NEW MEXICO LIBERTY
“Let Freedom Ring”
The Official Newsletter of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico
July 2010
Table of Contents
Page 1 Libertarian Media from New Mexico
Notes from the Editor by Mike Blessing
Page 2 Events at a Glance
The LPNM's Candidates
Other Groups to Network With, and Their
Events
Page 3 Renewables Draining Economy
by Paul Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation
Page 4 Property Rights, Liberty, and Immigration
by Glenn “Kane” Jacobs
Page 5 Taxes don’t support Hemp TV (KOB-TV)
Page 6 Contacts / Internet ResourcesThe
Page 7 Administrivia
The Unanimous Consent Challenge
Page 8 Enrollment / Renewal Form
Page 9 For Paul Family, Libertarian Ethos Began at
Home, by Mark Leibovich [New York Times]
Page 11 Corporations, Government and Mercantilism
by L. Neil Smith
Page 12 Say no to a government 'kill switch' for the
Internet, by Bill Snyder
Libertarian Media from New Mexico
(not necessarily endorsed by LPNM)
The Weekly Sedition – Thursdays at 8 PM
(July – August – September 2010)
kcufmedia.xanga.com
Hemp TV – Tuesdays at 7PM
myspace.com/nmhemptv
The One Party State – Wednesdays at 11PM
Contact Lance Klafeta [ lklafeta@yahoo.com ] for details
Reeferhead – Saturdays at 6PM
myspace.com/reeferheadtv
The Fringe Element
thefringeelement.net / postpubco.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“One of the sadder facts of human existence is that power will get
you through times of no brains better than brains will get you
through times of no power.”
– L. Neil Smith, Tactical Reflections, lneilsmith.org/tactical.html
http://lpnm.us V.2.2 N.23
Notes from the Editor
by Mike Blessing
[ mikewb1971@gmail.com /
mikewb1971.xanga.com ]
An Expanded [Electronic] Edition
This month, I'm going to try something that I've been thinking about
for some time now – offering an electronic edition with more articles
and other stuff than the edition that's printed out and mailed
through the postal system. The printed edition that goes out
through the postal system will remain fixed at eight pages, but the
electronic edition is limited only by my upload bandwidth and
available hosting space. You, the reader, are of course free to print
out copies of the electronic edition, hosted at the Google site I've
set up to host the issues – groups.google.com/group/nmliberty.
The Koehler for Governor Campaign Ends
Bill Koehler's campaign for governor as an independent write-in
was ended by the Secretary of State's Office recently. They said
that he couldn't run as an independent because he wasn't
registered as such, but as a Libertarian. Bill said that the staffer at
the SoS Office was very nice, and offered to him the option to run
as a Libertarian candidate. Bill declined to run for Governor as a
Libertarian because he doesn't see getting 10,000 nominating
signatures in two weeks as a doable task.
Alongside Night – The Book, The Movie
Back in 1979, J. Neil Schulman wrote a book titled Alongside Night,
which ranks up there with The Probability Broach among the great
libertarian science fiction novels.
Alongside Night deals with people living in an America that's going
into a state of fiscal default, as hyperinflation sets in due to decades
of deficit spending. Sound familiar, in light of the 2008 and 2009
bailouts, Obama's “stimulus package,” among other things?
Anyway, Schulman is not only giving away the novel itself as a free
download, at alongsidenight.net, but is in the process of making
Alongside Night into a feature film. Kevin Sorbo (of Hercules and
Andromeda fame) has reportedly signed on to play the part of Dr.
Martin Vreeland.
See jneilschulman.rationalreview.com for updates.
Hemp TV on KOB-TV Channel 4
Recently, Cindy and Matt of Hemp TV were featured in a piece by
KOB-TV Channel 4, here in Albuquerque. The story from the KOB
website is on page 5.
Wasn't it nice of the Channel 4 staff to run a background check on
Cindy and Matt, as stated by Tom Joles in the attached video clip?
And people wonder why I don't bother watching the local channels
much any more.
New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 1
 Events at a Glance
Bernalillo County – The BCLP stages one no-host dinner meeting
per month, on Thursday, 8 July, 6:00 to 8:00 PM at Fiesta's
Restaurant & Lounge (Carlisle & Montogomery NE). Contact Mike
Blessing for details [ mikewb1971@gmail.com / 505-515-7015 ], or
see the BCLP website – lpnm.us/bernalillo.
Other Groups to Network With
Sunday, July 4, 2 PM – whenever: July 4 Cookout. Contact
Elisheva Levin at elisheva@spinn.net for more info. Burgers, hot
dogs and lemonade provided. Bring side dishes, desserts, and
other drinks to share. NO FIREWORKS ALLOWED due to
proximity to the National Forest.

State Party Treasurer Michael Simpson was appointed as Precinct Saturday, July 10 and Sunday, July 11: Pistol Class in Farmington
89 Chair after the State Central Committee meeting on 13 June by Cope Reynolds. Contact Milt Cumiford at
2010. milt.cumiford@excelmanufacturing.com for registration papers and
more info.
Precinct 553 Chair Elisheva Levin cancelled her run for State
Representative, District 22 against Republican James Smith due to Wednesday, July 14, 5-7 PM: The Rio Grande Foundation hosts
family matters that popped up at the last minute. Liberty on the Rocks in Santa Fe at the Rio Chama Steakhouse.
See this page for details –
The Weekly Sedition returns to Albuquerque Comcast Channel 27 riograndefoundation.org/pg_ev_lotrs.html
on 8 July 2010 at 8 PM. For those not subscribed to ABQ Comcast,
the show can be viewed live at the Channel 27 website (NOTE – Thursday, July 15, 5-7 PM: The Rio Grande Foundation hosts
this requires MS Windows Media Player!) [ quote-unquote.org ]. Liberty on the Rocks in Albuquerque at the Chama River Brewing
Company. For details, see this page –
Dona Ana County – The next scheduled Central Committee riograndefoundation.org/pg_ev_lotr.html
meeting is 14 August 2010, time and place to be annnounced. Any
county Libertarian wanting support in running for political office or Tuesday, June 27, 5-7 PM: The Rio Grande Foundation hosts
having party or political issues that they wish the county party to Liberty on the Rocks – Las Cruces at the Cattle Baron Steak &
address prior to then can call a meeting of the County Central Seafood Restaurant on the 4th Tuesday of every month. The Cattle
Committee by gaining the approval of at least half of the Committee Baron will offer happy hour prices and a full menu for food
members via email or phone request. selection. For details, see this page –
riograndefoundation.org/pg_ev_lotrlc.html
Please contact the chair or check the LPDAC website for more
information – Wednesday, July 28, Thursday, July 29, and Friday, July 30: The
Rio Grande Foundation hosts Dr. Matt Ladner, Vice President of
lpdacnm@lpnm.us / 575-571-6881 / lpnm.us/dona-ana. Research at the Goldwater Institute in Arizona for a presentation of
If you live in a county with an inactive affiliate and want to get "Turning Around New Mexico's Public Schools –- The Florida
involved, contact the county chair. See Page 7 for a list of Model" in Albuquerque, Las Cruces and Santa Fe. See this page –
county chairs, campus contacts and Central Committee riograndefoundation.org/pg_ev_ml.html – for details.
members. The New Mexico Patriot Alliance 2010 Fall Summit
Special Events The New Mexico Patriot Alliance's mission is to support Patriot
Preparedness, Education and Action, and Patriot group interaction
Central Committee Meeting – Sunday, 26 September 2010
throughout New Mexico in order to restore Constitutional
Lunch at 12:00 PM, meeting from 1:00 to 3:00 PM. All Caucus governance to New Mexico and the United States.
members are welcome to attend. County Chairs and Contacts
Fall Summit Schedule
and candidates are encouraged to attend! Location – Quarters
BBQ at 3700 Ellison NW in Albuquerque – see tinyurl.com/27rhyrn Friday Evening, 15 October – Speech by Michael Badnarik, free
for map and directions. and open to the public – donations gratefully accepted.
Central Committee Meeting – Sunday, 12 December 2010 Saturday, 16 October – NMPA fall summit – featuring teaching by
Mr. Badnarik (cost TBA)
Lunch at 12:00 PM, meeting from 1:00 to 3:00 PM. All Caucus
members are welcome to attend. County Chairs and Contacts Sunday, 17 October – Michael Badnarik's famous Constitution
and candidates are encouraged to attend! Location – Quarters Class (cost TBA)
BBQ at 3700 Ellison NW in Albuquerque – see tinyurl.com/27rhyrn Facebook page – tinyurl.com/2fref7k
for map and directions.
Myspace pages – tinyurl.com/2ac6hto / tinyurl.com/25u6ekn
2011 Annual State Convention
New Mexico Liberty page – tinyurl.com/2b6wo7z
Location, dates, panels and speakers are to be determined.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The LPNM's Candidates

The Law by Frederic Bastiat
State Legislature
See these pages –
State Representative, District 16
Mike Blessing – mike4nmh16-2010.blogspot.com bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
State Representative, District 19 jpfo.org/articles-assd/bastiat-the-law.htm
Mark Curtis – macurtis@webtv.net
Also in PDF form –
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jpfo.org/pdf02/bastiat-thelaw-2008.pdf
"All the heretics I have known have been virtuous men."
– Benjamin Franklin,
Letter to Benjamin Vaughan, 24 October 1788
http://2think.org/priestly.shtml

New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 2

 Liberty, Opportunity, Prosperity There are really only two viable ways forward at this point.
First, and in the shorter term, regulations and laws must be
loosened in order to give utilities the flexibility to determine what
Renewables Draining Economy sources to derive "renewable" energy from. After all, since wind is
by Paul Gessing half as expensive as solar, shouldn't PNM and other utilities at least
[ pgessing@riograndefoundation.org ] have the freedom to generate energy from the least-costly source.
8 June 2010 – tinyurl.com/2fhr9b3 Ultimately, the public, utility customers and our elected leaders
must decide when the economic costs of "renewable" energy
exceed benefits. The only logical and, dare I say moral, thing to do
Under New Mexico's "Renewable Portfolio Standard" law, regulated is to give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves. If it is
electric utilities must derive 15 percent of their electricity needs worth it for a business or consumer to pay extra for the peace of
from renewable sources by 2015, with 20 percent to come from mind of supporting the growth of renewable energy sources like
renewable sources by 2020. Starting in late June, Public Service solar or wind, they should have the freedom to do this.
Company of New Mexico will begin holding Integrated Resource
It is simply unfair and wrong for a minority to use government to
Planning public meetings to determine how it will comply with the
force their preferences on the majority of consumers who wish to
renewable mandate over the next decade-plus.
buy the least expensive and most reliable electricity possible.
Already, organizations like New Mexico Industrial Energy
Consumers have two opportunities to weigh in on this issue. Once
Consumers are expressing concern over rates that have gone up
in the upcoming public hearings and again in November when three
by 24 percent in the past three years.
slots on the PRC are up for election.
PNM for its part has requested a 21 percent increase. To be fair,
Here's hoping that economic reality will get average citizens and
these hikes have not been driven by New Mexico's foray into
not just renewable energy zealots to engage in the process.
renewable energy, which now stands at 6 percent of electricity
sales, but mandated increase in more costly renewable sources will Originally published in the Albuquerque Journal
result in even greater hikes over time as these mandates take hold.
Unfortunately, not only is New Mexico's mandate forcing New
Mexico utility customers to pay for more expensive "renewable"
electricity, the law which originally allowed utilities to use the
renewable energy source that made the most economic sense was
later changed to force utilities to adhere to specific "mandates- Paul Gessing is the President of New Mexico’s Rio Grande
within-a-mandate." Foundation. The Rio Grande Foundation is an independent, non-
partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization
This additional mandate means that investor-owned-utilities must
dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on
derive at least 20 percent of their renewable power from wind, 20
principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual
percent from solar, 10 percent from "other technologies" like
responsibility.
biomass and, by 2015, 3 percent of the electricity must be derived
through distributed generation.
So-called distributed generation is yet another onerous requirement
on utilities. Specifically, this means that PNM and other investor-
owned-utilities such as El Paso Electric must now rely on output
from many small energy sources. This has the makings of a
paperwork, security and reliability nightmare that will further drive
up costs for consumers.
Because of these policies, particularly the solar requirement –
although the "other technologies" and distributed generation
requirements are problematic – New Mexicans face higher
electricity prices. That is, even after significant federal subsidies for
renewables, which they are paying for yet again, are priced-into the
equation. Nonetheless, the cost of solar thermal electricity, made
by using the sun's heat to boil water and spin a turbine, would be
nearly three times that of coal and more than twice that of natural
gas.
All of these costs and subsidies are passed on to consumers.
Of course, in today's difficult economy, with jobs and economic
growth taking precedence over supposedly high-minded "green"
energy mandates, politicians should realize that unrealistic
mandates will kill New Mexico's economy and hurt the very
consumers they are supposed to protect.
Take California as a prime example.
There are many reasons that have caused California to become an
economic basket case. Idealism in pursuit of unrealistic +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
environmental goals like the state's renewable portfolio standard is "A government that does not trust it's law-abiding citizens to keep
one. In an executive order issued in November 2008, Gov. Arnold and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust."
Schwarzenegger set in law goals of generating 20 percent of all – James Madison, Federalist Papers
electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by
2020. According to the state's leading utility, PG&E, the state is
currently at 12 or 13 percent renewable.
New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 3

Property Rights, Liberty,
and Immigration
by Glenn Jacobs
[ citizenx@adventuresofcitizenx.com ]
26 May 2010 – tinyurl.com/24ty53o
Libertarian philosophy is based on the concept of self-ownership.
Human beings own themselves. When we rightfully acquire
property, either by making first claim to that property
(homesteading) or through voluntary transfer with another person
or persons, that property becomes part of our lives, and thus we lay
claim to ownership of that property as we would our own bodies.
One of the problems that libertarians encounter when discussing
various issues is determining ownership, or, in many cases,
articulating the nuances of applying property rights to the issue.
These problems are compounded when government is thrown into
the equation since the same rules about property and ownership
that apply to private individuals do not apply to coercive
government. The hot-button issue of immigration is a great
example, illustrating the complexities involved in applying property
rights to an issue.
Ownership means that one not only possess something, but one
also controls the thing. In other words, if you truly own something,
you must be free to use the thing as you wish so long as doing so
does not violate the property of others. You must also be free to
transfer the thing to another person so long as the transaction is
voluntary and consensual. When it comes to land, property rights,
i.e. control over that land, include controlling who enters into the
boundaries of the land.
When dealing with the topic of immigration, that is, the movement
of individuals across political designations, this is where things get
confusing. The State claims not only to be able to control who
crosses the land that it owns, but also to control who enters land
owned by private individuals. It also claims the authority to prohibit
certain individuals from living within its borders, even if these
individuals acquired their land rightfully (using the criteria above) by
homesteading or through voluntary exchange. Those of us who
believe that private property is the basis of a free society must ask:
how was this authority engendered?
If we continue along this line of thinking, the logical conclusion must
be that the State owned all the land within its borders a priori since
it is the government which sets the conditions for how that land may
be used, and to whom it may be transferred in the future. The State
continues to retain a high degree of control since the government
has the ultimate authority to make the rules for all property, even
property now in private hands.*
To the libertarian, or anyone who believes in the sanctity of
property rights, these conclusions are quite troubling. When it
comes to land ownership in America, property rights are not at all
secure; they are not really rights at all, but government granted
privileges.
While our system of property rights is already imperfect, the current
immigration policy leads to even greater infringements on these
rights. For example, if one owns property on or near the border, the
government may claim the authority to build a fence or a wall on
one’s property, and government agents may come and go as they
please without the property owner’s permission.
These problems remain even if we move away from the border.
For example, if the government suspects that I am employing
undocumented workers, it claims the authority to raid my business
– to enter my property without my permission – with armed agents.
If one truly owns one’s property, how is it that the government can
control who is allowed on this property in opposition to the wishes
of the property owner? In other words, why should my friend from
Mexico beg for permission to enter the country in order to have
dinner with me?
Shouldn’t free people be able to associate or not associate with
whomever they wish so long as those interactions are voluntary,
consensual, and do not harm a third party?
The same is true of economic activities. So long as commercial
activities are voluntary, consensual, and do not encroach upon
other individuals or their property, what is the justification for the
government prohibiting these activities or associations?
In the contemporary world of immigration politics, property rights
and the freedom of association are trumped by the omnipotent
State. Is the State some sort of god before whom we must plead to
recognize us as "official" persons? After all, that is the crux of the
immigration question – must the individuals coming to America
have the sanction of the State? As the State continues to lose
legitimacy in the eyes of so many in the liberty movement, one
wonders why many of these same folks still demand that individuals
who peacefully come to this country seek the State’s approval
above all else. After all, it is the State that determines who is "legal"
and "illegal."
Now one may argue that despite all this, illegal immigration is a
crime and as such must be punished. The question is, who is the
victim of this crime? So long as the immigrant has not harmed
another individual or violated another individual’s property, who has
suffered injury? Just like so many other "crimes," this activity is a
crime against the State, and should fall into the category of
victimless crime. While such activity may violate State edicts, it can
hardly be considered a crime in the sense that no individual was
harmed by the activity.
When dealing with laws restricting the movement of human beings,
we should keep in mind Thomas Paine’s prophetic observation: "he
that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." Demanding that the
government "do something" about illegal immigration will result in
bigger, more intrusive government and less freedom for all of us.
Already efforts ostensibly aimed at illegal immigration undermine
the ability of Americans to travel freely in our own country. In the
Southwest, the Border Patrol has built permanent checkpoints well
inside the United States, located along major travel routes like I-35.
All travelers must exit the freeway and be processed by ICE
agents, including questioning and possible searches. Since federal
agents operating in this geographic area are not constrained by the
probable cause standard of the Fourth Amendment, there is no
protection against arbitrary searches and seizures even for
American citizens. This fact has prompted the ACLU to declare the
areas within 100 miles of America’s borders as "Constitution Free
Zones."
In addition, in some of the airports in this area including Laredo, TX
and Tucson, AZ, travelers are subject not only to the indignities of
TSA searches but also questioning by ICE agents about their
citizenship.
To believe that a government program targeting a specific group of
people will not affect everyone in general is naïve and contrary to
history. If nothing else, the government faces the problem of
determining if an individual belongs to the target group. No one, not
even a government agent, has the magical ability to determine
one’s nationality simply by looking at him. For example, during the
1950s, an aunt of mine, a third generation American, was denied
service at a restaurant in New Mexico because she was dark
complected and, despite her French and German ancestry, it was
assumed that she was a Mexican. If someone has dark skin and
Hispanic features, are we automatically to assume that he is an
illegal alien? Likewise, what about light-skinned folks who may be
here illegally? Will they simply fall through the cracks?
[ Continued on Page 5 ]
New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 4
 Taxes don’t support Hemp TV
2 July 2010
by Austin Reed, Eyewitness News 4, and Reed Upton, KOB.com
kob.com/article/stories/S1636142.shtml?cat=500
Screenshot of the video clip showing Cindy and Matt on KOB-TV
Despite popular beliefs, taxpayers’ dollars don’t support a
controversial public access television show devoted to discussing
marijuana called Hemp TV.
Matt and Cindy appear to be getting high while “smoking” on the
show and fielding questions ranging from the benign—“I am getting
it for MS” – to the, well, stoned – “I’m in the middle of the f******
woods!”
“It’s not just one opinion,” says Cindy. “It is just pretty much to
open the debate about the war on drugs, but most specifically
about the war on Marijuana.”
The show's producers defend the program as an example of
freedom of speech.
Mike Trujillo, the public access station’s program coordinator, says
what the group is doing is totally legitimate and does not cost
taxpayers.
“The is a federal mandate that cable carriers give monies to what
is called PEG funds, public education and government channels,”
he explains. “So essentially, if you have Comcast cable, there is a
small fee that comes from every subscriber, and I believe it’s 44
cents.”
Trujillo says the City of Albuquerque is not involved with the station
other than collecting funds from the cable company and providing
them to the public access station.
[ Continued from Page 4 ]
For these reasons, the government will demand to know the legal
status of everyone. In other words, it will not be up to the
government to prove that one is here illegally. It will be up to you to
prove otherwise. That is why Senators Chuck Schumer and
Lindsey Graham are proposing a biometric national ID card for all
Americans. You see, the government has a compelling need to
know who you are, to put your information into another database,
and to determine if you are "eligible" to work here. De facto work
permits for Americans in America?! Nice. I’m sure it would never
cross the mind of any politician to turn off the work permits of his
political enemies.
The answer to the immigration debate is the same as it is to all
other issues – more freedom, not more government. Instead of
asking the government to crack down on immigration, we should
recognize that it is government programs and interventions that are
the problem and demand that the government cease these
activities.
Unfortunately, while recognizing the problems that government
causes in so many other areas, many folks, especially
conservatives, apply a double-standard when it comes to
immigration. For example, while conservatives rightly blasted
ObamaCare pointing out that it will result in the nationalization of
the health care system, these same people lament how immigrants
are destroying "our" hospitals. They are not "our" hospitals; they
are, or at least should be, private businesses which should be able
to exclude anyone from receiving their services, but are restricted
from doing so by government edict. Likewise, we hear that
immigrants are overwhelming the public education system, yet
conservative icon Ronald Reagan advocated disbanding the
Department of Education and, at a federal level anyway, getting the
government out of the education business.
Finally, we have social welfare. It is the existence of government
welfare programs that are much of the problem, attracting people to
this country who wish to live off the labor of others. Eliminate these
programs and you eliminate this problem.
When you empower the government to do something, the
government often ends up using these powers in ways that you do
not foresee or intend. And it may end up using these powers
against you. In the preface to her novel Anthem, Ayn Rand
lambasted socialists for not recognizing or taking responsibility for
the consequences of the policies that they advocated – “they
expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and
concentration camps to escape the moral responsibility by wailing:
'But I didn’t mean this!'”
As the United States continues its war on immigration, the
government is building the infrastructure for a police state – internal
checkpoints, national ID cards, work permits. When we wake up in
that police state, will the anti-immigration crowd cry: "But I didn’t
mean this!" ?
* Unfortunately, there is much truth to these statements since land
titles in the United States are based on a relic of the feudal system,
fee simple [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple ], meaning that while
one can have an "interest" in one’s land, the land is actually owned
by the government, i.e. the government has dominium eminens or
supreme lordship.
Glenn Jacobs is the actor and professional wrestler-entertainer
Kane – [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_%28wrestler%29 ]. Visit his
blog [ http://adventuresofcitizenx.com ].
New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 5
 Administrivia Subscriptions and Correspondence
by Mike Blessing, Editor For a print subscription, contact Ron Bjornstad for details. New
If you have news, interesting stories, op-ed pieces, a letter to the Mexico Liberty will be posted to the web, in PDF format, to the Files
editor, or timely information that you think belongs in the newsletter, section of the Google group I’ve set up for it –
please send it along. I can be contacted at 505-515-7015, or just groups.google.com/group/nmliberty
send it to email address mikewb1971@gmail.com.
If you are moving or change your mailing address, please use keep
When sending your submission as an MS Word (or Open Office us in the loop so we can keep your New Mexico Liberty coming to
Text) file, send it single-spaced in 9-pt Arial – like this is. Margins you – contact Ron Bjornstad [ rbjornstad@earthlink.net ] if you're a
should be quarter-inch (0.25”) around, with no headers or footers. If print version subscriber. Otherwise, contact the editor.
you send it in a text-only format, make it clear to me if you want
anything in bold type, underlined, in italics, struck-through, Advertising in New Mexico Liberty
different colors, etc. I’m not telepathic here, so help me out. And Current rates for year-long spots
NO Wordperfect files – I can't open those.
Business card Ø 8.00
Graphics (pictures, cartoons, etc.) – send the highest quality
graphics you can – email them to me at the address above, and I’ll Rates are subject to change at the discretion of the editor. The
do what I can to get them in the next issue. In particular, what I editor will do his best to make any such changes only when
want are pictures of YOU the LPNM members, either at LPNM- absolutely necessary.
sponsored events or at other peoples' events. Submission deadline
Inserts – For an insert into the PDF version that goes out over the
for each issue – midnight, third Tuesday of the month.
internet, contact the editor at email address . For an insert into the
Articles print edition, contact Ron Bjornstad at email address
rbjornstad@earthlink.net or phone number 505-288-4228.
As for writing your article, It should be concise (no longer than a full
page) and topical. A bit of humor helps, especially for op-ed pieces. Ø – The symbol for Federal Reserve Note(s), as used by Boston T.
What I'm really looking for in the way of articles is what's going on Party in his books. In plain-text message traffic (such as email), the
in the LPNM – what YOU the membership are up to in spreading acronym “FRN” will be used by the editor. See javelinpress.com for
the message. For example, an article about the stupidity, insanity more information. Also see the Wikipedia page for “Federal
and evil of the UN might get put in, depending on available space Reserve Note” – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note.
and the quality of the article. A group of LPNM members counter-
protesting the raising of a UN flag by the city council WILL get put THE LPNM OFFICIAL WEBSITE – lpnm.us
in, and probably will get first priority.
LPNM OFFICIAL MAILING ADDRESS
Editorial Viewpoint AND PHONE NUMBER
The basis for libertarian thought is the Zero Aggression Principle 918 Ivory Road SE
[ZAP] – Rio Rancho, NM 87124
505-288-4228
A libertarian is someone who believes that no human being
has the right – under any circumstances – to initiate force If the date on your mailing label reads before 06/01/10, it's time
against another human being, nor to threaten, incite or to renew your LPNM membership.
delegate its initiation.
THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT CHALLENGE
New Mexico Liberty holds that Libertarian candidates, officeholders
or appointed spokespersons at all levels of government or the Party
CASH Ø10,000 PRIZE
should refrain from advocating new or more restrictive laws, new or To the first person to write a logical and documented essay
more expensive spending programs, or new or higher taxes. To showing one of the following to be compatible with the Declaration
paraphrase from the medical profession, “First, do no harm.” of Independence:
Submissions Policy Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890
Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906
The editor reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any
Federal Communications Act of 1934
reason. The editor will most often be willing to explain any such
National Firearms Act of 1934
reasons. Appeals of the editor's refusal to post an advertisement,
Banking Act of 1935
article, letter to editor, or anything else can be made to the LPNM's
The Internal Revenue Code
State Chair, Central Committee and/or Judicial Council.
Controlled Substances Act of 1970
Copyright RICO Act of 1970
Federal Elections Act of 1970
Copyright © 2003 – Present, Libertarian Party of New Mexico. All
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
rights reserved. Permission is explicitly granted for subscribers to
Plumbing Products Efficiency Act of 1992
recopy New Mexico Liberty for non-commercial purposes,
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 1992
specifically as use as an outreach tool, provided that New Mexico
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Liberty is copied in its entirety. Use your imagination here.
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
This challenge is also on the web at tinyurl.com/hn982
To claim your prize, contact
YOUR ADVERTISING IN Mike Blessing at 505-515-7015 or
NEW MEXICO LIBERTY? send an email to mikewb1971@gmail.com

CONTACT THE EDITOR OR

SEE PAGE 7 FOR DETAILS
EMAIL mikewb1971@gmail.com New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 6
 LPNM Central Committee County Contacts
Chair
Bernalillo – lpnm.us/bernalillo
Jay Vandersloot – 505-362-1733 / jayvandersloot@yahoo.com
Mike Blessing – 505-515-7015 / mikewb1971@gmail.com
Vice Chair
Colfax
Elisheva Levin – 505-286-1387 / elisheva@elishevalevin.com
Richard Moore – 575-377-6849 / myliberty@mail.com
Secretary
Siebert Ickler – 575-541-9079 / lpdac@peoplepc.com Dona Ana – lpnm.us/dona-ana
John Ennis – 575-571-6881 / johnennis2@gmail.com
Treasurer
Michael Simpson – 505-999-9954 / michael.p.simpson@gmail.com Lea
Christina Groth – 575-397-9366
District 1 Representative
Bob Finch – 765-412-2374 / nmlibertarian@gmail.com Lincoln
Richard Obergfell – 575-378-8025 / lplcnm@valornet.com
District 2 Representative
VACANT Los Alamos
Allen Cogbill – 505-662-7833 / acogbill@geopotential.com
District 3 Representative
Mike Moss – 505-564-4905 / mmoss@plumbersoft.com Luna
Marilyn Steffen – 575-531-2556 / b_lamont5@hotmail.com
At-Large Representative, Seat A
Allen Cogbill – 505-662-7833 / acogbill@geopotential.com Otero – lpnm.us/otero
Gilberto Heredia – 575-439-8234 / thrill@zianet.com
At-Large Representative, Seat B
Attila Csanyi – 505-286-7861 / drcsanyi@yahoo.com Roosevelt
Ken Sanders – 505-749-2085
At-Large Representative, Seat C
Mike Blessing – 505-515-7015 / mikewb1971@gmail.com San Juan – sjclp.org
Gary Wood – zang5775@msn.com
At-Large Representative, Seat D
Ron Bjornstad – 505-891-4541 / rbjornstad@earthlink.net Sandoval
Ron Bjornstad – 505-288-4228 / rbjornstad@earthlink.net
At-Large Representative, Seat E
VACANT
LPNM Vacancies
Membership Coordinator
Ron Bjornstad – 505-288-4228 / rbjornstad@earthlink.net Central Committee (2)

Press Secretary District 2 Representative

Bill Koehler – 505-264-0835 / bkoehler8@comcast.net At-Large Representative, Seat E

Media Director County Contacts (22)

Bob Finch – 765-412-2374 / nmlibertarian@gmail.com
Campus Contacts
Central New Mexico Community College [CNM]
groups.myspace.com/cnmlibertarians
Mike Blessing – 505-515-7015 / mikewb1971@gmail.com
Internet Resources
Official Website – lpnm.us
LPNM Discussion – groups.yahoo.com/lpnm-discuss
Blog – lpofnm.blogspot.com
Facebook group – facebook.com/group.php?gid=20233114967
Myspace group – groups.myspace.com/lpnm
Catron / Chaves / Cibola / Curry / De Baca
Eddy / Grant / Guadalupe / Harding / Hidalgo
McKinley / Mora / Quay / Rio Arriba / San Miguel / Santa Fe
Sierra / Socorro / Taos / Torrance / Union / Valencia
College Contacts (3)
Eastern New Mexico University (Portales)
New Mexico State University (Las Cruces)
New Mexico Tech (Socorro)
University of New Mexico (Various Campuses)
Western New Mexico University (Silver City)
Contact the state chair if you're interested in filling a slot.
If you don't, who will?

Libertarian National Committee

For the full list, see this page – lp.org/leadership

Region 4 Representative
Norman Olsen – 303-277-9967 / Norman.Olsen@lp.org
Region 4 Alternate
Don Willis – Don.Wills@lp.org

New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 7

 Libertarian Party of New Mexico
Enrollment / Renewal / Donation Coupon
(Please print in all areas)

Name ___________________________________ Address ____________________________________

City ___________________________ State ________ Zip ______________ Phone _______________

Email _______________________ Employer ____________________ Occupation _________________

[ ] I am registered to vote as “Libertarian” in the State of New Mexico and wish to [ ] join or [ ] renew as a caucus
member. I am paying $25 annual dues. I will receive a one year (12 issues) subscription to the LPNM state
newsletter “New Mexico Liberty” (the national “LP NEWS” IS NOT included) and I will have delegate status at state
conventions. I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

Signed _____________________________________________

[ ] I am not registered to vote as “Libertarian” in the State of New Mexico and/or [ ] I do not wish to sign the
statement opposing the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. I am paying $25.00 for a one year (12
issues) subscription to the LPNM state newsletter “New Mexico Liberty” (the national “LP NEWS” IS NOT
included). I understand that I will receive no other benefits.

[ ] I am making a DONATION to the LPNM in the amount of $ ________ to be applied as follows:

$_____ General Fund $_____ Chairman's Fund $_____ Major Player Fund $_____ Win One Fund

TOTAL of DUES or SUBSCRIPTION plus DONATION $_________ to be paid as follows:

[ ] by enclosed CHECK payable to “LPNM” (Sorry, we cannot accept corporate checks)

[ ] by CREDIT CARD (circle one): VISA / MASTERCARD

Number: __ __ __ __-__ __ __ __-__ __ __ __-__ __ __ __ Expires: ____/____

Signature: _____________________________________________

Government mandated notices:

● The US Postal Service requires us to notify you that the annual New Mexico Liberty subscription cost is
included in your LPNM membership dues of $25.00.
● The Internal Revenue Service requires us to print “political contributions are not tax deductible” on all
fundraising appeals.
● The Federal Election Commission requires us to ask for the employer and occupation of each individual
whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year.

The preceding notices alone should be enough reason to join the Libertarian Party, the only political party working
to increase your freedom.

COPY OR PRINT, FILL OUT, AND SEND TO:

LPNM c/o Ron Bjornstad

918 IVORY RD SE
RIO RANCHO NM 87124

New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 8

 For Paul Family, Libertarian Ethos Began at Home
By Mark Leibovich – 5 June 2010
nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/politics/06paul.html
WASHINGTON – In keeping with their position as the First Family
of Libertarianism, the Pauls of Lake Jackson, Tex., did not have
many rules around their home.
“Behave yourself and be polite” is how Representative Ron Paul
describes his regulatory philosophy about rearing five children. Mr.
Paul, a Republican, and his wife of 53 years, Carol, never believed
in assigned chores or mandates.
They did not give out allowances, which they viewed as a parental
version of a government handout. They did not believe in strict
curfews; Mr. Paul says that unintended consequences – like
speeding home to beat the clock – can result from excessive
meddling from a central authority.
While Mr. Paul’s laissez-faire views produced a family of likeminded
thinkers – “We’re all on board,” says the oldest son, Ronnie Paul –
they inspired the middle child, Rand, to follow his father’s career
path, first into medicine and now politics. If he prevails in November
after winning the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in
Kentucky last month, he and his father would form a two-man
libertarian dynasty.
Father and son are described as each other’s political sounding
boards, confidants and support systems. “Dad and Rand spent
hours having great philosophical discussions about issues,” said
Joy Paul Leblanc, the youngest sibling.
“Everyone always said, ‘If anyone runs for anything, it will be Rand,’
” the congressman said.
The two Pauls have similar economic ideologies, overlapping
organizations and Internet-based fund-raising apparatuses. The
elder Mr. Paul, 74, dispensed behind-the-scenes advice during his
son’s bid for the Senate seat, in which he upset the favorite,
Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, Mr. Paul, the two-
time libertarian presidential candidate, referred to his son’s
campaign as “our race.” When his son faced criticism recently over
comments that some interpreted as skeptical of federal civil rights
laws, the congressman was shaken.
Rand Paul, 47, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has
described his father as his political hero. But he is quick to
emphasize that he has never been dependent on him. “I think my
dad has helped me tremendously,” he said in a joint interview with
his father for a Kentucky television station this year. “But the only
way I win is on my own two feet.”
He decided to go into politics despite his lineage as much as
because of it, family members said. “Ron believes that you are not
supposed to initiate force on anyone else,” Mrs. Paul said. Her
husband promoted self-reliance in his children, and their choices
and views flowed from that, she said.
Friends of the family describe a traditional household with early
American décor and the frequent aroma of Mrs. Paul’s chocolate
chip cookies, if not fish sticks. They have lived since July 4, 1968,
in the same middle-class enclave of Lake Jackson, where the
streets are named for trees, flowers and fauna (the Pauls live on
Blossom). They owned a series of collies (Julie, Kippy and Cricket)
and a Maltese (Liberty), and the kids were expected, though not
required, to feed the pooches, make their own beds, clear their own
dishes from the table and not talk back to their elders.
As a member of Congress, Mr. Paul spent most of his time in
Washington and, upon returning to Texas, often crisscrossed his
sprawling district to attend political events. At home, his children
recall, he prized the solitude of his lawnmower. Mrs. Paul was a
stay-at-home mom, longtime Girl Scout troop leader and self-
described “busybody” who prided herself on knowing exactly what
everyone was doing.
If one of the children misbehaved, her husband did not spank or
yell. Instead, he sometimes gave them written assignments, Mrs.
Paul said, explaining, “He believed in exercising the brain.”
Ron Paul said he was not philosophically opposed to centralized
authority, as long as it existed close to home, or within it. “We didn’t
say the kids could do anything they wanted,” he said.
“They were a very Brady Bunch-type American family,” said Eric
Dondero, a longtime former aide to Ron Paul. “As different as their
politics are, their personal life was very normal.”
A strong libertarian bent ran through the Paul brood, and there are
no apparent outliers. “Once you learn about the broken monetary
policy, there is no other way,” said Ronnie Paul, a retired engineer
at Dow Chemical in nearby Freeport. “We believe that stealing from
people is not good, whether you’re the government or whether you
have a mask on your face.”
Rand particularly absorbed the family ethic of exerting his free will.
Though never rebellious, he sometimes bristled at being given too
many directions. As a junior in high school, his mother recalled, he
got a paper back from a geometry teacher that, while largely
correct, was filled with what he considered to be unnecessary red
marks. He walked into the principal’s office and asked to be moved
into another class. “He and that teacher were not on the same
wavelength,” said Mrs. Paul, who added that she and her husband
supported Rand’s actions. “Rand was someone who took care of
his own problems.”
As a teenager, he studied the Austrian economists that his father
revered, as well as the iconic free-market novelist and philosopher,
Ayn Rand (she was not the inspiration for Rand’s name, which is
short for Randall; he was called Randy growing up).
Rand walked door to door in support of his father’s first
Congressional race, in 1974, and while a student at Baylor
University, he helped in his father’s unsuccessful Senate race
against Phil Gramm in 1984. (When Ron Paul had to be in
Washington for a Congressional vote, Rand stepped in for him in a
debate against Mr. Gramm – it was his first public speaking
appearance). Rand would take it upon himself to organize the other
family members on neighborhood walking tours, canvasses and
appearances.
“We would all be home for a big Christmas dinner,” his father said.
“And Rand would be talking politics. He educated himself on politics
in ways that I’ve never even cared about.”
More recently, Rand traveled to several states in 2008 on behalf of
his father’s insurgent campaign for the Republican nomination – an
enterprise that gained surprising traction at the grass roots and
brought in over $35 million in campaign donations.
Mr. Paul was loath to guide his five children in any vocational
direction, although three of them followed him into careers in
medicine. (Rand is an ophthalmologist, who like his father attended
Duke University Medical School and is often referred to as Dr. Paul
by his staff and supporters; Joy is an obstetrician-gynecologist, and
Robert is a family doctor.)
The father was insistent about allowing his children as much
autonomy as possible and he believed, for instance, that economic
subsidies (like allowances) could foster dependence. He
discouraged Rand or any of his siblings from accepting financial aid
to attend college, nor would he accept Medicare or Medicare
payments from patients, calling it “stolen money” in a 1996
interview with The Austin American-Statesman. (Rand Paul,
however, was criticized recently for opposing cuts to Medicare
physician payments.)
[ Continued on Page 10 ]
New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 9
[ Continued from Page 9 ]
While Ron Paul supports his son’s Senate campaign, his
participation has been noticeably arms-length, owing to a concern
that his views might be too outside the mainstream for a general
electorate, particularly on foreign policy. He has suggested, for
example, that the United States needs to explore Al Qaeda’s
motives. “Nobody wants to talk about the motive,” he said last
January. “But it’s out there, it’s laid on a platter. Bin Laden writes of
it.”
When asked whether anyone told him to keep his distance from
Kentucky, the elder Mr. Paul said: “I’ve got a life to lead. I have a
job. And when I’m off, I want to be in Texas.”
He added that there are perils for political heirs relying too heavily
on their patrons. “It can be very dangerous when somebody thinks
they inherit these things,” he said.
Family members say the congressman has been shaken by the
recent storm his son has faced over remarks in which he seemed to
take issue, on libertarian grounds, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
At the outset of an interview on Capitol Hill, Mr. Paul placed the
controversy – “the agitation,” he called it – off limits. But then he
immediately referred to a recent column supportive of his son in the
Congressional newspaper, The Hill, and volunteered that he had
just telephoned the column’s author, Lanny Davis, a Clinton White
House aide, to thank him.
Mr. Davis said, “I heard a father’s concern more than I did any
political concern,” and described the conversation as emotional.
Mr. Paul conceded that it is easier to be the candidate under attack
than to be a family member of one. “No matter how well you arm
yourself, no matter how well you know the system,” he said in the
interview, “it really hurts when it’s your son.”
Say no to a government 'kill switch'
for the Internet
By Bill Snyder [ bill.snyder@sbcglobal.net ]
24 June 2010 – tinyurl.com/26b5luy
I spend exactly zero time worrying that black helicopters will swoop
down and impose a new world order. I don't believe that the CIA
killed JFK, and I don't think the Air Force is hiding a UFO in the
desert – which is to say, I generally don't take conspiracy theories
seriously.
But a proposed law that would give the government a so-killed kill
switch to essentially turn off the public Internet is very, very
worrisome, and it raises the specter of some future administration
using that power to crack down on its opponents. Imagine if the
Iranian government could have shut down the Internet a year ago –
it tried but failed – when millions were protesting the rigged election
and brutal suppression of dissidents.
Sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the 196-page
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA) would
require that private companies – such as "broadband providers,
search engines, and software firms – immediately comply with any
emergency measure or action" put in place by the Department of
Homeland Security, or else face fines.
Am I missing something here? Is this less toxic that it sounds?
Apparently not. It appears that Lieberman, not necessarily the
smartest man in the Senate, does have an idea of how much power
the bill would give to Washington. "Right now China, its
government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war, and
we need to have that here, too," said Lieberman during an
appearance on CNN last Sunday.
Now there's something to aspire to: the Chinese model of Internet
security and free speech.
A bad idea that keeps coming back
This sort of bad idea has been floating around Congress for a
while. A year ago, a couple of senators proposed the Cybersecurity
Act of 2009, which would have given the government the power to
shut the Web in an emergency and give it access to "all relevant
data concerning [critical infrastructure] networks without regard to
any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such
access."
In effect it would have allowed, or maybe mandated, that back
doors be built into private networks in case the government needed
access in a hurry.
That bill was sidetracked during the health care debate, but the
senators who sponsored it, Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Jay
Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), support this version. Snowe has even
signed on as a co-sponsor, saying at a press conference, "We
cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government
realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources."
A price too high to pay
Yes, cyber attacks on this country's infrastructure are a serious
potential threat, and it's reasonable to give the government the
power to protect us. Certainly the apparent Russia-based cyber
attacks on Georgia and Estonia show that cyber war, including
massive DoS attacks, is more than science fiction.
Lieberman's bill, though, would create another bureaucracy within
the already cumbersome bureaucracy of the Department of
Homeland Security. It would be called the National Center for
Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC).
Bureaucracies have a bad track record when it comes to protecting
individual rights. Just think how many innocent Americans have
been denied the right to get on an airplane because they were
mistakenly put on a no-fly list by Homeland Security. Once a
bureaucracy labels someone a bad actor, getting the nameless,
faceless functionaries to correct an error can be nearly impossible.
The bill has a provision that would grant broadband providers
immunity from civil lawsuits if they cut service to a customer on the
orders of the NCCC. At first glance that may seem reasonable, but
the grant of immunity will make it that much harder for innocent
people to gain redress if the bureaucracy makes a mistake.
As I said, I'm not a believer in conspiracies, and as much as I
dislike this bill, I don't think that Lieberman and his co-sponsors are
gearing up for some sort of dictatorship. But, there's no telling what
the political landscape will look like in the future. In an age where
the Internet has become one of the most important means of
political expression, giving the government the power to shut it
down is giving it the power to stifle free speech and dissent.
This article, "Say no to a government 'kill switch' for the Internet,"
was originally published by InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bill
Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology
business developments at InfoWorld.com.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as 'state' and
'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically
exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes
that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute
blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place
inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational,
he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to
live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his efforts will be
less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failiure."
– Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
\
New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 10

Corporations, Mercantilism,
and Capitalism
by L. Neil Smith [ lneil@netzero.com ]
27 June 2010
ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle576-20100627-02.html
From The Libertarian Enterprise
People tend to have mixed feelings about corporations. Just as it's
said that "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to
die," it's equally true that everybody wants a secure job with good
pay and generous benefits, but nobody wants to spend their lives in
a cubicle, or on an assembly line. Likewise, everybody wants
inexpensive goods and services of a reliable, predictable quality,
but nobody wants to surrender their freedom of personal choice or
individual sovereignty.
Unfortunately, corporations, especially when they're controlled by
individuals who don't take the long view, often seem to find it more
convenient or profitable to override or ignore those values – as well
as laws written to protect them – than to observe and respect them.
In this, they are not unlike government. If we seek freedom, they
must be opposed and resisted, whenever necessary, exactly like
government. Clearly, it is no better to be oppressed by a
corporation than by government.
Corporations are properly associated with mercantilism, rather than
capitalism. Mercantilism is a system under which government
grants special status to one or more company at the expense of its
competitors. The British East India Company, for example,
possessed an exclusive, royally-granted "right" to conduct trade
between India and China, on the one hand, and the British Empire
for more than 250 years.
Private capitalism, by contrast, is a system under which various
enterprises compete in the marketplace by offering the highest
quality goods and services they can, at the lowest possible prices.
Progress occurs as individuals and companies strive to raise quality
and lower prices.
The infamous 1773 Boston Tea Party, was as much a revolt
against mercantilism (which is the same thing that we now call
"fascism"), and the monopolistic British East India Company, as it
was against the latest British government tax on tea. Scottish moral
philosopher Adam Smith's famous Wealth of Nations was published
in 1776 specifically to complain about mercantilism and make a
powerful case for private capitalism.
A corporation is a group of individuals who create or acquire an
organization to which they want government to grant special
powers and immunities. One of these immunities is "limited
liability". Whenever someone sues the corporation successfully, all
they can ever hope to recover is whatever wealth is in the name of
the corporation. The corporation's owners – the individuals who are
actually responsible for whatever the corporation does – are
otherwise immune. The accepted "legal fiction" is that the
corporation is a person, in and of itself, an individual with rights,
whose responsibilities do not extend beyond its corporate
boundaries, and are not the same as its owners'.
Most corporations make periodic payments to their owners called
"dividends", sharing profits and allowing money to escape the the
corporate boundary into private hands where it is immune to
demands on the company, a formula for acquiring enormous wealth
at little or no risk.
In other words, if my dog bites you, you can sue me. But if I
incorporate my dog, he becomes his own person, and I can't be
held responsible for what he does. (I'm not absolutely sure of this
theory with regard to dogs, but it's what appears to happen with
regard to corporations.)
It is said this "legal fiction" – which I always thought had arisen
around the time of the 14th century Hanseatic League or something
– is necessary to encourage business, and that without it the free
enterprise system couldn't function. It's interesting to observe that
the free enterprise system seemed to function perfectly well until
the middle of the 19th century, around the time of the War Between
The States, which some historians believe was fought mostly to
benefit corporate sponsors of Abraham Lincoln and the Republican
Party.
Historian Gabriel Kolko – no friend to free market capitalism, but a
canny and accurate observer – has written that toward the end of
the 19th century, corporations had grown so large and unwieldy
that they needed government help to protect them from fresh new
competition entering the market. Limited liability was an outright gift
to them, as were so-called "antitrust laws", like the Sherman Act,
which large institutions could deal with easily through their legal
departments, but which put smaller, newer starter enterprises at a
very serious disadvantage.
Thus corporations are founded on a lie, and they often represent at
least as grave a danger to individual life, liberty, and property as
governments do. The left, which generally despises all business
enterprise, whether mercantilistic or capitalistic, often exposes
corporations for their inhumane and irresponsible policies – in
hundreds of offerings from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle to Silkwood
to Erin Brockovitch. Protective legislation on the behalf of
corporations has retarded competition (driving prices higher than
they would otherwise be), stifled progress (corporations already
have a reputation for intimidating or buying out innovators in order
to stay in control and retain their "share" of the market), and
allowed big corporations to become the bloated, clumsy
monstrosities they are today.
In the long run, libertarians must be neither pro-corporate nor anti-
corporate, but consistently advocate individual rights. The following
measures are intended to benefit the individual by removing the
results of government interference in the market on the behalf of
corporations.
First and foremost, limited liability must be abolished, along with the
"legal fiction" that the corporation is a person in its own right.
Limited liability unjustly allows the owners corporations to escape
the consequences of the harmful acts of their "agent", the
corporation.
On the other hand, as long as that "legal fiction" – or lie – is allowed
to stand as a privilege granted by government, to that extent, the
corporation is a creature of the government, and must be as fully
restrained by the Bill of Rights as the government is supposed to
be. This means that corporate strictures on free speech, or the
carrying of personal weapons must be stricken down, as they might
not be if the corporation were truly private property, and not an
extension of the state.
In a society without limited liability, advocacy groups could be sued,
if certain damaging measures they support become law. A recent
example is the National Rifle Association, which has cynically and
despicably endorsed what would amount to a new Alien and
Sedition Act – legislation that would officially muzzle corporate
criticism of the government by its rival organizations – in exchange
for being granted immunity to it, themselves. At the same time,
environmental groups would have to calculate cost versus benefit
for everything they propose.
Corporations are often criticized for being interested only in profit
and loss. And yet, that is exactly how it should be; their first
obligation is to their shareholders. It is up to the rest of us to create
and maintain a civilization in which profit comes easier and loss is
less likely if corporations behave like the decent adult human
beings they falsely pretend to be.
[Continued on Page 12]
New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 11
[Continued from Page 11]
Second only to abolishing the lie of limited liability, serious and
meaningful tort reform – in the form of the British "loser pays all"
model – must be given the highest possible priority, trial lawyers be
damned, in order to discourage frivolous or mercenary lawsuits.
Next, all corporate taxes must be repealed. This is not intended as
any kind of favor to corporations. The left seems chronically unable
to learn that corporations do not pay taxes, but pass them on to
customers who, as a result, get taxed twice. Eliminating corporate
taxes would make goods and services cheaper, raising living
standards, and enabling companies to offer more employment than
is presently the case.
At the same time that we get rid of limited liability, abolish sovereign
immunity (the doctrine that "the King can do no wrong") as well as
fractional reserve banking, another business lie encouraged by
government. This would mean smaller government and much
smaller corporations.
Another thing that has to go is the capital gains tax. Americans are
frequently criticized for having little or no savings. Clearly, if a “Capitalistic competition is also why 'child labor' has all but
society taxes something – people's savings or the interest they disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people
earn, for example – there will be less and less of it. This reform originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because
would change all of that, help stabilize the economy, and it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as
underwrite progress, as the savings were used to finance new and workers became better paid – thanks to capital investment and
innovative business. subsequent productivity improvements – more and more people
could afford to keep their children at home and in school. Union-
As this chapter is being written, a particularly evil corporate scam is backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in
being exposed in which homeowners, hundreds of thousands of child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have
them, trying to avoid foreclosure in a government-wrecked always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of
economy, have renegotiated their loans under federal relief the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with
programs, only to discover that their homes have been sold out unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the
from under them by the bank, often to itself, without proper notice. state to deprive young people of the right to work. In the Third
Could this happen in a society where corporate shareholders and World today, the alternative to 'child labor' is all too often begging,
directors can be sued, not just for their corporate holdings, but for prostitution, crime, or starvation. Unions absurdly proclaim to be
their personal assets, as well – or possibly arrested and jailed – for taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that
perpetrating such a fraud? inevitably lead to these consequences.”
Also at the moment, most of the short-span attention of the news – Thomas J. DiLorenzo
media is focused on the oil well disaster off America's gulf coast.
The well in question is located under a mile of water where it could
only be discovered and extracted with a great deal of very
expensive technology.
Drilling that far out at sea was made necessary because petroleum
producers are currently forbidden by federal and state governments
– usually driven by environmental pressure groups who hate,
loathe, and despise all human progress and prosperity – to drill any
closer, or on the land itself. That's one of several reasons gasoline
prices remain high. To some extent, high gas prices may also
represent a frightened attempt on the part of oil companies to "cash
out" before what they see as the inevitable disaster, not of "peak
oil" (one of the more idiotic hoaxes of our times) but the final
collapse of a calamitously mismanaged economy, a phenomenon
we might term "peak mercantilism".
There are alternatives – we are not speaking of wind or solar power
here which are mostly hoaxes, subsidized by government – which
could have made this disaster unnecessary. Those in control of the
oil corporations are well aware of all of the new information
emerging in their field: the abiotic (non-biological) origin of
petroleum, the gradual replenishment from below of old “Capitalism is the only moral social system because it allows each
"exhausted" oil fields, and the development of oil recovery and man to work for his own profit and because under a capitalistic
regeneration by means of thermal depolymerization. system men only have to work with each other through voluntary
action for mutual benefit. Capitalism maximizes wealth, prosperity
In an economically healthy regime, unburdened by dinosauroid and happiness.”
corporations, and filled with new, fresh, "free range" enterprises, – Valara Forsythe
these facts – and perhaps other developments, like catalytic or
"cold" fusion – could be working for us now, to cure the economic
mess we're in and set our feet back on the road to a better, brighter
tomorrow.

New Mexico Liberty – July 2010 – Page 12