority shows a growing willingness to act like any other group in history. If someone in one of the minority groups robs a bank, or murders his wife for the insurance money, he will be punished as an individual in the usual way. If he preys on the women or children of the majority group, or commits acts of terrorist violence, he will increasingly be treated as a representative of his group, and his group will be held collectively responsible for his actions.
I will add that a culture of collective responsibility is as likely to result in a restored equilibrium as in unlimited conflict. That is a matter of circumstances. Undoubtedly, though, the achievement of equilibrium will only follow some degree of conflict, and a permanent breakdown of the old order of things.
What I wish to be the case is of no importance. We are where we are, and we are headed where we are headed. It is possible that the “community leaders” of the group from which yesterday’s outrage came will also see where we are headed, and will take resolute and sufficient action. But this would be historically unusual. The usual dynamics of any conflict between groups is an escalation of mutual provocations, in which the moderates on both sides lose position to the hard-liners. It then becomes a question of which side has greater resources and the will to use them.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not want my country to fall apart in civil war. I do not want the breakdown of our ancient civic order. But what my Facebook friend has said, I fear, is only what many others are thinking – and what many more who do not yet agree will soon be thinking.
I discovered L. Neil Smith on the second Thursday in March 1985. I was on a railway train somewhere between King’s Cross in London and York, and I found a copy of his novel The Probability Broach in one of the luggage racks.
This is a great novel. It has a main plot that both grips the reader and is seamlessly integrated with the alternative history background. Under any circumstances, the book would have been a lucky find. But if it depends mainly on inherent quality, the appreciation of any text depends also on the mood of the reader. And I was in just the right mood for Neil.
I was depressed. I was very depressed, and for various reasons. I was depressed that the Thatcher Government, in which I had placed so much faith, was turning England into a police state. I was depressed that none of my libertarian friends was able to see what I could, and were even muttering behind my back that I was “rather unsound.” I was depressed because I had no money. I was depressed that, after such heroic efforts in 1981 and 1982, I was fat again, and that I had none of the willpower needed to stop being fat. I was depressed because, perhaps for associated reasons, it was hard to find anyone I actually fancied who wanted to sleep with me.
Now, I will not say that reading The Probability Broach helped me lose four stone of ugly fat and make my first million. But it did let me see the world more clearly and my own place within it as a libertarian. Back in those days, I must explain, the British free market movement was not really that libertarian. Alone, we used to read great slabs of Hayek and von Mises, or commentaries on them, or imitations of them. If we gathered in public, it was usually to listen to some Tory MP or businessman on the make, talking about the need to stuff the trade unions or see off the Russians. Chris Tame was always the great exception to the rule. But it was to be years before I became his closest friend. Otherwise, our movement was remarkably parasitic on the success—whatever that might amount to—of the Thatcher Government. Unless Chris was in the room, when I did start talking about civil liberties, the best I usually got was a brief silence, followed by an impatient “Oh yes, we believe in all that as well.”
What I got from The Probability Broach was my clearest perception yet of what libertarianism should be about. Yes, we believe in free markets, and in enterprise, and, so long as there must be a government, in certain constitutional safeguards. But this is all supportive of the true argument for liberty—which is that it allows us to have a really good time for a very long time. The alternative America that Neil shows us is a place where people say and do whatever they please. They smoke. They drink. They fly about in rockets. They have the bodies they want. I seem to recall that they sometimes change sex. They certainly control what age they appear.
If I have just said anything that seems disparaging of Hayek and von Mises, I do apologise. But it was only by reading Neil that I was fully able to understand the world that their flat and colourless sentences had been written to help bring into being. It no longer mattered what everyone else thought about me; and, though we were still eight years away from my discovery of the Internet, I felt inspired to start writing up what I thought was so awful about the world and how it might be made a better place.
Having mentioned the Internet, I suppose I should remind everyone born since about 1975 how difficult it was in the olden days to find anything at all outside the mainstream. I had found Neil by accident. It was days before I could hunt down any of his other fiction in the big London bookshops. It was a waste of time even to try looking for any of his political writings. When everything was on paper—and often put there by a duplicator, or at best by a photocopier—laying hands on fringe material was a hit or miss business. And it was that even when published in your own country. Nowadays, whatever you want—bizarre and possibly illegal porn, the alleged utterances of Osama bin Laden, tomorrow’s weather forecast for Provo in Utah—is never more than a few clicks away. Back in 1985, it would not have been absolutely impossible in London to get access to the newsletters Neil was writing in America. But it was far beyond my abilities.
Eventually, though, I did get myself on-line; and there, on libernet, Neil was waiting. If it was still several years before I found the courage to send him fan mail, Neil was, from 1993, part of my favourite regular on-line reading. His essays were models of lucidity and contempt. We were living in different countries. Many of the things he was writing about had little relevance for me in England. But I could admire the lucidity of his style. And I could admire the depths and force of his contempt.
This was not contempt, mind you, of what is most conveniently, though perhaps misleadingly, called “the left.” That was easily found in our movement on both sides of the Atlantic. No, what I admired was his contempt for our supposed allies. In England and in America, libertarians had been listening for decades, at least, to promises that such-and-such a “conservative” politician was on our side, and that, when he spoke vaguely to the masses about free markets and constitutional limits on the State, he was not saying the tenth of what he really meant. Well, we had listened to these rogues and liars—Nixon and Heath and Thatcher and Reagan, and John Redwood and Newt Gingrich, and all the others—and it was time for those of us who had now finally got ourselves a big audience on-line to say exactly what we thought of them, of them and of the lesser rogues and liars who were still crying them up as closet libertarians.
And here, eighteen years later, we still are. Much has changed since then. I can now boast that, while we have never met in the physical sense, Neil is now a dear and valued friend. But he is still writing, still turning the literary equivalent of a flame thrower on enemies of our civilisation. And it is a very great honour that he has now asked me to introduce this latest volume of his writings.
I could stop here. It is, after all, the job of an introduction writer to say something nice about the main contents, and then to shut up. But I do have in mind one further observation about Neil that I might not otherwise find the opportunity to make, or to make in one place. This is that, once you leave aside his inspirational fiction, he is a very angry man.
You will find, for example, that every essay in this book is, in one way or another, a masterpiece of denunciatory rhetoric, and you will not take from it very much that is positive. Oh, you will, every so often, read about his cure for the toilet that America has become—which is a strict enforcement of the Bill of Rights. But how do you assemble the coalition needed to get the right sort of President elected? How do you scale back not only the claims of a kleptocratic elite, but also the expectations of ordinary people that may not be entirely legitimate, but are not unreasonable when you bear in mind that the free market solutions to which they ought to be looking have been regulated out of existence, or simply crowded out? What about old age pensions? What about healthcare subsidies—subsidies that even Ayn Rand was in the end not to proud to claim?
But this is not a criticism. You do not go to Neil for these things. There are policy institutes all over America with millions of dollars to spend on long and worthy, and sometimes honest and disinterested, prescriptions. You go to Neil for the anger of righteousness.
Have you ever seen a friend or a loved one die? Have you ever lain awake at night, wondering how long before it will be you lying unconscious in that hospital bed, with tubes sticking out of you? You might tell yourself that these are the inevitable misfortunes of life, and that we are lucky to be alive now, in an age where we and our friends and loved ones have some chance of getting near to the end of our normal life spans, or even somewhat beyond. We could say that. We do say that. But we are now living in the fifth century of an exponential growth of human control over nature. Why is it that we have so many bombs that, if we let them all off at once, we might turn out planet into a ball of rock as dead as all the others in our solar system—and why is it that making it to ninety is very nearly as remarkable for us as it was to the Ancient Greeks?
The answer is because every step in the progress of our knowledge has been impeded or perverted or at least largely to the advantage of a parasitic ruling class. Every English child—and perhaps every American child too—learns the mediaeval rhyme:
Baa, baa, black sheep,
Have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir,
Three bags full.
One for the master,
One for the dame,
And one for the little boy
Who lives down the lane
That is how—the century before last partially excepted—it has always been. Everything created by the people has been shared with the military and propagandistic wings of the ruling class. In mediaeval times, it was a third of the wool to the King and a third to the Church, and a third left to us. The only difference today is that, as we have become more productive, the third left to us has shrivelled to a sixth or a tenth or a fiftieth. The rest is taken by men with guns, or to feed armies of smiling and utterly malign intellectuals.
Just imagine a world in which those two big wars of the last century had not been fought, and in which the ruling class had been kept under the same semi-limitation as it was until 1914. Or let us write off the millions shot or blown apart or gassed or starved in those meaningless slaughters. We doubtless lost a few Newtons and Mozarts, but these wars were a long time ago, and mentioning their utter worthlessness upsets too many people who ought to know better but do not.
Suppose only that America and England and Western Europe had, after 1945, been taxed and regulated half as much as they were. We might not by now have indefinite life extension and prospecting colonies in the Asteroid Belt. But do you really think we would still be facing our pathetically short life spans, and a last few months or years rotten with cancer and taking mostly ineffective pills from which the commercial wing of our ruling class does very nicely?
No, forget a scaling back of the ruling class after 1945. Instead, let us only suppose that “victory” against Soviet Russia had really been followed by the “peace dividend” we were promised. Even then, things could so easily have been better than they are. Even twenty years of reduced parasitism would have left us richer, and therefore healthier, and therefore happier.
But, in place of these very pale approximations to a free society, we are now where we are now. In England and America, we struggle to pay our taxes. We are sprayed with lies about villainous foreigners in funny clothes whose only wish is to kill us. We worry that our children will say something out of place, and bring social workers knocking on our doors. We are left with just enough of what we produce to divert ourselves—with flat screen television sets and industrialised holidays—from the knowledge that we are serfs.
That is what I find in the non-fiction of L. Neil Smith— denunciations of the current order of things, and the burning and clearly-expressed conviction that it could so easily be different.
If you are leafing through this introduction and wondering whether to buy the book—do buy it. If you have bought it already and have started with my introduction – you are in for a treat. If you want some pious explanation of what a good idea it might be to privatise the cracks between the paving stones, you have not been a perfectly rational consumer. If, on the other hand, you want chapter and verse on how your country is owned by pigs and run by wolves, and on how glorious it would be if we stopped being sheep—in this case, ladies and gentlemen, fasten your belts and enjoy the ride!
Maybe we have to accept all of this statistviolence. Perhaps the best we can hope for, when trying to win over a friend to our more peaceful point of view, is tiny increments of agreement.
Let’s call that view “marginalism.” That is, my prominent friend believes one marginal movement, in our direction, is likely to create momentum for more marginal movements, until eventually someone arrives at the libertarianism he and I both appreciate.
Don’t get me wrong, when it comes to changing policy, I’ll take any movement that reduces statist aggression. If a half-measure is all I can get, for now, that’s far better than nothing.
But persuading an individual to move an increment on a single issue does not make them libertarian, much less a voluntaryist. And after more than 20 years as a libertarian (most of them as a paid professional), my experience doesn’t validate marginalism. I cannot recall it ever working with my friends and family.
Let’s define success as the moment when a non-libertarian suddenly starts proudly telling others that he or she is a libertarian.
Personally, I have zero instances to report where the marginalist approach has resulted in that kind of success.
But there’s another problem with marginalism. My friend’s mind has raced to the logical conclusion of where my libertarian arguments lead. He’s not sure he likes where this is going. Meanwhile, I’m holding back bits of the truth and doing nothing to alleviate his concerns. For lack of explanation and clarification on the how voluntaryists would handle the “tough issues,” my friend simply dismisses libertarianism as crazy.
There are five issues, allegedly “too tough” to tackle and best saved for later. Do you know what they are?
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced that they will not appeal the District Court’s decision that the FEC must uphold the law on their regulation of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).
The Libertarian Party was a co-plaintiff in this case.
Libertarian National Committee Chair, Nicholas Sarwark, says, “With the recent court ruling in our lawsuit against the FEC and the FEC’s decision not to appeal that ruling, we’re optimistic that the CPD will have to change their rules to not be rigged in favor of the two old parties.”
“This kind of work to break the CPD’s stranglehold on the debate process is just one of many ways that we are working to create a strong foundation for all of the new Libertarian candidates who will be running in 2018 and 2020. Striking down legal and ballot access barriers is not as exciting or sexy as an election campaign, but it’s that kind of work over the last 45 years that has put us in the position to take advantage of current and future political opportunities.”
We now wait for the FEC to do the right thing and follow the court’s directives with regards to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Every day, the Libertarian Party is working on multiple fronts to lay the foundation for our candidates in 2018, 2020, and other elections.
This lawsuit against the FEC is just one critical piece of many.
Another critical piece for laying the foundation for 2018 is our work to ensure that EVERY American voter will have the opportunity to vote for Libertarian candidates.
We are further ahead on this than we ever have been at this point in the cycle.
Disruption. One of its definitions, according to the Free Dictionary, is “to break apart or alter so as to prevent normal or expected functioning.” Well, that pretty much describes Trump’s administration in a nutshell. He ran on a campaign of changing the status quo in Washington by reversing course on policies and practices ingrained in…
Obamagate. You’d think an ex-president would know better than to direct the vast surveillance powers of the American government toward a private U.S. citizen, much less one that was running to replace him in the highest office in the land. But for a supposedly smart guy, this sure looks like a dumb move. Because now…
A coup in America? No way, you say. I must be nuts. And I hope I am. But that’s the way it looks to me. America is in the middle of an attempted coup, and the two sides are slugging it out while we watch. At the very least, the picture being painted suggests a…
It was a good night for America. Last night the President made a joint address to both houses of Congress on national TV, and by all accounts, Trump’s speech was a winner. In our eyes, he hit a home run. If you want to watch or read it for yourself, here’s a link. Setting aside…
In case you missed it, here is the full text and video of President’s Trump’s joint address to Congress last night: Transcript Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and Citizens of America: Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History…
Local Libertarians support local businesses from proposed Boca Raton alcohol ordinance
Boynton Beach, Fla – Last night, March 27, 2017, the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County’s Executive Committee voted to support two bars as the City of Boca Raton proposes to hurt their businesses. Tonight the city council will introduce an ordinance proposing that two bars stop serving their customers alcohol at 2 a.m. instead of their normal 5 a.m. The two bars’ serving times were grandfathered in when those two locations were annexed by the city. The city is proposing to disregard those rules which these two bars have been operating under for years simply due to the annexation.
Specifically, the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County opposes the prohibition when any Palm Beach County resident can be served alcohol and suggests the City of Boca Raton and all cities in the county end their arbitrary 2 a.m. cut off time. Businesses, not politicians, should decide how to best operate.
Karl Dickey, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County, said this morning, “Businesses should be able to serve alcohol when their customers demand and not when a government commands it so. It should be between the business and the customer. Under this proposed ordinance, the City is endangering the lives of its residents as later-nighters will be traveling longer distances rather than stay within the city limits.”
The City of Boca Raton would be jeopardizing the livelihood and the potential survival of these two late-night businesses by instituting this restriction. Dickey added, “Nippers has been there since the Olympiad building opened which is over 30 years ago and now the city wants to suddenly change their business plan for them? Apparently, those in city leadership do not believe in the free market, and are all too willing to unnecessarily change the rules midstream deciding when and how a business operates.”
The Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County wants all citizens of Palm Beach County to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
The Man Who Cannot Win: Op-Ed on Ron Paul – Tea Party Founder
Mar 23, 2017 12:32 pm | admin11
On Saturday evening, the US Representative from Texas’ 14th district, Dr. Ron Paul, decisively won the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll for the second year in a row. Again, he handily defeated the second place finisher; the media’s chosen alesis dm6 frontrunner for the GOP 2012 primary, Mitt Romney. This year Paul won by 7 percent, a larger margin than the total percentage of votes received by the third place finisher, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (6 percent).
Once again, potential GOP rivals, the party establishment, the media, and even the sponsors of CPAC attempted to marginalize, mock, and diminish the MD, veteran, NY Times #1 Best-Selling author, 11-term Congressman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary roland td 11kv s is very good product to buy! Policy and Technology Chairman, and two-time Presidential candidate.
This year, Donald Trump took the first crack before Dr. Paul had even won the straw poll. After commenting that there were no candidates in the field he was interested in, several members of the audience yelled, “Ron Paul”. Trump replied, “By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected”. The room immediately erupted to a mixture of cheers and boos.
Fox News reporter Molly Heneberg, reported the straw poll results live on television even before CPAC announced them. After reading the results, she attempted to set the narrative by commenting that, “the story is not Ron Paul winning again for the second year in a row, but…Mitt Romney coming in second place again.” Fox News.com put up a poll shortly after to determine who “should” have won the CPAC straw poll. In this hypothetical matchup Ron Paul defeated Sarah Palin by 64% in the final round. Shortly after, the poll was taken down and the results were never announced on air. Fox News.com later posted a short article yamaha dtx542k review that mentioned Dr. Paul’s win and mentioned that he “ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.”
Next, the organizers of CPAC stepped up to discredit their own poll before announcing the results. David Lee first noted that it was “a voluntary poll, not all of you fill it out… it’s a straw poll, it’s not a Gallup poll, not a Rasmussen poll, not a Zogby poll”. For the record, this year’s CPAC crowd was its largest ever, with more than 10,000 attendees and a record number (3,742) voting in the straw poll as well.
Before the CPAC crowds could even clear the room, Jordan Marks, National Director for Young Americans for Freedom said, “”Rep. Paul is clearly off his meds and must be purged from public office. YAF is starting the process by removing him from our national advisory board. Good riddance and he won’t be missed”. Later adding that it was Dr. Paul’s foreign policy views that got him booted, Marks failed to recognize that Paul’s foreign policy views have, in fact, never changed in his more than twenty years of service in the US Congress, most of which have also been spent on YAF’s national advisory board.
The attacks continued online as Carrie Dann of MSNBC.com
Mar 21, 2017 01:10 pm | admin11
The attacks continued online as Carrie Dann of MSNBC.com wrote that Paul, “almost certainly lacks the campaign organization and wide appeal with GOP primary voters to shure sm7b review for 2017 in here be a serious contender to win the nomination” and “the poll’s results are certain to be dismissed as irrelevant by presidential contenders who have been building the staff and infrastructure necessary for a serious run.” Ironically, the infrastructure created by those staffs was not enough to secure a victory in the straw poll.
New York Times author Jeff Zeleny disregarded Paul’s win, saying “conservative activists signaled on Saturday that they were unsettled over who should win the party’s nomination, indicating a wide-open race for the right to challenge President Obama”.
Reuters columnists Johnathan Martin and James Hohmann also dismissed Paul’s straw poll victory calling it “a sign of the intense following he enjoys and the waning relevance of the surveys” and “The 75-year-old congressman may run for president again, but his prospects for winning the GOP nomination are nil.”
Patrick O’Connor of The Wall St. Journal didn’t waste any time with sennheiser live vocal mic his op-ed, marginalizing the results in the first sentence by claiming they “may say more about the organizing capacity of his supporters than the tastes of Republican primary voters as a whole.”
The attacks continued this morning as Rush Limbaugh said Ron Paul was “ok, but be real; he’ll never be the Republican nominee”.
National Review Online also released a poll today titled “Ron Paul Won the CPAC Straw Poll. You Would Have Voted For?”
Who is this man that the GOP establishment and media do not want us to consider in the next Presidential election? How is it that everyone is so sure that, even before anyone has announced his candidacy, this man cannot win? Why is it that no reasons are ever provided for why he cannot win? More importantly, what is everyone so afraid of?
It’s certainly true that Representative Paul’s positions are often outside of the mainstream, but perhaps that’s why voters have shifted hard left and back to the right over the last few years; because they haven’t quite found what they’re looking for. Perhaps Paul’s most controversial opinion is his stance on foreign policy. He maintains a “non-interventionist” position, in-line with the recommendations of the founding fathers and the US Constitution. This position suggests that the US should provide for a strong national defense at home, but cease its hyper-interventionist policies of “policing the world” and arming both sides of nearly every conflict abroad. He has argued that the US cannot afford to run more than nine hundred military bases in more than 130 countries and that the troops should come home to protect our country. Though during his 2008 Presidential run he was often misrepresented as an “isolationist”, he received more campaign contributions from active duty and retired military personnel than all other Republican primary candidates combined, including John McCain. Paul backs this position with CIA reports that claim the primary reason for terrorist attacks against the US is “blowback”, repercussions of our involvement in the affairs of other nations; including propping up cruel dictators, imposing sanctions that starve civilians, and bombing those who do not bend to our will. Most importantly, Paul is the only current GOP hopeful who has vowed to bring a swift resolution to the wars in the Middle East that have lingered for a decade and cost the lives of more than 5,000 soldiers and the limbs of tens of thousands more, not to mention the trillions of dollars spent with no stability to show for it and no end in sight.
The new expanded page will get you the shows and interviews on the 1787 Network. CLICK HERE for more information.
Do Business With Our Sponsors
The Liberty Underground Show is only possible because of our sponsors. Do business with the people who do business with us. For a list of our sponsors click HERE
There are various initiatives across Florida in 2015 that will play a major role in restoring this country to a Constitutional Republic. They need your help and support to make that happen. Click HERE and TAKE ACTION!!!
What verdict do veterans render to our three questions about U.S. wars?Retweet
By Jim Babka & Perry Willis
We’ve spent the last several days reviewing the history of U.S. wars and interventions. You can find those articles on our homepage. We also provide a list of them below our signature. Those articles ask three questions about each U.S. war or intervention…
Did it defend freedom?
Did it make the U.S. more secure?
Did it make the world better or worse?
Now we want to hear from our veterans on Veterans Day…
How do you feel about how the politicians have used those who’ve served in the military?
How do you answer the three questions above?
If you’re a veteran please share your thoughts in the comments for the Facebook post of this message, located here.